Characters and Themes in Luc Besson’s
"Le Dernier Combat", "Subway", "The
Big Blue", "Nikita", "Leon"
and "Angel-A"
Main characters and society
The
principal characters in "Subway", "The Big Blue",
"Nikita" and "
The
worlds explored in these films (with the possible exception of "Big
Blue") are dark and uncertain places where conventional views of what is
right and wrong are challenged, and indeed where only the principal characters
(in spite of appearances) show any real "integrity". It is in the
conflict between these characters and the societies in which they live that we
witness interesting and challenging observations on life, morality, and
personal development. These worlds are extreme, as are the actions and reactions
of the characters, but then that is the basis of drama, and extremity may lead
to greater clarity.
We
shall look, then, into the nature of these principal characters, their
development, and their relationships with other characters. We shall also look
at the nature of the societies in which these characters interact.
Le
Dernier Combat
Made on
a smaller scale and, perhaps as a result of this, more symbolically poetic than
his later films, "Le Dernier Combat" nonetheless establishes the
pattern developed in his subsequent work.
We see
society in disarray and moral decay. We question the place of the individual in
that society, and we study the integrity of the potentially amoral
"hero". The amorality/immorality of the "baddies" reflects
the existential nature of life in this post-apocalyptic world.
The
characters here are more clearly representations of attitudes or differing
elements of society than the more idiosyncratic and finely-honed characters
developed in Besson’s later films, though it could be argued this lends the
film greater clarity of intent.
Setting
a film which invites its audience to reflect on society, freedom, morality and
individuality in a post-apocalyptic future has numerous advantages, the
principal advantage being that the façade of civilisation has gone and we are
left with man’s true nature. This situation again lends simplicity and clarity,
allowing the film’s "messages" to come across all the more clearly.
Besson’s
later films are more complex and daring in that they deal with the apparent
disintegration and decay of society while the façade remains intact. This
subsequent setting also allows (or demands) more complex development of his
characters.
"Le
Dernier Combat" sets the pattern and makes clear where Besson wants to go.
It is a remarkable first feature length film which is a worthy addition to
collections in its own right, but it is made all the more interesting when
viewed "retrospectively" and compared to Besson’s later films.
Grey
reality beneath the surface
It is
worth noting that in Besson’s early films we are frequently led below the
surface of society. This is true quite literally and also metaphorically.
In
"Subway" we are taken into the underground system in
It is
in this context that Héléna falls for Fred. She and her husband’s henchmen
pursue Fred into the underground system in an attempt to regain some papers he
has stolen from her husband’s safe. She is tired of her gangster husband’s
scams and shady dealings and she appreciates Fred’s openness and sincerity. He
is what he appears to be and Héléna finds this refreshing. Her husband and his
cronies are shallow and superficial, but worst of all are lacking in
personality or character. They have conformed to one side of society, playing
their parts in accordance with what is expected of them, doing and saying
whatever they have to do to make a "killing". Their purpose is simply
to make money and whatever they achieve is achieved by deceitful or unscrupulous
methods, thus diminishing its value.
The
police are equally dull and disappointing. At best they are hollow and
disillusioned, having faced the endless onslaught of the criminal element all
their working lives, going through the same motions every day, knowing that
they make little real difference to society and its problems. At worst they are
young, mindless, and over-confident, believing without question or doubt that
they do a good and worthwhile job, playing the part of the protectors of
society.
By
comparison, Fred is exciting and attractive. He is spontaneous and daring, and
is not afraid to act on impulse, following his instincts.
Although
he shows himself to be quite amoral, he is at the same time "honest"
in that he does nothing to deceive, shows a high degree of sensitivity and
understanding, and is perfectly aware of the consequences of his actions,
criminal or otherwise.
His
declared ambition is to form a rock group and manage it, and he uses the money
obtained from an armed robbery to that end. The money is a means to this end,
rather than an end in itself – he is quite sincere in his desire to form a
group and believes in the talent of those he has gathered together to form the
group who want to express themselves musically and with integrity.
Fred
shows little respect for the law or for the property of others. He steals
Héléna’s car at the start of the film, having blown up her husband’s safe and
stolen some papers. Again, this appears to be a quite spontaneous act – he
explains later that he simply doesn’t like safes and that’s it! He tries to
sell the papers back and alters the price on an emotional whim, in return for a
photo of Héléna when she was young.
Clearly
this is no master criminal. He acts on impulse and tries to turn events to his
advantage, but basically we are dealing with a young man who is an independent,
free spirit. He does not recognise the constraints of the law, not because he
has rejected them, but because he is simply being himself and does not appear
to consider the consequences (legally speaking) of his actions. He is what he
is and he accepts it. He is "natural". That this conflicts with
society’s laws and expectations is the basis of the film.
