Au Revoir, Les Enfants is a semi-autobiographical, fictionalized account of Malle’s own childhood experiences during Nazi occupation. The title translated into English, “Goodbye Children” refers both to the tragic departing at narrative’s end, as well as the general loss of innocence that accompanies an adolescent’s transition into adulthood. Overall its quite a beautiful yet heartbreaking piece of cinema. Dealing largely with the war yet almost ignoring its presence onscreen, it instead utilizes the microcosm of a small boys Catholic school to showcase the grander effects of the miserable conflict outside.
The film focuses largely on Julien Quentin, Malle’s own surrogate whom is often set in moral ambiguity among his peers. Opposite him is the seemingly mysterious newcomer Bonnet, later revealed to be a Jew in hiding. While one could easily spend a good deal of time discussing the emotional and humanistic impact of Malle’s personal work, I find that this would be quite redundant. For one, its a given and has been contextualized by many sources to death. Instead I will focus on a particular visual motif that caught my interest and was cleverly utilized cinematically, to add depth to this already impressive film.
The motif in question is first introduced as Julien is departing after an awkward farewell exchange with his mother. It seems the young Quentin is hesitant to leave and harbors ill feelings towards his mother for forcing him to go. As he is on the train, a series of establishing shots are capped off with a medium shot of Julien literally divided in half by an opaque window as he stares through.
Its quite an impressive shot, exhibiting Julien half in darkness and half in light. It can also be seen as half in opaqueness and half in clarity. This one shot fully establishes his main internal conflict. One that is characterized by a sense of dualism as well as moral confusion to both the character and his viewers.
The motif established here is that of Julien constantly being framed and/or looking through such opaque fields. Overall it establishes his surrogate-ism as a voyeur or outsider caught in the midst of conflict. This contrasts heavily to the introduction of Bonnet who is never blurred or kept from the viewer’s vision. Its quite apparent from scene one that Bonnet is “different” and most definitely a Jew in hiding which will later become obvious through constant foreshadowments.
The mise en scene of Bonnet’s introduction is characterized by both a religious conflict as well as a sense of being forcibly watched. As he settles in, he looks up to Saint Mary’s watchful eyes communicating his discomfort at being in a Catholic church as well as his ongoing fear of being found out. Its not so much a sense that he feels threatened by Catholicism itself, rather his unease at pretending to be someone he is not.
The watchful gaze also seems to establish Bonnet as an outsider on a more holistic context. One who will continually get bullied and set apart. There may or may not be a presence of religious critique as well. This potential is twofold. On the one hand, there is the direct visual of the young boys horsing around below Mary’s gaze creating somewhat of a harsh constrast . Then there is the parallel that can be drawn through Bonnet; Mary’s gaze to the threat of the Gestapo.
The opaque motif returns when Julien sitting in class, looks voyeuristically at a priest and Nazi soldier conversing outside. The frame is cut in half vertically with the soldier in the left field, and the priest walking from right to left. By the end of the shot, both are framed together in the single cell of the window’s frame.
While the soldier may not be a source of sentiment, we are not given any direct reason to hate him. He was simply come for confession and is seemingly placed on the same field as the rest of the protagonists. Like them, he feels guilt, morality and humanistic traits.
Its an interesting interjection as it reiterates a sense of religious critique and its potential role in establishing a moral basis. The nazis surely did monstrous acts but were likewise Catholics like the French adolescents onscreen. On a further note it establishes the general ambiguity of the Nazis and characters on screen holistically. No one is clearly marked as a dichotomized good or bad in this film which is unique in comparison to other works such as Schindler’s List, which would release nearly a decade later to much acclaim.
The introduction of Joseph, a boy who is seemingly marked as different from the rest due to a crippled leg is revealed to be running a micro-Black Market at the school. Continuing the motif, he and his customer are framed within the doorway but are seen in clarity and not obstructed by glass in anyway. Its almost as if Malle is directly showing us the imperfections of this seemingly innocent school of youth.
