Un dimanche à la campagne, directed by B. Tavernier, and Un héros très discret, by Audiard, are two films that successfully use interruptions to further develop their themes. Interruptions refer to a break in the films chronological continuity. Both the directors in these films have use certain devices that thought they interfere with the real time continuity of the narrative, yet enhance the movie by adding certain details that are essential in the understanding of the characters and of the overlaying theme.
Un dimanche à la campagne is Tavernier's exploration into the life of the Ladmiral family. M. Ladmiral, a retired painter, is visited by his two children, Gonzague and Irene in his house in the country. The film's actions all take place within one day. By concentrating on just one day, Tavernier lets us view the family in a very intimate way. He has not edited out a lot of "dead times" in the film, and therein lies its realistic nature. In fact, in a way it is filmed a lot like a documentary, where we get to see the life of the family from the window of the camera. Therefore, when we do experience the interruptions in chronology, they markedly stand out for the viewer against such a realistically continuous background. As viewers we are shown these interruptions as aids, to fill out the characters, and to tell us information that happen outside the films time frame.
The film centres on the self discovery of M Ladmiral. Through the film, we discover that there is an inner struggle between two contrasting selves in his being. On one side he is a classical painter, who painted as his masters taught him to. He made a comfortable living and raised a family. This side shows an honest man, who painted what he and others thought was "correct". The contrasting side is a free floating spirit, that longs to break the strict shackles of his painting tradition and move onto more emotive art. This side is represented through the countless impressionist references that are inserted into the film. It is this break from artistic norms that the French impressionist movement was trying to accomplish.
The inner struggle in M. Ladmiral is personified in his two siblings, Gonzague and Irene. Gonzague is the reliable son, that visits him religiously every Sunday. He is a good man, honest, proud and adheres to all the norms of his time. Just like his father, he has raised a family and has a respectable, steady job. Irene on the other hand is the free spirit of Impressionism, unpredictable, passionate and full of life. She is single and owner of a business, breaking the social norm for a women in her time. Tavernier makes it obvious that M Ladmiral would like to be more like Irene. During their conversation in the cafe, M Ladmiral confesses to Irene that he always wanted to attempt to paint something out of his usual style, more in the style of the other impressionist painters, like Van Gogh or Cezanne. In fact, there could be evidence that he did break his usual pattern. In the sequence with him and Irene in the attic, a painting of a tightrope walker is discovered by Irene. It is never stated, but there is strong suggestions that the painting is M Ladmiral's. Irene mentions that this is a painting she will never sell, which contrasts with earlier conversations she has with her father where she tries to sell his paintings to her friends.
The film is full of camera shots that are representations of impressionist paintings. Tavernier shows us these paintings to try and constantly bring us back to the impressionist ideals that they represent. They count as interruptions, since they don't really add to the chronological continuity of the film, rather they are artificially inserted. These shots are clearly reproductions of well known Impressionist paintings. There are also certain details that allude to impressionist paintings. Mireille is very obviously dressed in the same costume as the girls in Renoir's girls by the piano series. There is a three quarter length shot of Mercedes in the kitchen where she stares directly at the camera. Her dress and head gear are identical to that of Woman with teapot of Degas. As Irene and M.Ladmiral go for a car ride, it seems as thought they are stepping into an Impressionist world, escaping the formality of the house. They ride through yellow fields of Van Gogh, and arrive at cafe. The cafe is a very clear reference to Renoir's paintings of Paris cafes, to the point that the band is arranged and dress in exactly the same way as his paintings. Thus, M Ladmiral's surroundings are shown through an impressionistic way. The irony of it all is that even though he is surrounded by all these images, he choses to paint "coin d'atalier". By staying indoors in his work room, he misses all the glory of the outside. Perhaps the end scene is a hopeful new begging for him, as we see him turn the virgin canvas towards the direct opposite direction it was at before, and the camera cuts into the image of the very first landscape that we see. Even this landscape is representing a painting, by Felix Volloton.
