L’Ivresse du Pouvoir (A Comedy of Power)

Isabelle Huppert plays the improbably-named Jeanne Charmant-Killman, who has “the most powerful job in France”, which entails investigating corruption among the country’s bureaucratic and political elite. The film is rather difficult to follow, and would seem to be based on real events (despite the disclaimer to the contrary at the very beginning of the film). A prior appreciation of this background is perhaps assumed, and would surely make it easier to follow what happens in the film.

It’s difficult to understand the mood of the film and the choice of music is particularly difficult to place. If irony is the aim, then it is achieved, albeit subtly. Given the title (the English one) of the film, are we to take the film at face value? Given that no-one is actually seen to suffer any manner of retributive justice, perhaps the joke suggested by the title is a dark and pessimistic one that is based on a contemplation of the perpetual nature of corruption and the wealth of the ruling elite and the impossibility of its eradication. This is evidenced by the events in the film and made explicit by a speech from the elderly corrupt politician, who points out that the corrupt group can reorganise and recommence their corrupt activities despite Killman-Charmant’s efforts and successes. Thus, the audience do not get the satisfaction of seeing the corrupt face trial and punishment and the implicit message (echoing the final words of the film) is that eliminating the all-pervading corruption is a sisyphean task. It’s as though the existence led by those who are corrupt and the investigators trying to prove their corruption follow parallel paths through time.

Apart from the pursuit of the corrupt elite, none of the incidental plot lines that have been introduced are resolved at the end of the film : did Killman-Charmant’s husband attempt suicide, or was it an assassination attempt by the criminals trying to scare Killman-Charmant off her case? The meaning of the tag that the corrupt politicians (who are all addressed as “Monsieur President”) wear in their lapels is also left unexplained.

There are some good acting performances and the best scene involves the “fixer” Boldi, whose delivery of his lines in his scene with Huppert as he spills the beans is very enjoyable. Perhaps Boldi’s scene is so enjoyable because it is an example of a well-defined character who has a clear motivation and thus an opportunity to express a clear idea with his lines. Unfortunately, and possibly because of the emphasis on irony by the director, this is not a typical characteristic of the film.

Archive h☼me