The Topic of Identity in The Movie The Return of Martin Guerre

The contemporary theories and ethnographies on the topic of identity represent it as fluid and multiple. Much of the anthropological knowledge in the 20th century, conceptualizes identity as a construction, performance and/or a dichotomy. But how was identity treated during the 16th century, an era when evidence through photos and fingerprints didn’t exist? How did people identify and recognize an individual? Moreover, how was identity constructed in the 16th century? These are questions that came up when studying a case of imposture that scandalized a 16th century European village. This essay will be a reaction to the first part of the movie “The Return of Martin Guerre” which tells the story of a French peasant named Martin Guerre who returns to his village after disappearing for 8-9 years. Due to some details, villagers suspected that the returned man was the actual Martin Guerre, and this led to a trial.

The movie begins with the settlement of the Guerre family in Artigat, where a marriage is arranged between Martin Guerre and Bertrande de Rols. Being immature teenagers, the couple cannot immediately consummate their marriage but later on when they still have difficulties in having children, Martin is seen as an impotent and failed husband. Even after they have their first child (healed by different processes, cured from the supposed witchcraft), Martin isn’t comfortable in his role as a father. Through some scenes, it is also revealed that he is not a good farmer and is weak at doing manual labor despite being a villager. Perhaps these notions of identity can be analyzed through Nathalie Zemon Davis’ text “Boundaries and the sense of self in sixteenth-century France”. Davis states that a 16th century individual is embedded in the structural field of family and that families play a huge role in shaping one’s personal identity. Here, Martin is seen and identified as a weak, failed, impotent husband in relation to his marital situation. The way he treats his child, reflects on his personal self as a miserable father. Additionally, Davis underlines the importance of vocations and how they have shaped the notion of identity in the 16th century. Here, Martin was supposed to be a good agriculturalist and farmer, having been raised in a village. Yet, he has failed to find his vocational identity (at least until the first part of movie) which further reflects this idea that Martin Guerre is not the man he is expected to be from his parents, siblings, wife and entourage. After running away from this discomfort of his self, the “supposed” Martin returns. He has changed drastically. He can even be the opposite of what Martin was: He has grown a beard and got bigger, he is now loved by the village because of his adventurous stories and travels, he has learned to read and write, he shows affection to his son and a huge love to his wife Bertrande, he now harvests. In short, he has become a loved husband, a strong man who now protects his family and works hard for it. This person is no longer the “old” Martin Guerre. But is he the real one?

As Erving Goffman states in Performances, that appearance and manner are the front of one’s performance of identity, thus the new Martin’s looks can become suspicious from a first glance. Moreover, “we must be prepared to see that the impression of reality fostered by a performance is a delicate, fragile thing that can be shattered by very minor mishaps”. Hence, the man pretending to be Martin starts forgetting some details which leads to further doubts. But even if memory and physical appearance are indicative factors, the doubt comes forward because of an essentialist perspective of identity. The villagers are suspicious because the returned Martin is completely different from the “old” Martin in terms of his essence, his perceived self. The known essence of Martin cannot be reshaped or reinvented. Goffman argues that we portray masks, enact roles, control and stage our appearance. We play different parts according to the situation and we act who we are depending who we interact with: Hence, the man is playing the role of Martin Guerre and performs other social roles such as being a good husband and father. But one can further argue that this man wasn’t performing Martin’s identity nor was he stealing it. He only stole Martin’s name which is a form of identification yet cannot represent a whole identity if we adopt the essentialist perspective (essence before existence). However, one might argue that he was actually the real Martin who tried to perform a better self, who wore a different mask to be loved and accepted again, and to adapt to this new situation. Also, his adventures, travels and acquired knowledge have reshaped his being.

I will conclude this dilemma as E. Goffman puts it: there is no true self, no identifiable performer behind the roles, the roles just are the performer. Similarly, there wasn’t a Martin Guerre, but different roles of Martin Guerre performed by different individuals.