This movie was great. From the opening scene to the end I was stuck looking at the screen. Every character had something special and the fact that the film it's based on true events is mind-blowing!
5 Reviews
Exciting, Fun, Stressful, Everything!
mihaitanaghi30 July 2021
Prison Drama About A Drama Staged In A Prison
Pairic1 July 2022
The Big Hit: A prison comedy drama about a comedy-drama being staged in a prison. This film set in France is based on a true case which occurred in Sweden, we know that the prisoners escaped but how things got to that point is teased in the drama. Étienne (Kad Merad) is a down at heel actor, works as a drama coach, reduced to teaching Maori hakas at corporate team-building events. He gets a chance to teach drama at a high security prison and the inmates involved eventually impress him with their fable dramatisations. He convinces the prison governor to allow him to put on a performance of Waiting For Godot which will be staged outside of the jail. Six months of rehearsals ensue. There are no cardboard characters here, every prisoner is unhappy in his own way. Obstacles encountered are not all heroically overcome and as Beckett would have appreciated there is lot of waiting around in prison. Great performances from Merad and the supporting cast. Directed and Co-Written by Emmanuel Courcol. 8/10.
Un triomphe - Waiting for Godot behind bars
eightylicious26 April 2022
What if someone told you about some prisoners staging Beckett's "Waiting for Godot", with almost none of them having a passion for acting, the one even being illiterate? Surely, you wouldn't believe me. But this is what the director Jan Jönson did with a group of inmates in 1985. The result was a real triumph, and this what this French retelling of the story has as its title.
Etienne Carboni (Kad Merad) is an unemployed actor wanting to find a way to express his favourite passion. This is why he decides to go help some prisoners by teaching them how to play. Their previous instructor had only taught them some of the myths of La Fontaine, making them lose all faith in theatre. But Etienne has other things in mind; seeing them wait desperately for every day to pass, he comes up with the idea to stage a work that is itself about waiting, Beckett's aforementioned masterpiece. Of course,his ambitions are too high at first: almost none of the prisoners knows how to act, and the theatre of the absurd, with its often nonsensical dialogue, is difficult for them to understand. But they get inspired by the charismatic Etienne, and give a performance that would have made Beckett proud.
A lot stands on their way: the director of the prison (Marina Hands) puts a superhuman effort for letting the prisoners stage the play and thus gets desperate when they seem to give up. Such is the attitude of the judge (Catherine Lascault) too, who doesn't believe in the life-changing power theatre has, and because of that has to be convinced in order to let the prisoners play. Above all, every inmate has demons chasing him; there is the illiterate Jordan (Pierre Lottin), who despite his impediment gets to play the most demanding role, Patrick (David Ayala), longing for his dear wife, Moussa (Wabinlé Nabié) an immigrant searching for a better luck in France, who feels every one of his character's words as if they were really his own, Alex (Lamine Cissokho), a giant two metres tall, yet with a child's heart, and Kamel (Sofian Khammes), the most audacious of them, the leader of the group, hiding a secret behind his tough guy façade. With this team, all different as chalk and cheese, how can a successful production be made? This is why Etienne's job seems all the more impressive. He tries to build bonds between his actors, treating them like real performers and not like amateurs. He shows them something they haven't got for years; respect. And it is this respect that will motivate them to do their best.
The film is completely based on the performances. Without them, it would be nothing, for all the originality of the story. The actors portraying the prisoners truly immerse themselves in their roles, and deliver performances that seem more like life slices than pieces of cinema. Merad is poignant in the role of poor Etienne, and his monologue, although less intellectual than Lucky's in Beckett's pièce, is still a sample of real acting talent, full of spontaneity and emotional intensity, depicting the progression of a man who went from not putting up with his actors to admiring them for their resilience.
This resilience is countered with a vulgarity usual for prisoners, but one which gets a different meaning in this film. The inmates not only play in "Waiting for Godot", but make little additions that often transform it to a veritable comedy. Swear words, facial expressions, even extra characters more fitting to a thriller then a Beckett piece, make for a different version of the famous play. By adding all these elements, the prisoners express their tiredness; they can't wait anymore for freedom, for joy, for fun. The show isn't only a way to educate themselves, but works, as theatre often does, cathartically, freeing them from their worries while on stage. Their vulgarity and immaturity serves as a way to make their real state clear: they do have a great time playing, but behind the scenes, they are criminals, on detention for what seems like eternity, not being able to make a step without supervision. This film surely doesn't condone criminal actions; it just shows the human side behind those behind bars. While it may feel condescending at first, with the prisoners' childish behaviour being just an easy way to feel pity for them, it goes on to show how they can shine when given real motives.
