MovieChat Forums > La cérémonie (1996) Discussion > Not as simple as it seems at first sight

Not as simple as it seems at first sight

posted 20 years ago by EdgarST
25 replies | jump to latest

I do not think Jeanne hates or envies anybody in particular. For her the Lelièvre family is a living proof of the unfair distribution of world's wealth (which, in the end, belongs to every single human being on planet Earth.) Social resentment is the key, I think, and she makes Sophie a bit conscious, even questioning false Catholic charity among the poor. Melinda also helps in this direction, but for different reasons, she may have the "bad conscience" of the bourgeoisie. Jeanne is not taking revenge from anybody: in any case, it's the revenge of one social class (the poor) against the one that deprives it of living with dignity (because even those who chose to be poor -in many cases it is a choice-, cannot live their frugality with dignity: people are pushed into misery, especially in these neo-liberal days.) But Chabrol avoids being direct about these issues, because the story is richer than that: it is obvious that besides their rage for social inequality, Jeanne and Sophie are not psychologically healthy.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] afarkuz 18 years ago

this is not the way of making a political film. i am afraid it is just a film of an ill-minded couple. it is so but great as well.

[–] sr_wolfrider 17 years ago

[this is not the way of making a political film. i am afraid it is just a film of an ill-minded couple.]

No Chabrol film is as simple minded as that.

Last film seen: Robert Bresson's Pickpocket - Brilliant!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053168/

[–] cengelm 17 years ago

Usually the rich are the bad guys. Here it's reversed. Watch FUNNY GAMES for more!

[–] Jesstears 17 years ago

Regarding Funny Games (and accept my apologizes for bringing it into a board about another movie), do you think the guys were there because they are rich or because they are evil and these remote getaways served as a perfect place to pull off their crimes?

//Signed//
Nikki
Blogger

[–] cengelm 17 years ago

because they are rich or because they are evil

I think that the psychopaths in FUNNY GAMES are mainly evil and don't have any social/revolutionary thoughts.

[–] Jesstears 17 years ago

But what's ironic about the whole "proof" theory is the Jeanne died and the priest was cleared because there wasn't any "proof" that it was done on purpose (if it was done on purpose). So, its the notion of what goes around comes around.

In the case of Sophie, she killed her father, but there wasn't "proof" as to her being responsible. But, she (as well as Jeanne) got her just desert when the killing of the family was caught on tape. How interesting.

And though this wasn't a political film it definitely was a film of class struggle either by default or by choice (in the case of Jeanne). I say Jeanne because she despised the well off so much it blinded her from obtaining her own. JMHO.

//Signed//
Nikki
Blogger

[–] artihcus022 16 years ago

And though this wasn't a political film it definitely was a film of class struggle either by default or by choice (in the case of Jeanne).

Well Chabrol once described this film as "the last Marxist film" perhaps jokingly. It is a very political film needless to say.

There's a sense in which the film marks a return in politics for you.

Yes. My last political film was Poulet au vinaigre. What I was interested in then was to show the provincial bourgeoisie as starkly as possible, not in too heavy a way, but so that that critique was definitely a feature of the film. Subsequently, I found no particularly stimulating social phenomena to observe. And it is only now, in the past two years, that I am beginning to reconsider. I had a conversation with a young hooligan which left me with a feeling that society was about to explode, or implode rather, because it's not just a marginal phenomenon. So I decided to make something of this feeling, but not in too precise a documentary way. Just as well, because Mathieu Kassowitz's La Haine makes the point much better than I could have done. Our films are related, in that they reflect the beginnings of this explosion. He sees it as an explosion. I see it as an implosion.

http://zakka.dk/euroscreenwriters/interviews/claude_chabrol_02.htm

The film isn't about oppressed poor versus exploiting rich, it's more deranged poor vs. hapless and unintelligent bourgeoisie. A very chaotic nightmare situation.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

[–] Mixalidis 13 years ago

Well, that's how I interpreted it anyway: the clash of social classes. I never felt the characters were real people, so I was able to see them as representatives of their social status only.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

"Even questioning false Catholic charity".

She seemed no more socially conscious than a carrot growing out of the headland.

"It´s the revenge of one social class (the poor) against the one that deprives it of living in dignity".

How does anyone "deprive" either one of them of a dignified life? The job of a file clerk is not dignified? I suppose it´s not necessarily very moral to have one person serve the others as Bonnaire does, but you´re talking as if she were a galley slave or something.

"People are pushed into misery, especially in these neo-liberal days".

Wtf? What on earth does "neo-liberalism" have to do with anything? I guess one should point out that the poverty rates aren´t anywhere near as high in the more liberal European countries than they are in the US. And, at any rate, nobody we see in La Ceremonie is living in misery.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] nutsberryfarm 11 years ago

where do you get those carrots? whole foods?

We have a pool and a pond...pond be good for you.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

How does anyone "deprive" either one of them of a dignified life?

