Dans la version américaine, les trois hommes profitent de l'occasion pour faire arrêter les dealers par la police, alors que dans la version française, ils se contentaient de rendre la drogue pour éviter les ennuis. Comment expliquez-vous cette modification du scénario?
J'ai trouvÊ que le rythme du film amÊricain Êtait beaucoup plus soutenu que le film français, que j'ai trouvÊ assez lent, avec beaucoup de longueurs. Il y a moins de "pauses" , plus d'action dans le remake US (mais au dÊtriment d'autres aspects, que le film français met plus en valeur). Je pense qu'il s'agit d'une diffÊrence culturelle importante entre le cinÊma amÊricain et le cinÊma français car on la retrouve dans beaucoup d'autres cas de remakes.
A mon avis, l'arrestation des dealers dans la version américaine était surtout l'occasion pour le scénariste du remake de mettre un peu plus d'action dans cette version américanisée. La différence principale entre films français et américains n'est-elle pas l'importance donnée à l'action pour ne pas dire à la violence par les Américains?
La version française semblait certainement trop lente, mais ne trouvez-vous pas que les Américains, en modifiant un peu l'intrigue, tant au niveau de la scène de la baby-sitter (absente dans la version américaine) que de celle du gendarme devant le tabac..., ont fait disparaître tout le côté drôle de l'histoire? La version américaine est beaucoup plus sérieuse.
Je trouve dommage que dans la version americaine,les realisateurs aient introduit l'arrestation des dealers de cette facon.Tou de suite ca devient n'importe quoi et surtout ca n'a aucun rapport avec le type du film.Je trouve que c'est une facon ridicule d'inroduire un peu d'action.
la vision de la police qui est présentée dans la version francaise n'est pas en faveur de la police : l'enqueteur se trompe et se fait virer. la transformation qui a eu lieu lors du remake montre que les americains tiennent beaucoup a faire passer leur police pour serieuse, meme si ca passe par faire debarquer 15 voitures de police dans une impasse a grands renforts de gyrophare...je trouve aussi que cette scene aurait pu etre enlevée
Dans la version française, la police est extrêmement mal considérée. Les enquêteurs ne s'intéressent pas du tout au bébé, contrairement à l'inspecteur américain complètement "gaga" devant Mary. Ils mettent l'apartement sans dessus-dessous, les 3 hommes sont suivis dans tous leurs déplacements... Les policiers américains semblent beaucoup plus "cool".
Qu'en pensez-vous?
Il est dommage que les scènes avac la police aient été modifiées. C'était un des passages les plus intéressant du film. Le je u de cache-cache entre les acteurs et la police donnait une touche d'humour au film. Les americains semblent préférés l'action ( un peu déplacé ici à mon goût à l'humour). C'est une constante général des films americains. Alors que nous privilégions les films humoristiques, vous préférés les films d'action.
I agree with you on that, but you could also look at it the other way, that in the French version there is more conversation. American films tend to appeal to action and less to conversation because many Americans are excited by action. Do you feel the opposite holds for many French people?
I think the fact that the drug dealers are captured in the American version goes beyond simply adding more action to the film. I think there are two other things going on here. First: this is a Hollywood movie. The good guys have to win and that means bringing the bad guys to justice. It happens all the time in movies like Three Men and a Baby. In the French version the men help the drug dealers get away with the crime and, in a sense, that's funnier and maybe a bit more realistic. I don't think that would sit too well with a general American audience in this kind of movie.
Secondly, and more importantly. Americans love heroes. When it comes right down to it, the actions of the American men are heroic. I've been noticing this quite a lot recently (I am Lebanese and as such am an outsider of sorts to American culture). Heroism and its ideals pervade this culture. It's the very climax of individuality, when you, an individual can make a very real, very good, difference in the world around you. The firefighters and policemen who were at the scene of the attacks of the 11th of September are considered heroes in the truest sense in this Nation.
