Safe Conduct (2002) User Reviews

dilemmas of film making in times of war

[dromasca · 7/10 · 14 July 2010]

Life under German occupation was a subject that was treated in the French cinema in a gradual manner, differing according to the time of the production, reflecting the process of coping with the darkest hour of the history of France that the French society when through in the last 65 years since the end of WWII. From the heroic approach of the years that followed the war, to the variety of approaches triggered by the New Wave of the 60s (including comedy) up to the more lucid and more historically and artistically true approach of the last decade. To a certain extent Bertrand Tavernier's 'Lassez-passer' closes a cycle, as it deals not only with day-to-day life but also to film making under the occupation.

Based on real experiences and memoirs the stories of the two heroes work make them work both in the film industry, but they never meet in the film, or if they do this is not shown on the screen. I find the idea genial, as the ways the two work and survive the war, the ways they oppose the occupation and resist not only physically but also morally are radically different. Director Jean Devaivre (Jacques Gamblin) is marginally involved with the Resistance but works for the hated German-led film house, where artists were obliged to make films glorifying the 'friendship' with the Germans, under the control and permanent scrutiny of the occupiers. Script-writer Jean Aurenche (Denis Podalydes) seems to be more interested in women, but his scripts insert subversive lines, and his actions alleviate the sufferings of a fellow writer imprisoned by the Germans. Both decide to continue to work under censorship and brutal control, and the moral rationale of this option is the key question of the film. Should the great artists of the time (names like Jean Gabin, Darielle Darieux, Michel Simon, director Clouzot) have refused to work under occupation/ Where does the positive will and need to continue life and to help the moral of the compatriots stop and collaboration with the enemy start?

It is a long film, and especially the first 30 minutes are quite confusing, letting the impression of a difficult take-off, especially for viewers who are not necessarily familiar with all the heroes members of the milieu described in the movie. It can be felt that Tavernier was in love with the subject and wanted to make the complex picture of the period as complete as possible, but avoiding simplifications needs not necessarily result in a much longer film. The viewers are however rewarded in the second part of the film with two film moments of anthology, both having Devaivre (Gamblain) as a hero - the haunting bicycle trip from Paris to the 'campagne' in order to visit his family and the even more surrealistic episode where after getting hold of some secret documents he is flew into England to be briefed by the British espionage experts. If the episodes are also true as claimed they show that life in time of war can make sometimes stories greater than the stories imagined for the big screen.

Human Heroes of the French Film Community

[film-critic · 8/10 · 10 January 2005]

Albeit a lengthy film, Laissez-passer (aka Safe Conduct) is indeed a beautiful film that significantly shows a crucial time and history of WWII. While most films that we watch dealing with war and battles happen between troops with artillery flying everywhere, there are not many that devote themselves to the unsung battles. Laissez-passer takes a chance and tells two detailed stories of men that were willing to give up their lives for not just their country, but also their own personal beliefs. In this film we follow two members of the French film community as they decide for themselves how they will help their country survive this terrible nightmare.

Outside of the opening sequence, there are little to no explosions in this film causing us to look beyond our normal images of war and see a more personal battle. The Germans were deeply rooted in their propaganda and used the French cinema to aid in their attempts to spread messages to all. Laissez-passer devotes its time to this film community's struggle to stay alive and fight for what they believe in. It is a heroic tale of personal endurance and passion. I am a huge film buff, and whenever possible I love learning more about other countries history of film. This film allowed me to see a war torn community pull together and keep a film dream alive. It is due to these persistent people that we can now enjoy French cinema today. Without them, it would have died during this era.

