We should strive to keep our hearts open to the sufferings and wretchedness of other people, and pray continually that God may grant us that spirit of compassion which is truly the spirit of God. Saint Vincent de Paul.

Monsieur Vincent (1947), directed by Maurice Cloche, won the 1948 Special Achievement Academy Award, which was the precursor of the Best Foreign Film Award, with which most readers will already be familiar. Were it not for that fact, I likely would never have gotten around to watching this worthy biography of the man who was later beatified (in 1729) and canonized (in 1737) as Saint Vincent de Paul. By way of disclosure, I should probably state that I am not a Christian nor do I subscribe to any other religion. Chances are you will never encounter another review of this film by a reviewer who is not also passionately (or at least semi-passionately) religious. I came across just two reviews of this film on the internet, one of which was clearly associated with a Christian perspective and the other likely so. Monsieur Vincent is, after all, one of just fifteen films listed on the Vatican film list in the category of “Religion.” Let me add that I am also not anti-religious in so far as the beliefs of any individual person may happen to coincide with those of a particular organized religion. I’ll respect your beliefs and either engage in mutual exchange of viewpoints or not as you choose. I am anti-religion, however, to the extent that any particular religion engages in aggressive evangelizing or proselytizing and especially when religion is used as pretext for repression of or violence against those outside of that religion. I value the cultural aspects associated with various religions, such as liturgical classical music and religious art works of the renaissance. It is in this frame of mind that I approached my viewing of Monsieur Vincent.

Historical Background: Vincent de Paul was born at Pouy, Gascony, France in 1580 (or possibly 1576). He died in Paris in 1660. He was born into a peasant family but received education, studying humanities at Dax and theology at Toulouse, leading to his ordainment in 1600. He remained at Toulouse where he was engaged as a tutor for the children of aristocrats. He traveled to Marseilles in 1605 to receive an inheritance but on his return trip by ship he was captured by Turkish pirates and sold into slavery in Tunis. He made exceptionally good use of his theological training, however, converting his master and escaping to France with him in 1607. After a brief period as a papal vice-legate in Rome, he returned to France in 1609 and became alminer to Queen Marguerite of Valois, living in a small Abbey at Saint-Léonard-de-Chaume. Later, he took charge of the Clichy parish near Paris at the request of Monsieur de Berulle. In 1612, he became the tutor of the children of Philippe-Emmanuel de Gondi, an illustrious French nobleman. He provided spiritual guidance for Mme. de Gondi and, with her support, initiated missions for the poor on her estates. During this time he also was appointed curé of Chatillon-les-Dombes where he founded the first conference of charity for helping the poor. It is at this point in his career that the film takes up his story.

The Story: St. Vincent de Paul’s unique gift was his devotion to helping the poor and downtrodden while himself enjoying the confidence and admiration of the nobility as an advisor to queens and princes. He was thus uniquely situated to marshal the resources of the wealthy toward the purpose of beneficence to the poor. As much as any one person, Vincent de Paul advanced the idea of organized Christian charities that persist down to present times. Although individual acts of kindness and charity had always been a part of Christian teachings, it was Vincent de Paul who awakened social consciousness to the need of the poor for more organized and systematic charitable efforts. His influence spread from his own parishes to those in Joigny, Châlons, Mâcon and Trévoux, and ultimately throughout France and into other European countries. He marshaled men and women of capacity and resources and taught them how to care for the most needy members of society.

Monsieur Vincent is not about glamorizing the destitute masses or placing the entire blame for their condition on the wealthy. One mother, for example, entreats Monsieur Vincent for food, saying that it is for her children and declaring “I don’t expect anything for myself.” Then, as soon as Monsieur Vincent has indicated that she may come every day, we see her in the next segment greedily eating the first loaf of bread she is able to get her hands on while ignoring her children. The special quality of St. Vincent was that he was devoted to caring for the poor despite fully understanding their limitations. He urged his followers to view the poor as their masters – “masters who are terribly insensitive and demanding, dirty and ugly, unjust and foul-mouthed.”

Although the wealthy, as depicted in this film, are awash in earthly resources, their level of moral depravity is comparable, in its own way, to that of the poor. Monsieur Vincent organizes a group of noblewomen into the Ladies of Charity, but soon these women are more interested in what they will wear during their missions and in the exclusivity of their clique. Later, Vincent discovers that women of somewhat lesser station have more to offer in the way of the tangible skills needed in ministering to the needy, and thus organizes the Daughters of Charity comprised of women of lesser station. St. Vincent’s charity ultimately extended to the poor, prison inmates, galley workers, refugees, the elderly, and the unemployed.