First, it's perfectly alright to make generalizations about Hollywood movies, but remember that there are important exceptions to the "rules" we mention. Three Men and a Baby is a very mainstream Hollywood movie: the protagonists are in some sense super-human, and their ways of dealing with situations are "heroic" and even "virtuous". There are many exceptions to these kinds of formulas. ONSI is correct in noticing that if the protagonists (especially these kinds of protagonists: rich, upstanding) helped the drug dealers to get away, this would not "sit too well with an American audience FOR THIS KIND OF MOVIE", since there are other kinds in which even the protagonists are criminals, and American audiences find this enjoyable and amusing (e.g., Pulp Fiction). Moreover, there are other kinds of purely comedic films in which there is no action whatsoever: e.g., the genre of "romantic" comedies -- violence is not a necessary ingredient.
Outside of making desperate please for understanding American cinema in a wider context (i.e., some American directors make very intelligent and clever films that do not pander to mainstream tastes) I suppose there is not much to be gained by talking about exceptions, since the purpose of this exercise is to compare two "mainstream" films -- i.e., films that are very popular in the two cultures (i.e., we are not comparing Jean-Luc Godard and Woody Allen [unfortunately]).
The major part of Hollywood films follow successful formulas that are
sometimes given a new twist. Three men and a baby in its French incarnation was easy to adapt for a *mainstream* American palate -- other [foreign] films that Hollywood wishes to cannibalize are not so well-suited to begin with, and these are almost unrecognizable as adaptations of their original versions (e.g., Wim Wenders's "Wings of Desire" and Hollywood's [who-cares-what-the-director's-name-was] "City of Angels"). That is, the changes could be (and usually are) far more dramatic.
This message was another caveat. Hopefully my next message will be more substantive. ;-)
Wes
P.S. The characters in the American version are presented almost
as role-models -- it is mainly for that reason that they are "not
allowed" to help the crooks. The French characters have not been
"idealized" in the same fashion, and for this reason they can help
the criminals without any sort of contradiction.
We talked in class the other day about one of the more remarkable differences between the two storylines. In the American version, the amount of time taken for the characters to realize how dearly they will miss Mary is far shorter than what is needed in the French version: in the French film, the protagonists returned happily to their bacchanalian lifestyle for even several weeks or months before they realized that something important was missing. Moreover, the French film "demonstrates" an evolution in the characters' attitudes, whereas the American version arrives at the point more quickly, and it is stated bluntly: i.e., the characters simply announce exactly what their feelings are (the conversations on the French side talk "around" the subject, with, for example, an almost existential commentary about ribs and the creation of Man). This kind of "literalism", through which meanings are directly spoken rather than shown (because that might be unclear!) is almost a trademark of American mainstream cinema.
Moreover, the class noticed that the American characters take deliberate actions to resolve their problem, whereas the French characters seem to wallow in their misery until a miracle happens...
Our professor has suggested that it would be "very evident" to a French audience that the celebrations of the protagonists after Marie is taken away, is *totally* artificial. Most of the students in the class disagreed, although I think some of us initially felt at least somewhat embarassed that we had perhaps not understood something for which evidently a more sophisticated and nuanced French intellect is needed (I should add: in our class there are Italians, Argentines, and people from other nations who also interpreted the jublilation rather "literally"). Now, while that is of course possible, I am not completely sure. For my part, I recognized the stark contrast between the initial reactions of the main characters (when Sylvie returns: i.e., very despondent), and their reactions once Marie had gone, but I suggest there was at least sincerity in their *attempts* to be happy about having been relieved of this "burden". That is, perhaps what they realize eventually is that, in spite of their attempts to have fun and deny the importance of Marie in their lives, in the end, they cannot manage to excise her completely.
Since I am rather francophile almost by disposition, I am normally inclined to agree with whatever our [French] professor says, however, in this case I am anxious to know whether it is really true that ALL of you interpreted the initial reaction as being TOTALLY artificial. (And, I hope she [our prof] has a sense of humor about my raising the issue in this forum, in case there turn out to be some exceptions to this rule.)
