The Paemel family (1987)

Directed by: Paul Cammermans | 100 minutes | drama, history | Actors: Frank Aendenboom, Camilia Blereau, Chris Boni, Raymond Bossaerts, Walter Claessens, Ronnie Commissaris, Harry De Peuter, Juliette Van de Sompel, Frans Van de Velde, Luc De Wit, Jan Decleir, Karel Deruwe, Andrea Domburg, Ille Geldhof, Carry Goossens, Danny Hiele, Thom Hoffman, Carmen Jonckheere, Eric Kerremans

‘Het Familie van Paemel’, directed by Paul Cammermans, is an adaptation of a play of the same name by the Flemish writer Cyriel Buysse (1859 -1932). The story is set in the second half of the nineteenth century; era of industrialization. and of the realization that liberty, equality and fraternity did not only apply to the nobility and bourgeoisie. The film echoes Buysse’s naturalistic, socially conscious slant: the wealth, navel-gazing and egotism of the aristocracy contrast sharply with the meager existence of the working class people. In that light it is easy to understand that the film won a prize in 1987 at a film festival in the (Communist) Soviet Union. In the beginning, the subject of the film (small farmer Van Paemel, his wife and their five children) is still a unit. But the emergence of socialist ideas is wriggling like a rift between parents and children, brothers (Eduard, Désiré, Kamiel) and sisters (Cordule and Romanie). The only one in the story who manages to evade rank and status is poacher Masko (Jan Decleir), a mischievous rascal who regards a baron’s lands as a cornucopia – and with his cheerful streak wins the heart of Cordule van Paemel .

In the opening sequence, Désiré van Paemel (Jos Verbist) drives wild game during a hunt in the direction of the noble De Wilde family, from whom the Van Paemels leased land. In the process, however, Désiré himself catches a gunshot in his stomach. The catalyst for that ‘accident’ is Maurice de Wilde, a lazy, spoiled aristocrat son with a sadistic streak – a role cut for Thom Hoffman. Hoffman gives Maurice a cringingly indifferent asshole, even when he watches from the cozy family cottage how farm workers work themselves in the freezing cold. The only person who manages to drive him out of his pompous complacency is Romanie van Paemel (Marijke Pinoy): Maurice develops a Hitchcockian fascination for Romanie. Despite this, her injured brother is fobbed off with a gold piece by Maurice’s father, Baron De Wilde (Walter Claessens), “For the expenses.” It is clear that only the baron’s beard has Marxist pretensions.

Once home, Desiré has little choice but to hope for a cure. However, not as soon as he shows signs of recovery, another disaster appears at the front door of the Van Paemels: youngest son Kamiel has to join the army. That army might normally protect people and country, but now it is deployed against striking factory workers (including Eduard van Paemel) who are rioting to defend their rights. Factory in question is ‘La Lousiana’. Owner: Baron De Wilde. While the poor soul has already been confronted at home with a son who starts his mornings with a bubble of brandy, at work the ‘organized proletariat’ suddenly throngs in front of the entrance gate. Fortunately, the Baron finds father Van Pamel (Senne Rouffaer) at his side in that regard. He may be a model for the oppressed people, but he has nothing to do with the strikers and their socially committed goals: “Hopefully they will shoot at it, those loafers!” What would he do in their place? “I would do work! Work till I drop!” That attitude comes in handy when the baron decides to raise the rent of his farm considerably. Van Paemel’s reaction fits that of a small farmer who knows no better than to approach your superiors with bowed head and cap in hand: “The devil always shits in the same heap…” Even his mustache humbly drips with these words. No wonder that Désiré van Paemel, in the midst of all the family vicissitudes, dreams away with a book about the Promised Land: America.

‘The Van Paemel family’ skilfully reports on the disintegration of an entire family, precisely by giving each family member all the attention in a few short and striking scenes. The mass scenes also work for the same reason (despite the undoubtedly modest means): the makers do not forget that a mass, a people, an army also consists of individuals. So why is the story never really compelling? Perhaps it is the neat, meticulous, almost journalistic approach to events. It is ultimately more informative than entertaining.