Can´t stand this plot - Les enfants du paradis (1946) Discussion

[–] allenrogerj 16 years ago

"1º: The main female caracter its not that beatiful at all, specially with her cynic smile. I saw at least 3 girls in that movie that are a way more atractive, including Nathalie. "
So? One aspect of the film is the different ways people love and the different things they mean by love. Another is the different kinds of attractiveness of different people.

"2°: It is so easy to say "i love you" in this movie. They barely know each other and are sure they found the love of their life.... just like KIDS do! I just can´t buy it. "
They say they are sure they have found the love of their life. In some cases, they are righyt.

"3° What do you do when you conquer the "love of your life"? JUST RUN AWAY (like a KID, again). "
"Conquer" is rather an odd word to use here. Which episode are you referring to, anyway?

"4° Garance says that Baptiste is the love of her life. But just two minutes after he runs away, she just *beep* the next door neighboor. What kinf of "love" is that? "
One that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with *beep* of course.

"5° It is ok, and its a beautiful thing, according to this movie, to cheat on your wife and kid. While your wife talks to you, desperate, you just don´t give a sh*t... She talks to you and the only thing you do is call the name of your lover... "
What makes you think "It is ok... according to this movie"? It happens, as the film shows, but that doesn't mean it is- or is not- OK.
Given the attitude you take to the films you watch, you'd better stick to early Disney animations which are probably the only films with what you would think an acceptable moral code.

reply

[–] amiNotAwake 16 years ago

It is your right to dislike this film in any degree, but I disagree with you immensely. You say Garance is not that beautiful but then beauty is rather hard to distinguish as a one singular distinct type. She is beautiful for many different reasons to many different people.

Love also is subjective. Whether it happens all at once or little by little, the only person that knows the sincerity (or lack of) is the declarer.

I don't believe this movie is condoning infidelity just showing it is there as the poster ahead of me said.

This film for me is not necessarily just a representation of reallity but also an illusion of how some hope for life/love to be or how it should be. It is a little pantomime, a play.

That's partly why I love Children of Paradise.

“I already know an awful lot of people and until one of them dies I couldn't possibly meet anyone else”

reply

[–] lancekoz 16 years ago

I'm with you. Some older European movies are very weak on creating characters with credible motives or consistency. I think they were more concerned with artistic direction and symbolism than creating a realistic scenario. And, it may very well be that we can't really fully relate to something written in another culture quite a while ago.

And that's okay. You have a right to say it did not work for you and then explain yourself with some specifics. It's ashame that another post had to insult your intelligence for clearly and kindly expressing your opinion.

reply

[–] djekejones 16 years ago

I also agree with most of the points raised by the initial message here.

In particular, the main problem for me is the 5th point made, namely that its presented as a beautiful thing by Carné here, to cheat on your wife and child. And then, when your wife pleads with you, offering forgiveness, you just don´t care ... and the only thing you do is call the name of your lover, and then leave her to chase after you lover ...

However, I would still see many great things in the film - in particular, the wonderful crowd scenes, especially bearing in mind the difficulties Carné had when the filming took place. But, at the end, the film just didn't quite have the emotional punch that I was hoping for, as I couldn't feel sufficient sympathy for any of the characters apart from Nathalie.

Before this film, I'd seen most of Carné's pre-war films, and had loved virtually all of them, in particular 'Le Quai des brumes', 'Hôtel du Nord' and 'Le Jour se lève'. Perhaps my expectations were too high going into this film, and I'll certainly re-visit the film, but I felt disappointed at the end.

In comparison to other great French films, such as the following :

l'Atalante
La Grande Illusion
La Règle du jeu
La Belle et la Bête
Journal d'un curé de campagne
Le Plaisir
Madame de...
Pickpocket
Vivre sa vie
Les Parapluies de Cherbourg
Ma nuit chez Maud

as well as the other Carné films mentioned above, I just don't think 'Les Enfants du Paradis' came close, in my opinion. Whether or not that changes after a second viewing remains to be seen.

"We'll always have Paris"

reply

[–] multiplepov-1 16 years ago

In particular, the main problem for me is the 5th point made, namely that its presented as a beautiful thing by Carné here, to cheat on your wife and child. And then, when your wife pleads with you, offering forgiveness, you just don´t care ... and the only thing you do is call the name of your lover, and then leave her to chase after you lover ...