This is a complex question to which the answer is not easy and I can't answer it directly. The film explores servitude. Sophie is the 'maid' (it's a bit more than that though) to a wealthy family who seem, for the most part, reasonable and nice people. We aren't given much to suggest they are otherwise beyond Catherine's irritation that Sophie leaves the Sunday of Melinda's birthday even though Sophie advised her in advance that she would leave. It's clear that Sophie doesn't have a contract; reinforced by Georges when he fires her. She has no boundaries and seems to work every day. That is a form of exploitation even though Sophie doesn't seem aware of this.

A file clerk's dignity is a two-fold thing; their sense of internal dignity and the external attitude of others, which may support or deny the person's dignity. I think it is fair to say that some would consider the job of a file clerk important and with their attitude confer dignity. Others would not and would confer contempt or complacency. Sophie's role as the 'maid' - is it dignified, or not? That's the question.

I think the Don Giovanni opera is a deliberate choice that links the pair of murderesses and the family. Which ones represent Giovanni and his morally dubious behaviour? I think it could be either. Jeanne's gossip about the family is not countered in the film and it's left open as to whether or not what she says of them is true. Equally the murderesses could be Giovanni equivalents.

I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

As noted, the concept of servants is certainly an anachronistic one and doesn't jibe too well with modern views on equality, personal freedom & dignity etc. Although I suppose if both parties see such an arrangement as desirable... well, no reason to outlaw it or some such.

The file clerk issue, however, eludes me - it's a good, honest job performed in favourable conditions of some office and actually up a notch from the blue collar world. And I'd imagine very few people even give clerks any thought, positive or negative; these aren't the kinds of people one often as much as really notices.

Now, of course, I'd essentially also argue that pretty much any blue collar job is "good and honest", as well, but in reality, everyone is aware of how lowly a construction worker, for instance, is ranking in society's hierarchy - especially the construction worker himself (and I haven't met a working class type that doesn't completely disassociate his identity from what he does for a living... not that they're wrong to do it, of course, but still...) I've done such manual labour myself and always felt a bit uneasy deep down.

In all, I wasn't convinced by the narrative/character dynamics in Le Ceremonie, as the woes of the worker chicks were so out of whack with their ultimate actions that Chabrol simply HAD to make them mentally unstable... but, then again, mentally unstable can and do lash out against anything their delusional mind sees as unfair or oppressive. So what's it say about society or capitalism? Maybe I should take another look at the film though.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

The view society gives a file clerk, or any blue collar worker, is not one I hold necessarily. But where societal worth is measured by money and "achievement" such jobs will not be valued or considered dignified.

I don't know how convinced I was about the character dynamics between Sophie and Jeanne although as individual characters they were drawn quite well, especially Sophie. I think Chabrol made the Lelievre family too opaque and 'nice' in contrast to Sophie and Jeanne so that if he was making comments about capitalism and society (and I think he was) then they had less impact. At the most the actions of some of the family seem complacent: Catherine can't have checked Sophie's reference letter properly, since we know her claim to previous employment was fraud. Melinda seems to believe Sophie is being exploited but tells Sophie this in a careless way and makes little if any comment to her father and step-mother. The family don't give Sophie a contract. Etc.

I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

[–] MrEdnablackadder 10 years ago

I wouldn't say that making the characters of Sophie and Jeanne insane was Chabrol's choice. Here he's adapting a Rendell novel which was inspired by the real life Papin murder case and, most importantly, by Genet's play, "The Maids", an echo of which is very strong. That's where the title actually comes from: in the play, the 'ceremony' is the time of the day when Claire and Solange free their deepest impulses and achieve their ambitions through role playing, with the first replacing Madame and the second standing up to her. Chabrol isn't making a real social statement in the film; this is really a story about the human condition in general, focusing on themes such as desire, oppression, role change. Resentment is a very inherent part of servitude for Genet and that's also an important component of both Sophie and Claire, the first being a maid and the second having a position that doesn't give her power on anyone (which is what she really envies).

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

Is this the case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_and_Léa_Papin It's grisly and far worse than we see in the film. I'm not familiar with Genet's playl.

this is really a story about the human condition in general, focusing on themes such as desire, oppression, role change. Resentment is a very inherent part of servitude for Genet and that's also an important component of both Sophie and Claire, the first being a maid and the second having a position that doesn't give her power on anyone

Hmmm, whether Chabrol intended it or not, the film offers social comment. Jeanne's comments to Sophie about being 'exploited', which are echoed in Melinda's, are direct social comment.

Also, a director always has a choice in how they adapt material. According to others he exercised creative license with Rendell's novel in other ways and could have done so with the sanity of his main characters too.

I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

[–] MrEdnablackadder 10 years ago

Is this the case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_and_Léa_Papin It's grisly and far worse than we see in the film

Exactly.

