On the surface, Marcel Carné's "Daybreak" is a heart-pounding claustrophobic thriller based on a then-revolutionary use of non-linear flashback-driven narrative and that was two years before Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane", on the surface, one can see the film and find every reason to love it.Still, one viewing wouldn't do justice to the film. You might watch it once to get the overall picture, then a second time to really appreciate the existential poetry of Jacques Prévert's script, which operates like the raw and penetrating lyrics of a tragicomic symphony speaking the deepest truths about life and rejection, and you can watch it a third time, to appreciate the fiery and haunting performance of Jean Gabin as François, a simple foundry worker becoming despite himself the immediate instrument then the collateral victim of an unexpected killing.And unexpected is the word since its from gunshots that the film opens, a murder just happens off-screen, we only see someone getting off the apartment, his hand on his belly and then tumbling down the stairs until landing on the feet of a blind resident, of all the witnesses. Honest people shout for help, police come but the man inside won't give himself easily, he's armed, he can protect himself and has all the time to figure out what the next step is. The irony is that there's no possible escape, the siege immediately begins, he's literally cornered and the apartment becomes a temporary but fragile shell of safety. He has some cigarettes but like most resources: it is limited in time. Time is all he's got and it works like the countdown of a ticking bomb.Not only Gabin but Arletty and Jules Berry are many reasons to appreciate the film, but it is Gabin who steals every scene, Gabin as the subject and the object, he's the one who starts the plot by killing, and enriches our experience by telling us why he did. The film has always been associated to the poetic realism movement but the notion that immediately emerges is 'fatalism'. There's a sense of impending doom over the shoulders of François and we know it's a matter of time before he'll be lured into the fatal action. But the film isn't interested in the fate of François who's already lost at that time but on the circumstances that lead him to that act, because obviously, he doesn't strike as your "typical" killer, does he? The use of flashback is crucial because what we see proves our doubts right, he's a decent man, a rather friendly one, despite his tough façade, but he's driven into a dark corner because of a rivalry with a man who's everything he's not: an older man, more manipulative, a smooth talker, an upper class erudite dog trainer played with classy sneakiness by Jules Berry. Both are in love with the same delicate woman, and she's too shy to reject them. She wasn't the prettiest or the smartest one but she was gentle, innocent and too much of a beautiful flower to let some manipulative smooth talking pervert corrupt her.There's a subplot involving an affair between Berry's mistress played by Arletty and Françoise but it never distracts us from the core of the film, which is the uprising tension between two men and two different versions of humanity. Meanwhile we're taken back to the apartment, which gets smaller as the plot advances, and the situation gets similar to these media circuses showcased in movies like "Dog Day Afternoon", one of the emotional climaxes of the film involve an angry monologue of Gabin toward the crowd, he can't stand the hypocrisy of a system that will label him as a criminal while men accomplish more cruel things than plain killing, this is Gabin at his finest, the sign that he's a tragic figure to be and won't really accomplish himself until the last act.There's something so premonitory in a film featuring a French men caught in a lonely place and force to commit suicide because he just can't face the ugly reality. The film is from 1939 before the War would put thousands of citizens in similar situations, the dawn that was ready to break was one of an ugly nature, forcing men to transcend their nature and ethics and do things they wouldn't be proud. The question that Gabin's rant asks is "who are we to judge?" and this question resonate even more powerfully when put in the context of the film's making and the film hasn't lost any of its relevance today, like many classics of Gabin.Here, he's is at his most complex and tortured but somewhat, this is his most decent character, which makes his ending even more tragic or given what was awaiting France, not as tragic as it seems, after a second thought maybe he was lucky to get the hell out of the place, to be the master of his own destiny, instead of surrendering to mediocrity.