If Baptiste had "ended up with Garance," then maybe Carné's "point" would have been what you outline above--but he didn't. Basically, everyone makes mistakes of the heart throughout the movie (except, maybe, Frederick).

Baptiste's fatal mistake occurs early on when he doesn't accept the love Garance offers him. His life afterwards until he meets her again is just going through the motions--staying with the family acting troupe despite the emotional abuse he'd suffered from his father when he was young, marrying the troupe's ingenue, and so on. Only in the pantomime where he, night after night, kills the prophetic ragman does he express his repressed anger (and self hatred). His brief reunion with his one true love may be a "beautiful thing," but her departure, his hopeless chase after her, his obliviousness to his own son are clearly tragic.

Garance's fatal mistake (IMHO) is not valuing herself more--accepting the life of an object of beauty that can be admired, casually passed around, even bought while thinking that keeping her inner self separate, aloof, untouched is enough. When Baptiste wanted more from her than she believed she had, she went to someone else. Though her one chance to surrender herself to the one man who truly loves her is a "beautiful thing," she is affected by the fact that Baptiste has a wife and child and leaves at the end. For the rest of her life, all she'll have is that one night--and that's tragic.

Natalie's fatal mistake, of course, is marrying a man she knows doesn't love her. In fact, I don't merely think she was shortsighted--I think she was selfish to do so. That a match is sensible, logical, convenient, and practical is not enough. Basically, she manipulated Baptiste into marrying her on the belief that her love for him was enough. And he repaid her for at least a decade with a pleasant, dutiful married life. But one can't be "owed" love. That an innocent child has parents who don't love each other is tragic.

These are just some thoughts on some of the characters in this intricate film.

Stories with grand, noble figures with specific character flaws that lead to fatal mistakes that result in tragedies are not the fashion. Most stories use heroes and villains to demonstrate more narrow points. Les Enfants du Paradis is too complex to be summed up like that.

-----------------
"I've always resisted the notion that knowledge ruined paradise." Prof. Xavier

reply

[–] djekejones 16 years ago

I do take on board these points, and my reaction to the film wasn't to take against it completely - only a disappointment compared to Carné's earlier films.

I don't necessarily disagree with the point about Nathalie either, and fully accept the fact that all the characters are shown very much 'warts and all' - which I agree is far better than one dimensional characters.

But to not even have any compassion for your wife (who despite flaws, was still presented as a decent person), and even more so, his own son, was not just fallible, but downright unlikeable. At that point, Baptiste did almost enter plain villain territory. Whereas Nathalie, even with her flaws, remained the most likeable person in the film - far more so than Garance, and there I think was the real problem (although I take on board the fact that Garance may have been affected by Nathalie's pleas when she leaves).

Furthermore, Baptiste wasn't forced to marry Nathalie - his weakness did that, along with her weakness in so desperately using the circumstances to get him to marry her.

I think what the film needed was :-

1. More of a reason for WHY Baptiste loved Garance so much - if it was purely physical attraction, then, to me, that's pretty weak. Whereas, if there had been plot development to explain that, and a meeting of minds between them as well as physical attraction, then I feel that would have been far more sympathetic, and enabled us to understand Baptiste's dilemma far more. I'm not saying that everything has to be put on a plate for the audience by the director, but Bresson in 'Pickpocket' for example, manages in very subtle and economic ways, to enable the audience to understand why Michel falls in love with Jeanne, and also the dilemmas that the character faces. This isn't a perfect analogy, but I just felt there was little attempt here in showing us why Baptiste is so much in love with Garance, and this seriously compromised the emotional core of the film.

2. To show some kind of agony by Baptiste as to the decision he felt he had to make - but here, it was almost at the level of schoolboy infatuation, and never mind whatever the consequences are to my wife and child. I may be old fashioned, but surely loyalty and responsibility are things that shouldn't be thrown away without even the slightest care. I can love films where fallible people ultimately fail to do the right thing, but to do so in such an uncaring way was the problem for me here.

3. I think the fact that Baptiste doesn't end up with Garance doesn't change the emphasis that Carné is trying to achieve at the end - Carné seems to be trying to bring about sympathy for Baptiste, whereas all my sympathy was with Nathalie.

But, again, I re-iterate, the film had many good things going for it - but ultimately, just failed to sufficiently move me emotionally in the way that I had hoped for, and in the way achieved by Carné in the earlier pre-war films.

