User reviews

When one thinks of contemporary French cinema, few names seem as ill-fitting for a docudrama about an ongoing real-life case involving the abuse of children by a Catholic priest than François Ozon, the prolific and formally inventive filmmaker best known for erotically-charged films such as Sitcom (1998), Swimming Pool (2003), and Young & Beautiful (2013). Originally planned as a documentary, Grâce à Dieu (By the Grace of God) is a partly-fictionalised account of the case of Fr. Bernard Preynat and the formation of La Parole Libérée (known in English as Lift the Burden of Silence), an advocacy group for victims of childhood sexual abuse. Probably Ozon's most formally conventional work, with none of his usual visual panache, the film was modelled after Tom McCarthy's exceptional Spotlight (2015), which examined the Boston Globe's 2002 investigation into sexual abuse in the Boston Archdiocese. This comparison is important insofar as it speaks to Ozon's lack of formal gymnastics; in short, as with Spotlight, the conventional style is matched to the thematic seriousness, wherein neither director wants to run the risk of elements of the form distracting from the content (not that any visual or aural trickery would help either to tell their particular story). Grâce à Dieu, however, is not a Catholic-hit job; rather it depicts the institutional dissembling and prevarication as coming not necessarily from a place of evil, but from a desire to avoid another scandal. Nonetheless, the Church as depicted very much talks a lot about forgiveness and redemption, but seems to have very little understanding of justice or punishment. It's weighty stuff, and although it courts a narrative objectivity and stylistic restraint that often suggests a void of emotion, for the most part, this is undeniably powerful cinema.

The film begins in 2014 as Alexandre Guérin (Melvil Poupaud), a respected banker and devout Catholic, discovers that Fr. Bernard Preynat (Bernard Verley), the priest who he believed to have been defrocked for sexually abusing him, is not only still a priest, but is still working with children. He contacts the Archbishop of Lyon, Cardinal Philippe Barbarin (François Marthouret), and is urged to meet with Preynat. He does so, hoping for Preynat's resignation, but although Preynat openly admits to young boys, he refuses to apologise or admit to wrong-doing publicly. When the church says it can't take the matter any further, citing the 20-year statute of limitations, Alexandre, who has raised his five children in the faith, feels compelled to act, and so, very reluctantly, he takes his story to the press. He is soon contacted by François Debord (Denis Ménochet), who also claims to have been abused by Preynat. Now an atheist, the more militant François advises marshalling the power of social media, and has formed an advocacy group which he hopes will be able to stand against the church and see Preynat not just defrocked, but criminally convicted. Soon, Alexandre and François are joined by a third man, Emmanuel Thomassin (a heart-breaking turn by Swann Arlaud), whose entire adult life has been negatively affected by his childhood.

Ozon originally planned Grâce à Dieu as a documentary, and the screenplay is based on much of his own research, including interviewing the founders of La Parole Libérée. Although the film's central trio are fictional composites, the sequence of events is closely based on real-life, whilst both Preynat and Barbarin are very real, with Preynat (who has now been defrocked, with a criminal trial pending) believed to have up to 85 boys over a thirty 30-year period, most between the ages of 9 and 12.

It's a broadly dispassionate film, and one of the results of Ozon's shunning of directorial flourishes is that there's never anything even remotely sensationalistic. However, although his flamboyant inventiveness is largely absent, the narrative structure is aesthetically interesting. Rather than telling the stories of Alexandre, François, and Emmanuel concurrently, Ozon structures the film in the style of a relay, giving the narrative over to each of them in turn. So at the end of act one, Alexandre meets François, who then takes the narrative reigns, with Alexandre largely absent from act two. François, in turn, then gives way to Emmanuel. Of course, there is overlap, and towards the end, Alexandre re-emerges as the protagonist, but what this style allows for is a slightly different story-telling technique for each man. Alexandre's act is largely epistolary, with the letters between himself and Barbarin read in voiceover. The formality of such a style nicely captures his formal relationship with the Church - he has no desire for a public scandal and believes in going through the proper channels. Once the far more bullish and theatrical François takes over, the style becomes more confrontational (at one point, Alexandre has to talk him out of hiring a plane to sky-draw a above the Cathédrale Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Lyon, one of the film's few moments of levity). Then, in the third section, which focuses on the emotionally fragile Emmanuel, the film is at its most empathetic, with the formality of the first section and the rugged directness of the second replaced with a stronger sense of humanism and emotionality. In a film noticeable for its director's formal restraint, it's a well-handled and subtle way of matching form to content without necessarily foregrounding it. This structure also lends itself to exploring the psychological specificity of each man, making for a more ruminative narrative than would have been possible via concurrent editing.

