Beau Travail - Losing Light And Drowning
Thoughts On: Beau Travail (Good Work, 1999)
A commander of a French army squadron based on Djibouti becomes fatally jealous of a new recruit.
Contrary to my initial review, I must say that Beau Travail is a fantastic film, deeply expressive and symbolically rich. The fatal mistake I made in watching this film for the first time was looking for meaning, for the character study that this obviously is, in the physical drama and the plot. It was because I was not able to register anything of substance from the limited and hushed happenings that occur in this film that I could only see a few minor formal details of interest - such as the sound montage. What I failed to pick up on in watching this film, and what I managed to see on this re-watch, was that this is not necessarily a film about a set of events, rather, it is a meditation on a mindset and a state of being and thinking that leads to one minor and, as it is presented, understated, event. It is aligning this event with the interior conflict hidden in our character that a certain profundity emerges from this film. Alas, what initially saw this film fall apart before me was attempting to force what little I saw into the framing of other perspectives on the film, some of which were apparent, some subtle, but none truly revealing to me.
The happenings of Beau Travail are simple; a chief of a squadron of men in former French colony, Djibouti, becomes deeply jealous of a new soldier, who is popular among his men, and so the chief eventually exiles him. The details of this film begin to reveal more. The squadron of men is an element of the French Foreign Legion, a branch of the French army that is open to foreign recruits. Our protagonist, Galoup, is the Chief Adjutant (a kind of assistant to the commander). He is a conscious embodiment of discipline and order, and such formulates the purpose of his being. What Galoup essentially serves as is a middle-man between the soldiers and higher command, but is in many ways equal to the soldiers - this becomes ever more apparent in the exercises that Galoup leads; he does them too where we would not necessarily expect a drill sergeant or commander to do anything of the sort. What Galoup connects the men to, however, is a commander who is said to be 'a man without ideals, a soldier without ambition'; and Galoup admires him without knowing why. Furthermore, the commander is said to be a perfect legionnaire by virtue of his lack of ideal and ambition.
It is almost impossible not to relate the idea of innately perceived perfection via an absence of ideal and ambition with Taoist philosophy, which constantly emphasises action without intention and seemingly a lack of consciousness in favour of an unconscious bond with an implicitly natural and perfect mode of being. Both the colonel and Galoup are embodiments of this ideal vision of perfection. It is through following a way and an unknown, but implicit, logic and objective that they find and embody supreme meaning worth hinging one's life on - at least, this is what Galoup thinks. There is no omnipotent Tao for Galoup to follow as there is for the Taoists. Instead of an ambiguous and supreme way of the universe dictating action in Galoup's life, there is the army and the ethics of the military. But, in the context of the 90s, a period of rather definite de-, or post-, colonisation for France, a cohesive military ethic is not too tangible. And this is incredibly important to recognise as, as mentioned, Galoup is training primarily foreign recruits to be French soldiers. His job in many senses is to supply a new, French, mode of being for his recruits to live up to and transform to confront. However, Galoup apparently knows not what the ideal and ethic that these soldiers are to become is - in a modern France, a France without an empire, without the cultural standing and influence it had at the start of the 20th century, not many could convincingly and definitely supply one; as we find across the Western hemisphere, national political ethics of the 20th century are often lost on modern youth and gazed upon distantly and sceptically: God and the King are apparently dead, and long now has the government been dying.
In recognising the probable fault in Galoup acting as if there is a cohesive way of being supplied by his chain command in the military, we can look to his commander with some scepticism. Does his lack of ideal and ambition not reflect a confidence in duty and the army, instead, an apathy and lazy form of nihilism? If so, where does this leave Galoup; a blind follower of a hapless vagabond wandering the desert wishing no one would crawl into a private hole with him? (It is hard to resist mentioning Dwight in The Office here).