I will re-visit the film shortly and take on board all the points raised, which have been very helpful, and I may even change my initial views, but at present, I remain unconvinced.

--------------------------
"We'll always have Paris"

reply

[–] floydsr 11 years ago

I just had to reply by saying this is a brilliant summary of some key elements of this film; some of which I hadn't thought of before. I will look at this film with even more weight now.

reply

[–] chuck-526 13 years ago

Some older European movies are very weak on creating characters with credible motives or consistency.

I suspect the problem is more "historical" and less "just film". When I'm presented with _any_ character in _any_ medium that's a couple hundred years old, I have a very hard time accepting their motives as credible. My usual reaction is "they thought WHA...???"

"Children of Paradise" presents a slice of life. It's not just the characters that mostly "really existed"; even many of the events actually happened. (Of course the filmmakers have supplied a large dose of "poetic license" in converting outlines of real events into imagined specific scenarios.)

I think they were more concerned with artistic direction and symbolism than creating a realistic scenario.

"Romeo and Juliet" is better understood as "symbolic" too ...at least it certainly doesn't exactly seem "realistic" to me. The only solution to a puppy love that crosses clan enmity is to kill yourself? One way to view "Children of Paradise" is as a "classic tragedy". (And explicitly so: Shakespeare is such a major component, Garance and Baptiste could be refered to as "star crossed lovers".)

Being "classical" was a concern of _any_ new artistic medium at that time. Look at all the still photography with pieces of columns, fountains, and dreamy females encased in flowing draperies.

And, it may very well be that we can't really fully relate to something written in another culture quite a while ago.

When it was first released "Children of Paradise" was _already_ thought of as an "old fashioned" movie. The events portrayed happened more than a century before the film was made. It was already "quaint" even to its original viewers.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"We can`t really fully relate to something written in another culture quite a while ago".

Not only was it written nearly 70 years ago, it also depicts a time some 100 years prior to that - a whole different era with wholly different mores. Most likely a lot of it would have looked kinda preposterous also for the contemporary audiences had it been set in 1945.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] TheManInOil 16 years ago

You have completely failed to understand the movie. That's your shortcoming, not the film's.

1 - She specifically says in the movie "I'm not beautiful, but I'm alive." It's her vitality and femininity that draws men, not her looks.
2 - Yes.
3 - Yes.
4 - re: making the same point 3 times. Yes. Garance and Baptiste share a shallow but exquisite love - a love built on illusion.
5 - The movie does not advocate this relationship at all. It simply acknowledges it. Baptiste and Garance are every married man and 'other woman' the world has ever known. They are representative. This movie looks at how and maybe why it is that so many are willing to exchange a real relationship for something empty and fleeting.

"Now let's have an intelligent conversation. I'll talk and you listen."

reply

[–] djekejones 16 years ago

On that logic, my shortcoming is not finding exquisite a love which makes a Father leave his wife and child in the lurch, without even an explanation to them (or us the audience) as to why he's acting in such a dreadful way.

It just doesn't seem very commendable, or even credible, and I believe the final scene is orchestrated by the director to attempt to generate sympathy, whereas the reality is that Baptiste and Garance are just deeply unpleasant characters.

If the film is really just attempting to show a couple of deeply unpleasant characters act in a despicable way, then I suppose it does achieve that.

I disagree however that they are representative of every man and 'other woman' the world has ever known - try the following films for characters who have to deal with such an issue where the director deals with their actions in a much deeper and far more understanding way, as opposed to the kind of infantile behaviour of the main characters in this film :

Sunrise : A song of 2 humans (1927)
Brief Encounter (1945)
Early Spring (Ozu)(1956)
The Age of Innocence (1992)
In the mood for love (2000)

That's not to condemn this film as with no merit at all, but merely to have the view that the central love story was deeply flawed.

I see no explanation given as to WHY having this view is wrong - merely a statement to that effect without any argument to back it up. Great films shouldn't rest on reputation alone - they should stand up to critical analysis, and this film just seems deeply flawed to me.

Can someone deal with the issues I've raised, not just state that its my fault for not understanding the film - an intelligent response would genuinely be welcomed.

-------------------------

"We'll always have Paris"

reply

[–] allenrogerj 16 years ago

"Great films shouldn't rest on reputation alone - they should stand up to critical analysis, and this film just seems deeply flawed to me. "

However, the flaws you think you find are moral flaws, not cinematic flaws. Even if we accept your moral assumptions, though, you are mistaken.

