Julien Duvivier

By Ben McCann

This book is the first ever English-language study of Julien Duvivier (1896-1967), once considered one of the world's great filmmakers. It provides new contextual and analytical readings of his films that identify his key themes and techniques, trace patterns of continuity and change, and explore critical assessments of his work over time.

His career began in the silent era and ended as the French New Wave was winding down. In between, Duvivier made over sixty films in a long and at times difficult career. He was adept at literary adaptation, biblical epic, and film noir, and this groundbreaking volume illustrates in great detail Duvivier's eclecticism, technical efficiency and visual fluency in works such as Panique (1946) and Voici le temps des assassins (1956). It will particularly appeal to scholars and students of French cinema looking for examples of a director who could straddle the realms of the popular and the auteur.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Release date: Feb 26, 2017
• ISBN: 9781526107626

Book preview

Julien Duvivier

Image:logo is missing

DIANA HOLMES AND ROBERT INGRAM series editors

DUDLEY ANDREW series consultant

Chantal Akerman MARION SCHMID

Auteurism from Assayas to Ozon: Five Directors KATE INCE

Jean-Jacques Beineix PHIL POWRIE

Luc Besson SUSAN HAYWARD

Bertrand Blier SUE HARRIS

Catherine Breillat DOUGLAS KEESEY

Robert Bresson KEITH READER

Laurent Cantet MARTIN O’SHAUGHNESSY

Leos Carax GARIN DOWD AND FERGUS DALY

Marcel Carné JONATHAN DRISKELL

Claude Chabrol GUY AUSTIN

Henri-Georges Clouzot CHRISTOPHER LLOYD

Jean Cocteau JAMES S. WILLIAMS

Jacques Demy DARREN WALDRON

Claire Denis MARTINE BEUGNET

Marguerite Duras RENATE GÜNTHER

Jean Epstein CHRISTOPHE WALL-ROMANA

Georges Franju KATE INCE

Jean-Luc Godard DOUGLAS MORREY

Mathieu Kassovitz WILL HIGBEE

Diane Kurys CARRIE TARR

Patrice Leconte LISA DOWNING

Louis Malle HUGO FREY

Chris Marker SARAH COOPER

Georges Méliès ELIZABETH EZRA

Negotiating the Auteur JULIA DOBSON

François Ozon ANDREW ASIBONG

Marcel Pagnol BRETT BOWLES

Maurice Pialat MARJA WAREHIME

Jean Renoir MARTIN O’SHAUGHNESSY

Alain Resnais EMMA WILSON

Jacques Rivette DOUGLAS MORREY AND ALISON SMITH

Alain Robbe-Grillet JOHN PHILLIPS

Eric Rohmer DEREK SCHILLING

Coline Serreau BRIGITTE ROLLET

Bertrand Tavernier LYNN ANTHONY HIGGINS

André Téchiné BILL MARSHALL

François Truffaut DIANA HOLMES AND ROBERT INGRAM

Agnès Varda ALISON SMITH

Jean Vigo MICHAEL TEMPLE

Julien Duvivier

BEN MCCANN

Manchester University Press

Copyright © Ben McCann 2017

The right of Ben McCann to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Published by Manchester University Press

Altrincham Street, Manchester M1 7JA

www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for

ISBN 978 0 7190 9114 8 hardback

First published 2017

The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Typeset by Out of House Publishing

To my children: Monty, Cleo, and Marlowe

Contents

LIST OF PLATES

SERIES EDITORS’ FOREWORD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Introduction: we need to talk about Julien

1The ‘impure’ auteur

2Duvivier’s silent films

3Sound, image, Gabin: Duvivier and the 1930s

4‘Piloting with concentration’: Julien goes to Hollywood

51946–56: darkness and light

6Late style

Conclusion

FILMOGRAPHY

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

List of plates

All plates appear between pages 101 and 109.

