Opiniones de usuarios

I bought the DVD version of THE SORROW AND THE PITY not so much because I wanted to watch it, but because, as with many other classic films, I felt I should. At 4 hours long, I could never quite muster the will to screen it, with the end result that this film sat on my shelf for months before I finally gathered the courage to watch it last night. My original plan had been to screen the first disc one night then watch the rest after a decent interval of recovery. I quite frankly expected to be bored to death watching hours on end of interviews in French.

Boy was I wrong. This turned out to be one of the most engrossing films I've seen. Yes, it is too long. But you're willing to forgive it that. This is simply the best film I've seen on World War II. Numerous interviews with French politicians, teachers, shop keepers, peasants, hoteliers, and more along with ones of Germans and Englishmen gave one of the most revealing and human portraits of World War II - and of the French people - I've seen. Combined with included archival footage from the war, this made for what is clearly one of the great all time documentaries and greatest WWII films I've seen.

TSATP draws you in right away and really never lets up. Almost every interview enlightens in some way. Everybody talking has their own agenda - spin in modern parlance - but the director is able to combine these in a way that exposes the most blantant of falsehoods and also paints a realistic composite portrait. The Nazi propaganda films were also chilling. One early example is a film of black and arabic French soldiers captured by the Nazis with the implication that racial impurity led to the French demise.

I could go on and on about this but I think I'm running out of room and need to talk about the DVD. I highly recommend this film for anyone who wants to go beyond history book versions of the war.

As for the DVD version itself, there are several flaws, starting with the $50 price tag. Beyond that, the print used was a poor one. The quality of the interview scenes was not much better than that of the archival footage spliced in. The subtitles were also not that great. Interestingly, much of disc two appeared to have a remixed soundtrack. For interviewees in English and German, the director dubbed over a partial French translation with the original language reduced in the background. This partial French translation was then subtitled in English (and not always well). On disc two, quite a few of the English sections did not have French dubbing or subtitles, which is where I suspect the sound remix comes in. The ending was also quite abrupt and choppy (Maurice Chevalier in English?) and didn't have the feel of being original, though let me stress I've no real knowledge to substantiate this.

This two-part documentary analyzes the occupation of France in World War II through the example of a city with a population of approximately 100,000 people. The spirit of the time is quite well conveyed with the use of archive materials, as well as interviews with members of the resistance movement, collaborators with the occupying forces, and German soldiers who participated in the occupation. Everyone is given the space to express their views and explain the logic that guided them during the war. A side of French history, today mostly hidden, is presented: dark and shameful collaboration, but also the heroic resistance to the occupation - all this in the context of a true civilizational tragedy. The film has been banned in France for more than ten years (it wasn't aired on TV until 1981), supposedly because it was too one-sided, but in fact because it showed the extent of the collaboration and the burden of historical responsibility for the committed crimes - a history that was rushed to be forgotten, in order not to disturb the post-war social consensus and the re-established status quo.

This is an important documentary because it's an early (1969) look back at Vichy France during World War II, when many of those who lived through the Nazi Germany occupation of France were still alive and were able to speak about their experiences. It's a rather straightforward documentary, blending interviews with archival footage and contemporary scenes from France and Germany.

The French filmmakers took care to interview French, both in support and opposed to the government of France who collaborated with Germany after their swift defeat, as well as Germans, both Nazi and otherwise and British officials who were involved in the war. With three languages present, the dialogue is spoken over in French, although in the English cut that I viewed, the English was mostly left alone.

It's not a stunning film as a documentary, in terms of presentation, but some of the stories that the film brings out of its sources are quite amazing and document a lot of details that a basic study of the WWII era during a history class might not bring out. Even more notably, the individual stories of those involved at the time highlight much of what's going on while also providing an emotional connection to a person or groups of people and making the situations easier to imagine. I think The Sorrow and the Pity remains a valuable film simply because there aren't many of its kind from its era and for how personal it chooses to be in telling the stories of the men and women that lived during this terrible moment in history. But it's really long and people who don't care about history or about people's stories probably would find much in here to like. 8/10.