This is important because Ozon is also interested in the mechanics of healing, with all three men dealing with their experiences in different ways, which, in and of itself, reminds us that whilst we tend to think of outrages such as this with a kind of collective mentality, the actual scars of abuse are as unique as each victim is from one another. Although Alexandre found strength in his faith, he has been forced to compartmentalise ("this is about morality, not faith"), which has put him constantly on the defensive about how his actions are not intended as a form of attack against the Church, arguing "it's about justice, not revenge" and "I'm doing this for the church, not against it", as he points out that "families need to know the Church will always protect children". However, whereas Alexandre reaffirms his faith, François rejects his, arguing, "my faith is human, not Catholic hypocrisy", and whilst Alexandre urges forgiveness, François argues, "if you forgive him, you'll be his prisoner forever". For Emmanuel, the process of healing seems barely to have begun, if it ever will. However, the film is especially unequivocal in asserting that for all three men, and by extension all victims of childhood sexual abuse, the trauma will never leave them, it's a part of who they are, not necessarily the main part, but a part nonetheless, a part with which they will always wrestle, with references to how "the burden of silence is heavy to lift" and how difficult it is to "live in the shadow of what he did".

From a more critical standpoint, Ozon overuses the epistolary format in the first act. I understand why he went with this approach, as (apart from establishing Alexandre's more formal relationship with the Church) it has to lay down a lot of background. But, for me, he goes overboard - at times the first act feels less like a coherent narrative held together by the epistolary form and more like a series of letters occasionally interrupted by "on-screen" events. This creates an occasional sense of dramatic inertia that wouldn't be a problem in a non-visual medium, but which can drag a film down. The film also occasionally finds it difficult to escape its origins as a documentary, with some scenes, notwithstanding the universally superb acting, feeling more like respectful yet clinical reconstructions rather than scenes in a narrative drama hoping for a degree of emotional connection. The fact that the case is still ongoing also robs the film of a natural structure, as if the story ends before we get to what we would expect to constitute the final act, and one wonders if perhaps Ozon wouldn't have been better waiting until the conclusion of the criminal trial.

But given the overall strength of the non-intrusive direction, the brilliance of the acting, and the clearheaded portrayal of such an emotive topic, criticising Ozon for such things seems almost churlish. Less procedural than the investigative journalism-basis of Spotlight, Grâce à Dieu is no less honest or unsettling a film. It may be too controlled for some, whilst the measured pacing and hefty subject matter will undoubtedly put off others. Nevertheless, uncharacteristically solemn for Ozon, it is another important document on a subject that, sadly, seems unlikely to go away any time soon.

This is a powerful and very disturbing movie based on true facts; the movie is extremely well directed and the key characters' performance is stunning. The film throws a punch in the stomach without wallowing in the details of the sexual scandals, but rather focusing on the devastating consequences of sexual abuse had on children and on their subsequent lives. And, as if that weren't enough, another wave of emotional impact comes when the victims, after long internal struggle, decide to come out and denounce the facts to the public; this has bring massive tensions to themselves and their families. Director and actors deliver an outside performance in rendering such deeply emotional situations in a very dramatic and realistic fashion. You wonder walk out of the cinema without being profoundly touched by this story.

On the surface, this is an impressive movie. It is meticulously scripted and covers much ground with regard to the case of French Catholic priest accused of child sexual abuse. Writer-director Francois Ozon also manages to assemble a competent cast of actors for the various roles like Josiane Balasko as Irene, mother of one of the victims. My problem with this film is its very clinical approach, which may have its strengths; however, i did not find myself moved, touched or feeling sympathy for the characters when i should have been experiencing those emotions while watching the movie. By the end, instead of feeling emotionally walloped, i was left cold. And while the film is stylishly done, nothing stands out other than the shocking expose of the Catholic church which however is nothing new for anyone who has followed the news. For its various merits, this film deserves praise while from this disappointed viewer, the film receives grace.

