Aventure Malgache (1944)

That was an excellent one.

Overrated and overhyped

A Masterpiece!

In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

As agitprop, as other reviews have noted, this one perhaps isn't the kind of Howard Hawks rabble-rouser one would have expected to be produced in the throes of war. It's also notably low-budget, with all the scenes being produced in cramped indoor sets that accommodate very little motion, either among the actors or with the camera.That said, there are some classic Hitch moments within. There's the theme of the double, the double-agent and the duel (and duality) between the two antagonists, one a veteran of Verdun and a prominent defense lawyer, and the other the chief of police and security for Vichy Madagascar. There's the moment when one of the resistance fighters, about to leave for England to join the French Army, is betrayed by his fiancée who either believes this will keep him with her or is getting revenge -- we never know -- slowly, slowly moves towards the phone to drop a dime on him (and our hero), and the phone slowly comes into focus in the foreground. And there's this odd narrative device of having the story told from backstage of a French theater troupe in London -- exactly why the lawyer ended up doing a theatrical performance, after having escaped the Vichy and been a producer of his own propaganda radio broadcasts, is completely unclear, but it may be Hitch's subtle way of using the artifice of the production values to his good advantage. Even if you don't speak French, it's fun picking out the classic rhythms of dialogue and editing pace common to Hitch. Compare, for instance, to the almost contemporaneous 'Lifeboat', which was another completely talky piece of wartime agitprop shot in incredibly close confines (literally so in the latter case). If you can't use the great horizons of the outdoors, use the claustrophobic to generate that sense of dread of being caught that must've been endemic to being part of a secret resistance.I wouldn't seek this out unless you're interested in the social history of propaganda, the French resistance, or unless you're looking for a research paper for film school on Hitch, but given its short running time it is hardly a waste of time.

The film is about the French controlled island of Madagascar. Once the French surrendered to Germany in 1940 and became their allies, their colonies around the globe were left to decide whether to go along with the Vichy government or throw in their lot with the British and continue to fight the Nazis. The film particularly follows one man on the island who is the head of the underground movement.This is a very odd film. During WWII, Alfred Hitchcock made two short propaganda films in French! Everyone speaks French and I wonder if Hitchcock himself understood the language. Considering how weak this short film is, I assume he didn't! Unlike most propaganda films, this film is way too talky and slow. Additionally, it's not exactly inspiring. There simply is no action or suspense and the film is amazingly uninspiring. All these factors led the British government to say "thanks but no thanks" to the director when he tried to help out with the war effort.FYI--I noticed one reviewer gave the short a 10. When I checked, I noticed that out of dozens and dozens of their reviews I perused, all had received 10s--every last one.

In wartime with such a shortage of resources, short films made in the French language in Britain in 1944 were undoubtedly made for very distinct purposes. In this situation Hitchcock evidently put his talents entirely at the disposal of the powers that be but, in the absence of concrete information, we can only guess what those purposes were.In common with "Bon Voyage" - the other of the two films Hitch shot in the French language during the war - the intended audience was Vichy France and the Vichy controlled French colonies (the film is set in Madagascar). Overall they were propaganda films, intended for the French resistance. Each is to some extent instructional particularly warning of pitfalls resistance members could fall into. Here the main character is imprisoned by the Vichy authorities and finds that a defence lawyer has been provided for him. The defence lawyer asks for full details of the man's resistance activities so that he can better defend him. The main character immediately realises that the lawyer is working for the authorities and there solely to extract incriminating information. Noticeable too are the many references to Britain's role in supporting the Resistance - presumably an important part of the film's message.Overall the film quite slick, pacy and good humoured. Other propaganda elements are not so obvious although presumably the main character's bravery, spirit, wiliness along with his undoubted patriotism (like Petain, a hero of the Battle of Verdun in WW1, indeed known to Petain but having chosen resistance rather than collaboration) perhaps offered something of a role model for the audience. The key line must have been "The greatness of a country is measured by the spirit of its people". Given the reality of occupation and collaboration, "spirit" was one thing that nevertheless could remain undimmed, that national honour could still be fought for and could still be saved.Interestingly both films were small projects and that it was other directors who handled the now iconic wartime productions.

A recent article on Australian Web Journal SENSESOFCINEMA brings a lot of new information (cast, script,etc.)on this underrated film.For example,interesting link between the French actor who plays MICHEL, and a character in a well known Stanley Donen movie.A connection between DZ91,code name of a British Secret Service agent during WWII and Paul CLARUS,a French lawyer from Madagascar. Another point of view regarding the MOLIERE PLAYERS and some members of the Company.Documents from the British National Archives, and from a French private collection.