I was also puzzled at first by The Army of Shadows, and, apart from Lino Ventura's amazing performance, couldn't figure out what to think about it. But after some time, I have come to understand the power of the movie. With the benefit of hindsight we can say what the Resistance was working for a particular goal and that that goal was actually achieved. But the inside view is not that, and the Army of Shadows shows us that inside view of a resistance that is not predicated on believing in its ultimate victory. Like you say, this view is very bleak. But in the moment, I feel it must be how it feels, or at least it is worth showing that version of it. To me, the key to the whole thing is the opening shot of Nazis parading through the Arc de Triomphe — that's the situation the movie depicts. The Nazis have won, at this point. I think that's important to situate the proceedings. It's easy to say "well, yeah, I would have been in the Resistance, cause I don't like Nazis" — and this movie is about why this is wrong — because being in the Resistance is hopeless. If you've read Elio Vittorini's "Men and Not Men," — highly recommended — it has that similar inside view.
So then why be in the Resistance? Why walk out to Red Square to protest Soviet tanks in Czechoslovakia? Maybe you do it because you think you will win in the end, but it seems to me that's unlikely to be the main motivation. And yeah, to me, the movie is a masterpiece.
I think that point about the absurdity of joining the Resistance is important. We can't read back from the ultimate victory. Waiting for Godot is also informed by Beckett's wartime experiences, and in a similar direction: a pervasive sense of pointlessness, the determination to go on in spite of it, without any real faith that tomorrow will be different. Even the sense of camaraderie is common to the two works.
Though it's not my reaction, I can understand someone being left cold by Le Cercle Rouge, along with most of the crime films for which Melville is best and deservedly known (though Bob le Flambeur, Le Samourai, Le Doulos, Le Deuxième Souffle are all well worth seeing). You might prefer those that, like Army of Shadows, are informed by Melville's experiences in Vichy France (and in the Resistance): Léon Morin, Priest, and his feature debut Le Silence de la Mer (both of which are currently on the Criterion Channel, if you're a subscriber). They're lesser works in his overall filmography, but still quite good.
I saw Le Samourai, and I enjoyed it more than I did Le Cercle Rouge. But it's still not entirely my jam. I plan to watch Bob le Flamer and Le Doulos -- and now I'll add Léon Morin, Priest and Le Silence de la Mer to the list. Thanks!
You picked his two bleakest films, probably. I think generally his films got bleaker as they went along. They're still among his better films, however.
Melville's crime films leave me a bit cold, too. It's hard to deny his skill with the camera, the artistry behind the lens. He's a very skilled writer as well. The plots in his films are often convoluted yet meticulous in a way few American crime thrillers are. The heist scene in Le Cercle Rouge is perhaps one of the best in film history. I agree that Melville's devotion to emotionless characterization is too much. However, there are moments in Rouge that disrupt that tendency, such as the choice by Jansen to take the shot without the scope or when Vogel bursts in at the end ostensibly saving his fellow criminal but really saving the inspector. As devoted as Melville is to subdue the emotions of his gangsters he's even more devoted to ambiguity. And the two may be connected. Personally, I'd like Melville to give me a bit more to go on so that I can at least feel like I can make a good case for the meaning of a scene and the intent of its characters. He seems devoted to keeping his films a Rorschach test for the audience, forcing them to make meaning where it's not really given. For some people this may be a feature, but for me it's a bug.
I do prefer the characterization and style of acting in Army of Shadows, but like you, found it beyond tragic. I would recommend When You Read This Letter and Leon Morin, Priest. The latter is easy to find and probably the most hopeful of any of his films -- though that's a low bar. The former is quite hard to find. Contact me privately if interested. I think these two are my favorite films of his even if they're not his most masterful films. (Both are still very well made.)
I think there is some truth to the idea that Army of Shadows shows the reality of war that gave rise to the noir sensibility in the same way Vietnam (and JFK/RFK/MLK/X assassinations and Nixon) gave rise to the sensibility that produced a lot of the dark and tragic films of the late '60s and '70s, including Chinatown. It wasn't just noir that came out of WWII, either. You also had movies about drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness, etc. It's a Wonderful Life flopped in 1946. The Best Years of Our Lives was the top film that year, both financially and critically -- a movie about three veterans who return from the war, one without hands, one an alcoholic, and one with PTSD.
I haven't read enough about Melville to know if this bleak worldview was something he truly believed or if he was just pushing the hints of fatalism found in earlier noir and war films to their limit. Neorealism often did a similar thing, leaving a sense of hopelessness. With social realism, however, there is the idea that the filmmaker is spurring the audience to action and to rectify the hopelessness. I don't think the same can be said for Melville's movies.
