La belle équipe (1936)

Director/Coscreenwriter: Julien Duvivier

By Marilyn Ferdinand

I recently had a discussion with Jason Bellamy at his marvelous blog The Cooler about the relative merits of the 1942 biopic The Pride of the Yankees. I dislike that film intensely as a slapdash piece of hagiography, yet Jason argues persuasively that the film was an important morale booster for an American public suffering under the privations and fear that came with our involvement in World War II. Showing the courage with which Lou Gehrig faced his physical decline and death must have helped the millions of filmgoers who were facing death overseas or coming to terms with the loss of their loved ones.

In a similar vein, the 1930s saw a number of filmmakers around the world deal head on with the effects of the Great Depression and the threat of German aggression by making politically charged “popular front” movies, endorsed, but not sponsored by the Communist Party. Popular front movies were characterized by a vigorously democratic approach, frequently dealing with the hardships of working-class life and the need to stand together to better our collective circumstances. Frank Borzage trained his camera on the unemployed in Man’s Castle (1933), and Leo McCarey combined the plight of unemployment and old age in the heartbreaking Make Way for Tomorrow (1937), while less serious-minded approaches to social problems could be found in Mervyn LeRoy’s Gold Diggers of 1933 and Louis Milestone’s Hallelujah, I’m a Bum (1933).

In France, filmmakers with socialist sensibilities attempted to stir the populace to fight both monied interests and fascism; the pinnacle of these films was, in my opinion, Jean Renoir’s La Marseillaise (1938). Two years earlier, Renoir was mulling whether to direct La belle équipe, scripted by Charles Spaak, his collaborator on Grand Illusion (1937) and The Lower Depths (1936). In the end, Renoir’s friend Julien Duvivier took the reins. La belle équipe, which translates as the beautiful team, does indeed bring together a beautiful team of designers, cinematographer, and actors, led by the complex, charismatic performance of Jean Gabin, to tell a quintessential film of the popular front in Europe.

France’s revolutionary motto “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” finds its representatives in this film. Mario (Rafael Medina) represents the active revolutionary—a Spanish republican ejected from a number of countries who is one step ahead of the French authorities. He is in a serious relationship with Huguette (Micheline Cheirel), a piece worker in a dried flower factory whose name is redolent of religious persecution in France. Forced to abandon his hotel room to avoid the gendarmes who have been sniffing around, Mario arranges to meet Huguette at a bistro where their unemployed friends Jean (Jean Gabin), Raymond (Raymond Aimos), Charles (Charles Vanel), and Jacques (Charles Dorat) eat on the credit the proprietor (Charles Granvat) reluctantly extends. The friends sneak Mario into their one-room digs at the King of England, evading the badgering hotel manager (Jacques Baumer) for a time. Eventually, Mario is discovered, but as great luck would have it, the good news arrives that the men have won the national lottery and will split ₣100,000. The residents pour out of their rooms to celebrate and drink the cases of congratulatory wine Raymond has arranged.

Jacques talks of using his share to emigrate to Canada, Raymond wants to start a small machine shop in the country, but Jean suggests that if they pool their money, they could do more together than they could alone and still maintain their great camaraderie and friendship. He suggests they open a guinguette—an open-air café on a river to attract the boating crowd. The men row down a river a few miles outside of Paris, passing one grand home after another, as Raymond scoffs that such opulence is not fit for their proletarian spirit. Finally, they find a husk of a house, burned and for sale. Raymond imagines a castle tower, Jean sees an open-air dance floor, and before long, the men have purchased the derelict building and started working to transform it into “Chez Nous (Our Place),” a tribute to collective labor and shared rewards.