I suppose one of the reasons I found at least some modicum of sincerity in the *initial* reaction is that while Pierre is manifestly very sad when Sylvie returns (i.e., paralyzed), Jacques does not appear to show any emotion (he helps more than the others with the packing), he makes a point of "settling scores" with Sylvie when she is holding the baby while she sits in the car (i.e., his mind is on something *other* than the baby), and he is the first to suggest that they are returning now to "the good life" when Marie is taken away. Therefore, at least for his part, I had the impression that there might have been some authentic relief and even contentment (although, indeed, Pierre's reaction seems very artificial because of the profound change that has occurred since the previous scene).
If there is not an evolution in attitudes about how they actually feel, then at least there is an evolution in attitudes about whether they can, in practice, pretend that nothing has changed. Gradually, they demonstrate the evidence of and acceptance of their grief. In that sense at least, there appears to be an authentic evolution in attitudes.
Salut Wes, je vais essayer de répondre à tes questions.
Je ne m'étais pas posé la question, mais je crois que l'interprétation de votre professeur est tout-à-fait plausible: les personnages font des démonstrations exubérantes de leur joie après le départ de Marie pour masquer le vide qu'ils ressentent. C'est une figure de style fréquente en littérature (faire dire aux personnages le contraire de ce qu'ils pensent, en sachant que le lecteur comprend ce qu'il y a "entre les lignes") [cela peut prendre plusieurs formes, par exemple, la litote avec pour illustration la plus célèbre: "Va je ne te hais point" pour dire : je t'aime à la folie...].
Bon je vais couper la poire en deux: ce n'est pas évident au premier abord que Pierre, Michel et Jacques feignent de se sentir libérés, en listant tout ce qu'ils vont avoir à faire pour rattrapper le temps perdu alors qu'en fait ils sont très tristes, mais à la réflexion, c'est sûr qu'ils font semblant d'être contents pour se convaincre eux-mêmes.
Quoiqu'il en soit, ce qui est évident pour une française comme moi dès la première fois que j'ai vu la scène du départ de Marie, c'est que si les personnages s'affairent autant pour préparer les affaires du bébé et donnent tout plein de conseils, c'est évidemment pour meubler et ne pas parler d'autre chose. Ca c'est extremement courrant dans les films français (mais dans certains films américains aussi, je crois): les personnages parlent de choses anodines ou décalées pour ne pas aborder le sujet dont tous les spectateurs savent qu'ils doivent parler. Peut-être que dans les films français, c'est fait de façon moins explicite que dans les films américains à destination du grand public.
Le "more sophisticated and nuanced French intellect " me fait sourire. Il ne s'agit bien sûr que de différences culturelles. Nous aimons beaucoup le non-dit et vous préférez expliciter davantage. Mais je crois que les Anglais sont encore bien pire que nous de ce point de vue là !
Thanks for your balanced and charitable response to my question. In the last sentence, you suggest that the differences in interpretation ultimately reduce to cultural differences regarding expectations about "implicit" versus explicit ways of conveying meanings (please see my message in the section about "Le Retour de Jacques" for my own views about this). In the case of mainstream audiences, it seems to be true that Americans prefer explicit representations. However, there is a minority audience who *is* able to recognize irony in many kinds of [yes, even American] literature, and certainly in less-than-popular American films (e.g., Woody Allen). Since I think of myself as belonging to this group (and I'm sure that most of our class would feel the same way), it would cause me to worry somewhat if I misunderstood something that 100% of French people would have understood perfectly well. If this had happened, then I would suggest that perhaps the reasons (arguing from cultural differences) for these differences in interpretation are even deeper than we suppose.
In any case, I have gleaned from the discussion in the forum about "Sylvia's Return" that there is indeed *not* a consensus of opinion about this among the French students, and you have conceded that the situation is perhaps not totally clear. I will take some consolation from this, and thereby avoid what surely would have become an existential crisis within several days. (Oops, more irony!)
Discussion
(#
1
of 14)
Dans la version américaine, les trois hommes profitent de l'occasion pour faire arrêter les dealers par la police, alors que dans la version française, ils se contentaient de rendre la drogue pour éviter les ennuis. Comment expliquez-vous cette modification du scénario?
