"Hiver 54, l'abbé Pierre (1989)" had one unavoidable flaw: it was filmed before his death. At least it respected the man in all his complexity and intimacy.
This time, we have the opposite flaw: it's as if Abbé Pierre's death authorised a misplaced voyeurism of certain intimate and objectively uninteresting aspects of his life.
In the end, his immense work is diminished by this unhealthy display.
We also regret the director's lack of consideration for the spiritual roots of Abbé Pierre's commitment. The spiritual doubts experienced by all believers do not justify ignoring this essential facet of his biography.
Moreover, legitimate objections to some of Abbé Pierre's ideological positions are only raised to be dismissed out of hand. Honesty would have justified a more balanced treatment of these subjects. At some point, one can feel unease at what is a form of propaganda.
Finally, the film operates in a fairly binary mode: the good guys of Emmaus versus the bad society. The historical reality is more complex; Abbé Pierre's life took place during a period of major societal transformation and the advent of a welfare state, despite all its imperfections. The subject of worsening poverty in a welfare state would certainly merit a film exposé in its own right, but it cannot be totally ignored in the biography of a man who played a direct part in the birth of such a state.
All in all, I see no reason to prefer this version to the 1989 one, which stick more closely to the fact. If you want to dig into philosophical matters, great. But do it properly or refrain.
This time, we have the opposite flaw: it's as if Abbé Pierre's death authorised a misplaced voyeurism of certain intimate and objectively uninteresting aspects of his life.
In the end, his immense work is diminished by this unhealthy display.
We also regret the director's lack of consideration for the spiritual roots of Abbé Pierre's commitment. The spiritual doubts experienced by all believers do not justify ignoring this essential facet of his biography.
Moreover, legitimate objections to some of Abbé Pierre's ideological positions are only raised to be dismissed out of hand. Honesty would have justified a more balanced treatment of these subjects. At some point, one can feel unease at what is a form of propaganda.
Finally, the film operates in a fairly binary mode: the good guys of Emmaus versus the bad society. The historical reality is more complex; Abbé Pierre's life took place during a period of major societal transformation and the advent of a welfare state, despite all its imperfections. The subject of worsening poverty in a welfare state would certainly merit a film exposé in its own right, but it cannot be totally ignored in the biography of a man who played a direct part in the birth of such a state.
All in all, I see no reason to prefer this version to the 1989 one, which stick more closely to the fact. If you want to dig into philosophical matters, great. But do it properly or refrain.
