Notes on characters and themes in
"Jean de Florette" and "Manon des
Sources"
Script and direction by Claude Berri
from the film and book by Marcel Pagnol
Starring Gérard Depardieu, Yves Montand and Daniel
Auteuil
I recently rediscovered this set of notes that
I wrote almost twenty-five years ago to help some of my pupils who were
studying the films “Jean de Florette” and “Manon des Sources”. Although largely
informal and sketchy, I hope they are of some value to you…
This is
an apparently simple tale of greed and prejudice among French peasants in the
1930s. However, the apparently simple premise of blocking a water source in
order to force a landowner to sell his property soon leads to a complex series
of moves and countermoves with life-changing consequences.
The
tale also provides the basis for many observations on life and an interesting
interpretation of the ways in which our lives are intertwined, making it a rich
source for reflection on a variety of themes such as morality, devotion,
family, town and country living, the importance and value of land, but perhaps
above all else, fate or destiny and the way in which events can catch up with
choices one makes in life.
These
themes are of course interdependent, and it would be difficult to discuss one
without reference to the others.
A good
starting point might be to state the obvious, that land and its cultivation are
the "first principles" of the story and are the reason or catalyst
for all the subsequent events. It is essential to understand not just the
potential monetary value of the land in dispute, but the principle that
everything comes from it, and that land is eternal.
Next to
the land, César (or Papet)’s great love is family. Unmarried and childless,
family and the family name are everything to César. Ugolin is his fairly simple
but hard-working nephew. Together (as a family unit) they form a formidable
team with César hatching the plot to drive Jean Cadoret from his land, while
Ugolin puts it into action.
César’s
plan is not, however, simply some "get rich quick" scheme, but rather
a means to the end of ensuring the continuation and success of the Soubeyran
family and name. César is a "principled schemer" – he is acting for
(as he sees it) the best of reasons. If he were acting out of pure greed it
would be easy to hate him, but as we can understand and even sympathise with
his motives, we have decidedly ambivalent feelings toward him.
César’s
motives may be honourable, but in terms of the lengths to which he is prepared
to go to achieve his objectives, he is morally reprehensible. At best he is
quite amoral and self-centred as he inadvertently causes the death of the
original owner of the land he covets, and indirectly brings about the death of
Jean Cadoret who inherits the land. He is a determined, strong, and intelligent
man who is driven by his obsession to preserve his family through the
possession of rich and eternal land. In doing this, he tries to give value to
his own life, which appears largely empty. He seems rather calculating,
unfeeling, and unwilling to recognise the feelings and needs of others (though
tempted on occasion, as when he feels sorry for Jean when he struggles to plant
his crops), beyond those of his family, to which he is devoted.
Ugolin
is not so determined, but is willing to go along with César’s plan as it will
clearly benefit him. He is more straightforwardly greedy, yet is more
"human" and aware of the feelings and suffering of others. He sees
things less clearly than César, or at least does not seem to grasp the
implications of their plan, while César is aware, but turns a blind eye in the
name of his family’s future.
Jean is
seen as equally determined, but is more open and tolerant than his country
neighbours. This leads to what is often viewed as one of the film/book’s main
themes – town versus country living.
Jean is
educated, appreciates beauty and culture, and sees the "bigger"
picture. He tries to apply science and learning to farming, while his
neighbours apply experience and tradition. Jean may represent man’s
determination to master nature through knowledge, while the country folk
understand nature through living with it, and try to work with it.
Another
trait of country life to come to the fore is that history (especially in the
shape of arguments or disputes) means more and continues to play a part in the
present. Events are not forgotten since the community in which they occur is
relatively small. According to the films, country people tend to be less
tolerant and compassionate than townsfolk. There appears to be greater
prejudice, greed and secrecy behind the veil of friendship as relatively minor
events take on considerable importance within the confines of village life. It
is interesting to note something of a role reversal in respect of the more
traditional view of country folk as unspoiled, open, friendly, tolerant, and
hard-working, while townspeople are generally viewed as seduced by greed and
corruption as they are swallowed by the anonymity of city life. Role reversal
is usually a device used to clarify things by changing a situation round so
that what may have been accepted is suddenly seen for what it really is.
In many
ways, this was an age of innocence relatively "undamaged" by
communication and all that implies. That small community represented the world
to its inhabitants, and any interference would be regarded as a potential
threat, allowing Pagnol to discuss all the more clearly the themes of tolerance,
morality, and progress (by means of comparing tradition to a more modern
approach).
Clearly
the farmers of the region use traditional farming methods based on experience,
working knowledge, and even superstition. The village and the surrounding area
are virtually their entire world as it is untouched by communication and
age-old rivalries still apply, largely because of lack of experience and
knowledge of other "cultures". This is probably an accurate depiction
of life in rural France at the time, and it was indeed something of a struggle
to get these communities to embrace more modern methods and ideas. Naturally
there was suspicion of any stranger who showed up – particularly one who had no
experience of farming but who was willing to apply science and learning to
cultivation of the land, rather than age-old and proven techniques. The
existing farmers would feel threatened and perhaps even more importantly,
humiliated, by this new approach. Clearly, they felt little in the way of
loyalty or compassion for Jean as he appeared to have little regard for their
more traditional methods, thereby creating something of a divide.
This
division is not, of course, restricted to tradition v. modern approaches to
agriculture. It can (and should) be broadened to incorporate other themes,
including the social divide between villages, between country and town, and
also the divide between cultured broad-mindedness and an insular approach to
life. Set at a time when there was little movement and when there was great
pride in local traditions and history, this is also a story of intolerance –
both of people and modern ideas. In my opinion, "Jean de Florette"
and "Manon des Sources" are less about the differences between town
and country living than about the differences between, on the one hand, blinkered
prejudice and selfishness, and on the other, tolerance, respect and
consideration for others.
