8 - A Crisis, Memory and Documentary Film-making

Written by Caelan Ratcliffe, Robert Fox, and Courtney Carrier-Guy

A Crisis, Memory and Documentary Filmmaking

Where it all began

Many events and decisions from our past leaders and citizens have forcefully shaped what we know as today’s society. They have made us question several times their legacy and judgment through the “what if” process. Documentaries have a tendency to help us understand their opinions and the circumstances that can push to such a settlement. Action: The October Crisis of 1970 (Robin Spry, 1973, Canada, 87 min.) and Comfort and Indifference (Denys Arcand, 1981, Canada, 109 min.) show two separate point of views on history’s situation: one less propaganda than the other.

Historical Events in Action: The October Crisis of 1970

In documentary films, we may often think of history to be a standard choice for a topic or issue. It is indeed a classical process of documentary filmmaking. Often we tend to think the subject of a documentary is constantly historical events, but it can be much more. A narrator, a story and an opinion are all that’s needed to have the start to an incredible film. Historical events are key aspects that are discussed and analyzed in a documentary film. They make us aware of the past, conscious of the present and prepared for what our future holds. This is just another way to describe “collective memory”.

The film Action: The October Crisis of 1970 is a typical and a perfect example of a theme for documentary filmmaking. Its calm and collective nature using archival footage and narrator led to diverse point of views during our weekly class discussion. Many opinions arouse but it all began with a famous figure of Greek mythology. Clio, was the muse of history. She was the character that was represented through the topic of the film and is the foundation of our knowledge in the past.

Important Elements of the Film

We primarily undertook the problem regarding the roots of French Canadian dissatisfaction during this period of time along with the rise of nationalism. The main ideas that were brought up were related to the rise of tension. It all started with the war between the English and the French. This victory led to the omnipresence of English in Montreal. The best job opportunities and the incapability to form Unions created even more intensity in this matter. Between 1960 and 1970, the change in the political scene was drastic. It began with Maurice Duplessis, a very closed-in person that did everything in his power to make the English happy and pleased. Then, Jean Lesage, the recipient of the power following Duplessis’s death and there’s the beginning of La Révolution Tranquille. René Lévesque was next in line. He was a well spoken being and had the ability to reach out to everyone by taking into consideration their backgrounds and lifestyles. Finally, we have the FLQ that transforms into a social movement which leads us to their manifesto which had many highlights. For starters, they wrote that Quebec should be independent and free from exploitive English. This is at the base of everything and opens up even more ideas. The removal of English taxes, burning down Westmount, the rejection of outside companies and, most important of all, the government admitting that the election was rigged from the very start. These demands and many more are of great importance to the FLQ. Then, the kidnappings of Pierre Laporte and James Cross caused much chaos and distress throughout Quebec.

The FLQ manifesto: http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/docs/october/manifest.htm

Following the FLQ manifesto, the discussion pursued towards Trudeau’s justifications for the use of the War Measures Act. It was pointed out that he claimed there was civil unrest and insurrection and that this decision was made to prevent further kidnappings down the political line. He pledged that if he didn’t take action, it would only get worse and that it was the best course of action for the people. Soon after, the reactions to Pierre Laporte’s death, which was the melancholy in the film. This tragedy, then led to the death of the FLQ.

We learned many things after viewing this documentary film. The whole story of the October Crisis was blurry in the minds of many of us. The most shocking information about this whole film was the fact that the kidnapper’s of Pierre Laporte and James Cross were sent to Cuba as they requested to live normal, happy and, utmost shameful, free lives. Abounding pieces of information were giving to us to once again help in the comprehension of our history. We may then encounter the idea of myths: “the symbolic expression of desires, fears, and tensions proper to humankind.” They give us a chance to understand the profound power that are evolved in the process of shaping our destiny. They shape the numerous cultural patterns by guiding human lives and inspiring the birth of new philosophies and art. This leads us to speak about cultural memory. This signifies that our memory can become unified as a part of an endless collective development. Memories can be shared between individuals with the support of symbolic forms like film. During this process, they create associations based on our history, which reach mythical levels. Just like in these films, the memory of this event is pronounced throughout the whole society. It’s a part of us without knowing and realizing. This procedure develops our collective and cultural memory not only for ourselves but also, for the entire community.

Comfort and Indifference

Comfort and Indifference is a Quebec documentary film made in 1991 centered around the first Quebec referendum of 1980. The film has no narration and only one fictionalized character spliced between the footage of the events leading up to the referendum and the results afterwards. The documentary is primarily footage from official tv coverage of the rallies and political speeches, as well as interviews with Quebecers and Canadian governmental officials.

One of René Lévesque's famous speeches

     The film opens with it’s only fictionalized character, Niccolo Machiavelli,  a historical figure from 16th century Italy, author of "The Prince", a political paper on philosophy, power, and politics. Throughout the film the actor recites lines attributed to Machiavelli, most likely from "The Prince".

We first see signs of separationist ideas brewing in the film when Rene Levesque gives his speech in Paris, 1977, where he says that Quebecers are worried about the persistence of their culture and hints at independence being the best solution for the "nation" of Quebec, and that America's successful revolution should be a sign that other nations can do what they strive to do.