Joseph who serves as this film’s Judas is quite the troubling character. While his ultimate betrayal marks him in unfavorable light, he is constantly picked on and relegated to the kitchen for most of the duration of the film. Strangely, we are left sympathizing with his plight to the same degree as Bonnet’s. His status in the film is somewhat pitiful as he is often seen working menial jobs and picked on by boys half his age.
On a related but flipped note, Julien who we are meant to connect with, is continually established in a disfavorable position. He seems to look down on Bonnet and harbor extreme jealousy towards this fellow classmate. This becomes rather clear at their piano lesson where Julien performs poorly while Bonnet plays magnificently. This is amplified by the presence of the pretty instructor who all the boys seem to have a crush on including Julien himself. Her praise over Bonnet is seen in contrast to Julien once again looking on voyueristically at his “competition”.
Here there is also once again an interplay between the clear/opaque motif. With Julien glancing on through an open doorway, shutting the door, and then looking on through an opaque field. Like the opaqueness of the glass, as viewers we are unsure of Julien’s motifs and feelings. If anything, I couldn’t help but feel that Julien himself was being set up as the betrayer and not Joseph.
Julien’s confession seems to add to this ambiguity. He expresses desires to become a man of the cloth which is somewhat in contrast to perceptions by viewers at this point in the narrative. Even the priest feels that he is not worthy and only states its a “sorry job”. Either way, the priest advises Julien to be nice to Bonnet hinting at the fact that he may not be entirely who he says he is.
Julien suspects this but does indeed seem to open up to the shy newcomer. He openly albeit awkwardly converses with him trying to engage in interaction but seems to be caught in a bully/friend dilemma. Sometimes they act as if good friends while other times Julien still plays tricks on him or engages in bully-like behavior.
There is an interesting shot during the bathing scene where Julien immersed in water seems to be internally reflecting. This is matched by the waters surface reflecting his face but obscured. It reiterates our loss as viewers to predict what Julien is planning (if anything) and what he feels for Bonnet. The accompanying piano score also seems to underscore this rivalry between the two boys by making reference to the earlier piano lesson.
The realization that Bonnet is a Jew comes immediately after, when at night Julien discovers him praying with a kippah and candles. The discovery is cemented when Julien continues to investigate the next day by going through Bonnet’s belongings. He discovers that Bonnet is in fact Kippelstein, a Jew in hiding whom the head priest has hidden from the scrutiny of the Nazi regime.
The shot of Julien opening Bonnet’s locker reveals his reflection framed in a small mirror. It signals a large question of moral dichotomy to the forefront; whether Julien will engage in helping Bonnet or use this information to seemingly eliminate his annoying competitor.
The question of Julien’s feelings over Bonnet though, become clear quite rapidly. After being isolated together in a game of war which hauntingly parallels the very real war going on outside, their bond seems to thicken. Even after clumsily revealing to Bonnet his knowledge of his identity, their relationship holds and seems to only strengthen.
This becomes solidified when both boys engage in a fun piano session of boogie-woogie blues which directly parallels and contrasts to the earlier piano instruction. Instead of rivalry, now there is friendly cooperation. Even at the sound of sirens, Julien immediately grabs Bonnet in an effort to help him hide. Bonnet in turn stands up for Julien when kids poke fun at discovering he still wets his bed.
Though if anything, this definite reconciliation and blossoming friendship serves only to amplify the final blow of the film. As the film draws to a close, the Nazis raid the school in search of Kippelstein. As we know Julien will not sell out his new friend, so we simply await for the coming narrative to unravel. When asked where the Jew is, the boys and Julien remain silent as we expect. Almost in a torturous attempt to play with our expectations, the Gestapo officer seems ready to leave right when Julien innocently glances over at Bonnet to make sure he is okay.
The simple act of a glance though, costs Bonnet’s life as the Gestapo officer takes note. Its somewhat reminiscent of the Sodom and Gomorrah tale of Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt, simply for looking back. Its hard to say whether or not this was a purposeful biblical reference or mere coincidence. Either way, the seemingly innocent gesture of Julien is filled with a sense of guilt and responsibility.