He
appears to believe in chance (or fate?) and that one should give in to one’s
feelings. He meets and falls in love with Héléna very quickly but is certain of
his feelings for her. He makes no attempt to explain or resist his feelings –
he simply accepts what he feels and acts accordingly.
This is
perhaps a suitable point to discuss the quotes at the very start of the film:
"To
be is to do" – Socrates, "To do is to be" – Sartre, "Do be
do be do" – Sinatra
These
quotes provide an essential key to understanding the film and what Besson is
trying (I think!) to say.
Philosophers
have tried since the beginning of time to capture the essence and meaning of
life, and summarise it in a few brief words. Besson, it appears, is saying this
cannot be – life cannot be summed up and explained. We do what we feel we have
to do, in accordance with our nature, if we are honest with ourselves. Society
may have imposed its laws and customs, but below the surface we are at the
mercy of our nature, which contains a stronger force than any artificially
imposed structure of law and morality.
It is
suggested we cannot fully account for what we are or the way we act. Nature
cannot be fully explained in spite of our attempts to analyse and master it.
This conflict between civilisation and man’s nature is one of the key themes of
the film. We are all under pressure to conform, one way or another, be it as an
exploiter of society or one of its protectors, but Fred manages to go his own
way, incurring the wrath of both sides in the process.
We are
not entirely sure what to make of Fred, but we find him more attractive than
his opponents. Perhaps this is because he appears so innocent and direct. He
appears to bear no malice to anyone – he simply acts on what is in his heart.
While we recognise the necessity for laws, our encounter with him may cause us
to question our own place in society, indeed the very nature of society.
Within
this society there is no reference to an ultimate authority, no immediate and
unquestioning acceptance of the superiority of society’s protectors. Each
character does what he or she feels he must do – each acts in accordance with
his nature. Here there is no morality. We are all free, though we may concede
to pressure and end up playing a role in life rather than leading the life we
might choose for ourselves if we had the courage and strength to do so. Héléna
has become dissatisfied with her life and is looking for something, or someone,
more spontaneous and original. Gesberg (chief inspector) is equally
disillusioned, though perhaps for different reasons – he has lost faith in and
respect for the system, and is rewarded with only fleeting moments of success.
The rest of the time he is reminded of the robotic nature of his job, or he is
faced with a picture of a system in decay in which the criminal element seems
to be gaining the upper hand.
Most of
the other characters are relatively content with their lot and simply get on
with the business of living, apart from Fred who is in search of fulfilment
through music. Here we have a young man who is relatively untainted by society,
and who dares to try to impose his will upon it rather than seek a place within
it. This attitude inspires attraction and admiration in some, and perhaps some
jealousy in others.
What we
have, then, is a film noir in which the characters are painted in various
shades of grey, and a world which causes us to reflect on society and our place
within it. It is a modern play on existentialism, in which the nature and very
existence of morality is called into question and each character exercises an
influence on the lives and fates of the others.
From
grey to blue
"The
Big Blue" is significantly different from "Subway" in that the
structure of society is not so much criticised as investigated with regard to
the place within it of Jacques the misfit diver who has seemingly supernatural
powers, or whose very nature is called into question.
"Big
Blue" has a different and gentler feel to it, perhaps not least because it
is based on a true story and is therefore stranger than any fiction Besson
might have dared attempt to put on screen. Here he does not have to struggle to
make his characters believable or acceptable – he is not responsible for their
development as he is simply recounting their story as it happened (more or
less).
Once
again, we are taken below the surface to see things as they really are.
Jacques
Mayol is happiest when he is underwater. He is often ill at ease when having to
deal with others, and prefers the company of dolphins to that of men. Indeed,
he appears to regard dolphins as something of a kindred spirit. He dives
professionally, helping salvage crews and working with insurance companies yet
he appears to take little real interest or pride in the work – he does it
because he loves diving. This is his talent, his nature, and he uses his talent
as much to indulge himself as to help others. To him, diving is an end in
itself and working while diving is a means of making ends meet.
For
Enzo Molinari, a fellow diver and world champion, diving is also a way of life
– it is how he makes his living, but his principal concern is with proving
himself the best. He is a gregarious and sociable character with a great zest
for, and love of, life. He is also very competitive.
Within
society there is an overwhelming need not so much to succeed, but to defeat
others. Achievement seems to count for less than winning, and Enzo must defeat
Jacques if he is truly to consider himself world champion.
