Blog

1. Aims of the essay (~3 clear points) 

2. Plan & structure: 

A. Introduction (personal anectodes, motivations, context) – explain what you’ll do (state your central argument/ thesis) why (to help ppl, to improve coping skills, raise awareness etc)  and how (mention your arguments/ points briefly)

• La Haine had been on my watch list for quite some time, simply due to my temporary passion at at the time or what I thoguth was that in grittiness, social decay, and the perspective of those demonised and marginalised in socity. perhsps because I thoguht  could relate to it partially, I wanted to watch something validating, raw, emotion filled. As per chatgpt’s recommendation, it went on the list.

B. Body

Point a

Point b

• the importance of the anecdote shared by the elderly gentleman in the toilet ->
  • the protagonists’ conversation about killing police officers is interrupted by an elderly man who, as walking out, seems to be reminiscing and begins to talk about a friend of his he was sent to siberia with. His friend was different, in the sense that he was shy and uncomfortable with the conditions on the train carriage and the different things he had to do to survive. As the train finally stops unplanned , the prisoners rush to get out and defecate on the rail tracks. His friend however went to do this in some bushes, further away from the train. As the train begins to drive off, he runs after the train with his trousers down. Every time he reached to the gentleman to be pulled into the train, his pants would drop again and he’d slow down to pull them up before running again, and was left behind. When the boys asked what happened after, the gentleman abruptly says nothing and that he died before leaving.  The arab wonders why he told them that but they do not discuss the enocuter further.
    • The arab once more brings up this moment later in the film but he receives no answer again. This is left unanswered, and for the audience to solve.
      • the anectode actually reflects the events of the film – the absurdity and arbitratiness of the situation is highlighted by the gentleman’s survival despite being sent to the siberian gulag, and the death of his friend despite initially escaping deportation. The friend’s lack of survival instinct is what ironically gave him his initial freedom, but also what made is so short lived. This is analogy of the troubled streets of Paris, where survival instinct and luck are the only valuable assets. 

Point c

• vinzi, slightly delusional potentially from drugs, is the only one who is willing to take action. Reckless as his chosen means and objectives are, his intent is rather pure -> he wishes justice for Abdel, in a system that he knows will do nothing to avenge him. He antagonises the police and plots the murder of a police officer in the event of his death -> none of his friends seem to approve of his actions and label him as derailed. Some even seem to get on with the police officer that knows the crew and treats them well.
• But the truth the friend policeman is he is just one. The rest are a blur, some could be like him, others neutral, and some are abusive.
  • him being almost killed in the failed drive by assasination scene does well to highlight the absurdity of the conflict – the only truly positive figure on ‘the other side’ is chosen by Abdel’s cousin  to carry out a blind act of revenge – showing that neither side cares about nuances in the other -> they are simply enemies. Killing this policeman would have ironically harmed the community even more, as he was one its few protectors from the other side.
  • On this point, the film shows us that among the overarching ‘minorities vs police’ dominant polarisation, good and truth actually lie in the complexity and nuances we see constantly. The previously mentioned officer who genuinely tries to protect and help the community as much as possible, to collaborate with and understand them is just one because he represents just how unpopular this rational and humane approach is.
  • We also see helpful officers who seek no trouble (the arab actually asks one for direction and he responds very politely, treating him well – hence his comments that he was a good one – however this is in a more wealthy area of Paris)
  • Additionally, the neutral officer in the hospital that stops the three protagonists from visitng Abdel. He is simply doing his job and does not at any point antagonise the boys.
  • Then we have the corrupt officers who torture and humilate abdel and moua after arresting them. The young rookie officer whom they are trying to initiate in their behaviour watches on disgusted, but does nothing to help the two. He represents the corruption of innocence, enabled simply by chance (being paired up with the abusive officers), by a system perceived as too big to be challenged by individuals like him. ‘so far so good’ carries resounding weight here as well.

Point d – the political weight it carries today (CORE OF THE POST)

• we’re at the same spot once more. ‘fuck Le Pen’ as a shout as relevant today as it was 30 years ago, eerily timeless in the weight it carries and the context it does it in despite the passage of time – and the fact that the two shouts refer to separate (yet related) individuals.
  • skinheads and coloureds, at odds once more -> although the brutality of the 80s and 90s is not present (yet anyway), this is more than visible in speech and public attitudes and discourse (online, political populism, day to day life). We may yet be in the early stages of something bigger.
  • maineou (the black guy) shares a piece of dark humour with vinzi -> a person jumping off a building looking for a thrill will say, on their way down ‘so far so good, so far so good’ yet at some point they ask ‘but how will I land?’. This is mentioned again at the end of the film and it undoubetly carries more weight. This time maineou links the metaphor more directly to the state of society – we will tolerate and accept decay and moral freefall as long as we’re mostly okay – ‘so far so good’ – ‘it’s not happening to me anyway’, will say the white middle class frenchman. ‘it’s happening and I hate it but I can’t do anything about it – I’m nobody’ will say, on the other side of the fence, a second generation immigrant frenchman.  Ultimately the reason for inaction does not matter, as it ultimately remains the same attiute – and leads to the same outcome. ‘so far so good’ isn’t necessarily satisfaction or joy with the context. it is also ignorance, perceived impotence, or willful malice.  ‘so far so good’ is not thinking about the landing. we either choose to belive there won’t have to be a landing, that we’ll be able to stay airborne long enough to prevent the landing for just a bit longer (ideally until right after we’ve departed from this world),  OR we simply choose not to think about the landing at all. But it’s inevitable. And the trigger is simple, right in the title of the film; simply – ‘Hatred’.

C. Conclusion

Sum up main body and conclusions