Q‘u is what we did to God? : comedy on the pitch is unlikely in which a couple of old bourgeois sees three of his four daughters to marry a jew, an arab, and a chinese.
Their last daughter decides to marry a black.
That is what we did to god? therefore it allows the viewer to laugh at the everyday racism without worrying about good or bad conscience, the film being validated by a legal entity that are assumed to be in favour of the community gathering.
There is, therefore, to introduce the ethnicity of each character (and, incidentally, every religion), by the shots.
Except that the film is limited to the presentation without taking back : two bourgeois, their four daughters, a jew, an arab, a chinese, a black.
To maintain the simplicity of the characterization, their personalities will not be, therefore, that the poorly developed (a max scene each), as well as their origins.
Our characters do evolve, therefore, not psychologically, but will however, be adapted to each situation.
In reality, the presupposed openness of mind quickly becomes a search for the common interest, which corrupts significantly the positive impact of the film.
The writers seem to have sacrificed the moral of their movie on the altar of easy humor and empty of meaning ; they gain in accessibility what they lose in depth.
It was unfortunately the impression of being in front of a “formula of success at the box office,” rather than a film sincere : it takes a topical subject, the racism, it brings together some ideas from the last success of public, of Dany Boon to the Untouchables, we add to the actors ‘ bankables and popular spectrum humorous expanded (Keyboard, franco-franchouillard ; Lauby, quirky humor of the Dummies), a casting eclectic, a touch of femininity fantasy ( the very enhancement Elodie Fontan), a hint of the exotic (the Charles family), and voila.
We are in the presence of a comedy of “ethnic”… For white bourgeois.
![[critique] Qu’est-ce qu’on a fait au Bon Dieu?](http://penelopethemovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/critique-qu-est-ce-qu-on-a-fait-au-bon-dieu-2.jpg)
With regard to the two headliners, we can see that Chantal Lauby, is little more than a argue for a Christian Keyboard free wheel, which re-uses its mimicry to 20 years ago.
The rest of the cast female is generally interchangeable, despite the seeming personality of each – the depressed, the “bitch” sensitive, Frédérique “blonde”, Beautiful…
However, the chemistry between the first three sons-in-law is real and relatively funny.
It is served by three actors good enough. The humor works thanks to the personification of the everyday racism that takes on a meaning more powerful when used by other cultures and other references as ours. In addition, the script allows the three sons-in-law a real bond and a semblance of social interaction.
The last, Charles, will not be really right in those respects. Emphasis will be placed on his family rather than him, specifically the relationship between the two patriarchs, interpreted by Christian clavier as well as Pascal Does Zonzi constantly in excess and the surjeu.
Unnecessary and ridiculous caméos make their appearance (the pk), the other characters are clichés, over-interpreted (the priest, necessarily effémine, the banker necessarily a bad thing…)
In short. A casting partially convincing served by a design of characters making the best of the shots, the identification easy, fast and without psychology.
”a comedy, well-written, moderately interpreted, the moral of which would be :
I’m not RACIST : I have very good black friends.”
The staging, soft and with no claim to the image of a tv movie, is accentuated by a music as a fiddler in desire and constantly off topic.
There is also a real rhythm problem caused by the repetition in the first three quarters of the film, of the same pattern story : or it gives us details about the privacy of each of the different couples ; subsequently gathered at the scene of the meal, or everyone has the leisure of insulting more or less finely the other.
A program is fairly linear and without surprise, that the dialogues are rather well written, failing to be funny.
Also, the last part of the film, the introduction of Charles and his family suffers from the syndrome of “text too much writing”. As an incursion by the writers and dialogue writers gifted in a culture that we don’t really know. Where some inconsistencies and excesses of personalities, finally present only to allow the film to continue on its way to a happy-end predictability unsettling.
This could be a good social comedy about the relationship to the other, and opening minds (the Untouchables, chtis) or the reverse, a comedy evil high but assumed (Starting point)…
Instead, it is in front of a comedy, well-written, moderately interpreted, the moral of which would be :
“I’m not RACIST : I have very good black friends.”
• Realization : Philippe de Chauveron
• Scenario : Philippe de Chauveron, Guy Laurent
• Main actors : Christian clavier, Chantal Lauby, Frederique Bel, Ary Abittan, Medi Sadoun, Frédéric Chau
• Country of origin : France
• Released : April 16, 2014
• Duration : 1h37mn
• Distributor : UGC Distribution
• Synopsis : Claude and Marie Verneuil, from the large bourgeoisie catholique provinciale, are parents rather “old France”. But they are still required to be open-minded…The pills were, however, quite difficult to swallow when their first daughter married a muslim, their second a jew and a third chinese.
Their hopes of finally seeing one of them marry in church are crystallized so on the younger, which, hallelujah, just met a good catholic.