France for Nonmajors: Things You May Want to Know about Marion Cotillard, Nicholas Sarkozy and French Media

In real estate it's said the three most important variables are location, location and location.

We should all be so lucky that when some allegedly scandalous piece of news enters the you-must-take-notice infosphere, an editor has paused to chant thrice over: context, context, context.

Thanks to sub-prime reporting, vast numbers of English speakers are under the impression that freshly minted Oscar recipient Marion Cotillard recently stood on a soapbox in France to cast aspersions on the U.S. government, the victims of the ghastly events of September 11, 2001 and NASA, circa 1969.

While it's true that best actress winner Cotillard did hold forth on those topics and there's a video record to prove it, the first casualty in keeping us "informed" of vital developments is too often a framework in which to situate what we're being told.

The British tabloid press was only too happy to run with this story, which U.S. media outlets in turn magnified. Where facts are, as Ronald Reagan so memorably put it, stupid things, it may be futile even to try to correct the record; nevertheless here are a few pertinent facts to keep in mind while evaluating Cotillard's comments about the moon landing and 9/11.

First, please note that Cotillard said nothing to dishonor the victims of that day's terrible events. She did, however, say she believes "we're often lied to" -- which means she has at least one thing in common with an awful lot of other people.

She doesn't accuse the U.S. government of complicity. Reporters added that spin, deliberately embellishing and sensationalizing her actual musings.

It would have been better if she'd said something demonstrably true -- say, about how rescue workers and area residents were lied to about the safety of the air they were breathing -- rather than repeating (without necessarily giving credence to) surely specious rumors.

Or, sticking closer to her own country, she could have mentioned Chernobyl, and how there unquestionably WAS a French government conspiracy to avert panic, by convincing the populace that the toxic cloud wafting across Europe had politely decided to respect the border of France and drift elsewhere. ( It took roughly two decades for the government to acknowledge that much of France had been exposed to radioactive fallout.)

And who is this presumptuous French chick, anyway, to have an opinion on anything besides how often she's planning to dust her Oscar?

American audiences may only recently have learned to recognize Cotillard's well-scrubbed good looks but, at 32, Cotillard has been acting nearly half her life. She has been familiar to European filmgoers since she played one of the central character's girlfriends in the fabulously successful (and monumentally dumb) trio of Taxi movies. (She opted out of last year's "Taxi 4.")

Cotillard has a phenomenal range -- dopey and wildly popular comedies (Taxi 1, 2 and 3); touching historical dramas (Lisa); touching contemporary dramas (Toi et Moi); surreal and/or unclassifiable oddities (Innocence, Dikkenek); sci-fi-tinged political drama (Furia); bittersweet romances (Love is in the Air) and more. Cotillard excelled at playing a good girl and her evil twin in over-the-top pop music romp "Les jolies choses" and stood out as a grief-driven femme fatale in WWI-era period extravaganza A Very Long Engagement. She has also appeared in English-speaking roles in Tim Burton's Big Fish, Ridley Scott's A Good Year and Abel Ferrara's Mary.

Skill as an actress -- which her fellow thespians acknowledged in sufficient numbers to result in an Oscar for embodying Edith Piaf -- is not a vaccination against inappropriate behavior or congenital ditziness. But Cotillard (who, for the record, is a committed environmental activist who considered ditching acting to devote more time to Greenpeace) didn't step over any line, although over-zelaous reporters made it seem as if she had, positing that her statements would leave her career "in tatters".

At least one reporter asked the Academy if they would reposess Cotillard's Oscar -- as if it were an ill-gotten Olympic medal in the wake of a doping scandal.

(Instead of saying "I won't dignify that question with an answer," an Academy spokesperson gave a sensible reply. Rough paraphrase: When you win one fair and square, it's for what you accomplished onscreen and it's for keeps.)

The weekend of March 1, the web site of irreverent French weekly Marianne (named for the plucky female representative of the French Republic whose one bare breast used to grace the 100-franc note) posted a segment of a TV show that first ran in February 2007, in which Cotillard and her make-up man strolled through the Paris catacombs, with a video crew in tow.

The show had been telecast -- again, more than a full YEAR ago -- on Paris Premiere, a French cable station (also available via satellite) whose emphasis is culture-related programming. (In addition to shows about movies and books, they've been the French home of James Lipton's Inside the Actors Studio.) In other words, the context of Cotillard's comments was a casual show on an outlet as far-removed as possible from a CNN, BBC or Al-Jazeera, in a format closer to a home video than to 60 Minutes or Oprah.