What made this film stand out above any other were the characters. While I felt that Aurenche could have been developed a bit stronger and given more to contribute to the film (outside of just being a ladies man), it was Devaivre that I couldn't keep my eyes off. His story was so strong and important that I found myself rooting for him at any possible chance. Jacques Gamblin gives his character so much passion and power that at times you believe him to be this almost a superhero of the war. The ability to cycle several hundred miles, the ability to fight a cold as well as be a revolutionist, and on top of that juggle a full time job as an Assistant Director of a studio completely controlled by the enemy. Wow. I was completely blown away with how Gamblin controlled this already complex character. While I think others would have delivered a very jumbled mess of a man, Gamblin instead dove deeper and delivered one of the best performances of 2002. His ability to remain calm in the face of terror as well as be 100% devoted to his country was outstanding. When you think of humans and their ability to muster the courage to continue, he is a prime example. Overall, these two characters did carry this film on their shoulders. They showed two elements of wartime in the film industry. One showed the fighter, while the other was the lover. An interesting take on the two types of heroes, I just wish Aurenche would have been given more screen time. I wanted to know more about his character.

Outside of the characters, you have a very strong story written by Jean Cosmos and Devaivre himself recollecting his story during this time. Adapting from his story allows us to feel more comfortable with the events and see them as truth instead of fiction. It allows us to see the struggles of the characters, instead of thinking that it is just Hollywood drama inserted into overwhelming events. I also enjoyed the fact that this was not a film riddled with explosions and the Rambo-esquire hero. The ability that director Bertrand Tavernier had to keep this film focused on the characters and the humanity of the situation was outstanding. He gave WWII a human feel from outside of the American perspective. He showed us what the world was like during this time while even showing some political satire of the lack of respect that the British had for the citizen soldier of France. Tavernier successfully gives the audience both a strong feeling of the war as well as a very insightful view of cinema in France during this time. I learned so much about what the French had to do for the Germans that it felt like a film history class. It was a refreshing and scary realization on a community that here in America we regard as indestructible. It only continued to show how war could hurt and infect even the most powerful of behemoths.

Overall, I was very impressed with this film. While there were some jagged moments with the characters (more development would have been nice), I felt that the overall message and themes came through crystal clear. Tavernier brought the horror of this era out and showed the world that France fought with just as much passion and dedication as the rest of those involved. It is a dark chapter in France's history that was beautifully told by Tavernier.

Grade: **** out of *****

Tiresome and Too Long

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 25 October 2008]

In 1942, in Paris, the assistant director and member of the French resistance Jean-Devaivre (Jacques Gamblin) joins the German studio Continental Films to be infiltrated and get a safe conduct. Along the years, he spies while making French movies produced by the Germans. Meanwhiile, the wolf bourgeois screenwriter Jean Aurenche (Denis Podalydès) spends his shallow life with his three lovers – the artist Suzanne Raymond (Charlotte Kady), the whore Olga (Marie Gillain) and Suzanne's friend and costumes stylist – and trying to not collaborate with the Germans with his work.

"Laissez-Passer" has a magnificent cinematography and reconstitution of occupied France, supported by top-notch performances. Unfortunately the story is tiresome, uninteresting and too long, and the subplot with Jean Aurenche goes nowhere. The narrative of the lead story with Jean-Devaivre is too cold, without any tension and could be shorter and shorter. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Passaporte Para a Vida" ("Passport for the Life")

Explaining France: A Purgatory for an entire nation.

[philipdavies · 17 December 2003]

This deeply humane film is the first that I, as a child of a British generation who once faced the real and imminent possibility of life under Nazi dictatorship, have ever seen that allows me to understand just what a nightmare it was, to actually live in the collaborationist state of Vichy. How could the human soul survive such radical compromises as were required of the French every day of their war-time existence? How, except by a unique form of cultural prostitution, could people negotiate for the temporary return of their own lives, which was the best accommodation for which they could hope?

