GRACE A DIEU

France, 2019, 137 minutes, Colour.
Melville Poupaud, Denis Menochet, Swann Arlaud, Eric Caravaca, Francois Marthouret, Bernard Verley, Marine Erhel, Josiane Balasko, Helene Vincent.
Directed by François Ozon.

The first thing to say about François Ozon’s contribution to the cinema focusing on clerical sexual abuse is that it is quite a significant contribution. It is based on real-life characters, an abusive priest, Father Bernard Preynat, the Cardinal- Archbishops of Lyon, Barberin, lay assistants, and a number of men who raised issues from their past, their experiences of abuse, leading to criminal investigations into the priest. An epilogue indicates that no date for the trial has been set, although there has been work on the investigation for several years, and that the Cardinal and one of his lay assistants have been on trial for not passing on information about the abuse – this film premiering during the 2019 Berlinale with a verdict to be announced on March 7, before the film will go into worldwide release.

Catholic consciousness about clerical sexual abuse has undergone quite some transformation in the last three decades, in some cultures much more developed than in others. The word used by many is that the Catholic response is evolving. And this film will contribute to the evolution. There are early references to Pope Francis and his stances about abuse, investigations by Cardinal O’ Malley for the Vatican, protocols changing concerning trials, priests being laicised, penalties, civil cases and imprisonment. This film, with its focus on serious misdeeds, insufficient response from hierarchy and authorities, is a helpful opportunity for Catholics (and members of other denominations who have experienced abuse as well as other institutions) to acknowledge the realities of the past, express regrets, move towards greater openness.

While Ozon focuses on one diocese and one priest, he highlights the events presented as something local and solitary, in comparison with many of the cases that have occurred in France. The screenplay scarcely acknowledges that there have been cases right throughout the world and for so long. We could be reminded that many other countries have been pursuing the issues of abuse, attempts to rectify situations honestly, acknowledge guilt since the 1990s.

Cases were raised in Canada in the 1980s and 1990s. The first protocols from the official church in Australia were published in 1996. In fact, Ireland has had a national investigation into abuse, Australia had a governmental Royal Commission into institutional abuse, with a thorough examination of the Catholic Church, from 2013 to 2018, with extensive airing by the media. Although the Oscar-winning film Spotlight, 2015, almost seems to indicate that the Americans discovered abuse and dealt with it in the media, their focus was on the years up to 2002. So, for outsiders to France, to see this case coming up in the middle of the second decade of the 21st century seems comparatively late – and it would have been interesting had the men in Lyon had contact with organisations in other countries.

This can be confirmed by the cinema history of films about clerical sexual abuse, the American film, Judgement, 1990, about cases in Louisiana, The Boys of St Vincent, 1992, quite forthright about Canadian cases, and a number of British and Irish films since 2000, and the miniseries from Australia, The Devil’s Playground, 2014. In fact, the film Our Fathers, 2005, was quite explicit in basing the screenplay on actual characters, survivors, lawyers, clergy, and quite specifically naming the Cardinal-Archbishop? of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law.

A note about the screenplay’s use of the word, ‘victim’. Another development over recent years, especially in some English-speaking countries, is the substitution of the word ‘survivor’ for ‘victim’. Victim highlights the perpetrator as well as the abused, while survivor highlights the life of the abused person (acknowledging that so many abused have committed suicide), a more positive perspective on going ahead with life.

As regards the film itself, it is very much a verbal film, voice-overs describing experiences, the texts of letters and emails, words of interviews, reports to the police, family discussions. This means that the director is able to be less detailed in visual representations of abuse situations, relying on the flashbacks, on the age and innocence of the child, the child being selected by the abuser, his taking the child away from the group. In this way, the director is able to avoid any prurient response to the story.

The film is also an effective in its principal focus being on the particular survivors, four of them, one, devoutly Catholic, wife and five children, discovering the offending priest is still in ministry, wanting to act, communicating with the archdiocese, going to interviews, even a meeting with the offending priest. But, with ecclesiastical delays, his growing more concerned and, approaching the police, setting a criminal investigation in process. Another man, now atheist, wife and children, has been moved into action because his mother wrote to the then Cardinal and other clergy in the early 1990s and has kept a file which the police use. This man has another friend who remembers abuse in the past, at the scout camp sponsored by the priest. The fourth man, high IQ but not able to fit into society so well, also joins the group which establishes a website, and an association as more and more survivors emerge.

Again, it would be interesting to compare the networks of survivors in other countries and how they operate, cooperate, and have been significant in giving witness into investigations, especially government investigations as in Ireland and Australia, for instance. This film gives the (perhaps unintended) impression that this website and network was a first in dealing with abusive clergy.

Ozon takes a fair perspective on the events and the characters. There is certainly criticism of the Cardinal, his hesitations, some contradictions in his testimony in press conferences. Worthy of note, is the Cardinal’s faux pas in responding to issues concerning the ending of statutes of limitations, God be thanked (Grace de Dieu), the title of the film. The Cardinal is challenged, acknowledges his loose use of words, apologises (and mistakes like this, unthought-out comments by the hierarchy, have plagued investigations and stirred media upset, flowing over for the public).

In fact, there has been great rage in many of the survivors, the years-long hurt and wounding, the disastrous effect on life, relationships, ability to cope and lead a fruitful life. However, this film has its protagonists angry but more objective, less raging but earnest for justice to be seen and justice to be done, possibilities for reparation, hesitations concerning forgiveness of the offender.

It is interesting that in this film, while there are some lawyers, they play subsidiary roles, different from lawyers’ work in more litigious cultures, with a focus on financial compensation, and a criticism of the church in using lawyers, legal action before expressions of compassion.