(#
2
of 14)
J'ai trouvÊ que le rythme du film amÊricain Êtait beaucoup plus soutenu que le film français, que j'ai trouvÊ assez lent, avec beaucoup de longueurs. Il y a moins de "pauses" , plus d'action dans le remake US (mais au dÊtriment d'autres aspects, que le film français met plus en valeur). Je pense qu'il s'agit d'une diffÊrence culturelle importante entre le cinÊma amÊricain et le cinÊma français car on la retrouve dans beaucoup d'autres cas de remakes.
(#
3
of 14)
A mon avis, l'arrestation des dealers dans la version américaine était surtout l'occasion pour le scénariste du remake de mettre un peu plus d'action dans cette version américanisée. La différence principale entre films français et américains n'est-elle pas l'importance donnée à l'action pour ne pas dire à la violence par les Américains?
La version française semblait certainement trop lente, mais ne trouvez-vous pas que les Américains, en modifiant un peu l'intrigue, tant au niveau de la scène de la baby-sitter (absente dans la version américaine) que de celle du gendarme devant le tabac..., ont fait disparaître tout le côté drôle de l'histoire? La version américaine est beaucoup plus sérieuse.
(#
4
of 14)
Je trouve dommage que dans la version americaine,les realisateurs aient introduit l'arrestation des dealers de cette facon.Tou de suite ca devient n'importe quoi et surtout ca n'a aucun rapport avec le type du film.Je trouve que c'est une facon ridicule d'inroduire un peu d'action.
(#
5
of 14)
la vision de la police qui est présentée dans la version francaise n'est pas en faveur de la police : l'enqueteur se trompe et se fait virer. la transformation qui a eu lieu lors du remake montre que les americains tiennent beaucoup a faire passer leur police pour serieuse, meme si ca passe par faire debarquer 15 voitures de police dans une impasse a grands renforts de gyrophare...je trouve aussi que cette scene aurait pu etre enlevée
(#
6
of 14)
Dans la version française, la police est extrêmement mal considérée. Les enquêteurs ne s'intéressent pas du tout au bébé, contrairement à l'inspecteur américain complètement "gaga" devant Mary. Ils mettent l'apartement sans dessus-dessous, les 3 hommes sont suivis dans tous leurs déplacements... Les policiers américains semblent beaucoup plus "cool".
Qu'en pensez-vous?
(#
7
of 14)
Il est dommage que les scènes avac la police aient été modifiées. C'était un des passages les plus intéressant du film. Le je u de cache-cache entre les acteurs et la police donnait une touche d'humour au film. Les americains semblent préférés l'action ( un peu déplacé ici à mon goût à l'humour). C'est une constante général des films americains. Alors que nous privilégions les films humoristiques, vous préférés les films d'action.
(#
8
of 14)
Olivier,
I agree with you on that, but you could also look at it the other way, that in the French version there is more conversation. American films tend to appeal to action and less to conversation because many Americans are excited by action. Do you feel the opposite holds for many French people?
(#
9
of 14)
I think the fact that the drug dealers are captured in the American version goes beyond simply adding more action to the film. I think there are two other things going on here. First: this is a Hollywood movie. The good guys have to win and that means bringing the bad guys to justice. It happens all the time in movies like Three Men and a Baby. In the French version the men help the drug dealers get away with the crime and, in a sense, that's funnier and maybe a bit more realistic. I don't think that would sit too well with a general American audience in this kind of movie.
Secondly, and more importantly. Americans love heroes. When it comes right down to it, the actions of the American men are heroic. I've been noticing this quite a lot recently (I am Lebanese and as such am an outsider of sorts to American culture). Heroism and its ideals pervade this culture. It's the very climax of individuality, when you, an individual can make a very real, very good, difference in the world around you. The firefighters and policemen who were at the scene of the attacks of the 11th of September are considered heroes in the truest sense in this Nation.
