Although I wouldn’t describe this story of a small community of French monks living in an increasingly unsettled part of North Africa as a feel-good film by any stretch of the imagination, it was however, for me, a reflective and somewhat uplifting experience.
The pace of the film was deliberately slowed down, it seemed to me, in order to match the contemplative life the monks led (prayer, singing, work – gardening, cooking, tending to the sick – eating and meeting as a community), but the film does not drag. Tension is introduced early on as rebel and government armies threaten the monastery and attached village, and conflict quickly follows within the community as the monks discuss and decide how to respond, creating a very interesting study of the nature of leadership and the dynamics of communities, teams and groups. The film follows the monks both as a community and as individuals, and in response it is difficult not to ask the question, “what would I have done?”.
Some standout scenes for me were Brother Christian walking the monastery walls in a rainstorm as he grappled with himself whether to tell the community additional information about their safety (or lack of it) that only he knew, just after they had all voted to stay on; and the moving “last supper” style scene with celebrated guests, wine and music.
I did not know this (true) story prior to watching the film, and am glad that I know it now. It is a film I think I will be returning to at some stage in the future, as there was a lot to take in on first viewing.
***1/2
Cecil says:
Unlike Bea, I wasn’t uplifted by this film. I felt like an observer all the way through; it was interesting to see the development of each monk’s view of his place in the world and in particular of his place in that world up in the remote mountains of Algeria. But I found it difficult to relate to their situation.
It’s funny, because as Bea says, it’s hard not to ask ‘what would I have done?’. But I know from reading Simone de Beauvoir (Le sang des autres) and Flaubert (Education sentimentale) that I really don’t know how I’d react in such extreme circumstances, so it almost feels pointless to speculate. My instinct, as an observer, was to think: get the hell out of there, guys; but in reality, how much would I have felt the pull of community inside the monastery or the dependence of the community outside? There’s no way of knowing until you are actually faced with such a situation.
That said, I enjoyed watching. I warmed most to old Amedee, whose tears of joy I related to and whose hideaway getaway I can imagine I might follow myself. And who could fail to love Luc, the philosophical doctor, who treats everyone, regardless of what they may have done before or the threat they might pose to him later.
We watched this film in the lovely old Jane Pickens Theater in Newport, Rhode Island; one of those 1920s movie theatres that seem to have survived so much better in the States than back home in the UK. Just a shame they don’t use the beautiful Wurlitzer that sits down at the front of the theatre!
A shame also that they didn’t show the cast of the actors playing the monks in the final credits (Was there a reason for that?). I had to google search for that and I should warn anybody doing the same thing: don’t start looking up the Star Trek cast of the 2007 edition under the same title, as that film came up ahead of this version…
***
No comments:
Post a Comment