Cotillard's remarks that have burned up the internet resembled a conversation many Americans might have if somebody said, "Well, I don't see how Lee Harvey Oswald could have hit JFK with that gun from that location" or "It sure seems like Kurt Cobain killed himself, but how can we be sure?"

The now needlessly notorious TV segment starts with a discussion about the late French comedian Coluche, (France's answer to George Carlin, soon to be the subject of a biopic), prompted by the fact that the same station had shown a piece concerning him.

Coluche (who, like many French entertainers, used only one name) died in a motorcycle accident in the summer of 1986. An astute comic observer of everyday life and politics (he once ran for president à la Pat Paulsen), his legacy includes launching a still-functioning system of much-needed soup kitchens.

There has been modest speculation for two decades that Coluche's death was not an accident, that he was either murdered or perhaps staged his own demise in order to slip away to a new life (in the manner of rumors about the likes of Elvis or Jim Morrison).

In the Premiere excerpt, as Cotillard and her colleague make their way through dimly lit bone-filled passageways, Cotillard's make-up man expresses doubts about the circumstances of Coluche's death.

Cotillard replies that she tends to lean toward the skeptic's version of such events, not because she's paranoid but because she believes the full truth is often kept from the general public.

She says a few things about how she finds it odd that the Twin Towers fell as quickly as they did since she'd seen footage of other buildings that had been hit by aircraft and burned, but never collapsed, as a result. She says there's so much speculation about September 11th on the web that it's downright addictive. She does repeat allegations that it was easier to demolish the World Trade Center than to fully modernize it.

Does Cotillard evince a physicist's or an engineer's grasp of events? Uh, no. But then, how many of us do?

As for her doubts about man landing on the moon, Cotillard says she's seen documentaries that aim to refute that historic accomplishment. I don't know how many such documentaries she's seen, but there's at least one, made in 2002 by the ingenious French documentary-maker William Karel (The World According to Bush) that was telecast on Franco-German cultural channel Arte, on April Fool's Day in 2004.

In his work making documentaries about American history, Karel has shot hours of footage with major American politicians, ex-CIA operatives and the like. In an implicit critique of how editing can be used to create the illusion of truth, Karel wove his left-over footage into a very clever questioning of the 1969 moon landing, complete with "evidence" that Stanley Kubrick was hired to stage what television viewers took to be a real event.

Karel's documentary ("L'Operation lune") was a hoax. To a viewer old enough to have watched that moonboot-clad "one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" as it happened, Karel's mockumentary is deft enough to raise doubts. To somebody like Cotillard, born after the first moon landing, it would probably seem even more convincing.

Cotillard's retroactive 'crime' seems to amount to not having censored herself in expressing personal reservations about the way the general public is informed about world events. (And hey -- if she was skeptical before, imagine how she must feel now in the face of so much fury-from-nowhere over a negligible domestic TV appearance.)

In the readers' comments on the web site of a British paper, I found a declaration from somebody who, despite just having bought the DVD of "La Vie en Rose" (original title: La Mome), had chucked it into the dustbin. THAT'LL show that ungrateful Marion Cotillard.

An internet post or two from French observers contended that "Marianne" hadn't much cared for the film "La Mome" in the first place. Hmmmm....

So, if Cotillard is silly enough to believe that we're being lied to about any aspect of what really happened on September 11, shouldn't she at least be "smart" enough never to express her doubts when a camera or tape recorder is rolling? In other words, shouldn't she have stopped being herself a long time ago? Shouldn't she "know" that she might be collecting a Bafta trophy, a Golden Globe, a Cesar and an Oscar a year hence, and censor herself accordingly lest she be taken out of context in March 2008 over remarks she made in early 2007?

This is hardly the equivalent of nude photos surfacing of somebody who has just been crowned Miss America -- or Miss France, for that matter.

It is my understanding that beauty pageant contestants sign a statement on their honor that they have not done -- and will not do -- anything that might be at odds with their wholesome responsibilities should they win.

So far as I know, an actor is a private individual and, short of badmouthing a film of theirs while it's in commercial release, they're still allowed to have opinions. Even silly or under-informed ones. ("Sorry, you're a really terrific actor but we hear you believe in alien abductions, so we're passing you over for somebody who believes Saddam Hussein has a planet-threatening cache of WMDs.")

As a general rule, French celebrities value good manners but see no reason to censor themselves. A wide range of public figures think nothing of using the French equivalent of the worst swear words in public, on radio and on television. I'm talking about words the FCC would have people's tongues cut out for uttering, if torture were not against our principles as a nation.

President Nicholas Sarkozy was roundly criticized for losing his cool at the recent annual Agriculture Fair by insulting a constituent who refused to shake his hand (while saying it would "sully" him to be touched by the president.)