Stunning, honest, in-depth look at the real people who formed the resistance movement against the Nazis in France during the second world war. We hear also from those who felt resistance unnecessary, and those who collaborated with Nazi Germany. Examines all the nuances that make up the very different viewpoints from those involved. The camera just looking at the wife of a former German officer as he recounts his version of events is incredibly telling, although she never says a word. The film is full of moments like this one that allow the viewer to see the truth. A must see if one wishes to understand history. Never boring, in spite of its length. A bit hard to read the white on white subtitles at times.

A masterpiece in the genre of the documentary. This is a long movie. You've got to have time on your hands, and a little bit of patience to allow Ophüls to unravel all the strands of the French attitude under German occupation. But the journey is worth every minute of your time.

Focusing on the town of Clermont-Ferrand, Ophüls tries to understand what it was to live with German soldiers in your town, an optimistic and collaborating government, an exiled general urging you to resist and underground organizations who used terrorism as their only weapon. Ophüls does not multiply the number of interviewees. He chooses about 15 of them and interviews them long enough that you understand their comments within the context of their personality and outlook. But the most surprising is the variety among the interviewees: a very courageous farmer, a reckless British spy, a British minister, a self-sufficient German general, a doubting German soldier, a chauvinistic bourgeois, a young nobleman attracted by the Nazi theories, a young disillusioned nobleman-philosopher ready to sacrifice his life, a clear-sighted Jewish government representative, a naïve woman, a Communist, a nationalist. You'll be surprised to find out who is the most perceptive of the bunch

I've just seen this at the National Film Theatre.

I concur with most of the comments from the other users. Certainly Ophuls' directorial hand is evident throughout, the editing, cutting, juxtaposition, reaction shots etc are all part of the construction of his argument, although his interviewees are obviously allowed to account for themselves at some length.

What I found most surprising was the amount of humour in the film. Because of Woody Allen's use of it in "Annie Hall" I thought it would be gruelling, but there were a number of laugh out loud moments, starting with the resistance leader whose main stated reason for fighting the Germans was that they were monopolising the best meat.

Emmanuel d'Astier de la Vigerie was also a total star. His comment about the sociological make-up of the Resistance - essentially misfits and malcontents, people with nothing to lose - was very telling. A number of other interviewees made similar points - the main collaborators were the bourgeoisie - the resistance was mainly based on workers, peasants, communists, youth and weirdos of various sorts. Compare that with the sitation in the '60s when the film was made and with the situation now in the western democracies.

Anthony Eden was another major surprise. The popular image of him now is of a buffoon, the man who screwed up Suez, but in the extended interview here he displays immense charisma, intelligence and humanity. And if they make a film of his life Jeremy Irons is a shoo-in for the role.

The Nazis, meanwhile, are clearly cut from the same cloth as the neo-fascists presently enjoying something of a resurgence in most of Europe. All the same arguments made in exactly the same way by the same sort of people. This (plus the smugness of the former Wehrmacht officer still wearing his medals) was probably the most chilling thing about the film.

The final obvious resonance is with Iraq. From the German soldiers baffled and outraged by the fact that some French were trying to kill them, to the French establishment referring to the Resistance as terrorists, (yes that was the exact word they used), to the initial acceptance of the Occupation turning to hatred as reprisals against the Resistance grew, many testimonies throw a radically new light on the present situation. To draw direct parallels would be a mistake - even the Gaullists were not as reactionary as Zarqawi or Muqtada al Sadr - but nonetheless there is a lot to learn from then about now, and about the difference between how events are perceived at the time and by History.

Another user comment complains about the amount of politics in the film. It's true that some knowledge is presupposed and the film would obviously mean more to those who lived through those times. However Ophuls has said that one of his main motivations was to show that the idea that you can divorce politics from everyday life is exactly what made collaboration possible.

