Time after Time

As an American, something that may take getting used to is the fluid French sense of time. Americans are sharp and quite rigid when it comes to time - for instance if a meeting is to start at 9AM - you should be there five minutes before. A dinner party that is announced for 8PM - Americans try to arrive as close to 8PM as possible.

I have spent a lot of time waiting by myself when applying my American standards to French meetings and dinner parties. Once, I arrived first (of course) and was greeted by a "Of course the American arrives at 10AM on the dot! We knew it was you!"

It is hard for me to distinguish between arriving "on time" and "late". I keep extra reading materials with me and prepare to wait, if needed.

As an intern once, I used to wait a good twenty minutes by myself for a weekly office-wide meeting to start. Not wanting to be late - I arrived "on time" but the cultural gap was highly obvious as I sat in the conference room alone, a lot.

Polly Platt sums this up well in her bestseller "French or Foe".

Know your audience, for a dinner party arrive 15 minutes late (otherwise your hosts may not have finished dressing); for business meetings be on time and bring reading materials in case you have to wait.

Almost French ?

What constitutes nationality? Is it simply an act of citizenship? It is personality, experience, years spent in a country? It is whether or not one wants to be something?

I heard a saying that I really liked - it's not that people change in the face of another culture, it is rather that that culture applauds certain behaviors that people already have, or are inclined to... instead of shunning them. The appearance is that someone changes, but in reality - they are allowed to express parts of their personality that possibly they hide otherwise.

Why are we attracted to certain cultures & countries and not others? Why is it that after living somewhere different, we either take part of it with us - or reject it completely? Can we chose to change or not to change?

In the face of what is most different, we see ourselves - more boldly. I have always thought that in traveling - we learn often more about ourselves, our own country than that one in which we are.

I bring this up to discuss some of the thoughts and dialogue brought up here - http://annesinclair.typepad.fr/journal/2008/11/les-us-et-la-fr.html - and in reference to a new new book, entitled I’ll Never be French (No Matter what I do ).

Bittersweet

Having recently devoured Sarah Turnbull's Almost French in a mere three days; this book was an utmost pleasureable experience - I laughed aloud to the point of crying uncontrollably on the bus back from NYC this weekend - she brings to life so many universal experiences of an expat in a country where the language spoken is not your native tongue. She spins stories of going mute rather than doing a disservice to whatever topic it is that you just cant defend in a foreign language, slapping you in the face with the reality that your personality changes when you live in a foreign country; at home you can be funny, outgoing, and incessantly sociable but plucked up and spat back out in un pays etranger: you are now quiet, SHY even, and well lets face it - boring. This is hard to face and even harder to overcome. Living abroad is a constant effort - being truly open to understanding that things just are because its different - is an effort. In one sense, everything is "normal" - it has its place in its own culture, history, and location. It can be explained, whether or not you agree - and more often than not - its works.

I also found myself shaking my head violently in agreement to the notion that once you leave home; something is always missing and it will be forever bittersweet. You always miss somewhere, someone, something even - and you become the mathematical formula of many things added to many other things, sometimes divided by a factor - or multiplied by another factor (even subtracting a few qualities, likes... to create, to equate to - a new you, a different you. Its then up to you how these mesh together.

Every experience changes us - sometimes we want to retreat back to the former, but when we visit it - we realize it no longer looks the same: as we now no longer are the same. I've always loved the saying that you dont step in the same river twice. Life changes you - if you let it is what most people say - rather I think life changes you - if you have the courage to admit that it does.

BURQA-tastrophe

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11751650

I read the above article this morning and was instantly flustered, frustrated and angered. This is a sophisticated and complex issue and I do not pretend to have the answers. I do however, have opinions on the subject.

I think that nationality cannot be denied to someone because of a piece of cloth. For a laic state, the burqa can be nothing more than a piece of cloth - as religion does not play a role in the French state. Where religion does not play a role - it should have no INFLUENCE.

The main problem with the burqa I think is that you can see it - from far, far away. What does the French state truly not want to see - women in a state of submission to their husbands or the ever changing demographical makeup of the French society? What "French, republican" values does the burqa truly go against? If it has to ro with religion I think that this is unfair and religion plays no part in this laic state - therefore should have no bearing on nationality. The decision makers only knew of this women's religious stance because they could SEE the burqa - they are not allowed, legally, to ask. So if they legally cannot "know" - how can this play a role in the ruling?