Into
this world comes Jacques who is entirely natural and is unmotivated by greed,
ambition, or jealousy. He appears to wander from one job to another, with no
particular end in mind, and no real sense of ambition.
Enzo is
world champion but he is haunted by the fact that he knows Jacques may be
capable of beating him. He feels the need to prove himself to the most
important judge of all – himself. However, when invited to take part in the
championships Jacques asks simply, "Why?". He then assures Enzo that
he (Enzo) is the best, but with a moment’s hesitation reminiscent of the time
in Greece when, as youngsters, Enzo proves himself by diving for a coin in
place of Jacques. Jacques is tempted to compete against Enzo, not so much
because he feels the need to confirm his superiority – he knows, quite simply,
that he can out-dive his friend Enzo, but he really does not want to get
involved in the social circus surrounding these events. Becoming champion is
not a priority for Jacques – he has no need to prove himself, and no desire to
hurt his friend or take his place as world champion. Yet he knows within
himself that he is the better of the two.
Jacques
and Johana are drawn to one another from the start. Once again, we see the
theme of love or attraction being inexplicable and unstoppable. Johana goes to
considerable lengths to pursue her "prey", and Jacques is delighted
to see her again though he is somewhat ill at ease and awkward with
relationships. Again, the chemistry between characters is difficult to define
and their love endures hardships until the end when Jacques must give in to his
nature and follow his heart.
Jacques
cannot cope with a serious and long-term relationship involving responsibility.
He is not "made" for that aspect of social life. His spirit belongs
to the sea. The sea is his home and there comes a point where he must choose
between "acting" in a society in which he feels uncomfortable, or
following his instincts.
Johana,
sadly, is equally drawn to Jacques and can do little to combat her attraction.
She is in the unfortunate position of coming second to Jacques’ true love.
Once
again, we are invited to consider the place of the individual in society,
though not so much as a challenge to the structure of that society, but more
from the point of view of the capacity of society to cope with those who are
unconventional or whose nature does not allow them to conform to the norm. We
are equally invited to consider the capacity of those "misfits" to
cope with the demands and pressures placed upon them by society.
As
Jacques becomes increasingly involved in competitive diving, this leads to
greater social pressure and accentuates the questions concerning his nature and
his place in society, and above all it raises questions concerning his
relationship with Johana. With this pressure Jacques appears to withdraw ever
more deeply within himself to the extent that he begins to confuse mental
images with reality.
Could
it be that Jacques is slipping steadily into a deepening depression? (The
"big blue" of the title?). He appears less and less able to cope with
social demands such as those incurred by his relationship, while he becomes
increasingly obsessed with going deeper and for longer than ever, to the point
where he feels he "has to know" – but what remains unspecified. Is it
how far he can go, or does he want to know his true nature, or is it simply to
gain knowledge of what is unknown? What we do know is that he was previously
happy with his lot – he didn’t know how to ask questions, but being surrounded
by people has fired his thirst for knowledge (about the world and himself), but
this knowledge has led inexorably to a loss of happiness and innocence.
The
clash between these characters whose lives are entwined in spite of themselves
forms the basis for this tragi-drama in which each main character exercises a
considerable (if unintended) influence on the others, and is pushed to the
limit of his or her endurance as they follow their instincts.
Once
again, we have an examination of the influence we have on one another’s lives, and
on this occasion concentration is maintained on this issue rather than the
issue of morality.
Nikita
– back to black
With
"Nikita" Besson returns to familiar territory, questioning the nature
of society and morality, the place of the individual within that society, and
the potential for personal growth and development.
Once
again, we are taken underground – Nikita is trained in an underground
establishment and she certainly has to deal with the underworld, a world most
of us have little opportunity to see, yet which forms a basis for the world in
which most of us live.
Nikita
is recruited to serve with
To help
achieve their aim, they must use people who are willing to kill or at the least
whose consciences are unlikely to trouble them. It appears that Nikita fits
into this category as she was responsible for the death of a policeman in a
burglary at the age of 19. It is assumed she is psychologically suitable for
the necessary work, and she is trained with considerable success after a
decidedly weak start after which she is threatened with death.
We feel
great sympathy for Nikita and the situation in which she finds herself. Thrown
onto the streets at a tender age by an uncaring mother, Nikita has learned to
survive in the urban jungle, but has got involved with a group of addicts who
will stop at nothing to feed their habit. When she kills the policeman she is
clearly under the influence of a foreign substance and is therefore less
responsible for her actions, though we would certainly not wish to condone her
actions – we do feel a degree of sympathy.
