LA R M E D E S OM BR E S

A HISTORIC FILM.
A HISTORICAL TOOL?

1S2
THOMAS SITTLER
MAY 2013

H I S TO R I C A L BA C KG R O U N D

On June 14, 1940, French society stood thunderstruck at the effectiveness of the Blitzkrieg as
German troops marched into Paris unopposed. In less than six weeks, the well-equipped and highly
organized German army, unafraid of violating Belgian neutrality, had circumvented the Maginot line
and conquered the capital, sweeping aside Frances feeble military response. The international shock
at this incredible allied defeat was tremendous but the French themselves underwent the most
radical shift in national consciousness. This defeat, it was purported, must have been a moral one,
caused by the decadence of traditional values of work and patriotism. After France signed an
armistice on June 22nd that gave Germany control over the north and west of the country, but left
around 2/5 of Frances territory unoccupied, the exiled French government moved to the spa town
of Vichy. It is in this context that the Marshal Ptain, as prime minister, was able to assume full
dictatorial powers on July 11 after a 569-80 vote by which both houses of parliament granted the
cabinet the authority to draw up a new constitution. Ptain seems at the time to have had relatively
broad support from a demoralized and pacifist French people. The Germans draconian policies,
carried out with the support of Vichy, such as the payment of about 20 Million Reichsmarks per day
for the upkeep of the German army of occupation, or the Compulsory Work Service, led to the
emergence of a minority discontented enough to form paramilitary groups dedicated to both passive
and active resistance.
Charles de Gaulle, then an obscure cavalry colonel only recently appointed junior minister, enjoyed
little legitimacy for his free French government in London. This is evidenced by the fact that out
of the 100 000-odd French soldiers temporarily on British soil in June, only 7000 stayed on to join de
Gaulle. Nonetheless, his appeal of 18 June 1940 was long regarded by official French history as the
origin of the Rsistance. This term is used to refer to the collection of French Rsistance movements
against the Nazi occupiers and the Vichy regime, who, in addition to their guerilla warfare activities,
published underground newspapers, provided intelligence to the allies and maintained escape
networks for allied soldiers trapped behind enemy lines. The Rsistance deeply divided French
society, as people were forced to choose sides, and often bitterly resented those who chose
differently, even in their own families. The question of how many were active in the Rsistance
remains highly controversial in France as it is laden with deep emotional involvement. The Rsistance
is to this day the main example of French patriotic fulfillment, and is help up to defend the claim that
French nationhood was not existentially undermined during WW2. American historian Robert Paxton
ventured an estimate that the number of active resisters was about 2% of the adult French
population, or about 400 0001.
The French rsistants were men and women of a broad range of generational social, professional
religious and political groups. Strands Rsistance did have clear political affiliations, as Rsistance
groups often emerged out of previously existing political structures (parties, paramilitary
organizations). Some groups were clearly affiliated Gaullists, just as some came from the French
Section of the Workers' International (Socialist party) and, after Germany invaded the Soviet Union
in 1941, the communist party established a Rsistance branch, calling itself Francs-tireurs partisans.
Despite this extreme political diversity, opposition to German occupation was the overwhelming

Paxton, 1972

factor of unity, and nearly all Rsistance movements progressively merged with one another and
became organized under the National Council of the Rsistance, starting from mid-1943.
As Allied victory became progressively more likely towards the end of the war, Rsistance
movements became much emboldened. They are generally recognized to have played a significant
part in the liberation of France, sabotaging German installation and providing intelligence to the
allies. In the wake of D-Day, militarized Rsistance groups known as French Forces of the Interior
fought alongside the Allies in the liberation of France.
S Y N O P S I S OF T H E F I L M