I see that the issue is more complicated than that - if someone's rights are being violated or subjugated - shouldnt the state protect an individual's rights? Wouldnt it do that for a child? Yes - but this is not a child, this is a full-grown woman. Is she being then treated like a child or someone who cant or isnt autonomous?

The greatest problem I see is that in the fight for equality and women's rights - we are still telling women what to do instead of allowing them to make their own choices. Do they have those proper vehicles to make those choices? That is a different question alltogether. By denying this women French citizenship because she wears a burqa and is therefore deemed subservient to her husband - do we empower her? Do we treat her equally? No, we dont.

I remember flying back to NY from Paris one time and being sat next to a man of the muslim faith - he and I chatted most of the flight and discussed islam and different cultures. He asked me to think about one point - in western culture, the hijab and the burqa and often seen as "shocking" as a "shocking way to treat women" - but he asked me to think about how it must feel for someone who comes to the "west" for the first time and either on a kiosk on the street or in a magazine store sees, openly, pictures of naked women, of women in subservient sexual positions out in the open. Isnt this too shocking? How do we describe this treatment of women? It is not to say that either is right, or better - but we cant forget that our norms and ideas are not relevant or even "normal" somewhere else.

Through the looking glass...

While eternally beautiful, France can certainly be a dangerous place sometimes. For instance, you will stroll the streets eyes looking up, down, and all around at the stunning architecture, the tree-lined streets, the monuments, the people - all the while making sure not to step on any crottes, so how on earth would you have time to notice these?



One could even be looking through one, at say a monument and not even notice it - don't you think? This very thing happened to a friend of mine recently, fresh off the Airbus from New York City; roaming the streets in utter glee busily taking in his surroundings at a mad pace and - SMACK - he walked straight into a France Telecom phone booth (quite a rarity nowadays since the advent of mobile telephones). He had actually been looking through it to see a beautiful monument just on the other side, with some sun in his eyes, and never saw what hit him. What hit him being a large, immobile phone booth completely transparent save the FT logo near the top.

In pain, feeling a welt emerging on his forehead, he managed to walk home to his host family's house. As he entered, his host father looked at him aghast as he saw the large, red welt taking over the upper half of his head. My friend, seeing the horror in the face in front of him - asked sensibly for some ice to soothe the pain. His host father responded to his request with an odd, quizzical look but turned and went away seemingly to oblige.

No less than five minutes later, the host father returned with this:



In French, the difference between ice (glacon) and an ice cream (glace) is simple and easily misspoken.

My friend had a good laugh and instead of licking his wound by putting some ice on it, he licked his vanilla ice cream cone. It did help, nonetheless.

A Decadent Dictator

During a year of studies in Southern France, my American roommate and I were both picked for a three hour Modern World History class that met each Wednesday. She and I sat next to each other and for three full hours we wrote madly every single mot that we could grasp out of the air bursting at its seams with facts and figures and politics that poured out like hot lava from our Professor's mouth at TGV-like speed. We neither looked at each other during class nor breathed, I think, for the full three hours. After class, we would compare notes and try as we might to piece together the broken phrases and words and ideas to map out the history he had recounted for us. It was a difficult class and we always returned home fatigued - both mentally and physically.

One day when our professor was detailing for us the tragic events of World War II (I repeat the subject of the day was World War II), all of a sudden my roommate elbows me sharply and whispers every so quietly and ever so completely obliviously - "please for the love of dieu - tell me who is ECLAIR?". Yes, eclair like the cream-filled, chocolate-topped, calorie-ridden pastry. I looked at her, then at her note book - a notebook that was filled with sentences the likes of " ECLAIR started the war with France, ECLAIR stormed in to occupy Paris, ECLAIR sent 6 million to the camps..."

I immediately burst into a very loud laugh as I realised her faux pas : the French do not pronounce the letter H outloud.

I will let you figure out the rest.
And if you are good, someday I will tell you the story about (h)appiness.

Book-inist

Before anyone tells me what a clever title (anglicized take on the word bouquinist - vintage booksellers festooned along the quais of the Seine)- it is the name of a restaurant in Paris - so not my own creation by any means.

PETITE ANGLAISE - Catherine SANDERSON
PARIS TO THE MOON - Adam GOPNIK

Having recently devoured these delicious novellas - both of which treat the same subject - Paris as an expat - but with hilariously different tones; the former is of a Brit turned permanent Parisienne, and the latter recounts the adjustments of a New Yorker to Paris during a temporary stay. Both are filled with humor, jabs at the French, and insights into two different reactions and vantage points of an "Anglo-Saxon" experience in Paris.

