Watch Human Resources For Free

Undescribable Perfection

Memorable, crazy movie

Good movie but grossly overrated

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The film Resources Humaines is in essence a low-budget study on labor value. Director Cantet uses the scheme of class struggle for the portrayal of the relations between the blue- and white-collar workers in a production plant. The mutual feelings of stress are aggravated and perhaps even somewhat distorted by the father-son relation, that is woven into the story. In summary, the college graduate rationalizes the production process, and in passing makes his fathers job redundant. The factual narration itself is so simple, that there is plenty of room to delve into the many psychological facets. This allows for detailed character studies, and Cantet portrays them in sharp contrasting colors. The Bolshevist shop steward of the trade union (CGT) is against any alterations. The managing director is cunning in an unpleasant way. The workers are impassive as a result of their monotonous jobs. The son has the stupid arrogance of the new-born believer in dogmas. As a result the viewer has trouble in identifying with any of the characters. Obviously Cantet tries to sympathize with the blue-collars, but his preference is not supported by the events itself. The main weakness of the film is, that it appears half a century too late. In our postindustrial society the situation has been resolved, and is no longer a subject of debate. Today everybody knows, that a job will not last for life. Employees are obliged to engage in lifelong learning. We also appreciate, that work at the assembly line is so dull, that it is inhumane and should be automated as much as possible. The days of the laborers smashing the machines ended two centuries ago. So a sensible person can only welcome the intention of the managing director to hand over the repetitive tasks to robots. And the viewer looks at disbelief at the ensuing occupation of the plant by the workers, who reject any discharges. This behavior, that fitted in the fifties of the previous century (see for instance the nice film Made in Dagenham), is in our times a relic of the past. Resources Humaines suggests that political agitation and class struggle are more important than efficient production. The normal, modern and sensible act under these circumstances is of course starting negotiations between the management and the trade union in order to arrange decent social plans for the redundant personnel. We are also surprised by the promotion of the working week of 35 hours. Evidently Europeans have always valued their leisure time, but in recent years the emphasis has shifted to leave for duties with regard to caring (children, elderly) or for study. Or on part-time and flexible contracts. In conclusion, the film Resources Humaines is debating the wrong issues. If you appreciate films about labor, you may consider seeing my other reviews.

The movie was so powerful I wondered if things would be better if every corporate executive and politician got to watch it.The movie asserted the importance of treating all people decently without any artificial speeches or distracting overdramatization.Considering that union leaders can be just as flawed and self-serving as any corporate executive, it was inspiring to learn that Arnoux is a real life labor activist in addition to her role here. Some of the best moments (in addition to the father-son relationship) showed how she could quickly forgive people for treating her unfairly in order to work with them for the common good, and how she reached out to the father in a painful moment instead of being absorbed in her own agenda.