1A man at work: Duvivier on the set of Anna Karenina (1948), courtesy of Photofest

2Confronting the spectator: Camille Bert in the opening shot of Haceldama ou le prix du sang (1919), courtesy of La Cinémathèque Française

3Piloting with concentration: Duvivier prepares to shoot Au bonheur des dames (1930), courtesy of Getty Images

4The grasping woman: a father–daughter relationship turns sour in David Golder (1930), courtesy of Getty Images

5Creating a myth: Jean Gabin in Pépé le Moko (1937), courtesy of Christophel Collection

6Frenchie goes to Hollywood: Gabin (left) in The Impostor (1944), courtesy of Alamy

7There’s no fool like an old fool: Gabin’s tenderness meets Danièle Delorme’s duplicity in Voici le temps des assassins (1956), courtesy of Christophel Collection

8Star quality, Hollywood style: Henry Fonda and Ginger Rogers in Tales of Manhattan (1942), courtesy of Alamy

9The uncanny on show: Edgar Barrier and a set of masks in Flesh and Fantasy (1943), courtesy of Photofest

10The quintessential Duvivier image: a bloodied Michel Simon at the mercy of the crowd in Panique (1946), courtesy of Alamy

11Authorial tussles: Orson Welles comes between producer Alexander Korda, star Vivien Leigh, and director Duvivier on the set of Anna Karenina (1948), courtesy of Christophel Collection

12A lighter touch: Fernandel and a broken egg in L’Homme à l’imperméable (1957), courtesy of Getty Images

13The group fractured by guilt and suspicion: Bernard Blier, Noël Roquevert, Serge Reggiani, and Danielle Darrieux in Marie-Octobre (1959), courtesy of Alamy

14Juju the Terrible and BB: Duvivier directs Bardot in La Femme et le pantin (1959), courtesy of Alamy

15When an old master met a new waver: Duvivier prepares Jean-Pierre Léaud for filming in Boulevard (1960), courtesy of Alamy

16The model professional: adept, efficient, versatile, courtesy of Wikimedia

Series editors’ foreword

To an anglophone audience, the combination of the words ‘French’ and ‘cinema’ evokes a particular kind of film: elegant and wordy, sexy but serious – an image as dependent upon national stereotypes as is that of the crudely commercial Hollywood blockbuster, which is not to say that either image is without foundation. Over the past two decades, this generalised sense of a significant relationship between French identity and film has been explored in scholarly books and articles, and has entered the curriculum at university level and, in Britain, at A-level. The study of film as art-form and (to a lesser extent) as industry, has become a popular and widespread element of French Studies, and French cinema has acquired an important place within Film Studies. Meanwhile, the growth in multi-screen and ‘art-house’ cinemas, together with the development of the video industry, has led to the greater availability of foreign-language films to an English-speaking audience. Responding to these developments, this series is designed for students and teachers seeking information and accessible but rigorous critical study of French cinema, and for the enthusiastic filmgoer who wants to know more.

The adoption of a director-based approach raises questions about auteurism. A series that categorises films not according to period or to genre (for example), but to the person who directed them, runs the risk of espousing a romantic view of film as the product of solitary inspiration. On this model, the critic’s role might seem to be that of discovering continuities, revealing a necessarily coherent set of themes and motifs which correspond to the particular genius of the individual. This is not our aim: the auteur perspective on film, itself most clearly articulated in France in the early 1950s, will be interrogated in certain volumes of the series, and, throughout, the director will be treated as one highly significant element in a complex process of film production and reception which includes socio-economic and political determinants, the work of a large and highly skilled team of artists and technicians, the mechanisms of production and distribution, and the complex and multiply determined responses of spectators.

The work of some of the directors in the series is already well known outside France, that of others is less so – the aim is both to provide informative and original English-language studies of established figures, and to extend the range of French directors known to anglophone students of cinema. We intend the series to contribute to the promotion of the formal and informal study of French films, and to the pleasure of those who watch them.

