Vivre libre

In 1944 Warner Brothers produced, as a pro-Free French propaganda movie, PASSAGE TO MARSEILLE. It was directed by Michael Curtiz, and starred "CASABLANCA" alumni Humphrey Bogart, Claude Rains, Sidney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre. The end result was a mishmash of flashbacks, which failed to deliver the message of our brave allies the Free French. In retrospect, Bogart's subsequent first film with Lauren Bacall, TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT, was better in presenting the threat of Vichy France in the performances of Dan Seymour and Sheldon Leonard as the local Vichy policemen in Martinique. But the script was better too!

Had Warner Brothers wanted to see a good propaganda film about France under the Nazis, they need only have gone back to 1943 and this gem by the great French director Jean Renoir. Renoir always belittled his films in exile in Hollywood, but THE SOUTHERNER, THIS LAND IS MINE, THE DIARY OF A CHAMBERMAID, are pretty good films, even if they don't match LES GRAND ILLUSION or RULES OF THE GAME. Not everything by a director can be that great. Here Renoir concentrated on how the occupied French lived under the pressure of the occupying Nazis. From the corrupt Mayor (Thurston Hall, naturally) who is more concerned about the safety of his personal wealth than his neighbors, to the corrupted judiciary (George Coulouris, as a prosecutor fully cooperating with the real authorities) to the frightened and elderly (Una O'Connor, as the mother of Charles Laughton - willing to lie about her neighbors and collaborate if it will protect her son and herself), it is a very sad picture of the reality.

Three characters in particular stand out: Laughton, George Sanders, and Walter Slezak. Laughton is a momma's boy, who is timid. He loves Maureen O'Hara (their second teaming after THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME), but she is more impressed by Sanders, who is involved in running the railroad yard. Slezak, the local Nazi bigwig, makes a habit of showing his "pleasant" side to people like Hall, Coulouris, and Sanders, whom he relies on to make the village run smoothly. So he reassures them about their status and power. But while Hall and Coulouris are corrupt power seekers (or wealth preservers), Sanders has a conscience. He is aware of the Free French fighters, and is aware why they are sabotaging his rail yard, to prevent materiel and men to help the German war effort. When he helps the Nazis kill several (including an old friend) he commits suicide in his office. But this is a Renoir movie...he takes a leaf from the conclusion of Le Grand Illusion. There Eric von Stroheim is forced to kill his French aristocratic counterpart who seemed to be trying to escape. When Pierre Fresney dies, von Stroheim destroys the one element of beauty - a flower - in the drab castle/prison he runs. In THIS LAND IS MINE, a sad faced Sanders opens his office window wide, and releases his pet birds. After he watches them fly away, he kills himself. It makes his end more unbearable to watch that.

Laughton is accused (due to circumstances) of the "murder" of Sanders. As he is a popular teacher, Slezak figures out that he might be amendable to a deal for his life, and visits him for that reason. Laughton is timid, and does not wish to die. He is also anxious for his mother, who is beside herself with fear for him. So he takes the deal, which will enable him to be acquitted. But then (after Slezak leaves), Laughton witnesses the execution of several prisoners, including a man he admired - the principal of his school. He rethinks the entire situation. When he is taken to court, in the present of Slezak, the Mayor, a befuddled Coulouris (who tries to prevent him from speaking anymore), and the judge, jury and townspeople, Laughton eloquently explains the forces that drove Sanders to his suicide, and the same evil forces that infected his town. Laughton is acquitted for the murder, and leaves the courtroom. He returns to his classroom with Maureen O'Hara, and gives a final lesson on freedom and patriotism to his students as the Nazis come to rearrest him again. It is a moving and expert conclusion to a fine film.

About half way through this film I became aware that I was in the presence of greatness. It may not be perfect but it is about as good films got during the war. Many films at the time were made that painted the Nazi occupation as a black and white issue. You will know after seeing this that that is wrong. All the characters here are in shades of gray. That is the films power. This should be a classic. Why it is not available on DVD in region 1 is a mystery to me.

The lead actors are all extremely good here, and of course a stand out performance by Charles Laughton. I have seen quite a few of Laughton's films and I am always amazed by his range of roles. He goes from heavy to hero and everything in between. He was, in my opinion, one of the very few really great actors of his time. I have seen him in some bad films but I have never seen him give a bad performance!

Speaking of heavies, did you notice that all the male leads have successfully played heavies? They all give very nuanced interpretations here that go way beyond black and white. Go see it.

Although I consider myself a film buff, I confess I had never of this film until I saw being broadcast last night at 1.30 in the morning. I was expecting some pedestrian war time propaganda but the presence of Charles Laughton convinced me to watch it. I am astonished that such a powerful film is so little known and broadcasting only rarely.

One could argue (as had been done in the comments here) that Laughton's transformation from mouse to man is rather too swift. I myself found it totally convincing but it is in the nature of Hollywood to exaggerate these things to make a good movie.

The comparison to "inherit the wind" and "To Kill a mockingbird" is well made here, but the question remains, why is this film so little known? The answer, I think, is that those films make the middle classes feel good about themselves. Everyone fancies themselves to be an Atticus Finch who can recognise the ignorance of 'common people'. But TLIM points the accusing finger at the Atticus Finch's of the world, the men of learning and intelligence who are quite prepared to justify working with evil and persuading themselves that it is not so bad. As such it is as relevant (sadly) as it ever was.

Jean Renoir managed to flee France because of the Nazi invasion and spent World War II turning out some pretty good films in America. Maybe the best is this heartfelt tribute to his beloved and occupied France.

He got the best possible actor for his protagonist. Charles Laughton could play tortured and flawed human beings like no other actor ever could in the English speaking world. Here he is a French schoolteacher, middle-aged, shy, and mother dominated by Una O'Connor. And he's afraid of his own shadow.

He also loves neighbor and fellow schoolteacher Maureen O'Hara and she's got a fiancé who's a collaborator and a brother in the resistance played by George Sanders and Kent Smith.

It's all these people's story and even the local gauleiter Walter Slezak is not a simple brute as Nazis are so often portrayed.

The story involves Laughton's growth as a human being, seeing what is happening to his town, the people around him, and most of all to the school to both the children and the teachers. The last twenty minutes of the film are almost exclusively his. In both a courtroom and a classroom, he has some brilliantly delivered speeches explaining to the town why they must resist the evil upon them.

For me the best scene is in the courtroom where Laughton is accused of murder and throws away a carefully prepared script that Slezak has offered him. He tells the town what they need to hear and then declares his love for O'Hara and the reasons for him doing what he's doing.

During that part of Laughton's speech the camera focuses totally on Maureen O'Hara and her reactions to Laughton's words. It's a beautiful crafted scene by a great director.

A film classic for the ages.

In an interview with Cahiers du Cinema in the 1950s, Renoir reluctantly referred to this film as "my own propaganda." Early Hollywood depictions of the french had portrayed them as unscrupulous collaborators. (That includes Casablanca). Renoir, who was in France when it fell, was justified to feel this was an unfair portrayal. This Land is Mine was his way of showing America what it was like to be a conquered country. Each character becomes an icon of every section of French society. It's not trademark 'Renoir' and he admits it. Because it was so important to make sure the film found its audience, he says he "took less risks"

The mission worked. The film was a success and attitudes towards the French changed... two other Warner Bros films, also starring Bogart, made after Casablanca (and more importantly This Land is Mine), portray the French as heros and patriots with a just cause.

Brilliant acting, brilliant script, brilliant propaganda!