Qui A Tué Grand-Maman ?

It seems that Polnareff is here using 'grand-maman' to metaphorically represent the era of his grandparents, perhaps drawing upon the concept of (grand)'mother nature' to highlight the replacement of natural environments with infrastructure over time. Painting an idyllic picture in which flowers grow in gardens and birds sing in trees, he laments the loss of the peace of green spaces and questions whether their destruction was inevitable, meeting a natural death, having simply fallen victim to time, or whether it was an intentional decision by the disdainfully described antagonists, 'the men who no longer have the time to spend time'. I think the somewhat paradoxical nature of this clause was designed to emphasise the absurdity of modern metropolitan life, suggesting they have forgotten how to fundamentally live and have drifted far from the way life is meant to be under the artificial constraints imposed by their modern lifestyles. It speaks of the reallocation of the precious hours, days and years of our lives to the pursuit of success in the rat race, at the expense of connection with the beautiful tranquility of the natural world and the joy in simple things like silence - the absence of constant activity - for which many have lost an appreciation. Across various sources, the lyrics differ in whether there is an accent grave on the 'u' in 'ou', leaving ambiguity around whether it was intended to read 'was it time or men' or 'was it time where men'. This doesn't have significant bearing on the overall meaning of the song, but I personally prefer the former interpretation (upon which I based my above thoughts), because I feel it calls into question to a greater degree the necessity (and consequences) of our choices as humans, along with the autonomy, both collectively and, in part, individually, that we have in deciding whether we want to contribute to and perpetuate consumptive development or choose an alternative path for ourselves.

The song follows a narrative-style format, effectively ultimately answering its own central question as it progresses. Alternating between descriptive verses evoking an image of a picturesque garden and the repeated chorus questioning the cause or agent responsible for the clearing of said garden, a juxtaposition is created that intensifies the sense of regret around the 'death' of the garden. After sparking intrigue and promoting reflection on the reasons underlying urbanisation over the first two verses and repetitions of the chorus, Polnareff delivers the answer to the listener: it was the bulldozer that killed metaphorical grandmother - a gruesome and violent mental image no doubt deliberately evocative to position the audience to condemn the attack on the unadulterated earth represented by the analogy, reinforced by the overall unfavourable depiction of other heavy machinery taking the place of the flowers. I see the choice of leveling the accusation at the bulldozer, while arguably quite simply just accurate, as bringing additional depth to the song with the connotations of 'bulldozing' implying that something is done by asserting ones will with brute force and no remorse or consideration for those that stand in way, building upon Polnareff's implication that this was unthinking course of action that lacked proper fore-thought. It also names an inanimate object as the perpetrator, rather than directly accusing man (specifically the 'men who no longer have time', who Polnareff could have blamed to resolve the question), while allowing the reader to make the obvious inference that the bulldozer was not self-operating, but driven by a human, representing a more elegant, implicit conclusion. In relation to the bleak, construction landscape left in the wake of the bulldozer, Polnareff's line 'est-ce pour cela que l'on te pleure ?' introduces for the first time in the song reference to a 'we', distinct from the singular 'you' that the narrator addresses. The 'othering' of this structure leads me to believe that the 'we' is comprised of individuals who reject the prescribed by society, who lament the situation and look with pity upon those wrapped up in the microcosm of business and economics, though I can't say I confidently understand this line; it's a bit beyond me, and perhaps isn't imbued with any particular symbolism. Perhaps, the person addressed in the second person is actually the grandmother herself, whose 'hands are left empty' and is being grieved, but I'm inclined to think that Polnareff meant it was the businessmen of the world (, too) who are left empty-handed when nature is destroyed. In my eyes, this is corroborated by the child-like sound of the voices on the non-lyrical vocalisation component of the chorus, creating the sense that it is the pure, uncontaminated spirits of children at one with nature who are the opponents of the men afflicted with time-poverty.

It seems that Polnareff is here using 'grand-maman' to metaphorically represent the era of his grandparents, perhaps drawing upon the concept of (grand)'mother nature' to highlight the replacement of natural environments with infrastructure over time. Painting an idyllic picture in which flowers grow in gardens and birds sing in trees, he laments the loss of the peace of green spaces and questions whether their destruction was inevitable, meeting a natural death, having simply fallen victim to time, or whether it was an intentional decision by the disdainfully described antagonists, 'the men who no longer have the time to spend time'. I think the somewhat paradoxical nature of this clause was designed to emphasise the absurdity of modern metropolitan life, suggesting they have forgotten how to fundamentally live and have drifted far from the way life is meant to be under the artificial constraints imposed by their modern lifestyles. It speaks of the reallocation of the precious hours, days and years of our lives to the pursuit of success in the rat race, at the expense of connection with the beautiful tranquility of the natural world and the joy in simple things like silence - the absence of constant activity - for which many have lost an appreciation. Across various sources, the lyrics differ in whether there is an accent grave on the 'u' in 'ou', leaving ambiguity around whether it was intended to read 'was it time or men' or 'was it time where men'. This doesn't have significant bearing on the overall meaning of the song, but I personally prefer the former interpretation (upon which I based my above thoughts), because I feel it calls into question to a greater degree the necessity (and consequences) of our choices as humans, along with the autonomy, both collectively and, in part, individually, that we have in deciding whether we want to contribute to and perpetuate consumptive development or choose an alternative path for ourselves.

The song follows a narrative-style format, effectively ultimately answering its own central question as it progresses. Alternating between descriptive verses evoking an image of a picturesque garden and the repeated chorus questioning the cause or agent responsible for the clearing of said garden, a juxtaposition is created that intensifies the sense of regret around the 'death' of the garden. After sparking intrigue and promoting reflection on the reasons underlying urbanisation over the first two verses and repetitions of the chorus, Polnareff delivers the answer to the listener: it was the bulldozer that killed metaphorical grandmother - a gruesome and violent mental image no doubt deliberately evocative to position the audience to condemn the attack on the unadulterated earth represented by the analogy, reinforced by the overall unfavourable depiction of other heavy machinery taking the place of the flowers. I see the choice of leveling the accusation at the bulldozer, while arguably quite simply just accurate, as bringing additional depth to the song with the connotations of 'bulldozing' implying that something is done by asserting ones will with brute force and no remorse or consideration for those that stand in way, building upon Polnareff's implication that this was unthinking course of action that lacked proper fore-thought. It also names an inanimate object as the perpetrator, rather than directly accusing man (specifically the 'men who no longer have time', who Polnareff could have blamed to resolve the question), while allowing the reader to make the obvious inference that the bulldozer was not self-operating, but driven by a human, representing a more elegant, implicit conclusion.

In relation to the bleak, construction landscape left in the wake of the bulldozer, Polnareff's line 'est-ce pour cela que l'on te pleure ?' introduces for the first time in the song reference to a 'we', distinct from the singular 'you' that the narrator addresses. The 'othering' of this structure leads me to believe that the 'we' is comprised of individuals who reject the prescribed by society, who lament the situation and look with pity upon those wrapped up in the microcosm of business and economics, though I can't say I confidently understand this line; it's a bit beyond me, and perhaps isn't imbued with any particular symbolism. Perhaps, the person addressed in the second person is actually the grandmother herself, whose 'hands are left empty' and is being grieved, but I'm inclined to think that Polnareff meant it was the businessmen of the world (, too) who are left empty-handed when nature is destroyed. In my eyes, this is corroborated by the child-like sound of the voices on the non-lyrical vocalisation component of the chorus, creating the sense that it is the pure, uncontaminated spirits of children at one with nature who are the opponents of the men afflicted with time-poverty.