Once in a while, one stumbles upon a cinematic work whose presence refuses to fade within you, even after its end credits have served their purpose of bringing one back to the same carefree state of mind as one enjoyed prior to seeing the movie. If scenes from the movie still turn up in your head on a daily basis weeks afterward, and these make you ask new questions each time, I think it may very well belong in that rare category. To me, François Truffaut's L'Infant SAUVAGE (THE WILD CHILD) has provided such an experience. The story is set in the late 1700s, covering the story of one Dr. Itard who is trying to raise and educate a child (eventually named Victor) who is thought to have been living with wild animals for his entire life.
The film may appear to be be quite conventionally assembled, relying as it does on a narrator's voice throughout and following a strictly accessible structure. However, Traffaut's alert use of camera-angles, as well as the beautiful cinematography, often contributes considerably to certain points made in the story, though one may not even realize this at first. For instance, in one of the scenes depicting Dr. Itard's attempts at learning some of the obligatory knowledge of civilized society to Victor, we are positioned from the outside of Itard's house, granted a viewpoint through an open (but still distancing) window. It is a simple effect, but makes us quietly conscious of the fact that we, like Itard, are observing another person's state of mind (that of the "wild child") which we can never expect to understand, and for that reason should probably be resistant of forcing upon our own world-view.
Of at least equal merit as the direction are the performances; Traffaut himself is very convincing as the firm but, it must be assumed, not ill-intentioned Itard, while young Jean-Pierre Cargol strikes me as so unbelievably believable as Victor that it is aching to witness at times. Though superficially most viewers probably identify themselves with Itard's point of view, I believe anyone who's been a child would find it hard not to somehow connect the confusion Victor seems to suffer with some instance of confusion oneself may have experienced in childhood, no matter how mild that case of confusion may appear compared to what Victor goes through. At the same time, it is worth noting that it is not, necessarily, Victor who is most puzzled; Dr. Itard seems equally bewildered as to how to cope with Victor's state of mind, as the other way around. Victor's understanding of the world is not necessarily "wrong;" certainly not from his own point of view.
Though generally said to be based on truth, it has been noted that THE WILD CHILD does not quite follow the story as written down by the actual Itard. For one thing, Itard was in fact still a student when he took it upon him to take care of Victor, and not an educated physician, and it has in later years been heavily doubted if Victor actually was brought up by wolves (wolves taking care of another species seems very improbable in itself, and even if it did occur, Victor would hardly have survived ten years in the woods under such circumstances; furthermore, Victor reportedly wore some clothing when found, if only barely). However, more interesting than how much of what we see presented here is indisputable truth, I think, is how the film raises its questions and dilemmas. Itard needed to be portrayed as an educated physician for the sake of symbolic effect, and whether or not Victor was raised by wild animals, it still remains a fact that he understood the world vastly different than most human beings, and was discovered at a time when it was not considered an inevitable alternative to give him a "diagnosis" (a strong case of autism has later been suggested).
Was it right to bring Victor into the civilized world, though one assumed him to have lived by the laws of the animal kingdom for most of his life? Granted, this question is perhaps not so interesting to discuss from an ethical standpoint. After all, any reasonably empathic human being who found a naked, seemingly abandoned child in the dark woods would instantly conclude that s/he should be brought to authorities of the civilized world to be taken care of, irrelevant of whether such an act would deprive the child of the existence which s/he had come to view as normal due to his/her unusual circumstances. However, one question worthy of discussion, perhaps, is whether the intentions behind the attempts of civilizing Victor were sufficiently justifiable?
At the time Victor was found, in the late 18th century, still during the era of the French revolution, parts of France suffered from poverty and uncertain prospects, with families starving on the streets in the larger cities; these were merely unfortunate ones. At the same time, Victor from the woods was granted entrance into upper middle-class existence and its comforts, and on what condition? That he could prove a valuable vessel to scientific experiments? If so, the gradual development of Victor's emotional life is particularly tragic, because though he learns to cry, he is not able to handle emotions that reach beyond his natural instincts from a rational perspective. If it was right to force "civilization" upon Victor, it was arguably done on the wrong basis.
Anyhow, these are just some of the questions I found myself asking. You may also watch the film for its fine performances and cinematography; THE WILD CHILD can be enjoyed on several levels.
2 out of 2 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
