“The ‘I’ll Always See Your Faces’ movie resists the victim binary pattern that always speaks true”

Iin the forum of Edouard Durand, President of the Independent Commission on Incest and Violence against Children (Civise), is surprising to the point that it even risks weakening the oh so legitimate cause of the commission he chairs: the magistrate justifies it by “the risk of breaking the unanimous support for the film I will always see your faces »which he fears will cause a “minimization of the seriousness of violence and the dangerousness of the aggressors”, referring to a statement from the film dealing with an affair of incest between brother and sister: “It’s still less serious than cancer. »

Read the column: Article reserved for our subscribers violence: “Are a few exchanges enough to restore common humanity?” »

He pretends not to know that this sentence is pronounced by a character in the film at some point. And that this character, like all the others, will evolve on this subject within the framework and thanks to a device of “restorative justice” here “fictionalised”. And that the film reports precisely on this point – with enormous finesse, which contributes to its quality, to its credibility – of the evolution of all the characters, whether they are the perpetrators of violence or the victims.

As president of the Ciivise, Edouard Durand targets in his criticism the whole system of “restorative justice”, and therefore well beyond the film, from the case that crosses the film, undoubtedly the most complex and therefore the richest. This is indeed one of the great qualities of the film, perfectly illustrated in this example which could be a textbook case. We do not stop at the binary schema of the victim who always tells the truth, and who must therefore be believed because of his status, his state of victim, and facing him, the figure of the aggressor who is obviously violent and lying.

Mediation work

Here, the victim admits to having lied to the investigators. Not on the essential, but on specific points. And she explains why. And we understand it: to be believed on the essentials. And it’s clic, but for that, for her too to free herself from it, it took this work of mediation, of which Edouard Durand also disputes the merits in principle. Without saying anything about what it is here: this work – because it is one – is done within the framework of a method, a protocol and supervision by trained professionals.

As for the author of the s, we only see him at the end of a long, laborious and painful work with the victim. She absolutely wants ” to advance “ since the trial. We understand that she is “ambivalent” : she is obviously angry with her brother for the acts he has committed, that he has confessed to, which have been tried and sentenced; she is afraid to see him again, but she also wants, without saying it, this confrontation “framed” in this complex system of restorative justice.

You have 42.06% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.

Source link

Leave a Reply