Responsibility, Integrity, and Civic Discourse
Essay
The Duty of Hospitality in “Two Days, One, Night”: An analysis
of Sandra’s Encounters
In response to: ‘Consider the encounters between two characters from the film and evaluate the
character’s recognition and response to the duty of hospitality.’
Zaylan Moscow
13731348
Tutor: Sommer-Jade Brameld
Tutorial: Friday 11am
Word Count: 1103
Statement of Authorship
I declare that this assessment is my original work, and no part was copied or reproduced from
any other person’s work or any other source (including artificial intelligence) without
appropriate attribution.
I further certify that in completing this assessment task:
(1) I have not engaged in unauthorised use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI), where
‘unauthorised’ means beyond the scope of the approval to use GAI communicated in writing
by the lead educator for my subject.
Name: Zaylan Moscow
Student ID: 13731348
Date: 05/07/2024
Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne’s film “Two Days, One Night” presents a poignant exploration
of the duty of hospitality through the protagonist Sandra’s interactions with her colleagues.
This essay will analyse the encounters between Sandra and two of her co-workers, Timur and
Jean-Marc, evaluating their recognition and response to the duty of hospitality as
conceptualised by philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. The thesis of this essay is that while
Timur’s empathetic response exemplifies the transformative potential of recognising the
Other’s vulnerability, Jean-Marc’s actions demonstrate the ethical pitfalls of prioritising selfinterest over human connection, thereby highlighting the complexity of the duty of hospitality
in a capitalist society.
Sandra’s encounter with Timur exemplifies a profound recognition and fulfillment of the duty
of hospitality. When Sandra finally meets Timur at his second job (00:32:10), his response is
one of immediate empathy and remorse. Timur tearfully apologises for initially voting for his
bonus, saying, “I’m ashamed. I even forgot what you did for me. Remember? When I broke
those cells…and you said you did it” (00:34:10). This moment illustrates Levinas’s concept
of “face of the Other” – in seeing Sandra’s vulnerability, Timur is confronted with his own
ethical responsibility (Domrzalski, 2010).
Timur’s emotional reaction and willingness to sacrifice his bonus demonstrates a deep
understanding of the duty of hospitality. He recognises Sandra not just as a colleague, but as a
fellow human being in need, echoing Levinas’s idea that true hospitality involves seeing the
infinite in the Other (Domrzalski, 2010). Moreover, Timur’s recollection of Sandra’s past
kindness adds another layer top the duty of hospitality, suggesting that it is not just about
responding to the immediate need, but also about recognising and honouring the
interconnectedness of human relationships over time.
This encounter with Timur also highlights the ethical implications of past actions and their
influence on present decisions. Timur’s guilt and subsequent empathy are rooted in his
memory of Sandra’s Previous act of kindness. This aligns with Levinas’s view that ethical
responsibility is not transactional but an ongoing commitment to the Other. Timur’s response
can be seen as an acknowledgement of his interconnectedness, where past actions create a
moral obligation to act hospitably in the present.
In stark contrast, Sandra’s encounter with Jean-Marc, her foreman, presents a rejection of the
duty of hospitality. Jean-Marc actively works against Sandra, calling other employees to
convince them not to change their votes (00:39:45). His actions represent a prioritisation of
self-interest over ethical responsibility to others.
Jean-Marc’s behaviour can be seen as a form of “totalisation” – reducing Sandra to her role
as a potential threat to others’ bonuses rather than recognising her full humanity. This aligns
with Levinas’s critique of totalising systems that fail to acknowledge the infinite complexity
of the Other. However, even in this negative encounter, we see the power of face-to-face
interaction. When Sandra confronts Jean-Marc directly, saying “You’re heartless” (01:21:50),
she asserts her own humanity and challenges his ethical stance.
Jean-marc’s actions highlight the ethical pitfalls of prioritising self-interest over human
connection. His refusal to support Sandra reflects a broader societal issue where economic
considerations often overshadow ethical responsibilities. This encounter underscores the
tension between individual gain and collective well-being, a central theme in Levinas’s
philosophy.
