Le Monde du silence

In the mid-fifties, Jacques-Yves Cousteau was already famous and on the way to becoming a veritable institution. Cinema was an important element in gaining popularity, through the various short films (such as Épaves) that he made throughout the 1940s. The step forward, towards a work of greater brilliance, needed to be taken, corresponding after all to the status it already possessed and which could well be translated into the acquisition of the Calypso, the legendary ship specially equipped by the French navy for the Groupe d'Etudes et des Recherches Sousmarines directed by Cousteau. And that step forward was this Le Monde du Silence, chronicle of a great Calypso expedition sponsored by the National Geographic Society: Cousteau's first feature film, and his first color film - beautiful colors, the copy to be shown render full justice. Given the unprecedented nature of the experience, and because it was no longer compatible with the "artisanal" amateurism of some of his short films, Cousteau recruited the very young Louis Malle (he was then 23 years old) to oversee issues more directly related to cinematographic technique. (ending up recognizing him as the "co-author" of the film, since it was Malle who conceived most of the "dry" scenes), and chose Edmond Séchan as director of photography, who had worked with Albert Lamorisse (the director of Le Ballon Rouge) and was used to shooting under extraordinary circumstances.

As anyone who has seen Épaves will easily see, this increase in ambition translates into significant differences, not all of which lead to entirely positive results. From a technical point of view, it is obvious that the sea in Le Monde du Silence is much more spectacular, restored in all its polychrome, and guaranteeing moments that will not fail to fascinate the spectator who is usually more insensitive to "beautiful images". But, if we gain this, we may lose some of the "poetic" spontaneity of Épaves or of other of those early films, Paysages du Silence: contrary to what happened in them, in Le Monde du Silence Cousteau's didactic and scientific responsibilities now occupy the first flat, leaving little room for purely lyrical daydreaming. One can feel a greater adherence to reality (and to the "realism" of a mimetic tendency) and this results in a sea that is certainly much more beautiful but, with equal certainty, much colder. And one also feels (a reflection of Cousteau's status and ambitions) that the sea is no longer the only protagonist, having a strong rival in Calypso himself, in his crew and logically in the figure of Cousteau: we perceive it when the we see it in a work of "self-iconization", looking at the sea with a pipe in its mouth, or when the camera is more fascinated by the "gadgets" available to the team (the underwater "scooters", for example) than by the surrounding scenery.

On the other hand, it remains true that Le Monde du Silence faithfully fulfills its pedagogical purposes, in addition to having more than enough moments to justify the expectations that were naturally created around Cousteau's first production of this dimension. There are rare episodes, some curious (even at the level of mere scientific "fait-divers", such as the sequence of catching the lobsters), others more violent (the beautiful submarine "travelling" over the dead fish after the dynamite explosion on the reef of coral). But the film's greatest virtue resides in the fact that Cousteau, while still celebrating the harmony of nature (note the amazing shots of the birth of the baby turtles), does not fall into that idyllic vision that so often undermines projects with these characteristics. There is a brutal and savage dimension to nature that Cousteau does not forget to focus on: the best and most impressive moment of Le Monde du Silence will therefore be the whole sequence of the accidental death of the young whale (caught by the Calypso's propellers), whose blood attracts the shoal of sharks that will eventually devour it. Without subterfuge, nature reveals itself (also) in all its horror.

I remember seeing this first Cousteau documentary when it came out and being totally enthralled. No one had shown use of aqualungs before, and compared to the previously used helmets with air hoses and cables, the amount of freedom allowed the divers was amazing. It opened up a whole new exotic world and made trips to the beach a lot more exciting. Compare this to the old Lloyd Bridges Sea Hunt TV show and there is no comparison - what can you do with those old cables and hoses attached? And besides, Cousteau was a master. I hope the Cousteau Society comes out with DVDs of this and other early works in my lifetime. English or subtitled. Fifty years is a long time to wait for a second viewing.

MUST-SEE viewing for any 'adult' that caught Wes Anderson's send-up of the Cousteau crew earlier this year in "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou." If anything, this early documentary proves that the actual Cousteau crew was even more outlandish than Bill Murray's gang.

One politically incorrect scene in particular shows the crew pulling sharks out of the ocean and beating them to death with clubs, while nightly dining includes plenty of fresh SEAFOOD! The major project of the expedition is the mapping of the ocean floor using advanced sonar, but in between the crew stays busy exploring the ocean and occasionally 'interfering' with the habits of the local sea creatures.

You'd never see this kind of disrespectful attitude in a National Geographic docu today and in a way it's kind of refreshing to see that these guys are not infallible.

One note to those with sensitive stomachs, there is a scene where the Calypso 'accidentally' runs over a baby whale and the resulting wound turns the ocean bright red forcing the crew to capture the whale and administer a 'kill shot' in order to put it out of it's misery.

Parents might want to think twice about bringing kids to see this rather graphic look at ocean research and some of its inherent dangers.

Beautifully shot, colorful and swift, but OH BOY is this a documentary that hasn't aged well.

Over the course 88 minutes we see Mr Cousteau and his boys basically torture their way through the sea. It's a bad time for everything from sea turtles, baby whales, sharks and lobsters.

Thanks but no thanks to this parade of human arrogance.

I was looking forward to finally catching up with this old documentary and was saddened to see that despite the advances in underwater photography (in 1955), which brought the undersea life vividly to the screen, that every other aspect of the film was embarrassingly dated. I am referring specifically to the appalling behavior of the crew of the Calypso who bear scant resemblance to any naturalists and scientists we know of today, without an ounce of respect for the animals they encounter. Who in their right mind would set off dynamite in a lagoon, destroying coral reef and killing countless numbers of fish?? The only wildlife that gets off unscathed are the dolphins in the early part of the film – otherwise, everything else that gets in the path of the "explorers" is eaten, tormented, or killed outright: when they see a whale they rush on deck to harpoon it; when sharks start to work on the whale carcass, the men haul shark after shark on deck and feverishly beat them to death under the (highly scientific) rationale that "everybody hates sharks"; when they find a giant sea turtle they clutch on to it for a ride without any concern that it is struggling to the surface to breathe; when they find a group of tortoises on an island their only thoughts are to first stand on them and then use them for stools while they have lunch. Even good old Cousteau gets into the spirit of things by bringing his rifle on deck and shooting a whale in the head (well, it was probably suffering after they ran over it with the boat and then later harpooned it).

These guys would be up on criminal charges if they'd made this film today. Worth watching only as a historical curio to see how unenlightened people were back then.