Paris: The Beacon of Hope

Paris: The Beacon of Hope

In wars throughout history, there stands two sides typically known as the good and the bad, the persecuted and the persecutors, and, in the end, the winners and the losers. The good and the winners define history and determine which events get to be written down. They weave the narrative for the persecuted, sometimes barely giving them a narrative at all. Those who believe they fight wars in order to create a just world will deny the bloody consequences of their actions to fulfill their desires; This is evident in the Nazi Occupation where both the Nazis and Vichy, France denied their inhumane actions, during and post-war, in order to satisfy their prejudice against Jews. Although history now defines Nazis and their ideals as evil, the same cannot be said about them during World War II. Their facist beliefs dominated countries, nationalities, and cities, momentarily, making them the winners and their hateful actions incorruptible. The Resistance and anyone who disagreed with the Nazis, excluding the Jews who were persecuted themselves, were self determined as good by abiding to and simultaneously fighting against the Occupation. This charade and masquerade caused cities like Paris to become a thinly veiled stage of deceit and dreams while its inhabitants continued to pose seemingly normal lives in the midst of a war. In their respective works, author Marguerite Duras in her chapter, “Monsieur X, Here Called Pierre Rabier” from The War (1985) and director François Truffaut in his film, Le Dernier Métro (1980) portray Paris as timeless and eternal by demonstrating the prosperity of civilians and Nazis through the continuation of their mundane daily routines, developing romantic relationships between characters, and fostering dreams of the inhabitants of the city regardless of the consequences of the Occupation. In addition, director Rachid Bouchareb in his film Indigènes (2006) depicts this idea of an eternal Paris in a different light through the failed hopes of a free France in his protagonist, Abdelkader.

First, Duras and Truffaut present Paris as timeless by encircling their stories around the veil of mundane routines of Parisians and its occupants in their respective works. In Duras’ memoir, the author notes that Pierre Rabier and her would meet routinely in both known and blackmarket Parisian cafes as well as maintain phone calls everyday. These meetings and phone calls were filled with the hatred of the Occupation from Rabier and yet, were also later momentarily brushed aside by Duras in her conflict to represent Rabier truthfully. She writes that Rabier “phones me, at first every other day, then every day. Soon he asks me to meet… I see him everyday. He sometimes invites me to lunch” (79). Duras, as an unsuspecting member of the Resistance, has the ability to continue with her life in Paris with Rabier, the Gestapo, because neither were persecuted. Although Duras is adamant on the strangeness and perplexities of her relationship with Pierre, the simple fact that they could continue to go to different restaurants and maintain contact during the second World War, regardless of food shortages and blackouts, displays that Paris and life in Paris was stagnant and therefore, timeless. Truffaut also depicts how Paris is in a perpetual state of content by directing his film in the theatre and around its characters, and more importantly, their constant participation in going to the theatre. Before the war, the civilians attended the theatre with high regards to the Jewish screenwriter, Lucas Steiner. During the war, they continued to go to the theatre for a source of heat, as a resistance against the Occupation and, nonetheless, for entertainment. However, they now question the morals of its theatre director, Marion, since her runaway husband, Steiner, is Jewish. Then, after the liberation of Paris, Truffaut ends the film with the people of Montemartre attending and applauding the play written by Steiner as if they never resented and doubted the worth of him nor his wife. The director shows life in Paris as eternal through this continual act because no matter the circumstances and changing politics in the city, the people of Montmartre will resume their mundane lives in order to maintain the ruse that Paris was never supportive of the Occupation and remained itself as it was before, during, and after the war.