When Samuel Beckett learnt of the amateur actors' additions to his play, he said (and here I'm paraphrasing): "This is the best thing to happen to my work". Indeed, it was. The theatre of the absurd, usually reserved for intellectuals, got remade in a version intended for ordinary people. It was a gentle act of love towards Beckett's original play, from some people that didn't fully grasp its meaning. This, of course, didn't matter in the end. The performance was, like the film, a triumph. It truly deserves a standing ovation.
Etienne Carboni (Kad Merad) is an unemployed actor wanting to find a way to express his favourite passion. This is why he decides to go help some prisoners by teaching them how to play. Their previous instructor had only taught them some of the myths of La Fontaine, making them lose all faith in theatre. But Etienne has other things in mind; seeing them wait desperately for every day to pass, he comes up with the idea to stage a work that is itself about waiting, Beckett's aforementioned masterpiece. Of course,his ambitions are too high at first: almost none of the prisoners knows how to act, and the theatre of the absurd, with its often nonsensical dialogue, is difficult for them to understand. But they get inspired by the charismatic Etienne, and give a performance that would have made Beckett proud.
A lot stands on their way: the director of the prison (Marina Hands) puts a superhuman effort for letting the prisoners stage the play and thus gets desperate when they seem to give up. Such is the attitude of the judge (Catherine Lascault) too, who doesn't believe in the life-changing power theatre has, and because of that has to be convinced in order to let the prisoners play. Above all, every inmate has demons chasing him; there is the illiterate Jordan (Pierre Lottin), who despite his impediment gets to play the most demanding role, Patrick (David Ayala), longing for his dear wife, Moussa (Wabinlé Nabié) an immigrant searching for a better luck in France, who feels every one of his character's words as if they were really his own, Alex (Lamine Cissokho), a giant two metres tall, yet with a child's heart, and Kamel (Sofian Khammes), the most audacious of them, the leader of the group, hiding a secret behind his tough guy façade. With this team, all different as chalk and cheese, how can a successful production be made? This is why Etienne's job seems all the more impressive. He tries to build bonds between his actors, treating them like real performers and not like amateurs. He shows them something they haven't got for years; respect. And it is this respect that will motivate them to do their best.
The film is completely based on the performances. Without them, it would be nothing, for all the originality of the story. The actors portraying the prisoners truly immerse themselves in their roles, and deliver performances that seem more like life slices than pieces of cinema. Merad is poignant in the role of poor Etienne, and his monologue, although less intellectual than Lucky's in Beckett's pièce, is still a sample of real acting talent, full of spontaneity and emotional intensity, depicting the progression of a man who went from not putting up with his actors to admiring them for their resilience.
This resilience is countered with a vulgarity usual for prisoners, but one which gets a different meaning in this film. The inmates not only play in "Waiting for Godot", but make little additions that often transform it to a veritable comedy. Swear words, facial expressions, even extra characters more fitting to a thriller then a Beckett piece, make for a different version of the famous play. By adding all these elements, the prisoners express their tiredness; they can't wait anymore for freedom, for joy, for fun. The show isn't only a way to educate themselves, but works, as theatre often does, cathartically, freeing them from their worries while on stage. Their vulgarity and immaturity serves as a way to make their real state clear: they do have a great time playing, but behind the scenes, they are criminals, on detention for what seems like eternity, not being able to make a step without supervision. This film surely doesn't condone criminal actions; it just shows the human side behind those behind bars. While it may feel condescending at first, with the prisoners' childish behaviour being just an easy way to feel pity for them, it goes on to show how they can shine when given real motives.
When Samuel Beckett learnt of the amateur actors' additions to his play, he said (and here I'm paraphrasing): "This is the best thing to happen to my work". Indeed, it was. The theatre of the absurd, usually reserved for intellectuals, got remade in a version intended for ordinary people. It was a gentle act of love towards Beckett's original play, from some people that didn't fully grasp its meaning. This, of course, didn't matter in the end. The performance was, like the film, a triumph. It truly deserves a standing ovation.
