MovieChat Forums > Un village français (2009) Discussion > What drives Hortense’s behaviour? - Spoi...

What drives Hortense’s behaviour? - Spoiler Alert

posted 6 years ago by Gaylesyboo54 (47)
10 replies | jump to latest

I’ve watched the series in its entirety once. I am now rewatching for the second time.

She seems like a devoted wife in the first episodes. Then she embarks on one serious affair that makes some sense. The second and more dangerous one is a mystery. I get that there is a physical attraction but the man is clearly cruelly deranged.

So, is she just delusional? So convinced that A. He is a god; B. Daniel will always be there and able to protect her; and C. That she is a a goddess above regular mortals. In short, is there a clinical diagnosis for her mindset?

Communication would be appreciated.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6093) 3 years ago

She seems to have had a bad childhood. That might explain some things.

Also, she married Daniel in '36 and apparently up to 1940 could never get a child. Six years of trying might have driven her slightly mad, and probably led to her stealing TeQuiero. But then it seems like even having this child didn't fulfill her. She embarked on an affair with Marchetti and then with Mueller, apparently never getting pregnant, so it seems she has some problem conceiving. Apparently in despair she just threw herself into these crazy relationships.

[–] Gaylesyboo54 (47) 3 years ago

Thank you for replying. I agree her bad childhood is a factor. Sterility could be another one.

Maybe she needs to be adored. Hortense got that from Marchetti but Miller’s adoration might be more thrilling. During the time she was carrying on with Marchetti. he wasn’t yet notoriously cruel. Muller was from the get go.

My husband I are watching it now. He had never seen it but wanted to watch it after I told him about it. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6093) 3 years ago

Yup.
The show seems to have something for everyone. War, politics, romance, infidelity, morality, spying, friendship, betrayal, you name it. It's there. My favorite part came at the end. After we have seen exactly what everyone did during the war, there's so much mythmaking about who did and didn't do what and the final version of the "truth" is almost never correct. That seems to true to life.

[–] Gaylesyboo54 (47) 3 years ago

I felt that Daniel’s truth was never really shared with anyone. All those people who were lauded after the war may have deserved their acclaim, but no one ever seems to have understood that Daniel did try to do good and how much he suffered - both physically and emotionally. It was unfortunate that Marie died at Marchetti’s hands as she would have provided testimony about his helpful contributions. Also, his son seemed critical and unable to understand Daniel’s dilemma. His father faced Nazis on a daily basis. Why didn’t the son understand how evil and cruel they were?

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6093) 3 years ago

Yep, exactly. The only one who could really understand was the bureaucrat. He himself, although he did some wrong things, was not as terrible as he was made out to be.

[–] Gaylesyboo54 (47) 3 years ago

Servier, right? Yes, he did do some terrible things because he had this ingrained sense of obeying orders. I always thought that when he and Daniel had to draw up their list for the Nazis that he truly believed he was doing good. Or in other words, he knowingly did evil in order to do good.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6093) 3 years ago

Yes, Servier, thanks.
He did do bad things, but I'm not sure drawing up the list was one of them. If they didn't do it, the Nazis would have. Would that have been better?

[–] Gaylesyboo54 (47) 3 years ago

You’re welcome regarding supplying Servier’s name.

As to the list, your question sums up Daniel and Servier’s dilemma. It would have been worse if the Nazis had drawn up the list as it probably would have been much larger. I believe they persuaded the Nazis to be satisfied with 10 people. So, yes, it was better to draw up the list from that perspective.

The problem is that after the war, at least in the series, the population acted as if everyone except the most visible collaborators was a firm supporter of the resistance. That wasn’t so; many people had made their personal peace with the Nazi regime as long as they were not personally affected. Daniel had suffered at the hands of the Nazis and had carried out unsung small acts of resistance.

A lot of people alive today are like Daniel’s son in 1975. They assume they themselves would have been an active member of a resistance group if they lived in a Nazi occupied country. Most people just wanted to live their lives then and hoped for liberation.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6093) 3 years ago

Yep, exactly. Well put.

My parents and grandparents were living in Hungary at the time, refusing to be Nazis when practically everyone else was totally on board with it. They were spit on for it. So we had a flavor of what happens.

[–] Gaylesyboo54 (47) 3 years ago

Then you certainly know the problems Daniel was presented - almost first hand as parents tend to share traumatic events as their children grow up and acquire greater understanding of life’s complexities. I am sorry that your parents and grandparents went through that experience.