I think this film is a Masterpiece. But I am somewhat uncomfortable with this thought - why? This is a truly great movie - films like this have everything to do with why I fell in love with the idea of living in France. The frankness about love and sex, and about all of the similarities and differences between the two. That still seems so audacious. And the A Team brought its A Game: Carné, Prevert, Alexander Trauner, Maurice Jaubert, Gabin, Arletty, Jules Berry...all killing it. When Gabin puts on the leather jacket and goes through all that torture with a cigarette - it is perfection. Pre - War Existentialism at its finest! The shot of Françoise carrying the flowers down the alley by the factory - this is the kind of poetry that cinema alone is capable of.So what's my problem? Something a bit unacknowledged - ly "pulpy" in its heart? Ultimately, is it a "real" Work of Art? How many films really are? Does this matter, in any way?Carné's reputation is complicated. The younger generation - the Nouvelle Vague - really denigrated him, it seems. How much did this have to do with his being seen as a collaborator during the Nazi Occupation, and how much did this actually have to do with his style? He needed Prévert, that seems clear. Prévert - how does he do it? Screenplays with such a deeply poetic quality, still managing to move and inflect. Genius. Gabin - my favorite screen actor. What he doesn't know about screen acting isn't worth knowing. His poise. His coiled energy - that voice that, at the drop of a hat, can modulate from silence and repose into a vicious growl. Arletty - when I first saw her in Children of Paradise I was mesmerized. Every time I've heard someone say "But I don't understand why people fall all over her - she's not really THAT hot!" it has felt like a friendship dealbreaker. At the very least, it evokes Andrew Sarris' great line that anyone who resists Children of Paradise's charm deserves never to see Paris.Maybe I see through this film a little bit. Maybe some of its gravitas seems not quite earned. But look at that set! That street! The crowds! All those fantastic details - the bored coat - check girl plunged into her book during the dog show. And that ending, with its brilliant pile - up of several key images, one at a time...which makes me think of what we lost when we lost Maurice Jaubert, not just a great film composer, but also a brilliant critic of film music and its meaning:"In The Lost Patrol - -otherwise an admirable film- - the director was apparently alarmed by the silence of the desert in which the story was laid. He might well have realized the dramatic possibilities of silence, but instead he assaulted the ear -without a moment's pause- with a gratuitous orchestral accompaniment which nearly destroyed the reality of the visuals."Well, Jaubert practiced what he preached - so much of this film is underscored by little more than subtle and ominous low - register percussion (tympani, but not only, I think...). Are those the storm clouds looming over Europe when this film was made? Or is that reading too much into it all?And, after that question - one more question: how can the man who made Hôtel du Nord, Quai des Brumes. Le Jour Se Lève and Les Enfants du Paradis be considered more - or - less a Tradition de Qualité hack? These are the mysteries...Subjects for further study and reflection.

Daybreak is one of the best, if not the best Gabin film of the French poetic realism. Gabin was a handsome young man, still supple ,and here he plays François, a virile, vigorous workman ,disputed by two women—an older seductress, Clara, and a girl, Françoise. The workman François registers as one of Gabin's top performances, especially memorable; and the movie is maybe the finest product of the famous Carné/Prévert collaboration—among the richest in human, psychological content. François is a doomed character in this suspenseful drama—yet the movie does not belong to Prévert's symbolical , fatalist plays, it rather gives place to several realistic characterizations. The economy a means needs not be underlined—it is a drama of four characters (the three already mentioned, and a deprived , poisonous debauch oldster). The story ,presented from François' point of view, is told as he, after murdering his rival, recapitulates the phases of his love affair. François recounts how he met a girl, while at work; how he dated her; how she had a mysterious night life, and he eagerly follows her and spies. Then enter a demoniac character, from the variety's world, and Gabin begins a relationship with the former mistress of this spinster. He gets caught in a net of lies and of dirty secrets which destroy his inner coherence. His need for joy remains unsatisfied, he is betrayed. He is a honest rough tough workman unaccustomed with the ambiguities of the small world that allowed him in. His drama is precise, well defined, tangible and concrete. If other poetic realism outings favored the lyricism, this one favors the realism. The things inhere are very concrete, and of a remarkable good taste, something Carné had in his best days.This is not a symbolical misty allegorical drama, but a love movie, a hugely interesting and beautiful and humane, with likable characters, very _relatable to. One of the great French love movies. Particularly involving and enjoyable and masterly composed. The good taste is enhanced, strengthened by a particular lightness—the touch is light, fine, masterly ;such art warms the heart, encourages and satisfies the mind. It is one of the great almost unknown (today) films. Yet this precious _pellicle registered Gabin in one of his ample, large youth role, and benefited from Carné's talent …. Indeed, one cannot love Carné and Gabin too much ….And