Okay film, almost ruined by the ending though
Horst_In_Translation28 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
"Un triomphe" or "The Big Hit" is a French film from 2020, so it took pretty long for this film to reach cinemas here in my country Germany and this surely surprises me because we are very close to France. I mean it is three years or at least 2.5 years if this premiered back around the end of summer 2020. And it is still shown as part of the regular program in movie theaters here. That is quite something. I have a hard time otherwise finding 2021 releases even. Anyway, this movie runs for 108 minutes if we include the full set oof closing credits, so it is not a particularly short film we got here. The director is Emmanuel Courcol and this was just his third film, including one short film. But if you look at who he worked with as a director, who the leads were in his films, it is fairly impressive. It probably helped that he is/was a prolific actor and also has written the screenplays for many films, including this one here. There is still a break of four years between this movie and his previous film. He also did not act here and there is only one acting credit after 2012 in his body of work, so full focus seems now on making movies himself. There are two other writers here and the one with the extraordinary body of work is Thierry de Carbonnières because he has been a prolific actor since the early 1980s and this movie here is his first writing credit ever. Compared to this, Courcol's body of work is nothing special. The third writer is Khaled Amara and writing is his key profession, even if is not even close to the number of scripts compared to Courcol. If you look at the cast here, the first name that sounds familiar is also the first credit and that would be Kad Merad of course. The Ch'tis film is probably what he will be remembered for the most for the rest of his life and career. This is already 15 years ago now and the man will turn 60 next year. Here he is the undisputed lead. If there was any doubt to it, then the final scene at the Odéon theater in Paris crushes this doubt.
About the rest of the cast, I cannot say too much, even if I would love to, but I am not a big expert on French films and actors or at least not as much as I would love to be. Great country with many excellent movies. This is maybe not an excellent movie here, but it has its moments too. Some awards bodies agreed and most of the honors went to Courcol there, none to the cast, but one to the music as well. The biggest win was definitely the comedy category at the European Film Awards. This happened back in 2020 already too. Maybe it was not the strongest year for the category. This good the movie is not. There were a few things though that came to my attention that I liked and I think here in Germany the film would have looked much different here and there. The best (or worst) example is how one character leaves the picture pretty much. We have a criminal gang leader who really wants to be part of the play and the acting team there and he uses his influence to make sure that the other guy leaves the group. I surely thought that they would bring the other fella back one way or the other somehow, but they did not. They definitely would have brought him back if this had been a German film. Here, instead, they took the route to make the guy who replaces him seem more likable then as we find out more about him. He overcomes his ego and becomes a worthy member of the group and we also find out that his main motivation to star in the play is that he wants to make his son proud. So he is a likable character too, despite his criminal background, and Merad's character learns this as well and quickly overcomes his initial doubts when he goes pretty hard on the young man. He also tells somebody else a little later that the man is a good actor.
By the way, the moment when said hotheaded man really overcomes his ego is when he plays ape you could say and lets it all out there just like his acting teacher does and he accepts his acting teacher (Merad) as the boss. But this scene I definitely have to talk about or I should say the similar scene before that when he has all the other actors/inmates pretend to be apes and yes there are Black characters there too and there is absolutely no way anybody would have taken this route here in Germany where political correctness has ruined all creativity so often in movies. I applaud France for not caring, especially the writers here because with a similar approach and this scene in particular nobody would have given any funds at all to this film and it probably never would have reached movie theaters and perhaps even destroyed the career of the writer and director behind it. Luckily, this is not the case for Courcol. Generally, this film is categorized as a comedy, but it is a bit difficult for me to agree there. There are not really many funny moments and also not many moments that were supposed to be funny. So I am not sure what this is. Not really drama or family movie either. It has been a while since last time I struggled like this to find a genre, but then again you don't have to categorize everything. Early on, you could see it as a comedy. I liked the moment when the main character mistakes the guards' place for a prison cell. It was also funny in a way when one character states the protagonist would not teach them if he was a successful actor. There are other funny moments like the Nobel Prize comparison to the Ballon d'Or. Or when the students arrive late and the protagonist says he waited for them for half an hour and they say they are waiting for years to get out. This waiting also inspired the Beckett inclusion then. But these were almost the only scenes and I laughed there more than most others in the movie theater and they also did not laugh much on other occasions.