Monsieur Vincent works effectively as film biography partly because it avoids getting caught up in biographical details. Much of the life work of St. Vincent is merely hinted at through vignettes, yet by the end of the film, one pretty much understands what this man stood for and the single-minded purpose with which he approached his commitment to aiding the needy.

Themes: The theme of the film is, of course, the importance of charity in alleviating human suffering. In most respects, we are no better at charitable provision for the poor today than was human society when St. Vincent was living. We debate the relative value of governmental social programs vs. religion-based charities and while the debate goes on, the poorest members of our society suffer hunger, homelessness, lack of health care, and neglect in general.

Poverty is, of course, a complex problem with multiple antecedents. Some of it is societally imposed by exploitive labor conditions, discrimination, and lack of opportunity. Another portion of the problem derives from personal limitations that are beyond the control of individuals, such as sickness, disabilities, mental retardation, or mental illnesses. A third factor is limitations of human character for which each person must assume personal responsibility. Society’s responsibility, in my opinion, is to address especially the first two aspects of the problem. Most destitute people would far prefer not to subsist on charity and need only adequate opportunity. In the words that close the film Monsieur Vincent, “It is only because of your love, your love alone, that the poor will forgive you for the bread you give them.” Most poor people want only the ability to earn bread for themselves. Lacking that opportunity, they must accept what charity provides, but accept it without true joy or even with resentment.

Charity and beneficent actions of all types toward others is one broad category of moral behavior. The other broad category of moral consideration in human behavior is doing no harm. Christian dogma concerns itself with both kinds of moral guidance. The so-called Golden Rule, for example, suggests a kind of guidance for positive actions while the Ten Commandments focus on moral proscriptions. My personal opinion is that shortcomings of human morality are far more often related to failing to do no harm than in failing to provide beneficence. I subscribe to the physician’s credo, in effect: “First do no harm.” Then, if and when you’ve mastered that much, give some thought to acts of charity. The first responsibility of society in relation to poverty, in my opinion, is to eliminate the institutionalized forms of poverty – to ensure that nothing about the structure of society imposes poverty. That includes adequate protections against economic exploitation (sub-poverty wages, lack of universal health care, sweatshops, inadequate educational opportunity, etc.) and institutionalized discrimination. First do not harm! Then, offer what level of genuine charity that good will and resources permit.

Now, having watched this film about St. Vincent as well as reading two short biographical sketches about him in preparing to write this review, I find myself torn a bit between admiration for the man and his good works but reinforcement of my doubts about the psychological healthiness of religious piety as a foundation for one’s life. It is statements like the following (by St. Vincent) that I find misguided: “The first step to be taken by one who wishes to follow Christ is, according to Our Lord’s own words, that of renouncing himself – that is, his own senses, his own passions, his own will, his own judgment, and all the movements of nature, making to God a sacrifice of all these things, and of all their acts, which are surely sacrifices very acceptable to the Lord.” I can’t agree. We are all that we are – our passions, our intellects, our consciences, our compassion for others. The trick, in my opinion, is to integrate all of the aspects of self, not to sacrifice one element for another. I can’t speak of what is or is not acceptable to “the Lord”, but what is in accordance with nature is to embrace all that we are and out of that totality to find the best of an integrated human nature.

Production Values: The strongest aspect of Monsieur Vincent as a film is the superlative performance turned in by Pierre Fresnay in the lead role as Vincent de Paul. Fresnay was a well-known and highly-regarded actor of his day. He appeared in Fanny (1932), and The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934), but he is best known for his great performance in the magnificent film Grand Illusion (1937). That performance by itself would have established him as a great actor, but his performance here in Monsieur Vincent effectively drives the point home.

The direction for this film is also very good. Maurice Cloche avoided the pitfalls that are inevitable in filming a biography of a great person, keeping the story entertaining rather than being overly concerned with working in every detail of the subject’s life.

Bottom-Line: As a work of art, Monsieur Vincent is very good although less than a cinematographic masterpiece. For those who are especially attuned to the study of the lives of the Saints or who find such study inspiring, this film will have higher value than my rating suggests. I have given it three stars but could very well see it being four stars for someone with strong Christian attachments. Monsieur Vincent won a total of ten international awards at the time of its release, though it has largely fallen out of public consciousness since. It is in French with English subtitles. It is filmed in black-and-white and has a running time of 100 minutes.

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: VHS
Video Occasion: Good for Groups
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 9 - 12