Les Enfants du Paradis (Children of Paradise)
MARCEL CARNE, 1945
3.5 STARS OUT OF 5
I'm in a stretch of films that I know nothing about, so when I got the basics on Children of Paradise, essentially a woman with four men vying for her affection, clocking in at 3 hours, 10 minutes, I kind of dreaded what was in store for me. Last night I felt pretty energized, so I grabbed a few key beverages, and pumped myself up a bit. Three hours is nothing. Have a sip, have another. Cuddle the dogs, just give it a try. If it doesn't work out, there are six reasons you can still have a good late, late night. Thing is, it took maybe 30 minutes for this movie to really hook me. I ended up fretting over nothing.
The theater and a beautiful woman, Garance, bring together a strange circle of male characters that you could dissect for days. It's quite a philosophical production that goes well beyond its love narrative. I thought of The Brothers Karamazov more than a little as I watched, considering what these men in Children of Paradise mean to the world as you consider what the very different brothers in the Dostoevsky novel represent: Alyosha the moral and pious, Ivan the nihilist, and Dmitry the sensualist. Likewise, here we have the two actors: Baptiste the romantic and Frederick the materialist and the bullshitter. You can see their opposition at the end, when they've both risen in fame, as one wears white face in a personal and pained show, the other blackface in Othello because he can understand the titular character's jealousy - although that is more coming from his vanity and pride than genuine emotion. Then you have the nihilistic, chilly criminal and playwright, Lacenaire, plus the abundantly wealthy Count Edouard de Montray. The effect of these four characters, their desires via Garance and their overall desires in life create a complex portrait of what a human is, according to director Marcel Carne and writer Jacques Prevert. It's easy to get lost in both the plot, but more than that, the ideas, plus the bustling re-creation of mid-19th Century Paris. Expansive stuff.
Yet, Garance is a full character in her own right, not merely an object of affection. She may not be the absolute strong female lead, depending on men for food and shelter, but she asserts her agency throughout and resists anyone that tries to put her in a box. She's evasive about her true identity, even keeping that as something only for her to know. However, by the end, her passions run through, and if we might have suspected that she had ice water in her veins, we learn that she has kept her passions buried for the sake of preservation in a man's world. And presumably, they are buried again once the curtain drops, not to give too much away.
I'm going to pose an issue to address it now, but there is something unpleasant about a scorned lover in blackface pulling back the curtain on his lost love with a man in whiteface; the treachery of the blackface and the innocence of the white. But putting on blackface and playing Othello is very much in Frederick's wheelhouse given his vanity and lack of self-reflection. It's not about putting blackface on the shitty guy, it's the shitty guy having the audacity to put on blackface. Maybe some don't think this even needs to be discussed, but it's vital we see things through modern optics, to get a sense of whether or not something should still be considered great. My general rule is, if you think something might be racist, that thing is almost definitely racist, whether it's covert, overt, conscious or subconscious. But that doesn't apply here.
More analysis of story, character, and themes over actual filmography for another entry. I read an interesting view here earlier this week, where Will proposed that people primarily come to cinema from a theater POV or a photography POV (to paraphrase). However, I come to film from a poetry and prose POV, as someone interested in literature - including a fair amount of classic literature - and popular forms of music, often drawn to it by the lyrics. I was never into the visual arts because I have always found it so hard to express myself that way. I took an IQ test as part of a battery of cognitive tests a few years back to get a better look at my mental health conditions, and while not all visual-spatial elements came out bad - though some came out
bad m- I am far, far, far superior in verbal knowledge, learning, and retention. My aim is to understand how the camera is used to tell the story, to more accurately and colorfully analyze mise-en-scene, but with something so rich in story, theme, and character as Children of Paradise, I almost forget there is a camera involved and feel more like I am in the midst of a really good visual novel. Then, I remember that such a feeling is a product of a certain style of film-making that de-emphasizes what the camera is doing and edits for continuity so you never feel outside of the picture. That's as much as I can see for that aspect of the film.
Hopefully, anyone reading this is becoming accustomed to my tangents and asides. Anyway, I'd say for anyone who hasn't given much thought to watching this film that it might be a good one for quarantine. It's long, complex, intricately staged, and superbly acted, especially the absolutely magnificent Jean-Louis Barrault as Baptiste Debureau. Watch it, analyze it, hey, rip it apart, but it'll likely be worth the time.
----------
I was between 4 and 4.5 stars. Ultimately went four because I have some conflict about the Garance character, as well as Nathalie. The first act may drag
just a little, as well. I also judge films just a little, little bit on rewatchability. I don't know if I'd ever watch this one again. Still, it's really good.