This film deals with a French topical subject with subtlety and sensitivity: in a general way, the trial of the Catholic Church against pedophilia and more particularly, that of Father Preynat and Cardinal Barbarin. It highlights an anger (and/or a deep malaise, according to the characters) at first latent then more and more perceptible. The analogy with the American movie Spotlight (2015) is obvious, the main subject being the same; but the way of revealing the truth differs.

As a synthesis: very good actors directed by a François Ozon as sober as efficient.

This movie details the story of each main character, but it ends up being very long.

The story is good and compelling, I have no doubt that it happened in real life, it has excellent character development but that makes the film very long. The movie is basically about even though the sexual abuse stories are different, they have many things in common, including the trauma it leaves the victims and how their entire lives change because of it. The ending seemed very weak compared to the development of the stories, it was not very satisfactory. This film is also a critique of the silence of the church in the face of complaints of sexual abuse by priests and how these complaints are treated in the religious community and in society in general.

It may seem boring and pointless, but for me it is a story of courage, trauma and admiration for the victims who speak out.

I saw "By the Grace of God" at the Philadelphia Film Festival and although I'd never consider it an enjoyable film, it's a necessary film...one you really should see. While there have been other films about pedophile priests, and why not since the problem seems so universal, this one is not a documentary but instead makes a few tweaks for cinematic sake...though the facts are essentially true.

In addition to being an important film, director Ozon also crafted it well and managed to get excellent and realistic performances from the cast. In other words, the victims seemed real...not like actors. Overall, an amazingly well made film...one of the better ones I've seen in recent years.

This film would have been better as a documentary, as concrete people do not mix very well with fictionalised characters. That the characters are mainly composites, leaves a lot of choice for the director, Francois Ozon, to omit certain areas. Two examples; the wife of one of the characters suffered sexual abuse but not within the church. She has only a very short time to admit this to another victim played excellently by Swann Arlaud. In the scenario of this film, only heterosexual males are singled out, and this becomes evident in a key scene, again given too little screen time. That of a character called Didier played superbly by Pierre Lottin (the screen suddenly came vividly to life). He is a youngish man wrecked by the church and its hierarchy, and the sexual offence committed against him by a priest as a child. He has lost outwardly and inwardly, even condemning his own homosexual brother who committed suicide because of a similar assault. He is homophobic and real whereas the others, and there are three who are concentrated on, do not venture into that taboo and unfortunately believable area. Melvil Poupard is initially the main character, well adjusted but disturbed. The focus then shifts towards a second and ultimately to a third, excellently portrayed by Swann Arlaud. Like Didier he has lost out because of church sexual abuse, but he does find a sort of release in joining in with the others when a decision is made to prosecute the church. Personally I found him as well as Didier to be burning indictments of the Catholic Church and its hierarchy. France holds its church highly in its societal and cultural life, but I wished that Ozon in his rather cold direction had stoked the fire against the church more, and allowed other voices than the heterosexual male to do so. A good film that in my opinion could have been longer and risked audience impatience (Jacques Rivette did it before him in other subject matter to great respect). In doing so he could have taken the risk to include in his fictional area the sufferings of other sexualities when they are abused, especially by an institution that cements so much of France together.

This is a very important film, discussing important area of French politics. There is much care and great resolve for the things depicted on screen. I'm unsure if I could watch it again because it is a very hard film to watch, but I fascinated by the way it all unfolded. Great look in-depth

I must admit that actors are good.

The story, unfortunately true and unpleasant is the backbone of the scenario.

The direction however, is dull, weak and lame. The director should have emphasised way more on the emotional part, digging into it.

Instead, he revealed every 10 minutes a new victim, over and over, without much interest (a little bit like when I open my mail, filled with dullness and invoices).

My grade: 3/3 for acting 3/3 for the unpleasant story of how old-fashion is the catholic church 1/1 for not including Woke, Gay couples or cancel culture 0/3 for direction.

I have followed the events described in this movie through the French press and internet. I knew therefore about the facts and they did not appear as a revelation to me. What surprised me was the quality of the movie. It was very good. It was not an attack towards the institution of the Catholic Church per se. Nevertheless it is critical towards the Church and not as balanced and neutral as it wants to appear. I think that many people will evaluate the film based on their gut feeling for the Catholic Church. The faithful will be offended disbelieving the veracity of the offenses described and attributing them to a hostility against the institution while those in the other end of the spectrum will be happy to see how corrupt the Church really is confirming thus their pre-conceived notions.