I thought this was played in a rather too pedestrian manner until near the end when the unspoken conflict between the father and the son exploded. In a sense this is a story more or less a century behind its time. We have the factory and the bosses, and we have the workers whose labor is exploited by those who own and control the capital. We have the union organizers who are little different from those who long ago sought a worker's paradise while employing communist tactics.But where this is different is that it depicts the conflict in a contemporary setting with the institution of the 35-hour week as the bone of contention. Jalil Lespert plays Franck, the son who is home for the summer from college in Paris to serve as a management trainee at the factory where his father (Jean-Claude Vallod) is employed. The father is a throwback to the loyal worker of the 19th century who was wedded to the machine, who adored the machine, someone who has completely accepted his status as worker/cog in the greater machine that is the factory. Even in his off hours he works cutting wood using a large buzz saw in his garage. But he wants something better for his son.The son is personable and talented. He puts together a questionnaire that allows management to see how its employees feel about the 35-hour week in order to better manipulate them. By accident he discovers that management is going to fire 12 workers, most of whom have spent their entire working lives for the company. This is the crisis point for the son.Without going into plot details, what we discover at the end is that the father despises himself because he is nothing more than a man who feeds a machine while the son reveals that he at some level hates his father because he is a factory worker, a man who had neither the ability nor the gumption to raise about his station in life and a man who is afraid to question management.Bottom line: slow and realist to the point of being mundane with professional, but uninspired direction by Laurent Cantet.(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel 'The Brothers Karamazov', for all its monumental breadth and depth in philosophy and theology, has at its very core the dominant figure of the Father, whose callous authoritativeness and irresponsible disposition--and eventual murder--have decidedly molded the characters and philosophies of his four sons--Mitya, Ivan, Alyosha, Smerdyakov--and altogether marked their essentially tragic fate.Two films I recently saw, though not really epic in scope, have arguably imbued the spirit of the literary masterpiece:the French 'Human Resources' by Laurent Cantet and the Russian 'Mother and Son' by Aleksander Sokurov are predominantly deferential to the parental figures, respectively, of the Father and the Mother.If Dostoyevsky's 'Karamazov' is in the manner of the psychological/existential probing of the human soul with a murder-mystery on the surface, in what way do the two films work on their archetypal themes?'Human Resources' works as a labor drama as it involves an educated son (Jalil Lespert as Franck)who returns to his hometown after years of studying in Paris to be trained as part of the management staff of a factory(whose name serves as the film's title)where his father(Jean-Claude Vallod as Jean-Claude)has been devotedly working for 30 long years.Despite being imbued with fresh ideas and attitude, Franck tries as much as possible to maintain a "moderate" persona at work in deference to his father's unquestioning servility--to the point of becoming an anonymous piece among the assembly of workers(who isn't, anyway?).So we can initially see that the son's newly-assumed, though arguably much higher, position is "humbled" before the father's mere length of service.But little did Franck expect that he would be gradually immersed in--and eventually, fiercely committed to--a sensitive issue regarding a planned assembly-line scheme that almost all the factory workers consider as exploitative and inhuman, as it would basically enforce the policy of "reduced hours and workers, forced production quota, less pay." I say "almost", because everyone else is visibly concerned except for the young man's father, with whom the "business as usual" philosophy is adhered to the fullest, despite the fact that in the near future, the management would already have "no business" with him.And this is what agitates Franck further.Thus, in an emotionally-shattering confrontation, the son makes it known to the father the worthlessness of all his labors and value as an assembly-line worker.With his new-found cause, Franck may have saved his father's reputation, but not his own future("When are you going?" and "Where is your place?" are his meaningful queries by the film's end).While 'Mother and Son' is an entirely two-character drama(Gudrun Geyer and Aleksei Ananishov in the title roles)that is outwardly simple but, in fact, open to multiple interpretations.I have my own take on the story(uncertain though it may be), but for fear of pre-empting those who might want to see the film sooner or later(and of putting myself to shame), I better not dare to give my piece of mind on the matter for the time being(I patiently watched the film three times for three straight days, but still...!).Instead, let me say that, as this was made by a contemporary Russian filmmaker(acclaimed in Cannes for his equally maverick works, 'Russian Ark' and 'Father and Son'), it was closer to the mood and leanings of the above-mentioned Russian literary classic--dark, brooding, eerie, lambasting.If you thought Andrei Tarkovskij was enough to rattle your brains out, think again.The disciple has learned his lesson from the master--by heart.(I have another Russian film in waiting, '100 Days Before the Command' by Hussein Erkenov, said to be another 'obedient' disciple.)With regard to the narrative technique, the two films move radically on different threads.Laurent's work is molded according to the style of a neorealist "docu-drama"--the emphasis is on the commonplace and the seemingly trivial, but not to be taken for granted;the characters are portrayed by non-professional or first-time actors who, for the most part, have lived the lives they essay onscreen;and to further bolster the authentic feel, dramatic frills and shrills, the "workshop-intensive"-type of acting are shunned(this isn't to say, however, that there are no crucial turning points in the film, as the above-mentioned confrontation between the father and son indicates;it's just that the emotions are raw, rather than garnished).Again, the viewers are asked to observe, to immerse themselves in the lives and concerns of these ordinary people, who are essentially no different from them.I say "again", because 'Human Resources' was released around the time when other French-language dramas of the same mold had initially made their way to the silver screen:'La Promesse', 'Life of Jesus', 'Rosetta', 'Humanity', 'Dreamlife of Angels.' There seemed to be a "trend" back then.But if these films--particularly 'Rosetta' and 'Humanity'--tended to be "inward-looking", to dwell in their anxiously-guarded private world, Laurent's film, as its primary issue(the workers contending with a proposed labor scheme)calls for, doesn't only concentrate on the two central characters but takes into consideration the other critical characters as well--their fellow factory workers(in the same way that Dostoyevsky pierces through the souls not just of the Karamazov brothers but also of the various important figures that directly or subtly affect their lives).For his part, Sokurov's excruciatingly meditative and tranquil dialectics in his film(as if some kind of painter was deeply-absorbed in putting on canvas every scene), with an attendant sense of something forbidden taking place, is counterbalanced by the pastoral countryside, now and then draped in golden sunshine rays, heavy clouds and smooth wind, an expressionist camera focus and a few of the most astonishing shots ever composed onscreen.The "exact" nature of the "troubled" relationship between the mother and son can be gleaned from their evocative gestures and utterances--like "You always kept your eyes on me.I was ashamed", the son says to the mother and "I was afraid that they would take you away from me", the mother lets it known to the son.Ah, to dissect an age-old commandment!