Bob Le Flambeur

When I hear a film described as a “comedy of manners,” I expect to see characters dressed in 19th century garb spouting the ironic words by novelists such as Jane Austen to show the ridiculousness of “acceptable” manners of a particular class, typically the upper class. Yet, Jean-Paul Melville uses that phrase to describe Bob le Flambeur, a heist film. Bob represents the upper class of criminals who gambles and robs institutions like banks and casinos. Unlike the upper classes in Jane Austen’s novels, Bob’s manners seem to be commendable. For example, he refuses to help out a pimp who beats up prostitutes. He saves a police officer’s life and provides shelter for a woman even though she revealed his heist to a rival. Yet, the subtitles show that he speaks in colloquialisms that are often found in the gangster films such as “clams” for dollars. So, while appearing to be a gentleman, Bob does not speak like one.

As a “comedy of manners” shows the consequences of adhering or defying conventions, Bob le Flambeur defies the most important convention of a heist film, the successful execution of the heist. Despite adhering to the planning and rehearsing conventions of a heist film, Melville seems to do so sarcastically. For example, he has the tension-filled safecracking rehearsal that depends on the oscilloscope to find the right combination. Yet, he includes shots of the panting dog which one would assume that somehow the panting will throw off the oscilloscope. Instead, the dog happily pants taking away the seriousness of the rehearsal.

Since Bob took the money from the casino in the acceptable manner by winning, Melville must have thought Bob would have been rude if he executed the heist. Why do something dishonestly when you are succeeding in doing it honestly? But then Melville would have been rude to us if he did not give Bob some consolation from the cop because he made us sympathetic towards Bob.