We can now establish the symbolic presence Galoup holds as a character: he is a positively naive fool. Foolishness and naivety are not necessarily negative attributes; to be a naive fool can lead one down a humble passage towards faith and deep knowledge. However, if this is the hero arc of the positively naive fool (a great example of a character of this sort is found in Andrei Rublev: the young bellmaker), it requires a certain ironic faith--it requires hoping without wishing, acting without knowing, doing only in pretence that, by God, will hopefully reveal itself to be a ruse--to be completed. The conflict that emerges from Beau Travail is packaged in consciousness. It is then when Galoup becomes self-reflective, when he feels inadequate, that he no longer acts in faith - as if, by following his duty, he is embodying virtue - and duty and its implicit ethics begin to fail.
The introduction of Galoup's rival, Sentain, introduces a new ideal that trumps Galoup's. Galoup believes in a chain of command and in the duty that is sent down it. Sentain seemingly believes in a more basic, human idea of brotherhood. He is then simply one of the men and admired for that. Galoup makes the mistake of believing that he is also one of the men, and he seemingly does so out of loneliness. It is duty that brings the squadron close. As said, Galoup is almost always present and participatory in all duties; he will run assault courses, he will perform push ups, lead endurance exercises and stretches, etc. It seems that he believes in duty and finds meaning in supplying this to his men. However, where they separate is in the night clubs and among women. Galoup does not seem to find fraternity with his men outside of rigorous duty and exercise; Sentain takes his place here: he knows how to party and enjoy himself among the men. It is for this, it is because Galoup isn't the hero of enough faces, that he becomes deeply jealous of Sentain. It seems here that his ideal begins to fail him; what is it in duty that provides meaning? becomes a central, underlying question of major internal conflict. Maybe there is an answer to this question, but it is far out of reach of Galoup as he watches his men champion Sentain over him.
The fundamental revelation at this point is one of the real meaning Galoup is in pursuit of: he wants to have a place alongside a purpose. It is here where implications of homosexuality (which are a little too subtle for me to want to spend time with now) arise: is it because Galoup seeks something deeper than typical brotherly love that he comes to hate Sentain so? Whether the catalyst for his self-reflection is sexual or not, it is ultimately apparent that Galoup does not find enough meaning in duty. Duty supplies him purpose in action, but not security in a place among others.
The real value and expressive qualities of Beau Travail start to emerge from the subtle symbolic narrative visualised to emphasise this conflict between purpose and place. Two of the key images in this film are water and light; the land and illumination. Classically, these elements embody a transcendent conception of gender: water is feminine, is the earth, is nature; light is masculine, is that which cleaves darkness and reveals nature. The ultimate conflict raging within Galoup is between masculine and feminine. He embodies duty and purpose, which is apparently bound to a higher logic and light supplied by the army. However, he has no real link to the land he is on and its people, with human nature and a natural, unformalised social interaction. Furthermore, Galoup has a very loose and troubled relationship with his own mind and unconsciousness (Jung has said that 'water is the commonest symbol for the unconscious'). It is in his pursuit of a seemingly empty masculine idol in the army and in his inability to master the waters of his own mind and his squadron, that we find this fundamentally gender-based conflict in Galoup; his purpose becomes meaningless play and he realises he has no place among people in his world. It is in Sentain, however, that we find a more harmonious balance between masculine and feminine; a dutiful, humanitarian soldier, at home with the Jungian Eros and Logos and a developed individual for that fact.
The major point of destruction in Beau Travail comes when Galoup punishes (tortures) a soldier for not performing his duties - which he holds as sacred, but are, by now, seemingly empty gestures performed in vanity. Sentain objects to this torture, but is slapped by Galoup; in return, Sentain punches him and for this Sentain is exiled to the salt flats. It is because of this unjust, inhuman punishment that Galoup is court-martialed and dropped from the army. And so all he has to face now is his lack of true, meaningful purpose and place in the world.
I'll end early with an open to question or two to you. Have you seen Beau Travail? If so, what is it that you think Galoup realises in reflecting upon his past?