The breadth of the film is showing the events leading up to the separation vote on May 20th, many speeches both for and against, as well as many political stunts. The “stunt” that stuck out to me the most has got to be the boxing match. Titled as “The Referendum Match”, it starred Andre “No” Beauchamp facing off against Reginald “Yes” Chartrand. The two, representing their chosen political sides, duked it out in the ring, with Reginald being the clear winner and Andre fleeing for most of the match. The intense and powerful symbolism would’ve been as apparent then as it is now, the Separatists were stronger, so their cause must be stronger. After the fight Reginald gives an incredibly powerful speech about how Quebec needs to not be afraid to take risks just like how he was when he stepped into the ring to fight.

Throughout the film, the filmmakers pick and choose what footage to use to give their viewpoint. Although the only fictional character (Machiavelli) doesn’t directly express a side, “The Prince” excerpts he recites all have to do with the use of power and when to form and break alliances. Without it being explicitly stated, Machiavelli is on the side of separation, though not entirely. For example, he says that “Men forget losing their fathers quicker than they forget losing their money”, and the next interview is of the “No” members saying that leaving would cripple the economy. In a sense, he outlines what issue would be discussed over the next few scenes. However, I found that the film overall casts the “No” side in a better light, though perhaps that’s because it was the “No” side that won and they made sure to show many lengthy scenes of the post vote celebration and party.

I learned a lot from viewing Comfort and Indifference. Although not the violent and entertaining film that October Crisis was, Comfort and Indifference showed what the common people in Montreal, in Quebec, and in other provinces thought about the vote to separate rather than just the radicals on either side. It really got into what people’s reasons for both sides were, from simple emotions to patriotism to economics and world politics. One reason for the “Yes” side stuck out to me, and that was that the people voting “No” were just doing it to protect their own interests and their money. Which they were, actually, and there’s this belief that since a side is trying to hold on to their money, that they’re just greedy and that the other side, the “Yes” side in this case, was just for wanting to do what their honor demanded instead of worrying about their money. However, throwing a new country straight into an economic depression to satisfy a sense of honour, to me at least, simply isn’t a sensible choice, but rather one fueled by a more fairy tale view of the world where the hero always wins because they are the hero, rather than embracing reality for what it is.

Here I have found a Forbes articles on different types of leadership that I found related to the separatist discourse.

Two sides to a story

The documentary films of “Comfort and Indifference” and “ Action The October Crisis of 1970”can have a very large impact on our lives. By teaching us many different lessons from our past, they allow us to understand and further question the reasons for certain events and how never to repeat them in the future.

Historical documentaries like these teach us the stories and mistakes made by past generations and the questionable acts committed. For example, the ways the FLQ handled the situation for the demands for the Quebecois populace.Both these documentaries show us a perception of the committed and the accuser and not just one side.  While news shows us only one side of a story, theses two documentaries shows us both sides which allows the message to become clearer on how a certain event happened or who may or may not be the cause of it. It’s never clear on which side we should support during the showing of current events, it only allows us to further understand the reasoning behind the events that past in both documentaries. To understand a situation without the anger of those speaking in the interviews will allow us to have a clear understanding of what truly happened at that time. That we tend to act in complicated and tough in situations with a lot of emotion. It teaches us that we need to look at conflicts with not a emotional point of view but rather one that is neutral and willing to understand.

Both documentaries allows us to open our minds and feel many emotions and ideas we wouldn’t have had before watching the documentaries. It  questions and later changes our point of view on what society has spread wildly throughout the ages. To the English community, the parti Quebecois was seen as a force that would destroy all English speaking Canadians when really, their efforts were focused on preserving the French speaking majority. That only the certain French citizens were responsible for killings and destruction of English speaking Canadians and property. These types of documentaries are important in our lives because they strive to change society’s perceptions on many stereotypes and question them as well. That not all Germans were Nazis and that not all Muslims are terrorists. Therefore, it's correct to assume that not every stereotype you hear is necessarily true and that we should question what we believe and preach.

This link draws attention on how the German people were treated after World War two. How they were all despised for what they did to the Jewish population when half of the population didn’t support Hitler and his third Reich, didn’t know about the death camps and were forced into joining the army by the Nazis.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/third-reich-rise-and-fall/

Depending on the viewer however, the lack of English voice or subtitles could disrupt the lesson being taught. For example, “Comfort and Indifference” uses many interviews in French in order to get their point across. Though these facts are authentic, it may aggravate the English viewer who wishes to see more English interviews to better understand the point that the documentary is trying to show.I relate to this point because i found it was difficult to follow on what message the  interviews were trying to show, mainly because the french was spoken too fast. That with french being my second language i couldn’t understand what they were saying. Though “Action The October Crisis of 1970” uses and equal amount of English and French interviews in order not to be bias in any way to the viewer. As well, the director Denys Arcand of the documentary “Comfort and Indifference”  uses a actor playing a Cardinal to speak passages of the bible that highlights aspects of  great leaders. He uses this technique to draw in the audience to further understand what makes a leader.  This is a great way for the viewer to draw conclusions on why certain events happened and why these leaders were praised by the people they led.Through, with the use of understanding and manipulating the audience, the documentarians can properly address their points across to us and allow us to further understand an event in history.

Through the understanding of events from a non bias or emotional point of view and the effects to change society's stereotypes. The documentaries “Comfort and Indifference” and “Action The October Crisis of 1970” allow us to fully understand what it means to be the next generation of human beings. That we shouldn’t follow our predecessor’s actions to forge our own paths towards our futures but to rather question and learn from them. That by being aware of our actions now, we will be able to bring a brighter and better future for the next generation to come.