The explanation for Baptiste's abandonment of his wife and child is set up well in advance. We know that Nathalie believes- or wishes: she sends their son to Garance in her box to stop her meeting Baptiste, whoch suggests she isn't as confident as she says she is- her love for Baptiste can overpower everything, including Baptiste's own love for Garance. Baptiste's love of Garance has been set up long before- at their first meeting, as has Garance's for Baptiste. The fact that both of them have very different concepts of love and attitudes to sex and the way that that complicates their relationship has also been established there.
At the end of Part One of the film Garance and Frederick acknowledge they don't love one another and it is suggested that Garance will get together with Baptiste, whose obsession with her is shown in his play, except that she has to accept De Montray's offer of protection- this also shows Garance's realistic attitude to sexuality and her separation of it from love. After she goes back to Paris she avoids Baptiste- she watches him in secret, Baptiste only learns of her presence when Frederick tells him and when Nathalie sends the child to ask her to go, Garance leaves without seeing Baptiste. She tries pretty hard to avoid Baptiste. It is only Lacenaire's machinations that bring them together again.
The last scene and the one before it are not an attempt to evoke sympathy for them but a portrayal of their dilemma. Garance does not know de Montray is dead, remember, and thinks that if she does not go back he will kill Baptiste; she believes she cannot see Baptiste again. Baptiste is caught in a dilemma- he has gone to great trouble not to hurt Nathalie before, but now, when she questions him he cannot lie to her and say he loves her. At the same time, that the only explanation he can give is to say he does not love her but Garance-he's a mime, remember, he can't use words to persuade or lie to himself and others as Frederick can. All the way through the film, Baptiste's gentleness has been emphasised, which makes his attack on Jericho all the more shocking in its brutality and shows the pain he suffers and his loss of control.

In short, take another look at the film and try to avoid ideas about how people "ought" to behave and look at the behaviour of the characters. Baptiste and Garance aren't "a couple of deeply unpleasant characters (who) act in a despicable way", they are people with particular feelings and desires (I didn't mention the importance Garance attaches to her freedom, which affects her attitude as well) who are caught in a dilemma from which there is no escape.

reply

[–] Knoxvicious 14 years ago

>>>The movie does not advocate this relationship at all. It simply acknowledges it. Baptiste and Garance are every married man and 'other woman' the world has ever known. They are representative. This movie looks at how and maybe why it is that so many are willing to exchange a real relationship for something empty and fleeting.

That still doesn't mean what they did was right.
Look at someone like John Gosslin from John and Kate plus 8! You hear everywhere in the news what a scumbag he is and, when you think about it, Baptiste is no different from him!

Maybe if it was just Natalie, I would let it go. But what about their son? When you have children involved with something like that, it doesn't only seem wrong...it's just distasteful!

And the movie DOES seem to advocate that if you do truly love someone, forget your responsbilites. Whether people like to believe it or not, movies DO advocate anything and everything. Even whether it's intentional or not, entertainers have to take the responsbility that things like this can change people's point of view and fans have to admit it.

I also thought Garance wasn't that pretty as well...I thought Natalie was much prettier. And less....cliche...

www.simplydustinhoffman.com
-#1 site for Dustin Hoffman fans-

reply

[–] Strausszek 14 years ago

Well, the plot is obviously romantic, and no inspirational or moral tale. And I mean romantic in the sense that it sees love as a sometimes dangerous but inescapable passion, so I don't intend "sugary story". If the idea that true love can drive you to kill or destroy other people, to hurt them far in excess of what they have deliberately done to you, even people you once cherished - if that idea (not the act but the concept of love as passion beyond morals) is abominable to you, then this film will appear bizarre too on some counts.

I'd agree neither Garance nor Baptiste, nor Lacenaire, really believe they deserve love, and when Garance gets men to look her way and admire her, she doesn't really understand what is going on. It could have been better spelled out in the first half. Lancekor is right the film isn't terribly solid on character building, and there's a very pronounced difference in tone and emotional range between the two halves. They're both very good, but look and feel quite different. The ending feels a bit stumped too: she drives off, leaving him forever. It works, but there is more that needed to be included and addressed. It's not near as good a finishing stroke as Scarlett's (temporary?) loss of her lover and her "Tomorrow is another day!" in Gone with the Wind, which may have helped suggest that ending. -The real life Lacenaire and Baptiste were both tried for murder at sensational trials, and Lacenaire was actually sentenced and guillotined, after defending himself with scorn and passion and no remorse over his crime. You sense in the film that Lacenaire will go down fighting, he could have been in a Balzac novel, but those trials would have been great to see included in the film in some form.