Secondly, the author and director depict the ever picturesque and romantic Paris as imperishable by allowing their audience to see how love, both reciprocated and unrequited, bloomed even in the midst of the chaos. The war brought the people in the relationships together while at the same time, wrenching them away from their relationships prior to the war and creating a separate reality in which Paris was still the city of love. Throughout Duras’ memoir, she mentions Rabier’s romantic intentions, gestures and concerns for her health. She starts her memoir with respect to the wife and child of Rabier but also points out to her readers his intended infidelity with the wife of the man he put into jail. On their last day, Duras states how she was unsure if “he would have seduced me” or “whether he would have taken me with him when he ran away” (83). The intensity of Rabier’s love or lust for Duras shows that Paris is not the hellish nightmare he has created but rather a city he wants to run away to that is still capable for fostering whimsical intimacy. Truffaut’s film, unlike Duras’ memoir, has a successful and romantic infidelity that shows how Paris can still be a token for love even during strained conditions like the Occupation. Marion, who is married to Lucas, ends up falling in love and committing infidelity with Bernard, who is a part of the resistance, in the theatre in which Lucas hides under. The hostility of the Occupation in the city force the characters to come together and find solace in each other's company while ignoring its realities. Truffaut tries to hide the success of this romance by making Lucas write a script in which Bernard is forced to say he does not care for Marion. Although this line is confusing about the honesty behind Bernard’s intentions, one must not overlook the fact that he came back to the same theatre when he could have gone anywhere after the war. Both relationships from the author and director present how life in Paris did not end and rather prospered through its inhabitants relentless pursuit of love even during an occasion as unpredictable as the war.

Third, Duras’ mention of Rabier’s fantasy as an art bookshop owner and Lucas’ progression and succession of his play in Traffaut’s film convey how Paris is eternal through the hopes and dreams of its inhabitants. In Duras’ memoir, she writes about Rabier’s confidence on the victory of Nazi Germany and his fantasy of having a bookshop even though he knew the Allies were coming. He tells her, “I’ll go on serving Germany till I die. I won’t be leaving France, if you know what I mean” (108). Rabier’s commitment to Germany and his love for Paris go hand in hand with his fantasy and show how, no matter the circumstances of the war, the city will not change in his mind. His faith in Germany and his hope for his bookshop also contributes in sustaining and protecting Paris from being completely razed. In addition, Traffaut depicts life in Paris as indestructible through having Lucas write and then succeed in producing his play. Throughout the film, Lucas is hiding in the cellar of the theatre and working on his play. This act of resistance shows the hope Lucas has for the Allies, their liberation of Paris, and the city’s eternal existence. He would not have continued otherwise if he believed his efforts to be fruitless and that Paris’s ideologies would be completely altered from what it previously was. At the end of the film when Lucas does in fact get full support from his audience, it is evident that life in Paris had not changed at all and continued as it once was, even though the city had suffered through the Occupation and war.

Last, Rachid Bouchareb approaches the idea of an eternal Paris in a different light through the Abdelkader’s failed aspiration of equality and liberation in all of France. The protagonist holds onto de Gaulle’s message of liberation and the myth that all Frenchmen, including him, were a part of the Resistance that fought for a better world. However, unlike the Traffaut’s film and Duras’ memoir, Bouchareb’s film takes place outside of Paris and reveals the unstable environment in which the rest of the world faced, unlike the Parisians. Bouchareb makes Abdelkader fight against the stigma, racism, and prejudice that colonize France as well as literal Nazis. In the end, he fulfills his dream by finally being in Paris and seeing experiencing ideologies that stood strong against the war. However, the victory was not he expected. He is alone and defeated in France as the country continued to refuse Abdelkader’s pension and his country’s freedom even after all they had done in the war. This commitment of not acknowledging Algeria’s efforts in the war despairingly depicts Paris as timeless and never-changing because the institution continues to uphold onto their prejudice with little regard to outside circumstances.

In conclusion, Duras and Traffaut show the resiliency that lay in Paris during the Occupation through the mundane routines, romance, and hopes of the inhabitants of the city. All of these actions and gestures occurred and sustained the daily lives of Parisians before, during, and after a historical disruption and therefore, makes life in Paris, timeless.