France drama
1980
color 131 min.
Director: Francois Truffaut
CLV: Though not currently available, this title may be returning at a later date.
           1 disc, catalog # CC1301L
VHS: available from Home Vision Cinema
Writing the screenplay for The Last Metro with Suzanne
Schiffman, my intention was to do for the theater what I had done for the cinema
in Day for Night: the chronicle of a troupe at work, within a framework
respecting the unities of place, time, and action. There was a notable difference
between the two projects, which is that my acquaintance with the theater is
superficial and that, in any case, putting on a play is very much less rich,
visually, than shooting a film.The Occupation does not constitute a theme in
itself but simply a background and, for me, who was eight at the start of the war
and twelve at the Liberation, a background rich in sensations, emotions,
memories. In 1958, writing The 400 Blows with Marcel Moussy, I regretted
not being able to bring in a thousand details from my adolescence connected with
that period of the Occupation, but the budget and the New Wave frame of mind were
not compatible with the notion of a "period film." From that standpoint, Jules
and Jim in 1961 constituted an exception.
It was in 1968, after having made
Stolen Kisses, that I again felt I wanted to reconstruct that epoch. But
at that point I was stopped dead in my enthusiasm by a remarkable film, Marcel
Ophuls' The Sorrow and the Pity, which, by the use of documents and
interviews, mingles past and present with a Proustian felicity. The Sorrow and
the Pity is certainly not a film of fiction, yet it is not a documentary
either, but rather an impassioned reflection of such a richness that several
viewings do not suffice to exhaust it.
To suspect, as is sometimes done, that
artists haunted by the Occupation are exploiting an ambiguous nostalgia makes no
more sense than to reproach John Ford for having devoted two thirds of his output
to the conquest of the West or Marcel Proust for having, in his Recherche,
made numerous references to the Dreyfus Affair.
The war of 1914-18 and the
Occupation of 1940-44 have every possibility, in another twenty years, of
appearing as the two most thrilling, most romantic periods of the twentieth
century, and therefore also the most fascinating and inspiring.
Since the shock
of The Sorrow and the Pity, ten years have passed and, like everyone, I
have seen a dozen films about the Occupation. One struck me as too gloomy,
another as too rosy, there was too much sunshine in one, too much modern music in
another. In short, I remained with my desire unsatisfied and with a few
certainties valid for myself alone: a film about the Occupation should take place
almost entirely at night and in closed places, the feel of the epoch has to be
reconstructed by darkness, close to confinement, frustration, precariousness, and
-- the sole luminous element -- one should include, in their original recordings,
some of the songs heard at the time in the streets and on the radio.
I read
that during the war fifteen or more theaters in Paris were run by women,
actresses or former actresses. My heroine therefore would be a "directress," and
I immediately thought of Catherine Deneuve, a thrilling actress I had not used to
the best of her possibilities in Mississippi Mermaid. I had read that
Louis Jouvet, to escape the pressures of German censorship, left Paris at the
start of the Occupation for South America. I asked myself what would have
happened if, for love of a woman, a Jewish director had pretended to flee France
but had remained hidden in the cellar of his theater throughout the war. Invented
as it was, the idea was not entirely improbable, because the musician Kosma and
the designer Trauner had known that situation, working clandestinely under false
names for the films of Marcel Carne, for example.
I needed a young fellow, an
actor just starting out and torn between his pride in entering a famed theater
company and the desire to have a hand in the liberation of his country, as was
the case with Louis Jourdan and Jean-Pierre Aumont. It was only after writing the
first half hour of the subject that the choice of Gerard Depardieu became
inevitable. As in Day for Night, I felt that a careful distribution of
known actors and new faces was necessary in the interest of plausibility.
One
of the shortest but most interesting roles was that of Daxiat, our only bad
character, who could say: "I adore the theater, I live for the theater, but
theater people detest me." This character was inspired for us by Alain Laubreaux
and also by a talented filmmaker who, in the midst of the fight over the
Cinematheque in 1968, didn't hesitate to pick up his telephone to call a producer
hostile to Henri Langlois a "dirty Jew." Daxiat illustrates the irresponsibility
of the French extremists who, by their excess of zeal, often did more harm than
the Germans. To confide that role to a known actor, even a very talented one, who
is seen three or four times a year on the screen would have weakened it.
With
the work of writing finished, I returned to Paris in September and came to
realize that although the screenplay seemed to please each of the actors
concerned, it was received very coldly by the distributors and possible backers.
The role of Lucas Steiner, a German Jew, would have justified a French and German
co-production, but the German distributors didn't like the screenplay and wanted
a better known name than Heinz Bennett, whom I was absolutely insistent on. Two
of the major French distributors returned the script, one refusing it outright,
the other proposing to distribute the film without giving us any money, and I
foresaw the moment when I would be forced to announce to the actors that the film
would be cancelled or postponed.
A co-producer we had in mind liked the script
but disapproved of the choice of Andrea Ferreol for the lesbian wardrobe woman:
too improbable. Could I make him understand that it was precisely for that that I
chose her, so as to obtain at first an effect of suspense (will Arlette give in
to Depardieu's advances?) and then of surprise (Arlette is in love with
Catherine)? It is not sufficiently known that the French pro-Nazis who proclaimed
their cult of virility (for them, Germany was male and the defeated France
female) included Jews and homosexuals in the same hatred. The fascist critics
regularly denounced Bataille's "Jewified" theater, Cocteau's "effeminate"
theater. I felt that our script had to show that double racism of which Sartre,
in Portrait of an Anti-Semite, very effectively exposed the obsessive,
sexual, and passionate aspects.
