the historical-comic duel of Georges Clemenceau and Paul Deschanel

THE OPINION OF THE “WORLD” – WHY NOT

Alongside those who are purely and simply unaware of his existence, the name of Paul Deschanel (1855-1922), surreptitious President of the French Republic, revives in the consciousness of lovers of national history the sad memory, when he is not mocking, of an unusual destiny for this office. Elected on February 18, 1920 for seven years, he will only assume it for seven months, due to problems of anxiety and mental exhaustion, as well as sleep drunkenness which will have inadvertently led him to fall on the 23 May 1920 near Montargis, from the moving train that took him to the inauguration of a monument to the dead of the Great War in Montbrison. Fall immediately entered the legend, from which the fate of the president was more or less sealed.

Jean-Marc Peyrefitte’s first feature film intends to do away with this reputation, to say the least, by reminding us, on the one hand, that Paul Deschanel was worth much better than that and by authorizing himself artistic freedom to, on the other hand, prick this historical destiny with romance. The first part of the program is most interesting, in that it reminds us that Deschanel was not only an intransigent Republican, but also, and in many respects, a man of spirit and progress who campaigned against the death penalty. , against colonization and for women’s right to vote.

The second is, alas, more conventional. It highlights the duel between an airy and poetic Deschanel, almost detached from political things, logically embodied by Jacques Gamblin, and a devilish politician Clemenceau, embittered at seeing an election for which he was nevertheless given as the favourite, that André Dussollier has fun shooting at the old carne.

Creator’s freedom

The confrontation entertains because the actors take pleasure in it – as do Christian Hecq as Millerand or Anna Mouglalis as a brothel pythia – but it hardly convinces. Especially since the true stature of Clemenceau is, by the force of this dramaturgical choice, diminished as that of Deschanel is magnified. Can we blame the director for this, even though he allows himself his freedom as a creator and his right to turn the story into a comedy? However, it is the danger of staging historical figures to legitimize this temptation.

Today, when politicians seem more discredited than ever, it was of course tempting to rehabilitate a man whose lofty vision and visionary flights, incompatible with what the narrow framework of his mandate allowed him, caused his downfall. Even if it was to the detriment of a political enemy whose accomplishments – from the courageous commitment in the Dreyfusard camp to the crucial role in the victory of the First World War – in truth suffer no comparison with those of his adversary.

You have 3.41% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.