#23
Post
by therewillbeblus » Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:37 pm
“What’s proven is that the human kingdom is an absurdity!” one man shouts in the midst of a farcical argument at the start of the film, characters talking passed one another assuming the other is able to see their point, which will serve as an accurate summation of the events (often simple interactions) that populate the rest of the film. The narrative initially finds humor and pathos in the broader peculiarities of coexisting with others, living one’s life with socially rigid attitudes based on both societal norms and personal ambitions, while still searching for peace of mind. The insanity of this position is explored with barriers of communication targeting the difficulties of true comprehension amongst people through language, a self-reflexively ironic choice for a playwright so reliant on dialogue as his greatest strength for connecting to his audiences. However, as Pagnol settles into the plot, moving away from the larger scope of the community at a mezzo-systemic level and honing in on the baker’s own relationship with his wife, the situation becomes more sensitive.
Still, Pagnol knows how to tow the line between laughing at, and feeling for, this tragedy of the impossibility of true human connection. There is plenty of sexual innuendo that feels wildly risqué for the time, as well as painfully oblivious communication breakdowns that Pagnol expertly shines a keen eye to, letting us in on the jokes and the horrors of the consequences of these misinterpretations with equal measure and often within the same scene. Pagnol hits on complex ego drives of pride and morality, as well as more reptilian- but no less powerful- drives of sex and fear, to draw a full composite of the internal battles of man, ranging from passive rationalizations to the kind of suppression that takes all of one’s will to isolate their perspective for the sake of their psyche. The absurdism lies in continuing to make these futile attempts at communicating and working through issues externally, while recognizing that the very same goals act as a barrier to harmony amongst mankind.
Like in the ‘Marius’ films, Pagnol’s psychological examination fluctuates back and forth between the community and smaller pairings. Contrasting attitudes of schadenfreude and empathy are seamlessly merged amongst group discussions regarding the baker’s situation, which normalizes their responses while also making a biting commentary at the selfishness of the individuals, divorced from the ideologies of the collective that they hypocritically embrace. Gossipy wives spout Christian doctrines about relinquishing judgment while talking about the wife’s “disgusting” behavior in the same sentence. Characters such as the priest announce the misfortune to the town, shaming the baker unaware, nonchalantly rationalizing his act from his narrow perspective of the greater good, intentions not impure but highlighting the inherent solipsism preventing communal engagement and the inability to take responsibility by nature of a refusal to part with the self toward true empathy. See also how all community members sympathize with the baker until they realize they are being affected by his refusal to make bread! Pagnol seems to be suggesting that in societies, where socio-political laws of human behavior reign, the politics governing behavior stunt emotional access, and ultimately prevents true connection. This ‘connection’ does not discriminate in its definition as it’s equally inhibited between men as it is between a man and his own self, and either way the effect contributes to creating a paradox. It is human nature to strive for this connection, just as it’s human nature preventing its occurrence, though instead of taking a nihilistic blanket view that humans are incapable of connecting emotionally at all Pagnol rests his thesis on man’s socio-political constructions, namely ideological influence from systemic values and mores as perhaps not the source but the significant variables that exacerbate this disconnect.
Raimu absolutely nails the lead role here, just as he stole every scene as César in Pagnol’s ‘Marius’ trilogy, with equal parts loud, abrasive, and reactionary social behavior as well as intensely subdued dramatic temperament. His comfort within a quieter performance in expressive volume highlights his fragility in identity, exploring the failures at meeting socially imposed responsibilities of traditional masculine gender roles and revealing existential layers of hope and hopelessness, all contesting due to the disability of emotional restriction. The supporting players are all excellent, well-developed colorful characters, that perfectly slip into their respective roles firing Pagnol’s snappy dialogue with a degree of narcissism that renders a feeling of innocence despite the dangers of this mindset, playfully cheeky and fitting to the themes of Pagnol’s works. The presentation of clashing social contexts within one agreed-upon collective could be described as precursors to the comedies-of-manners to come, but for and about the common man, though he takes the style deeper and more complex than many of those later films do in that subgenre. Pagnol continues to have fun with his milieu up until the very end, culminating in a hysterical plot based on the collective diffusion of free will (another key theme of the film, coming from the priest, emphasizing the unbearable weight of carrying this responsibility) in order to bring back the wife, also geared around religious and communal beliefs amplified by groupthink.
However, as the baker enters deeper into his own disintegrating psychological crisis throughout the narrative, Pagnol risks his audience’s engagement in the pleasures of cinema by breaking through the objective theatrical distance in setup, sacrificing a continuity of moods to hit emotional nerves that rattled me unexpectedly. Raimu’s own existential crisis in the final scene is a chaotically jarring exhibition of his inner explosion of anxious distress as a result of his own emotional incompetence wrestling between his broken inner connection and connection to higher ideals. It’s a scene that’s rough and authentic, a place where the baker’s hope and hopelessness have met reality and in the surrender of the existential his emotions take the reigns, as aggressively as one could only expect from underdeveloped traits with no inner map for direction toward catharsis.
That Pagnol can end the film with small levels of hope and warmth without sacrificing his worldview is a testament to his penmanship and auteurist eye for authenticity, and only feels earned because of his faith in humanism rather than a faith in outcomes. I’m glad to be given the opportunity to discover another of his films and hope the CC keeps restoring them.
