This films gives voice to a re-articulation of the critique of French colonialism at a time when there was fairly wide-scale disillusionment with some of the failed aspects of the Fifth Republic; namely, the failure of integration of diverse ethnic groups from former colonies and the break in economic progress after the Trente Glorieuses.
The most interesting figure in this is arguably Hubert, the young geographer. He still marches forward in the spirit of post-enlightenment humanistic positivism yet he breaks the code in how "the natives" are viewed. There is more into it than that, I think. Is he, perhaps, a projection of the director who clearly has sympathies for the Cameroonians? Is he a model of a new Frenchman (more enlightened in a modern context of post-colonial globalization)? Or, is he only a supporting character for someone else who is more crucial to the main point of the filmaker?
In light of our discussion of form vs. content, I thought it might be interesting to look at some of the visual language of the film, particularly the use of color throughout the picture. Given the title, and the obvious racial tones of the film the concept of color plays an important role in the narrative. I noticed especially the prominence of the color white. Throughout the film white seemed to be to appear as a motif of power. All of the colonial settlers wore outfits of primarily white and light colors. The priests were of course robed in all white, as was Hubert for most of the film. I'm wondering if you all noticed any other color motifs, or anything else about the costumes of setting that might be indicative of the message of the film. Is white used to point out superiority, or only differentiation? What might the settlers bland clothes represent in comparison to the bright traditional african garb? What about the importance of the scene when the settlers get their new "chic" french clothes? Let me know what you think!
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting also that there were several color motifs in this film. One being the white that Celsae pointed out. I believe the white was being used as a sort of superiority aspect, because throught the film those characters who were showing dominance, were the ones wearing white or light colored garments. Personally I find the white motif being dull, but I understand why the film used such a motif. Another thing I noticed about the costumes was that even when the new recruits to the French army in Africa, recieved new clothes they still did not have what we would think is a full set of clothes. They were only given pants, which I think further proves there social standing, or lack thereof, in this film.
ReplyDeleteI found the idea of color really interesting in the film, especially given the title. I definitely think that the prominence of white played a huge role, but if we are to talk about white, I think it’s also very important to talk about black as well to show the parallel. Throughout the film, I noticed a lot of parallels, in particular with the clothing and the pigment of the characters’ skin. It’s obvious that the pigment of the characters’ skin is the first and foremost thing that we noticed, given the difference in status and how different the white people and the Cameroonians were shown in the film. Then, the clothes segregated them even more with the white people and the main characters in white clothing and the Cameroonians in clothes that were much darker and more traditionally African (black clothing, if you will). When the “soldiers” or army recruits I guess you would call them were given new clothes, I think that scene was very important in showing the disparity between the two groups. Granted they were given better clothes, but like Nicole said, it wasn’t a full set and it was nothing like the clothes that the white people had. With this, I think it was sort of false hope as if to say “We’re going to give you some new clothes so you can look like us, but you’ll still never fully be like us.” Throughout the film, I think that I was able to see the parallels between black and white and read past what the colors represented. Maybe that’s exactly what the title “Black and White in Color” means, to be able to see things beyond the black and white.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Libby in her interpretation of the film's title, "Black and White in Color." What does intrigue me, however, is that I believe the director's intention was to portray Hubert as this man ahead of his time and able to look past the racial differences. However, how is his treatment of Cameroonians any better than the way the other white generals treated them? Hubert had them roped together like animals. In fact, the other white men at least gave the Cameroonians the impression that they were being treated well.
ReplyDeleteI did find it interesting at the end of the film when the British general was an Indian man instead of a white man. In my opinion, it signified a transition away from the mentality of discrimination based on color.
A specific scene that I found very amusing was right after they found out France was at war and they all "charged into battle"...and by battle, I mean a big, lush picnic. As they are being carriedd to the sport under the tree they cross a stream and make a joke about it being the Rhine and them establishing france. The whole thing seems to be some big, sick joke to them as they picnic while they send the africans out to fight their war...that isn't even necessarily "their war" anyways, since they are on a completely separate continent. In this scene they are carried by the Cameroon people and they yell at the Cameroon people for them not understanding french and they make jokes. Then, in the midst of their amusement they catch Hebert going off to tell the germans and they get instantly veryy angry with him and say "this is a serious matter".This line, this grossly contrasting statement between action and opinion, sums up the entirety of colonialism as a whole, and the entirety of the directors purpose: to mock the absurdity of such historical realities. Even after the machine guns start to fire and men start to die, one of the shopkeepers jumps into his little "carrier" and waits, panicked, to be carried back to the town, even though the Cameroons are not there to do it, they are busy getting killed over his country's war.
ReplyDelete(Oh, and p.s. I think they are all wearing white in this scene..if it adds to earlier statements! haha!)
I also really appreciated the use of music to help further the satire, in the use of carnival/circus like tunes to represent the "show" of absurdity the colony was putting on for us!
I completely agree with what Rachel just talked about. I can totally understand why the French did not like this film when it first came out. It is mocking their role in imperialism and, to an extent, in World War One. I found it interesting that not only where they having a picnic during their battles with the Germans but they didn't even know that the war had ended until they were told. I thought that this added to the mockery of the French occupied colonies. Even though imperialism was a huge cause of WWI, the colonies themselves were very distant from the actual war. I think that this movie shows the director's sympathy towards the Cameroons or any other region that was occupied by a foreign power as well. The white men and women are made out as fools and the Cameroons seem to be portrayed as the sane ones. Perhaps that was what the director thought of colonization. That people are fools if they think that their culture is better or that they have any right to treat other human beings less than themselves. For example, when the white men were trying to teach the Cameroons how to ride a bike it looked as if they were in a circus. It was almost as if they were putting on a show and were not actually successful in changing the Cameroon's ways.
ReplyDeleteWhen in doubt it always make sense to interpret the titles of films. I appreciate the discussion on color that Celsae started and others added to. Clearly, you all get the point that the colonial enterprise and its imperialist ambitions is an easy target for us to criticize today. You have to remember, at the time it was much more difficult to go against the stream.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true Hubert has what we might call more progressive tendencies, in actuality he represents the most dangerous kind of colonist--the one who can intellectualize things to the point that human lives are nothing more than pieces on the board (so to speak). He quickly used his wit to gain power in the new community. And what did he do with this new found power? He relished in it. True, his servant and new woman raised their position vis-a-vis the whites; however, at what costs? They became imitators (e.g. his servant wore a smart white jacket, his lover expected French social niceties, etc.). He and his German counterpart are the true villians of the film in that they represent the kind of colonialism that kills local people literally and figuratively in that their culture is undermined/changed.
This film portrays a strong antimilitaristic theme. The director made a point to ridicule the French people painting the audience pictures of drunks, whores and cowards while not even bringing into focus any criticism of the Germans during the war. A story of a young idealistic geographer, it becomes a classic tale of the underdog rising above his cohorts to regain honor for his people. Along the way he deviates from multiple French stereotype including his love affair with an African woman and his unusual ability to keep a cool head amidst battle despite his young age. His character is clearly a reflection of the director, Jean-Jacques Annaud who spent one year in Africa witnessing the true behavior between Europeans and the Native people. One of my favorite messages from this movie was during the bicycle scene when the French priests are attempting to make ‘proper’ Christians out of the Africans. This just goes to demonstrate the irony between the ‘civilized’ French and ‘uncivilized’ African. Force and fear are the primary tool they understand/use in order to gain power over these natives which is then mocked by the director through the petty and shallow characters representing French culture. I can see why it may not have been the most popular movie in France!
ReplyDelete