(#
10
of 14)
Hi everyone,
First, it's perfectly alright to make generalizations about Hollywood movies, but remember that there are important exceptions to the "rules" we mention. Three Men and a Baby is a very mainstream Hollywood movie: the protagonists are in some sense super-human, and their ways of dealing with situations are "heroic" and even "virtuous". There are many exceptions to these kinds of formulas. ONSI is correct in noticing that if the protagonists (especially these kinds of protagonists: rich, upstanding) helped the drug dealers to get away, this would not "sit too well with an American audience FOR THIS KIND OF MOVIE", since there are other kinds in which even the protagonists are criminals, and American audiences find this enjoyable and amusing (e.g., Pulp Fiction). Moreover, there are other kinds of purely comedic films in which there is no action whatsoever: e.g., the genre of "romantic" comedies -- violence is not a necessary ingredient.
Outside of making desperate please for understanding American cinema in a wider context (i.e., some American directors make very intelligent and clever films that do not pander to mainstream tastes) I suppose there is not much to be gained by talking about exceptions, since the purpose of this exercise is to compare two "mainstream" films -- i.e., films that are very popular in the two cultures (i.e., we are not comparing Jean-Luc Godard and Woody Allen [unfortunately]).
The major part of Hollywood films follow successful formulas that are
sometimes given a new twist. Three men and a baby in its French incarnation was easy to adapt for a *mainstream* American palate -- other [foreign] films that Hollywood wishes to cannibalize are not so well-suited to begin with, and these are almost unrecognizable as adaptations of their original versions (e.g., Wim Wenders's "Wings of Desire" and Hollywood's [who-cares-what-the-director's-name-was] "City of Angels"). That is, the changes could be (and usually are) far more dramatic.
This message was another caveat. Hopefully my next message will be more substantive. ;-)
Wes
P.S. The characters in the American version are presented almost
as role-models -- it is mainly for that reason that they are "not
allowed" to help the crooks. The French characters have not been
"idealized" in the same fashion, and for this reason they can help
the criminals without any sort of contradiction.
(#
11
of 14)
Hi everyone,
We talked in class the other day about one of the more remarkable differences between the two storylines. In the American version, the amount of time taken for the characters to realize how dearly they will miss Mary is far shorter than what is needed in the French version: in the French film, the protagonists returned happily to their bacchanalian lifestyle for even several weeks or months before they realized that something important was missing. Moreover, the French film "demonstrates" an evolution in the characters' attitudes, whereas the American version arrives at the point more quickly, and it is stated bluntly: i.e., the characters simply announce exactly what their feelings are (the conversations on the French side talk "around" the subject, with, for example, an almost existential commentary about ribs and the creation of Man). This kind of "literalism", through which meanings are directly spoken rather than shown (because that might be unclear!) is almost a trademark of American mainstream cinema.
Moreover, the class noticed that the American characters take deliberate actions to resolve their problem, whereas the French characters seem to wallow in their misery until a miracle happens...
What are your thoughts?
Cheers,
Wes
(#
12
of 14)
Hello everyone,
I have a rather pressing question...
Our professor has suggested that it would be "very evident" to a French audience that the celebrations of the protagonists after Marie is taken away, is *totally* artificial. Most of the students in the class disagreed, although I think some of us initially felt at least somewhat embarassed that we had perhaps not understood something for which evidently a more sophisticated and nuanced French intellect is needed (I should add: in our class there are Italians, Argentines, and people from other nations who also interpreted the jublilation rather "literally"). Now, while that is of course possible, I am not completely sure. For my part, I recognized the stark contrast between the initial reactions of the main characters (when Sylvie returns: i.e., very despondent), and their reactions once Marie had gone, but I suggest there was at least sincerity in their *attempts* to be happy about having been relieved of this "burden". That is, perhaps what they realize eventually is that, in spite of their attempts to have fun and deny the importance of Marie in their lives, in the end, they cannot manage to excise her completely.
Since I am rather francophile almost by disposition, I am normally inclined to agree with whatever our [French] professor says, however, in this case I am anxious to know whether it is really true that ALL of you interpreted the initial reaction as being TOTALLY artificial. (And, I hope she [our prof] has a sense of humor about my raising the issue in this forum, in case there turn out to be some exceptions to this rule.)