DIANA HOLMES

ROBERT INGRAM

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Diana Holmes and Robert Ingram for initially commissioning this book, and Matthew Frost and Paul Clarke at Manchester University Press for their immense patience and assistance; Hazel Bird for her fine copy-editing; the staff and librarians at the BFI Library (London), the Bibliothèque du Film, the Bibliothèque des Littératures Policières, the Bibliothèque du Cinéma François Truffaut, the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Institut National Audiovisuel, the Cinémathèque de France (Paris), the Centre National de la Cinématographie (Bois d’Arcy), the Cinémathèque Française Archives (St. Cyr), and the Margaret Herrick Library (Los Angeles); Getty Images, Alamy, Photofest, and the Christophel Collection; my colleagues at the University of Adelaide Peter Pugsley, John Walsh, and John West-Sooby for their advice and good humour, and Colin Crisp for his suggestions. Most of all, I am indebted to my family, both in England and Australia, who have had to live with the wonderful world of Julien Duvivier for an awfully long time. My final special thanks go, of course, to Jacqueline, Monty, Cleo, and Marlowe: my very own belle équipe.

Introduction: we need to talk about Julien

When the French cinema dies, it might do worse than find his [Duvivier’s] name written across its retina.

(Alistair Cooke 1971: 125)

No one speaks of Julien Duvivier without apologising.

(Dudley Andrew 1997: 283)

Once upon a time, Julien Duvivier (1896–1967) was considered one of the world’s great film directors. He was beloved by Orson Welles, Rouben Mamoulian, Frank Capra, and John Ford, while Ingmar Bergman once admitted that, of all the careers that he would have liked to have had, it would be Duvivier’s. The English novelist Graham Greene, in a much-quoted article from 1938, rated Duvivier and Fritz Lang as ‘the two greatest fiction directors still at work’ (1972: 195). Jean Renoir’s 1967 obituary tribute, ‘Duvivier, ce professionel’, focused on Duvivier’s love of ‘l’ouvrage bien fait’ (‘work well done’) as his signature legacy. His frequent scriptwriter Maurice Bessy said he had the best career of any French director, primarily because he never stopped working (1977: 49).

Indeed, over the course of a five-decade career, Duvivier zigzagged between multiple genres. He turned his hand to, among others, literary adaptations (Poil de carotte [1932], Pot-Bouille [1957]), biblical epic (Golgotha [1935]), the ‘sketch’ film (Un Carnet de bal [1937], Tales of Manhattan [1942]), comedy (the Don Camillo series [1952, 1953]), the ‘Hollywood’ film (The Great Waltz [1938]), film noir (Voici le temps des assassins [1956]), poetic realism (Pépé le Moko [1937]), and the propaganda film (Untel père et fils [1945]). Such fluidity and range make the case for Duvivier as a director of exemplary adaptability and proficiency. Like his Hollywood contemporaries Raoul Walsh, Michael Curtiz, and William Wyler, Duvivier could seemingly turn his hand to anything, imbuing each of his assignments with startling visuals or deft narrative turns while all the while serving the film’s source material as efficiently as possible. Duvivier never left anything to chance – lighting, editing, framing, and camera movement were all impeccably planned. From the silent period right through to the late 1960s, Duvivier often joined forces with the same group of actors and technicians, returning to them over a series of consecutive projects. He worked with some of French cinema’s most acclaimed screenwriters, including Henri Jeanson, Charles Spaak, and René Barjavel, and collaborated with some of French cinema’s abiding stars, such as Harry Baur, Fernandel, and Jean Gabin. For a period in the 1930s, he was French cinema’s most respected and exportable director, and prizes quickly followed. La Fin du jour (1939), for instance, won Best Foreign Film at the National Board of Review Awards, came second in the New York Film Critics Circle Awards, and won the Best Screenplay Award at the Venice Biennale.

