The first question is, “Why did she stay?”, followed by, “How would she stay?” It’s perhaps easier to analyze by exclusions: Jean-Marie did NOT stay for political reasons; nor for profit; nor for love of the land or culture (as Dinesen professed to be). In fact, Marie didn’t seem to be capable of sentimentalism, let alone living and dying for it.
Clues? “Your father said happiness is not enough for me.”
“I am a good fighter, too. How could I show courage in France? It would be absurd; no rhyme or reason. I’d slacken off, get too comfortable.”
These are not the finest examples of eloquence by any measure. But one can hardly articulate better, such being the revelation of the private psycology of colonialism.
It is not defiance, nor ennui; it is more like some sort of wounded pride, or possessiveness, or hauteur. Or a despair at one’s own fitness to live anywhere else. Is that the quintessence of colonialism? If it is, according to the film-maker, then we are really witnessing an author’s empathetic greatness. The attitude is difficult yet not alien, not off-putting. The thing you can indeed fault the French characters is that they had no imagination apart from a vague animalistic awareness of danger and opportunities. This lack of imagination insulated them and ultimately destroyed them.
What does Denis try to tell about Jean-Marie through her family? Was Manual supposed to be the decadent, deadbeat offshoots of colonialism losing its mojo? What did the black man mean when he said, “You botched it with him; you didn’t finish the job” – is that a metaphor for colonialism at the end of its tether? And why did Andre stay? Was he shamed into staying by Marie?
Very disciplined camerawork, directing a viewer’s line of sight and perspective’ almost bossy. The tempo of the movie is great. The languour of the landscape and climate contrasts most poignantly with the graphic, gratuitous violence.
![[已注销]](https://img1.doubanio.com/icon/user_normal.jpg){kind=icon}