Sarkozy's transgression was not swearing, per se (although he was plenty vulgar); it was losing his composure over such a minor slight. (Marine Le Pen, the daughter of right-wing racist and xenophobe Jean-Marie Le Pen and a politician in her own right, said that -- given Sarkozy's short fuse -- it was perhaps time to think about withdrawing some of the president's powers, such as the possibility of launching a nuclear attack. She also said Sarkozy's much-publicized outburst had made it that much harder for her to convince her 9-year-old son that one must always respect others and not resort to profanity.)

By the way, translations of Sarkozy's rejoinder were relatively demure in the English-language press. If Sarkozy were a character in a movie rather than president of France, a conscientious sub-titler would have rendered his utterance as "Fuck off then, pathetic loser." Forced to condense for lack of screen time, "Fuck off, asshole" would also be accurate. Sarkozy employed the informal "tu" rather than the formal "vous" -- a near-unforgivable lapse in decorum, even when expressing bottomless contempt marbled with aggravation.

While France is not completely free of censorship -- government authorities may impound a book or the entire print run of a newspaper or magazine they think compromises national interests -- in French radio and TV there is no "lag" on live broadcasts lest someone say a dirty word.

There is a certain amount of collective breath-holding during the Oscars telecast. What if a presenter or winner launches into a political speech? What if a swear word escapes somebody's lips?

Let's compare and contrast with the Cesars, France's (much younger) answer to the Oscars. The show is telecast, unscrambled and free of charge, by French subscription TV channel Canal Plus, most of whose programming requires a paid decoder box. There are no commercials, no time limits on acceptance speeches. The show lasts as long as it lasts. The Minister of Culture is always in the audience and, most years, is harangued at least once from the stage for not doing quite enough for the performing arts.

Whoever currently holds the post listens politely and never responds, however harsh the accusations of his or her shortcomings. "Vous" is always employed during these ritual expressions of creative dissatisfaction. (As in, "Vous are in the process of gutting what French culture has always stood for and vous should be ashamed of yourself if you don't remedy the crisis pronto.")

There is no orchestra to drown out dissent or keep the show rolling.

David Cronenberg's Eastern Promises was one of the nominees for best foreign film. French actor Vincent Cassel has a prominent role as a Russian thug misbehaving in London. The clip the Cesar producers chose to show has Cassel and two associates looking at a former colleague, dead, in a freezer case. Cassel's character muses that he and the victim were once as close as brothers, but now he looks "like a fucking ice cream!"

Among the dozens of film clips shown in tribute to Jeanne Moreau (honored for her 60 years in show business), were several in which the actress appeared in an advanced state of undress, at one point cavorting in a fairly useless bed sheet in a scene from Joseph Losey's "Eva."

The clip from animated treat "Persepolis" featured the protagonist's grandmother comforting her grand-daughter with a speech in which she tells the youngster that in life she'll run across many an asshole but she shouldn't blame them for being assholes because they can't help it.

Naughty words! Nudity! On television! The sky didn't fall in. The people who produced the show deliberately included those pithy, evocative elements because it didn't occur to them not to.

However, denying the Holocaust is a crime in France. Hate crimes of all stripes are vigorously denounced and promptly prosecuted.

Did Marion Cotillard imply that terrorists have the right idea or Americans deserve to die? Nothing of the sort. She (clumsily perhaps, but without a trace of malice) mused about things that, in view of her reading and viewing at the time of that taping, didn't quite mesh for her.

Coming from France and sideswiped by nasty, inflated allegations ["Marion Cotillard faces a huge backlash after accusing America of making up the 9/11 terrorist attacks"/ "Cotillard, who also got a Bafta for playing Edith Piaf in La Vie en Rose, faced losing millions in a boycott by the patriotic Hollywood film industry." -- The Daily Mirror; "Cotillard will have to clear up the international incident quickly:," -- NY Daily News] , Cotillard protested that her remarks had been taken out of context. That's because they HAD, quite literally, been taken out of their original context and plugged into the anything goes celebs-are-fair-game media grinder.

"Cotillard is well known for believing in the fantastic. In her Oscar acceptance speech she said that her best-actress victory was proof 'there is some angels' in Los Angeles," wrote the LA Times on March 4. Am I the only viewer who took that to be a rather charming reference to the Spanish-language meaning of the California city in which the Academy Awards are handed out?

Using this logic, Canada-born Joni Mitchell must be a Satan-worshipper since she once sang of Los Angeles as the "city of fallen angels." [Mission accomplished: anybody doing a web search for 'Joni Mitchell' + "Satan' will now hit digital pay dirt.]

