L'ordre et la morale (2011) Reviews

• Terrorism (spoilers)

  PoppyTransfusion2013-04-19

  This film has a late and very limited release in London, UK. It's a strong film that shows the terrible price people pay for political expediency. In 1988 as the French general elections were looming, a group of activists in New Calendonia affiliated to the FLNK, a rebel group campaigning for the territory's independence from France, storm one of the island's Gendarmeries, killing four of the policemen and taking another 30 hostage. The GIGN, the Gendarmaries' special forces unit, are enlisted to negotiate and secure the hostages release. Unbeknownst to them the prime minister of the time, Jacques Chirac, has sent in 300 soldiers whose aim is to crush the rebellion by FLNK activists. Chirac's actions are suggested to be for his and his party's political ends in the forthcoming election regardless of the longer term consequences. There is a very nice moment where Kassovitz splices archive footage of a televised debate between Chirac and Mitterand (the incumbent president whose post Chirac was gunning for) where they discuss the hostage situation in New Caledonia. Both are talking heads only and Chirac's words are those of an arch liar. Importantly the FLNK are labelled a 'terrorist' group by the French government who, consequently, will not be seen to negotiate or enter into discussions with them. The label terrorist is used too readily by governments and has been cynically exploited since the 9/11 events by many countries to crush dissidence. We witness through this fictional account, told from the point of view of the GIGN's lead officer and main negotiator Phillipe (Kassovitz), how destructive a government's might and the blind allegiance of its military is to people it allegedly represents, like the New Caledonians, who the film emphasises are French citizens. In no uncertain terms the film shows that the Kanaks, the indigenous people in New Caledonia, are decent people with a fine sense of morality and honour. When we meet the rebels their leader, Alphonse Dianou, is eloquent and focused and, unlike some iconic freedom fighters, very sorry for the deaths to the Gendarmeries that were not part of the plan but the result of panic. He and his men seek a peaceful solution and place their trust in Phillipe to obtain that. The lead protagonist Phillipe is a much more complex and dubious character than Dianou or any of the rebels. The film shows the political machinations that thwart his efforts for a peaceful solution based on dialogue and negotiation. Once his own efforts are crushed he pledges himself to his men and to being a 'soldier' and ends up betraying the trust the activists and in particular, Dianou, had placed in him. If the film is meant to engage the viewer to sympathise with Phillipe then it fails in some respects because I despised him for his actions. This is a solid film with an interesting and layered story, great acting, especially from those who play the rebels, and moving. New Calendonia is not a place with which I was familiar but it's on my mental map now. They are due to vote next year, 26 years since the events of the film, on independence. Good luck to them. I hope they gain their independence if that is what the vote returns. The French interest in the territory has been for the nickel and nothing more. Dianou has a powerful speech about the conversion of the world into money and the legacy that bequeaths. What little we see of the Kanak culture shows quite clearly that people can live happily without a system based upon money rather than goods or services.

• great, yet virtually unknown

  dragokin2013-05-05

  I stumbled upon this one while browsing through Matthieu Kassovitz's filmography only because i've been acquainted with his previous work. However, it seems that Hollywood remains merciless and after one not-bad movie like Gothika (2003) and one sub-par like Babylon A.D. (2008) Mathieu had to turn back to France for funding. Rebellion (L'ordre et la morale) is as dramatic but not as much action driven as, for example, Black Hawk Down (2001) or Saving Private Ryan (2008), yet we know almost everything about the latter movies and virtually nothing about Rebellion. And at times it paints the big picture as monumental as Apocalypse Now (1979). So, i tried to understand why is this movie kept below radar level. Probably the main reasons are that it's in French and portraying events on an almost forgotten island in Pacific Ocean. But as the story develops we encounter all axioms of colonialism (ore deposit, indigenous people striving for independence, disinterested politicians, trigger-happy military) creating a powder keg bound to explode. Trapped in the middle is a negotiator played by Mathieu Kassovitz himself. He is usually good at what he's doing, but politicians would like to see a quick solution in the light of impending elections. Military is excited to see some action and there is little need for a negotiator that would like to resolve the deadlock by talking to the rebels. This is enough to give you a flavor of what you see in Rebellion, but also leaves you with a question why we don't know about it. Obviously, there are other things that make a movie popular apart from good script, captivating photography and exquisite performance by the actors. Yet i always feel bad when a stupefying blockbuster gets more media attention than a masterpiece like Rebellion.

• truth hurts but lies kill...

  originalstyle82011-11-18

  L'ordre et la morale hits you like a sweet 3 punch combo...body, body, head...everything is on point, image (the opening scene, the helicopter landings, the reconstitution of the attack on the police station, the Mitterand/Chirac debate, the breathing jungle, the assault on the cave, Kassovitz's character in the helicopter upon learning of the second assault), sound, script (special mention to Alphonse's monologue by the fire, the old man's message from the rest of the village to the hostage takers and pretty much any of the scenes with the ambassador or the generals...minimal but extremely effective use of music...easily one of the best french films of the past ten years. Thank you Mr. Kassovitz.

• A must see fist in the face.

  searchanddestroy-12011-11-26

  This is the best Mathieu Kasssovitz' picture up now. This one, he thought about it since a while now. He did not make it only to pay his bills. It will remain his masterpiece. Nothing to do with BABYLON AD, that was not his actual work. Every movie lover knows that. This very one tells in details everything about the famous and bloody affair of the Ouvea cave, which occurred in May 1988, where the french army elite troops annihilated the local rebels - the Kanaks - who had taken a bunch of soldiers as hostages. This film is awesome because we don't find here any good soldiers vs bad rebels or bad soldiers vs good rebels scheme. The real ugly ones are ONLY the politicians who ordered the slaughter of the rebels, despite the hostages' lives!!! And only to serve their own politics purposes, power purposes. Because the close presidential elections. When you think of this movie, even long after seeing it, you may feel dizzy. You may puke on yourself. I am not proud to be a french citizen after watching this real gem.

• Good historical drama

  SnoopyStyle2014-03-19

  It's April 22, 1988. Three or four gendarmes are dead and 30 kidnapped by Kanak separatists on the eve of the presidential election in France. They are sending in a platoon of 50 paras to New Caledonia. The PM sends in the Army to take control. There is a political competition between Mitterrand and Chirac, and everything is caught up in it. GIGN Captain Philippe Legorjus (Mathieu Kassovitz) and his men end up following the Army's orders. But soon they have to struggle against the army's barbaric tactics. It's a good historical drama. It's a bit simplistic with the Army being all bad. I'm not familiar with any of this story to have an opinion about its validity. All I can say is that it works as a dramatic movie.