The narrative presented in Le beau Serge is pretty ambiguous and I feel left open for the audience to interpret. Before reading the chapter on this film in our textbook, I interpreted it as the presentation of a story about a man returning to his home town after being absent for a while due to illness to find the town and its inhabitants evolved, in his eyes, for the worse. Like any small town, the longer you are present in it the more you become a product of its environment, and that is what Francois sees of most of his old friends and acquaintances. Even the town priest seems to be bitter of the townies lifestyles. Francois almost immediately wants to get involved in his old friend Serge's life, probably thinking he is above him, returning from the sophisticated Paris. The problem is, Francois doesn't seem to dig enough into the root of the troubles surrounding Serge (alcoholism) and his family (the wife he scorns because of the death of their child upon birth, her sister, and their father, who may not even be their legitimate father). Francois seems to make matters worse, becoming sexually involved with Mari (the sis) and not being there for Serge when Serge wants him to. Then when the father gets involved with Francois, causing a quarrel and manifesting the fact that Mari is not his real daughter, Glomaud feels it's now okay to fulfill his desire to rape Mari. This is where Richard Neupert brings up the idea that Glomaud possibly raped Yvonne, Serge's wife, incestuously, causing the death upon birth of her child. This is where I want to bring up an interesting point. I pulled out my French book to see what it had to say about the word "beau". It is translated into English as beautiful or handsome, BUT interestingly when you say "beau-pére" it means "father-in-law" or "stepfather" which just happens to be what Glomaud would be to Serge. Just a thought to think about that Chabrol might have played around with when proposing the idea of incestuous relations. From the point on of the rape, Francois attacks Glomaud in the cemetary leading to the doctor occupying Glomaud's house while Yvonne goes into labor. This is the final slap-in-the-face for Francois as he is forced to run through the cold, night air to get the doctor and go off to find Serge. Once they are both at Yvonne's, the baby is born, alive but not the biggest of babies, and Serge mutters, "I believed." This vague statement can be interpreted in many ways. It could be looked at as Serge knew of the possibility of his first child being of Glomaud and not him and he believed this was going to be that same possibility, or it could mean he believed that this time it was his and he knew it was going to live. Another question I left open for myself was who acted as the hero, if there was one? Was it Francois with his intention to save Serge from his drinking problem or was it Serge who put Francois through many tribulations with a possibility of growth in finding his way back into reality after being away for so long?
The post before mine brings up an interesting idea, (many well-said and interesting points) but I wanted to focus on the question of whether Serge or Francois was considered the hero. The film seems to paint Francois as the hero at first, by suggesting that he wants to do right for Serge and possibly provide an opportunity for Serge to improve his current condition in life, but the more the movie progresses the more we begin to see Francois being painted as an anti-hero, who views himself as better than Serge and because of his own shortcomings, Francois will never be able to provide a way for Serge to make the changes necessary to advance his life in a more positive direction. What makes me think that Francois is still ultimately painted as the hero is the conversation he has with the priest of the town, and the final scenes that focus on the good deeds of Francois. The priest brings up a comparison between Francois's intentions and those of Jesus Christ. Through his sacrafices, Francois becomes a messianoic like character who is able to achieve his goals of "saving" Serge by selflessly giving his own life.
A different aspect of the film I wanted to focus on was the utilization of two different styles of filmmaking to create a different experience than that of a Classical Hollywood film. Chabrol seems to take on a Realist approach to filmmaking by having characters on screen talking, but allowing the sound of a passing bus drown them out as it would in real life. The sets are not sets, but actual locations, but while Chabrol uses these to gain a certain amount of Realism to his film, it seems as if Formal techniques are employed as well. There are many camera set ups that seem as if they were meticulously planned out, where everything in frame is balanced like Chabrol was taking a photograph. One scene in particular is a scene where I believe Francois is walking up a hill through the cemetary, and he is in the middle of a walkway, surrounded on either side by tombstones. By combining these two techniques, Chabrol is able to create an entirely unique experience for the film-goer.
