Libramedi Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

Skunkyrate Gripping story with well-crafted characters

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

drjgardner The film jumps around a lot. We start at a German wedding in 1969, but before you know we are elsewhere talking about the French resistance, then watching Maurice Chevalier perform before a French audience of soldiers in 1939, and suddenly we are in the French countryside walking with two framers. Without missing a beat we have an interview the Pierre Mendes (French PM), then German documentaries, including one that focuses on captured black French soldiers that makes fun of the British claim to be defending "civilization". It blames the "Jewish warmongers" and the "British Lords" for starting the war and for escaping with their "suitcases filled with gold". The topic of the resistance comes up now and again, as does the war, but it's difficult to know what this film is about and where it's going.About 30 minutes into the film it seems that the film is about the Vichy Government and the behavior of the French people during the occupation. Anthony Eden poignantly points out to Marshall Petain that there are worse things in life than having your "beautiful cities" destroyed, but to the French, capitulation was the greater need. To the French people it was also an opportunity to settle petty quarrels, and to re-ignite anti-Anglo feelings. Hitler knew that the French of 1939 were not the same people he fought in World War 1, and by 1941 everyone else knew it too. Eden says "If the French can no longer fight, that's one thing. But if they make it easy for the enemy, that's quite another."As the film wanders on and on it gets no better in the focus. Seemingly with neither rhyme nor reason the documentary explores anti-semitism, anglophobia, German influences on French cinema, business practices, German propaganda, etc. Half a century after it was made, and from another country, much of the background is lost, so many of the comments are not easily understood when certain names, dates, and places are mentioned. The lack of focus of the film makes this even more difficult. The translations themselves are random. Sometimes the German is translated into French in the film and then subtitled in English, but often not. Sometimes even the French is not subtitled.All told this is a very poorly done documentary. It lacks focus. The filmed interviews are of poor quality considering it is 1969 and the sound is marginal. Are there pearls of wisdom and fascinating sections within this mess – Yes. Absolutely. It could profit from being redone, shortened, and given a new voice over.

Hrodland Well, I was hoping a lot from this documentary after having read some reviews here. The documentary worths the watch as some of the interviews are really interesting (former S.S De La Mazière, the English diplomats and the German soldiers, in particularly) and it also gives a good idea of the radical political divisions between the French at this time. However everyone should admit that the film is not strictly neutral. As a Frenchman, I have been interested in the subject for a little while and know quite a bit about this period. The interviews of Resistance members are unfortunately much more numerous than those of collaborators and there is not a single interview of any former member of the Milice (which had more than 30,000 members!) while it seems to me it should have been unavoidable for such a documentary, since they were very involved in the war against partisans. The "jewish question" sequences last for too long and are not focused on Clermont-Ferrand while the black market (quite important at this time) is just slightly mentioned. There is nothing about the STO (compulsory work in Germany), although it drove quantity of young men to join the Resistance! Nor is mentioned the fact that communists have been collaborators before the war between Germany and USSR and that some have even volunteered to work in Germany. Tortures by members of the Milice (which have been numerous) are mentioned while tortures of collaborators and German soldiers by communist partisans (which have been numerous too) are not mentioned at all. Communism in France was, in 1969, too powerful for Ophuls to go onto this slippery slope, I guess... The documentary is about Clermont-Ferrand, however Ophuls sometimes jumps to how life was in Paris or Vichy at this time, it's a bit annoying because we don't get a really good picture of Clermont-Ferrand then. I have watched the French version with English subtitles and, although my English is far from being perfect, I found them rather below average, some meanings are twisted, it is a shame for people not knowing French language because they might understand a different version of the witnesses interviews. I think the documentary is interesting not from its purpose nor its editing but rather for the historical value of some of the interviews and also to get a general picture of the people feelings at this time, keeping in mind the film in itself is still an incomplete and slightly orientated summary of occupied France (however much more complete and less orientated than most of modern documentaries).

GrigoryGirl This is the way a great documentary is supposed to be made. This film came at a time when documentaries were few and far between, it remains riveting for every minute of its 251 minute length. It succeeds by telling a coherent story as well as an enthralling one. Most documentaries these days throw everything at you (in a hasty, sloppy manner), and load up their films with endless "talking head" shots. Then when they're criticised for it, they come up with the usual adage "it's up to the viewer to decide.". While the ultimate judge is the viewer, this is not a reason for a "cut and paste" approach to the film. This approach removes the narrative flow from many recent documentaries. This film tells its story so well and brilliantly, like a grand novel, and illuminates you on the Vichy government, and how it was really like to live and how complicated it is to live under an occupation. There are some historians here and there, but the film deals mainly with those who lived and fought the Nazis, those with the most at stake. That's one of the reasons the film is so riveting. It comes across as human, something many documentaries miss entirely. It's a great film. Its length means nothing, because you're never bored. A must...

Gerald A. DeLuca How truly compelling is "The Sorrow and the Pity," a monumental 4 ½-hour documentary about one of the saddest realities of World War II: the almost placid collaboration of the French with their occupying German conquerors. The movie was created by Marcel Ophüls (son of the great Max Ophüls) and portrays a devastating picture of the collective compromise of morality under duress. We are brought into intimate contact with the times by way of newsreel footage and interviews with present-day survivors of all persuasions as they recall the events of the past, corroborate or contradict others or even themselves. We see the danger that comes with historical amnesia and the refusal to see that there is a potential for great evil as well as great good in all of us. This is a profound movie, and a profoundly disquieting one. It does not substitute facile attitudinizing for intelligence and integrity. It demands that we push the limits of our vision beyond the borders of the screen masking in the theatre. It would be a sorrow and a pity not to see it…and think about its implications for all of us.