“The Army of Crime” is a French World War II based film directed by Robert Guédiguian. The film was released in 2009 and is considered a drama, history, and war movie in terms of the genre. Throughout the paper, I am going to discuss the main point of the film, especially the impact the characters made on the film. On top of the obvious main theme, the background of the film is of upmost importance, as are comparisons to other films including those watched in class and foreign versus American films as a whole.
Right off the bat, I felt the very first scene in this film was an excellent attention-getter. People are riding on a bus, and there is a female naming people, while a male followed each name with “Died for France.” I was extremely intrigued into what this meant for the remaining duration of the film.
When watching the film, it comes across as having an abundance of main characters. The main purpose of the film is to create an era in which communists, and even Jewish people, are accepted in France, while trying to entirely get rid of the German-Nazi rule in France at the time.
In reality, the group that the German’s considered “The Army of Crime,” was committing terrorist acts on German soldiers in France. Within the first 45 minutes of the film, Thomas, one of the main characters, placed a bomb in one of Karl Marx’s books. A gathering was taking place in a library, which included Germans and also some local French citizens. Thomas placed the book inside the library, came outside, and detonated the bomb. The explosion killed and injured German soldiers as well as the native French people that were there.
So, the main theme of the film may be creating acceptance for Jewish people and communists in France, but the main subject seems to be terrorism. To me, it comes across as the film reflects more of a Russian and German way of life, more than a French way of life. Per the data provided on www.boxofficemojo.com, “Army of Crime” did not fare too well in the theaters. The film did not manage to gross $2 million worldwide. 96 percent off the gross income from the film came from foreign countries, while a mere three percent came in the United States.
This information tells me that people, especially citizens of France, did not take an exceptional liking to the film because of the involvement of terror that was taken place on France. Personally, if this was an American film and it included German terror on America, for example, it would not be a film I wanted to go out of my way to see. People don’t like even the thought of a terror attack on their own country, but with the world we live in now, terror has been brought to the forefront throughout the world. I would be interested in seeing the financial differences if this film was released in January, 2017 versus 2009.
There is an abundance of characters shown in the film; a lot can seem like main characters. The two absolute main characters are Missak Manouchian and Melinee Manouchian. Missak is played by Simon Abkarian while Melinee is played by Virginie Ledoyen.
Missak is a poet and comes across as being slightly successful at it. He embodies a very ethical personality, as he states numerous times throughout the film. Missak is very entrained in his communist roots and was captured by French police and taken to a former German concentration camp for his communist beliefs. There was a theme the German soldiers had throughout the film: “For every German shot, 10 communists will be shot.” In other words, for every German that the “Army of Crime” or any French-communist killed, 10 communists would then be killed.
When Missak was taken away to the camp, three of the people he shared a cell or room with ended up being killed because of this. He was freed from the camp after he signed a paper agreeing that he was of no communist beliefs. When I talk about his ethics, Missak believed in no violence. While he was not a complete pessimist, he refused to do any killing of the Germans. He was urged by some of the members of “The Amy of Crime” to still learn how to shoot, even though he did not have to kill. When he was urged to do so, he would always refer to his ethical values.
Melinee is more of a quiet character but can be very loud and vocal when she needs to be. When Missak was taken away, Melinee went to her parent’s house and spoke about how she needed to be the one to save him. She has a very outgoing and caring personality, and those traits can be extremely attractive. Let’s face it: any variance of romance in a film will make it better.
I think that all of the characters in this film come across as real people. If the entirety of the film was non-fiction, it would be easy for a viewer to believe that this is how people were during that time period of the early 1940’s. Even with the film being semi-fictional, you still get a good sense of what type of country France was back then. Characters come across as strong, passionate, and extremely smart. I got the vibe that a lot of the younger characters in the film were very self-absorbed and hot-headed, for lack of a better term. It felt that they would do anything in their power to fulfill the goal they had.
As I stated in the opening paragraph, the film could fit into three genres: war, horror, and history. However, the horror and history genres are the most poignant genres that the film fits into. According to www.imbd.com, this is considered a semi-fictional film, thus fitting it into the history genre.
When we think of the word “terror,” a synonym that likely always comes to mind is “horror.” This film is based around terrorism committed by communists in France against German soldiers as well as native citizens of France. Wouldn’t the bomb that was placed in the library by Thomas be considered a horror act? It would. Horror is the most prominent genre that this film should be placed into.