Back in the real world, 60 Minutes found American voters in parts of Ohio fully convinced that Barack Obama is a practicing Muslim who, if elected, would refuse to be sworn in on a Christian Bible. At least one such individual had no qualms about being shown on national network television expressing his doubts.

Should he lose his job -- whatever it happens to be -- for falling for a smear campaign?

Is it somehow "unpatriotic" and should it spell professional suicide for a foreigner to question another country's official line on historical events?

It was Le Monde, France's leading daily, that carried the headline "Nous sommes tous des americains" (We Are All Americans) on September 12, 2001.

If we could endeavor to curb our knee-jerk reactions to anything we think a French person or institution has gotten wrong about America, we might deserve that unqualified solidarity again some day.

Comments

[zona9]

This is such a staggering pile of crap that I don't know where to begin. You waste hundreds of words defending the truly idiotic statement of dingbat actress. Worse you lie in the process. First, she didn't just express her skepticism regarding the media and government on some aspects of that day. She flat out dismisses them altogether. She stated that the trade centers were PURPOSELY blown up so the owners could save some money. She stated that the buildings were not brought down by the planes. I.e, that they were blown up on purpose by the building owners.

You state that she didn't disrespect the victims of that day. How can you say she didn't disrespect the victims when she exonerates the monsters who slaughtered them in cold blood? How can you say she didn't disrespect the victims when she dishonored and disgraced the victims on the planes that called their loved ones and TOLD them the planes had been hijacked by terrorists. And, of course she was saying the US government was involved. They'd have to be to participate in the coverup and concocting the 'phoney' story against the terrorists. And, what's her reasoning? The most ambitious case of insurance fraud in the history of the world? The Port Authority wanted to save a few bucks so the faked a terrorist attack? Are you freaking kidding me? She completely shat on the those who lost their lives that day. How can possibly argue otherwise with a straight freaking face?

You casually dismiss her disgusting and mind boggling ignorant beliefs and spend paragraph after paragraph trivializing, justifying and distracting from her idoiocy. Let me state for some facts that you could pass along to this French moron you so desperately defend. Fact: The terrorists took flying lessons. Fact: The terrorists left a trail of evidence recording their movements before 9/11, right up to the cameras that caught them as they boarded the planes. Fact, exhaustive evidence showed that the cell had trained in Germany and received money transfers from bank accounts in Europe that were traced to members of Al Qaeda. Fact: materials in the terrorists hotel rooms outline in nauseating detail their plot to hijack the planes and slam them into the towers. Fact: THEY ARE HEARD ON BLACK BOX RECORDINGS SAYING THEY HAD HIJACKED THE PLANES. Fact: You, and this awful woman, are disgraceful human beings.

'question another country's official line on historical events?'

Official line?! Is that what you freaking call it? the official LINE?! Oops, you went and let your conspiracy theory show. Now I understand. You, like her, don't believe that terrorists hijacked those planes that horrible day. You, like her, believe something else was going on. You believe what our country(this would include the government at all levels, Republicans, Democrats, Congressmen and Senators, the media at all levels, conservatives and liberals, local and national, the FBI, the NY Police Department, the air traffic controllers, the Airlines themselves, the FAA, the workers at the flying schools in Arizona and Florida, the workers at the hotels where the terrorists stayed, the highway patrol man that pulled over one of the terrorists the night before, the bar owner that said they spent the night in his establishment, and the PASSENGERS themselves who called loved ones and said the planes had been hijacked)and at least a half dozen European countries that aided in the investigation on their side of the Atlantic, were all in on it. You know, you're right. With it all laid out like that, it has suddenly become clear to me. I mean, how could any rational person NOT believe that literally thousands of people were in on the cold blooded slaughter of innocents for money, er, even if none of them would never see a dime, knew each other, and there isn't a thin scrap of actual evidence to back it up? But, hey, who am I to question the staggering intellect of you and Miss Cotillard. Silly me for questioning it.

[kitvc]

This is absolutely great! Thank you so much for explaining to the many Americans who, without any real facts or context, have blasted poor Marion Cotillard for her "awful" remarks. This is so classic an American reaction -- though I must say many people from all over the US and other countries have come forward to respond on the internet against the negative interpretations. I hope this article gets circulated as much as the wrong info did, but then, many of my fellow countrymen are only interested in gossip. I know this is going to die down -- indeed, has slowed already -- but it was completely unnecessary. Don't these people realize the economy is in the toilet, and we're trying to elect a new President. Where are their priorities? Again, your whimsical explanation is much respected and appreciated by me, her other fans, and surely Ms. Cotillard once someone gets it to her.