Nowadays, Duvivier’s stylistic qualities are discussed in terms of their intricacy, eclecticism, and modernity. Eight of his films were shown in newly restored versions at the Festival Lumière in Lyon in October 2015. As I write this, Criterion Collection (2015) is preparing a November 2015 release of a four-disc DVD box set of his 1930s films; its website notes Duvivier’s ‘formidable innate understanding of the cinematic medium’. And yet this was not always the case. For a director synonymous with the technical beauty, narrative fluidity, and poise of French ‘classical’ cinema exemplified by La Fin du jour, a strange phenomenon occurred from about 1947 to the late 1990s: slowly, but very surely, Julien Duvivier and most of his films were all but erased from film history. This, I think, was due to a number of reasons, some trivial, some important: Duvivier’s spiky personality, the perceived uneven quality of his canon, his penchant for literary adaptations, his unwillingness to ‘explain’ his craft, the difficulty in tracking down his films (some are lost forever, and many others have never been released on VHS or DVD), the overemphasis on La Belle équipe (1936) and Pépé le Moko, and his critical marginalisation at the hands of Cahiers du cinéma and Positif. Even today, when we think of the key directors of the French pre-war era, Duvivier is often the one omitted from a list usually headed by Jean Renoir, René Clair, Jacques Feyder, and Marcel Carné. The language used to describe Duvivier was, and often remains, shrill and highly patronising. Jacques Rivette once wrote that Jean Gabin could be considered ‘comme un metteur en scène presque davantage que Duvivier’ (‘almost more of a director than Duvivier’) (1957: 26). Jean-Luc Godard included Duvivier in a long list of directors he accused of desecrating French cinema with their ‘fausse technique’ (‘false technique’): ‘vos mouvements d’appareil sont laids parce que votre sujet est mauvais, vos acteurs jouent mal parce que vos dialogues sont nuls, en un mot, vous ne savez pas faire de cinéma parce que vous ne savez plus ce que c’est’ (1998: 194).¹ Internet sites and film festival retrospectives still now use words such as ‘plodder’, ‘journeyman’, ‘Jack of all trades’, ‘workaholic’, and ‘hack’ to describe him. For Dudley Andrew, ‘so many of his fifty-odd films are embarrassing to watch’ (1997: 283); David Thomson describes Duvivier’s style as ‘spruce but seldom original or interesting’ (1975: 156).² Slowly, but very surely, an enduring discourse took root. It is high time to rehabilitate Duvivier.

So, the purpose of this book, the first ever full-length English-language study of Duvivier, is to argue that Duvivier not only was a consummate technician and an assiduous craftsman but also created a scrupulous moral universe. Duvivier’s world is frequently cruel and pessimistic, harrowing and misanthropic. He reflected in 1946, while filming Panique (1946), perhaps his darkest film, that he was perpetually drawn to the murkier side of human nature: ‘Je sais bien qu’il est plus aisé de réaliser des films poétiques, doux, charmants avec de belle photographie, mais ma nature me pousse vers des thèmes âpres, noirs, amers’ (Duvivier 1946: 10).³ Again and again, he returned to the same core themes: pessimism, misanthropy, the cruelty of the crowd, fatalism, defective memory, masquerading, exile, and the (im)possibility of escape.

Another objective is to fit Duvivier’s work within broader political and social conditions. Duvivier always considered his most obviously ‘political’ work to be anything but. In 1957, he told Charles Ford and René Jeanne (1957) that ‘La Belle Equipe n’avait pourtant aucun caractère politique. Ou bien, alors, tous les films qui mettraient en scène des ouvriers seraient des œuvres de gauche?’⁴ Duvivier’s cinema, unlike Jean Renoir’s or André Cayatte’s, rarely grappled with politics or wider debates about history and nation. Yet, occasionally, his films offered up contested ideological readings. While Duvivier was politically agnostic through a very conflictual period of French history, I will show how his films engaged with significant historical developments, such as pre-war anti-Semitism, class and race in America, the climate of reprisal in post-Occupation France, and the emergence of 1950s youth culture. Given that Duvivier has often been accused of misogyny, I shall also look at his take on gender politics and demonstrate the problematic status of women in his work, either as a pre-war threat to homosocial bonds or a post-war symbol of social disunity. The twin endings of La Belle équipe epitomise such tensions: one features a ‘happy’ ending, in which order is restored, the femme fatale banished, and male camaraderie and collective endeavour championed; the bleaker ending sees one man murder another while the divisive woman looks on. The fact that Duvivier pushed for the darker finale, against the wishes of worried producers who preferred the restorative, trouble-free conclusion, is a useful yardstick for us to measure Duvivier’s ethical stance.

