Last Twilight in Paris

The symbolism of the Weils’ tea set is extended once Helaine identifies it at Lévitan, becoming another reminder of The Transformation of Civilian Spaces into Sites of Oppression. Before, it represented the loss of her grandmother, her childhood, and the freedom for which she longed and was denied because of her illness. Now, she recognizes the set because it is so unique, as it was custom-made when her grandmother married. She “wanted to touch it, as if finding a piece of the past would bring her family closer” (223). The tea set, stolen from the Weils’ home by the Germans, now represents so much more loss than ever before. It comes to symbolize the loss of Helaine’s beloved mother, and Annette’s loss of freedom and life. 

Though Helaine used to believe that the loss of her childhood was the most significant one she could ever endure, she now realizes that the loss of freedom she and her mother experience under the German occupation of France is so much more significant. Confined to her childhood home, Helaine lived a life of relative ease and comfort, surrounded by the love and care of her mother; now, though, she is truly denied her liberty in Lévitan, in fear for her own life and the lives of her loved ones, trapped with little hope of escape. She knows, too, that her mother has been taken by the Germans, on her way to almost-certain death at one of the eastern camps. Annette confined Helaine to protect her, but Helaine’s confinement now is of a totally different nature and for a horrifying purpose. Finding the tea set at the store is a reminder of how she used to feel and how much she has lost since then.

Louise’s and Ian’s experiences continue to highlight The Moral Complexities of Resistance as well as the way in which war can confuse one’s ideas of right and wrong. When Louise confronts Ian about his failure to help Franny or even to believe Louise when she felt something was suspicious about Franny’s death, he says, “I was scared […]. Scared of losing the whole operation and of something happening to you” (213). He feels guilty, he says, about what happened to Franny and for failing to support Louise, but he felt his hands were tied by the limitations the Germans placed on the Red Cross. 

Ian thus argues that if he helped a friend or fellow volunteer to do something right, it could prevent him from continuing to help others who were suffering in POW camps, a consequence tantamount to a major wrong. He claims he had to deny Franny and Louise his support—potentially a moral wrong—so he could continue to help prisoners, an act of moral good. Louise understands to an extent, because, as she says, “The weight of guilt atop my grief nearly buckles me. ‘If I had helped Franny, she would still be here’” (215). However, Ian’s theft of the necklace and sudden disappearance in the present-day timeline foreshadow the revelation in the next section that Ian was never quite as he seemed: He was committing treason and aiding the Germans while using the Red Cross as a cover, which reveals how some people use the pretense of resistance or aid to disguise their true intentions. 

Louise refuses to help Franny with the necklace because the consequences for Louise would be so dire if she were caught. Not only could she jeopardize the Red Cross’s efforts, but it could cost her own life. Thus, during the war, she thinks, “after what happened to Franny, right and wrong didn’t matter anymore, not here” (242). The concepts of good and bad become so muddled, so different from what they were before, that they now seem inconsequential. Louise and Ian therefore both feel justified denying their assistance to a friend, though under normal circumstances, neither would likely refuse such a request. This blurring of moral concepts that seemed so clear just a few months prior makes people act in ways they wouldn’t usually do, and for which they will feel guilt later on.

Louise and Ian’s continued guilt also emphasizes The Enduring Effects of Trauma and Loss. Despite Louise and Ian’s accurate perception during the war, that “nothing was as it should be anymore” (243), they are still haunted by the trauma and the losses they endured. Franny’s death impacted them both, and both seem to accept blame for it because they failed to help her while she was alive. Though Ian continues to deny that her death is suspicious—something Louise firmly believes—he claims he still doesn’t feel good about his decision to deny her aid when she asked for it. Her death troubles them still and deeply impacts who they are now, some 10 years later. 

Louise’s wartime losses and traumas also continue to influence her identity and sense of self, invoking The Interplay Between One’s Past and Identity. She chafes against her role as wife and mother, anxious for more meaning and purpose, eager to right the wrongs of her past. Ian never married or had children and has, instead, ostensibly remained committed to serving the country in diplomatic roles. This suggests a commitment to his work so that he might absolve himself of the guilt and wrongs he did during the war. Neither can simply move forward unproblematically because their past affects their current identities, no matter how different or how similar they might seem to be.