The
representatives of the State offer Nikita a second chance – to serve the State.
At first she is uncooperative, but she learns discipline for the first time in
her life, and learns how to learn and develop. It is worth noting that the
State is responsible for her development. Of course, the authorities wish to
use her talents for their own ends, but nonetheless the State provides the
education and direction she has lacked and which she sorely needs.
However,
it appears the State has sorely underestimated Nikita and her capacities. She
accepts her position at first, accomplishing a variety of missions for the
benefit of the State, including assassinations. There is a sense of duty and
perhaps more importantly a sense of debt. She must pay her debt to society –
both for the death of the policeman and her second chance. Unfortunately for
the State she evolves into something more than the psychopath tool they thought
they were creating. She develops into an independent and self-respecting young
woman who has developed a greater sense of morality than that of her masters.
She is willing to perform the tasks set her, but on her own terms, and without
violence.
Eventually
she gains freedom from the secret service by using the very techniques in which
they trained her, but at a price – she must lose her fiancé Marco and her
immediate superior, Bob for whom she had deep feelings.
Yet
again love is seen as uncontrollable and perhaps impossible. Nikita enters into
a happy and stable relationship with Marco, but at the end of the film we
discover that her heart belongs to Bob. She is aware that a relationship with
Bob would be dangerous and doubtless hurtful to both, so she avoids a physical
relationship. However, she can do nothing to prevent the feelings and emotions
within her, and she reveals her feelings in a letter left for Bob.
Fred
lost his life as a result of pursuing his nature and love for Héléna. Jacques
abandoned his love for Johana to pursue his nature. Now Nikita has learned to
contain her feelings and pursue her future as an independent woman taking
control of her life while recognising her sentiments but refusing to give in to
them. There would appear to be something of a progression in these characters,
going from blindly following one’s nature to making a conscious choice, to
taking control and exercising maturity. The main characters share certain
traits but display an increasingly mature way of dealing with what life throws
at them.
"Nikita"
is perhaps as much about growing up as it is about the place of the individual
in relation to the State, or the nature of love. Nikita evolves more than
either Fred or Jacques in the course of the film – she goes from being a lost,
animal-like creature doing what is necessary for survival, to a mature,
disciplined, and thoughtful individual who has learned from her experience and
who has developed beyond the level of her hypocritical but determined masters.
It is
interesting to note that Bob, the State’s representative, also controls his
feelings for Nikita, though he does not develop in any other direction. He
remains the same cool professional he was at the start of the film, his faith
in the State and its activities completely intact.
It is
also worthy of note that just as the principal characters appear to develop and
grow, the societies in which they evolve appear to deteriorate and decay
(morally speaking).
In
"Subway" society is seen as a morally grey place, with everyone doing
what they have to do to survive, but with a fairly clear delineation between
"goodies" and "baddies". In "Nikita", however,
things have become decidedly darker, with the authorities using the same
tactics as their enemies to gain the upper hand, albeit in order to fulfil
their mission to protect the public. In "Leon", police activities are
subverted to suit the ends of the evil police officer Stansfield – the forces
of "good" being used to advance criminal activities – and Leon, a
professional killer, becomes the protector of the innocent.
Leon
– from black to grey again
The
world in which Leon operates is the blackest of these films. He is a
professional killer employed by the underworld to resolve its problems in a
particularly direct manner.
The
police, traditionally seen as the protectors of society, are used by the
manipulating and cynical Stansfield to promote his criminal plans. No-one is
innocent in the film (except perhaps Mathilda), and there is no recourse to
justice. Actions are therefore left to the individual’s sense of duty and
fairness, and it is at this point that
It is
only when he encounters Mathilda, a relatively "innocent" 12-year-old
whose dubious family falls foul of Stansfield and is to be executed, that
Leon’s inner feelings of paternal care are awakened. At one point he considers
killing her himself, but he cannot bring himself to do so – for perhaps the
first time he is listening to his own heart and concedes to his own feelings.
He is becoming his own man, independent and thoughtful.
Once
again, we witness the themes of personal growth and development, the
questioning of the existence of morality, and the evolution of feelings of love
in spite of ourselves, though in this case there is an even stronger bond. This
time the love is more akin to that of a parent and child, with the parent being
willing to do anything to protect their child - to the point of self-sacrifice.
Love is
a catalytic factor in this growth and leads to the discovery of morality and
deeper feelings than either is accustomed to. This leads equally to increased
self-respect and doubts over past actions, while paternal devotion replaces the
previous emptiness of
It is
curious that it is through a man who made his living dealing in immorality that
Mathilda should discover love and respect as the death of her family inadvertently
provides her with the opportunity of growing and developing – rather like a
young Nikita, but one who was fortunate to have found affection and guidance
early in her life. In the same way Leon is very similar to Victor in
"Nikita", though more human and touched by love and a sense of
responsibility.
