Talk:Le Corbeau

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research / Lack of references
There are several statements in this article like "Artistic considerations of life do not always fit easily into ideological schemas and a wide range of readings of a cultural object can be produced" which seem to come out of nowhere, and are either the author's opinion or quotes from an unnamed introductary book on film criticism. It makes the whole article sound rather unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.246.199 (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The analysis of the film is too long and full of theoretical padding. More objectivity would improve it.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire "Analysis" section came from just one edit by an anonymous IP, more than four and a half years ago. Since then, nobody really tackled it, though it dominates the article.
 * I admire the work gone in to this, but it is the kind of personal reflection and interpretation that belongs on a personal website, not on WP. If the edit were done today, it would not survive. Editing it down is too daunting a task: how about removing the entire thing and creating room for a compact paragraph from scratch. Superp (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly
If anyone wants to edit this analysis to something acceptable, you're welcome, but it does not belong on the page at all.

Analysis
The place of production, the content, and the importance of the surrounding political and social context, particularly in matters of an ideological nature are all factors which can influence the reception of a film and the construction of its dominant readings. These factors played an important role in the critical reception of Le Corbeau (The Raven, 1943) directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot. On release it became popular among French film-goers. It was immediately banned after the liberation. More controversially there were punishments meted out to most of the people involved in the film's production. Among the most vituperative critics there were calls for execution of the most important people involved. The recent release of the film on an Optimum DVD with an English commentary by Ginette Vincendeau brings in a range of possible readings which are not raised in the main general histories of French cinema.

These attacks were the result of two major political forces playing for the hearts and minds of the French people. They had little to do with the content of the film which can be read as the most strongly anti-fascist film of occupied France. The film is also opposed to the authoritarian moral and political values of the French Right. It does not offer any solutions to the corrupt society it depicts—it was after all, produced under conditions of occupation. Fictional films and other art forms are not political programmes and do not have to be prescriptive, arguably they can be more powerful when they are not prescriptive but raise issues to be worked through. People who can reach their own conclusions about subsequent proceedings.

Le Corbeau's content was against the authoritarian right. It also struck a sour note with the voices of the French resistance which had a very strong core element belonging to the Stalinist communist party and the aesthetic of socialist realism. For both Communists and Gaullists the immediate post-war aims were to excise the shame of occupation. Anything which could be deemed to have been an aspect of collaboration was seen as anti-French. The Stalinist left considered the film as 'decadent' and 'demoralizing'.

"Clouzot's image of a France in which only a few outcasts and malcontents could behave with a semblance of morality and good will was completely unacceptable for those trying to promote a very different image of a nation capable of unity, collective heroism and self-sacrifice in the face of a powerful enemy."

Clouzot was banned from film making for two years after the war, the actors as well as the crew members and Le Corbeau production designer André Andrejew received shorter bans. Clouzot made a successful return making popular suspense thrillers which owed much to the style of Le Corbeau which Williams (1992) describes as a 'masterpiece'.

The initial reception of the film and the continued popularity of Clouzot after his exile show that a significant number of the French public was voting favourably with its feet. They were making readings of the film which accorded neither with Nazi, Stalinist nor traditional French authoritarianism. Artistic considerations of life do not always fit easily into ideological schemas and a wide range of readings of a cultural object can be produced. The conditions of reception influence the creation of a dominant reading. The film was produced by Continental Films, the German-run production company established in the early months of the war as a subsidiary of Tobis. Films produced by this company received constant criticism from the underground press organised by the resistance.

The film itself consistently denounced bourgeois values by mocking the leading citizens of a small town in France. The scriptwriter Louis Chavance had worked with Jean Vigo, the anarchist filmmaker, as the film editor of L'Atalante. The script had first been drafted by Chavance in 1933. It was based upon a true story of a woman in a small town who had deluged it with poison-pen letters. It was continuously rejected as too risky on commercial and political grounds. Ironically, if not for the existence of Continental Films and its policy of creating and supporting a strong French film industry, the film would never have been made. Filmmakers working with Continental suffered less censorship and had better budgets than the Vichy controlled production companies.