The narrative presented in Le beau Serge is pretty ambiguous and I feel left open for the audience to interpret. Before reading the chapter on this film in our textbook, I interpreted it as the presentation of a story about a man returning to his home town after being absent for a while due to illness to find the town and its inhabitants evolved, in his eyes, for the worse. Like any small town, the longer you are present in it the more you become a product of its environment, and that is what Francois sees of most of his old friends and acquaintances. Even the town priest seems to be bitter of the townies lifestyles. Francois almost immediately wants to get involved in his old friend Serge's life, probably thinking he is above him, returning from the sophisticated Paris. The problem is, Francois doesn't seem to dig enough into the root of the troubles surrounding Serge (alcoholism) and his family (the wife he scorns because of the death of their child upon birth, her sister, and their father, who may not even be their legitimate father). Francois seems to make matters worse, becoming sexually involved with Mari (the sis) and not being there for Serge when Serge wants him to. Then when the father gets involved with Francois, causing a quarrel and manifesting the fact that Mari is not his real daughter, Glomaud feels it's now okay to fulfill his desire to rape Mari. This is where Richard Neupert brings up the idea that Glomaud possibly raped Yvonne, Serge's wife, incestuously, causing the death upon birth of her child. This is where I want to bring up an interesting point. I pulled out my French book to see what it had to say about the word "beau". It is translated into English as beautiful or handsome, BUT interestingly when you say "beau-pére" it means "father-in-law" or "stepfather" which just happens to be what Glomaud would be to Serge. Just a thought to think about that Chabrol might have played around with when proposing the idea of incestuous relations. From the point on of the rape, Francois attacks Glomaud in the cemetary leading to the doctor occupying Glomaud's house while Yvonne goes into labor. This is the final slap-in-the-face for Francois as he is forced to run through the cold, night air to get the doctor and go off to find Serge. Once they are both at Yvonne's, the baby is born, alive but not the biggest of babies, and Serge mutters, "I believed." This vague statement can be interpreted in many ways. It could be looked at as Serge knew of the possibility of his first child being of Glomaud and not him and he believed this was going to be that same possibility, or it could mean he believed that this time it was his and he knew it was going to live. Another question I left open for myself was who acted as the hero, if there was one? Was it Francois with his intention to save Serge from his drinking problem or was it Serge who put Francois through many tribulations with a possibility of growth in finding his way back into reality after being away for so long?
ReplyDeleteThe post before mine brings up an interesting idea, (many well-said and interesting points) but I wanted to focus on the question of whether Serge or Francois was considered the hero. The film seems to paint Francois as the hero at first, by suggesting that he wants to do right for Serge and possibly provide an opportunity for Serge to improve his current condition in life, but the more the movie progresses the more we begin to see Francois being painted as an anti-hero, who views himself as better than Serge and because of his own shortcomings, Francois will never be able to provide a way for Serge to make the changes necessary to advance his life in a more positive direction.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes me think that Francois is still ultimately painted as the hero is the conversation he has with the priest of the town, and the final scenes that focus on the good deeds of Francois. The priest brings up a comparison between Francois's intentions and those of Jesus Christ. Through his sacrafices, Francois becomes a messianoic like character who is able to achieve his goals of "saving" Serge by selflessly giving his own life.
A different aspect of the film I wanted to focus on was the utilization of two different styles of filmmaking to create a different experience than that of a Classical Hollywood film. Chabrol seems to take on a Realist approach to filmmaking by having characters on screen talking, but allowing the sound of a passing bus drown them out as it would in real life. The sets are not sets, but actual locations, but while Chabrol uses these to gain a certain amount of Realism to his film, it seems as if Formal techniques are employed as well. There are many camera set ups that seem as if they were meticulously planned out, where everything in frame is balanced like Chabrol was taking a photograph. One scene in particular is a scene where I believe Francois is walking up a hill through the cemetary, and he is in the middle of a walkway, surrounded on either side by tombstones. By combining these two techniques, Chabrol is able to create an entirely unique experience for the film-goer.