THE ACCUSATION/ LES CHOSES HUMAINES

France, 2021, 138 minutes, Colour.

Ben Attal, Suzanne Jouannet, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Mathieu Kassovitz, Pierre Aditi, Audrey Dana, Camille Rozat,

Directed by Yvan Attal.

A long and substantial film, topical for the first part of the 21^st-century.

The French title is more general, focusing on human issues, the choices made by both women and men in situations which involve sexuality, relationships, harassment, abuse. The English title focuses more in the #MeToo era on the action of men, the response of women, the men accused and going to court.

In some ways this film is a family affair in so far as the director and co-writer is Yvan Attal, French actor, born in Israel. And, significantly, the accused man is played by his son, Ben, and his mother is played by his real mother, Charlotte Gainsbourg.

The film has several distinct chapters, indicated on screen.

First of all, there is the introduction to Alexandre, 22, studying at Stanford, returning to Paris because his father is being honoured with the Legion of Honour. His father has been a longtime host of television program but producers want him to move on. His mother is an activist, feminist, interviewed on television about accusations of rape committed by migrants. Mother and father have separated, father an inveterate womaniser (seen in rather graphic sequences with his intern, then later domestically with her and child), mother moving in with a genial professor of literature (Matthieu Kassovitz) and one of his daughters who prefers to stay with him instead of her very strict and observant Jewish mother.

The audience gets to know Alexandre from his perspective, and will share his shock when police arrive, he is arrested for rape of the young woman, daughter of the professor, who had been encouraged to go to a party with Alexandre. She has now made complaints. Alexandre is interrogated, denies the accusation, is gradually forced to be a bit more explicit and truthful about the kind of party, drinking and consumption of drugs, match our competitions concerning women’s underwear…

The second part of the film makes a transition to the young woman (Suzanne Jouannet in her first film performance),, her version of what happened, shown dramatically on screen. She has sought the help of her mother who accompanies her to the police station to make the accusation. With her version, of what happened, there is a different perspective on the party itself, the drugs, the sexual activity, much more explicit about what Alexandre had done. Audience sympathy is very much on her side, the audience tested on how they have responded to Alexandre’s explanation of himself and his behaviour.

30 months pass. The next part of the film is the court procedure. Alexandre has been dealing with his lawyer who defends him strongly. His parents are at the trial, his mother making an impassioned speech is a feminist and as a mother. The young woman has to go through an elaborate description of what happened to her, more visuals, filling out the detail of the episode.

Alexandre has apologised, accepts what he has done, perhaps some realisation of his power as a man over the young woman and his demands about sexual activity, especially taking her into an isolated hut. Then there is the sentencing, and audience decisions as to the sentence being appropriate, and the consequences for all those concerned.

Some commentators have thought that the film was too explicit, long and didactic – but, in the atmosphere of the cases, audiences thinking of the accusations, trial, sentence of Harvey Weinstein, a significant opportunity to look at a situation from the different points of view, different moral points of view, and a critique of male presuppositions of power over women.