I was also puzzled at first by The Army of Shadows, and, apart from Lino Ventura's amazing performance, couldn't figure out what to think about it. But after some time, I have come to understand the power of the movie. With the benefit of hindsight we can say what the Resistance was working for a particular goal and that that goal was actually achieved. But the inside view is not that, and the Army of Shadows shows us that inside view of a resistance that is not predicated on believing in its ultimate victory. Like you say, this view is very bleak. But in the moment, I feel it must be how it feels, or at least it is worth showing that version of it. To me, the key to the whole thing is the opening shot of Nazis parading through the Arc de Triomphe — that's the situation the movie depicts. The Nazis have won, at this point. I think that's important to situate the proceedings. It's easy to say "well, yeah, I would have been in the Resistance, cause I don't like Nazis" — and this movie is about why this is wrong — because being in the Resistance is hopeless. If you've read Elio Vittorini's "Men and Not Men," — highly recommended — it has that similar inside view.
So then why be in the Resistance? Why walk out to Red Square to protest Soviet tanks in Czechoslovakia? Maybe you do it because you think you will win in the end, but it seems to me that's unlikely to be the main motivation. And yeah, to me, the movie is a masterpiece.
I think that point about the absurdity of joining the Resistance is important. We can't read back from the ultimate victory. Waiting for Godot is also informed by Beckett's wartime experiences, and in a similar direction: a pervasive sense of pointlessness, the determination to go on in spite of it, without any real faith that tomorrow will be different. Even the sense of camaraderie is common to the two works.
Though it's not my reaction, I can understand someone being left cold by Le Cercle Rouge, along with most of the crime films for which Melville is best and deservedly known (though Bob le Flambeur, Le Samourai, Le Doulos, Le Deuxième Souffle are all well worth seeing). You might prefer those that, like Army of Shadows, are informed by Melville's experiences in Vichy France (and in the Resistance): Léon Morin, Priest, and his feature debut Le Silence de la Mer (both of which are currently on the Criterion Channel, if you're a subscriber). They're lesser works in his overall filmography, but still quite good.
I saw Le Samourai, and I enjoyed it more than I did Le Cercle Rouge. But it's still not entirely my jam. I plan to watch Bob le Flamer and Le Doulos -- and now I'll add Léon Morin, Priest and Le Silence de la Mer to the list. Thanks!
I would not say that Leon Morin, Priest is a lesser work in his filmography. I would say it's in his top tier.
You picked his two bleakest films, probably. I think generally his films got bleaker as they went along. They're still among his better films, however.
Melville's crime films leave me a bit cold, too. It's hard to deny his skill with the camera, the artistry behind the lens. He's a very skilled writer as well. The plots in his films are often convoluted yet meticulous in a way few American crime thrillers are. The heist scene in Le Cercle Rouge is perhaps one of the best in film history. I agree that Melville's devotion to emotionless characterization is too much. However, there are moments in Rouge that disrupt that tendency, such as the choice by Jansen to take the shot without the scope or when Vogel bursts in at the end ostensibly saving his fellow criminal but really saving the inspector. As devoted as Melville is to subdue the emotions of his gangsters he's even more devoted to ambiguity. And the two may be connected. Personally, I'd like Melville to give me a bit more to go on so that I can at least feel like I can make a good case for the meaning of a scene and the intent of its characters. He seems devoted to keeping his films a Rorschach test for the audience, forcing them to make meaning where it's not really given. For some people this may be a feature, but for me it's a bug.
I do prefer the characterization and style of acting in Army of Shadows, but like you, found it beyond tragic. I would recommend When You Read This Letter and Leon Morin, Priest. The latter is easy to find and probably the most hopeful of any of his films -- though that's a low bar. The former is quite hard to find. Contact me privately if interested. I think these two are my favorite films of his even if they're not his most masterful films. (Both are still very well made.)
I think there is some truth to the idea that Army of Shadows shows the reality of war that gave rise to the noir sensibility in the same way Vietnam (and JFK/RFK/MLK/X assassinations and Nixon) gave rise to the sensibility that produced a lot of the dark and tragic films of the late '60s and '70s, including Chinatown. It wasn't just noir that came out of WWII, either. You also had movies about drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness, etc. It's a Wonderful Life flopped in 1946. The Best Years of Our Lives was the top film that year, both financially and critically -- a movie about three veterans who return from the war, one without hands, one an alcoholic, and one with PTSD.
I haven't read enough about Melville to know if this bleak worldview was something he truly believed or if he was just pushing the hints of fatalism found in earlier noir and war films to their limit. Neorealism often did a similar thing, leaving a sense of hopelessness. With social realism, however, there is the idea that the filmmaker is spurring the audience to action and to rectify the hopelessness. I don't think the same can be said for Melville's movies.