Without the obvious and utterly stylized heroism beloved of the Hollywood dream-factory, and of communist ideological fantasists, alike, this film reveals and communicates more of the agony of ordinary lives under Vichy - largely through the microcosm of the 'film family' - than any other I know. The gains in such directorial and authorial humility are in the honesty this permits in the observation of the shifts people are put to to survive: Such as the dog-end scam of a floor sweeper, who encourages harried fumeurs to stub out barely-smoked cigarettes on their way to the air-raid shelter; or the retrieval of river fish, stunned by the repercussions of British bombs, detonated nearby, and their free distribution to the film crew. This process of adaptation to extreme situations comes over as deeply sympathetic. Indeed, the whole business of earning your living (for that is what it amounts to when the means of life are so scarce and so insecure) by making films to pander to your conqueror's debased notions of your culture - which films yet contrive to be, in some residual sense, an expression of your innate and irreducible Frenchness - seems to me to be all of a piece with such simple, even seedy, everyday strategies for survival, that also, and despite appearances to the contrary, permit a conquered nation to retain some semblance of its pride and integrity. Thus a captive people secretly harbours dreams of what it once was, and must be again. 'The wind must change one day' says one of the lesser characters who teem through this film.

The insistence on sheer craftsmanship as a value in itself, despite the malign vagaries of German-sourced film-stock, material, and equipment, is a most eloquent rebuttal of Truffaut's somewhat facile and intemperate post-war Cahiers du Cinema rejection of most of the ill-starred war-generation of French film-makers. The fact remains that he was the talented if disturbed son of these tragic fathers, whether he chose to acknowledge them or not. (And he did have a lurking affection for some of them - Guitry, par exemple.) Of course, his rebellion has value - as who can possibly deny who appreciates the fruits of the Nouvelle Vague? We should make the effort to understand this paternity, albeit it is one that appeared only negatively influential in terms of cinema history. Indeed, Tavernier sees that it is time that justice was done to this lost generation of film makers. Further, he divines that their metier was a microcosm of a France effectively governed by Germany.

Therefore, it is with a shock, that, towards the end of the film, we are introduced, during Devaivre's unexpected debriefing session in England, to a proud and still independent people who are clearly managing to hold their own against Hitler; a people whose straightforwardness - even bluntness - grates unavoidably against the psychologically complex reality of the Occupation, which the Frenchman despairs of communicating to them. This wonderful scene, which is full of a balanced, good-natured satire, and is reminiscent of the style of Powell and Pressburger's great wartime films, has been carefully cast with English actors, and reveals Tavernier as an artist of international stature. The complexity of the course of the obscure affairs of ordinary flawed mortals towards an illumination of all that is best about human beings is almost miraculously realised. Out of the very particular, even embarrassingly private, troubles of his country in those dark days, he has fashioned both a detailed account of the experience for his fellow-countrymen (and francophiles!), and a moving drama of the human spirit under adversity, that should rank this work amongst the greatest films of war-time.

To understand is (indeed) to forgive. This film allows us to comprehend a very dark chapter in the history of France. This is how most British people would have lived, I'm sure, if the whole of Britain had gone the way of the Channel Islands. I really don't see any reason for the French to be embarrassed by such a film: It explains them to the world, in terms of their own experience.

Clearly, collaboration was no cake-walk - more a Purgatory for an entire nation.

Let it be.

[moimoichan6 · 7/10 · 8 May 2007]

There's really nothing to say about "Laissez-passer" that Bertrand Tavernier didn't put in his movie, for its statements about history and art is loud, clear, and beautifully exposed in his sincere and passionate motion picture.

The tone of the movie, however, immediately repulsed me, with its over-theatrical aspect, where all the "realistic" details of the time area of the film (post-WWII occupation in France) are artificially underline (from the way people talks to the objects...). This gives a fake aspect to the all beginning of the movie, and is particularly striking in the first scene, that presents the characters and the situations through a vaudeville's scene, in which all a hostel shut up to allow a famous actress to met her lover, the well-known writer Jean Aurenche, while thinking she's unnoticed. But this tone, that underlines the artificiality of the scene, is only annoying for a little while, and is almost absolutely forgotten when the real story begins with the apparition of Devaire.

Another subject of doubt is the blur of the narration, which only confronts two different stories, without even organize a meeting between the two main characters. But this impression is also erased as soon as you understand that Devaire and Aurenche only embodies two parallels idea of resistance : Devaire, the assistant director, is all in act, while Aurenche, the movie writer, resists with words. The interest of the movie comes by the confrontation and the parallelism of the two situations, as in "The Godfather II", where the actions of the son only takes a meaning trough the ones his father done years ago. In "Laissez-passer", Devaire goes to England while Aurenche has to justified himself in front of a Vichy employee.

