Pansette Film Analysis
Far too often, history is viewed as a large web of events woven together by a small number of important individuals who made some sort impact during their short time on earth. This incorrect view of history has been perpetrated throughout the years due to many historians failing to expand their historical horizons and look beyond what is strictly before them. The true story of us lies in the details. Beyond the major events of the past, beyond the well known figure heads, lie the stories of everyday individuals. Microhistory focuses on small, well-defined events that show how common individuals feel and interact. They intend to ask big questions in seemingly small places (Lecture 11/3). Through the use of courtroom documents, parish records,
…show more content…
and courtship rituals, historians can piece together what life might have been like for the everyday people of any time period. Though the events may seem remarkable, they help to shed a light on the ordinary motivations and values of these individuals (Lecture 11/3) The case of Martin Guerre has become a popular example of how a microhistory can provide a glimpse into the lives of those vastly underrepresented throughout history. While Natalie Zemon Davis’ novel on the subject provides an insightful and accurate view of Martin Guerre and his family’s history, the film, Le retour de Martin Guerre, lacked the detail and accuracy that is needed to be a successful microhistory In general, the film itself provides a great overview of the story behind Martin Guerre’s life. Unfortunately, a few key events are shifted in the movie to enhance the viewer's experience that misrepresent the true atmosphere of the time period. One of the biggest deviances from the novel by Davis was the portrayal of Guerre’s wife, Bertrande. In the movie, Bertrande was made out to be a blind participant in Pansette’s grand scheme. Somehow, when Martin returned, she was unable to discern that the man who came home to her was not her husband, but a stranger. She blindly went along with his takeover and had no clue, until the end at least, that Pansette was not who he claimed to be. In portraying Bertrande as nothing more than a helpless wife with no mind of her own, the film makers discredit all women living in this time period. In reality, Bertrande was much more likely an accomplice of Pansette. Bertrande was a young woman with a child of her own being forced to live with her mother once again and give up the life she had previously built for herself. When a handsome, caring, intelligent man returned to their village claiming to be the long lost Martin Guerre, of course Bertrande jumped on the opportunity to be independent again. She was smart enough to acknowledge that in order to live the life that she wanted, she needed a husband that could help provide and care for her and her child. By underscoring Bertrande’s intelligence, we see the role of women diminished to nothing more than childbearing house maids. One of the most obvious changes seen in the movie involved the trial that would determine Pansette’s innocence or guilt.
In the film, the trial of Pansette is a large, public affair. The townspeople are all transported to the trial and get to openly participate in the spectacle. Often, they went from standing on the sidelines listening intently to the goings on of the trial to being an active participant moments later. Even compared to today’s trials, this is outlandish and obviously embellished for the viewing pleasure of the audience. Davis describes the trial of Pansette in a way that was much more accurate for the time. Trials held during the Old Regime in France were private and terrifying. Unlike the charged energy seen in the movie’s courtroom, criminals were questioned one on one. The judges conducted their hearings this way in order to intimidate the accused into confessing. By portraying the trial as public, the film not only misrepresented an important historical feature of France, it also underscored the intelligence of Pansette. While it is easy to imagine that he could fool the judges with a handful of villagers singing his praises on the sidelines, it is much harder to picture Pansette singlehandedly misleading a room full of judges with just his wit and intelligence. In real life, he didn’t crack or slip up under pressure, he maintained his facade even when faced with the
impossible.
While the movie misrepresented some key events that discredit it from being a successful microhistory, there are some positive aspects to this story being portrayed in theatrical form. Even though Davis’ novel was a more accurate representation of events, the movie itself reached a larger audience. This large audience ensures that Martin’s story will, at the very least, continue to be told for years to come. The movie also allows the audience to see first hand what life may have looked like for peasants of the time. Davis’ representation in the novel is factual, but dry. What the novel lacks in entertainment value, it makes up in its detailed, compelling, and expansive view of Martin’s story. The novel allows the reader more insight into the character’s minds and their everyday lives in general. In the movie, while we get more visual pleasure than the novel, we are unsure if that pleasure comes from the flawed vision of the director or from the knowledgeable hands of historians like David.
