Image (partial) courtesy of the Criterion Collection

In Gervaise, we seek to forgive the main character only to find ourselves complicit in her downfall.


Director: René Clément
Cast: Maria Schell, François Périer, Suzy Delair, Jacques Harden
Distributor: Criterion Collection
Rated: NR
US DVD release date: 2009-09-15

We like to believe ourselves to be innocent. It is difficult to escape from that pattern of thinking. After all, no one else has to live with us. We do. Therefore, we justify our actions. Sometimes we do this explicitly. Sometimes we merely forget to continue to chastise ourselves for the things we regret. A person is never more eloquent than when that person is defending past actions and present beliefs. It is natural that we do so. We must excuse ourselves. We have no choice. We must go on.

Indeed, our defiance in the face of self-rebuke is not mere vanity; it is a necessary and built-in mechanism for survival. If we ever stopped to seriously consider all of the evil that we do in this world with all of its attendant consequences, we should never stop contemplating our own eradication.

And so we are given Gervaise (Maria Schell). We cannot help but identify with her, this beleaguered cripple that continuously smiles at the world around her as it defecates upon all of her hopes and dreams. Gervaise is proud of the philandering lout Lantier (Armand Mestral) that impregnated her at the age of 15. She is proud that she, a cripple, has the best-looking lover in the neighborhood. But he cheats and she suffers. He tells her to forget it and she forgives. He abandons her along with their two children and she crumbles. When the sister of Lantier’s new lover, Virginie (Suzy Delair) taunts Gervaise, the latter repays the compliment by tearing an earring from her lobe and repeatedly smacking her derriere with a paddle.

Gervaise finds and marries another man: the kind-hearted, illiterate roofer Henri Coupeau (François Périer). They have a daughter. Gervaise dreams of renting a space to run her own laundry shop. Coupeau falls from a roof and never truly recovers. Coupeau’s friend, the admirable and responsible Goujet (Jacques Hardan), loans them the money. He is obviously smitten with Gervaise. Coupeau wants to object but cannot. He has no proper ground upon which to propose an objection. He has failed his wife. He also cannot accept his friend’s charity—that is to say, he does accept said charity but cannot reconcile himself to his willingness to accept it. He drinks and embarrasses his wife. Gervaise’s admiration and affection for Goujet deepens.

Virginie, newly married, returns to town. So does Lantier. Coupeau, in his drunken grandiosity, insists that Lantrier live in their household—a household funded by Gervaise’s efforts. Meanwhile, through no fault of his own, Goujet is sent to prison for a year. The rest…well, the rest doesn’t matter. You can guess what it entails. Fate does not smile upon Gervaise. Here there is no redemption. Here only cynicism reigns.

As we watch Gervaise’s life fall to ruins, we are forced to see ourselves in her. The director René Clément (in one of his finest efforts) does his best to ensure that we are invested in her plight. She just seems so innocent, so willing to grin and bear the most egregious of burdens. We watch her suffer the cruel taunts of Virginie and the maniacal indifference of Lantier. What is worse, we see the kindness in Coupeau that dissipates once he realizes how superfluous he really is to the existence of his wife. We see the lifeline that Goujet seems to offer Gervaise—a lifeline he justifiably rescinds when he realizes that he was betrayed (insofar as an adulterous lover can be betrayed).

We watch as the neighbors watch; and they always watch. They seem to be ubiquitous witnesses to all that transpires in the life of Gervaise. When Lantrier first betrays her, the entire population of the laundry room eagerly observes her reactions. When she celebrates her name day, random uninvited neighbors crowd around her door. When her husband goes mad in one of most realistic cinematic depictions of deliriums tremens ever filmed, the entire quarter is there to take note. Everyone seems to bear jaded witness to her rare triumphs, and everyone seems to experience glee in witnessing her despair.

Image (partial) courtesy of the Criterion Collection

Except us. Clément does his best to cajole us into aligning ourselves with Gervaise. And yet, something nags at us. We cannot help but realize that Gervaise is not all that innocent. She may have the best of intentions and it is certainly true that she is not dealt an even hand. But most of us would claim the best of intentions and most of us believe we were not dealt the best of hands. We want to forgive, to exculpate Gervaise because we want to forgive and exculpate ourselves. Gervaise becomes the emblem of our wounded bodies, our wounded souls.

We cannot help, despite ourselves, but to find fault with Gervaise and thus with ourselves. She really ought to have seen Lantrier for what he was—if not before his initial betrayal then certainly upon his return. She ought to have known better than to involve herself romantically with Goujet. In the best of all possible worlds, they would have been together but this is far from the best of all possible worlds. She ought to have exerted more control over her household. She was more educated and more adept than her husband. Her willingness to be simultaneously the greater earner and the subordinate wife is precisely what put Coupeau in the double-bind that drove him to deepen his affection for alcohol.