The movie is also enjoyable thanks to its optimism. The vision of art and of Cinema it deals with, underlines that aspect. It appears as a need, an urge that allows people to really live, not to accept the world, but to modified the way people look at it. It's also through art that resistance could express itself (to the German at the time of the movie, but its meaning is far more general). The artifices of the costumes, of the metaphors can allow artists to show a masked reality.

It's true that the movie sometimes looks like a TV movie - with its inexplicable fade to black, its need to present a "well done" reconstitution, etc. - but this is at the end not so annoying, for the goal of Tavernier is to guide us the easiest way, with conventional codes and an aesthetic that won't chock anybody, thru his historical and cinematographic passions. Of course, none of this is really new or inventive, but still, it really is passionate.

real life stories

[lilievitra · 7/10 · 25 May 2007]

I found myself thinking about this movie during my holiday a week after seeing it, meaning to remember something about it, but what was it about? Oh yes I know now...I found it quite revealing to understand how they did movies during world war 2. There are bits when they are making the films which I loved for the ironical aspect of it...Here is one of screenwriter who is wrting about a scene in a kitchen restaurant and all the plates are empty because there was no food at that time, so they have plastic food in the plates....or they have come up with ingenious way of pretending stuff....An actress is staying on the spot light because it is so warm there but really, this is not an heating machine...or they have to make the movies with bits/ends of cut films...and they can't afford actors to say their dialogs wrong twice...that must have put a great deal of pressure on the actors....

Also, what I found it interesting is learning about ordinary people living in extra-ordinary situations.

we all have very dull/rational/normal behaviours in our more or less secured life but what will become of us if we were becoming life threatened ? would we become heroes or cowards ? I found interesting how the two talented artists react differently to the war situation...I love this scene about Auranche stealing some document and somehow ending up arriving in England without wanted it....I can't believe it happened for real...I also found quite unbelievable he managed to cycle back the whole journey to his house while being sick ....( with pmeumonia, if I remember correctly)...or that one day, he went to get something to the Pharmacy and to see someone ( i can't quite remember ) and never come back to the Company he is working for....this is unreal....

Au contraire, mon cher Georgios, au contraire...

[Didier Fort · 10/10 · 22 February 2003]

I know I must resist the temptation to comment other reviews, so I'll let the title of mine shows what lead me to react. This Tavernier's opus is one of his most achieved work. The French filmmaker (and historian and archivist of cinema) is doing a revision, for sure, and breaking some codes of the reigning (and ageing) French political correctness ; besides, it doesn't make his movie a rehabilitation of the "régime de Vichy", neither Tavernier a glorifyer of French fascism. The film is simply pointing some facts that have been seldom told about filmmaking during the German occupation of France (from June 1940 to summer 1944). Tavernier talks about passion for filmmaking and reluctance to work under German or fascist rules, about need to stay a professionnal and despair to be endangered by a war still going on and Gestapo of Milice sending their murderers even in the studios. Furthermore, Tavernier talks about the role and place of the Communist party (joining French resistance after June 41...), a place which is rarely evoked in its most unpleasant aspects, usually. Let's remember that Clouzot's "le Corbeau" was tagged a collaborationnist film, and subsequantly his author blacklisted for a year, only because HG Clouzot didn't support the Communist party linked "Comité d'épuration" in the end of 1944. This is also of what "laissez-passer" is dealling with. Of a very classic form, excellently acted, this movie has the considerable merit of revisiting a period which is remembered as well as one of the darkest in French political and social history, and paradoxically as one of the most brilliant in French cinema history. A last word on Tavernier's conceptions of social duties for an intellectual : most of his works are giving the point of view of people having to deal with real life and what they understand as their duty ; those people are shown in fictions (the policeman in "L 627", the best ever made movie on police work ; the teacher in "une semaine de vacances") or documentaries ("la guerre sans nom"). Tavernier give them a right to free speach which makes his movies sort of manifestos in defense of the Republic and democracy. For this too, he'll be remembered, as he'll be honoured for his positions (by political means or by filmmaking, as "double peine") to support immigrant workers.