La Jolie Presse

I have the privilege of being involved with an incredible organization that was founded by one single women, a survivor of rape and war - who took those experiences and used them as undying reason and energy to start an NGO to provide (micro) financial, emotional, and educational support to women in war-torn countries - WOMEN FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL.

Today, I awoke to find some quite glamorous and important news online. The sexy samaritans - Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have donated money to WFWI. This is wonderful press - as whatever these two touch turns into front page news the world over.


(ASSOCIATED PRESS) - Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's love for children is by no means limited to their own: The couple has donated $1 million to help kids affected by the war in Iraq, the Education Partnership for Children of Conflict announced Wednesday.
The organization will distribute the donation, made through the couple's Jolie-Pitt Foundation, to four organizations working on behalf of children who have lost parents, homes and schools in Iraq. Children in the U.S. who have lost parents in the conflict will also benefit.

"These educational support programs for children of conflict are the best way to help them heal," said Jolie in a written statement from Education Partnership for Children of Conflict, which she co-chairs.

"We hope to encourage others to give to these great organizations," Pitt added in the statement.

The money will be divided between the Armed Services YMCA Operation Hero Program, which provides military children with counseling and educational support; Women for Women International, which will provide books, school supplies and other basic necessities to Iraqi women and children; the International Rescue Committee, which will repair three schools and offer classes for more than 2,500 students; and NineMillion.org, which will give school uniforms and learning materials to more than 2,000 displaced Iraqi kids.

If you want to learn more about Women for Women International:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1736706,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS155259+14-Jan-2008+PRN20080114
www.womenforwomen.org

Culture Shocked

I have spent my entire life living between different cultures; as a product of French-Canadian/Catholic heritage living in a town where everyone was either Italian or Jewish, the only daughter surrounded by brothers, the youngest amongst my siblings and friends due to a birthday late in the year, growing up in a city and spending summers in an extremely rural area, growing up middle class in a upper middle class milieu, living as a foreigner abroad, working as a foreigner in my own country but for foreign governments... and the list goes on and on. I have always been too other for the one that I was with. What has happened is that this is where I am most comfortable.

What I have learned from all this is to stop (to the best of my ability) being shocked by differences, other cultures - this is the direct result of always having had to explain differences/nuances to others - to ease their shock.

I went to a premier of a French movie recently and at the event afterwards I was with a French friend - at the bar when someone who worked on the film festival came up to us and asked my friend - so were the Americans shocked? To which I said, well I wasnt and cant understand why people found the film shocking but I cant speak for my fellow countrymen. The response to this was a "mais bien sur vous ne pouvez pas" well if it is so obvious that I cant speak for a country of multiple millions of citizens - why did you just ask me to?

Then I found myself trying to explain why I am American and wasnt shocked - as this seemed odd since a lot of audience members left looking shell-shocked and hadnt applauded. Could there be an age difference? It depends on what you have done and seen in your life - I have lived most of my life in major cities - so seemingly "alternative" lifestyles dont really shock me.

I left frustrated at having been put on the spot and then somewhat disregarded since my opinions didnt measure up to someone else's expectations. I was brushed off as being different since I didnt agree.

Since I am often on the receiving end of these conversations - I really try to the best of my ability to relativise things - while it may look "bizarre", "etrange", or shocking to you - it is perfectly normal or maybe there are reasons for it in another place and time. Isnt it more interesting to look into that?

I think I take offense as I find the word shocking to be very violent. It is a violent reaction to something the clearly isnt understood by the "other".

I say this but everyone has things that shock them - prejudice shocks me. I just wish that before judging we could ask questions instead of seeing the "other" as bizarre or shocking. I find that that means you really dont understand something and you dont care to look inside.

SSSSSSSSSSStrike!

During the cumulative time over my life spent living in, working in and/or with, and traveling to France - I have had beaucoup d' experience in France with strikes (les greves).

I applaud the right and courage of anyone to stand up for their rights, for wrongdoings - as this has normally been a harbinger for needed and impending societal change. When and where this has been executed, if it has been hard to do then it was much, much needed.

Last month, there was a series of crippling strikes that lasted almost 8 days in France and were only stopped so that negotiations could take place - but the talk has already begun for the next set of strikes to begin soon.