The film’s depiction of these contrasting encounters highlights the complexity of the duty of
hospitality in a capitalist society. Sandra’s colleagues are caught between their own economic
needs and their ethical responsibilities to a fellow human being. This tension reflects
Levinas’s acknowledgement that while the duty of hospitality is infinite, practical limitations
necessitate some form of justice or compromise (Gauthier, 2007).
The Dardenne brother’s decision to frame these encounters in split shots, with Sandra on one
side and her colleague on the other, visually reinforces the ethical dilemma at play. This
framing invites the viewer to consider both perspectives, much as Levinas argues that true
ethical engagement requires recognising both the similarities and the irreducible difference of
the Other (Domrzalski, 2010).
The film also explores the broader societal implications of hospitality. Sandra’s struggle to
keep her job is not just a personal battle but a reflection of the systemic issues within a
capitalist society. The economic pressures faced by her colleagues highlight the limitations of
individual acts of hospitality in addressing structural inequalities. This aligns with Levinas’s
view that the duty of hospitality is infinite, it must be balanced with considerations of justice
and practical limitations.
Sandra’s own struggle with the duty of hospitality adds another layer of complexity. Despite
her desperate situation, Sandra shows empathy for her colleagues’ economic concerns and
often expresses reluctance to ask for their help (00:47:20). This internal conflict demonstrates
that the duty of hospitality is not just about how we respond to others, but also how we allow
ourselves to be vulnerable and receive help.
Sandra’s journey is marked by moments of vulnerability and resilience. Her willingness to
confront her colleagues and ask for their support reflects a recognition of her own humanity
and the interconnectedness of her relationships. This aligns with Levinas’s view that ethical
responsibility involves both giving and receiving hospitality.
The film’s resolution further complicates the notion of hospitality. When offered a
compromise that would save her job at the expense of another worker, Sandra refuses
(01:26:40). This decision can be seen as the ultimate act of hospitality – a willingness to
sacrifice her own interests for the sake of another, even one she does not know personally. It
aligns with Levinas’s concept of substitution, where ethical responsibility extends beyond
immediate relationships to a broader sense of human solidarity (Goodwin, 2022).
Sandra’s refusal to accept the compromise highlights the ethical complexities of hospitality.
Her decision reflects a commitment to ethical principles over personal gain, a central theme
in Levinas’s philosophy. This act of self-sacrifice underscores the transformative potential of
hospitality in fostering human connection.
In conclusion, “Two Days, One Night” offers a nuanced exploration of the duty of hospitality
through Sandra’s encounters with her colleagues. Timur’s empathetic response exemplifies
the transformative potential of recognising the Other’s vulnerability, while Jean-Marc’s
actions demonstrate the ethical pitfalls of prioritising self-interest over human connection.
The film highlights the complexity of enacting hospitality in a capitalist society, where
economic pressures often conflict with ethical responsibilities. Through Sandra’s journey,
including her ultimate self-sacrifice, we are reminded that the duty of hospitality is not just an
abstract philosophical concept, but a lived reality that shapes our interactions and defines our
humanity. Ultimately, the Dardenne brothers’ work suggests that while the duty of hospitality
is challenging, it remains fundamental to maintaining human dignity and social cohesion in
our contemporary world, inviting viewers to reflect on their own ethical responsibilities in
both personal and professional spheres.
References
Domrzalski, R. (2010). Suffering, Relatedness and Transformation: Levinas and Relational
Psychodynamic Theory. Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice.
https://crownschool.uchicago.edu/student-life/advocates-forum/suffering-relatedness-andtransformation-levinas-and-relational#:~:text=Levinas
Gauthier, D. J. (2007). Levinas and the Politics of Hospitality. History of Political Thought, 28(1),
158–180. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26222669
Godwin, M. (2022). Humanism in the Levinas’s Ethics of Responsibility.
https://www.acjol.org/index.php/albertine/article/download/2948/2904#:~:text=Therefore%2
C%20Levinas%20could%20be%20understood