A good feature film involving true French characters making films during the Nazi occupation

[JuguAbraham · 7/10 · 29 May 2022]

A tale based on true filmmaking conditions in France during Nazi occupation. Real-life characters. Filmmaker Jean-Devaivre (a friend of Tavernier) disliked the product, which gave more importance to the real-life scriptwriter Jean Aurenche than him. Devaivre's family even sued Tavernier demanding part of the profits, when initially Devaivre did not want any money. Won two Silver Bears at Berlin but the film is not one of the better works of Tavernier.

The most amusing part of the film is Aurenche accessing an important Nazi file and being flown to Britain, where the British intelligence is only interested in how he acquired it rather than reading the file. And that part is not fiction.

A Master's Masterpiece

[chaderek · 10/10 · 14 October 2002]

Bertrand Tavernier is, arguably, the greatest living director of French films, and "Laissez-Passer" ("Safe Conduct") is his masterpiece. By recreating the working and personal lives of two actual French artists, screenwriter Jean Auranche and director Jean Devaivre, Tavernier provides a rich tapestry -- at once funny, tender, exciting, and moving -- of the French film industry during the darkest days of World War II. Although the studio for which Auranche and Devaivre worked was under Nazi patronage and control, almost every writer, director, and technician who made French comedies, dramas,and musicals tried to subvert Nazism by subtly incorporating themes of revolt and resistance into the films they made. Tavernier asserts this truth while he explores his heroes' real-life participation in the French underground: stealing German documents and passing these on to the Allies and finding jobs for creative, but indigent, friends. Moreover, the affection with which Auranche and Devaivre regarded the cinema talent of their days -- Pierre Fresnay, Raimu, Danielle Darrieux, Harry Baur, even the lightly satirized Fernandel -- is part of Tavernier's epic vision of the French film scene of its time. And he gives us invaluable insights into how brave people continued to work at their craft despite the poverty, hunger, and oppression they suffered daily. It's a pity that some of Tavernier's younger critics cannot appreciate either his concepts or his visually fluid and arresting style (for sheer cinematic beauty, he captures the squalor of everyday French life during the Resistance by alternating it with glowing sequences of the country's rural life). "Laissez-Passer" is faultlessly acted; seldom has such a large cast of players -- of all ages -- been in such beautiful synch with a director.

How To Make Films in an Occupied Paris

[ZeddaZogenau · 7/10 · 17 December 2023]

This excellent film by Bertrand Tavernier sheds light on an interesting but previously little-regarded chapter in the history of the Second World War. Films in French continued to be made in Nazi-occupied Paris, although under Nazi control. Under the leadership of producer Alfred Greven (BAMBI AWARD winner Christian Berkel (for "Downfall")), who had previously produced "The Man Who Was Sherlock Holmes" with Hans Albers and Heinz Rühmann, Continental Film shot from 1941 to In 1944, numerous films that are still among the classics of French cinema today (The Devil's Hand (1942) / The Raven (1943)). Henri Georges Clouzot made his first films in this production company, which was based in Boulogne-Billancourt. The plot follows an assistant director (Jacques Gamblin), who is also active in the Resistance, and a script writer (Denis Podalydes), who staggers from one lover to the next but knows how to avoid following along.

With a running time of just under three hours, the film is a bit too long. You also have to have a certain interest in political history in general and film history in particular. But then you will be richly rewarded with a special film experience.

At the 2002 Berlinale, Jacques Gamblin was awarded the Silver Bear for Best Actor for his role as Jean Devaivre.

The film was shown on ARTE under the original title "Laissez-Passer" and can certainly still be found in the media library.