The lot of the working class and political progressive is aired, miraculously without making one feel terribly depressed. When Jacques falls for Huguette, he leaves for Canada rather than introduce disharmony into the enterprise. When the police catch up with Mario, the gendarme (Fernand Charpin) is a kind and sympathetic grandfather who gives Mario a day’s reprieve to attend the pre-opening party the men throw for all their friends from the old neighborhood, and even brings his grandchildren to enjoy the party. When Huguette decides to join Mario in exile, her sickly grandmother (Marcelle Géniat) offers her blessing and even finds the strength to waltz with Jean at the opening party. The generous esprit de corps of the working class that typifies popular front movies is well developed by the nuanced performances and warm and lively mise-en-scène Duvivier encourages.

The film is teeming with ingenious and pleasurable moments. Mario despairs of getting Huguette a gift for her birthday, but the friends have a solution. While one distracts the owner of the bistro, the others lift and tilt a skill claw crane machine to win items to give her. When she comes to the bistro, each holds out the prize they snagged—a clock, an eraser—with Mario presenting her with the present she hoped for, a make-up compact. The scene is innocent, funny, and perfectly timed to endear the audience to their attempts to please Huguette with a minor bit of larceny. Indeed, larceny is a fall-back position of the working class, but cheating a penny-arcade machine or avoiding the rent collector are seen as a way to balance the scale with the monied classes.

Another lovely scene involves the men rowing down the river and stopping at the burned property. Each of them gives himself over to Raymond’s reverie, walking through the shell and imagining what they could do with the place. It’s a leap-of-faith moment, as the building is in extremely rough condition, but each of the actors helps us see what he sees with enthusiasm and imagination. When the construction is threatened by a violent storm, and the roof starts to blow away, we are horror-stricken and then encouraging as the men climb up in the downpour and use their bodies to hold the tiles down through the night.

The most serious threat to the enterprise is femme fatale Gina (Viviane Romance), the estranged wife of Charles. Unlike the more vicious American femmes fatale, Gina is merely a greedy hedonist. She manipulates a still-smitten Charles into giving her part of his winnings—they are still married, she reminds him—and lures Jean into an affair when he goes to her Paris apartment to reclaim the money, needed to repair the damage done by the storm. Jealousy threatens to tear the comrades apart; both Charles and Jean find Gina irresistible, and she lies without compunction to get what she wants or to seek revenge. It is a bit disconcerting to hear Jean exclaim about fraternal friendship being the more noble and lasting bond, but there is something so quintessentially French about examining the folly of love that it’s hard to feel offended. It must also be acknowledged that the women in the film are not caricatures, with Huguette a real part of the team and Gina a strong, if negative, agent of her own life, refusing to let Jean shame her for posing for nude photographs.

My cousin, who has lived in Paris for many years, relayed some comments she heard about French detective films to me: “The difference between American films and French ones is that the American ones have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and the end is usually happy. In the French film, things happen every which way, and we can’t really follow who’s doing what why. And someone almost always ends up dead.” While La belle équipe isn’t a detective film, someone does indeed end up dead. In fact, there is an alternate, tragic ending to the happy one of the print the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs delivered from France to the theater; reportedly, rather than having one or the other, French audiences usually see both endings in succession when the film is screened.

Remains of “Chez Nous” can still be found on the riverbank where it was constructed. Tourists occasionally visit it out of curiosity and to remind themselves of a traditional type of communal meeting place that has declined in France. For modern film audiences in any country, La belle équipe is a wonderful reminder that a popular front that offered courage and camaraderie to people bent by fear and poverty is part of our heritage, with pleasures and lessons for a new generation.

