«What have we done to God to deserve this?

«I can't stand France anymore; it's full of lazy, jealous people.»

The famous family of mixed marriages is back. If the Verneuils, good bourgeois catholic provincials with a touch of racism, had to accept in What have we done to God? the foreign spouses of their four daughters - a Muslim Algerian, a Sephardic Jew, a Chinese man and an Ivorian - they now have to convince them to stay in France. Each of them wants to leave the country and return to their homeland. They've had enough of France and its ethnic stereotypes. 

«If our sons-in-law no longer love France, we'll make them love France.» The mission was launched. Between blunders and storms, the family adventure continues. And let's not forget the Koffis, who, like the Verneuils, will have to be very open-minded in the face of the surprising upheaval that is about to take place in their family. 

How is this possible?

From the very first moments, the film is a heavyweight. We meet up with the whole mixed family. The jokes come thick and fast. The bad surprise: they're mediocre, and leave more of a grimace of disappointment than a smile on the face. More than heavy-handed, the film is heavy-handed. And we're only at the beginning. The worst is yet to come. The excellent comedy that was What have we done to God? falls into disrepair with a What have we done to the good Lord? arrogant, annoying and moronic. 

How is this possible? How can the same team that delighted cinemas manage to ruin their image by delivering nonsense to an audience that has already bought in? It seems that authenticity is everything. Totally present in the first film, totally absent from the second. Philippe de Chauveron's direction was a stroke of genius, daring to tackle the themes of mixed marriage and racism with candor and bonhomie.

Admittedly, the film ended in a vein that could be considered politically correct. But so what? What have we done to God? was funny, sympathetic and well acted. And although it ended with a gentle reconciliation in which everyone came to accept the stranger, it nonetheless conveyed the resentment of so many French people with lightness, humor and brio. 

Because they're so much fun!

In What have we done to the good Lord?, The script, direction and acting have gone from comic authenticity to unfunny trickery. Drunk with the phenomenal and well-deserved success of the first film, the entire team thought they were so great that they caricatured everything and rushed into unimaginative and unconvincing repetition. 

The actors, especially the four sons-in-law, arrive like stars on a red carpet, overplaying their roles imported from the previous film. They crack jokes with smiles on their faces, because they're so funny! And, of course, they pause between jokes to wait for the audience to laugh. 

The other actors are not to be outdone. Even Claude Verneuil (played by the honorable Christian Clavier), who is still the one who comes off best as André Koffi, is not convincing. He creates an overly grumpy, racist character who's unpleasant with his wife. What's more, he fancies himself a writer, preparing a biography of a poet nobody knows. The idea is good, but its application leaves the bitter taste of a big, ugly erasure in the mouth. 

Just for good measure

What's more, some scenes are so poorly written and acted that they make you feel uncomfortable. Measured to the millimeter to apparently make you laugh, they actually make you want to close your eyes, face hidden in your hands, to limit the devastating effects of the despair going on. In particular, we have to contend with Koffi's daughter dancing on her own, singing in a thick African accent, «Merci Taubira, grâce à toi je vais me marier! That's right, because she's a lesbian and is getting married to an Ivorian living in France. Of course, the stern and conservative patriarch Koffi doesn't know about it. So expect a good laugh. Or not. 

Frankly, it's too much. Ideology overwhelms the film with good feelings. It's not because the film deals with homosexuality, but because it deals with it badly. Grotesquely, the screenwriter seemed to be desperate to make a point about homosexuality. Just to look good. Even if it meant only chewing on the theme three times, only to spit it right back onto the film. Anyway, the film is so great! Why bother?

The compulsion to laugh

What's most despairing, however, is that audiences seem to be caught in the film's trap of arrogance and compulsion to laugh. People actually feel compelled to laugh, crushed by the well-supported and well-remembered notoriety of What have we done to God?The actors, with their excessively sympathetic demeanor, force the audience to stare. It's an unpleasant and saddening feeling. 

All the more so since, during the session, I overheard something during the interval that made me feel even more sick to my stomach: «It's fun, isn't it?» I feel like crying. The general public - the auditorium was packed - no doubt just as disappointed as I was, tried to reassure themselves. Talking to their partner, family or friends, spectators feel obliged to tell themselves that they haven't paid for tickets for nothing, that they've really had a good time. All this, accompanied by a tense smile. 

As harsh as the remark may seem, it must be said that the film as a whole is entirely to blame for betraying an audience, essentially made up of people who don't go to the movies very often - a fault made all the more serious by the fact that they placed their trust in actors they were looking forward to laughing at and forgetting their everyday problems.

What have we done to the good Lord?, a comedy? Do we dare use the term? Even though we're being laughed at? Even as we leave the theater sad and secretly disappointed - just to keep face if we're in a group? No, sorry, not comedy, but an outrageous rip-off. What have we done to God to deserve this?

Write to the author: loris.musumeci@leregardlibre.com

Photo credit: © JMH Distributions