The most obtrusive interruption in the film is the voice over narrator. The male voice is omnipotent, and it can tell us the history and the emotions felt by all characters. The voice over contextualises the characters as they appear. It first introduces us to the first two characters shown on screen, M Ladmiral and Mercedes. Next it manifests with a description of Gonzague and his marriage, telling us just why Gonzague has married Marie Therese. As Irene appears, it tells us about her character and her thoughts. It is through the narrator that we find out about Irene's superstitious tendencies, and her passionate side. The voice over later tells us that Irene likes to live alone, and it hints the notion of a lover in her life. The narrator gives us a insight into M.Ladmiral's feelings on the departure of Irene.
Other obvious breaks in continuity happen with movements in time. The first such case is a flash back memory of Mme Ladmiral sitting on a sofa. It introduces us to the woman that controlled M Ladmiral's artistic life. She is shown as a beautiful, but rigid woman sitting in an uncomfortable sofa. The next break of continuity happens with Gonzague's imagination sequence of the death of his father. It shows us how Gonzague would like to be more like his father. There is a rivalry between father and son. This idea is later reinforced when Gonzague speaks of the reasons he didn't become a painter himself, fearing competition with his father. The imagination scene hints that he would not have been a successful painter; his father's hat does not fit him, showing Gonzauge's inadequacy.
The relationship between Irene and her late mother is shown in the next flash back scene. Here we see a repeat of the line that her mother says in the opening credits "Quand saiseras-tu de demander plus à la vie, Irene?". Clearly, the only thing that was holding back M Ladmiral from painting as he'd like was his wife. He tells this to Irene in the cafe conversation. But Irene only looks back to her mother as an unpleasant memory that she left a long time ago, when she left the house.
The last time discontinuity posses problems in analysis. It shows M and Mme Ladmiral seating on a picnic blanket, calling the children. They beckon the kids by telling them that there are strawberries, but when the camera focuses on the plates, they are completely empty. It is Gonzague that remembers this scene. This is parallelled with Mireille, who never got to show her painting to Irene. The two scenes show a child's disappointment.
Another break in continuity is the apparitions of the two girls playing in the garden. At first it is unclear whether they are actually real, or figments of M.Ladmiral's imagination. No other character notices them, in fact M.Ladmiral asks Marie-Therese and Gonzague if they saw them, and they reply no. The girls are seen four times in the film, and it is on their last appearance that we learn of their imaginary existence. M Ladmiral sees them just as he is about to go back to his house, alone, at the end of the day. It is getting dark, but when he sees the girls, the lighting is as though it where daytime. This shows a discontinuity in the film, and makes us take the girls as existing in his imagination only. The girls anticipate happy intervals of M.Ladmiral. They first appear just as he is rushing to meet Gonzague at the train station. Next they appear just before the arrival of Irene. In their next appearance they see Irene and M.Ladmiral off on their drive, marking is the emotional highlight of M Ladmiral and of the film. Their last appearance is outside the gates of M.Ladmiral's house as he is ready to head in. Even though it could be seen as a sad point in the day (the departure of everyone), it also has positive connotations. It seems to herald a change in M.Ladmiral's attitude toward life and his paintings, which is signalled by the discarding of the half finished still life he was painting. Through the appearance of the girls, and the recurrence of the beginning landscape shot, Tavernier implies that M.Ladmiral is going to turn a new leaf, and paint as his heart dictates.
. Un héros très discret has a different tone, but similar theme. It is the story of Albert Dehousse, a man who grew up in the town of Lambert during the second World War, with childhood dreams of being a hero. The film not only shows us the web of lies that he spins to become a hero, but also poses questions on identity, and points out that we can never really know those around us.