Wikipedia says that the director of the film was involved with the French Communist Party until 2008. Wikipedia is not always the most reliable source of information, so I will be including this on my bibliography, but it will not be one of my four most prominent sources of information. However, I found this bit of information to be specifically interesting. One would think that this information about Guédiguian would lead people in France to not want to go to the theaters and see the movie.
If any previews about what the film was about were released or made known to the public prior to the release date of the film, that would definitely play a major part in the success of the film. So, with the director playing a part in the French Communist Party, it is no surprise to me that the film had the message it did. It is obviously something that the director believes in, and that’s fine. However, it may have ended up hurting his cause in terms of the success of the film.
When talking about social class, there are a wide variety of social classes that are represented in this film. As the film progresses, you notice the variety in social class that include the wealthy or upper class, the white-collar middle class (or the bourgeois), and the blue-collar middle class. Monique, the mother of Thomas, owns her own restaurant. The restaurant was portrayed to be somewhat successful and thus would reel in money for the family. Thomas and his family all dress very nicely, including Thomas wearing a jacket and a tie to school. They would be part of the wealthy or white-collar middle class.
Missak and Melinee are interesting characters in terms of figuring out their social class. Missak is a poet and Melinee is not shown having any type of employment throughout the film. However, the two dress extremely nicely, leading me to believe that they are apart of either the white-collar middle class or the blue-collar middle class. I would lean more towards the white-collar middle class, as the two are not shown doing any manual labor or hard work throughout the film.
I think what made this film enticing to watch was that there was a lot of tension provided throughout the film. Mainly, that tension came from the conflict of “The Army of Crime” being so pro-communism and very anti-German. Olga, another character in the film played by Olga Legrand, was married to Alexandre, played by Alexandru Potocean, and the two were advised not to be seen together in public based on their communist beliefs. This led to a scuffle taking place in a bar room.
Tension arose when Marcel, played by Robinson Stevenin, was captured and sent to a French camp for being communist. That led to Henri, played by Adrian Jolivet, shooting three German officers in response. Also, this was when Thomas blew up the library that contained German soldiers. The whole film is based around the conflict of communism beliefs that provoked terror. The conflict made the film a better all-around film.
There are two films that we have watched in class that I would compare “Army of Crime” to. The first film is the very first film we watched this semester called “The Grand Illusion.” Towards the end of that film, two French soldiers escaped from German capture and were trekking across the country. They stumbled upon a German woman who took the two soldiers in for a little while. That German woman went against everything that her country believed in by “holding” two French hostages.
The going-against-your-country aspect is what is similar with “Army of Crime.” The group goes against the beliefs of France by still holding strong to communism, and provokes terror on their own native country. While the two examples are completely different, they still deliver the same message of going against your country.
“Days of Glory” would be the second film that I compare “Army of Crime” to. I would not compare it in terms of the theme of the film, as “Days of Glory” had non-native French soldiers diligently fighting for their country while “Army of Crime” had native French citizens reeking terror on their own country. They are similar in the emotional aspects; the pride that is shown towards their common goals really stands out.
My overall opinion on the film was that I thought it was a very solid picture. It held my attention for the entire duration, even though the film was very slow to develop most of the time. I really enjoyed the flashbacks that occurred from time to time within the film. The one that really caught my attention was earlier in the film, Monique had gone to the police to discuss an odd, sulfuric smell coming from the homes of one of her tenants. The man eventually left the apartment complex and held a brief conversation with Monique.
Towards the tail end of the film, the movie cut back to the scene of the man leaving the apartment and holding that same, short conversation with Monique. The man walked into a restaurant, where he sat down at a table with Henri, and the police showed up with guns raised. When I realized that the flashback was happening, I thought of it as an important element of the film because of how it clearly showed the how the film had progressed from one point to the next.
I really enjoyed the commentary between the characters in this film. The dialogue never came across as dull, and when it did, the conversations seemed to be important so I never lost interest. The film was powerful because it perfectly portrayed the message of terror it was trying to get across. It showed how if you go against your country, it may not always turn out well. Even towards the end of the film when some of the 22 members of “The Army of Crime” were shown being arrested, you knew that they achieved their goal.
Overall, even 22 people can cause so much harm. Ultimately, that is the way of the world we live in today. When not sharing the same viewpoints, even one person can cause so much harm. I was pleased to have the opportunity to watch and analyze this film.