Previous post:
Shok - Treachery
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
A commander of a French army squadron based on Djibouti becomes fatally jealous of a new recruit.
Contrary to my initial review, I must say that Beau Travail is a fantastic film, deeply expressive and symbolically rich. The fatal mistake I made in watching this film for the first time was looking for meaning, for the character study that this obviously is, in the physical drama and the plot. It was because I was not able to register anything of substance from the limited and hushed happenings that occur in this film that I could only see a few minor formal details of interest - such as the sound montage. What I failed to pick up on in watching this film, and what I managed to see on this re-watch, was that this is not necessarily a film about a set of events, rather, it is a meditation on a mindset and a state of being and thinking that leads to one minor and, as it is presented, understated, event. It is aligning this event with the interior conflict hidden in our character that a certain profundity emerges from this film. Alas, what initially saw this film fall apart before me was attempting to force what little I saw into the framing of other perspectives on the film, some of which were apparent, some subtle, but none truly revealing to me.
The happenings of Beau Travail are simple; a chief of a squadron of men in former French colony, Djibouti, becomes deeply jealous of a new soldier, who is popular among his men, and so the chief eventually exiles him. The details of this film begin to reveal more. The squadron of men is an element of the French Foreign Legion, a branch of the French army that is open to foreign recruits. Our protagonist, Galoup, is the Chief Adjutant (a kind of assistant to the commander). He is a conscious embodiment of discipline and order, and such formulates the purpose of his being. What Galoup essentially serves as is a middle-man between the soldiers and higher command, but is in many ways equal to the soldiers - this becomes ever more apparent in the exercises that Galoup leads; he does them too where we would not necessarily expect a drill sergeant or commander to do anything of the sort. What Galoup connects the men to, however, is a commander who is said to be 'a man without ideals, a soldier without ambition'; and Galoup admires him without knowing why. Furthermore, the commander is said to be a perfect legionnaire by virtue of his lack of ideal and ambition.
It is almost impossible not to relate the idea of innately perceived perfection via an absence of ideal and ambition with Taoist philosophy, which constantly emphasises action without intention and seemingly a lack of consciousness in favour of an unconscious bond with an implicitly natural and perfect mode of being. Both the colonel and Galoup are embodiments of this ideal vision of perfection. It is through following a way and an unknown, but implicit, logic and objective that they find and embody supreme meaning worth hinging one's life on - at least, this is what Galoup thinks. There is no omnipotent Tao for Galoup to follow as there is for the Taoists. Instead of an ambiguous and supreme way of the universe dictating action in Galoup's life, there is the army and the ethics of the military. But, in the context of the 90s, a period of rather definite de-, or post-, colonisation for France, a cohesive military ethic is not too tangible. And this is incredibly important to recognise as, as mentioned, Galoup is training primarily foreign recruits to be French soldiers. His job in many senses is to supply a new, French, mode of being for his recruits to live up to and transform to confront. However, Galoup apparently knows not what the ideal and ethic that these soldiers are to become is - in a modern France, a France without an empire, without the cultural standing and influence it had at the start of the 20th century, not many could convincingly and definitely supply one; as we find across the Western hemisphere, national political ethics of the 20th century are often lost on modern youth and gazed upon distantly and sceptically: God and the King are apparently dead, and long now has the government been dying.
In recognising the probable fault in Galoup acting as if there is a cohesive way of being supplied by his chain command in the military, we can look to his commander with some scepticism. Does his lack of ideal and ambition not reflect a confidence in duty and the army, instead, an apathy and lazy form of nihilism? If so, where does this leave Galoup; a blind follower of a hapless vagabond wandering the desert wishing no one would crawl into a private hole with him? (It is hard to resist mentioning Dwight in The Office here).