Hmmm, whether Chabrol intended it or not, the film offers social comment. Jeanne's comments to Sophie about being 'exploited', which are echoed in Melinda's, are direct social comment.

Well, I'm sure that's what attracted the prime master of the anti-bourgeois dramas in the first place, but then again, they're secondary themes and they are portrayed under a rather universal point of view as opposed to a contemporary one, as several of his previous works were. In a story about a servant-master relationship, you obviously have to establish their social differences.

Also, a director always has a choice in how they adapt material. According to others he exercised creative license with Rendell's novel in other ways and could have done so with the sanity of his main characters too.

True, I was addressing people who thought it was his choice and a convenient one. Also, this is a component of the story that would be hard to change without changing its whole meaning/spirit. And, if you're not familiar with Genet's play, believe me: mentally stable counterparts of Claire and Solange wouldn't really work. :-)

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

So what is the primary theme (or themes) for you? Also, I don't understand the distinction you make between a universal versus a contemporary view point.

I'm not familiar with the Genet play to know how his characters behave in comparison to Sophie and Jeanne in this film. The gruesome behaviour of the sisters in the real life case does not have any counterpart in the film though I thought Jeanne was very odd. Sophie was less so but I was left with the distinct impression that she was more dangerous than Jeanne. Sophie was contained and unknown in comparison to Jeanne.

I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

[–] MrEdnablackadder 10 years ago

So what is the primary theme (or themes) for you? Also, I don't understand the distinction you make between a universal versus a contemporary view point.

The film focuses on the master/servant relationship, which is an immortal and universal theme. Chabrol's main concern here is not to paint an insightful portrayal of the modern French bourgeoisie, as he had done in "La femme infidèle" or "Just avant la nuit"- also considering that the Lelievre family is very much in the rear for the entire movie. And, for master/servant relationship, I don't just mean one between an employer and his employee, but between a figure possessing some kind of power and authority and one that doesn't.

As I already told you, I think the other main themes are ambition, jealousy, role change, sense of repression/oppression.

The gruesome behaviour of the sisters in the real life case does not have any counterpart in the film though I thought Jeanne was very odd.

The modes of the killing might be different, but it remains that Christine and Léa slaughtered their employers. Also, the dynamics between the two sisters is similar between that of Sophie and Jeanne, with the second being the driving force that changes the other's life and actions. We don't know what would have happened had they never met.

Sophie being potentially more dangerous than Jeanne is also something that fits Genet's vision of the story, as the play starts with Claire being portrayed as the feverishly extroverted half and Solange as the quietly passive element, but then the situation is very much reversed.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

To me this film explores envy and murderousness. These feelings are framed within a class context. Jeanne is deeply envious of the Lelièvres and she makes up tales about them to justify her contempt, which flows from her envy. Combined is her dissociated murderousness; I'm not sure she believes she killed her daughter purposely. Sophie is more complex; she's a silent killer within and we don't have the same strong sense of her as we do Jeanne. Sophie is shame-ridden from being illiterate but we are left to guess at the life she had with her father that meant she was uneducated and killed him.

The comparison with Funny Games is an interesting one; as with many Chabrol films there's a lightness in the exploration of dark things which is sort of present in the mockery within Funny Games.

I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 9 years ago

To me, this film is not about how the privileged ones treat the less privileged ones (as you acknowledge), but rather it is from the view-point of the less privileged ones, and is about the frustrations, insecurities and envy of the under-privileged.

Sophie has an insecurity regarding her inability to read and that reflects in her hatred towards books and those who can make use of them. This is one reason why she tries to hide the fact that she cannot read.

Jeanne's insecurity is with respect to money and social status and she makes fun of those with them. Both of them deal with obsessions.

Their frustrations combine and manifest in the form of will to destroy those who have what they don't even if the privileged had not directly wronged them in any form.

[–] cheer88 9 years ago

I don't think the inequality of social classes had too much bearing of this movie. Maybe the original novel had that element in the story. However, Claude Chabrol took the story into different directions. It is a thriller movie which of course involved psychopathic killings. Jeanne and Sophie were pair of psychopathics bounded by their murderous past. If you ever read those true crime stories committed by pairs like "Cold Blood", "Judgement Ridge" you would find the similarities between them. There were no reasonable causes for these murders happened. The only reason they happened is because those psychopathics wanted to kill. They are human predators who always look for their next victims when the opportunity presents they would follow their animal instinct and take it. That was what happened to the end of the movie. The pretentious kindness and nice personalities were the cover for their demons. They took leisures from miseries of others which were also well documented in this film. It might be not understandable for normal mind sets. However, it's all too obvious to psychopathic ones.

[–] TinaKimo 9 years ago

Just finished this movie on TCM ondemand. Must say I absolutely hated the postmistress. Her jealousy/envy was too much for me to bare. It's any wonder, had Sophie not met Jeanne, would Sophie had committed murder again? Just awful. Good film, but I don't want to watch again.