How these themes were then presented on a stylistic level is another component of the book. Duvivier’s visual style can sometimes seem invisible: this is a filmmaker who tended to reject the ostentatious and the obvious. Yet Duvivier’s ‘touch’ is often highly noticeable, most conspicuously in the use of expressive close-ups and double exposures, highly fluid camera movements, strong central performances by established stars and new actors, and the nuanced incorporation of music, costume, and production design. Duvivier rarely left anything to chance – lighting, editing, framing, and camera movement all cohere to ‘become’ the meaning of his films. He favoured characters on the periphery of society, often trapped in down-at-heel settings, at the mercy of a femme fatale who threatened to tear asunder the male group. These narrative patterns were then coded in the mise en scène; Duvivier’s theatre of cruelty often took place in the city, in dark, claustrophobic spaces, with walls and roofs pressing in on characters and diagonal shafts of light casting ominous shadows. As Sam Rohdie (2015) notes, ‘[t]‌he design of scenes is like the narratives, which are enclosures from which there is no way out, no relief, liberation, no alternatives – only limits, like the burdens and memories of the past from which his characters seek a respite in vain’.

My final aim is to reveal how Duvivier is all about opposites: misanthropic versus good-hearted, cruel versus sentimental, auteur versus metteur en scène, commerce versus art, French versus ‘international’, Hollywood versus artisanal, ‘maniaque de la précision’ versus ‘rêveur’. Like his two conflicting writers in La Fête à Henriette (1952), Duvivier was a jumble of contradictions; it is this productive conflict that forms the warp and weft of his remarkable career.

Although I am sensitive to the risks of carving up Duvivier’s work into neat periods, the book will follow a chronological format that uses key moments of technological, historical, and cultural change as staging posts in Duvivier’s career. Chapter 1 will look in more detail at the Duvivier ‘touch’, his formal and thematic preoccupations, and will give an overview of the way his reputation has shifted over time and of his early life. Chapter 2 will focus on the twenty films he made during the silent period. Chapter 3 is set in the 1930s and will show how Duvivier transitioned into the era of the talkies, helped to establish the properties of the ‘classic French cinema’, and began injecting bleaker, more muted tones into his work. Chapter 4 takes us to America, where Duvivier worked from 1940 to 1945, and tells of Duvivier’s interfacing with Hollywood and the various artistic and professional compromises he was obliged to make. Duvivier returned to post-Occupation France in 1945, and Chapter 5 recounts the difficulties he faced on his return. It will examine in close detail a set of films that oscillated in tone from breezy comedy to noir-drenched paranoia, and make the case for a director of dynamic variability. Chapter 6 charts the final years of Duvivier’s career, arguing that he developed a compelling ‘late style’ that implanted his later work with a startling modernity.

A final brief word about the book’s approach. Duvivier made sixty-eight films, which means that an in-depth discussion of all of them will be impossible, given the limitations of the book series to which I am contributing. There have already been many discussions of Duvivier’s work, his technique, and his importance as a figure in French cinema in book chapters, journal articles, and online essays, but they have tended to focus, broadly speaking, on films he made with Jean Gabin, such as La Belle équipe and Pépé le Moko. In this book, some films will be analysed in detail based on their historical importance or aesthetic significance within Duvivier’s career. More familiar works, such as the two aforementioned, plus the likes of La Bandera (1935), Un Carnet de bal, the Don Camillo series, and Pot-Bouille, will also be discussed, but we also need to look closely at the less well-known Duvivier films to see how they are equally representative of his artistic prowess and how they showcase his exemplary technical and narrative control. I have watched fifty-seven of his sixty-eight films (i.e. 84 percent) during the course of writing this book. Those films that I have not seen, but refer to in passing, are marked with an asterisk (*). Information about these asterisked films has been gleaned from print and online plot summaries and dossiers de presse.

References to Duvivier’s films throughout the book are as complete as possible. Many reviews, particularly of his early films and those from his time in America, were consulted at the extensive electronic database at the Bibliothèque du Film at the Cinémathèque Française in Paris. The scanning of these reviews has often resulted in the omission and deletion of page numbers and dates of publication.

