This Land is Mine (1943)

When a movie engages in propaganda, we see in it a power play, often a desire on the filmmaker’s part to bend the audience member’s opinion through dishonest and/or manipulative means. We see this most regularly in religious films, and widely in war or politically-themed works (think Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will). Jean Renoir’s 1943 wartime film, This Land Is Mine, has been called “propagandistic” with a screenplay that consists of “pure jingo” from no less a critic than the estimable Dave Kehr.[1]

And yet, despite a personal aversion to such tactics, This Land Is Mine offers a surprising dose of humanity in its brisk 103 minutes. This is due in no small part to Renoir’s gentle, even playful, touch with a number of the characters, making them more people with opinions and tendencies rather than mouthpieces spouting hard and fast ideology. The German Major von Keller, for instance, plays against the typical Nazi type, a man preferring to negotiate with and persuade the occupied instead of dominating them with a brash show of force. Von Keller remains evil—perhaps appearing even moreso with his gentler ways. In this spirit, von Keller’s most effective weapon turns out to be a flower, rather than a gun.

Laughton’s Albert Lory serves as the prime example of Renoir’s deft handling of his characters. To merely recount the arc of this character would lead one to affirm Kehr’s casting the screenplay into the classic Hollywood jingo-bin. However, while the character undergoes a remarkable transformation in an absurdly short amount of time, the film and the performance are so compelling that the abruptness of the transition is lessened.

Ultimately, the sequence that makes the film work appears in the film’s final third, as Lory offers two speeches in the courtroom that bookend a crucial few moments in his cell. None of these scenes will win awards for their distinctively cinematic qualities, but small and significant touches work to visually play off of the more straightforward ideas in the script. Most significant among these are the abrupt cut away from Lory’s friend Professor Sorrell, just before the latter’s execution. Renoir leaves him in mid-wave, effectively cutting off our last view of the great man too quickly. The cut serves to heighten our loss of this admirable character, one cut down far too soon.

Further, in Lory’s second courtroom address, immediately following the execution, Renoir alternates his camera between a medium shot of Lory himself and the faces of those in Lory’s hearing. This effectively minimizes the focus on the star—who, by the way, brilliantly delivers the speech—and places the “audience” in the midst of a dialogue of sorts—those who are hearing the speech and will have to respond to it.

This interplay between word and image doesn’t allow the film to avoid its propagandistic label—or the naïve liberalism of the final, anti-climactic classroom scene. But with his focus on faces, witnesses to this persuasive speech, Renoir injects something universally human into the proceedings—the portrait of a weighty choice: how to respond to the often conflicting messages and feelings we receive and have during our most trying times.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “This Land is Mine (1943)

  1. I appreciated this review and its subtle debunking of the hasty label of “propaganda.” I recently viewed the film in the context of my current work on daily life in Occupation France and I would say that knowledge of this extremely complex period in French history (with its ramifications for today), the ambiguities of “collaboration” that are emerging in light of a more nuanced understanding of the Final Solution in France, and an acknowledgement of the difficulties in assessing the permutations of antisemitism, nationalism, xenophobia, and patriotism (all issues we are dealing with now), this film is one of Renoir’s greatest works. It should be made more readily available, with contextualizing notes that would indicate how a 1943 film made in Hollywood is able to remind us of everything human.

  2. Thanks for the comment, Sandy. One of the reasons I think the film can still connect with the modern viewer is that it transcends its message through the more “tangible” aspects of the film: Renoir’s well-placed edits, the performance by Laughton, the mise en scene, etc.

    Your work sounds fascinating and timely. Is it especially focused on cinematic representation of the period, or does it examine the occupation through a wider lens?

    1. Just learning how to reply on this thing. My English department faculty web page (Rutgers in New Brunswick NJ) says what I do. My work since 1996 has been on material culture and daily life in Occupation France. I organized a conference at Columbia in 1998 and the book project is coming out of this. I didn’t realize how terrific the Renoir film was until recently. Several essays of mine about this topic deal with films, but I’m also dealing with women and families. I reviewed Army of Shadows for CINEASTE a while back & recently reviewed two films about the Vel d’Hiv.

      1. Glad to hear you’re doing this kind of cultural and historical work, Sandy–two things close to my heart.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s