History has always been a difficult medium to build a successful franchise on. Often, historical facts are pushed to the side in order to please the audience and make the story more entertaining. Historians like Davis have been fighting for years in favor of the accurate representation of facts in our media driven world. By acknowledging the fact that all historical movies may not always be “historical”, we are one step closer to viewing the past through the most accurate lense possible.
and courtship rituals, historians can piece together what life might have been like for the everyday people of any time period. Though the events may seem remarkable, they help to shed a light on the ordinary motivations and values of these individuals (Lecture 11/3) The case of Martin Guerre has become a popular example of how a microhistory can provide a glimpse into the lives of those vastly underrepresented throughout history. While Natalie Zemon Davis’ novel on the subject provides an insightful and accurate view of Martin Guerre and his family’s history, the film, Le retour de Martin Guerre, lacked the detail and accuracy that is needed to be a successful microhistory In general, the film itself provides a great overview of the story behind Martin Guerre’s life. Unfortunately, a few key events are shifted in the movie to enhance the viewer's experience that misrepresent the true atmosphere of the time period. One of the biggest deviances from the novel by Davis was the portrayal of Guerre’s wife, Bertrande. In the movie, Bertrande was made out to be a blind participant in Pansette’s grand scheme. Somehow, when Martin returned, she was unable to discern that the man who came home to her was not her husband, but a stranger. She blindly went along with his takeover and had no clue, until the end at least, that Pansette was not who he claimed to be. In portraying Bertrande as nothing more than a helpless wife with no mind of her own, the film makers discredit all women living in this time period. In reality, Bertrande was much more likely an accomplice of Pansette. Bertrande was a young woman with a child of her own being forced to live with her mother once again and give up the life she had previously built for herself. When a handsome, caring, intelligent man returned to their village claiming to be the long lost Martin Guerre, of course Bertrande jumped on the opportunity to be independent again. She was smart enough to acknowledge that in order to live the life that she wanted, she needed a husband that could help provide and care for her and her child. By underscoring Bertrande’s intelligence, we see the role of women diminished to nothing more than childbearing house maids. One of the most obvious changes seen in the movie involved the trial that would determine Pansette’s innocence or guilt.
In the film, the trial of Pansette is a large, public affair. The townspeople are all transported to the trial and get to openly participate in the spectacle. Often, they went from standing on the sidelines listening intently to the goings on of the trial to being an active participant moments later. Even compared to today’s trials, this is outlandish and obviously embellished for the viewing pleasure of the audience. Davis describes the trial of Pansette in a way that was much more accurate for the time. Trials held during the Old Regime in France were private and terrifying. Unlike the charged energy seen in the movie’s courtroom, criminals were questioned one on one. The judges conducted their hearings this way in order to intimidate the accused into confessing. By portraying the trial as public, the film not only misrepresented an important historical feature of France, it also underscored the intelligence of Pansette. While it is easy to imagine that he could fool the judges with a handful of villagers singing his praises on the sidelines, it is much harder to picture Pansette singlehandedly misleading a room full of judges with just his wit and intelligence. In real life, he didn’t crack or slip up under pressure, he maintained his facade even when faced with the
impossible.
While the movie misrepresented some key events that discredit it from being a successful microhistory, there are some positive aspects to this story being portrayed in theatrical form. Even though Davis’ novel was a more accurate representation of events, the movie itself reached a larger audience. This large audience ensures that Martin’s story will, at the very least, continue to be told for years to come. The movie also allows the audience to see first hand what life may have looked like for peasants of the time. Davis’ representation in the novel is factual, but dry. What the novel lacks in entertainment value, it makes up in its detailed, compelling, and expansive view of Martin’s story. The novel allows the reader more insight into the character’s minds and their everyday lives in general. In the movie, while we get more visual pleasure than the novel, we are unsure if that pleasure comes from the flawed vision of the director or from the knowledgeable hands of historians like David.
History has always been a difficult medium to build a successful franchise on. Often, historical facts are pushed to the side in order to please the audience and make the story more entertaining. Historians like Davis have been fighting for years in favor of the accurate representation of facts in our media driven world. By acknowledging the fact that all historical movies may not always be “historical”, we are one step closer to viewing the past through the most accurate lense possible.