And yet we don’t want to blame Gervaise. We don’t want to blame her insofar as we hesitate always to blame ourselves. Gervaise is far from being a bad person. We recognize in her our desire to be good. But she and we are not innocent. We are complicit in our failings, in the baleful strokes of Fate that descend upon us. We suffer as much from our own doing as we ever could from the machinations of others just as Gervaise suffers most from the circumstances that she creates. We cannot and we will not condemn Gervaise inasmuch as we cannot and will not condemn ourselves. But neither can we absolve her. She fails. Nor, I fear, can we absolve ourselves. We are complicit in her failings, as well.


The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

Electronic music is one of the broadest-reaching genres by design, and 2017 highlights that as well as any other year on record. These are the 20 best albums.

20. Vitalic - Voyager (Citizen)

Pascal Arbez-Nicolas (a.k.a. Vitalic) made waves in the French Touch electro-house scene with his 2005 debut, OK Cowboy, which had a hard-hitting maximalist sound, but several albums later, Voyager finds him launching into realms beyond at his own speed. The quirky, wallflower vocals and guitar snippets employed throughout Voyager drop a funk that brings to mind WhoMadeWho or Matthew Dear if they had disco-pop injected between their toes. "Levitation" is as pure a slice of dance floor motivation as theoretically possible, a sci-fi gunfight with a cracking house beat sure to please his oldest fans, yet the album-as-form is equally effective in its more contemplative moments, like when Miss Kitten's vocals bring an ethereal dispassion to "Hans Is Driving" to balance out its somber vocoder or the heartfelt cover of "Don't Leave Me Now" by Supertramp. Voyager may infect you with a futuristic form of Saturday Night Fever, but afterwards, it gives you a hearty dose of aural acetaminophen to break it. - Alan Ranta

Keep reading... Show less

Hitchcock, 'Psycho', and '78/52: Hitchcock's Shower Scene'

Alfred Hitchock and Janet Leigh on the set of Psycho (courtesy of Dogwoof)

"... [Psycho] broke every taboo you could possibly think of, it reinvented the language of film and revolutionised what you could do with a story on a very precise level. It also fundamentally and profoundly changed the ritual of movie going," says 78/52 director, Alexandre O. Philippe.

The title of Alexandre O. Philippe's 78/52: Hitchcock's Shower Scene (2017) denotes the 78 set-ups and the 52 cuts across a full week of shooting for Psycho's (1960) famous shower scene. Known for The People vs. George Lucas (2010), The Life and Times of Paul the Psychic Octopus (2012) and Doc of the Dead (2014), Philippe's exploration of a singular moment is a conversational one, featuring interviews with Walter Murch, Peter Bogdanovich, Guillermo del Toro, Jamie Lee Curtis, Osgood Perkins, Danny Elfman, Eli Roth, Elijah Wood, Bret Easton Ellis, Karyn Kusama, Neil Marshall, Richard Stanley and Marli Renfro, body double for Janet Leigh.

Keep reading... Show less

Mary Poppins, Mrs. Gamp, Egyptian deities, a Japanese umbrella spirit, and a supporting cast of hundreds of brollies fill Marion Rankine's lively history.

"What can go up a chimney down but can't go down a chimney up?" Marion Rankine begins her wide-ranging survey of the umbrella and its significance with this riddle. It nicely establishes her theme: just as umbrellas undergo, in the everyday use of them, a transformation, so too looking at this familiar, even forgettable object from multiple perspectives transforms our view of it.

Keep reading... Show less

Those who regard the reclusive Argerich as one of the world's two or three greatest living pianists—classical or otherwise—would not have left the concert hall disillusioned.

In a staid city like Washington, D.C., too many concert programs still stick to the basics. An endless litany of Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky concerti clog the schedules and parades of overeager virtuosi seem unwilling to vary their repertoire for blasé D.C. concertgoers. But occasionally you encounter a concert that refreshes your perspective of the familiar. The works presented at The Kennedy Center on 25 October 2017 might be stalwarts of 20th century repertoire, but guest conductor Antonio Pappano, leading the Orchestra dell'Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia, reminded us how galvanizing the canonical can still be. Though grandiose executions of Respighi's The Fountains of Rome and The Pines of Rome were the main event, the sold-out crowd gathered to see Martha Argerich perform one of her showpieces, Prokofiev's Third Piano Concerto. Those who regard the reclusive Argerich as one of the world's two or three greatest living pianists—classical or otherwise—would not have left the concert hall disillusioned.

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.