La Maternelle

Until I saw this film at a Cinema Conference in Aberdeen in 1995 I was ignorant of the fact that a woman director had produced poetic and social cinema comparable with Vigo's ZERO DE CONDUITE (certainly one of the greatest films ever). Vigo in 1933 is revolutionary anarchist with modernist poetry at his finger tips; Epstein in 1933 is warm-hearted popular front realism with magnificent performances by nursery school kids, though the main schoolgirl is a little older (and in love with her teacher, like the protagonist in Leontine Sagan's MAIDENS IN UNIFORM 1931). And that teacher (unqualified according to the authorities) is a young Madeleine Renaud, dazzlingly soft focus in the tradition of French poetic realism. It should be shown this film as source material for pedagogical controversy and reform (Epstein's approach is after Rousseau progressive and child-centred). And it should be on everybody's list as one of the greatest films of all time. You can't have your Vigo without your Epstein, not that Blunkett would care for either.

As the author of To Desire Differently: Feminism & the French Cinema, I need to reaffirm that although my book deals with female authorship, the exquisite 1933 film LA MATERNELLE was made by two directors, Jean Benoit-Levy and Marie Epstein. For purposes of my book, I chose to emphasize Epstein's participation in the 11 feature films she made with Benoit-Levy. However, further research has indicated that in fact, Epstein co-directed some films and assisted on others. In this light, I wish to correct the mistaken impression that this is Marie's film alone. While I appreciate the fact that she has gotten much needed attention, I am emphatic about reinstating Jean Benoit-Levy as the primary director of LA MATERNELLE.

Marie Epstein was an amazing person. Her collaboration on this film with Jean Benoit Levy is important to understand her contributions to French cinema. Their classic film, "La Maternelle," is one of the earliest French films to use speech. But what makes this film special is that it reminds me of what films can accomplish. They don't have to be complicated. Simplicity can sometimes be best if used properly. The actresses are quite simply unforgettable. The realism is worth watching about a young girl who is abandoned by her prostitute mother and the loving teacher who cares for her like the daughter. I don't like films today because they seem to forget their origins. Sometimes a gaze can say so much more than anything else. The film was shown to our class by Dr. Sandra Flitterman-Lewis who wrote her dissertation on this film and published it in "To Desire Differently." This film says so much more than most films today. It depicts poverty, depression, suicide, prostitution, and abandoning one child so carefully. You forget that it's black and white and 70 years old. It's worth watching.

Any french movie lover should see this charming story of a young rich woman who lost everything (Madeleine Renaud) and becomes a school maid for poor children. And she gives all her love to these poor kids after having been abandoned by her family, not falling in booze and prostitution. She is helped by a first maid, the extraordinary Mady Berry, who played popular jobs (concierge, cook, hotel boss, grosser, housekeeper, eggs seller, ...), a true french excentrique actress. Madeleine Renaud and Mady Berry, what a team. It could be another french melo of the 30's, but it remains intelligently realistic and all the kids sequences are marvellous. The direction is also intelligent, each shot tells an information and there are fine travellings. Be touched by that lost girl abandoned by her prostitute mother, she shall also lose everything. How did Madeleine Renaud became poor? Perhaps we'll know with a restored french print with missing footage. The giant subtitles in the american print are disastrous and should of course disappear, and the sound need some serious boost. Let's hope.

I have talked elsewhere of a "mixed form" that developed, essentially in European film, in the period 1928-1935 in response to the advent of sound. The advent of sound is often considered solely from a rather trivial Hollywood point of view (even a recent French film such as Michael Hazanavicius' L'Artiste, alas, continues this tradition). We are invited to see the event as a crisis in the fundamentally rather unimportant little lives of the stars and feel for their difficulty in adjusting to the change. This problem, greatly exaggerated, was very largely unique to the US for a variety of reasons (lack of theatre grounding, use of foreign actors and actresses, the "star" system and the low status accorded to character acting). The turnover in stars accelerated as a result (the studios used it as an excuse for cutting out the dead wood and getting rid of the alcoholics and other "undesirables" amongst their stars) but it was absolutely nothing new. Inevitably with an influx of actors from the theatre following the introduction of sound, which occurred everywhere for obvious reasons, there was a change, largely in this respect for the better, but in a country like Germany, for instance, where theatre and cinema had always gone hand in hand and made use of the same performers, the advent of sound made no difference at all. There it would be the advent of Hitler a few years later that would change (and devastate) the entire industry.

