‘God, but what have you done to us?’
Address: Philippe of Chauveron
Translators: Christian Clavier, Chantal Lauby, Jochen Hägele, Pascal Nzonzi, Bing Yin, Ary Abittan, Medi Sadoun, Frédéric Chau, Noom Diawara, Frédérique Bel, Élodie Fontan, Daniel Russo, Amélie Prevot
Year: 2022
premiere: 18 July 2022
★
“Oh my God, what have we done to you?” and “God, what have we done to you now?” and “God, but what have you done to us?” spark memories of a controversial legacy. The third installment in this sequence revisits a premise that many viewers associate with provocative comedy: poking at sensitive social lines—color, sexual orientation, and cultural traditions—through the lens of a family drama. The film positions itself as a mirror to contemporary society, inviting audiences to reflect on the gaps between intention and impact in humor that aims to confront prejudice, even when it risks crossing into discomfort or offense.
The tonal core remains recognizably rooted in a long-running thread of family conflict and stubborn misunderstandings. The scenarios center on a conservative family navigating the complexities of arranged alliances and the implications of modern interethnic and interfaith relationships. The jokes often revolve around the generational divide, the clash between traditional expectations and evolving social norms, and the awkward possibilities that arise when prejudice hides behind wit. The opening gambit—mirth derived from mother-in-law dynamics and the intermingling of diverse in-law backgrounds—continues to drive the narrative, with the new installment extending this provocative setup rather than stripping it down to a simpler formula.
The cast remains a touchstone of the series, with performances anchored by familiar faces who have shaped the film’s recognizable voice. The ensemble, led by veteran comic actors, delivers a blend of sharp one-liners and situational humor that seeks to provoke both laughter and reflection. Interpersonal friction among family members is held up as a canvas for exploring broader social tensions, including stereotypes and the sometimes tense experience of welcoming new cultural influences into intimate spaces. This approach underscores the filmmaker’s ongoing ambition: to use comedy as a vehicle for conversation about prejudice, inclusion, and the friction that occurs when people from different backgrounds share a life together.
What emerges from this installment is a meditation on the persistence of old habits even as society evolves. The narrative leans on a familiar device—a milestone celebration that brings everyone into one room—to test how long-established preferences withstand the pressure of modern realities. The humor, while steeped in shock value at points, also attempts to reveal the absurdity of xenophobia and bigotry when faced with genuine human connection. The clash between tradition and change yields moments of raw honesty, moments of awkwardness, and, occasionally, a sense of uneasy catharsis for the audience. The film thus invites viewers to examine how humor can both challenge and entrench prejudice, depending on the context and the spotlight it places on difference.
In its execution, the movie sticks to a pace that favors quick exchanges and escalating misunderstandings. It invites audiences to judge not only the characters’ choices but the social climate that makes such choices seem necessary or desirable. The result is a piece that not only entertains but also serves as a commentary on the state of cultural discourse in contemporary Western societies. The comedy is calibrated to provoke, to spark conversation, and to remind viewers that laughter can carry both warmth and risk depending on the ears listening and the eyes watching. The film’s willingness to revisit sensitive topics without entirely shelving them signals an intent to contribute to ongoing conversations about race, identity, and communal harmony, even as it treads carefully around the edge of controversy.
Viewed in this light, the third chapter acts as a reminder that cinema often mirrors social fault lines in ways that can be uncomfortable yet necessary. It shows how humor functions as a social instrument—sometimes a balm, sometimes a spark for dispute. The cinematic craft remains attentive to character dynamics, timing, and the delicate balance between audacious provocation and empathetic storytelling. As a cultural artifact, the film stands as a testament to the enduring tension between satire and sensitivity, and it challenges audiences to consider what kind of humor can genuinely contribute to understanding rather than widening divides. In sum, the work anchors itself in a tradition of provocative family comedy while pushing viewers to consider the consequences of jokes when they are measured against real-world harm and inclusion.