One of
the main themes, and one I find most interesting, is that of fate or destiny. Fate
has a way of balancing out events, perhaps even imposing a form of justice or
retribution, and it is notable that so often one suffers as a result of one’s
own actions.
By the
end of our story, Ugolin has committed suicide because he fell deeply in love
with the adult Manon, Jean’s daughter. She, of course, will have nothing to do
with one of those responsible for the death of her father. Ugolin cannot live
with the love he feels for Manon and the knowledge she hates him for what he
did. He is thus led from his inward-looking existence, in which he was
relatively smug and without pangs of conscience, to see and suffer the results
of his own actions.
Similarly,
but even more devastatingly, César must face the consequences of, and the pain
caused by, his actions when he discovers that Jean was actually his own
illegitimate son of whose existence he was entirely unaware. With blinding
irony, and in the name of his family, he killed the one thing he had pined for
and missed all his life – a son and heir. He dies filled with remorse in the
knowledge that he is responsible for the death of his own son, whom he now sees
as a human being who had aspirations, a family of his own, and a future of
which he was deprived. Previously, Jean was merely a pawn in César’s
machinations, but discovering he was his son led to his (and our) appreciating
the value of life – all life, whether related to us or not.
The
country folk, however, had to share responsibility for Jean’s death (at least
to a certain degree) as they were all vaguely aware of César and Ugolin’s
activities and chose to mind their own business unless they became directly
involved. Manon pushes them into recognising their responsibility by ensuring
they are all involved in the payback, by blocking the water supply to the
entire village.
César
and Ugolin suffered and lost everything as a result of their own selfish and
destructive greed. The old adage, "Do unto others …" etc., was never
truer as Manon displays the same Soubeyran cunning and determination in
blocking the water source to the village, though this time toward the end of
seeking truth and justice.
The
implication seems to be that we are all responsible for one another, whether
through our actions or our inaction in the face of events of which we might
disapprove.
It has been suggested that the characters were
predestined to act as they did. This calls in to question the definition of
destiny or fate. For some this means there is an inevitability, that we are
bound to do certain things at certain times, but for others it suggests some
sort of justice where people face a “comeuppance”, or where events even
themselves out to produce some kind of balance.
Of course, the answer is not simple, and that is what
makes it interesting.
As far as the first is concerned, I think the
characters (and people in general) are predestined to do things only in the
sense that we are all prisoners of our character and genes. We are predisposed
toward certain behaviour and actions, but we still have a choice, and that
choice becomes interesting when we come in to conflict with others. Do we
persist in our action, or do we see things from the point of view of others?
How far are we prepared to go in order to ensure the success of our ventures?
Papet and Ugolin tinker with fate. They establish
obstacles but do not act directly enough for them to feel real guilt. They do
not intend to kill, but they push Jean in the right direction to fulfil their
objective. Are they truly guilty? They certainly make a major contribution to
the circumstances which led to Jean’s death. Were they predestined to do so?
They could have stopped at any time, if they had shown some thought and
consideration for others, but to continue was their choice, so although they
followed their natures, they did indeed have free will. However, they would
have had to break with their natures to do so.
Interestingly, Jean shows the same determination to
succeed, but he is not trying to influence others, while Papet and Ugolin are
playing with the fates of others.
One of the major elements of the story is irony. I
might go so far as to suggest that this irony does not exist without the
element of free will, and the question of the choices we make as far as their
influence on others is concerned, is quite essential to the whole. Irony is
used to accentuate that importance.
I think the old adage “what goes around comes around”
is very apt to this story. Fate (by the second definition I mentioned above)
ensures that Papet and Ugolin suffer as a result of their own actions, thus
there is an “evening out” and a balance is produced.
The
contrast between the two "sides" is considerable, with Jean the
long-suffering idealist, and César and Ugolin the cunning, greedy, and selfish
peasants after his land. If that were all there was to the story, it would have
little appeal. What makes it wonderfully tragic is the fact that the
"villains" of the piece are human and likeable. We share their
aspirations and understand their motives, but it is the realisation that we
could all fall into the same trap that makes this such a powerful story.
The key
to "Jean de Florette"’s success as a film lies in emotion, sympathy,
and simplicity. It is a deceptively simple tale and for that reason was likely
to appeal to a broader and more adult base than many of the other films around
at the time. It contains "realism" in that it's principally about
people, their lives, and the implications of choices we make, and can therefore
apply to anyone’s life – as opposed to science fiction, wild adventure etc..
The story and the way it’s told arouses feelings of indignation, anger,
compassion, injustice etc., but all tempered with sympathy and understanding
for the main "culprits", and that is the real genius of the piece –
revealing a far more (morally) complex tale than it at first appears to be, and
revealing far more existential implications about the impact of our actions on
others.
By and
large the "great" films are those which tap into the audience’s
emotions, and "Jean" certainly succeeds in that respect, while
managing to say something about the human condition.
These
films are extraordinarily gripping and touching with excellently drawn and
multi-facetted characters and attention to detail. The performances simply
don’t come any better than this – the three leads are totally convincing and
affecting. Depardieu gives Jean dynamism and dignity, while Montand and Auteuil
are superb in making their villains contemptible yet human and likeable.
The
direction by Claude Berri maintains pace, interest and sympathy – even, as I
indicated above, for the "villains" of the piece, while the music
brilliantly captures and enhances the mood and remains memorable long after the
end of the films.
My
thanks for taking the time to read these notes. I hope you found them of some
value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
BLOG
YouTube