The film did have weaknesses too: One was the moment when the protagonist is about to give up and he leaves the room, but luckily it did not become a major conflict and it was back to normal quickly. The story between the main character and his daughter, which was among the biggest dramatic conflicts, even if it excluded the prison inmates, was also not much of a success. But the fact that there was not really any emotional solution to it felt right and realistic. No thumbs-down there. With the ending I struggled a lot though. The idea already that the female judge plays such an important role for the inmates is already a bit difficult to grasp, but that she then shows up at the play after we know she does not care about theater was too much. And don't even get me started on the French Minister of Justice then being present too all of a sudden. This was ridiculous. There less would definitely have been more. The inclusions then of the inmates (not) having the intention to leave were also off. The scene at the barber's shop was already too much, but there at least only one has the motivation and the others object, the gang leader strongly objects even. So how are we to believe that everybody (except the sleeping guy) in the end agrees to leave? They were in Paris and they came from another region I think. They have nobody to stay with there and early on we are told that their prison sentences are almost over. Or did only the main character think so? I still think it made no sense. You could maybe say in terms of the gang leader that he changed his mind because his son saw him play, but I mean he still would know that he cannot just flee and visit his son and the only approach that would make sense is him staying for his prison term, behave well, so that he can get out earlier to be united with his son again.
This ending was almost a negative deal breaker for me. Really awful. The speech also did not do a lot for me there. I don't blame Merad. He did what he could. But I was also confused the police guys allowed him to get back inside after saying they need to talk to him. I guess returning to the stage was more important than security concerns? Despite them maybe thinking even that he was helping his folks flee? I am not sure. It was maybe the saddest moment when the character told his daughter earlier that he did not really have anything in life and these convicts helped him find a mission. His acting or directing careers probably look better as well then after his speech and standing ovation at apparently one of the finest theaters of the French capital. This is quite something. But yeah, as I said the last 20 minutes felt extremely underwhelming to me, also how he randomly runs across the streets of Paris looking for his cast members. But the worst was that they had indeed left. So the only reason why I am still giving the outcome here a thumbs-up overall is the explanation towards the end that this film is based on real events, somewhere in Scandinavia, and that the director there did the exact same thing like Merad did here with the improvised speech, even if I am sure the writers changed a lot for storytelling purposes here. This is probably why it did not feel realistic and an actual documentary on what really happened would have felt way more realistic. The inmates' behavior in this film here simply did not fit from a realistic perspective. That is why my positive recommendation here is really as close as it gets. Not a given. Look how they are in complete awe when they see the Odéon stage the first time. It is difficult to believe they would totally change their minds because of the guards' actions. And also not very realistic that after the punishment for stripping naked, we hear they are not allowed out anymore, but then they are allowed out again to continue acting just moments later. So much wrong there. Without the last half hour or a less showy ending, it would have been an easy thumbs-up for sure. Not a great film by any means, but good enough without a doubt, but a lot went wrong in the end. Still, go see it. It's not a weak film, but at the same time far away from triumph territory.
About the rest of the cast, I cannot say too much, even if I would love to, but I am not a big expert on French films and actors or at least not as much as I would love to be. Great country with many excellent movies. This is maybe not an excellent movie here, but it has its moments too. Some awards bodies agreed and most of the honors went to Courcol there, none to the cast, but one to the music as well. The biggest win was definitely the comedy category at the European Film Awards. This happened back in 2020 already too. Maybe it was not the strongest year for the category. This good the movie is not. There were a few things though that came to my attention that I liked and I think here in Germany the film would have looked much different here and there. The best (or worst) example is how one character leaves the picture pretty much. We have a criminal gang leader who really wants to be part of the play and the acting team there and he uses his influence to make sure that the other guy leaves the group. I surely thought that they would bring the other fella back one way or the other somehow, but they did not. They definitely would have brought him back if this had been a German film. Here, instead, they took the route to make the guy who replaces him seem more likable then as we find out more about him. He overcomes his ego and becomes a worthy member of the group and we also find out that his main motivation to star in the play is that he wants to make his son proud. So he is a likable character too, despite his criminal background, and Merad's character learns this as well and quickly overcomes his initial doubts when he goes pretty hard on the young man. He also tells somebody else a little later that the man is a good actor.
By the way, the moment when said hotheaded man really overcomes his ego is when he plays ape you could say and lets it all out there just like his acting teacher does and he accepts his acting teacher (Merad) as the boss. But this scene I definitely have to talk about or I should say the similar scene before that when he has all the other actors/inmates pretend to be apes and yes there are Black characters there too and there is absolutely no way anybody would have taken this route here in Germany where political correctness has ruined all creativity so often in movies. I applaud France for not caring, especially the writers here because with a similar approach and this scene in particular nobody would have given any funds at all to this film and it probably never would have reached movie theaters and perhaps even destroyed the career of the writer and director behind it. Luckily, this is not the case for Courcol. Generally, this film is categorized as a comedy, but it is a bit difficult for me to agree there. There are not really many funny moments and also not many moments that were supposed to be funny. So I am not sure what this is. Not really drama or family movie either. It has been a while since last time I struggled like this to find a genre, but then again you don't have to categorize everything. Early on, you could see it as a comedy. I liked the moment when the main character mistakes the guards' place for a prison cell. It was also funny in a way when one character states the protagonist would not teach them if he was a successful actor. There are other funny moments like the Nobel Prize comparison to the Ballon d'Or. Or when the students arrive late and the protagonist says he waited for them for half an hour and they say they are waiting for years to get out. This waiting also inspired the Beckett inclusion then. But these were almost the only scenes and I laughed there more than most others in the movie theater and they also did not laugh much on other occasions.