We can now establish the symbolic presence Galoup holds as a character: he is a positively naive fool. Foolishness and naivety are not necessarily negative attributes; to be a naive fool can lead one down a humble passage towards faith and deep knowledge. However, if this is the hero arc of the positively naive fool (a great example of a character of this sort is found in Andrei Rublev: the young bellmaker), it requires a certain ironic faith--it requires hoping without wishing, acting without knowing, doing only in pretence that, by God, will hopefully reveal itself to be a ruse--to be completed. The conflict that emerges from Beau Travail is packaged in consciousness. It is then when Galoup becomes self-reflective, when he feels inadequate, that he no longer acts in faith - as if, by following his duty, he is embodying virtue - and duty and its implicit ethics begin to fail.
The introduction of Galoup's rival, Sentain, introduces a new ideal that trumps Galoup's. Galoup believes in a chain of command and in the duty that is sent down it. Sentain seemingly believes in a more basic, human idea of brotherhood. He is then simply one of the men and admired for that. Galoup makes the mistake of believing that he is also one of the men, and he seemingly does so out of loneliness. It is duty that brings the squadron close. As said, Galoup is almost always present and participatory in all duties; he will run assault courses, he will perform push ups, lead endurance exercises and stretches, etc. It seems that he believes in duty and finds meaning in supplying this to his men. However, where they separate is in the night clubs and among women. Galoup does not seem to find fraternity with his men outside of rigorous duty and exercise; Sentain takes his place here: he knows how to party and enjoy himself among the men. It is for this, it is because Galoup isn't the hero of enough faces, that he becomes deeply jealous of Sentain. It seems here that his ideal begins to fail him; what is it in duty that provides meaning? becomes a central, underlying question of major internal conflict. Maybe there is an answer to this question, but it is far out of reach of Galoup as he watches his men champion Sentain over him.
The fundamental revelation at this point is one of the real meaning Galoup is in pursuit of: he wants to have a place alongside a purpose. It is here where implications of homosexuality (which are a little too subtle for me to want to spend time with now) arise: is it because Galoup seeks something deeper than typical brotherly love that he comes to hate Sentain so? Whether the catalyst for his self-reflection is sexual or not, it is ultimately apparent that Galoup does not find enough meaning in duty. Duty supplies him purpose in action, but not security in a place among others.
The real value and expressive qualities of Beau Travail start to emerge from the subtle symbolic narrative visualised to emphasise this conflict between purpose and place. Two of the key images in this film are water and light; the land and illumination. Classically, these elements embody a transcendent conception of gender: water is feminine, is the earth, is nature; light is masculine, is that which cleaves darkness and reveals nature. The ultimate conflict raging within Galoup is between masculine and feminine. He embodies duty and purpose, which is apparently bound to a higher logic and light supplied by the army. However, he has no real link to the land he is on and its people, with human nature and a natural, unformalised social interaction. Furthermore, Galoup has a very loose and troubled relationship with his own mind and unconsciousness (Jung has said that 'water is the commonest symbol for the unconscious'). It is in his pursuit of a seemingly empty masculine idol in the army and in his inability to master the waters of his own mind and his squadron, that we find this fundamentally gender-based conflict in Galoup; his purpose becomes meaningless play and he realises he has no place among people in his world. It is in Sentain, however, that we find a more harmonious balance between masculine and feminine; a dutiful, humanitarian soldier, at home with the Jungian Eros and Logos and a developed individual for that fact.
The major point of destruction in Beau Travail comes when Galoup punishes (tortures) a soldier for not performing his duties - which he holds as sacred, but are, by now, seemingly empty gestures performed in vanity. Sentain objects to this torture, but is slapped by Galoup; in return, Sentain punches him and for this Sentain is exiled to the salt flats. It is because of this unjust, inhuman punishment that Galoup is court-martialed and dropped from the army. And so all he has to face now is his lack of true, meaningful purpose and place in the world.
I'll end early with an open to question or two to you. Have you seen Beau Travail? If so, what is it that you think Galoup realises in reflecting upon his past?
Previous post:
Shok - Treachery
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