Not at all politically correct

[gts-3 · 5/10 · 14 February 2002]

Bertrand Tavernier is without any doubt one of the leading french, and not only french, filmmakers. That he is also a leading conservative filmmaker has been evident from his very beginnings and not just since "L.627" (1992) or his documentary on the french-algerian war "La Guerre sans nom" (1992). With his latest film though Tavernier has taken conservativism to the extremes of historical revisionism. "Laissez-passer" emerges both as a technical masterpiece and a political embarassment.

On first sight the 170-minutes film seems to deal with the day to day life of filmmakers in german-occupied Paris during World War II. The revisionism comes on different levels:

At first there is a somewhat film-in-film revenge on the french nouvelle vague of the late 50´s and 60´s. Had the able craftsmen of the time only been given the chance to develop their taste and make their ideas come true, Tavernier seems to argue, they would have revolutionized french cinema long before the likes of Godard, Truffaut (whose "Le dernier metro" receives a special nod), Chabrol and all the others; critics and filmmakers Tavernier didn´t really like when he was a critic himself. Thus he rehabilitates the french cinema of quality of the 50´s, a cinema the cahiers-du-cinema bunch dismissed almost entirely. It helps to know that "Laissez-passer" deals with and stars real-life-protagonists Tavernier not only knew but worked closely with (for example Jean Aurenche and Pierre Bost, scripters of Taverniers first feature films), but knowing this Tavernier´s argument gets only more dubious.

The second and even more questionable level of revisionism is a thoroughly political one. "Laissez-passer" tries for nothing less than the justification of collaboration by pointing out that it wasn´t really collaboration with the nazis but enduring them. The film´s protagonists stresses more than once that he may be working for a german film company but works only on french films. That these films were part of the propaganda war Tavernier conveniently doesn´t deal with at all.

When everything´s said and done, according to Tavernier the collaborators were even the real resistance fighters. Vichy civil servants are shown as a resistance group who utilize their official status to inform the british intelligence about german plans (the Brits themselves being rather pathetic and more preoccupied with their tea than with winning the war). Communist resistance members on the other hand are shown as dogmatic opressors of their most faithful members. And since nothing else is heard or seen from Vichy officials, even the Vichy regime seems not to have been that bad alltogether. Michael Curtis "Casablanca" was more radical in this point, as Claude Rains alias Capitain Renault tosses an empty bottle of Vichy water into a wastebasket. And "Casablanca" was made in 1942.

In 2001 Tavernier clads all this in well known images of frenchness; note the heavy bicycling. The film´s last sentence informs us in voice over by the director himself that the film´s protagonist had told him, that given the chance he would do everything he did just once again. Which means that it was ok to make films a n d to collaborate. Combine this with the film´s title and you get the message to leave bygones be bygones. Take the film´s dedication into consideration - to those who lived through that time, a time when there were more important things than stubbornly sticking to idealistic ideas - you get the message that anybody who didn´t live through that time has no right to judge.

Au contraire, mon cher Bertrand, au contraire!

Triumph of the Human Spirit: Artists in a Time of War

[gradyharp · 8/10 · 7 September 2005]

'Laissez-passer' (Safe Conduct) is an epic film not of the giant battlefield scenes type, but of the inner humanity placed in jeopardy during war times. Director Bernard Tavernier has been making important films since the 1960s and here directs a story by Jean Cosmos and Jean-Devaivre that explores the survival of writers and actors and filmmakers during the German occupation of Paris in World War II. The result is an intensely rich examination of that period of time when the French Resistance successfully and bravely struggled against the Nazi invaders: yet another result is a film that is so long that it calls for an entire evening's concentration on a story that begs to be edited.

Based on a true story of screenwriter Jean Aurenche (Denis Podalydès), firm in his conviction that he would never write in support of the Nazi regime, and director Jean Devaivre (Jacques Gamblin) who opted for complying on the surface with a film production company headed by the German occupiers while retaining his firm stance as part of the French Resistance, the story involves a large cast who portray actors, production people, friends, victims, Germans, etc and the plot is at times so convoluted that you may need to pause and backup to make sure you have not lost any important information.

