Late style

This last chapter looks at Duvivier’s late style, and makes the case that his final films, before his death in 1967, retain the classicism of mise en scène, the evocative location shooting, and the core thematic concerns – deception, misanthropy, the fragility of the (male) group, the dangerous woman – that characterise Duvivier’s career. It will explore how Duvivier continued to return to source texts (Pot-Bouille [1957], Chair de poule [1963]), made chamber pieces (Marie-Octobre [1959], Diaboliquement vôtre [1967]) and Gothic noir (La Chambre ardente [1962]). This period also saw Duvivier re-imagine the coordinates of French noir and the fantasy film, two genres generally overlooked by most critics at the time. The chapter also evaluates Duvivier’s contributions to the look and logic of the ‘Tradition of Quality’ cinema. He continued to push at the rigid boundaries between commercial and auteur work, working with significant stars (Brigitte Bardot, Danielle Darrieux, Alain Delon and Jean-Pierre Léaud).

Introduction: we need to talk about Julien

When the French cinema dies, it might do worse than find his [Duvivier’s] name written across its retina. (Alistair Cooke 1971: 125) No one speaks of Julien Duvivier without apologising. (Dudley Andrew 1997: 283) Once upon a time, Julien Duvivier (1896–1967) was considered one of the world’s great film directors. He was beloved by Orson Welles, Rouben Mamoulian, Frank Capra, and John Ford, while Ingmar Bergman once admitted that, of all the careers that he would have liked to have had, it would be Duvivier’s. The English novelist Graham Greene, in a much-quoted article from 1938, rated Duvivier and Fritz Lang as ‘the two greatest fiction directors still at work’ (1972: 195). ...

Sound, image, Gabin: Duvivier and the 1930s

This chapter will begin with an examination of Duvivier’s first ‘talkie’, David Golder (1930) and its central figure of the Jew. It will also discuss whether, consciously or not, Duvivier’s film – along with his two other 1930s so-called ‘Jewish’ films Golgotha (1935) and Le Golem (1935), are anti-Semitic. The chapter will place Duvivier’s work within the generic and aesthetic framework of poetic ealism, for three of his films in particular – La Bandera (1935), La Belle Equipe (1936) and Pépé le Moko (1937) – combine elements of populism and melodrama with an expressionistic mise en scène and a pessimistic narrative structure. The chapter will also look at the importance of the actor Jean Gabin, who starred in all three aforementioned films, and demonstrate how Duvivier uses Gabin’s star aura, as well as the defining traits that can be traced across many of his characters – alienation, helplessness, assertive masculinity, romanticism – to amplify the feelings of hopelessness and stalemate that afflicted large portions of French society after the collapse of the Popular Front in 1937. Duvivier is part of this landscape, and the chapter will explore the interactions between his favoured collaborators like Henri Jeanson, Jacques Krauss, Charles Spaak, and Maurice Jaubert on other technically accomplished and visually impeccable films.

1946–56: darkness and light

This chapter traces Duvivier’s return to France in 1945, and his difficulties in readjusting to a new film-making climate that now feted new directors and emphasised authentic, location-filmed reality. The chapter pays close attention to one of Duvivier’s key post-war films, Panique (1946). Although the film was a failure – critics likened it to pre-war poetic realism, a style and sensibility not in vogue in the changed artistic and political post-war landscape – Panique cleverly incorporates the pessimism of Duvivier’s 1930s films, while grafting on a new set of political and social contexts. Like David Golder and the figure of the Jew, Panique sheds light on another problematic representation in Duvivier’s oeuvre; it stands as an exemplar of viciously misogynistic ‘réalisme noir’ which seemed to scapegoat women for wartime collaboration. The chapter also looks at the different films Duvivier shot at this time. As well as darker works like Panique and Voici le temps des assassins (1956), Duvivier also made broad comedies, an adaptation of Anna Karenina, and intimate chamber pieces. One of his least known films – La Fête à Henriette (1952) – will be analysed to showcase Duvivier’s deft visual and narrative touch.

Duvivier’s silent films

This chapter will look at Duvivier’s first forays into filmmaking, and chart the development of the Duvivier ‘touch’ over a decade of working in silent film. It will explore the visual aspects of the silent films and allow continuities and consistencies to be traced between these early works to show a director developing a singular style and then refining it in the later, more technically accomplished films post-1930. In 1925, Duvivier joined the production company 'Film d’Art’, where he worked for nine years, and where he honed his expertise on collaborating groups of artists and technicians on a number of consecutive projects. Such collaborative working methods would serve him well throughout his career. The chapter also pay close attention to those silent films which had a religious subject - Credo ou la tragédie de Lourdes (1924), L’Agonie de Jérusalem (1927) and La Vie miraculeuse de Thérèse Martin (1929) - a film about the Carmelite saint Thérèse of Lisieux. The chapter concludes with an in-depth look at Duvivier’s most famous silent film, Au Bonheur des dames (1930), an adaptation of Emile Zola’s classic novel, starring Dita Parlo.

The ‘impure’ auteur

This opening chapter will contextualise the ‘Duvivier style’. It will look at his chief formative influence, André Antoine, whose influential theories on cinematic naturalism, location shooting, and performance authenticity was cultivated and developed by Duvivier throughout his career. The chapter will examine what makes a Duvivier film. Historians often make reference to Duvivier’s love of ‘work well done’ as his signature legacy and enduring film-making ethos. The chapter will introduce the key recognisable Duvivier traits: an expressive mise en scène, fluid camera movement and a complex negotiation of décor, strong central performances by stars and new actors, pessimistic narratives, incorporation of melodramatic elements (music, production design), and a film-by-film reliability. This analysis of Duvivier, beyond its historical range, also proposes to engage with key debates in film studies: notably auteurism, stardom and audience reception. The chapter will also look at how Duvivier fits into a history of both French national cinema and international film production. Duvivier’s genre eclecticism and lack of a coherent corpus should not be seen as a negative; instead, it is necessary to read Duvivier’s wide-ranging approach to genre and subject matter as a response to and engagement with important development in French and international film praxis.

Conclusion

Julien Duvivier died on 29 October 1967, four weeks after shooting ended on Diaboliquement vôtre. Driving to his home in the sixteenth arrondissement of Paris, he suffered a heart attack behind the wheel, clipped an oncoming car, and smashed into a tree. He died instantly....

‘Piloting with concentration’: Julien goes to Hollywood

This chapter will analyse Duvivier’s career in Hollywood. He was first invited to Hollywood by MGM in 1938 to direct The Great Waltz, and then moved to America shortly after the German occupation of France in 1940. He directed four films there during this period, including Lydia (1941) and The Impostor (1944), a loose remake of La Bandera (1935). The chapter explores the various techniques and themes that Duvivier developed during this period, and looks at the critical reception of his films in both French and American trade journals. The chapter also poses the question of whether a distinctively French cinematic sensibility can be recalibrated within the confines of the Classic Hollywood Cinema (CHC) tradition. Duvivier adapted to a different set of professional and commercial imperatives that enabled him to transcend infrastructural barriers and impose a distinctly French style on the American film industry.