There is an idea that the inaction or inability of Julien to prevent his friend’s tragic end is a source for personal grief. This seems to ring true especially when put in contrast with his following actions. Another Jewish boy is hiding in the infirmary when the Gestapo burst in. In a rather timid but brave gesture, Julien speaks up to them saying there is no one here. Obviously lying and failing to protect the boy, it expresses Julien, and possibly Malle’s own guilt at having been unable to do anything to prevent the tragedy.
Although subsequently, there seems to be a sense of personal forgiveness as well. The attempt to save the second Jewish boy is met with failure, but Julien’s decision to act expresses the fatalism of the narrative.
As Bonnet himself assures him, its “not your fault, and they would have found out anyway”. While Philip Kemp seems to believe the film is a long ago promise fulfilled to Bonnet, its more likely that its a method in dealing with Malle’s own guilt and failure to prevent a horrendous crime. One which he realizes he had no part in nor could stop, but can never forget.
This notion of personal reconciliation draws into the visual motif directly at film’s conclusion. We see Julien push away Joseph for his terrible deed which is visualized by walking through a doorframe and out into the background, and once again with his final confrontation with Bonnet.
The simple hand wave by Julien seems like the ultimate symbol for Malle’s final reconciliation with these tragic events. One that is confirmed by Bonnet on screen, as he too departs through a framing device in clear view, into the background to meet his tragic fate.
Tags: france, germany, louis malle, motif, opacity
I always enjoy reading your posts, especially how you always seem to have a different vantage point, either historically or aesthetically.
I agree with you on most of your points, and as the general buzz on Au Revoir, Les Enfants has been overwhelmingly positive, I daresay there’ll be little dissent in the ranks of The Cineastes this time around.
That said, I’d like to disagree with you on one point, namely that Joseph receives as much sympathy as Julien. Perhaps it’s just me, but I’ve always seen Joseph as a pitiful character, never really coming at things straight ahead. When he’s being bullied we see him resist but only in a very superficial fashion, as if he accepts his inferior status. This is emphasized by the scene where he brings up his leg injury as if he’s given up before he’s really put forth an effort. The ending goes along with this as he takes a superior standpoint to Bonnet, proclaiming that he’s “just a jew”. He can’t take anything on an even keel despite his ability to be an average, relatively understandable person, and so he only justifies his betrayal by pretending to be above him, something that makes him even more despicable. Were he to admit his weakness I would’ve found him just as sympathetic as Julien, but he makes no effort to come clean, something which Julien (as Malle’s surrogate) does in making the film.
You may have a point. I too saw him as pitiful but I guess I sympathized with him to an extent because mainly the age difference between him and the younger boys. Then again, he was never really a redeemable character to start off with as you mention. Even though I mention that Julien himself is somewhat ambiguous in this regard especially at the beginning of the film, the mere presence of the surrogacy expresses a deep acknowledgment of Malle’s flaws, of which become redeemed at film’s climax.
I have to admit its not a point I dwelled on too long as it had little bearing on what I wanted to discuss holistically but found it an interesting facet of the film nonetheless.
I think overall, I saw the character of Joseph in a larger scheme that blurred the lines between a good/bad morality. Even the Nazi soldiers at the restaurant and the ones that pick up the boys after a game of war, seem redeemable in some way. There’s also lastly the sense that the boys are a microcosm for the war outside. People unaware that small actions lead to big consequences.
If we really delve in, we could argue that Bonnet would have been safely kept if Joseph and the other boys such as Julien himself did not practice the Black Market. Thus, Joseph would never have got kicked out and felt a need to sell out to the Gestapo. I wouldn’t put too much weight into this theory but its one that crossed my mind and thought Id mention.
Either way, appreciate the insightful comment and always welcome the criticism!
Some interesting theories here… I’ll have to rewatch with all this in mind!
You make a great point there about the black market, which is sort of the flip side of the priest taking in the Jews in the first place. Both digressions into lawlessness are for completely separate reasons, so the fact that one leads to the others discovery and annihilation works as a kind of indictment of selfishness. Which ties into Malle’s constant questioning of the actions of the well off, it seems like Malle can forgive the children (even Joseph) who don’t understand the scope of their actions, like you say, but he’s intensely critical of the rich who put their blinders on, so to speak, so they don’t have to act benevolently.
[...] Crap Monster @ YGG’noise [...]