In fact for the US, "sound", even if the studios dragged their feet (giving Warners their big chance), made complete sense. The style of a sound film required very little change to the "realist" style that now completely dominated US cinema. By 1927, the US were already in a sense making "talking" pictures, laden with dialogue, heavy on intertitles, that were simply missing the sound. In Europe the dominant tendency had been the reverse, towards films that told the story visually, with few or no titles, with a complex and "significant" use of montage (not simply a continuity device). So, if many European directors were chary of the coming of sound, it was for very good artistic reasons, a fear (to a large extent justified) that the effect would be a trivialisation of cinema and a regression from the artistic zenith it had achieved during the late twenties. In the US sound enabled the cinema industry to "grow up" (it was easier in the US to deal with "adult" themes verbally than it was visually) but in the European industry which was already grown up, it risked having the exactly opposite effect.

Which is why, in Europe, you find during the period 1927-1935, the development of a mixed form that attempts to use sound sparingly while maintaining the visual values of the silent era. This was rare in the US although Chaplin's Modern Times (1935) is an outstanding example. In Europe, however, the period produced some of the greatest masterpieces of cinema, some of which are well known (Lang's M or Von Sternberg's one German film, Der Blaue Engel, Mädchen in Uniform, Emil und die Detektive, the early (and best)films of Jean Renoir, the films of Julien Duvivier, Jacques Feyder or of Georg Pabst (The Threepenny Opera and Don Quixote both belong to this period). Some have begun to become well known once more (the early - and best - films of René Clair, the early - and best - films of Sacha Guitry and d the two masterpieces of Jean Vigo or the great Japanese films of the period (some still silent, some with sound). But, by and large, the non-US films of this period often shared for the decades that followed (although not to such an acute degree) the same fate as silent films with which they were quite rightly seen to share many characteristics - virtual oblivion.

The renaissance of interest in silent films that has taken place in recent years needs also to embrace this period of the mixed form which is an integral part of an extraordinary "golden age" of cinema that ranges from about 1925 to about 1935, a decade during which more great films were produced than one would normally in several decades. Moreover this period provide the vital link in the European cinema tradition not only, as another reviewer points out, with later French "poetic realism" but with virtually all the important developments in European cinema that would follow (from Italian neo-realism to the various "nouvelle vagues" and almost every significant development in world cinema that has succeeded).

La Maternelle is a superb and little known example of exactly this "mixed form". Both Benoît-Lévy and Marie Epstein had important roots in the silent era. The former was the nephew of Edmond Benoît-Lévy, one of the most important promoters both of the film d'art and of educational film during the period from 1905 to his death in 1929. Marie Epstein was of course the sister of one of the finest directors of the twenties, Polish-born Jean Epstein. The influence of Epstein's distinctive visual style is everywhere apparent in this film.

It was a difficult time for the great European directors. Some like the Swede Victor Sjöström, gave up making films altogether, some went into abeyance (Jean Grémillon, very much in he same mould as Epstein, made virtually no films in this period). Producers everywhere, eager to adopt US standards and please the ever more powerful US market, were now often hostile to anything that appeared "old-fashioned". Both of Vigo's films weer totally butchered by the studio. Epstein himself had difficulty finding a suitable style for the new dispensation. Ironically, Marie seems in some ways to have coped with the advent of sound more readily than her brother and to have found a niche (through the "educational" interests of Benoît-Lévy) eminently suitable to the "Epstein" style.