These are just a few of the thoughts provoked by the film, which holds many more insights and surprises and I am sure repays as many viewings as Alvy Singer gave it. It's perhaps not as shocking or affecting as "Shoah" (on which it's surely the strongest influence) but then it's a different story. It shows us the best of humanity as well as the worst and neither are always where you might expect to find them.

Incidentally, it looks like the reportedly poor quality of the DVD may be down to the original film stock rather than the transfer.

The Sorrow and the Pity is not only the greatest documentary film ever made, but also one of the greatest films of any kind. A straightforward description of the film seems to promise limitless boredom: more than four hours of talking-head interviews in at least three different languages, blended with old wartime footage and occasional clips from the likes of Maurice Chevalier. But Ophüls' mastery of film technique allows him to create a thinking-person's masterpiece from these seemingly mundane parts. He interviews people who experienced the Occupation (in the late 60s, when the film was being made, many of them were still alive). Some are famous "big names" of history, such as Pierre Mendes-France, imprisoned during the war, Premier of France later in life, and Sir Anthony Eden, a British prime minister in the mid-50s. But even these men are noteworthy more for their actions as "regular" folks than as statesmen, and the true "stars" of the movie are the various "common men" who tell their personal stories. The Grave brothers, for instance, local farmers who fought in the Resistance, are as far as one might get from Jean-Paul Belmondo, but their pleasure with life and their remembrances of friends and foes during the Occupation establish them as real life heroes.

Thirty years down the road, Ophüls' methodology is as interesting as the history he tells. Merely claiming that Ophüls had an argument seems to work against the surface of his film, for he disguises his point of view, his argument, behind the reminiscing of his interview subjects. The film is a classic of humanist culture in large part because Ophüls, in giving the people the chance to say their piece, apparently puts his faith in those people (and in the audience that watches them) to impart "truth." However, the filmmaker is much cannier than this; he is not artless. The editing of the various perspectives in the movie allows the viewer to form conclusions of their own that don't always match those of the people who are doing the talking in the film. In fact, The Sorrow and the Pity makes great demands on the viewer, not just because of the film's length: Ophüls assumes you are processing the information he's providing, and so the film gets better as it progresses, with the viewer's attention being rewarded in direct correlation with the effort you put in.

And Ophüls is himself the primary interviewer in the film; you don't often actually see him, but he's there, asking the questions, leading on his subjects and his audience, only partly hidden (visually and philosophically) from view. The movie might look easy; there are none of the showy flourishes of a Kubrick or Stone here (or of Max Ophüls, for that matter). But the viewer is advised to remember that Ophüls' guiding hand is always in the background, constructing the film's version of the truth just as the characters do in their stories.

If you are a movie buff, you have probably gotten the impression from the bulk of movies about WWII that the French populace as a whole fought bravely to resist the Nazi Occupation. "The Sorrow and the Pity" makes it clear that such was not the case. This stunning documentary includes interviews from people from all shades of the spectrum politically, philosophically and socially. The interviewers did a great job of coaxing the truth from these people by being friendly rather than confrontational. Some of the most amazing footage is from German newsreels, with the ghastly "pure race" prejudices being illustrated with a very sarcastic commentary on some of the French prisoners of war. I think that every high school student in The United States should see this film so that they understand that you can't always just " go along to get long". Of course, with the average high school student's attention span, it would have to be shown in shorter installments. This film is completely worthwhile and never boring!

Far and away the BEST documentary I've ever seen! I've only seen it once, in a theatre, about 32 years ago, but the images and the words of the people who told of their Occupation experiences still stay with me. I wondered then, and still do, how in the world the filmmaker got his subjects -- especially those who had admittedly collaborated with the Nazis -- to be so forthcoming. To me, that's the value that makes this movie stand head and shoulders above all other documentaries (including those of Michael Moore, whose work I also love): the way Orphuls gets right to the innermost soul of the people he films.