The actors are outstanding and the complete production crew of this film has created a tense, atmospheric, intelligent tale that makes the audience respect even more the incredible bravery of the French Resistance movement. This is brilliant film-making - it just goes on a bit too long at 2 hours and 45 minutes! Grady Harp, September 05

French Leave

[writers_reign · 8 October 2003]

Far and away the best of the recent spate of WW11 movies from France this is also the only one to have played in England. It is inevitable that an Englishman living in a country that was never occupied and with no real first-hand knowledge of WW11 will look at this - or any film on the same subject - with different eyes from a French viewer, especially a French viewer whose memories encompass the years in question. For me, an Englishman, who loves craftsmanship, be it French, Italian, English or American, and has only contempt for the infamous essay in which Truffaut attacked the values personified by, among others, scriptwriter Jean Aurenche, who is a character in this film, and Tavernier, who made the film, a great deal of the pleasure was in Tavernier's defence of Aurenche and the 'well-made' school of filmmaking, but over and above that what we have is almost three hourse of superb storytelling and an evocation of a turbulent time. Denis Polyades (currently on French screens in a tasty remake of The Yellow Room Mystery (Le Mystere de la chambre jaune) is excellent as Aurenche although of course I never knew Aurenche other than via his great screenplays but Tavernier did know him and so presumably guided Polyades to a true portrait. French film buffs will be well versed in the period when 'Contintental' films was active under German control and will, theoretically, share my fascination in any light from whatever quarter that can be shed on it. I saw this movie initially in a small Paris Art House where it played after its initial release and, not unexpectedly in the Latin Quartier and just down the block from the Sorbonne, there were several students in the audience - for that matter out of, at a guess, 120-150 patrons about two thirds of them were under 50 and, by definition, could have no first-hand knowledge of wartime Paris - yet the film was greeted with respect and applause. I subsequently saw it in London, subtitled and with, presumably, a predominently English audience, and it was greeted much the same way.

I accept that not everyone takes the view that I do, namely, that movies, like plays, novels, or any creative form, benefit from craftsmanship and professionalism, equally not everyone will despise the Truffauts of this world who thrive on iconaclism for its own sake - ironically, as I've remarked elsewhere, Truffaut eventually began to turn out exactly the same kind of well-crafted movie on which he had poured so much vitriol - but for like-minded film buffs there is so much to delight in when master craftsmen like Tavernier (and, to a lesser ambitious extent, Francis Werber, who is single-handedly filling the void left by Billy Wilder) unveil a new film.

not for every taste, but well done nonetheless

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 24 March 2006]

This is a film directed by Bertrand Tavernier. I loved his film IT ALL STARTS TODAY, and I was quite impressed by this one as well. However, be forewarned that this film will not be for all tastes. If you are French or have a good knowledge of French cinema, then you'll no doubt enjoy this film. Otherwise, you may find yourself very confused and bored, as the movie is 163 minutes long. I enjoyed it though, because they made reference to many films, directors and actors who worked under this system whose work I have seen (such as Clouzot and his film THE RAVEN and the Swiss actor Michel Simon).

The film concerns the French film industry during the Nazi occupation. Despite the Germans running things, they did allow the French to continue making films--so long as they didn't violate Nazi sensibilities. After the war, some of these people who continued making films were sharply criticized as collaborators. This film focuses on two people in the business and illustrated that there were many different motivations for working in the film industry at this time. Some simply had no choice (work or die), some needed jobs, some gladly embraced evil and some worked in the film business while actively fighting the Nazis. The two men are a very busy writer and an assistant director. The writer (Jean Aurenche) has a very shallow, if not non-existent moral compass, as he is most concerned with sexual conquests and not "rocking the boat". The assistant director (Jean-Devaivre), in sharp contrast, is a loving family man who also works with the Resistance and takes great risks for what he knows is right.

The writing, directing and acting are all first-rate and it was an excellent film--especially from a historical standpoint. By the way, the two main characters were real figures in the film industry. In fact, Jean-Devaivre wrote the book on which the movie is based.

I wish I could love this movie.

