FRANCOPHONIA

Russia, 2016, 88 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Alexander Sukurov.

In the 19th century, Russians were great Francophiles, speaking French, admiring French culture and art. While this film is in Russian, with some French spoken, the touch of the Francophone, the Russian director is in great admiration of the French, their heritage, their art, and the suffering that this caused them in the 20th century, in the Nazi invasion of France and the occupation of Paris.

Alexander Sukurov has made notable films over the decades, often offering incisive allegories for the oppressive political regimes of the 20th century and of the past. He is also a great admirer of art and made the noteworthy film about St Petersburg’s Hermitage Museum, Russian Ark (famous for the elaborate rehearsals so that the 90 minute film could be shot in one continuous take as the camera roamed through the Hermitage, looking at the works of art, and actors recreating various sequences in Russian history).

This film might well be described as a poetic cinematic essay. There is some narrative. There is a great deal of poetic representation and commentary about the art, but the overall effect of the experience of being immersed in the Louvre and in World War II history, is a reflection on the perennial importance of art and its preservation for a culture, the threats to its destruction, some heroism in preserving it.

The film begins rather idiosyncratically with the director himself speaking behind a black screen with the elaborate credits going through at the beginning, making arrangements about the filmmaking, noting difficulties, and trying to contact the captain of a ship at sea transporting art, difficult to connect with, mounting seas, and the captain rather regretting that he is transporting the art – which may seem symbolic of what was to follow.

The focus is the Louvre and its treasures. The director then takes us to the occupation of Paris by the Nazis, Hitler himself present, and quite some time given to the movement of the French government to Vichy and the leadership of Marshall Petain, World War I hero, aged 84, with his cabinet and the collaboration with the Nazi regime.

At the Louvre, the administrator, Jacques Jaudard, keeps his responsibilities and tries to preserve as much of the art as possible, many pieces being removed from Paris. At the same time, the German officer , Franz Wolff-Metternich? is also responsible for the preservation of the art – and he is able to prevent many of the artworks being plundered by the Nazis.

There is also the device of having an actress portray the French symbolic woman, Marianne, seen at various historical junctures as well as wandering through the Louvre, sometimes in the company of an imagined Napoleon, full of himself and his importance for France, especially in a long sequence of his gazing at the Mona Lisa.

Into this study of the Louvre and occupied France comes a significant Russian sequence, making a strong contrast between the Nazi siege of Leningrad which went on for months, thousands dying of starvation, people collapsing in the streets, mass graves, and the destruction of the Russian art, and the Nazis allowing Paris to live its life under occupation and preserving the art.

The film has quite an amount of actual news footage from the period but, even in the performed sequences, a device is used of presenting old stock as if it came from the period re-enacted.

Of interest is the fate of the two men responsible for the art, the French administrator and his being honoured but suddenly losing his job and his being forgotten in contrast with the German who was exonerated from his Nazi party membership, with the help of the French administrator, and lived a quiet life, fruitful life working for the German government for some decades.

While this is an opportunity to visit the Louvre, there is not a great deal of dwelling on the works of art there because the film serves as an essay on war and art.

1. The film seen as a poetic essay?

2. The director, his political works and critiques over the decades? interest in classic art?

3. The prologue, the phone calls, the questions? Arranging for the film to be made? Trying to track down the captain, on the boat, the Skype connection, breaking up, the high seas, the dangers, his carrying the art? A metaphor for the theme of the film and art during the war? The glimpses of the director himself answering calls?

4. The intention of the film: a portrait of France, in itself, its art history, the role of the Louvre, the treasures, especially the Mona Lisa? World War II, the invasion, the Nazi occupation, the details of the Vichy government, Marshall Petain and his cabinet, political issues? Hitler, arrival in Paris? The administrator of the Louvre and his keeping his position? The German responsible for the art? Their achievement?

5. France and the dramatisation of the symbolic Marianne? Imagining Marianne and Napoleon in the Louvre, Napoleon and his contemplating the Mona Lisa? His self-importance? The historical and artistic heritage?

6. The Nazis and Hitler, the Nazis wanting to transport the art works? Contrast with the siege of Leningrad, the destruction of the art?

7. The Leningrad interlude, the footage, the siege, the suffering of the population, the deaths, in the streets, the mass graves? The role of Stalin? The comparison between the destruction of Leningrad and the saving of Paris and the glimpses of its ordinary life?

8. The film providing a tour of the Louvre, the works of art – and the removal of so many works during the war and walking past the empty frames?

9. The film stock, its style, actual footage, acted material, the marks on the side of the film? The cast for the administrator and the German?

10. The fate of the administrator, his being praised, honours, new positions, falling out of favour, marriage, his son, death, the grey, unknown? Contrast with the German, his being relieved of his post because of his prevention of art going to Germany, his retirement to his home, his achievement and honours? Exonerated from Nazi party membership with the help of the French administrator?

11. The film contributing to the work of the director and his political comment? Artistic comment?