All translations from French to English are my own unless stated otherwise.

1 ‘Your camera movements are ugly because your subjects are bad, your casts act badly because your dialogue is worthless; in a word, you don’t know how to create cinema because you no longer even know what it is.’

2 In a rare attempt to balance the argument, Michael Atkinson calls Duvivier a ‘demi-auteur’; one of the many ‘overlooked and under-remembered artistes who helped build cinema history and often did so with hypnotic brio, and yet remain unpantheonised’ ( 2009 ).

3 ‘I know it is much easier to make films that are poetic, sweet, charming, and beautifully photographed, but my nature pushes me towards harsh, dark and bitter material.’

4 ‘ La Belle équipe has no political character whatsoever; unless every film that treats the working class must be considered leftist.’

References

Andrew, D. (1997), ‘Julien Duvivier’, in International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers, vol. 2, 3rd edn, ed. Laurie Collier Hillstrom, Detroit, St. James Press, pp. 281–3.

Criterion Collection (2015), ‘Eclipse Series 44: Julien Duvivier in the 1930s’, available at www.criterion.com/boxsets/1136-eclipse-series-44-julien-duvivier-in-the-thirties, accessed 6 September 2016.

Atkinson, M. (2009), ‘Time Regained’, Moving Image Source, available at www.movingimagesource.us/articles/time-regained-20090504, accessed 6 October 2015.

Bessy, M. (1977), Les Passagers du souvenir, Paris, Editions Albin Michel.

Cooke, A. (1971), Alistair Cooke at the Movies, London, Penguin.

Duvivier, J. (1946), ‘Julien Duvivier fête ses 30 ans de cinéma: Interview with Marcel Idzkowski’, Cinémonde , 639, 29 October, pp. 10–11.

Ford, C. and R. Jeanne (1957), ‘Entretiens radiophoniques avec Julien Duvivier’, 8 episodes broadcast weekly on Radio France from 15 April to 3 June 1957, available at http://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/la-nuit-revee-de/voix-nue-julien-duvivier-12-partie-1-et-25-1ere-diffusion-16-et-17011995, accessed 6 September 2016.

Godard, (1998), J.-L. ‘Le Jeune cinéma a gagné’, Arts , 719, 22–28 April, p. 5.

Greene, G. (1972), The Pleasure-Dome: The Collected Film Criticism, 1935–40, ed. John Russell Taylor, London, Secker and Warburg.

Renoir, J. (1967), ‘Duvivier, ce professionnel’, Le Figaro littéraire, 6 November.

Rivette, J. (1957), ‘Six personnages en quête d’auteur’, Cahiers du cinéma, 71, May, pp. 16–29.

Rohdie, S. (2015), ‘Love unto Death’, Screening the Past, 39, available at www.screeningthepast.com/issue-39, accessed 6 October 2015.

Thomson, D. (1975), A Biographical Dictionary of the Cinema, 1st edn, London, Secker & Warburg.

The ‘impure’ auteur

Je ne suis qu’un artisan consciencieux.¹

(Duvivier, in Leprohon 1968: 203)

Ferdinand: Je dirais c’est comme Pépé le Moko.

Marianne: Qui?

Ferdinand: Pépé le Moko.

Marianne: Qui est-ce?

Ferdinand: Décidément, tu ne connais rien!²

Pierrot le Fou (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)

Accounts of Duvivier’s life usually go along the following lines. He was a talented director in the early days of sound cinema who luckily managed to marshal around him teams of actors and technicians to create a set of films that tapped into a particular mindset of 1930s pre-war France. Duvivier was then invited to Hollywood, where he churned out a series of forgettable B-movies before returning to France in the mid-1940s to a much-changed landscape. By this time, his noir sensibilities and penchant for literary adaptation were deemed out of sync with the need for cinematic renewal championed by the critics of Cahiers du cinéma, and so he spent the rest of his career as a director for hire, trudging across Europe making nondescript versions of pot-boiler French fiction and irking everyone in the process, from Vivien Leigh to Brigitte Bardot to Jacques Rivette.