As someone who has spent the majority of my life in the U.S., our collective experience with strikes in wholly different than that of France. They are FEW and far between and they do not paralyze cities, not regions, nor sometimes the entire country (depends on how you measure this) here.

A few comments:

1. My first and most important lesson about French strikes was learned during a year of studies in Paris. There was a strike one day that I had been unaware of so when I set out for my normal commute to school and realized that no bus or metro would take me there and that I now had to walk, I arrived for a three hour lecture probably two hours late. After the lecture (a room filled with at least 300 students), I approached the teacher to apologise and expected punishment in return. The teacher 1) had no idea who I was and 2) said something to the likes of mais bien sur you were late there was a strike today - no problem.

I was utterly surprised - as normally in the US schools I attended, lateness bore no valid excuses, ever. That day, I realised that strikes in France work in part because the country allows them to, they are part and parcel of life in France. Explained by small signs posted on banks the day before notifying clients that they will be on strike the next day, by and elderly lady driving past a bus stop where she saw two young Americans with loads of baggage - the lady not only stops to tell them but offers a ride to the airport as the bus is on strike that day (true story), and that teachers freely and wholly except students' missing 2/3 of class due to strikes.

They dont work to the same effect in the US as this country does not accept them nor work together to maintain life during them as selflessly.

Where I disagree with les greves is here - normally the dialogue is between the striker and their big boss - e.g. the president of Air France, the head of the RATP... peu importe. Yet those who strike are normally people like myself - making a decent living, but not the highest paid. En bref, they send an indirect message to their big boss by directly affecting those just like them - people trying to live their daily life - but who have NOTHING to do with the issue.

For example, when stewardesses or pilots or whomever at Air France go on strike, plane service is disrupted. Who does this hurt? People like myself, or even worse people who save up for years to take a trip to France only to have their flight cancelled (while the last time Air France refunded those whom they could not re accommodate) but what about hotels? Should hotels in a third country reimburse because stewardesses at Air France decided to strike and therefore someone couldnt make it to their destination? No and they dont generally. Does this affect the big boss - well first off, he - I am betting doesnt fly on Air France commercial flights.
And while it affects the bottom line - isnt this just always passed on to the consumer, again the people like you and me who might have also just lost $$ on their booked hotels - as well as having had to re arrange their vacations, business plans - whatever it is.

For those people, - this seems unfair. Doesnt it?

Le Divorce

Well it just has to be mentioned...

I will approach the subject of the France's current President's (and first ever siting President's) divorce by looking at only what it says about the "pipolisation" of French politics - (and the French people?).

Sarkozy says that it is not the French people who are pipolizied, rather it is the media. Is that true? He reprimanded a reporter from Le Monde for asking about the divorce during a press conference in Portugal which was supposed to speak about the two day EU summit. He said that a reporter from a newspaper of the calibre of Le Monde shouldn't ask questions of a subject of a calibre beneath said newspaper i.e. the private life of France's politicians - "It interests them much less than you, and they are right, and, perhaps, they have a greater sense of propriety, and more discretion.". Simultaneously, his wife premiered on the cover of (French) ELLE magazine - offering an intimate tell-all of her side of the divorce.

What do these opposing actions say?

Let's look first at how some French officials and others have seen the media treatment of this (non?) issue:

Noël Mamère, député Verts : "Il est temps de refermer la page de l'américanisation de la vie publique".

I love this quote - it is time to turn the page on the americanization of public life - below I will argue that there is a frenchification of French public life too.. possibly before it had a place in the hush hush or in magazines that no one admits they purchase - but it has been there, a long time.

Annick Lepetit, secrétaire nationale du PS : "Alors que les rumeurs sur la séparation de Cécilia et Nicolas Sarkozy bruissent depuis six jours, l'Elysée choisit ce jeudi, jour de forte mobilisation sociale, pour officialiser l'information. Aux Français de juger s'il ne s'agit que d'une simple coïncidence".

To which Raffarin responds:
Jean-Pierre Raffarin, ancien Premier ministre, à propos des soupçons du PS sur une "coïncidence" avec le grève : "C'est une remarque profondément déplacée".

There are two discussions here:

The first is about the "pipolisation" or "americanisation" of French political life and/or of the French people or media - whoever you think the shoe fits...either through a manifested interest on the part of the French media or the French people.

The second, is the idea that announcing the divorce on the day of a huge, national strike diverted major media attention from the strike to the private matter of the Presidential divorce.