  • Sam Juliano spoke:
    31st/07/2012 to 9:45 am

    Almost by design, Marilyn, but certainly penned in celebratory terms, your review here of a French Golden Age classic by the distinguished director of PEPE LE MOKO and POIL DE CAROTTE comes at the precise time that Manhattan’s Film Forum is preparing for a glorious four-week retrospective entitled “The French Old Wave” a 53 film survey of French cinema that includes works by Duvivier, Renoir, Ophuls, Becker, Chenal, Guitry, Carne, Allegret, Pagnol, Autant-Lara, Gremillon, Clouzot, Cocteau, Feyder, Clair, Dellanoy, Cayette and Clement. Unfortunately, LA BELLE EQUIPE is not offered, though the other Duviviers I mentioned previously will be shown. I would have to speculate that the issue of the altered ending may have perplexed programmers as to how to proceed. In any case my colleage Allan Fish does own a copy of the ‘unhappy’ print, and sent it on to me last year. Both Jean Gabin and Charles Venal, two of the greatest of all French actors give superlative performances in this kind of cautionary tale about fate, destiny and human nature,. While some will assert that Duvuvier’s take on this initially utopian tale is ultimately misogynistic, I feel the story follows the natural order, and corruptive power of money, and examines human frailty. And the sexual aspect of the film does overpower the political side, though I do agree with you that this is a prime feature in the ‘popular front’ cinema you so superbly frame in your opening paragraphs with apt references to GOLD DIGGERS OF 1935, MAKE WAY FOR TOMORROW and of course to THE PRIDE OF THE YANKEES, a film that does divide us. I must say I completely agree with the observations of your Parisian cousin.

    Masterful piece.

  • Marilyn spoke:
    31st/07/2012 to 10:04 am

    Sam – I would give anything to attend even a portion of the retrospective. I’m deeply interested in French films of the 30s and especially the Occupation. We were very lucky to get this print – it literally came in the diplomatic pouch from France for our screening at the Portage. My cousin will be seeing it tomorrow at one of the free, outdoor films they have in Paris during the summer. She and I plan to compare notes via Skype.

  • mdoli spoke:
    2nd/08/2012 to 2:33 am

    I just saw this movie in exceptional circumstances: During the summer the “Images du Forum” closes up in its central shopping center “Les Halles” and turns nomad, offering free open-air films. A screen is put up in various open spaces in Paris, and enormous crowds arrive to picnic on the grass until the film starts at nightfall. La Belle Equip was shown on the Montpartre Hill, and if you were high enough you could see Paris below you on the sides of the screen.

    When the film was introduced to the crowd, we were informed of the two endings. In fact, Duvivier had planned a pessimistic ending, but the producer did not like it. So, in a pre-opening screening, the audience of 346 people were shown the two endings and asked to vote. Unfortunately for Duvivier, but probably fortunately for world-wide audiences, 300 people chose the happy ending. When Duvivier finally got the rights to his film (if I remember correctly in the 60′s) he looked all over the world for a copy of his original cutting with the pessimistic ending. He finally found one copy in Germany. And, in contrast to most every other audience in the world, we got the unique experience of seeing the original film, where the last reel was complete with the German subtitles.

    The pessimistic version offers no hope. Its message is that no matter how much courage a truly close group of friends may have, any enterprise is doomed. In the negative ending, the team, like the 10 little indians, dwindles down, and then there are none. The negative ending tells us that any great intention of a group is doomed in the end. How depressing! No wonder the test audience preferred the positive ending.

    About the guinguettes along the riverbank : The good news is that they still exist and you can still go to them. I’ve never been to the evening dancing, but you can still go for coffee, ice cream or dinner. There is also, now, a bicycle path along the river where the guinguettes are. They are no longer a communal meeting place, but a nice place to go out for dinner, or a stop in the afternoon for a drink (after skating, walking or bicycling along the path, for instance). They are very much a part of summer fun along the riverbank.

  • Marilyn spoke:
    2nd/08/2012 to 8:37 am

    Marlene, how lovely of you to come here to share your experience! Despite the pessimistic ending you saw, the setting sounds divine. I’d love to visit a guinguette next time we’re over there visiting you.

Leave your comment






(*)mandatory fields.

What others say about us

"You put a lot of love into your blog." – Roger Ebert, Roger Ebert's Journal
"Marilyn and Roderick … always raising the tone." – Farran Smith Nehme, The Self-Styled Siren
"Honestly, you both have made me aware of films I've never seen, from every era. Mega enriching." – Donna Hill, Strictly Vintage Hollywood
"You have my highest praise!" – Andreas, Pussy Goes Grrr




Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Blogs

Chicago Resources

General Film Resources

Categories

Archives