
Marcel Ophuls, filmmaker who forced France to face wartime past, dies aged 97
The German-born filmmaker, who was the son of legendary filmmaker Max Ophuls, died on Saturday at his home in southwest France of natural causes, his grandson Andreas-Benjamin Seyfert told The Hollywood Reporter.
Though Ophuls would later win an Oscar for Hotel Terminus, (1988), his searing portrait of Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, it was The Sorrow And The Pity that marked a turning point, not only in his career, but in the way France confronted its past.
Deemed too provocative, too divisive, it was banned from French television for more than a decade.
French broadcast executives said it 'destroyed the myths the French still need'.
It would not air nationally until 1981.
Simone Veil, Holocaust survivor and moral conscience of postwar France, refused to support it.
But for a younger generation in a country still recovering physically and psychologically from the aftermath of the atrocities, the movie was a revelation, an unflinching historical reckoning that challenged both national memory and national identity.
Jean Paul Belmondo, Jeanne Moreau and director Marcel Ophuls on the set of Banana Skin in 1963 (Pierre Godot/AP)
The myth it punctured had been carefully constructed by Charles de Gaulle, the wartime general who led Free French forces from exile and later became president.
In the aftermath of France's liberation in 1944, de Gaulle promoted a version of events in which the French had resisted Nazi occupation as one people, united in dignity and defiance.
Collaboration was portrayed as the work of a few traitors. The French Republic, he insisted, had never ceased to exist.
The Sorrow And The Pity, which was nominated for the 1972 Oscar for Best Documentary, told a different story.
Filmed in stark black and white and stretching over four and a half hours, the documentary turned its lens on Clermont-Ferrand, a provincial town at the heart of France.
Through long, unvarnished interviews with farmers, shopkeepers, teachers, collaborators, members of the French Resistance, even the town's former Nazi commander, Ophuls laid bare the moral ambiguities of life under occupation.
There was no narrator, no music, no guiding hand to shape the audience's emotions. Just people, speaking plainly, awkwardly, sometimes defensively.
They remembered, justified and hesitated. And in those silences and contradictions, the film delivered its most devastating message: that France's wartime story was not one of widespread resistance, but of ordinary compromise, driven by fear, self-preservation, opportunism and, at times, quiet complicity.
The film revealed how French police had aided in the deportation of Jews. How neighbours stayed silent.
How teachers claimed not to recall missing colleagues. How many had simply got by. Resistance, The Sorrow And The Pity seemed to say, was the exception not the rule.
It was, in effect, the cinematic undoing of de Gaulle's patriotic myth, that France had resisted as one, and that collaboration was the betrayal of a few.
Ophuls showed instead a nation morally divided and unready to confront its own reflection.
In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, Ophuls bristled at the charge that he had made the film to accuse.
'It doesn't attempt to prosecute the French,' he said. 'Who can say their nation would have behaved better in the same circumstances?'
Born in Frankfurt on November 1, 1927, Marcel Ophuls was the son of legendary German-Jewish filmmaker Max Ophuls, director of La Ronde, Letter From An Unknown Woman, and Lola Montes.
When Hitler came to power in 1933, the family fled Germany for France.
In 1940, as Nazi troops approached Paris, they fled again, across the Pyrenees into Spain, and on to the United States.
Marcel became an American citizen and later served as a US army GI in occupied Japan. But it was his father's towering legacy that shaped his early path.
'I was born under the shadow of a genius,' Ophuls said in 2004. 'I don't have an inferiority complex, I am inferior.'
He returned to France in the 1950s hoping to direct fiction, like his father.
But after several poorly received features, including Banana Peel (1963), an Ernst Lubitsch-style caper starring Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jeanne Moreau, his path shifted.
'I didn't choose to make documentaries,' he told The Guardian. 'There was no vocation. Each one was an assignment.'
That reluctant shift changed cinema.
After The Sorrow And The Pity, Ophuls followed with The Memory Of Justice (1976), a sweeping meditation on war crimes that examined Nuremberg but also drew uncomfortable parallels with atrocities in Algeria and Vietnam.
In Hotel Terminus (1988), he spent five years tracking the life of Klaus Barbie, the so-called 'Butcher of Lyon', exposing not just his Nazi crimes but the role western governments played in protecting him after the war.
The film won him his Academy Award for Best Documentary but, overwhelmed by its darkness, French media reported that he attempted suicide during production.
In The Troubles We've Seen (1994), he turned his camera on journalists covering the war in Bosnia, and on the media's uneasy relationship with suffering and spectacle.
Despite living in France for most of his life, he often felt like an outsider.
'Most of them still think of me as a German Jew,' he said in 2004, 'an obsessive German Jew who wants to bash France.'
He was a man of contradictions: a Jewish exile married to a German woman who had once belonged to the Hitler Youth; a French citizen never fully embraced; a filmmaker who adored Hollywood, but changed European cinema by telling truths others would not.
