Literature overview and applications

Germinal-Film

GERMINAL: THE FILM

Germinal is a realistically depicted tale of coal miners in 19th century France. The life of these downtrodden workers has been presented so vividly that we almost find ourselves living in that period while reading the book. With the fame and acclaim that it received, it was no surprise that the book was made into a movie by French director Claude Berri.

There are few flaws in this version of Germinal, however, still it cannot compete with the paper version. This is not because of poor direction or less than perfect acting, but because of the fact that a film cannot capture every single detail that the book provides. For example, the worker's pay system, development of unions and references to International Workingmen's Association are not presented in the same fashion as the novel does.

Jack Matthews of Newsday (1994) writes:

Even in a film that runs more than two and a half hours, it is impossible to retell a novel in every detail, particularly one as specific to a time and place and social condition as "Germinal." In their attempt, they've turned one entire level of the story - that of the ruling class - into a shallow stream of "arrogant rich" cliches."

The film is more than two and a half hours long but still manages to barely cover the most important facts. I personally believe that it does justice to the novel because of crisp dialogues, superb performances and skillful direction. Still when compared with the book, the film fails to leave an impression of same magnitude. But impression, it does leave. There is no element of optimism anywhere in the movie, no romanticizing about the life of the coal-miners and no gray shades in between. This is the case with the book too where we find every single detail and fact presented in two colors of black and white.

For example in Part IV of the book:

we are given a vivid recounting of the miseries of a terrible ageless January during which the workers must eke out the very minimum of subsistence. In these bizarre surroundings, Zola created a strangely negative white as a black-opposite, giving a terrifying Surreal and Expressionistic X-Ray effect in this cave that was once its natural color of black. It is now, however, embalmed and petrified in a dusty, powdery white, exuding a frightening ethery smell of an abandoned coal mine; even its timbering seems petrified, giving off "a yellow pallor of marble, fringed with white lace, with flaky vegetation which would seem to form a draped embroidery of silk and pearls" (Part IV, Chapter 6, Germinal)." (Monarch Notes, 1963).

However the one prominent difference between the colors of the film and the book are the latter also covers the background of those colors. This is one reason why at times, we find ourselves feeling compassionate towards some wealthy characters such as the Hennebeaus with a failing marriage. We need to understand here that while Zola gives us reasons to believe in the authenticity of the facts, Berri doesn't give much consideration to this aspect of the book.

He has definitely presented the facts in their true essence, however the moviegoers do not get to see the background lending support to those facts. For example, instead of introducing us to the Hennebeaus who are self-made class of the French wealthy, Berri simply lets us see various contrasts through effective and powerful depiction of coal-miners and cruel ruling class limited to the Gregoires. The contrasts highlight the plight of coal-miners in 19th century effectively but can lead to confusion. This is because there are numerous characters and plots and subplots, which though can be explained, clearly through the novel, cannot be captured just as effectively in a film spanning 2 hours and 40 minutes.

The basic underlying difference in the way the author and the director have presented the same contrasts of dart vs. light and rich vs. poor. This is the reason why we are bound to find some of the facts either a little too grave or simply too brutal to accept easily. This is the not the case with the novel where everything looks believable as it is backed by solid research which is effectively transferred to the readers. Matthews (1994) sheds light on this aspect of the film and writes: