France, though victorious in 1918, was bled so thoroughly that it lost its appetite for more military action. Yet when France was invaded by Germany in 1940, patriotism revived and many willingly enlisted in the underground opposition to the German occupiers. Much has changed since 1940. Today’s filmmakers no longer share the fierce patriotism of World War II, and they deplore virtually all aspects of the 1914 war. It has become easy to condemn those who participate in war, despite the fact that without an Allied victory in World War II, France would doubtless have been condemned to generations of Nazi rule.
In the film, we see priests offering prayers, between the carols, for the wellbeing of the troops. But which troops, the filmmakers hardly dared to ask. Are they the enemy troops as well as their own? Presumably the filmmakers of 2005 want peace for both sides, but they do not reveal whether they want peace at the price of surrender. Many a French priest in 1940 would pray for the destruction of the enemy, with the hearty approval of the French people whose lives and wellbeing were then at stake.
Is it all relative, then? Is an action acceptable at one time or place but not at another? Not exactly. It is not, or not only, the moral beliefs that were different. The conditions were also different. In 1940 it would have been acceptable to kill the Nazi soldiers because they constituted a threat to Frenchmen and to France itself. And in later years, many Germans regretted their own Nazi past. But in 1914 neither Germany nor France posed a threat to its enemy’s very existence.
What then of 2007? Here opinions remain sharply divided. Some believe that the war against Islamofascism is as important for the world’s wellbeing as any war in recorded history, and many books allege that this is so. Their writers believe that the triumph of Islamofascism would be even worse than the victory of Nazism after 1945. On the other hand, many believe that such a war would be simply a waste of human lives, as they believe was the case in 1914. If so, they would do well to encourage others to see “Joyeux Noel.”
You are not likely to be riveted with suspense or excitement during this film. It proceeds at its own steady pace, and the viewer may not immediately grasp the full implications of its message, though only when this is grasped will the movie seem unforgettable or even very exciting.
It is rare for film to convey an inescapable sense of moral conflict — but viewers can hardly escape the inner turmoil evoked in “Joyeux Noel” by the priest who offers a prayer audible to the troops on both sides of the trenches, a prayer that reduces even the hardiest of alleged enemies to bewilderment or tears.
People who have been brought up on war films will miss the usual scenes of shooting and slaughter, scenes that are underemphasized in this production, so that the moral conflict can sink in. “Joyeux Noel” is so far from a shoot-’em-up that a viewer who is not attuned to moral distinctions may find it a bit slow and lacking in action. This would, to understate the case, be a serious mistake. While some of the film audience craves only more and more suspense, “Joyeux Noel” is, as we say, “aiming at higher things.”
| |