Gabin performs with such a verve, a dynamism, an obvious pleasure he takes in his role …. When he did not enjoy a part, he could simply be lukewarm, detached, bored—not so here, where his interest is evident.From this film, one understands why Gabin was looked upon as a sex symbol; in his work outfit, or in his leather jacket, he looked awesome indeed. He was young, blue eyed, a chain—smoker, and his head, with his mean mouth, had a leonine air. This makes the film especially important for all the Gabin fans, who can see him here in his best shape.For every one who wishes a marvel, or just a strong large Gabin performance, this is the movie .A singularly graceful one.In popular terms and low—brow jargon, I would state that here is the coolest Gabin movie that I know. It is cool in all respects—first of all Gabin himself; the other roles (Clara, Françoise, the demoniac tamer) ; the movie's look and brio. Gabin is self—aware of his coolness in the Cagney/ Gable/ Grant/Bogart/Brando/Rourke/Crowe way .He knows he is young, handsome, has beautiful hands and looks cool as a chain—smoker. The movie is a tribute and a testimony of his youth coolness. Yet it's also far from being only a pretext for showing Gabin's good looks. It is a work of art, a meaningful work made with unspeakable lightness and discernment and also instinct, feel for these things. It leaves a wonderful taste. Gabin's coolness is only a side, an aspect of the movie, it serves the film, it does not deprive it of autonomy and inner interest. It is subordinated to the film's significance. It verifies again the assertion that Gabin basically made one role throughout with career—with virtuous variations and deft modulations (as opposed to the _chameleonic Americans like Brando, De Niro, Pacino, Rourke—and also unlike the great Europeans: Simon, Fresnay, Jouvet, Stroheim and Belmondo). This is part type—casting, and part vocation. Gabin brought all the roles to himself (and the roles were anyway visibly similar and homogeneous); not that he did not take chances, but in his choices, so stable and almost uniform, there was something at unison with his own human nature.

The plot device of having a story begin with a pivotal event and then filling in the details as to how that event came to pass can be effective, as is illustrated here. The event is a murder and your interest is piqued as to the circumstances that provoked it. Details are supplied using flashbacks intermixed with events subsequent to the murder. As the movie progresses you can see potential motives develop, but it is not until the actual murder takes place that the mystery is resolved.The appeal of this film for me was in trying to understand the four main characters: François, a blue-collar worker who loves Françoise; M. Valentin, an unctuous older man who also loves Françoise; and Clara, Valentin's partner and François' mistress. John Gabin plays François as an ordinary man, but with a more complex personality than first meets the eye. He can be amiable and easy-going in most situations, but contentious and angry when pushed a little. I thought Gabin did a great job in integrating these disparate moods into a believable character. I am a bit mystified by his behavior after the shooting - I found his reaction of barricading himself in his room to be unusual. The murder was impulsive and, given the circumstances, could have been presented to an understanding jury in such a way as to yield a minimum sentence. So, why did François immediately behave in a manner to insure his doom? Did he see his future as hopeless? Was it anger bubbling to the surface at a society that he felt had kept him down? Was it to give himself time to decide what to do? This is where a novel may be superior to a movie - a novel could tell us just what François was thinking in his time of being holed up in his room.Françoise is played with seeming innocent sweetness by Jacqueline Laurent, but her character is also hard to figure. Her relationship with Valentin is never clear. She seemed to love François, but vacillated in committing to him apparently because of her relationship with Valentin. Jules Berry does a fantastic job in creating a unique and unforgettable character in his portrayal of Valentin. He has an appealingly glib charm but ultimately comes across as being offensive and pathetic. He is aware of his failings and his behavior is due in good measure to his self-hatred. But why did he taunt François in such a provocative and self-destructive way?And then there is Clara. She dissolves her partnership with Valentin and then takes up with François. What is François doing taking up with Clara when he really desires Françoise? That can't help. And what is Clara doing taking up with François when she knows he loves Françoise? As seen by François, Clara is a mistress, but is there more? Clara understands how François views her, but she develops a deeper attachment anyway. However, she is able to break things off with a world-weary detachment. Behavior is not rational I guess.As you might expect from director Carné, the black and white cinematography is creative and engaging. The script is tight; every scene has substance. Consider the scene where François first meets Françoise. François is at work in a line of men who are sandblasting heavy equipment. We see the miserable conditions of his workplace, but when Françoise comes on the scene he takes off his head gear and is quite tender with her. We learn a lot from that simple scene. And the scene showing Valentin's act with the trained dogs is transfixing and gives us a quick insight into his character. And the final scene is a memorable classic.As is shown, life is tenuous - a single impulsive act can change the course of your life.