[dbdumonteil · 18 September 2004]

So many great names appear !Some of them have been so much despised by the young Turks of the nouvelle vague that it's really a pleasure to hear and see names like Jean-Paul LeChanois -whose behavior was admirable- ,André Cayatte,Maurice Tourneur ,Claude Autant-Lara.Henri-Georges Clouzot,maybe the greatest of them all does not appear ,but we see the door of his office in "la Continentale" a German films firm which produced "le corbeau" and for which Clouzot and others were blacklisted.We see also Michel Simon's back playing in Cayatte's "au bonheur des dames" .Was Tavernier too respectful or did he believe (with good reason) no actor could ACT the monstre sacré?Excerpts of movies are also included ,notably "douce" with the immortal scene "paying a visit to the poor" with Marguerite Moreno comforting the humble people with her "patience and resignation" ;we also get an excerpt of Tourneur's "la main du diable" ,one of the best fantastic movies of the French cinema.

The movie was not a big commercial success and it's easy to see why;you've got to know and appreciate the French cinema during the Occupation.There are veiled hints:they speak of the "Gauloise" during Simon' s sequence :it's Simon's good friend Arletty who was in love with a German .And in the end ,the movie disappoints ,getting bogged down in details and played with actors who lack charisma :Denis Podalydes as Jean Aurenche,who wrote " Douce" " le diable au corps" "Jeux interdits" !He even wrote for Tavernier himself :all his first movies!Well Denis Podalydes may be a commendable actor but elsewhere!The same can be said of the rest of the cast:no stand-out.The English episode was it so necessary?

The movie is useful anyway.It makes feel like watching again and again and again "Douce" "la main du diable" or "le corbeau" ,these jewels which the nouvelle vague was never able,in spite of their pretension,to equal.

NB:Jean Devaivre became a director after the war:his first movies were offbeat works such as "la dame de onze heures"and "la ferme des sept péchés".but he quickly degenerated into mediocrity with his poor sequels of Richard Pottier 's "Caroline Chérie" .

Safe (but slightly indulgent) Conduct.

[area01 · 14 March 2003]

It's really interesting that there are so few reviews on this film, as of 14.03.03! I caught it in a small University Film Theatre in Stoke-On-Trent, but surely this must have had a country wide release in France, so why not more reviews for this work from acclaimed French Film Director Bertrand Tavernier?

The film is nicely shot with an interesting story-line that looks at the lives of two men involved in the French Movie industry during the German occupation of Paris in the 40's. It has a frenetic camera style, and drops the viewer straight into the lives of the characters with no back-ground or build-up - so this, along with sub-titles (as I do not speak French), made for a bewildering first 15 minutes - however you soon adapt to this, and the lives of the two main characters are easy to follow.

There is a meandering, almost self-indulgent style to this film that made it a long 170 minutes for me. There would be lots of speedy camera moves around the great period movie set or Parisian streets, but no real point to these segments as it would not develop the story or characters. The character Jean Devaivre is always busy - so perhaps this is designed to capture some of that energy and the merciless deadlines of producing movies during this period. However, this style really grated on me after awhile and ended up being distracting, as there a very few "stationary" shots during the film.

The film explores life during extreme war-time experiences like Air-Raids, rationing, occupation, racism - and how people would deal with this. I refrain from using the term "ordinary people" as these characters (by there own admission) are French Bourgeoisie and almost exempt from the war as they are "artists". But they still feel compelled to resist in some way, and either do so by refusing to work for the German owned film company, or by aiding the French resistance where they can. Based on real events and people - this is the strongest aspect of the movie, however I felt this got lost in the meandering storyline, and blurred by the sub-plot concerning the politics of 40's film-making - with the lack of materials, writing talent and censorship. In my opinion it would have been better to concentrate on fewer aspects, had stricter editing and brought it in at 120 minutes - however that's just my view and story preference....

Aside from the above, this is a fine film and worth viewing if only to get away from the dominance of the Hollywood Movie Machine for a few hours. It will make you think, engage you and elicit some form of a reaction - as all good movie-making should.