The film opens with an image of German soldiers marching down the Champs-Elyses, which fades
into a French field under heavy rain. A date appears: October 20th, 1942. Philippe Gerbier, our main
protagonist, is arrested by the Vichy police and placed in an internment camp run by the French
authorities. The camps director reads from his file that he is an eminent civil engineer, quick witted,
independent minded. Gerbier is also suspected of Gaullist sympathies. Later, he is delivered to
the German secret police (Gestapo), which transfer him to a hotel for questioning. Gerbier manages
an unlikely escape and returns to Marseille where his Rsistance network is based. Gerbiers closest
associate, Felix Lepercq, has identified a young traitor who betrayed Gerbier, but about whom
nothing else is known. Together with Guillaume Vermersch, Le Bison , and Claude Ullmann, Le
Masque, a young rsistant eager to prove himself, they kill the traitor by strangling him. Gerbier,
Ullmann, and Lepercq are visibly distraught by the killing.
In a bar, Lepercq happens to meet his old friend Jean-Franois Jardie, a handsome adventurous
young man wearing a pilots coat. Jardie accepts Lepercqs offer to join the Rsistance not out of
ideology, but for love of risk. On one of his missions, Jean-Franois Jardie must bring a radio to
Mathilde, who, unbeknownst to her family, is a key member of Gerbiers network. Jean-Francois,
being in Paris, pays a visit to his older brother Luc, who seemingly lives a paltry and scholarly life in
his mansion. Jean-Francois does not feel he can confide in his brother that he has become part of a
Rsistance group.
Meanwhile, Gerbier is preparing his voyage to the Free French headquarters in London. He will be
taking a submarine along with a group of Royal Air Force pilots whose planes were shot down. At
the last minute, Gerbier informs Lepercq that the Big Boss, the chief of their group, will also be
joining them. His identity is a closely guarded secret. Jean-Francois rows the Big Boss to the
submarine in total darkness, unable to see his face. Once on the submarine, it is revealed that the Big
Boss is none other than Luc Jardie.
In London, Jardie receives a military honor (Compagnon de la Libration) from Charles de Gaulle
himself. A news arrives that Lepercq has been arrested by the Gestapo, Gerbier returns to France
immediately via parachute. He now lives with the baron of Fert-Talloir, a royalist who nonetheless
put his grounds and paramilitary group at the disposal of the Rsistance effort. Meanwhile, Mathilde
has taken Gerbiers place as head of their Rsistance unit. She is planning to free Lepercq from the
Gestapo by pretending to be a German army nurse.
Jean-Francois, however, denounces himself to the Gestapo through an anonymous message; and in
his letter of resignation to Gerbier, he tells him not to attempt to find him. He is placed in the same
cell as Flix, who is dying from the repercussions of his torture. The remaining members of the
group nonetheless go through with their plan. They are able to penetrate into the building where

Flix is held, and Jean-Francois sees them. The prison doctor comes to examine Flix but refuses his
transportation, saying he is dying. The plan fails thus. Jean-Franois offers Flix cyanide so that he
may commit suicide in the cell.
In a restaurant, Mathilde urges Gerbier to flee to London and keep a low profile, but he refuses
because of his perceived duty to organize the many Rsistance movements that are developing in the
region. Just after Mathildes departure, Gerbier is caught in a routine raid by the Vichy police.
Recognized, he is handed over to the Germans. After a few days in a cell, Gerbier is taken to a firing
range where an officer explains a sadistic game in which the prisoners are to race to the far end of the
room as a machine gun firing squad fires on them. Gerbier again escapes miraculously with the help
of Mathilde who threw him a line to pull him out of the firing range.
After his escape, Gerbier is taken by Vermersch to an isolated safe house. After one month, Gerbier
receives an unexpected visit from Luc Jardie, who tells him that Mathilde has been arrested carrying a
photo of her daughter. The Gestapo threatens to send the young woman to a brothel in Poland for
German soldiers if Mathilde does not betray the whole network. But Mathilde gives only two names
and is released on the pretext of leading the Gestapo to the rest of the network. Gerbier and Jardie
have decided that Mathilde must be killed as she represents a threat to the group. Vermersch initially
refuses to participate and vows to protect Mathilde with his life, but he is ultimately convinced to
carry out the killing.
The film ends with the assassination of Mathilde in a Parisian street from a car in which Vermersch,
Gerbier, Ullmann and Jardie are present. She casts a last wide-eyed look at her killers before
Vermersch shoots her. The final shot is again of a German soldier before the Arc de Triomphe, this
time reduced to traffic duties.
H I S TO R I C A L VA L U E

So-called social history is an approach to studying history that emphasizes the experiences of
ordinary people in the past. Many historians who identify themselves to this school believe that films
can serve a historical purpose in enhancing our understanding not only of the society which
produced the films (a commonplace position), but also of the historical period represented. We will
first deal with this second claim, after which we will examine the value of lArme des Ombres as a
telling example of Frances attitude to its collective memory of the Rsistance.
NOT A DOCUMENTARY

