As I am somewhat of a student of WWII and have read extensively on the French situation in particularly, I was looking forward to seeing this "first-person" documentary about French life during the occupation. While Ophuls' effort is certainly well-intentioned and admirable, my conclusion is that THE SORRY & THE PITY doesn't really add anything useful to the discussion.
Anyone who knows anything about this period of history knows that some of the French fought in the resistance, some were collaborators, and some endeavored to remain ambivalent. Representatives of these three groups -- as well as some foreigners -- are interviewed, and each one is proficient in offering an explanation for the position that he or she took.
Ophuls does the best he can with the material and tries to keep it as fast-moving as possible, and the interspersing of newsreel footage helps in breaking it up. The problem is, as another in this forum pointed out, that you need to have a fairly good knowledge of the historical background in order to comprehend and evaluate the various interviews. However, if you *have* such an understanding, you don't really learn anything new by watching this movie.
Another wrinkle, as Sir Anthony Eden points out towards the end of the film, is that we can't expect to understand the invasion, occupation, or aftermath unless we were French and living there at the time. Ironically, this comment made within the film can be extended to the film itself and, furthermore, if one HAD experienced all of that first-hand, there would be very little need to watch the movie anyway.
It is always worthwhile to hear first-person accounts (i.e. "primary sources") about a period in history, but it's hard to justify four hours worth. THE SORRY & THE PITY could perhaps have been condensed to roughly two hours. Alternatively, if you can read fast the subtitles enough, press the "x2" button on your VCR remote, and you'll get through it in half the time...if you want to watch it in the first place.
Anyone who knows anything about this period of history knows that some of the French fought in the resistance, some were collaborators, and some endeavored to remain ambivalent. Representatives of these three groups -- as well as some foreigners -- are interviewed, and each one is proficient in offering an explanation for the position that he or she took.
Ophuls does the best he can with the material and tries to keep it as fast-moving as possible, and the interspersing of newsreel footage helps in breaking it up. The problem is, as another in this forum pointed out, that you need to have a fairly good knowledge of the historical background in order to comprehend and evaluate the various interviews. However, if you *have* such an understanding, you don't really learn anything new by watching this movie.
Another wrinkle, as Sir Anthony Eden points out towards the end of the film, is that we can't expect to understand the invasion, occupation, or aftermath unless we were French and living there at the time. Ironically, this comment made within the film can be extended to the film itself and, furthermore, if one HAD experienced all of that first-hand, there would be very little need to watch the movie anyway.
It is always worthwhile to hear first-person accounts (i.e. "primary sources") about a period in history, but it's hard to justify four hours worth. THE SORRY & THE PITY could perhaps have been condensed to roughly two hours. Alternatively, if you can read fast the subtitles enough, press the "x2" button on your VCR remote, and you'll get through it in half the time...if you want to watch it in the first place.