I suppose one of the reasons I found at least some modicum of sincerity in the *initial* reaction is that while Pierre is manifestly very sad when Sylvie returns (i.e., paralyzed), Jacques does not appear to show any emotion (he helps more than the others with the packing), he makes a point of "settling scores" with Sylvie when she is holding the baby while she sits in the car (i.e., his mind is on something *other* than the baby), and he is the first to suggest that they are returning now to "the good life" when Marie is taken away. Therefore, at least for his part, I had the impression that there might have been some authentic relief and even contentment (although, indeed, Pierre's reaction seems very artificial because of the profound change that has occurred since the previous scene).
If there is not an evolution in attitudes about how they actually feel, then at least there is an evolution in attitudes about whether they can, in practice, pretend that nothing has changed. Gradually, they demonstrate the evidence of and acceptance of their grief. In that sense at least, there appears to be an authentic evolution in attitudes.
RSVP!
Wes
(#
13
of 14)
Salut Wes, je vais essayer de répondre à tes questions.
Je ne m'étais pas posé la question, mais je crois que l'interprétation de votre professeur est tout-à-fait plausible: les personnages font des démonstrations exubérantes de leur joie après le départ de Marie pour masquer le vide qu'ils ressentent. C'est une figure de style fréquente en littérature (faire dire aux personnages le contraire de ce qu'ils pensent, en sachant que le lecteur comprend ce qu'il y a "entre les lignes") [cela peut prendre plusieurs formes, par exemple, la litote avec pour illustration la plus célèbre: "Va je ne te hais point" pour dire : je t'aime à la folie...].
Bon je vais couper la poire en deux: ce n'est pas évident au premier abord que Pierre, Michel et Jacques feignent de se sentir libérés, en listant tout ce qu'ils vont avoir à faire pour rattrapper le temps perdu alors qu'en fait ils sont très tristes, mais à la réflexion, c'est sûr qu'ils font semblant d'être contents pour se convaincre eux-mêmes.
Quoiqu'il en soit, ce qui est évident pour une française comme moi dès la première fois que j'ai vu la scène du départ de Marie, c'est que si les personnages s'affairent autant pour préparer les affaires du bébé et donnent tout plein de conseils, c'est évidemment pour meubler et ne pas parler d'autre chose. Ca c'est extremement courrant dans les films français (mais dans certains films américains aussi, je crois): les personnages parlent de choses anodines ou décalées pour ne pas aborder le sujet dont tous les spectateurs savent qu'ils doivent parler. Peut-être que dans les films français, c'est fait de façon moins explicite que dans les films américains à destination du grand public.
Le "more sophisticated and nuanced French intellect " me fait sourire. Il ne s'agit bien sûr que de différences culturelles. Nous aimons beaucoup le non-dit et vous préférez expliciter davantage. Mais je crois que les Anglais sont encore bien pire que nous de ce point de vue là !
(#
14
of 14)
Hi Claire,
Thanks for your balanced and charitable response to my question. In the last sentence, you suggest that the differences in interpretation ultimately reduce to cultural differences regarding expectations about "implicit" versus explicit ways of conveying meanings (please see my message in the section about "Le Retour de Jacques" for my own views about this). In the case of mainstream audiences, it seems to be true that Americans prefer explicit representations. However, there is a minority audience who *is* able to recognize irony in many kinds of [yes, even American] literature, and certainly in less-than-popular American films (e.g., Woody Allen). Since I think of myself as belonging to this group (and I'm sure that most of our class would feel the same way), it would cause me to worry somewhat if I misunderstood something that 100% of French people would have understood perfectly well. If this had happened, then I would suggest that perhaps the reasons (arguing from cultural differences) for these differences in interpretation are even deeper than we suppose.
In any case, I have gleaned from the discussion in the forum about "Sylvia's Return" that there is indeed *not* a consensus of opinion about this among the French students, and you have conceded that the situation is perhaps not totally clear. I will take some consolation from this, and thereby avoid what surely would have become an existential crisis within several days. (Oops, more irony!)
Thanks for your prompt reply! :-)
Wes