Dans le film que nous regardons, un homme traverse un désert sans arbres.

Breakdown of Dans le film que nous regardons, un homme traverse un désert sans arbres.

nous
we
dans
in
que
that
sans
without
traverser
to cross
regarder
to watch
le film
the movie
l'arbre
the tree
l'homme
the man
le désert
the desert
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching French grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning French now

Questions & Answers about Dans le film que nous regardons, un homme traverse un désert sans arbres.

Why is it dans le film and not something like à le film or en le film?

In French, dans is the normal preposition for “in/inside” something, both literally and in a figurative sense like “in a film / in a book”.

  • dans le film = inside the world/story of the movie
  • dans le livre = in the book
  • dans la chanson = in the song

You do not say à le film (which would contract to au film) for “in the movie”. À is used more for directions, locations, or events (e.g. au cinéma, au concert, à Paris), not for being inside a story.

En is used with:

  • months: en juillet
  • years: en 2020
  • some countries: en France
  • means of transport: en train, en voiture

So here, dans le film is the natural and correct choice for “in the film”.

Why is it que nous regardons and not qui nous regardons?

This is about relative pronouns qui and que.

  • Use qui when the antecedent is the subject of the verb in the relative clause.
  • Use que when the antecedent is the direct object of the verb in the relative clause.

Here, the antecedent is le film (part of Dans le film…).

In que nous regardons:

  • nous is the subject of regardons
  • le film is what we are watching → it is the direct object of regardons

So the pattern is:

  • Le film que nous regardons
    = “The film (that) we are watching”
    (film is object → use que)

Compare:

  • Le film qui passe ce soir à la télé
    = “The film that is on TV tonight”
    (film is subject of passe → use qui)

So que is correct here because le film is the direct object in the clause.

In English we say “the film we are watching”. Why is French using simple present nous regardons, not something like “we are watching” form?

French does not have a distinct grammatical form for the continuous “-ing” aspect like English.

The simple present in French (nous regardons) usually covers both:

  • “we watch”
  • “we are watching”

So:

  • le film que nous regardons
    can mean: “the film that we watch” / “the film that we are watching”

If you really want to emphasize the ongoing nature of the action (similar to English continuous), French uses a periphrastic form:

  • le film que nous sommes en train de regarder
    = “the film that we are (in the process of) watching”

But in everyday speech and writing, nous regardons is normally enough.

In English we can say “the film we’re watching” without “that”. Can French drop que and say le film nous regardons?

No. In standard French, the relative pronoun (que, qui, etc.) is obligatory. You cannot just omit it the way English can.

So:

  • le film que nous regardons
  • le film nous regardons (ungrammatical in standard French)

Spoken French can shorten que to qu’ before a vowel sound:

  • le film qu’on regarde (informal: “the movie we’re watching”)

But even then, the que/qu’ is still there; it is not dropped completely.

Why is it un homme instead of l’homme? How do I know when to use un vs le here?

Un is the indefinite article (“a / an”), and le is the definite article (“the”).

We use un homme because:

  • This man has not been mentioned before.
  • He is introduced as “a man”, not a specific, known one.

So:

  • un homme traverse un désert
    = “a man crosses a desert” (new, unspecified man and unspecified desert)

If the man were already known in the context, you would use l’homme:

  • Dans le film, l’homme traverse un désert
    = “In the film, the man crosses a desert” (a particular man we already know about)

Same logic for un désert vs le désert (see also below).

Why is the verb traverse and not traverser or something with a preposition like traverse dans?

Traverser is the infinitive form, meaning “to cross”.

In the sentence, the subject is un homme (“a man”), so we need the 3rd person singular, present tense:

  • il traverse = “he crosses”

So we get:

  • un homme traverse un désert
    = “a man crosses a desert”

About the preposition: traverser is a transitive verb, which means it takes a direct object with no preposition:

  • traverser un désert = to cross a desert
  • traverser la rue = to cross the street
  • traverser la frontière = to cross the border

You would not say traverser dans un désert for this meaning.

Why is it un désert and not le désert? What is the difference?

Both are possible, but they do not mean quite the same thing.

  • un désert = “a desert”
    New, unspecified desert, just some desert.
  • le désert = “the desert”
    A specific desert already identified in the context, or “the” generic desert (for example, “the desert” as a known area around the characters).

In your sentence:

  • un homme traverse un désert sans arbres
    suggests we are simply describing a scene: a man is crossing a treeless desert, not necessarily a particular one we already know.

If the context had already introduced le désert:

  • Ils arrivent à un grand désert. Plus tard, l’homme traverse le désert sans arbres.
    Now le désert refers back to that specific desert.
Why is it sans arbres and not sans des arbres or sans d’arbres?

The preposition sans (“without”) is usually followed by a noun without an article when we are speaking in general:

  • sans sucre = without sugar
  • sans argent = without money
  • sans voiture = without a car
  • sans arbres = without trees

So the normal form here is:

  • un désert sans arbres = a desert without trees

Using sans des arbres would sound wrong here; it would suggest something like “without some trees” and is not idiomatic.

You sometimes see sans + article when the noun is specific, but that is different:

  • sans les enfants = without the children (specific, known children)

Here we mean “no trees at all, generally” → sans arbres.

Why is arbres plural? Could it be sans arbre instead?

Both are possible, but the nuance is a bit different.

  • sans arbres (plural)
    = without trees (no trees at all in that place)
    This is the most natural choice when describing a landscape.

  • sans arbre (singular)
    Also possible, and can mean effectively the same thing: “without a (single) tree”.
    It often has a slightly more literary or emphatic feel: “not a tree in sight”.

In everyday description, French tends to use the plural here, just like English:

  • un désert sans arbres = a desert without trees.