Angels
in black and white
While
“Angel-A”, made more than ten years after “Leon”, may not be a crowd pleaser or
a big money spinner, it is a most worthy addition to M. Besson’s filmography as
a director. I found it entertaining, funny, absorbing, touching,
thought-provoking and above all, interesting. It is also an abnormally intimate
film. The focus is firmly on the two main characters. While the other
characters may be in turn amusing, intimidating and even to some extent
memorable, they are merely there to shed light upon the main characters or to
advance the story line.
I
wondered if such a long absence from the director’s chair meant that M. Besson
had said all he had to say on the themes outlined above, but I was reassured to
find that he once again delivered an interesting take on the themes of personal
growth, love, morality, society and even existentialism.
There
is, however, an essential difference. In his films discussed above, the main
characters were outsiders or loners who challenged society’s rules and who
struggled to find a place in that society while remaining true to their
natures. In “Angel-A” André has succumbed to social pressure and has tried to
fit in, only to find himself in trouble. He is an insider trying (or needing)
to get out. He has not been true to his (honest) nature and he has become
involved in amoral business dealings, doing deals with shady characters in
order to survive. He has tried to fit in and has lied in order to please, and
as a result he has lost any sense of worth – in his own eyes as well as in
others’.
Angela
arrives when he is at his lowest ebb, when considering suicide, and sets about
helping André both directly and by helping him to recover his self-respect.
André
does not seek to impose his will on society, nor to attack it – he is
encouraged by Angela to seek freedom from the imposition of others’ wills and
not to be controlled. This freedom is to be gained through self-respect and the
rejection of others’ views of him. André is persuaded by Angela’s belief in him
– not by the fact that she is an angel. Indeed, the implications of this
(morality, soul, afterlife) are largely ignored. At the end of the film the
situation is rather turned on its head as André asks Angela to gain her freedom
from God. He invites her to leave God out of it, and to make her own decisions
and follow her own feelings. God and religion are set aside in favour of
following one’s heart and nature.
Both
André and Angela need “saving” and redirection – he from the emptiness of lying
and scheming, and she from the emptiness of having no attachments or any sense
of real value. Once again love leads to freedom and self-respect, and in this
case freedom from being “owned” or intimidated by others. They end up belonging
to themselves and one another. It might even be suggested that in the end André
acts in the same way as an angel, thus the “A” after Angel could also stand for
“André”.
Of
course, on the way to this end there is a process of self-discovery with life
lessons galore, the whole being told with an entertaining mixture of humour and
purpose. Wherever he turns for help – be it the American Embassy or a police
station - he is faced with red tape and lack of warmth and caring. André is
invited to keep things in proportion and to keep his eye on the “bigger
picture” rather than become over anxious about relatively minor problems. He is
reminded of the values he held, but which he lost sight of in his desire to
succeed in society, and he is reminded that “success” in an amoral and
self-centred society is perhaps success without value.
Angela
wants André to cease living in fear and to see beyond the projected self-image
of others, and to recognise equality among men. We all role-play in society –
we all play parts in others’ lives, but André has allowed himself to be
governed by others’ perceptions and has compromised to such an extent that he
has virtually caved in and given up on himself.
Angela
helps him gain self-respect and recognise weaknesses as well as strengths in
others, thus he no longer feels inferior. In the end he has been freed from
fear and the need to accommodate others. He has learned to recognise his own
value and break from his former vision of society and his place in it.
An
entertaining and intriguing mixture of “traditional” angel tale and Besson’s
common theme of the nature of society and the place of the individual within
it, this film is set against the stunning black and white backdrop of
Conclusion
As I have already suggested, it seems to me that these films present
various takes on the principles of existentialism. They are set in extreme
conditions or are played out with extreme characters, but that only serves to
accentuate the points being made. The films present interesting and
thought-provoking observations on life and society and as such are to be highly
commended.
It seems to me that there is a progression in the development of these
themes in the course of these six Besson-directed films, with society (and
morality) depicted as being in a steady decline, while the main characters
develop their own sense of morality and justice, perhaps suggesting that
ultimately society depends on the values of the individuals within it and every
man (or woman!) must learn to reflect on what is important to him or her.
It is also worth noting that religion plays no obvious or major part in
the proceedings.
My
thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some
value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
No comments:
Post a Comment