The film did have weaknesses too: One was the moment when the protagonist is about to give up and he leaves the room, but luckily it did not become a major conflict and it was back to normal quickly. The story between the main character and his daughter, which was among the biggest dramatic conflicts, even if it excluded the prison inmates, was also not much of a success. But the fact that there was not really any emotional solution to it felt right and realistic. No thumbs-down there. With the ending I struggled a lot though. The idea already that the female judge plays such an important role for the inmates is already a bit difficult to grasp, but that she then shows up at the play after we know she does not care about theater was too much. And don't even get me started on the French Minister of Justice then being present too all of a sudden. This was ridiculous. There less would definitely have been more. The inclusions then of the inmates (not) having the intention to leave were also off. The scene at the barber's shop was already too much, but there at least only one has the motivation and the others object, the gang leader strongly objects even. So how are we to believe that everybody (except the sleeping guy) in the end agrees to leave? They were in Paris and they came from another region I think. They have nobody to stay with there and early on we are told that their prison sentences are almost over. Or did only the main character think so? I still think it made no sense. You could maybe say in terms of the gang leader that he changed his mind because his son saw him play, but I mean he still would know that he cannot just flee and visit his son and the only approach that would make sense is him staying for his prison term, behave well, so that he can get out earlier to be united with his son again.
This ending was almost a negative deal breaker for me. Really awful. The speech also did not do a lot for me there. I don't blame Merad. He did what he could. But I was also confused the police guys allowed him to get back inside after saying they need to talk to him. I guess returning to the stage was more important than security concerns? Despite them maybe thinking even that he was helping his folks flee? I am not sure. It was maybe the saddest moment when the character told his daughter earlier that he did not really have anything in life and these convicts helped him find a mission. His acting or directing careers probably look better as well then after his speech and standing ovation at apparently one of the finest theaters of the French capital. This is quite something. But yeah, as I said the last 20 minutes felt extremely underwhelming to me, also how he randomly runs across the streets of Paris looking for his cast members. But the worst was that they had indeed left. So the only reason why I am still giving the outcome here a thumbs-up overall is the explanation towards the end that this film is based on real events, somewhere in Scandinavia, and that the director there did the exact same thing like Merad did here with the improvised speech, even if I am sure the writers changed a lot for storytelling purposes here. This is probably why it did not feel realistic and an actual documentary on what really happened would have felt way more realistic. The inmates' behavior in this film here simply did not fit from a realistic perspective. That is why my positive recommendation here is really as close as it gets. Not a given. Look how they are in complete awe when they see the Odéon stage the first time. It is difficult to believe they would totally change their minds because of the guards' actions. And also not very realistic that after the punishment for stripping naked, we hear they are not allowed out anymore, but then they are allowed out again to continue acting just moments later. So much wrong there. Without the last half hour or a less showy ending, it would have been an easy thumbs-up for sure. Not a great film by any means, but good enough without a doubt, but a lot went wrong in the end. Still, go see it. It's not a weak film, but at the same time far away from triumph territory.
Theatre and freedom!
panos555200322 October 2023
A must see movie involving a range of emotions and qualities; funny, touching, suspenseful, dramatic, ... liberating!
It demonstrates the importance of art in everyday life, the importance of theatre and acting, especially when you deel or are shackled, enclosed, devalued.
The end was most fitting!
Shame it is not a popular one.
Un triomphe!
"One day, is that not enough for you, one day he went dumb, one day I went blind, one day we'll go deaf, one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the same second, is that not enough for you?" "I'm going." Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot.
It demonstrates the importance of art in everyday life, the importance of theatre and acting, especially when you deel or are shackled, enclosed, devalued.
The end was most fitting!
Shame it is not a popular one.
Un triomphe!
"One day, is that not enough for you, one day he went dumb, one day I went blind, one day we'll go deaf, one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the same second, is that not enough for you?" "I'm going." Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