There are fragments of truths here, but the reality is far more complex, and needs unpacking. Much of this book will examine the key themes and recurring visual patterns and formal properties of Duvivier’s films and identify a particular worldview that emanates from the silent films right through to Diaboliquement vôtre (1967). In short, the book will answer the following question: what makes a Duvivier film a Duvivier film?

Beginnings

Very little is known about Duvivier’s early life, not least because of his extreme reticence to talk about his past. We do know that he was born in Lille, in northern France, on 8 October 1896 and grew up in the Catholic area of the city. Later, he was sent over the border to Froyennes, in Belgium, for a strict Jesuit education. His father was a travelling salesman who ran a photographic development lab at the back of the house; his mother was pianist at the Lille Conservatoire and inculcated into Duvivier an early love of poetry. His friend Maurice Bessy – a film journalist who later worked with Duvivier as a screenwriter – traced the root of Duvivier’s future shyness and prickliness back to this petit bourgeois upbringing, where meals were eaten in silence and any show of intimacy discouraged.

Exempted from fighting in the First World War, Duvivier and his father left Lille in late 1914 to escape the invading German army and headed to Paris. It was here that Duvivier’s passion for the theatre was developed. He joined the Théâtre de l’Odéon (his first role was in March 1915, in Frédéric Soulié’s La Closerie des genêts). Much has been made of Duvivier’s stage fright – it appears that in November 1915, during a matinee performance of a Molière play for war-wounded soldiers, Duvivier forgot his lines and suffered a mild panic attack, causing the stage curtains to be prematurely lowered. The incident is often recounted in recollections of Duvivier’s early career (there is a similar scene in La Fin du jour [1939] when Michel Simon’s ageing actor forgets his lines and is whistled off the set: for Simon, read Duvivier), but it did not finish off his theatrical career, as many claimed. He returned to the stage in the summer of 1916 in the Belgian comedy Le Mariage de Mademoiselle Beulemans (which Duvivier later adapted for the screen in 1927).

Unlike Marcel Carné or René Clair, who entered the film industry as journalists and theoreticians, Duvivier set foot in the profession almost by chance. In late 1915, he met André Antoine. A key figure in the Duvivier story, Antoine was the pioneering theatre director of the Théâtre-Libre (1888–97) and the Théâtre-Antoine (1897–1906) and had integrated naturalist practices across the company’s output. After seeing Duvivier on stage, Antoine offered Duvivier work as his assistant at the newly formed Société Cinématographique des Auteurs et Gens de Lettres (SCAGL), the film d’art branch of Pathé, whose remit was to produce high-level literary adaptations designed to entice a more elite audience to the cinema. Duvivier assisted Antoine on several SCAGL productions – Les Frères corses (1917), Le Coupable (1917), Les Travailleurs de la mer (1918), La Terre (1921, an early film version of a Zola novel), and L’Arlésienne (1922) – which all stayed true to Antoine’s aesthetic preoccupations.

As a theatre director now turning to film, Antoine believed that cinema’s key objective was ‘to convince the spectator of the verisimilitude of the spaces and actions represented on the screen’ (Abel 1988: 105). Influenced as much by nineteenth-century traditions of Impressionist painting and literary naturalism as by the technical possibilities of film, Antoine formulated a set of filmic practices that would assist in creating and maintaining this verism. He formed a cohort of actors who would work from film to film; used multiple camera set-ups and movements to create a set of dynamic, fluid visual compositions; and, most importantly, insisted, wherever possible, on filming on location. The new-found portability of lighting and recording equipment and the accessibility of natural surroundings led to an upsurge in ‘pictorialist-naturalist’ films, including L’Homme du large (1920), L’Appel du sang (1920), Jocelyn (1922), and La Brière (1925), in which directors such as Marcel L’Herbier, Louis Mercanton, Léon Poirier, and Jacques de Baroncelli, as well as Antoine’s aforementioned output, each placed non-professional actors within real landscapes and offered up stories within the social realism field advocated by Antoine. Writing about Antoine’s theories of film while