Mike B This is an important and remarkable documentary on the years of occupation in France during World War II. Fortunately, as it was made in 1969, it has interviews with several who participated in that era. These are survivors with many different points of view, which is why I used the word "remarkable". Many of these interviews are not only penetrating and revealing, some are quite disturbing. This is also coupled with film footage taken during those years, both French and German, which gives additional insights into the thought processes of the era. We vividly experience how the French were thinking during those years – a time period where many felt that the Nazi reign was supreme and never-ending. It is easy in hind-sight to say that the Allies were to be victorious – but from 1940 thru 1943 this was not evident. Only after the Allied landing in North Africa in November 1943, did it start to occur to many in France that German hegemony over their country could come to an end. This film takes us through the shifting moods of that turbulent time.There is a wide spectrum of people interviewed. There is one with a French person who joined France's version of the SS (most of whom were killed on the Eastern Front). There is another with the son-in-law of Pierre Laval; seldom have I seen a man so speechless, after he is interrupted by the interviewer who corrects him on the number of French Jews rounded up with the full collaboration of the French police and later murdered. Pierre Laval was executed by France after a trial in 1945 – this gives an indication of the tremendous soul-searching and vehemence that goes on in France to this day. Prior to 1940 Pierre Laval had served in many French government ministries and was even its Prime Minister.There are a wide assortment of statements: from French "resistants" – some communist, some right-wing, British commandoes and pilots sent over, a German officer who served in France. There are people from the same village who said they saw no German soldiers and others who saw too many. There is an uncomfortable interview with an elderly woman who was tortured after the liberation as she was suspected of collaborating with the enemy. It is made clear by some that the enemy could be both French and German. Others call the "resistants' fighters" "terrorists".As the British foreign minister (Anthony Eden) under Churchill said towards the end of the documentary: "If one hasn't been through the horror of an occupation... you have no right to pronounce upon what a country does which has been through all that." It's a long documentary (over 4 hours) – but essential for understanding this period of history. It is a tribute to France that it made such a revealing film of that epoch.

bob the moo In 1940 the army of Nazi Germany invaded and occupied France. This was done with the collaboration of France's Vichy government and thus the direct or indirect support of the majority of the populace. This documentary uses interviews, archive footage and films released at the time to uncover the truth about what happened at the time and why it happened. In two parts the first looks at the political manoeuvring that led to the occupation and the second looks at the actions of the population during the occupation including the informers and those involved in the underground resistance.Like many viewers, I taped this film and had it sitting for almost a month before I finally got round to just watching it. It wasn't the subject or anything that made me delay it but it was the four hour running time that made it almost impossible to watch on a week night and pretty much required me to be doing little else for the afternoon and evening of a weekend! Girlfriend away I took my chance to spread this film out over most of a Sunday afternoon and evening. Needless to say that the subject of this film is engrossing and shocking but let me just deal with my comment that this is flawed as a film because I know some may be surprised by this description of a film that is listed on this site as the greatest documentary ever made.For my money the film could have been a better film. First off it is too long – even for such a worthy subject it could have lost a half hour or so to make it a little more accessible. A look at the number of people who have voted on this film on IMDb gives you some idea of how inaccessible this film is. The bigger problem though was the structure of the dialogue in terms of presentation. The film is in French but many people being interviewed speak in Germany or English. This is OK but sometimes when the people speak in, say, English they are verbally translated into French while the subtitles turn it back into English. This is a problem because the translator's voice is Ophuls and we therefore hear him ask the question then answer it – and his voice is a little droning, losing the benefit of hearing the person's own voice. Another problem with this is that at times the English and German is delivered without translation or subtitles. Once of twice I was able to hear the English and I noticed that, sometimes, the subtitles are very, very summarised versions of what they were saying.So basically I thought that this film could have been better in these regards. However as a documentary it is utterly engrossing and the subject is delivered with such detail and balance that it is hard not to make it to the end of the fourth hour. The first half of the film is very interesting and manages to do a very good job of reconstructing the political background to the, well, lets call it 'surrender'. It would have been easy for the film to really prejudge those involved or class them as 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' as many lazy commentators do nowadays, but this film allows everyone to have a say and put their case across. Of course it is easy to be shocked and disgusted by the political actions taken but, as Anthony Eden diplomatically states, it is hard to judge what was done because we have been lucky enough never to be put in that situation. The second half continues to be balanced but, to be honest, some of the stuff in it is practically indefensible and the film is right, I think, when it puts forward the idea that France has not recovered decades later from this very public shame.The level of detail in the film is impressive and it is hard to keep up with the number of interviewees involved at times. However the core seven or eight contributors are very good, detailed balanced discussions that are incredibly insightful and interesting. In fact a lot of the material is shocking – either in terms of being graphically violent or being just surprising that the decisions were made. Whether it be a man talking about how his wife was killed or a politician shamelessly hiding behind statistics of people killed to justify decisions (saying only 5% of French Jews died whereas really this stat didn't include those Jews who had their citizenship revoked – of those 95% died) it is all shocking. For an idea of how shocking the story was thought to be (and still is) consider this – the film was made in the late sixties but was not shown on French television until 1981.However, for all the very easy moral lines to draw, the film doesn't rant (like that supposed documentarian Moore easily does) and it makes interesting viewing for those of us with a basic understanding (all I knew was that the French had given up with only an underground resistance). Any less than a basic knowledge may leave you stranded a little bit with the names and role of the people involved but, to be honest, it is very unlikely you'll plan to watch this four hour film unless you are already interested in the subject.Overall, despite its minor flaws in delivery this is still a great film that is worth the four hours invested in it. It takes the occupation of France and shows it for what it was – morally complex, destructive, wrong, cruel and very hard not to judge. However, despite the fact that it is hard for one not to conclude that their surrender was wrong, kudos to Ophuls for taking a situation that we still make sweeping judgements about (eg jokes about how a French tank has 6 gears – all backwards) and gives it a fair treatment and allows all those involved to reflect on the situation. Not a fun way to spend an afternoon but a memorable, impacting and rewarding one.

