Monsieur Vincent

A beautiful film for must be grateful to director and lead actor. Because, obvious, it represents more than an inspired biopic. No doubts, in the splendid interpretation of pierre fresnay, it offeres a slice from the life of Vincent de Paul.

But you feel this film as an interogation for yourself, again and again.

Because it is a wise crafted definition of the relation with the other, poor, ill, alone, brutal as result of cruel conditions of life, idealistic or lazy.

The discover of social aspects, from the men on the boat to the poor neighbors, from the abandoned babies to the oldnes and close death are the good points of this real moving film , so modern, including the technique aspects, so honest, grace including the impressive job of mister Fresnay.

More than a simple to defined masterpiece.

But a profound useful ball of questions.

This film of Maurice Cloche was financed by 'the faithful' via national subscription and covers forty years in the life of Vincent de Paul who was canonised in 1737 for his sterling, tireless and utterly selfless work amongst the poor and down trodden of seventeenth century France. It is by nature episodic but that does not lessen its power to move. Cloche has been fortunate enough to secure the services of Pierre Fresnay. The chance to play the title role must have seemed manna from Heaven to this brilliant, mercurial actor who was not exactly riding high in the popularity stakes following investigations into alleged collaboration during the Occupation. His performance is one of the treasured few that transcend the art of film acting. Humanity and humility abound in his characterisation with never a trace of self-righteousness. The cast is uniformly excellent notably Aime Clariond, Jean Debucourt, Lisa Delamare and Gabrielle Dorziat. Claude Renoir has created 'painterly' images whilst Rene Renoux and Rosine Delamare contribute their customary excellence of production and costume design. Superlative title music by Jean-Jacques Grunenwald who had already shown his credentials by composing music for two 'religious' films of Robert Bresson and who was to become titular organist at Saint Sulpice in Paris. Excellent dialogue by playwright Jean Anouilh. Ironically the film poses the question as to whether those who receive charity are grateful or in fact despise those who are dispensing it. Revealing indeed is Vincent's instruction to one of his novices that the poor must be induced to forgive you for the bread you give them! It also questions the moral ambiguity of the Ladies of Charity who shun a foundling that they regard as being conceived in sin. Deservedly heaped with awards including the Oscar for Best Foreign Film before that category became a competitive affair this piece can truly be called a 'labour of love'.

This was only the second movie to be honored with a Special Oscar as the year's Best Foreign-Language Film, after Vittorio De Sica's SHOESHINE (1946). In retrospect, while a fine achievement in itself, it is not quite in the top rank of French productions (even those made around this same time) – for the record, the country would receive two more such wins, both for director Rene' Clement, i.e. THE WALLS OF MALAPAGA (1949) and FORBIDDEN GAMES (1952), before the category was officially incorporated into the 1956 ceremony.

The film is a religious biopic, the subject being the priest revered for his unselfish aid towards the poor/moribund community in the 17th century and who would eventually be canonized as Saint Vincent De Paule; incidentally, the national old people's home (where my paternal grandfather expired in 2002) is named after him. The success of the movie rests more with Pierre Fresnay's commanding central performance (which earned him the Best Actor award at the Venice Film Festival), Jean-Jacques Grünenwald's rousing score and Claude Renoir's splendid cinematography (that said, the print I watched seemed unduly bright) than the narrative itself (though scripted by famed playwright Jean Anouilh) – which tells a pretty standard tale of a man being initially misunderstood and scorned, then endorsed and abetted. Even so, a few scenes certainly do stand out: the priest getting relentlessly stoned as he lends a helping hand to a would-be plague victim; taking the place of an exhausted galley slave; listening to the 'miserable' sounds of fellow residents at his lodgings; the fights between the myriad mangled patients for a place on the hospital's over-crowded beds, etc.

The supporting cast here is notable for showcasing future stars such as Claude Chabrol regulars Michel Bouquet and Jean Carmet. By the way, given the subject matter, I was reminded throughout of two of my favourite film-maker Luis Bunuel's best efforts, namely NAZARIN (1959; which, like MONSIEUR VINCENT itself, is included in the Vatican's 45-title list of "Some Important Films"!) and VIRIDIANA (1961).

Before the welfare state there was private charity. Often springing from the ranks of the Christian church, private individuals founded hospitals, hospices, orphanages, and attempted in general to alleviate the misery of the impoverished. Seventeenth century France saw the apogee of the French monarchy, of French power and culture. The monarchy itself sometimes created hospices for the poor. One such was the hospice of Salpétrière founded to help women in trouble or without means. Today it is the hospital that made headlines for a while, since Princess Diana died there.

This film is the story of one man's private endeavor to alleviate suffering. He must be distinguished from today's bleeding heart types in that Vincent de Paul gave up the totality of his possessions to actually go live among the poor. Interesting questions are raised about the psychological underpinnings of poverty itself and the nature of a man willing to renounce comfort to dwell amidst filth, germs and other indignities. He himself acknowledges with some alarm that he is as dependent on the poor as they on him.

He learns that the poor are violent, petty, selfish and arrogant, demanding more than they give in return. But he also finds people willing to improve their lot and to assist him in his Herculean efforts. He is shocked at the conditions in which they live, shocked even more at their resistance to improvement. But Christian charity is a burden that requires one to redouble one's efforts by giving love unrelentingly to those who unrelentingly shun personal responsibility and who hate the one toiling on their behalf. Still, even Vincent de Paul would not continue with such exertions did he not perceive that he was making progress.

The depiction of his wealthy female benefactors is fascinating because they are well-intentioned women willing to do good works, but unable to go beyond a certain limit of generosity. They are painfully honest about the repugnance they feel at the sight of an illegitimate baby.

Few of us could do what Vincent did, living like one obsessed. Likewise, few actors could match the electrifying performance of Pierre Fresnay, whose charisma seems to be divinely inspired. He was one of several great French actors of the classical theater who left an enduring legacy on film. Sir Alec Guinness said Fresnay was his favorite actor.

All in all, a classic with unforgettable performances and haunting black and white photography.

There are many heart-rending scenes in this film, like taken directly from the reality of the 17th century with all its infernos of gutter life of the poor, the hungry, the sick and the invalids - they are all here, collected in Monsieur Vincent's hospitals for everyone in need, in whatever condition they are, and his hospitals and almshouses are always crowded, even with beggars and invalids fighting over beds that just have become vacant after one patient has died. Pierre Fresnay makes an unforgettable impersonation of the great pioneer of charity, penetrating deeply into the mind and character of the humble priest, who basically had to stand alone all his life against the overwhelming inhumanity of man, and even of women. It is a rich film, not hesitating to expose every aspect of the saint's difficult life and all his adversities, as even the beginning of the film brings you right down the shocking abyss of the horrible recklessness of man, as he gets stoned by the villagers, hiding behind their closed windows, when he comes to take his office as a vicar in a village that has been without a priest for ten years, all the villagers having turned savage as a result. It is a walk through a hell that never ends, and when Monsieur Vincent finally feels his end is coming (at almost 80 years), his dominating feeling is of insufficiency, that he hadn't done enough, that he hadn't really done anything at all during his 50 years of constant overwork, only for the poor and the endless crowd of interminable and eternal incurable misery...