Stéphane Brizé: “The logic of the system? Too bad if there is breakage »



The cross : After the precarious (The law of the market), then a desperate strike (In war), this time you explore the suffering at work that executives can experience. We weren’t expecting you in this register…

Stephane Brize: When you’re a manager, you’re deeply structured around an idea of ​​strength, loyalty and courage. ” I earn a good living. There are more unfortunate than me. I can not complain. If I emit a form of fragility, I will feel left out of the group. » You can’t say to the other: I’m not well, I’m having trouble solving this problem. Not being able to express anything in that part of the world condemns you to finding yourself in a blind spot.

→ CRITICAL. “Another world”, the blind spot of suffering at work

Hence this feeling of great loneliness experienced by many executives forced to apply social plans that they know are unjustifiable. It’s bigger than a people problem, it’s a systemic problem. The world is filled with competent and conscious individuals. Many are indebted to the company for achieving this level of responsibility. The best way to hold someone is to make them feel like they’re there through the company.

Most of the executives I met, in charge of social plans, were not comfortable. They knew they were obeying injunctions that were impossible to satisfy. But they convinced themselves that if they did not manage them themselves, there would be more noise and chaos, violence and brutality. Many discover, but often too late, that they are nothing more than performers. Is courage to do something you don’t want to do but have to do? Or to get out of the situation that makes us suffer? They shoot at the health of executives and workers. We get used to fatigue, to breakage. The job blackmail plays out. The moment comes when what was possible for years is no longer possible.

You also show the terrible porosity between the professional situation and the family universe.

SB: It’s the hardest thing to face. In my film, the company director has to deal with a divorce and the decompensation of his son. This is what is called “the emergence of the real”. If nothing comes to get the person out of his confinement and his infernal mechanics, he will continue to run around like a hamster in his cage, relentless in wanting to solve what he cannot solve. As he believes that his difficulties result from a personal deficiency, he will continue to exhaust himself eternally. While the problem comes from the injunction itself. He inevitably drags his family in his wake.

You dissect in detail the mechanisms skilfully developed to make life at work impossible.

SB: I build films around emotions with men and women. How do we live within these mechanisms? The question that Philippe asks is not far from that of the character of The Law of the Market: “Can I participate in this brutality? » What is terrible is that the answer can only be personal, with a colossal cost in one’s own life when one decides to react to feel able to look in the mirror again.

How did we get here ?

SB: This is the result of the progressive disengagement of politics from economics. As long as there are rules structured by politics to bring order, there is still protection. As soon as the state withdraws, those who benefit from it go for it. We all have a car that exceeds 130 km/h. The state tells us that to protect ourselves and others, we must respect limitations. If the panels were removed, the owners of the most powerful cars would be on the gas. On the roads of liberalism, there are no more signs. We tried to remove them one after the other. Those with the most powerful cars drive the fastest. The logic of the system? Too bad if there is breakage.

→ REREAD. Stéphane Brizé: “The country has been overheating for years”

Your film is punctuated by a succession of meetings which only lead to disunity.

SB: Your observation reminds me of an emotion I felt on the set ofIn war. At the end of a take around a very tense meeting between managers and workers, I had thought: “But what intelligence at work! If all these intelligences went in the same direction, instead of standing still because they are opposed, the result would be wonderful. »

.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *