Le cas du Docteur Laurent

Nowadays,the simple name of Jean-Paul LeChanois is guaranteed to net nothing but horse-laugh from the highbrows,the "true" movie buffs and of course the afficionados of the indomitable nouvelle vague.

Le Chanois 's work is humanist ,optimistic and does not deserve contempt and disdain:he's only a good storyteller:a directing virtuoso,he's definitely not.A "deep" auteur ,he isn't either.But he has got other qualities:simplicity,spontaneity,and a friendly look at human condition and a real faith in his improvement.

In "l'école buissonnière",long before Comencini ,Truffaut and Tavernier,he urges the teachers to ditch purely theorical training and to teach the children by "doing" ,visiting,experimenting and of course living.It pitted a young schoolteacher(Blier)against a bunch of country reactionary notables:this character was none other than Celestin Freinet who spawned a whole new school of teachers in France and elsewhere.

"Le cas du docteur Laurent" is similar:here a not-so-young doctor (Gabin)tries to explain to women of the fifties(in a small village in the mountain) that painless childbirth is possible,and that the old curses -coming from long ago and far away,check the Genesis-must go.He will meet with macho men,but also submissive women-who will be his strongest enemies-,who still thinks that "the more you suffer,the more you love your baby".To fight such drivel,doctor Laurent expresses himself in astute images.We 've got to realize that what is obvious today was a big revolution then.

The best scene,when the women drive a bus thru the mountain,singing from the bottom of their heart is one of the very first manifesto of women's lib in the French cinema.It may seem naive,passé,but it had to be done at the time.

Dr. Laurent is ready for a mid-life change in his medical career. He just left his job in Paris because he didn't feel close to the people, only `responsible for them.' So he takes up a practice from a retiring colleague as the only family doctor in the small rural town of St. Martin.

After a short time in his new practice, he discovers an important need he can fill. The villagers have a lot of myths and superstitions about childbirth: `Women are supposed to suffer.' `Women should not be afraid of a little pain.' `Only through suffering can you love your child.' Laurent wants to dispel these myths, and teach the village about natural childbirth and managing pain with natural methods.

Although Dr. Laurent means well, his crusade is resented and resisted by the villagers, by the Medical Board back in Paris, and by his expectant patients. The villagers cry `What's a Paris doctor doing here?' and `Some things should not be discussed.' The Medical Board accuses him of `unethically soliciting for business' and `seeking glory.' His patients complain `You're my doctor, not my priest' and `He makes me feel like a circus animal.'

Of course, we know that Dr. Laurent's cause is noble and just. Although their scenarios are totally different, I saw similarity between Dr. Laurent and Gary Cooper's character in High Noon . men fighting for just causes in strange towns against overwhelming opposition.

For me, this film was absorbing from start to finish.

I reviewed this movie as part of a project at the Library of Congress. I've named the project FIFTY: 50 Notable Films Forgotten Within 50 Years. As best I can determine, this film, like the other forty-nine I've identified, has not been on video, telecast, or distributed in the U.S. since its original release. In my opinion, it is worthy of being made available again.

In a picturesque but primitive mountain-top village, a middle-aged Parisian seeking a quieter life arrives to replace the traditional family doctor. Ancient local ways hamper his efforts, but in one crucial area he is determined that millennia of ignorance must be overcome. This is the belief, dating back to the Bible, that giving birth is all suffering and pain. Slowly, he manages to convince many of the women that natural childbirth can be beneficial for mother, father, and baby. Such heresy appals the all-male village council and the all-male surrounding doctors. Charged with professional misconduct, he refutes his accusers by delivering an unmarried mother of a healthy baby boy without drugs or forceps.

Celebrating the beauty of the Alps and the vibrancy of the hard-working villagers, the film above all celebrates life and the women who transmit it. In the delivery room at the end, seeing a real live baby emerge, it is the courageous young mother whose triumph and joy we share.

I write these few lines mainly for the Gabin buffs who might happen to take a look at this page.

"Le Cas ..." doesn't belong to cinema.Not even formally.It is not bad cinema;it is non-cinema.It was intended as a piece of sanitary education for the less instructed people,a didactic show.Did it serve its purposes?I do not know.

By its premises,which are very stupid,though well-meant,"Dr. Laurent" is completely outside the cinema.It intends to be a piece of educative footage,promoting some theories about birth.(These theories are partly bad,partly SF,partly vague.We hear a mother laughing while she gives birth,as the pain of the birth is absent.)Sanitary education.So,the movie's intentions are completely outside the aesthetics.Still,Gabin is amazingly pleasant to watch performing a brave (from a medical point of view) physician.Yes,Gabin does his job OK.He looks good and is quite interesting.I have seen him more banal than here.Gabin is somehow fun to watch in this movie.Almost a certain kind of fresh soothing kindness.(Usually,Gabin does not look as a kind person.)

"Dr. Laurent"'s dialogs are an awkward mix of imbecile lines and quite funny and humorous,though trivial and gross,ones.Some of them made me laugh.The film promises,for a while,to be almost sympathetic,though in a campy way.

On a strictly technical level,I have seen Gabin movies far worse directed.This one is well paced.I also liked some frames:a street in the night,the new house where Gabin settles.The cinematography is not bad,either.But the movie's content is so ridiculous,and so stupefyingly bad written,that even my mother,a huge Gabin fan,and able to enjoy almost any Gabin movie,could not make her way through "Dr. Laurent"'s end.(Notice that my mother enjoyed a lot flawed movies like "Des Gens Sans ..." and "Gas-Oil"!)Unfortunately,after a while the movie falls apart completely,collapses,and does not work not even as an usual Gabin flick from the 50s.This is VERY displeasing.In many ways,this film resembles the Bolshevik propaganda movies of the worst kind."Dr. Laurent" was written and conceived by idiots,but made by people who really knew their job.Finally,the "substance" prevails upon the "style".I hope that,at least,"Dr. Laurent" was useful in the way it tried to be.Is it useful also for the Gabin buffs?This question must remain open.Gabin performs well,as well as possible,in this gruffly bad movie.(In fact,Gabin did a seemingly endless string of hideously bad movies,as he was constantly avoided by almost all the great directors post-WW 2.97 movies,and so much junk!Anyway,as Dr. Laurent,Gabin does NOT make a fool of himself.)