En guerra

This is a great naturalist and quasi-documentary film about labour movement and about capitalist oppression. It is very well developed, filmed, acted, and written. Dialogues throughout the movie depict quite convincingly both cynical position of big business agents (be them great CEO or minor employees) and contradictions and clashes inside working class itself and trade unions. This is an excellent film that puts Brizé in an honorable place together with masters such as Ken Loach and the Dardenne Brothers. Definitely with watching, this motion picture is a drama with some very harsh moments, particularly in its last part.

Very realistic, the intercepted strike activity basically shows the fragility of the working class in the face of unscrupulous capital. The union leaders have repeatedly reconciled internal contradictions and led a group of people to fight to keep their jobs. It is a pity that the weapons of the struggle are too weak and too few. The government is also portrayed as a three-pointer in the face of a variety of inactions by companies that swindle aid and crush workers' values. However, in a broad sense, in a place where labor-management negotiations are mature and there is a sound trade union system, workers are so fragile, let alone treat 996 as a standard, regard labor rights such as garbage, and the potential of the employer will always feel "three legs." If you don't find someone with two legs, there is a place where ordinary workers can protect themselves.

Social movement is a theme quite prized by French cinema. It is however generally depicted in an analytic way, aimed to explain, rationalize. Here, we are shown, or even pushed into the events, from the inside. And what we are shown is a social conflict, and a big one: an industrial site, employing 1000+ people, is supposed to be shut down, by decision of the parent company. The employees refuses to just lose their jobs like that, only 2 years after firsts sacrifices in order to keep the site working on top of that. This conflict, between men and and the power of money and finance, is shown in all its rudeness. In such situation, it is indeed a war - with your lives as they are at stakes (as proclaimed by one of the leaders, an important part may never have the chance to work again). But fought not by soldiers, leading to difficulties to keep a straight line, a united front or even a cool head.

I think the director did an impressive job to put the spectator into the action. We are thus forced to think: what we would do at their place? Would we accept the market rules? Go for the money? Fight for work and justice? It is indeed so easy to judge from afar and the movie manages to break that distance.

The final part may be too much but this movies draws a ferocious portrait of social conflit, our society, its contradictions and its dead ends.

The title says it all. "At War".

Stephane Brizé's film is a hard-hitting and uncompromising portrayal of workers whose lives are literally hammered by the grotesque peculiarities of capitalism. It is even more relevant since it was released a few months before the yellow vests revolt in France, and it almost predicted the crucial role of the 'battle of image' with the ambivalent assistance of the media. When there's war, there's conflict and it evolves on three levels.

First, you have the workers of the Perrin Industry in Agen, a factory about to be closed for lack of economical viability, a state of fact that not only contradicts a promise made by the management but also the insolent increasing of the company's stock value. The establishing moment of Laurent (union leader) shows him daring the boss to go tell his workers that they're going to lose their job while the company's making profits.

Then following a funnel-like structure, there's the internal conflict between the two major union forces: one that insists on meeting the German CEO and the other which is more pragmatic and would rather negotiate the number in the redundancy check. It's literally a Cornelian dilemma: one between passion and reason, which in that psychological arm-wrestling is translated into desperation vs. Defeatism.

Finally, we get a glimpse on conflicts within people who question the futility of everything: the more they raise their voice, the less they're heard, the less they're heard, the more inclined to violence... and if not listened to, they're seen and exposed by the treacherous cameras. That's the vicious circle of violence, the more you're willing to fight, the more likely you are to lose because your determination must be contained in a spectrum of conveniences and curtesy that is almost obscene in that context.

But the tone is set already with that quote from Bertold Brecht: those who fight might lose, those who don't have already lost. That's it. The remaining question is: is it a fair game or is it rigged? Brizé doesn't surrender to pessimism but simply uses documentary-style realism and 'fake' news report to depict the escalation of the situation. We get to more private moments where the union traders plan their communication strategies. It doesn't take long before the "divide to rule" principle is evoked during one of these heated meetings.

But the first conflict, while not the subtlest one, is the most spectacular... and infuriating. It's truly two worlds colliding at each other. And there's something rotten in a state when you have a clean-cut well-dressed rosy-cheeked Human Resources yuppie telling worn-down workers that they can't even meet one man. Sure, you can ask for the mayor to help or a President's representative but the state can't interfere with economical freedom. It all leads to the first misstep where they all refuse to leave the headquarters are pushed by security guards. People who want to move forward and being held back. The perfect analogy.

Now I could talk about Vincent Lindon, once again brilliant in the film after having played the unemployed guy in "The Measure of a Man". I could also mention Mélanie Rover, but listing the cast isn't the pont, not even for Lindon. The film is about the collective force and Brizé did the right thing by never going into their private lives except for a few moments where Laurent watches pictures of his pregnant daughter (calling him "her hero") or where Melanie says that her boyfriend (or husband) isn't very implicated in the fight and is more annoyed to take charge of everything. The rest of the individual struggles are alluded to during the internal arguments where we discover that Laurent isn't even the most in trouble, but he's got principles.

And boy are principles shaken in this conflict! There's a lot of noise and anger and disbelief displayed in the film that it's a miracle there's no incident. But there's a fine line between knowing anger is detrimental to the cause and not falling in the trap. And since we're put in the worker's shoes, having to endure the patronizing mumbo-jumbo of well-educated men and women who "hear what they say" but their hands are tied, it's hard not to full into insanity... and anger is truly a brief madness.

It's a dialogue of the deaf where the winner is the one who doesn't snap. The irony is that the more workers you have, the more likely you are to have troublemakers or traitors or 'breakers'. I read once that a group that counts more than 100 or 150 elements is more vulnerable because you can't control more persons (that's what Romans had centuries). You can't even listen to more than three people talking.

On that level, Brizé proves again a master storyteller by the way he plunges us in long and interminable interactions where people talk the same time and you can barely hear them, but that does happen in real life, doesn't it? The impression of chaos and cacophony is obviously deliberate and renders perfectly the vulnerability of union. All it took was one incident that would give an excuse for the government to "denounce violence in all its forms". They know the drift.

I am not sure it needed that ending that looked like a gratuitous downer, I understand the motives behind it and the shock value but the realism of "At War" was beyond that and the ending kind of made the Manichean angle a little more forced. Apart from that miscalculation from Brizé and his screenwriter Olivier Gorce, I applaud the film's boldness and honest portrayal of the workers' struggle, even more difficult in our media-driven world.

"At War" is a sort of modern-day cinematic "Germinal" that proves that ever since Zola's "J'Accuse" things haven't changed much.

You deal here with an awesome, outstanding, terrific performance by Vincent Lindon AT HIS EVER BEST. He was and will never be better than he is in this feature. No one on earth could have played this character better than he did. It was a role just for him and anyone else. This fighter to the end against the world company, the gigantic octopuss of the international finance which ambition is profit, greed by crushing, smashing poor helpless people. You deal here with a gruesome social movie in the line of what Ken Loach could have done. That's just a forehead hit in which exploses you the face, an Arrow which hurts you in the guts, devastates your mind, your soul. You can't get out the theatre totally untouched, uninjured after watching such a depressing but so realistic movie. Even more realistic than the real life. Non professional actors to play workers, trady union members and of course big executives, as it was the case in Laurent Cantet's RESSOURCES HUMAINES. Another gem speaking of the very same issue and the beautiful, enchanted World Company.

THIS IS REAL LIFE !!!!!