#8: Capitaine Conan

CAPITAINE CONAN (1996)
Directed by: Bertrand Tavernier
Written By: Jean Cosmos, Bertrand Tavernier
Starring: Philippe Torreton, Samuel Le Bihan, Bernard Le Coq

The war exploits of French captain Conan and his men during World War I and during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.

WHY IT’S ON THE LIST

Years and years ago this movie wound up on my harddrive. I’m not sure why exactly. Perhaps I stumbled across it because it has “Conan” in the title and I’m a big fan of Robert E. Howard’s character? Maybe I was searching for more novels or comics and this popped up? I’ve sat on it for so long that it’s older than my current computer, having been transferred off a previous harddrive onto my current one three years ago

Curiously there’s a handful of other films that made the transfer with Capitaine Conan, are still unwatched, yet didn’t find their way onto The List. That’s the real head-scratcher for me. I have a separate, undisclosed list for films I own either physically or digitally and haven’t watched. I did a very brief review of The List and didn’t see any other crossovers. In fact, such a crossover wouldn’t make sense. I don’t need to REMEMBER a movie I own — owning it is reminder enough and I know Capitaine Conan’s presence on my harddrive predates me creating The List.

Did I feel some special compulsion to watch this movie that I felt I needed the extra reminder/incentive of it being on a list? I’m feeling I’m missing something entirely about this movie because I can’t fathom AT ALL why I wanted to watch an obscure 90s French war film. I don’t like war movies and I’m not big on French film (sorry new wave folks).

I’m so confused I could probably populate four more paragraphs with all my whirling thoughts on this matter. Suffice to say, I can’t brush aside this fog to formulate any expectations of the film itself. I think it’s going to be a basic war movie, middle of the road, maybe even so far as to call it mediocre and that’s that.

THE MOVIE

I’m still not going to be won over to enjoying war films, no matter how many good ones I watch. Capitaine Conan is another good drama, honing in not on what war does to men, but what war does to a very specific type of man. Conan is, by his definition, a warrior, not a soldier, the difference being analogous to the difference between a wolf-dog and a full wolf. He’s a special forces officer whose squad rushes trenches and slits throats rather than exchanging bullets across a field. His assertion is that 80,000 men merely fought the war while the 3,000 special forces troops won the war.

The first half of the film takes us through the final days of the war and, surprisingly, the half with all the action is actually the slowest. It’s when the film gets to the meat of its theme in the second half that it shines. What happens to men who thrive on war when all is said and done? How do you go from the intensity of slitting throats to, well, mostly hanging out? Tavernier leaves out explaining the historical background of these French troops who were told the war was won only to be kept away from home for unofficial border skirmishes (forgive my loose history, I’m here for the movie and as the movie chooses to put the hard history lesson to the background, I’ll follow suit). It’s a good choice too, because it builds sympathy for these restless soldiers who just want to go home and don’t understand what they’re meant to be doing anymore.

The crux of the drama is based around Conan and his “soldier – not warrior” friend Norbert. In the war’s aftermath, the army sits in Sofia, doing nothing… except answering court-martials. Norbert falls in as a defender, and after finding success in that becomes a compassionate prosecutor — who must now prosecute Conan’s trouble-making squad.

These characters are static, but the back and forth between what’s “right” and what’s “necessary” is great. Torreton really puts fervor into Conan, and you feel how dangerous this character is. Norbert is Conan’s equal in conviction, if not ideals and behavior. This may sound like a well-trod black/white setup for drama, but there is real life in this film, I just fail at the words to bring it out.

Tavernier has a camera that seems constantly in motion. The dialogue is fast-paced and frantic, the scenes come in short bursts lending a ferocity to the drama. It’s amazing how Tavernier instills much more energy and thrills into the film when the battle of bullets is exchanged for a battle of words and a conflict against bureaucracy. Things happen so fast, and rather than feeling rushed I got a sense of “this can’t be undone” realism.

It finally slows for the ending scene, which is fitting and satisfying and, perhaps, expected. After that slow first half is a well-directed, well-acted character drama, done in a way you’re only going to see out of France.

THE EXPERIENCE SO FAR

I delayed on this one because I didn’t want to watch back-to-back war films, neither did I want to write about two in a row. But here we are, it’s done. My pace has slogged, partly due to the “war film issue” and also due to LIFE, but not in a flooded house near-disaster way, just a getting out of the house way.

I’m really excited for the next several legs of the list — Jackie Chan! Jean Claude Van Damme! Lucio Fulci! That’s a good ride for me, and even after those legs I get a pretty eclectic mix and NO war movies! Woohoo!

NEXT TIME: Who Am I? (1998)