Part of the reason for the jumpiness and half-contradictions could be that the film was made over a long time in unstable circumstances: a huge production where some parts or scenes had to be shucked out at a late stage in filming because of logistic difficulties: the ongoing occupation and war, one actor actually escaping to Germany so he couldn't take part in reshoots etc. But the film doesn't really pass moral judgment either on the human failings of the lead characters. It shows that they are flawed, difficult and sometimes cold. Jules and Jim does the same, and some people contend that Catherine in that one is a bitch who should have been firmly put in place and lugged by her long hair (check out the thread "Pussy whipped" on the JJ board!). It's the same kind of common-sense idea of love, I guess, and an added offence because in both films it's a woman that refuses to be nice and grateful and seems to act like a spoiled brat.

Mr.Hitler has made life very difficult for Shakespearian companies.

reply

[–] PillowRock 14 years ago

Taking two statements in reverse order, from the general to the specific:

Whether people like to believe it or not, movies DO advocate anything and everything. Even whether it's intentional or not, entertainers have to take the responsbility that things like this can change people's point of view and fans have to admit it.

No, movies (and plays, novels, etc.) do NOT advocate *everything* that the central characters do and say, and every attitude that they have. Romeo and Juliet is not advocating teen suicide. Bonnie and Clyde is not advocating armed robbery and shooting police officers. Glory is not espousing the point of view that war is a grand chivalrous adventure, despite the historically accurate fact that a number of characters have that attitude when they first enlist (I still remember being aghast at one newspaper reviewer claiming in print that the movie had the enlistment-time attitude of the characters); Glory in fact presented exactly the opposite view that war is a particularly nasty ring of hell (even if it is occasionally necessary).

Of course movies, a great many movies, do have definite points of view. They do take sides and advocate one thing or another. However, just because a central character does or says something does not necessarily mean that is what the movie is advocating.

And the movie DOES seem to advocate that if you do truly love someone, forget your responsbilites.

This, I don't see at all in this case. Now, IF, at the end, Garance and Baptiste were together as a couple, THEN I could see the argument that the movie was endorsing their behavior. However, the ending that we have is exactly the opposite. Everybody is screwed at the end. All of them are alone and unhappy with futures that figure to remain tormented (at least emotionally).

How is that an endorsement of the behavior that brought them all to that point? It seems to me that that would be a lot like saying the driver's ed movies showing speeders being horribly killed in traffic accidents were advocating speeding because that's what we saw the characters doing.

reply

[–] jpb58 16 years ago

I think Arletty was attractive but not beautiful (except in a few shots in this film). I think she could have been photographed better but the filming took place during difficult times -- WW 2 -- so I am sure certain make ups and lighting equiptment might have been impossible to find.

I agree it seems harsh how at the end Nathalie is trying to get Baptiste's attention. However Nathalie married Baptiste knowing that his heart belonged to another woman. She stubbornly resisted that fact but it was a fact nonetheless. Nathalie had her own ideals of what Baptiste was as a human being, she romanticized him, she tried to claim ownership over him, but women cannot own men. They are their own individuals, with their own thought patterns, feelings, life history, work ethic, etc. So many women make that mistake in marriage: "I'll change him". No, honey, you won't.

reply

[–] allenrogerj 16 years ago

"Nathalie had her own ideals of what Baptiste was as a human being"
The difference between ideals and reality is one theme of the film- does Garance only love Baptiste when she hasn't had sex with him? When Baptiste refuses her offer of sex when they first meet it is because her behaviour clashes with his idealisation of her.

"So many women make that mistake in marriage: "I'll change him". No, honey, you won't. "
A psychologist who worked with married couples said that most of the problems came about because women thought the men they married would change and men thought the women they married wouldn't change.

reply

[–] jpb58 16 years ago

There may be something to that. It's a part of human frailty not to really understand that life will change you, that it will not be all smooth sailing as it was at the beginning. Couples who are more mature and do realize that are better able to withstand the vicissitudes of life.

reply

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

you're right nut the strong script and acting save this movie for me

so many movies, so little time

reply