How is power and conflict conveyed in 'The Class'?

I will begin by pointing out and exploring a factor where power and conflict are obvious on-screen - through the creation of characters. Already in the classroom we can see a wide range of races brought together into one compressed space. Students are African, Asian, Latino and White, amongst other races. A social divide is clearly obvious and, thanks to director Laurent Cantent's decision to film documentary-style shots from the inside of the class-room, I feel as if I am sitting in the class myself. The tension has made it's way from the screen and connected with me. Also, the decision to include no non-digetic sound at these points enhances the power of the classroom setting - it is raw. Anything can be heard, and when it is, questions and judgment can be fired from any direction. The focus is purely on what will happen in this small space.

For nearly the entirety of the film, we see nothing of the outside world. The only thing we see are the grounds of the school, be it the classroom, the staffroom or the playground. Whenever we see the characters, it is always within the school. We hear about their lives outside, but never actually see them for ourselves. With this in mind, I found myself split between two decisions: one would be to care little for the moans and groans of the students. For example, Souleymane, from Mali, is said to have 'issues' at home and a problem with temper which, during one scene where he leaves the classroom in a fit a of rage, is clear, but what isn't clear is what 'issue' at home would have provoked this. Other students explain that he is on a final warning to be sent back to Mali permanently, which poses the question as to why he would let himself react so violently in the first place. Something visual of his life outside of the school would aid in providing reasons for their rage and sympathy from me (much like in Richard LaGravenese's 'Freedom Writers'). On the other hand, we can simply imagine their home-lives. the Dialogue is descriptive enough to make me question as to what happens outside of the school. I am curious and eager to know more about these characters.

During an early scene in the staffroom, we learn that some of the teachers are so familiar with the students that they feel they can pigeonhole them. One of them lists all of the students as either being 'nice' or 'not nice', which signified that they felt not a trace of hope for those labeled 'not nice'. They know that there is no point in trying to educate them, and the fact that this has become a familiar tactic for the teachers, I find, is very disheartening. At the same time, however, this presents the form of power that the teachers in the school have - the power of experience, not just of teaching, but of the world that they live in. Because of this, a generation gap is clearly put in place. François Bégaudeau, our leading teacher who's autobiography provides a backdrop for the film's action, experiences this gap. He comments that two girls were behaving like 'skanks', to which they took much offence, thinking that he was calling them prostitutes. The issue grows quickly and surrounds Bégaudeau which shows that, despite sharing the same the language, the developments of generations has led to different interpretations of the most basic sentences. He confronts the two girls with the issue in the playground, and the low-angle shots at this point are extremely effective, drawing attention to every word that is said between them. Bégaudeau can fight for his cause, he can justify and defend his choice of wording and why he used it. But at the end of the day, it is one thirty-something against half a dozen teenagers, who all share a taste of slang. He is alone, and cannot find external, supportive justice. Times have changed.

The playground itself, when seen on-screen, is shot from a high-angle, looking down on the children playing their games, conversing or so be it, as if they were animals in the wild. Fights break out at unpredictable moments, enhancing the feel that this is their natural habitat. However, we, as an audience, cannot get involved. We can only watch, just like a documentary on television, that is all that it is. We observe who is dominant and we see who is week. We see what territory belongs to who, which, in a documentary, clearly presents who the power belongs to. The only thing missing is the commentary. There are rare occasions when we get a closer view of this location, and one of them I have mentioned above. When this happens, I feel as if I have to be weary of any comment or action made. Because of what we have seen from a birdseye view, we know the dangers that the area presents, and to be in this presence is daring of the director.