1. The original title, human choices, indicating the theme of the film? The English title and the focus on the investigation?
2. Paris, the city, homes and apartments, television programs, journalists, students, parties, drugs and drink, sexual behaviour? Prison, police interrogations? Psychological sittings? The court? The musical score?
3. The structure of the film: the focus first on Alexandre, him; the second focus on her, Miller; the gap of 30 months; the flashbacks within the court hearing; the final speeches, decision, final images?
4. Given the accusation, and hearing Alexandre’s story first, seeing his sincerity and bewilderment, favour to him? Then hearing Mila, seeing her, the effect of the experience, the raising of the issue of consent, refusal? Favour to her? The passing of the 30 months, the interrogations, the therapies, Mila and her film studies, Alexandre and the cloud hanging over him? The behaviour of each in court, their stories, the impact of the speeches in prosecution and defence? The intervention to indicate the nature of a sentence? Audiences listening to all the material, their own verdicts, judgement on Mila and her experience, judgement on Alexandre, his lack of awareness about consent? Audience agreeing with the final verdict on not?
5. Alexandre’s story, age, his parents and their celebrity, his father later admitting the poor example of sexual behaviour, judgement, privilege? An exemplary student? Quiet manner? Studying at Stanford? The introduction to him at the airport, his return for his father’s honour, messages for his father, his father not meeting him? At home, the maid and her looking after him? The phone call from his mother? Audience impressions of him? Dinner with his mother, his reservations about Adam and her living with him? His meeting Mila, the meal, agreeable? The parents suggesting he take Mila to the party? The audience not seeing anything at the party at this stage, the police, the arrest, his bewilderment, his manner, interrogation, denials, moments of anger, moments of arrogance? His lawyer? The lawyer sent by his father and his decision? The hearing, his being released under supervision, not to encounter Mila?
6. Alexander and the relationship with Yasmine, her moving on, motivations, texting her, the meeting, to raise the past texts? The language used, expectations of gross language, touches of violence, hurt, Alexandre assuming this was ordinary?
7. Mila story, the party, the crowd, drinking, drugs, her not drinking, sitting and observing, Alexandre watching her, the challenge about the woman’s underwear, his looking at her? Persuading her with the champagne? Her going out, air, smoking, his telling her he had a knife for protection against terrorists? They’re talking, going into the shed, his persuasiveness? The accounts of the sexual activity, oral sex, his consequent behaviour, penetration, and ejacilation? Each admitting parts of the behaviour, embarrassed, ashamed, omissions? The final putting together of what happened? Mila in the aftermath, hurt, bewildered, seeing her going home, to her mother, the support of her mother, wanting to find the complaint, her father arriving? Her mother concerned about her future and marriage availability? The strip Jewish religious background?
8. The influence of the parents, their back stories? Gene, age, self-important, 30 years on his show, the producer wanting it to be axed, his brutal response to her, investigating her, his staff, at the restaurant, the intern bringing the information, sitting with him, the night together, age, impotence, the later arousal and sex scene? Supporting his son but self-preoccupied? His speech in the court, admissions about his behaviour and poor example? The introduction of the 20 minutes of thrill for his son, consent is a grey area? The perspectives of the male and expected dominance?
9. Clare, as mother, her social concerns, the issue of the refugees on the rape situation, the discussion on television, issues of being a feminist, denouncing any sexual violence, the breakup of her marriage, moving in with Adam, the bond between them, Mila living there, as a daughter? Bonding with Alexandre, thinking only the best of him? The meal, going to the party? Her dismay at the news, Adam’s response? Defence of her son, thinking only of his life and its being ruined? Later meeting Adam during the trial, they’re talking, missing each other? A speech of the trial, speaking is a feminist, speaking as a mother, her perspective on what happened?
10. Adam, Prof of literature, Jewish background, separation from his wife, Mila living with him, the other children? Valerie, strictly observant, concerned about her children? Mila going to her, filing the complaint, Valerie going with her to the police interrogation, Adam and his testimony? Present in the court? Asked to be absence for Mila’s testimony? Adam meeting Claire?
11. Sexual issues of the time, mores and morals, submissiveness, the father’s generation, womanising, the younger generation, and encounters, casual sexual behaviour, aftermath, language used, Jean with his his staff, thinking nothing of it, the encounter with the intern, her leaving, then the audience discovering that she was with him, with a child? Her appeal to him if something similar to Mila happened to his daughter, that he would kill the offender?
12. The lawyer, court-appointed, discussions with Alexandre, guiding him? His behaviour during the trial, questions, interventions, critique of the prosecution? The strength of his final summation, the defence of the young man who may not intentionally have violence in mind?
13. The lawyer for Mila, the questions and interrogation, Mila and the details of the giving her story again, revelations about her past, assaults, relationship? Mitigating against her experience with Alexandre? Issue of revenge, compensation?
14. Audience decisions about guilt and responsibility? The aftermath Alexandre, suspended sentence for five years? For Mila, the truth coming out in the court, her future career? Yet, in the final sequences, her having to live with the experience and the memories?