Now that it's out on DVD, I intend to buy it, no matter how overpriced or poor quality -- the film itself is that good.

I've only seen the first installment, but I can't stop thinking about two things in particular. Firstly, the haberdasher (and World War I veteran), of Clermont Ferrand who took out a newspaper ad to declare he was not Jewish after he was suspected of being so along with his three brothers. Secondly, the bourgeois chemist who was so scared of his child born in 1942 being malnourished, that he fed the blighter as much as he could and he was now (1969), the tallest of his siblings at 1m85cm. The history of ordinary people can very often be so much more vivid than the dry recantation of the big events we read in text books and see in other much more turgid documentaries. Definitely a must- see and I can certainly comprehend why it was not shown on French TV until years later in 1981.

Well, I was hoping a lot from this documentary after having read some reviews here. The documentary worths the watch as some of the interviews are really interesting (former S.S De La Mazière, the English diplomats and the German soldiers, in particularly) and it also gives a good idea of the radical political divisions between the French at this time. However everyone should admit that the film is not strictly neutral. As a Frenchman, I have been interested in the subject for a little while and know quite a bit about this period. The interviews of Resistance members are unfortunately much more numerous than those of collaborators and there is not a single interview of any former member of the Milice (which had more than 30,000 members!) while it seems to me it should have been unavoidable for such a documentary, since they were very involved in the war against partisans. The "jewish question" sequences last for too long and are not focused on Clermont-Ferrand while the black market (quite important at this time) is just slightly mentioned. There is nothing about the STO (compulsory work in Germany), although it drove quantity of young men to join the Resistance! Nor is mentioned the fact that communists have been collaborators before the war between Germany and USSR and that some have even volunteered to work in Germany. Tortures by members of the Milice (which have been numerous) are mentioned while tortures of collaborators and German soldiers by communist partisans (which have been numerous too) are not mentioned at all. Communism in France was, in 1969, too powerful for Ophuls to go onto this slippery slope, I guess... The documentary is about Clermont-Ferrand, however Ophuls sometimes jumps to how life was in Paris or Vichy at this time, it's a bit annoying because we don't get a really good picture of Clermont-Ferrand then. I have watched the French version with English subtitles and, although my English is far from being perfect, I found them rather below average, some meanings are twisted, it is a shame for people not knowing French language because they might understand a different version of the witnesses interviews. I think the documentary is interesting not from its purpose nor its editing but rather for the historical value of some of the interviews and also to get a general picture of the people feelings at this time, keeping in mind the film in itself is still an incomplete and slightly orientated summary of occupied France (however much more complete and less orientated than most of modern documentaries).

An amazing film - accolades have been poured onto this documentary for decades. In this year of 2020 approaching a new decade and a time of great turmoil and misinformation on our planet - mostly due to the abuse of social media - this film is a must for high school and college students all over the world.

Not just students of film, but students of history, anthropology, social issues, students who want to study art and cultural trends - students who need to open their eyes and hearts to the reality of human motivation, and human defects.

Applause always for this documentary film - a must for everyone most especially those who border on hatred, those who think antisemitism is fun, those who need to have their eyes open to life on earth.

It's probably a better historical document than it is a film, as it's incredibly dense and somewhat hard to follow if you're not well-versed in French politics/history of the era.

But it does get by on being a great historical document, at the very least. Lots of compelling stock footage and individual interviews/stories that were very engaging.

As a whole it was just a whole lot to take in during one sitting, and while some topics flowed well from one to the other, sometimes it didn't feel so seamless (but that could again be on me not knowing much about the history being covered, and just not understanding the documentary's more subtle moments).

The film jumps around a lot. We start at a German wedding in 1969, but before you know we are elsewhere talking about the French resistance, then watching Maurice Chevalier perform before a French audience of soldiers in 1939, and suddenly we are in the French countryside walking with two framers. Without missing a beat we have an interview the Pierre Mendes (French PM), then German documentaries, including one that focuses on captured black French soldiers that makes fun of the British claim to be defending "civilization". It blames the "Jewish warmongers" and the "British Lords" for starting the war and for escaping with their "suitcases filled with gold". The topic of the resistance comes up now and again, as does the war, but it's difficult to know what this film is about and where it's going.

About 30 minutes into the film it seems that the film is about the Vichy Government and the behavior of the French people during the occupation. Anthony Eden poignantly points out to Marshall Petain that there are worse things in life than having your "beautiful cities" destroyed, but to the French, capitulation was the greater need. To the French people it was also an opportunity to settle petty quarrels, and to re-ignite anti-Anglo feelings. Hitler knew that the French of 1939 were not the same people he fought in World War 1, and by 1941 everyone else knew it too. Eden says "If the French can no longer fight, that's one thing. But if they make it easy for the enemy, that's quite another."

As the film wanders on and on it gets no better in the focus. Seemingly with neither rhyme nor reason the documentary explores anti-semitism, anglophobia, German influences on French cinema, business practices, German propaganda, etc. Half a century after it was made, and from another country, much of the background is lost, so many of the comments are not easily understood when certain names, dates, and places are mentioned. The lack of focus of the film makes this even more difficult. The translations themselves are random. Sometimes the German is translated into French in the film and then subtitled in English, but often not. Sometimes even the French is not subtitled.

All told this is a very poorly done documentary. It lacks focus. The filmed interviews are of poor quality considering it is 1969 and the sound is marginal. Are there pearls of wisdom and fascinating sections within this mess – Yes. Absolutely. It could profit from being redone, shortened, and given a new voice over.

How truly compelling is "The Sorrow and the Pity," a monumental 4 ½-hour documentary about one of the saddest realities of World War II: the almost placid collaboration of the French with their occupying German conquerors. The movie was created by Marcel Ophüls (son of the great Max Ophüls) and portrays a devastating picture of the collective compromise of morality under duress. We are brought into intimate contact with the times by way of newsreel footage and interviews with present-day survivors of all persuasions as they recall the events of the past, corroborate or contradict others or even themselves. We see the danger that comes with historical amnesia and the refusal to see that there is a potential for great evil as well as great good in all of us. This is a profound movie, and a profoundly disquieting one. It does not substitute facile attitudinizing for intelligence and integrity. It demands that we push the limits of our vision beyond the borders of the screen masking in the theatre. It would be a sorrow and a pity not to see it…and think about its implications for all of us.

We saw sorrow and the pity on DVD during this weekend. A powerful and moving documentary about life in Clermont - Ferrand during the war years. Although lengthy in running time the interviews are excellent and well prepared because it gives a balanced view of how life actually was during that time. It demystifies and, trough interviews, criticizes fascism, communism and democratic views as part of a complex political stage during that period. It really makes you understand part of the history of that period and phenomena that actually didn't make sense trough the vision of propaganda films or the victorious literature that tried to explain the reasons for many actions. It is a must see.

This, of course, is the documentary film that Woody Allen's character goes to time after time in Annie Hall. It chronicles the German occupation of France during World War II. It creates a patchwork of people who were affected on all sides by the presence of the Nazi's on the streets. What is remarkable is how simply some of them lived and how "congenially" many absorbed the invaders. It isn't an expose but rather a slice of life about a country that quickly buckled under to oppression. Of course, the overtones present tell the story of all the evil that was going on but because it was covered so well, it went unnoticed. The Holocaust was going on, but the anti-Semitism was so rampant, many of the French people just said c'est la vie. We get to know common people, people in the resistance, politicians, former Nazis and a host of others. What could be dull and tedious, is four hours of absolutely amazing storytelling. While no-one is shouting or emoting, the story gets told beautifully. It would be easy to be incredibly angry with the French while their British and American counterparts were dying, but it is so matter of fact and so human, I didn't get there.

This is the way a great documentary is supposed to be made. This film came at a time when documentaries were few and far between, it remains riveting for every minute of its 251 minute length. It succeeds by telling a coherent story as well as an enthralling one. Most documentaries these days throw everything at you (in a hasty, sloppy manner), and load up their films with endless "talking head" shots. Then when they're criticised for it, they come up with the usual adage "it's up to the viewer to decide.". While the ultimate judge is the viewer, this is not a reason for a "cut and paste" approach to the film. This approach removes the narrative flow from many recent documentaries. This film tells its story so well and brilliantly, like a grand novel, and illuminates you on the Vichy government, and how it was really like to live and how complicated it is to live under an occupation. There are some historians here and there, but the film deals mainly with those who lived and fought the Nazis, those with the most at stake. That's one of the reasons the film is so riveting. It comes across as human, something many documentaries miss entirely. It's a great film. Its length means nothing, because you're never bored. A must...

This documentary by Max Ophuls is long--clocking in at over four hours total for parts one and two. And, it's all about the French and how they dealt with the Nazis during WWII--which is quickly becoming a distant memory. These two factors combined make this a film which is unlikely to be seen by most folks today. Back in 1969, however, it must have come as a bit of a shock, as the messages in the film were a sharp contrast to the prevailing view that 'we' beat the Nazis. Instead, the film seems to paint a picture of the French where very, very few were involved with the Resistance and most French men and woman were amazingly complacent about the Nazis. And, in many ways, these attitudes were still strong 25 years after the war ended. As for me, this is an excellent portrait of human nature. We tend to see what we want and the film shows the many different views about the war and collaboration--many of which are very self-serving (such as the German soldiers who felt that they were good to the French or pro-Vichy folks who made a variety of excuses for not doing more to fight the Nazis).

This film certainly isn't for everyone but it a very deep and fascinating look at this sad and dark period of history as seen through the eyes of the French and German people.

Recently, a friend told me that her grand-aunt had 'horizontally' collaborated with the Germans during the war and so she was submitted to the soul-shaming head-shaving treatment. But when asked many years after why she slept with the enemy, she revealed she wanted to help her brother to escape from a camp... he was a resistant.

Had the story ended there, it would be too tragic, in fact the old woman admitted having fallen in love with the German. See, humanity is as complex as history and to understand both is to admit that we can never obtain absolute truth but rather retrieve from facts a few cognitive fragments allowing us to understand things within the realm of their inherent complexity.

And all the historical books in the world, all the documentaries will never reach that crucial dimension of a simple face-to-face conversation. For instance, a resistant will always be regarded as a hero but he could admit during a friendly chat not to have cared about causes, having more banal if not selfish reasons.

Released by Marcel Ophüls a quarter of century after the end of WW2, when many protagonists were still alive, memories intact and scars unconcealed, "The Sorrow and the Pity" unveils slices of peoples' lives in Clermont-Ferrand during the occupation, occupants included, it's specific enough so their motives, their choices and eventually their feelings speak statements of universal and timeless reach... on an intellectual level.

Indeed, feelings are not exactly the priority of the four-hour documentary, but rather the cold and clinical examination of both a state and a state of mind. The state is German-occupied France, also known as the Vichy regime, the only to have firmly and zealously collaborated with the Nazis and the minds are of people confronted to circumstances they'd rather not have to deal with. It was France's destiny to be overpowered and face a moral dilemma so painful none of us is allowed to judge.

That's the first mindset in order to appreciate the historical value of Marcel Ophüls' groundbreaking documentary: let's not judge. If anything, this is a humbling experience. There is something in the intimacy provided by the interview format that allows everyone to speak in total transparency, even the silent pauses are more eloquent that speeches in the way they confront the action from the past to a present devoid of any pressure and obligation. That's a luxury we have and they didn't.

When asked about collaborators, a resistant admits that it takes to be a misfit, anyone afraid to lose or jeopardize something couldn't be a resistant. A British diplomat admits that no country can't judge another if it's not been under an occupying force. A former collaborator with a bourgeois background explains all casually that he couldn't embrace communism but fascism by natural choice, he doesn't dodge the interviewer's question about making the easiest and least risky one. Still, he never expected the horrors of barbarity reached by the Nazis in the camps.

The film naturally dedicates a long chapter to the Jews' persecutions and the key role the government of Vichy played through the infamous Laval, the second in charge of the country who was responsible for sending thousands of Jews to the camps after the "Vel d'Hiv" raid and pushing the darkest zeal by sending children the Germans didn't even ask. His former son-in-law plays the devil's advocate, invoking the fact that he sent the foreign Jews to save the French ones. To which Ophüls (son of director Max, a German Jew) dismisses the argument by mentioning the many French Jews who had lost their citizenship prior to these actions.

The question creates a malaise immediately swept off by Mendes France (a French Jewish politician and resistant) and other witnesses who say that no respectable country can abandon people to the enemy, whether citizens or foreigners. One can understand the responsibility of the French government and why it deserves such a moral condemnation especially since it was Marshal Pétain, a then-Verdun hero, who "donated his life" to France like some respectable patriarch. Context is important and most citizens weren't misfits, they had family, businesses and like the hairdresser (one of the few female interviewees) said, she admired Pétain like many did... and still does.

One should ask himself, looking at these pictures all in black and white, all in stark contrast but wrapped in mundane normality (people smoke, drink, are interviewed in their job clothes), where the noble values or the heroes were. The only feelings that are vividly recalled in these interviews were fear, hunger, and quoting one of the resistant pharmacists, "sorrow" and "pity". A few of them were prone to join the "fight against Bolshevism", some of the German interviewees didn't hide their pride, and one even harbored his Iron Cross during his daughter's wedding.

The daughter of one resistant admits anti-Semitism still exists in France and some interviewees didn't seem too focused on the crimes against the Jews. A pharmacist protested that he was victim of persecution while his name Klein had nothing to do with a Jewish background, he reminded me of a scene in "Gentleman's Agreement" where Peck's son cried because he was victim of an anti-Semitic remark and Peck's friend consoled him by saying he wasn't Jewish, totally missing the point.

Just like war revealed souls' content, the documentary revealed the opposite human inclinations during crucial times... in a masterpiece of storytelling confronting real footage to testimonies, some even paralleled to be either belied or attested, and many musical songs from Maurice Chevalier to provide the ironic tone of an era where 'good' people acted badly or looked the other way, an era even De Gaulle overlooked to seal the national reconciliation and forge the resistance myth the film is deconstructing.

So if there's another adjective the film deserves, it's clearly "eye-opening".

I wouldn't call the Sorrow and the Pity a movie. It is, in its own right, a documentary. A film none-the-less, it is an amazing look into World War 2 France and the French who lived through it. A 4 hour classic that can only be watched by true fans of interest, it is a long film to take in an a short afternoon. Overall, it remains to date one of the best films on World War 2 since it interviews real people on both sides of the war. A strong start with a smart ending, you'll have to watch it for yourself to understand.

As a film, this project has all the professionalism of a 1st year student. It's simply terrible. The translations are not accurate, and even more problematic, there are many times when there are no translations at all. The titles of the people being interviewed don't tell us much, though perhaps if you're an elderly French person they will have more meaning.

That being said, the film has got hours of precious footage that will amaze and educate anyone. German newsreels about the decline of the French civilization... Candid conversations with Anthony Eden... A Jewish comic entertaining German troops... etc. It's absolutely wonderful to find this material.

It's painful to wade through this film to get these precious nuggets. But it is worthwhile.