When I opened the script to consult or complete
it, it pleased me, though without overwhelming me. It corresponded quite well to
the rudimentary and intelligent definition John Ford gives of his work: "Filming
sympathetic characters plunged into interesting situations." But I hadn't
succeeded in making the character of Lucas Steiner speak with the humor and
derision I felt indispensable. One evening, at the Theatre du Gymnase, I saw the
superb play L'Atelier, both moving and funny, and I immediately got in touch with
Jean-Claude Grumberg to ask him to write a sort of additional dialogue designed
to give more nuance to the character of Lucas Steiner.
With the screenplay
already firmly established, the length estimated at 150 minutes, and shooting
about to begin, Jean-Claude Grumberg's freedom to invent was against a wall, yet
his contribution was precious, for example in that scene in the cellar when Lucas
puts on a papier-mache nose and says: "I am trying to feel Jewish. They're very
delicate, Jewish roles. If you do just a tiny bit, they say, 'He's exaggerating.'
If you put it on a lot, they say, 'He doesn't seem Jewish.' Just what is 'seeming
Jewish'?"
Shooting The Last Metro was quite pleasant but difficult. I
would have been a lot more relaxed if I could have foreseen the success the film
would enjoy. After five days of shooting, Suzanne Schiffman, my collaborator from
the start, fell ill and had to leave the set for a month. Two days later,
Catherine Deneuve had a fall on a staircase, and when she came back to work the
doctor forbade her to wear theater costumes (heavily corseted) for another ten
days. The working plan had to be changed, the stage scenes put off until later,
and the scenes with Catherine in street dress filmed right away, though the
necessary sets were still in the making.
What reassured me was to see how very
well the actors were fitting into their roles. Working for the first time with
Gerard Depardieu, I marveled at the warmth and truthfulness he brought to the
role of Bernard. Jean Poiret's insolent frivolity enchanted me. For the role of a
young actress with great ambitions, I engaged the adorable little Sabine of
Jules and Jim. It was with Heinz Bennett that I worked most, an hour in
his dressing room every morning, in order that, as both of us hoped, despite his
fine German accent he would speak in the same rhythm as the French
actors.
Catherine Deneuve loved this double role of a woman not afraid of
appearing antipathetic, cold, and hard in order to protect the man who until then
had protected her. In her previous films, to my taste Catherine too often played
girls' roles (rather than women's), and that impression was reinforced by her
triumphal hairdo cascading freely over her shoulders. Before shooting I had
easily convinced her to look her real age and to wear her hair in a chignon and
always rolled up so as to represent not a beautiful girl but a beautiful woman
who was responsible and almost authoritarian. Catherine had some misgivings about
the scenes on stage. She was the only one in the cast who had never mounted the
boards, and she wondered if she would be able to articulate as in the theater, to
slow down the flow of words, and to project her voice toward the balcony. She
succeeded in all of this perfectly.
After shooting The Last Metro, I was
conscious of having made the fictional film with the greatest amount of
information about daily life under the Occupation. I knew that viewers of
forty-five and more would be concerned with our having got the climate just
right, but how to know if young viewers would be interested? Wouldn't they find
the incidents in the film too slight and the dramatic vicissitudes too few? I
thought: "The American cinema constantly presents characters who carry their
action through to its conclusion, and here I am showing only people prevented
from realizing their plan and whom circumstances lead to concentrating on
survival." On that point, happily, I was wrong, because it is probably thanks to
all the obstacles blocking my characters that the public was able to sympathize
to such an extent with them, even identifying themselves with this one or
that.
When the leading characters in the film are really alive, the situations
don't demand an extreme tension, but it's only when the film is shown in public
that the author knows if his characters come alive or not. If, as is still done
regularly in America, I had arranged two or three previews, I would have kept
faith with my original intentions and would certainly have presented the film in
a slightly longer version (of which the transcription in Avant-Scene remains the
only evidence), but doubt led me to deliver a film of 128 minutes (though, for
the TV version, my editor Martine Barraque succeeded in restoring a six-minute
scene between a scriptwriter, Monsieur Valentin, and Marian Steiner).
Like
babies, films shift around in the belly. As Roger Leenhardt pointed out, "You
have the idea for a film, you shoot a second one, and the public gets a third."
Today, in 1983, if I have to analyze the good reception The Last Metro
got, I think that my having filled out the screenplay with details that had
struck me in my childhood gave the film an originality of vision it wouldn't have
had if it had been conceived by someone older (who would have experienced the
Occupation as an adult) or younger (who would have been born during the war or
afterward). To illustrate this perfectly obvious truism by example, I will recall
that only children observe a funeral "objectively" and, with a well-dissimulated
interest, take note of what does not strike adults as essential: the mourning
bands, the silvery letters on the wreaths, the hats, veils, black stockings,
Sunday clothes. There you have what The Last Metro probably is: the
theater and the Occupation seen by a child.
-- FRANCOIS TRUFFAUT, February
1983 (excerpted from an article printed in L'Avant-Scene Cinema magazine,
March 1983)
CREDITS
Directed by: Francois Truffaut
Story by:
Francois Truffaut, Suzanne Schiffman
Screenplay by: Francois Truffaut, Suzanne
Schiffman, Jean-Claude Grumberg
Director of Photography: Nestor
Almendros
Art Director: Jean-Pierre Kohut-Svelko
Music: Georges
Delerue
BR>TRANSFER
The Last Metro was transferred using a
35mm intermediate positive picture element and 35mm mono magnetic sound element.
It is presented in its original European theatrical aspect ratio of 1:75:1.
Special thanks to Nestor Almendros.