Though the terms definitions are constantly being blurred by incursions of dramatization into factual
films, or vice-versa, lArme des Ombres , based on the 1943 novel by Joseph Kessel, can be agreed not
to be a historical documentary. And if we are to take Jean-Pierre Melvilles word for it, his film has
no ambition whatsoever to emulate one. In a 1971 interview, the director perhaps not without
some provocation said about Larm des Ombres: I had no intention of making a film about the
Rsistance. So with one exception the German occupation I excluded all realism2. With this

Melville on Melville, Rui Nogueira, 1971.

bold statement, Melville would seem to disavow those that had most praised his work. Indeed,
critiques by its contemporaries repeatedly lauded the films educational value. Everything []
exudes authenticity, according to the literary magazine Europe, and Le Canard Enchan, a French
satirical newspaper, (whose film reviews were not satire!) highlighted the absolutely amazing concern
for truth displayed by the work. How, then, are we to resolve this absurd contradiction? Were the
critics simply fooled by the absence of blatantly lionizing theatrics? And how relevant is authorial
intent in trying to assess the films historical value?
Attempting to view the film as a chronological opus falling within the clear framework of historical
events will lead to certain disappointment. Events, such as Gerbiers escape from the Nazi secret
police (Gestapo) office and his return to Marseille, the killing of the young traitor Dounat, Gerbiers
departure to London, etc., follow each other in close sequence but never seem to be part of a
common thread of History running through the film. In fact, except for a date (Oct 20, 1942) after
the opening scene, and the dates at which the protagonists died, which end the film, there are almost
no references to events of a scale that may be called historical, or even that could give chronological
indications to the general viewer. We seem to be disconnected from History, and to have plunged
into the almost mundane daily activities of Gerbier and his colleagues.
Nonetheless, some of Melvilles characters seem to be inspired by real combatants. The titles of the
books written by Luc Jardie, for example, were actually those published by Jean Cavaills, a fleshand-blood philosopher and mathematician who took part in Rsistance activities. But the presence of
reality underpinning the characters lives is very discrete, and the film is could not be further from
boasting it was based on real events. Rather, Melville describes his film, as opposed to Kessels
book, which is a sublime documentary about the Rsistance, as a retrospective reverie, a nostalgic
pilgrimage about a period that he experienced himself. The film is indeed much more dream-like
than would at first be suggested by Melvilles meticulous staging. As previously touched upon, the
film lacks direct links between events, which become dissolute memories often separated by
indeterminate durations of time. When he is taken to the firing range to be killed, Gerbier remembers
some episodes of his life, which are outtakes from the film, but the last image, of a book written by
Jardie, is a shot that will only occur later in the film3. This intriguing feature reinforces the unreal,
dream-like quality that emerges from the film and erodes our certainties. Gerbier, through whom the
story is understood to be narrated, as he often speaks in voice-over, may in fact be completely
unreliable some critics have speculated that the whole second part of the movie, after Gerbiers
escape from the shooting range, may in fact purely be the product of his imagination in the seconds
leading up to his death. The unreliable narrator is a hallmark feature of literature (Lolita, Wuthering
Heights, The Tell-Tale Heart, etc.) and gives further indication that LArme des Ombres should be
understood as a piece of art making full use of creative license rather than as a historical, factual
recollection.
Ultimately, it seems that the film does not deliver much to the historian in the way of an informative
retrospective upon the events of the Rsistance. She will be much better off reading actual historical
documents than attempting to discern the elements of lArme des Ombres that accurate from those
that are not. In this regard, the film is ripe with paradox: Melville, though obsessed with realism in
the precision of the Germans costumes, commits factual errors, such as when Gerbier is handed