There are two narrators of the film. There is a voice over, which we know as a documentary maker. He talks to people, and the film is presumedly documentary of Albert's life. The second narrator is Albert himself, either as voice overs, or on camera. Albert starts the film, with a story of some lost military men that had troubles dealing with reality after the world war. He finishes the film by leaving us with the question "vous trouvez que j'ai l'air naturelle?" His interruptions happen when there is questions of reality. He tells us why he left Lambert; he could not live with the knowledge that he had been lied to by his wife. Of course, this is rather ironic considering the lies he had exposed to his wife. He next tells the viewer of his decision to create a new persona for himself, that of a war veteran. He follows with his justification to tell Servin the truth. The voice that narrates the documentary tells us about things that would not be known otherwise. In true documentary style, he clarifies names and dates, and gives us backgrounds to characters that we do not know.
The film is divided into two parts by a piano sextet. The first appearance of the ensemble is at the begging of the film, before the story of Albert Dehousse starts, ie before he has becomes a hero. The next time we see the ensemble is when Albert is given a military rank, thereby becoming a hero. It also closes the film. The sextet's presence makes the narrative seem more like an operatic story. It acts as an overture at the begging, then cut the film into two acts and the finale. In fact, the frenzied playing of the ensemble at the end, with all the images of the different people, make it seem like it is a choir of images that sing the last finale.
The film contains many shots of documentary style footage. We are shown actual documentary footage of the end of (THIS SECTION IS MISSING A FEW BITS...) .... the interviews with the witnesses of Albert's life. We take what they say as being factual, as they are all in a capacity to say the truth. The genealogist, for example, finds the name Dehousse in the town of Lambert, and comments on it, telling us of Albert's background. The historian gives us dates from a book he is reading on the table of the Martelle company. He later shows us a photo of Albert at the two trials. These are things that make it look like Alberts story is true, by giving us concrete evidence of (?? SCREWED UP). But there are other stories whose validity make us think twice. There are former resistance members who swear that they remember Albert bei (SECTION LOST IN THE OLD DISK)
There are several interruptions. They stand out because they go completely against the idea of a documentary, which tries to capture ..(JUMBLE).. scene is the image of a man as Albert (SECTION LOST) farce sequences, the painting of Alberts father the actions of young Albert as he exercises with the camera filming in double time, which is later repeated when he receives his military title. Another real image is when we see a full camera shot of the motor bikes of the armies, as they come in. It is a strange shot, that does not tell us which army it is that comes to Lambert. In fact, T unimportant for Albert which army . In fact, the war does not concern Albert until afterwards, when he fabricates himself in it. There is an imagination sequence by Albert as he imagines himself being chased by the French army for having lied to them. The most interesting scene however is when Boutin talks to the camera. He is different from the other interviewees. He is placed against a plain background, in an uncomfortable position. The most bizarre thing about it all is that he predicts his own death. This is a device that shows that the whole is a story, rather than a real life account. Obviously, this could not testimony he could not know his own death.
Both films deal with a similar type of theme, the discovery of the true self. In Un dimanche à la campagne, we see M.Ladmiral trying to find himself, and we see his contrasting personalities personified in the people around him. In contrast, Albert does not really look for his real self, but tries to cheat reality by creating himself to the people around him. The uses of interruptions in both these films also are similar. Both have voice overs to fill out the action that is going on screen. In both cases, the narrator off screen give the films a sense of story telling.
There are some similarity in interruption sense. In both films we see some imaginary flash forwards; Albert's escape from the police and Gonzague's imagination of his father dying. Both films are encased by a certain scene. Un dimanche à la campagne is framed by the view of the garden, while Hero is encased by the orchestral music. It is interesting that the films have so much in common, yet have completely different time spans. 'Un dimanche a la campagne' is trying to be very realistic, leaving a lot of the dead time on film, while 'Un hero tres discrete" is obviously trying to tell a whole life time, and therefore skips many years at times.
As stated before, both these films are trying to be documentaries of sorts. While it is obvious in Un héros très discret, it is meant figuratively in "Un Dimanche". Goddard terms documentary as "the noblest of genres. They do not seek the instantaneous for its own sake, but for what it ..... of eternity." The films use this style to try and tell reality. But while true documentaries would tell the story in such a way that the narrator was not emphasised, the two directors are doing the opposite. By interlaying interruptions into their films, they make their directing presence felt. It is through the use of interruptions that these film makers make their stories stand out.