The contents of the film would have been unlikely to pass French film censors as the film was anti-authoritarian, anti-Vichy as well as anti-Nazi in a number of ways. The plot features a doctor who was an abortionist as its leading actor, this in itself could only offend the Catholic right. The doctor's lover who was rather promiscuous had a minor deformity of the foot. These meant that the film offended both Vichy moralism and Nazi eugenics theories and practices. The plot is about a person in the village who writes anonymous letters which eventually lead to suspicion, a suicide and ultimately a murder.

The perpetrator of the letters—a seemingly respectable citizen—is finally revealed as a mad intelligence in the form of the psychiatrist. The film openly asks a question which many in France may have found difficult to stomach at that time. Questioning the easy division of life into issues of good and evil a lamp is swung which creates differing patterns of shadow and light. The commentary asks where the borders between good and evil are, asking whether people know which side they are on?

Any film at the time would be seen as having an allegorical reference to the occupation. It could be seen as avoiding crucial issues which combined with the gloomy mise en scene and the atmospherics of violence present within the film were interpreted as very pessimistic by many left film critics. Perhaps its popularity at the time of release struck a chord with the French viewing publics who had to adjust to the realities and difficulties of occupation, which threw up in real life a continuous series of unwelcome situations requiring decisions to be made about the depth and breadth of compliance necessary.

The film certainly touched upon the reality of the Occupation. Many letters of denunciation were sent to the Vichy and Nazi authorities. The issue was to remain a highly sensitive one for decades. In the early 1970s a representation of this in Louis Malle's film Lacombe Lucien raised a storm of protest not least from critics such as Michel Foucault who dubbed the film as a right-wing plot. This shortfall in Foucault's libertarian politics showed just how difficult it was for the French, and indeed any occupied to nation, to work through the realities of the occupation years.

Film noir
The film can be read as a film noir style thriller. What is interesting about the concept of Film noir is that the original term was invented by French film critics who viewed the backlog of American thrillers such as Double Indemnity and Laura immediately after the war was over. They considered it as an American 'genre' with some antecedents in German Expressionism in film. This ignored the development of the French poetic realist pre-war films and also ignored the fact that many German film makers spent some time in France before going to Germany. Europe can be said to have made a strong contribution to the development of film noir during the war through Clouzot's Le Corbeau  and also Luchino Visconti's Ossessione. Arguably the French critics of the time were in denial of the French wartime experience and with Clouzot in the doghouse they preferred to ignore these strands to the genre. The existence of this European strand of noir in Europe itself and the ways in which it developed allow us the opportunity to develop a reading of the noir thriller as being not a so much a critique of modernity and the city as an allegory for the shadow of fascism and Nazism which fell over the whole of Europe.

Gender relations
Vincendeau's 2005 comments on the DVD develop an interesting range of comments on how the film can be read as a crisis of masculinity for the French male. Neither the Doctor played by the important star Pierre Fresnay nor the psychiatrist come across as powerful men in control of their work, destiny or the situation. The psychiatrist's betrayal of the town and his wife could easily be linked to Vichydom whilst Dr. Germain could be seen as a failed example of French leadership. The character of the town playgirl played by another French star Ginette Leclerc is a spirited one. Vicendeau's opinion is that far from being a typical femme fatale who is ultimately punished for her ways, her sexuality, intelligence and honesty about herself shine through in the film against the weaknesses and dishonesty of the male characters.

Removal of analysis section
I noticed the removal of the analysis section by user talk:87.68.74.45 was reverted twice as "vandalism". I think this is a misunderstanding. I am, incidentally, not that IP.

Firstly, the IP left a note here and copied the removed content here, too.

I already made the point that this personal essay was "dumped" here by an anonymous IP many moons ago and proposed to remove it. I applaud the removal of the section: finally, the article is usable. Superp (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that the second time, after my revert, that IP did put there a reason why he deleted that text. And he might have been right, as (althought I haven't had time to read that through myself) there were essay and original research notice templates. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 10:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems that you already deleted that essay text, and that's good. After having a bit deeper look on it, I have to say I now agree with you. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I rm'd it after your first note above. I reviewed it again to see if there was any salvageable content, but I think there is not, certainly not sourced. Thanks for your input. Cheers. Superp (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Production
Thanks for your edits,, but can you please clarify what "If officially credited as adapting the film and with along with Chavance, the dialogue." is supposed to say? Ribbet32 (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry about that. I've tried to clarify it a bit better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of French Cinema I, 1895-1960
— Assignment last updated by Elsahughes (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)