Ni chaînes ni maîtres

Or even SOLOMON NORTHRUP'S ODYSSEY, there were so many movies speaking of this kind of plots, speaking of slavery. It needs to be spoken of, it must be known from the young generations. It is of course inspired from actual history facts. It is disturbing, poignant, gripping, sometimes unbearable to watch and accept it as a reality. It may seem a bit didactic though. What interested me the most is Camille Cottin as some kind of villainess, a role that I have dreamed of concerning her, and since a long time. Plus, she is here a supporting but so important character. She literally steals the show for me, the biggest surprise. I love those against purpose characters choices. I watched it only for her actually. Strangely, this film tries to remain very factual, though denouncing disgusting elements. Even the White slavers are shown as nearly humans.

No chains, No masters could have been a really interesting and compelling movie but unfortunately left me cold. There was some nice cinematography: local scenery, jungle shots, recreation of the era, etc. Along with well-respected actors but this alone is not sufficient to carry the movie.

The plot drags, the dialogue is often hard to hear, and the minute they try to tell us that African witchcraft will save the day, well, they've lost me. I got about two-thirds of the way through, then gave up.

For those wanting a more in-depth account of life under slavery in the French islands, this will give a fairly sketchy overview.

"Neither chains nor masters" is an uncompromising film which, through the personal story of a slave and his daughter, tells the general story of this shameful and shameless system called slavery.

At the same time clearly situated in time (1759) and timeless, the same goes for the place, both precise (Mauritius) and universal (the system is always the same, with hardly a few variations).

The harshness of the working conditions (in this case, harvesting sugar cane), the cruelty of the masters (in this case, the wealthy Eugène Larcenet) and the arrogance of the authorities who deny Africans any humanity (in this case, the island's governor) is exposed without concessions.

Another interest of Simon Montaïrou's first film is to put us in the shoes of the slaves, their thoughts, their beliefs, their sufferings, while giving only a secondary role to the whites. We are thus put in the shoes of the pursued rather than the pursuers. It's an interesting point of view, which assuredly doesn't make viewers feel at ease (but "Ni chaînes ni maîtres" isn't up for the best feel-good film award!), but brings them closer to a mentality and way of being that's foreign to them.

The direction is dynamic, adopting the rhythm of the chase. The whole thing is really well-made, which is all the more impressive given that it was shot far from anywhere, in difficult geographical and climatic conditions. Antoine Sanier's meticulous photography adapts to the different settings and moods (candlelight at Larcenet's lunch, iridescent blur when fugitive slave Massamba feels weak, nighttime killing scene lit only intermittently by lightning).

There's also an extraordinary sequence in which Massada is pursued by a dog in a river before the two of them are swept away by a waterfall, ending up dozens of meters below in the watercourse, where the pursuit continues...

Very good acting, especially from Ibrahima Mbaye (Massamba, the slave who believed he could come to terms with the whites), Anna Diakhere Thiandoum (Mati, his rebellious daughter) and the most astonishing, Camille Cottin, all in black, long-haired, with a slender classy figure in a role cast against type, that of Madame La Victoire, a fierce slave hunter. A trying but intense film, to be seen urgently.

This is an odd film. It builds on the real beauty of the island of Mauritius, implying a high level of realism. It's set during the period (most of the 18th century, up to the British takeover in 1810) of French domination (when it was known as the Isle-de-France) and depicts the horrors of its plantation economy, producing sugar off the backs (with a flogging depicted with sickening realism) of enslaved Africans, all of which is historically accurate. But the actors portraying the victims are from West Africa (primarily Wolof speakers from the area now known as Senegal, but other West African groups are mentioned), which is historically absurd, as the logistics of moving all those humans all those thousands of miles would have made no economic sense. (The enslaved population of Mauritius was of East African and Malagasy origin.)

These absurdities aside, and despite some outstanding acting, mainly by the two Senegalese protagonists, Ibrahima M'Bayi and Anna Diakhere Thiandoum, the plot is much too heavy-handed. Colette Cottin appears to be a fine actress, but casting her as white female hunter of escaped "maroons" is too preposterous to be sustained. Benoît Magimel , one of the finest actors in present-day French cinema, is here cast as a wealthy holder of a large plantation concession who has a few scruples about the fate of his enslaved workforce, but not too many. He has put on many kilos since he was last seen on U. S. screens in another island-based parable, Alberto Serra's "Pacification", a far superior (if often a little too enigmatic) film. Here, he is assigned a role just a step or two above a walk-on, a sad waste of his tremendous talent.

The film's intentions -- depicting the dynamics of enslavement on the many islands that produced sugar for the teacups of Europe -- are noble, and the world of those enslaved as seen from their perspective is hugely worthy of cinematic representation, but this film is too jejune, melodramatic, and uncomfortably situated between realism and nonsense. Are there really no Mauritian actors, speaking the island's form of Creole, that the producers had to bring in Wolof speakers from the opposite ends of the African world? The point may be that there are commonalities between the plantation system on Mauritius and on the Caribbean islands (where many of the enslaved would originally have been forcibly transported from Senegal and the rest of West Africa) that a bit of poetic license is permissible? But if I were from Mauritius, and a descendant from the groups that really were enslaved there (now a minority, whereas the island's current majority has its origins on the Indian subcontinent, whose ancestors were brought in by the British as indentured plantation workers) , I would feel insulted. Mauritius is a real place (of amazing beauty, as shown here), with its own specific history, and it deserves to be represented as such, not as an abstraction. The blurring of those two lines gives the film a silliness that the subject matter does not deserve, worsened by an overcooked and illogical screenplay in which the actors must struggle, with only intermittent success, to be more than gross caricatures.