He is survived by his wife, Regine, their three daughters and three grandchildren.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Glasgow Times
5 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Harvey Weinstein does not plan to testify at sex crimes retrial
That means jurors soon will get the case against the former movie studio boss who propelled the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct. The trial will move on to closing arguments on Tuesday without testimony from Weinstein, Arthur Aidala said on Sunday night. The court handles other cases on Mondays. It is unclear whether jury deliberations would begin on Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday. Harvey Weinstein attends his retrial at a Manhattan court (John Angelillo/Pool via AP) It was a fraught decision for Weinstein, who has never answered questions in open court about any of the accusations women have made. He did not testify at previous trials in New York and California and was convicted in both. He denies the allegations, and lawyer Mr Aidala has said that Weinstein was giving a lot of thought to whether to take the stand this time. While his California appeal winds on, Weinstein won a new trial in his New York rape and sexual assault case when the state's highest court overturned his 2020 conviction. He is charged in New York with raping Jessica Mann in 2013 and forcing oral sex on Miriam Haley and Kaja Sokola, separately, in 2006. Ms Mann was an actor and hairstylist, Ms Haley a production assistant and producer, and Ms Sokola a model who aspired to an acting career. All three women have testified for days at the retrial, giving emotional and graphic accounts of what they say they endured from a powerbroker who suggested he would help them achieve their show-business dreams, but then manoeuvred them into private settings and preyed on them. His lawyers have argued that anything that happened between him and his accusers was consensual. In the US, defendants in criminal cases are not obligated to testify, and many decide not to, for various reasons. Among them: the prospect of being questioned by prosecutors. Weinstein has been watching the New York retrial intently from the defence table, sometimes shaking his head at accusers' testimony and often leaning over to one or another of his lawyers to convey his thoughts. One of the lawyers, Mr Aidala, said outside court on Thursday that Weinstein thought a lot of holes had been poked in the accusers' accounts, but that he also was pondering whether jurors would feel they needed to hear from him. The jury has heard from a few other defence witnesses — one of them via a transcript read by court employees. That witness, Talita Maia, testified at the 2020 trial but was unavailable this time, so jurors instead got a reading Friday of her earlier testimony. One court stenographer voiced the 2020 lawyers' questions, while another stenographer sat in the witness box and rendered Ms Maia's answers, at times with emphasis. Ms Maia and Ms Mann were roommates and friends in 2013, but later fell out. According to Ms Maia, Ms Mann never mentioned in those days that Weinstein had hurt her in any way. Both Ms Maia and another witness, Thomas Richards, met up with Ms Mann and Weinstein shortly after Ms Mann has said she was raped. Both witnesses testified that they saw nothing amiss. Mr Richards, who was subpoenaed to appear and said he did not want to be seen as a Weinstein supporter, recalled Ms Mann and Weinstein having a 'friendly conversation' at a meal he shared with them that day. Ms Mann testified earlier this month that she never told police or anyone else that Weinstein had sexually assaulted her because she didn't think she'd be believed, and she was scared of how he might react. Weinstein's defence also brought in Ms Sokola's pal Helga Samuelsen, who also has friendly ties to the former producer. Ms Samuelsen testified on Thursday that Weinstein visited Ms Sokola once and spent about a half- hour in a bedroom with her in a New York apartment the women briefly shared in 2005; Ms Sokola told jurors no such thing happened. The Associated Press generally does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted, but Ms Sokola, Ms Mann and Ms Haley have given their permission to be identified.

South Wales Argus
5 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Harvey Weinstein does not plan to testify at sex crimes retrial
That means jurors soon will get the case against the former movie studio boss who propelled the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct. The trial will move on to closing arguments on Tuesday without testimony from Weinstein, Arthur Aidala said on Sunday night. The court handles other cases on Mondays. It is unclear whether jury deliberations would begin on Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday. Harvey Weinstein attends his retrial at a Manhattan court (John Angelillo/Pool via AP) It was a fraught decision for Weinstein, who has never answered questions in open court about any of the accusations women have made. He did not testify at previous trials in New York and California and was convicted in both. He denies the allegations, and lawyer Mr Aidala has said that Weinstein was giving a lot of thought to whether to take the stand this time. While his California appeal winds on, Weinstein won a new trial in his New York rape and sexual assault case when the state's highest court overturned his 2020 conviction. He is charged in New York with raping Jessica Mann in 2013 and forcing oral sex on Miriam Haley and Kaja Sokola, separately, in 2006. Ms Mann was an actor and hairstylist, Ms Haley a production assistant and producer, and Ms Sokola a model who aspired to an acting career. All three women have testified for days at the retrial, giving emotional and graphic accounts of what they say they endured from a powerbroker who suggested he would help them achieve their show-business dreams, but then manoeuvred them into private settings and preyed on them. His lawyers have argued that anything that happened between him and his accusers was consensual. In the US, defendants in criminal cases are not obligated to testify, and many decide not to, for various reasons. Among them: the prospect of being questioned by prosecutors. Weinstein