Village Life Might be Brutal, but the City Is Barbaric: 'Le Beau Serge' and 'Les Cousins'

Le Beau Serge (1958)

With director, both leads, a supporting actor, editor, and cinematographer in common, Claude Chabrol’s first two films seem like installments of a karmic cycle.

Le Beau Serge

Director: Claude Chabrol
Cast: Gérard Blain, Jean-Claude Brialy, Claude Cerval, Bernadette Lafont, Juliette Mayniel
Distributor: Criterion
Rated: Not rated
Year: 1958
Release date: 2011-09-20

Les Cousins

Director: Claude Chabrol
Cast: Gérard Blain, Jean-Claude Brialy
Distributor: Criterion
Rated: Not rated
Year: 1959
Release date: 2011-09-20

The first two features from journalist-turned-director Claude Chabrol may have ushered in the French New Wave, but for all their iconoclasm, Le Beau Serge (1958) and Les Cousins (1959) are morality plays as old as a medieval cathedral.

Each film follows the relationship between two young men, in both cases played by Gérard Blain and Jean-Claude Brialy: childhood friends from the same village in Le Beau Serge, cousins in the film of that name. In Le Beau Serge, François (Brialy) returns to Sardent, the village where he grew up, to convalesce after an illness, and discovers that his old friend Serge (Blain) is a bitter drunk. Finding no good in the town and no solace from its weak priest, François casts himself as Christ in his own parable of redemption. He proceeds to sacrifice his dignity and his health to restore Serge to happiness.

In Les Cousins, Naïve momma’s boy Charles (Blain) comes to Paris to live with his swingin’ cousin Paul (Brialy) while he studies—and Paul plays at studying—law. Charles endures Paul’s self-indulgent, manipulative, at times abusive behavior, and suffers romantic and academic disappointments. These developments turn deadly.

The two films share a basic plot trajectory. Each begins with an arrival—François comes to Sardent via bus, Charles to Paris by train—and ends with a more permanent departure. Both films have 'bad girls' who tempt the new arrivals—François has a dalliance with teenager Marie (Bernadette Lafont), while Charles falls for party girl Florence (Juliette Mayniel). And in both films, the actions of a third man pit the two leads against each other: Marie’s father Glomaud (Edmond Beauchamp) and Clovis, an older hanger-on of Paul’s (Claude Cerval, who also plays the priest in Le Beau Serge).

François and Serge share a much stronger bond than the connection between the two relatives in Les Cousins. When Serge finally sobers up enough to recognize his old friend, he throws his arms around François and sobs into his shoulder. It’s a rare unguarded moment. Abashed by his current state—François managed to escape Sardent while Serge’s own hopes to study architecture were dashed—Serge mostly lashes out. “Poor François, always eager to do a good deed”, he mocks.

It’s a bluff. Alone in the Sardent cemetery, a desperate Serge addresses his absent friend, pleading with him to “Do something. Help me.” He does, and François’s actions, if only for the closing frames of the film, seem to have worked the miracle he (and unbeknownst to him, Serge) hoped for.

Le Beau Serge

Les Cousins tells the darker story, even though it was the more popular of the two films. Chabrol had difficulty putting Le Beau Serge in theatres, because distributors and festivals (Cannes, for one) balked at its harsh depiction of rural French life, including an instance of incest. (Interviews with inhabitants of Sardent from a documentary DVD extra reveal a range of opinions on the accuracy of the town’s portrayal in the film.)

By contrast, the ultra-modern décor of Paul’s Paris digs, where much of Les Cousins takes place, and the jazz-filled score by Paul Misraki, lend Chabrol’s second film a surface flash that must have pleased audiences eager to see a young, affluent France.

Hi-fis and cocktail shakers notwithstanding, there is no redemption, however fleeting or circumscribed, for the two relatives. Charles is disillusioned and broken, betrayed by his cousin, who remains unmoved by the consequences of his behavior.

The trappings of the pad tell the tale. Paul has a collection of toy soldiers and weaponry that reflect an interest in warfare that runs to things German, evidenced by his fondness for playing Wagner at parties and wearing what appears to be a Nazi officer’s cap. That, and his habit of calling Charles by the Latin equivalent of his given name, Carolus, not to mention his friend Jean’s nickname Clovis (the sixth-century Frankish king), mark Paul’s version of playacting—a less altruistic pursuit than the one that occupies François in Le Beau Serge. Terrence Rafferty, who contributes excellent essays to the DVD booklets for both films, calls Paul’s treatment of his cousin, and the production of the film as well, an experiment.

Despite his arsenal and manipulative ways, Paul proves to be no match for the wily Clovis in their twisted morality play. Marie refers to Glomaud as a serpent in Le Beau Serge, and Clovis takes on the equivalent diabolic role in Les Cousins. He convinces Paul and Florence to take up together in Paul’s flat. Their ménage torments Charles, undermines his study regimen, and leads to the film’s somber climax.

Les Cousins

In a style that would come to define the New Wave, the camera records the action in both films with a cool, documentary thoroughness. Le Beau Serge (shot entirely on location in Sardent, Chabrol’s home during the war) opens with a scene that captures the empty countryside until the bus carrying François rolls into view. A 360-degree pan from the hillside near Marie and Glomaud’s house starts and ends with François. Both shots subordinate the young man’s efforts to the beautiful, but harsh landscape that dictates the rhythms of village life. In a scene in Serge’s house, as his wife reprimands François for troubling Serge, the camera slowly zooms out from her face and through the door, as if filming the scene has amounted to an intrusion.

Les Cousins displays the same inquisitive camera and occasional arresting shots: another 360-degree pan, around Charles’ bedroom/study, as claustrophobic as the aforementioned shot is sublime; a shot of a party from behind an interior frosted glass partition, complete with muffled sound; the final extended take that captures the film’s aftermath.

With director, both leads, a supporting actor, editor (Jacques Gaillard), and cinematographer (Henri Decaë) in common, Le Beau Serge and Les Cousins seem like two installments of a karmic cycle, with Charles/Serge and Paul/François souls destined to clash in various settings, until they get it right. Judging from their ill success, Chabrol and company could have spun this series out for many more films.

Of the two DVDs, released simultaneously, Le Beau Serge offers the best extras: a short 1969 program from French television that follows Chabrol as he returns to Sardent, and an hour-long documentary from 2003—Claude Chabrol: Mon Premier Film, by Francis Girod—that brings Chabrol, Brialy, and Lafont back to the village for a reunion with the surviving inhabitants who were involved in production of the film.

Brialy and Lafont are particularly engaging in the latter documentary, at one point returning to the house that served as the set for Glomaud and Marie’s house. The pair flop down on the bed and watch the scene in which François and Marie make love, as it plays on a bedside television.

A number of townsfolk who made up the supporting cast to the film, enjoying what appears to be quite hale old age, reminisce with the director and cast. Matching shots from the film and present day Sardent show how little has changed for many of the film’s settings.

In his essay “Homecomings”, from the Le Beau Serge companion booklet, Rafferty places Chabrol’s first film in the context of the French New Wave. “The Nature of the Beast”, included in the booklet to Les Cousins, explores the second film through comparison to the first. That booklet also offers excerpts from Brialy’s memoir, in which he movingly and frankly discusses his long friendship with the conflicted Blain.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

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

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