Another interesting film by Malle. It was a wise choice to cast an amateur for the role. Lucien is a young man with no education and very limited intelligence. The first scene is a good summary of the man. He somehow finds himself on the collaborating side during WW2, and uses this to his advantage often quite stupidly, acting on impulses. It's a great study of a naive character and how the environment shapes him.
Now why would a young boy want to be a collaborator if not for booze, women, money, fast cars - and the sweet feeling of coercing people to do what you want. "Lacombe" is an honest exploration into the temptation of power and to the unpleasant side of the French society under the occupation. Some other European nations might do well to have someone like Malle to walk them through the dark territories of their past.
Une oeuvre qui défraya la critique de l'époque (il ne faut pas toucher en France à la période Résistance/ Collaboration, sans éveiller des blessures / meurtrissures inavouables) qui analyse avec réalisme l'ambiguïté de l'engagement de certains Français dans un camp ou l'autre, quelquefois tardif... www.cinefiches.com
A complicated look at how a young man becomes a collaborator. There are no easy answers, only Lucien's blank eyes and amoral character. Spurned by the resistance, he joins the Nazis. He doesn't really believe in anything. He simply grasps for power and control wherever he can find it.
This is not about France during WW2 occupation or "Vichy Regime" or "Collaboration" or "Resistance". It is simply about a 17 y/o foolish village-boy. He, all of a sudden & by chance, discovers for himslef lifestyle & power. It is about how he handles the temptations coming up. Louis Malle doesn't explain anything about the character. What is the problem with the boy? Dialogues non-existent. A bit boring in between.
What strikes me in Malle’s Lacombe, Lucien is the simultaneous portrayal of two radically different worlds: that of an occupied France, lacerated by the phenomenon of the collaboration, and that to which Lucien belongs, a mysterious reality of blankness and selfishness, totally free of moral guilt. Sinisterly, the film shows the point in which the two converge. An incredibly fascinating effort. Recommended.
Just watched. This time period and the struggle with the reality of Vichy in the '40s intrigues me. In general I like the film. It doesn't force any point at you, but rather has a subtlety that allows it to make its statement and be watchable simultaneously. I believe this is my first Malle picture, but I like what I see. The film is beautiful to look at, despite the occasional disruptive cut. I love 70s film..
Very perceptive about what happens to people during wars/occupations. They change, weak and strong alike. They misplace their own nations. It even happened in the U.S. during the Bush years, and we weren't subjected to what France was during WW2. The hero is a thug-baby yet given to remarkable innocence and candor; he falls in love with a girl whose childhood has been stolen too. History fucks them both.
Malle's meditation on the shifting sands of morality is one of the most original and brilliant films of the 1970s. Pierre Blaise has the same authenticity as Bruno S. in Herzog's KASPAR HAUSER-also from 1974. Lucien's innocence is inseparable from his brutality and I'd be tempted to label him a psychopath. But he's really more of an embodiment. Seeing it again after 40 years, its greatness is even more apparent.
A really fascinating little film that i was totally unaware of before stumbling across it on Criterion. It's very naturalistic in feel - almost ken loach-like. It's also a very believable account of how and why someone might become a collaborator. The country boy protagonist in Malle's film doesn't do it for political reasons but rather because it offers him the chance to feel important and powerful.