F. Suzanne, 2007

over to the Gestapo by the French police at the end of 1942 even though, according to Simon
Kitson, this did not occur in the southern zone until spring 1943. Yet, while the film makes few
references to specific events or people, it can serve a purpose in transmitting not the facts, but the
feelings of daily Rsistance activity. That no dramatic sense of history in the making emerges from
the film can be seen as precisely reflecting the rsistants experience. For it is only with hindsight that
we have devised such grandiloquent phrases as history in the making the combatants, engaged in a
daily, prosaic, and often gritty fight against their occupier simply did what they did because of their
perceived duty to do it, disconnected from ideology or History. Melvilles decision to include details,
such as the death of Dounat, that contribute to a bleak, unromantic view of the protagonists, clearly
resonates with this view. Melville said he blended his own experience into the film, which becomes a
truly personal portrait not of the Rsistance as a movement, but of its fighters as people. The long
silences, the darkness of the scenes, and the austerity of a cut with very few tracking shots and a
mostly immutable camera thrillingly convey the sacrificed lives of the rsistants. In this respect, one of
Kessels sentences is aptly dreary: "Today it is nearly always death, death, death. But on our side we
kill, kill, kill."
A VISION OF 1960S FRANCE

The political and social context of the first screening of lArme des Ombres in 1969 is highly relevant
to the work, and examining the film through this prism allows us to rediscover it as a profoundly
useful historical tool. It offers many insights into French societys relation to its wartime past, and
especially the evolution of its collective historical memory. The next few paragraphs are an attempt to
distill these and their conclusions.
The difficulty in coming to terms with the events of the occupation has always profoundly marked
French public discourse, and it especially did so in the decades immediately following the war. Henry
Rousso has described these attitudes as part of a Vichy Syndrome, whereby French historical
memory regarding collaboration and Rsistance underwent a political pendulum movement of first
denying Vichys responsibility only to later overestimate it, contributing to a sort of guilt-ridden
negativity in the 1970s. In many ways, LArme des Ombres is the pivotal film of this evolution.
The immediate postwar years saw the appearance of films that were arguably propaganda. La bataille
du rail (1946) was financed by a group with close links to the French communist party and the
Rsistance-Fer movement a resistance group composed precisely of those railway workers that the
film portrays as flawless heroes of French patriotism. The same year Le Pre Tranquille, regarded by
critics today as a tool to reinforce national cohesion, told the story of a quiet bourgeois insurance
agent who was in fact head of a Rsistance movement. Especially after Charles de Gaulles return to
power, in 1958, popular culture portrayals of the occupation period were marked by what Rousso
called rsistancialisme: the myth according to which all French citizens had unanimously and naturally
resisted the Germans and Vichy.
The civil unrests of May 1968 profoundly shook the political, social and cultural landscape in France.
Though French cinema, as epitomized by the Cahiers, was socially progressive relative to the norm,
Melville was the polar opposite of this stereotype. He describes himself as an an extreme
individualist and a right-wing anarchist. It is therefore difficult to ascertain whether the events of
May, which certainly did undermine Gaullist rsistancialisme among many filmmakers circles, had any
effect on lArme des Ombres. Whether a reflection of post-1968 anti-Gaullist tendencies or simply a
sign of greater distance with passing time, it remains to be stated that Melvilles film sets a milestone
in its rejection of previous romanticizations of the Rsistance. Accused of applying the precepts of
gangster films to lArme des Ombres, he certainly shows no restraint in his unforgivingly bleak

portrayal of Gerbier and his colleagues, especially so in the final scene which truly does remind of a
Chicago 1920s gang execution. As the first Rsistance film to receive almost universal critical acclaim
a notable exception are the Cahiers, which accused Melville of having made a Gaullist film it
seems to have been important in enabling the onset of a liberation of French historic memory
regarding this period. Indeed, films such as the hallmark Le Chagrin et la Piti (1971), and Lacombe,
Lucien (1974), took on the far more difficult topic of collaboration.
However, this should not be taken to mean that occupation was not still a highly controversial issue
by 1969. Strikingly, Melville was simultaneously criticized for portraying the rsistants as gangsters,
and, from the opposite side of the political spectrum, of having made a Gaullist film glorifying
them. This highlights the extreme political sensitivity of the issue even as Melville purposely tried
to de-politicize the film by naming as few political affiliations as possible for his characters and
groups. Finally, both Melvilles difficulties in obtaining the authorization to shoot the Arc de
Triomphe scene, with German uniforms walking down the Champs-Elyses, and the fact that he was
finally able to do it, for the first time after the war, are highly symbolic. As such, LArme des Ombresis
a taboo finally broken, a first step towards Frances reconciliation with its past.