This seminar will use one film to exemplify the issues raised in the previous seminar. Students should be familiar with the film, the literature surrounding it, and have a knowledge of the period in which it is set as well as the particular events it portrays.
E. Benson, 'Martin Guerre, the historian and the filmmaker: an
interview with Natalie Zemon Davis', Film and History 13 (1983), pp43-65
E. Benson, 'The look of the past: Le Retour de Martin Guerre', Radical History
Review 28-30 (1984), pp125-35
N.Z.Davis, Society and Culture in Early Modern France (1975)
N.Z.Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre (1983)
N.Z.Davis, 'Inventing Martin Guerre: an interview', Southern Review 19
(1986), pp231-41
N.Z.Davis, 'Any resemblance to persons living or dead: film and the challenge
of authenticity', Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 8
(1988), pp269-83
N.Z.Davis, 'On the lame', American Historical Review 93 (1988), pp572-603
R. Findlay, 'The refashioning of Martin Guerre', American Historical Review
93 (1988), pp553-71
J. Garrisson, A History of Sixteenth-Century France, 1483-1598 (1995)
C. Ginzburg, 'Proofs and Possibilitiers: in the margins of Natalie Zemon Davis',
The Return of Martin Guerre, Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature
37 (1988)
D. Potter, A History of France, 1450-1550 (1995)
Sometime in the early 1550s a young peasant (Martin Guerre) from Artigat in Languedoc leaves his Pyrenean wife (Bertrande de Rols), son and inheritance to seek adventure in Spain as a mercenary. After an absence of 8-9 years a man claiming to be Martin returns to the village to claim his wife and land. He is accepted by Bertrande (they have another child) and the Guerre family with whom he works the family lands. Martin has a quarrel with Pierre, the patriarch of the Guerre family, over the management of the family estate and ownership of the rents from Martin's lands during his absence. While this dispute is occurring, a veteran passing through the village claims that 'Martin' is not who he claims to be - that 'Martin' lost a leg at the Battle of Saint Quentin (1557), and that he really is Arnaud du Tilh ('Pansette') from a neighbouring village. The Guerre family is sharply divided over the problem - Pierre and his sons-in-law believe the soldier's story, whilst Pierre's daughters (Martin's sisters) and Bertrande continue to believe 'Martin' is Martin. Suddenly Bertrande changes her mind and brings a formal legal complaint against 'Martin' for being an imposter. As the case is being heard in the Parlement of Toulouse before a judge (Coras) a man with a wooden leg appears claiming to be the real 'Martin'. The judges are forced to determine who the real 'Martin' is (in the face of a deeply divided family and two divided villages) and to convict and execute the imposter.
Year: 1982
Country: France
Director: Daniel Vigne
Screenplay: Jean-Claude Carriere, Daniel Vigne
Photography: Andre Neau
Editor: Denise de Casabianca
Music: Michel Portal
Artistic Director: Alain Negre
Production Company: Dassault / SFP
Distributor: Palace Marcel
Gerard Depardieu - 'Martin Guerre'
Nathalie Baye - Bertrande de Rols
Maurice Barrier - the Guerre family patriarch, Uncle Pierre Guerre
Roger Planchon - a judge at the Parlement of Toulouse, Jean de Coras
Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu - the young Martin Guerre
Sylvie Meda - the young Bertrande
Isabelle Sadoyan - Catherine Boere
Rose Thiery - Raimonde de Rols
Chantal Deruaz - Jeanne
Maurice Jaquemont - Judge Rieux
'Charivari':
This carnivalesque ritual was important to the cultural life of the community.
It represented an 'effective symbolic mechanism for dealing with conflicts'
(E. Benson, AHR 1984). Such events served a further social role by reinforcing
the structure of village life e.g. Nicolas in leading the hunt for Martin forcefully
stated his primacy among the young men of the village.
'Opening': The voice-off declares that 'You will not regret listening
to this tale. It is not a tale of adventure. Or a fabulous invention. But a
real life story (une pure et vraie histoire)' Here the film makers stake their
claim to historical authenticity and accuracy. The highly visual medium of film,
as numerous commentators such as Robert Rosenstone and Peter Surloin have emphasised,
tends to convince audiences of its 'truth' or realism. By failing to acknowledge
the sources from which this 'vraie histoire' was constructed* Daniel Vigne presents
his interpretation as the only one possible. Natalie Zemon Davis, historical
adviser to the film, preferred a more explicit association between Coras and
these opening lines. This would make it clear from the beginning that the film
was fashioned from different sources and crucially would place the ambiguity,
inherent in any historical construction, at the centre of the tale, eroding
its implicit claims to 'pure' realism. For the first part of her book on Martin
Guerre NZD consciously adopted an 'expository style ... that could provide the
equivalent of cinematic movement'. This was in part to attract a larger audience.
She admits, however, that this tactic involved problems similar to those met
by the makers of historical film - the bulk of her research evidence for the
narrative is relegated to the notes.
*The filmmakers decided at the last minute to mention Coras, although not specifically
as the source for the film.
'Arnaud's confession': This speech given at the end of the trial shows film's need for resolution. The sources state that Arnaud does not confess until the day of his death. Citing his elaborate confession represents a compression of time and also thoughts from Coras' text - his speech begins with St. Augustine's idea that a man who abandons his wife 'causes' her to commit adultery, her sin passing to the absent husband. Some statements put into Arnaud's mouth by the filmmakers seem pure invention such as his 'admission' that he had met the real Guerre in the war and gleaned much of his information there. This seems to be an unjustified fictionalisation and it detracts form the likely possibility that Martin must have gained most of his knowlegde from what NZD cites as an 'open collaboration' with Bertrande. It is surprising to learn that NZD 'sort of wrote' the confession as it bows to film's need for resolution and detracts from what the historian cites as the most important element of the narrative - its ambiguity. Compression in film making is inevitable and often unproblematic, for example the sources indicate that Arnaud was not allowed to spend the night with Bertrande for several days but this sequence is completed in one day in the film.
'Bertrande's speech': Bertrande's characterisation is considered the most unhistorical part of the film. She is portrayed as a 19th century romantic rather than a practical 16th century woman. This is encapsulated in her final speech. When asked by Coras why she abandoned Arnaud she replies, with a wistful look in her eyes, 'because he wanted me to'. The possible practical reasons for her defection are myriad and accounted for in NZD's work. The meeting itself is undocumented and more likely fictional - another example of film's need for resolution.
http://arts.adelaide.edu.au/person/DHart/ReelHistory/SeminarReading/Davis.html