Again, is it the media or the people who demanded this information and who gobble it up? Is the U.S.'s fault? Since this phenomenon carries our name on it, either directly or indirectly as the term pipolisation comes from the frenchification of the word PEOPLE as in PEOPLE magazine. Does this follow a simple economic rule - the people demand it and the media supplies it? Or does the media supply it to influence the people to demand it, or consume it? I, as an American, find it interesting this term of "pipolisation" - which plays on the U.S. magazine PEOPLE - why was this chosen and not the LONG standing French versions entitled Voici or Gala? Are magazines that supply photos and blurbs about celebrity and politicians lives truly an American creation? Or are they just thrown in t he mix of everything that we dont like we liken to American culture? The reality TV culture is closely associated with US culture while Big Brother was not a US invention. I remember living in Nice a good ten years ago and constantly seeing images of the royal Monegasque family all over Voici, Gala, Hello...etc - at the time there was a scandal involving Princess Stephanie and her at the time husband. Is this really new? Is this really a US thing, a US-only thing, or even something that we invented? Look at the media relationship with Princess Diana or any of the British royals?

Here follow the French media discussion about the coincidence of the timing of both announcemnents:

Il a reproché à Nicolas Sarkozy d'avoir «pris le risque de la surexposition et d'introduire un dangereux mélange entre sphère privée et sphère publique». «Il est temps de refermer la page de l'américanisation de la vie publique», a-t-il dit.

Un avis largement partagé à gauche. Pour l'eurodéputé socialiste Benoît Hamon, «il est temps qu'on sorte de la pipolisation de la vie politique». «Le couple Sarkozy a été l'un des plus gros contributeurs à cette évolution de la vie politique française en mettant lui-même en scène sa vie privée», a-t-il estimé.

A droite, les alliés politiques du président préféraient ne pas commenter l'information, avançant qu'il s'agissait d'une «affaire privée». AFP


I dont have the answers, but I do have some questions:

1. Did Sarkozy time this announcement to downplay the media coverage of the strike?? If the answer is yes, that is a horrible, horrible thing to do, in my opinion.

2. Is the media obsession with Celebrity and/or Politician's lives truly a US thing? It is part of US culture - did we inspire this in other countries or did this already or simultaneously exist? Lastly, does this not exist in France - possibly the French see it as a private matter - not bearing any weight on a politician's capability to serve in office or not something to discuss at a dinner table - but all the while still reading it not only on PEOPLE magazine but in Voici, Gala and any other French versions of celebrity mags as well as something the they do discuss with one another - via the internet, over a coffee or drink? Does this have a place in French society? And if so, is it not a French thing too?

I will end this with one comment - during the trial of Queen Marie-Antoinette, her "private life" was alleged and put on trial - for all to see in books & in pamphlets she was accused of sexual/romantic wrongdoings. Was the public's fascination and at the time judgment any different from what we see in society today?

After all, when Bernadette Chirac was questioned about her sufferings through President Chirac's infidelities and asked why she never left him - she responded that the day Napoleon and Josephine split - his demise began (and hers as well).

Has anything truly changed? Can this truly be claimed as a result of a US cultural influence?

A few of my favorites things...

There exists an eloquent equipe of anglophone bloggers who have written blogs about ex-pat life in France that are delicious to read. I salute them all and follow their blogs with much fervor.

Here are a list of my favorites:

http://artgoldhammer.blogspot.com/

http://francepolitic.com/

www.pensees-en-franglais.blogspot.com

www.petiteanglaise.com (soon to be a book!)

www.maitresse.typepad.com

http://letrangere-americaine.blogspot.com/

As you go through each of these sites, they will refer you to others; dentsdelait, the Frenchification of Mlle Smith, In the Kitchen and on the Road with Dorrie Greenspan...

Bravo to all of you!

Le Divorce?

This weekend we visited the homes, universities, and museums of some of the founding fathers (Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe), while learning oodles about U.S. history what amazed me was how closely intertwined the U.S. and France were during this period; financially, philosophically, intellectually, and through numerous partnerships, friendships and alliances. During the late 18th century, both the U.S. and France were in pre and post Revolutionary periods, each was the others' main backer in the fight against monarchy (English or French). France went into debt financing the U.S. Revolution and Lafayette amongst others come over here to lend a hand (or observe and even praise in the case of Toqueville) and formed lastings friendships with Washington and others...