Artistically though I consider this movie slightly superior to the Ocsar winning "Spotlight" which dealt with a similar case although on a grander scale and through the view of the investigating journalists rather than the victims. I watched it at the cinema of my neighborhood the first day it opened in Greece. I think that the established film critics of the Athenian press mildly underrated it. This has a positive aspect because when I watched it myself I was pleasantly surprised by the overall quality of the movie. We were only six in the theatre understandable perhaps because it was Thursday. Greeks are relatively pious by European Union standards and perhaps piety deterred them from going to such a movie. On the other hand they are mostly adherents of the Orthodox variety of Christianity and therefore consider Roman Catholics somewhat heretical and thus they would be glad to watch their dirty linen washed in public. Sociological explanation cuts both ways but personally I wish it finds a large audience in Greece and worldwide because it has the artistic quality and the social concern required to touch thinking people conversant with the problems relevant to excessive deference towards ecclesiastical authority.

The subject matter here, following three men who suffered abuse as children by a Catholic priest, their search for justice years later and the scandal of how the church handled theirs and other cases, is one that urgently needed to be told. It's not an easy watch, but is astonishing in its detail and the visceral reality of its performances, and is brilliantly directed by Francois Ozon. It's an important film, though you might end up worn down by the awful detail, as it is unflinching. Perhaps too it may be a little overlong, but that's small criticism for an impressive work.

A film about a typical French rich super traditional elite bourgeois family. Except for the pedophllie problem, it seems to play out 30 years ago.

By The Grace Of God (Gráce à Dieu) (2018) -

I did find it interesting that this film hadn't been classified as a Biopic on IMDB or as Historical either. I'm not sure who, if anyone, that it would be to protect. The victims have all been very forthright with their experiences, so it is unlikely to be them.

And I can only imagine what these various families all went through, because as another reviewer stated, this film was a bit clinical. With the exception of a few moments of really passionate feelings, it wasn't a particularly emotional piece and I have to wonder if that was a deliberate choice on the production teams part, because I actually thought that the film was very good and I could see how it might have become boggy if everyone was shown balling their eyes out in every other scene. I certainly didn't think that it would have all fitted in to the concise and well paced film that was delivered if they had been dramatically pausing and bearing their souls over and over and it may have become boring. That's not to say that their stories weren't important or challenging, but just that seeing each victim's account might have become a bit repetitive.

But I liked the way that it was filmed in what seemed to be three acts, as each of the lead victims came in to the film. It kept me interested as each new man had a slightly different take on things.

It sounds incredibly wrong to say that I enjoyed this film, but what I meant was that I enjoyed how well it was made and how empowering it felt. Their was definitely a spark to this one, an X factor that was engaging.

I did have to wonder how these perverted people were still getting away with this so recently? And I felt that the church still had and has way too much sway in a world that has clearly been no better for its presence and sometimes a lot worse.

All the way through this film, I felt that Cardinal Barbarin was probably as guilty of the vile acts as the main offender Preynat, especially as he seemed to always have an excuse for him, but I did like the balance that they showed on Preynat's part, in the fact that he asked for help from the church and was denied it. That didn't really defend his actions, but there had to be a small amount of sympathy shown to him for at least trying to be a better person, who was also let down by the church.

It would be easily comparable to 'Floodlights' (2022), which focussed on Andy Woodward, a footballer abused within the sport's community and the subsequent battles to see justice done with regards to his abuser. Another institute that kept and continues to keep things locked away and covered up.

I was surprised by how much this film left a mark on me, although I have never faced anything even vaguely like it, I did feel that I could easily empathise with these people for wanting justice to be done.

720.22/1000.

Saw this at the Berlinale 2019, where it was part of the official Competition. It did not win the 1st prize, the golden bear, but instead the 2nd in line: the Silver Bear Grand Jury Prize. Strong visualization of building a legal case against a priest who abused children in summer camps on a regular basis some 20 to 30 years ago. What is shown in a perfect way is that each victum has struggled with what overcame him, but each in his own private way. No one was prepared to listen at the time. Some still suffer the consequences, again each in his own way. Some become normal citizens with a job, a family and still going to church. Others cope with persistent problems, without a proper job and without a family. And all combinations thereof. Compelling story telling fills over two hours without a problem.