One of the directions for another film would be to take up the presentation of Father Preynat (for English-speaking audiences it is ominous that his surname begins with ’prey’, a man who was a prolific predator), his admitting his guilt and responsibility, his apologies to the survivors, but his acknowledgement of his psychological condition which needed much more attention, his attraction towards children, even seen in his emotional response to meeting the survivors, wanting their support and forgiveness, speaking affectionately (until reprimanded by the lawyer), his willingness to pray with the survivors, his affectionate smiles as he left the meetings. We need more probing of the characters, motivations, mental and emotional conditions of the abusers.

This is not a review of the film. That would go into the quality of the screenplay and the direction, the fine performances of the central characters, the relying on strong dialogue to communicate perspectives.

But, for audiences from other cultures, it is a dramatisation of historical and contemporary events, issues for survivors, challenges to churches, which must continue.

1. A French perspective on clerical sexual abuse? An actual case as basis?

2. The film as topical, 20th-century and 21st-century abuse? In Lyon? The investigation, the priest in ministry and further destination with children, a danger to them, the role of the hierarchy, the men and their being case studies? The film based on actual stories and characters?

3. This story as a French story, focused, not considering any other similar stories in France or from around the world? Not acknowledging any the experiences in other countries and continents? The references to the Pope and the Vatican, Cardinals in investigations? (And the film premiered in February 2019, the time of Pope Francis inviting the heads of all Bishops conferences to a Vatican conference on the issue?)

4. The role of the hierarchy, the Cardinals of Lyon, the appeal to the Pope, the role of clergy, the lay assistants working in dioceses?

5. The director, his career, his concern? His being fair, the presentation of the difficulties and the reality of the abuse, the effect on the survivors? A fair tone?

6. The screenplay and the reliance on the verbal, letters, interrogations, meetings? Family discussions? Sons and parents, spouses, children? The ability to enter the realities, the events, the memories, the hurt, the devastating effects?

7. The visuals, the flashbacks, brief and restrained, making sense after hearing the verbal descriptions?

8. The screenplay and the case studies? The focus initially on Alexandre, his memories, surfacing, letters and interviews? His schoolfriend unwilling to participate? The story of François, his brother, family? The contact with Gilles and his wife? Tristan on the phone and his devastating stories? Emmanuel, his background, experience? The portrait of the men and the highlighting their experience, opening it up, the process, the website and the group, the effect?

9. The references to Pope Francis, favourable, the Cardinal and his responses and his investigations? Alexandre writing a letter to the Pope – but so much of this line not then followed up?

10. Alexandre, the introduction, his voice-over, aged 40, his wife, five children, devout Catholic, the scene at Mass, the confirmation of his sons, the cardinal and his reference to the boys and their visiting him? Wanting to reform the church from the inside? Refusing communion from the abusive priest and his family leading? His family and the details of their life, happy lifestyle, his wife teaching at the Catholic school? The later revelation by his wife to Emanuel, that she had been abused by a neighbour and that she had not been able to speak about it? The background her to her support of her husband? The experiences, pre-teen boys, of the scouts in the camps? The role of the priest, his picking his victims, taking them aside, the descriptions of the physical abuse? Psychological abuse? His still being alive, teaching catechism, still in ministry? Alexandre and his letters and emails, the interview with Regine, the meeting with the priest, the impact of the discussion, whether he was able to forgive him, the prayer with the three, the priest taking his hand? The continued letters, the seeming ignoring by the cardinal, the delays, his being dissatisfied, going into action, wanting to write to the Pope?

11. The search for survivors, talking with the police, the possibilities of prosecution, the nature of the investigation? Discussion with his friend from school, his not wanting to participate, his motives, his family? The others on the issues of privacy, shame and embarrassment, the impact on
families, on the professional mob? Having kept silent in such a long time?

12. François, big man, energy, boisterous? His mother and her concern in the 1990s, writing to the cardinal, to the priests, her keeping the file for her son? Her husband’s support? The role of Louis, his feeling that he was not favoured by his parents, yet his success? François and his wife and daughters, atheist? Later talking about public apostasy? His enthusiasm for the investigations? The Christmas dinner, attacking Louis, his resentment, Louis and his response and his resentments for such a long time?

13. François, his contact with Gilles, Gilles and his wife discussing the experiences, participating in the research, talks with the police?

14. The role of police, the interrogations, visits, the files?

15. The cardinal, his press conferences, whether he had concealed the information about the offending priest or not? The plan to go to Lebanon? His faux pas at the press conference in talking about the limitations and thanking God for that? The challenge by the journalist, his admitting his loose phrasing? The discussions with the Vatican? His being the citizen of the city? His going on, with Regine to hear the verdict for March 2090, whether concealing information or not?

16. Tristan, the phone calls to François, the sad stories?

17. Meeting Emmanuelle, his story, his resentment against his father, going to visit him and the rejection, his mother, her volunteering to answer the phones for the group, the clashes with Jennifer and fighting with her, his seizures? His IQ, the zebra, not able to conform? The discussions with the police, his meeting with the offending priest, the priest speaking with affection, the lawyer rebuking him, Emanuel unable to forgive – and the final smiles as the priest left?

18. Establishing the website, the men coming together, the different personalities, the different contributions, reservations, participation? The website, the establishment of the group, the number of followers, the importance of social media, more and more stories?

19. Citizens of the city, the dinner, their reflections and interactions, the aftermath of the four men?

20. An insight into clerical sexual abuse? The portrait of the priest, seeing flashbacks of his behaviour at the camps, the individual boys, eyeing them, choosing them, talking of love, kissing, intimate fondling, keeping a secret? His older age, his confessing that he had problems, needed psychological help? Is it that the hierarchy understood? The film stating that the date for the priest’s trial had not been set?