In all three of the houses we visited (save Madison's which is under renovation)- there were myriad references to France and Europe (Monroe's daughter was best friends with Eugenie (Napoleon's daughter in law whom he married to his brother)), furniture, books (one of Monroe's bookcases was entirely comprised of French books - books on the French Constitution, history...) - and both Franklin and Jefferson spent years upon years in Paris - bringing back furniture, customs, friendships, and a very open view towards Europe. When Jefferson served as U.S. Ambassador in France, his offices were housed at Versailles (i.e. in the "home" of the King!). They went abroad to build relationships and learn, especially from the French. Our countries were not only allies, we were close friends. We were similar-minded and fighting for the same truths and ideals.

During this period we were born of revolution and freedom from religious persecution, we were born of the Enlightenment - we both drafted constitutions and declarations of rights for "all" men - only the U.S.'s had a clause about the right to bear arms. I wonder if this simple sentence comprised of only a few words plays a big, big part in the question that I am asking.

When did this break occur, when and where were the signs that pointed towards the resultant divorce? Will relations ever be what they used to be or having grown and matured, are we just too different now to ever be that close again? We have gotten used to this froid relationship with France, and my generation doesnt have a living memory of anything different. Which is why visiting the grounds of our birth as a country makes this point shockingly real. Visting the homes of the founding fathers is a lesson in US history but also in what was happening in France at the time and a lesson about the love between our two countries.

England has certainly taken the place that was once held by France - which given that we fought a war against England for our freedom and independence is ironic. Or is it? Looking at world history there are numerous stories of countries being allies, enemies, occupying one another... (e.g. France and Germany who now share the drivers seat in the EU).

When did we grow apart? Was it the changes in our countries during the industrial revolutions? Was it during the periods of Empire and colonization? Was it due to when we have (or have not) abolished the death penalty? Segregation? The differences in urban landscapes? The Cold War? The rise of globalization? Was it that one country housed two world wars while the other fought them offshores?

Calling all cinephiles...

The French lay claim to the art and discovery of cinema dating back to the brothers Lumiere. The French film industry is subsidized by the government (etat) and France gives birth to a lot more movies than those few that make it stateside. In the U.S., there are plenty of opportunities to see these, especially in you live in major city like NYC, LA, SF, DC, Chicago, Boston... most major cities have an annual French Film Festival that is sponsored either by the Consulate or the Alliance Francaise.

Here are a few of my favorites that highlight not only the creativity of France's directors and actors but also teach you something about France, its history, culture, and politics.

La Bataille d' Algers : I recently learned that this film was banned from ever appearing on French television and I'm not sure if it played in French cinemas. This film debuted shortly after the end of the Algerian War and is best known for the fact that some of the actors play themselves and that the movie was filmed in Algers.

Une Femme Francaise: This is a movie detailing life on the Franco-German border during WWII and what happens to one family - trying to survive, live, and deal with the war and its aftermath.

La Haine: Cult movie about the outer Parisian suburbs "banlieues" and their youth. Even if you speak French fluently, this movie is difficult to understand as it is almost entirely spoken in argot (French slang) and verlan (French slang language where syllables are reversed in words e.g. femme becomes meuf).

Paris, Je t'aime: the reason I mention this film is that it is comprised of 20 different short films each about one of the 20 arrondissements that make up the city of Paris. This movie shows the viewer the better known arrondissements while also showing the outer arrondissements therefby giving a total picture to this diverse city.

Le Dernier Metro: Another cult film, this time about life in Paris under the German occupation. A must for anyone wanting to learn more about this country and the minds of todays Frenchmen and women.

Indochine: This movie is not only a fantastic love story - it also tells more about France's colonial aspirations and what the lives were like for those French who lived in French Indochina, those who were a different kind of French as Asian foods and customs were more normal to them than those from the hexagon. Yet, they still kept with many traditions such as having a buche de Noel for Christmas dinner.

Jean de Florette/Manon des Sources: These two films make up a very well known movie and its sequel that give you insight into the great art of storytelling and life in Provence. The accents might be hard to understand if you are not familiar with this region and its dialect, provencal.

La Reine Margot: This movie brings to life Alexandre Dumas' story of the Medici family and its rule of France under Catherine de Medici. Back then, religion was the source of many wars and this movie details the war between the Catholics and the Protestants.

There are a myriad modern day films that are very funny and provide insight into what makes the French laugh; Rabbi Jacob, Le Diner des Cons, Le Placard, Bernie, Les Visiteurs...