Thanks boss!

[Ahmed]

In a (very!) Ironic style, the director takes on the role of an unconditional admirer of Bernard Arnault to try to meet his "idol" in order to submit to him the case of a couple that one of its subsidiaries had dismissed after relocating the factory. It's a very funny approach to a collective drama that runs up against the silence of the media, which is why I am passing the information here.
I don't know how to insert a video directly, but here is a link of the presentation of the film.

Edit moderation, like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFy_uXZmOBg

[Christophe]

Good but hyper targeted on LVMH ... there are so many others ...

Some post exit info:

117 admissions in three weeks, a gradual increase from 221 theaters to 39 (soon more), an enormous satisfaction rate, a craze among exhibitors who are snatching up copies! François Ruffin's film against Bernard Arnault is a hit beyond expectations.

To call it "phenomenon" with 100 entries in 000 weeks ... uh ... like saying it's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

http://www.premiere.fr/Cinema/News-Cine ... e-decrypte

ps: B. Arnault should say: "Thank you. Sorry!"

[Ahmed]

Christophe, you write:

Good but hyper targeted on LVMH ... there are so many others ...

The film is about the empire of B.Arnault, but it is only a narrative pretext aiming not to weigh down the subject. It is obvious that what François Ruffin it is all the predators, just as getting this couple out of the sea is not the real objective, it is only a process which, beyond this particular case, must be understood in its social dimension: let's not forget that this is a realistic fable that requires an effort to put into perspective on the part of the spectators. The director wanted above all to avoid the militant film which wants to be too demonstrative, quickly becomes boring: we cannot invite people to rediscover the hope of taking back their life in hand and thinking for them.

Further:

From there to titling "phenomenon", with 100 entries in 000 weeks ... uh ... like saying it's a bit exaggerated right?

This is true if we compare with the American blockbusters, but it must be taken into account that this film was refused access to most of the media (owned by similar to B.Arnault and who don't really taste this unflattering spotlight), so, yes, this film made its place practically all by itself, by the interest that this original approach aroused, and from this point of view I think that we can really speak of a phenomenon.

I could not watch the entire film, so my following comments are advanced with caution.
The plus: the great merit of the project and to show, in the face of the extraordinary means deployed in favor of the maintenance and progression of the oligarchy, that a simple team of nickel-plated feet can manage to destabilize them enough to inspire them to be scared considerable. This is a real reason for hope and it shows that there is room for something other than resignation and every man for himself, two attitudes doomed to failure.
The least: reducing economic inequality is an objective which should normally (in the absence of means which distort power relations) rally the greatest number; the danger would be to limit oneself to this aspiration which, in a certain way and if one does not keep it (for lack of a true political conscience) legitimizes the Arnault & Co: money as an end.

[Ahmed]

In the words Christophe, the success of the film opens up new rooms for him every day, so I was able to watch it.
It's a kind of commedia dell'arte contemporary, very skilful and jubilant, led with great talent by François Ruffin which combines reality and invention, the second serving to influence the first ... a great success.

The reservation * that I expressed above remains: that the workers in turn beat the bosses, as they usually are by the latter, that the use of blackmail is reversed, all this remains immanent in the system criticized and, fundamentally, nothing has changed: the categories specific to capitalism, which are money, work, competition, emerge unscathed from this real fable. It will now be necessary to pay attention to the extensions that this film already gives rise to, in order to observe whether going beyond these categories is, yes or not, on the agenda. If this were not the case, the "stand up at night" movement would only needlessly repeat that of "occupy wallstreet".

* Which is not a criticism, but an observation: a more theoretical approach could not easily be integrated into the narrative framework of this work.

[Ahmed]

Unfortunately (but could it be otherwise?), The sequence of events confirms that the weakness of the theoretical reflection (necessary, although insufficient *) made the "night standing", almost appendix of this film, a continuation of happenings where everyone was able to deliver their message, express their feelings, while the institutions of criticism came to perform their ritual performance: vigor and elevation of the words and, basically, the cautious conservatism of those subsidized by the protest, confined to the idea of ​​a "regulated" and democratic capitalism (?) ...

* It is not the role of theory to describe desirable reality, only to highlight the alienations that oppose real choices.

[sen-no-sen]

No wonder! Night standing,the indignant,occupy wall street are what could be called "movements of places".
For the most part, these are heterogeneous gatherings in public places bringing together activists in the first place and by phenomenon of exhaustion of the marginalized.
Its movements have no future, unless they are piloted from abroad to generate "springs" aimed at removing a government in place.
In France, the government of Mr Valls "being in the nails", it was in itself logical that "ND" ends in this way.

It also appears, and those as of appearance, that the movement was completely phagocytized by groups of extreme left (anar, troskyste etc ...) immediately excluding observers from other political currents.
Since this type of group represents only a tiny part of the citizens, there was therefore nothing to expect.
Social mechanics confirms however the logic of the moment, and it is perfectly noted in the demonstrations of social type (type labor law): the movements discredit themselves, for the greatest happiness of the political leaders!

[Ahmed]

There are several explanatory modes, not exclusive. For me, there is no doubt that the fact that the left, in its vast majority and whatever the intensity of its critical capacity, shows a fundamental admiration without limit for the "values" defended by the right. , remains the cause of the invalidation of his approach and the persistence of his emancipatory powerlessness.

On the question of the labor law, this remains true due to the absence of perspectives other than a positioning vis-à-vis the political adversary and a hope that does not go beyond the maintenance or the back to a past situation. However, it should be added to be fair, that this discredit has been considerably amplified by the work of government undermining, whether on the ground or in the media exploitation which has been (very well) done.