has been watching the New York retrial intently from the defence table, sometimes shaking his head at accusers' testimony and often leaning over to one or another of his lawyers to convey his thoughts. One of the lawyers, Mr Aidala, said outside court on Thursday that Weinstein thought a lot of holes had been poked in the accusers' accounts, but that he also was pondering whether jurors would feel they needed to hear from him. The jury has heard from a few other defence witnesses — one of them via a transcript read by court employees. That witness, Talita Maia, testified at the 2020 trial but was unavailable this time, so jurors instead got a reading Friday of her earlier testimony. One court stenographer voiced the 2020 lawyers' questions, while another stenographer sat in the witness box and rendered Ms Maia's answers, at times with emphasis. Ms Maia and Ms Mann were roommates and friends in 2013, but later fell out. According to Ms Maia, Ms Mann never mentioned in those days that Weinstein had hurt her in any way. Both Ms Maia and another witness, Thomas Richards, met up with Ms Mann and Weinstein shortly after Ms Mann has said she was raped. Both witnesses testified that they saw nothing amiss. Mr Richards, who was subpoenaed to appear and said he did not want to be seen as a Weinstein supporter, recalled Ms Mann and Weinstein having a 'friendly conversation' at a meal he shared with them that day. Ms Mann testified earlier this month that she never told police or anyone else that Weinstein had sexually assaulted her because she didn't think she'd be believed, and she was scared of how he might react. Weinstein's defence also brought in Ms Sokola's pal Helga Samuelsen, who also has friendly ties to the former producer. Ms Samuelsen testified on Thursday that Weinstein visited Ms Sokola once and spent about a half- hour in a bedroom with her in a New York apartment the women briefly shared in 2005; Ms Sokola told jurors no such thing happened. The Associated Press generally does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted, but Ms Sokola, Ms Mann and Ms Haley have given their permission to be identified.

Western Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Western Telegraph
Harvey Weinstein does not plan to testify at sex crimes retrial
That means jurors soon will get the case against the former movie studio boss who propelled the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct. The trial will move on to closing arguments on Tuesday without testimony from Weinstein, Arthur Aidala said on Sunday night. The court handles other cases on Mondays. It is unclear whether jury deliberations would begin on Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday. Harvey Weinstein attends his retrial at a Manhattan court (John Angelillo/Pool via AP) It was a fraught decision for Weinstein, who has never answered questions in open court about any of the accusations women have made. He did not testify at previous trials in New York and California and was convicted in both. He denies the allegations, and lawyer Mr Aidala has said that Weinstein was giving a lot of thought to whether to take the stand this time. While his California appeal winds on, Weinstein won a new trial in his New York rape and sexual assault case when the state's highest court overturned his 2020 conviction. He is charged in New York with raping Jessica Mann in 2013 and forcing oral sex on Miriam Haley and Kaja Sokola, separately, in 2006. Ms Mann was an actor and hairstylist, Ms Haley a production assistant and producer, and Ms Sokola a model who aspired to an acting career. All three women have testified for days at the retrial, giving emotional and graphic accounts of what they say they endured from a powerbroker who suggested he would help them achieve their show-business dreams, but then manoeuvred them into private settings and preyed on them. His lawyers have argued that anything that happened between him and his accusers was consensual. In the US, defendants in criminal cases are not obligated to testify, and many decide not to, for various reasons. Among them: the prospect of being questioned by prosecutors. Weinstein has been watching the New York retrial intently from the defence table, sometimes shaking his head at accusers' testimony and often leaning over to one or another of his lawyers to convey his thoughts. One of the lawyers, Mr Aidala, said outside court on Thursday that Weinstein thought a lot of holes had been poked in the accusers' accounts, but that he also was pondering whether jurors would feel they needed to hear from him. The jury has heard from a few other defence witnesses — one of them via a transcript read by court employees. That witness, Talita Maia, testified at the 2020 trial but was unavailable this time, so jurors instead got a reading Friday of her earlier testimony. One court stenographer voiced the 2020 lawyers' questions, while another stenographer sat in the witness box and rendered Ms Maia's answers, at times with emphasis. Ms Maia and Ms Mann were roommates and friends in 2013, but later fell out. According to Ms Maia, Ms Mann never mentioned in those days that Weinstein had hurt her in any way. Both Ms Maia and another witness, Thomas Richards, met up with Ms Mann and Weinstein shortly after Ms Mann has said she was raped. Both witnesses testified that they saw nothing amiss. Mr Richards, who was subpoenaed to appear and said he did not want to be seen as a Weinstein supporter, recalled Ms Mann and Weinstein having a 'friendly conversation' at a meal he shared with them that day. Ms Mann testified earlier this month that she never told police or anyone else that Weinstein had sexually assaulted her because she didn't think she'd be believed, and she was scared of how he might react. Weinstein's defence also brought in Ms Sokola's pal Helga Samuelsen, who also has friendly ties to the former producer. Ms Samuelsen testified on Thursday that Weinstein visited Ms Sokola once and spent about a half- hour in a bedroom with her in a New York apartment the women briefly shared in 2005; Ms Sokola told jurors no such thing happened. The Associated Press generally does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted, but Ms Sokola, Ms Mann and Ms Haley have given their permission to be identified.