The first main protagonist has a family with 5 children, all going to church and receiving the sacraments. Within his family he is very open about what happened to him when he was a boy scout. They talk about it (with all children attending), how he felt once seeing the offending priest in question still active in mass and confirmation classes. It was a trigger to start writing letters to the official contact person for these matters. As a result, meetings take place with minutes made. His case is handled proficiently and professionally by that contact person, following-up with replies, establishing contacts with the priest in question, later with higher echelons in the church hierarchy. Even two of his sons have a meeting with the superior of the priest. Every meeting runs its course in a polite and peaceful way.

The interaction with the church officials went much better than I had assumed beforehand, but still the case falters after some time and for no obvious reason. Seeing the priest still serving mass, he leaves church together with his family, explicitly stating that he does not want communion to be served out of the hands of that priest. Not knowing what else to do, he files an official complaint with the district attorney. To demonstrate that his case is not unique, he talks with a fellow participant of the summer camps where most of the sexual contacts took place, attempting to convince him to file a complaint too. Alas, he has troubles to follow suit and is unwilling to go to the police. The case seems to get a dead end.

Separately, others chime in and also file complaints with the police. They hear that someone else did the same before them but have no clue who it was. From that moment on, the story takes off, the addresses of other summer camp participants are collected and are phoned up. A few times they get only an indifferent response, while others show hefty reactions like bursting into tears. We follow some of them in the story, to show their attitudes and their motivation to follow suit, or conversely why they refuse to act.

New for me, even an eye opener, was that we also see how the case develops within the church hierarchy. It turns out that the church bureaucracy perfectly knew what was going on. Even worse, the priest in question had frequently reported that he had problems with children, but he persistenly got jobs where he could not avoid them, even in summer camps with ample young boys around and where he had all freedom to do what he wanted. The church deemed the priest very charismatic, preaching very well, and thus bringing in a lot of very desperately needed finances. For the church officials it was thus very difficult to dismiss his services, or even to defrock him. Their actions confined to moving him around several places but letting him keep his role in mass, sacraments and confirmation classes. The latter activity offered him ample opportunities for extra lessons on an individual basis, hence new opportunities for sexual activities with boys entrusted to him.

I could not avoid remembering an earlier movie with a strongly related theme, namely Le silence des eglises / The Silence of the Church (2013) by Edwin Baily. There are considerable differences, however, due to the 2013-one having only one boy and one priest as main protagonists. This new 2019-one has a reverse setup, focusing on a single priest and his hierarchy, with the abused boys taking action after 20 years. Still, similar is the instruction to the victims to keep it a secret or telling them that they are selected out of the group and treated as a favorite. Also similar is the denial by parents, teachers and other educators, as they cannot imagine that the priest who does so much good work and who is loved by everyone, can be suspected of something evil like sex with minors. And both movies show that the immediate as well as the lasting effects can be very different for each of the boys, some even killing themselves as their only escape to avoid the unwanted sexual advances.

All in all, both movies show a contemporary theme that has come in the open after decades of hiding. This one also shows the side of the church bureaucracy and their staffing problems, given a shortage on priests and hoping that denial and switching places moves the problem away. The story telling in this movie is very strong and keeps our attention for two hours without a problem.

French drama with three men pursuing legal and church justice as well as media exposure in seeking the prosecution and defrocking of the Catholic priest who sexually abused the men when they were small boys.

Sharply written, this comes across as realistic and believable and whilst the damage caused to the men's lives is obvious, the film cleverly avoids obvious melodramatic traps. This is also extended to the character of the priest who is portrayed somewhat sympathetically, who confesses his sins at the outset and is sorry for his crimes - this clearly does not though invalidate the crime or the men's quest.

The three men, each very different, wants to pursue the priest in different ways but come together to challenge both the priest and the church and it is here that the villains are drawn out with Cardinals, church infrastructure and indeed Catholic Church goers more intent on saving the church and brushing everything under the rug, rather than punishing and acknowledging their great sins. It really does boil the blood which of course is the intention. A good script, gently crafted, it remains tense and annoying.

Story of the priest and child sex abuse in France in the early 1980s. Uses professional actors, who act their roles very very well. Follows an accurate timeline established by real facts. Does not sensationalize it nor adds emotional content with a sweeping musical score. The feel is very realistic, almost like a documentary. It portrays individual courage to overcome fears of being seen as an outcast in public. Small attention to details really make this a great film, such as the bureaucratic police office, with noise in the background, distractions, people walking by. Not your typical Hollywood movie, which would have had more emotion, more music in the background, more drama. The overall effect is a production that is very sensitive to all involved.