Goodmalood It astonished me to read the comment of a reviewer who said that four and one-half hours was too long to spend in learning about one of the saddest chapters in 20th Century history. I saw this move over 30 years ago, and it still haunts me. It is a painstaking examination of the temporary debasement of a proud, freedom-loving nation. In context it is to remember that at the time of the Nazi invasion of France, the French had still not recovered from the Great War of 20 years earlier. Over one million of its young men had been killed. The nation had not recovered physically or psychologically. Still, the film showed stories of great courage, great cowardice and great indifference in the face of great evil. It is the non-polemic story of a low point in the 20th Century. The movie provides excellent insight into the depths of human experience and the resurgence of a national spirit. It's a wonderful documentary. In two days it will be Bastille Day 2004. Vive la France!

Chris Bright I've just seen this at the National Film Theatre.I concur with most of the comments from the other users. Certainly Ophuls' directorial hand is evident throughout, the editing, cutting, juxtaposition, reaction shots etc are all part of the construction of his argument, although his interviewees are obviously allowed to account for themselves at some length.What I found most surprising was the amount of humour in the film. Because of Woody Allen's use of it in "Annie Hall" I thought it would be gruelling, but there were a number of laugh out loud moments, starting with the resistance leader whose main stated reason for fighting the Germans was that they were monopolising the best meat.Emmanuel d'Astier de la Vigerie was also a total star. His comment about the sociological make-up of the Resistance - essentially misfits and malcontents, people with nothing to lose - was very telling. A number of other interviewees made similar points - the main collaborators were the bourgeoisie - the resistance was mainly based on workers, peasants, communists, youth and weirdos of various sorts. Compare that with the sitation in the '60s when the film was made and with the situation now in the western democracies.Anthony Eden was another major surprise. The popular image of him now is of a buffoon, the man who screwed up Suez, but in the extended interview here he displays immense charisma, intelligence and humanity. And if they make a film of his life Jeremy Irons is a shoo-in for the role.The Nazis, meanwhile, are clearly cut from the same cloth as the neo-fascists presently enjoying something of a resurgence in most of Europe. All the same arguments made in exactly the same way by the same sort of people. This (plus the smugness of the former Wehrmacht officer still wearing his medals) was probably the most chilling thing about the film.The final obvious resonance is with Iraq. From the German soldiers baffled and outraged by the fact that some French were trying to kill them, to the French establishment referring to the Resistance as terrorists, (yes that was the exact word they used), to the initial acceptance of the Occupation turning to hatred as reprisals against the Resistance grew, many testimonies throw a radically new light on the present situation. To draw direct parallels would be a mistake - even the Gaullists were not as reactionary as Zarqawi or Muqtada al Sadr - but nonetheless there is a lot to learn from then about now, and about the difference between how events are perceived at the time and by History.Another user comment complains about the amount of politics in the film. It's true that some knowledge is presupposed and the film would obviously mean more to those who lived through those times. However Ophuls has said that one of his main motivations was to show that the idea that you can divorce politics from everyday life is exactly what made collaboration possible.These are just a few of the thoughts provoked by the film, which holds many more insights and surprises and I am sure repays as many viewings as Alvy Singer gave it. It's perhaps not as shocking or affecting as "Shoah" (on which it's surely the strongest influence) but then it's a different story. It shows us the best of humanity as well as the worst and neither are always where you might expect to find them.Incidentally, it looks like the reportedly poor quality of the DVD may be down to the original film stock rather than the transfer.