I did not know much about the events portrayed in this film but they were portrayed with a great deal of sensitivity. The acting was superb on all counts. All of the leads were superb and it really brings to light the subject of child sexual abuse and church. It also asks and answers questions about child sexual abuse. It leaves no stone unturned.

Director's name is François Ozon. Osons, in French, means let us dare. And the subject of this awesome movie is of course very daring, especially when the real names of the child molester priest and his "supervisor" Cardinal Barbarin are used in the film. Read the trivia line above and you'll get the whole explanation about it. And the particularity of this film is that you have many interesting supporting characters, characters whom the director emphasizes on in the most excellent manner. Acting is superb, so the directing.

Even though the movie doesn't keep up the pace all the time, is great, very emotional without being stupid. And please do not send you children to church or to boy scout camps.

The film is a good confirmation of the abuse of several priests over innocent children. Its values are of showing the misery of criminals and the hypocrisy of their bosses trying to cover these shameless acts. This abuse will remain till the church supresses ancient celibate, but it will tale time present Pope does not seem to have the courage for such suppression. The consequences of the abuse go beyond the physical ones, they have a long-term negative moral efectts on those persons ego suffered the abuse.

Sexual abuse of minors is their possible and certain eternal ruin once they become adults. With this film, based on real events, we have the certainty that it is so. It is a film about the story of victims who were abused by a priest from Lyon. The victims were children who were often raped repeatedly secretly, especially when they were going scouting in the woods. The victims became, then as adults, reunited and founded an association to denounce the priest himself and to send a message to the whole world. In particular, one victim who suffered more than the others, was Emmanuel, a man who due to abuse, now grown up, has neither family nor work, so traumatized by those events he had lived, so very unfair events , squalid and immoral. I find it is not a walk to watch this movie, but it really has a lot to tell us.

Though it is a scripted drama and not a documentary, this film tells the entirely true story of a pedophilia scandal within the French catholic Church. Specifically the film chronicles the increasingly desperate efforts by the Church hierarchy to cover up, minimise, obfuscate, and generally put the toothpaste back into the tube, all the while pretending to do the exact opposite.

It's a really accomplished, well-paced and watchable telling of a remarkable story. The point of view shifts successively to each of the three principal characters (all victims), and each story is told in depth but with very little time wasted on unnecessary subplots, scripted cliches, or artificially-created dramatic tension. As a result the film is always engaging and doesn't feel long.

A wonderful movie because it does three things; 1) SHOWS HOW VICIOUSLY ANTI HUMAN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH REALLY IS; 2) SHOWS HOW A CATHOLIC POPULATION, AS IN THE MOVIE CENTERED IN THE CITY OF LYON, FRANCE, CAN MANAGE TO AVOID FACING REALITY BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY CATHOLICISM TO IGNORE REALITY IN FAVOR OF FRAUDULENT FANTASY; AND 3) how difficult it is even for good people to get up the courage to fight this evil church which for almost 2000 years has practiced fraud, deception, and bigotry to keep it going.

If you're used to the clever Hitchcockian thrillers Francois Ozon usually gives us, then "By the Grace of God" will almost certainly come as something of a shock and not just because he's dealing with a profoundly serious subject, (paedophilia within the Catholic Church), but also because of the style he's adopted. We are introduced to the subject from the outset but through a series of letters, e-mails and face-to-face meetings divided into three chapters, each linked by a victim of one abusing priest. This is drama done almost like a fly-on-the-wall documentary and is all the more moving for it with performances by all concerned so naturalistic as to go beyond mere 'acting', (Swann Arlaud won a Cesar for his performance).

We are told at the beginning that this is a work of fiction but based on facts and it happens in the recent past, during the papacy of Pope Francis, which is telling; has the Church's attitudes changed that much or is this institution still protecting its own. Ozon, who knows how to make a good thriller, makes a brilliant thriller here without betraying his subject in any way; some scenes I found almost unbearably moving. Perhaps, indeed, this is the kind of film Hitchcock could have or should have made in another time and place but, of course, these things were never talked about then, allowing this culture of abuse to flourish. This very important film may well be the best thing Ozon has done to date.