truly mystified - what the?

I'm with you on this. In fact, I came over to the boards for this film expressly to see if anyone else was similarly mystified by its reputation as I am.

I have seen 'The Rules of the Game' three times over the years attempting to find the eureka moment but I never manage to achieve the desired epiphany. Rather, I am always at a loss to understand why people even like this film, let alone believe it to be one of the "greatest films ever made". For me it seems hopelessly dated, its satire far too soft, and wearingly peopled with dull and unengaging characters; unlike Luis Bunuel's 'The Exterminating Angel', for instance. I also believe that a lot of the political significance it's been bestowed with is retrospective rather than an implicit aspect of the film itself. For me, great French wartime films like 'La Belle et la Bete' and 'Children of Paradise' say more and do so much more engagingly.

However, as there are many directors I admire who have spoken highly of this work (and Renoir in general), as a cineaste, I always feel obliged to have another go at it. I read on another thread that Alain Resnais considered 'The Rules of the Game' to be his single most significant viewing experience and I know Orson Welles, in particular, very much admired Renoir's films. However, if you look at Welles' list of top 10 films (written in 1952 for Cahiers du Cinema), he chose to represent Renoir by listing 'Grand Illusion' rather than 'The Rules of the Game'. Although I have to admit that am in no way an adherent of Renoir, I appreciate that 'Grand Illusion' is a great film and would've thought that it would rate highest in his canon.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I just saw this movie for the first time over the past weekend. While I'm not prepared, on one viewing, to put among my favorites ..... I did like it much more than you did and will revisit it.

I may have some opinions to offer about one or two of your other points later. However, for the moment I will confine myself to one basically factual point.

People (both characters in the movie and the French population in general) are not treating Andre as hero just because he crossed the Atlantic. They are treating him as hero because he broke the record for the fastest crossing. In the pre-War period people still cared about such things and took no small amount of pride in being the nation that held the current record ...... whether the fastest airplane crossing, the fastest cruise liner crossing, or whatever.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I wont' take the time to write a lengthy rebuttal, but simply suggest that you listen to the film with the commentary on. it will clear up your questions and confusions.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

First, right off, I thought one of the few truly satirical things in the movie was that Andre is a "hero" to the French for doing something that had already been done before, crossing the Atlantic 12 yrs after Lindbergh, when aviation had progressed dramatically, making the feat really trivial. Yet everyone else seems to accept this made Andre truly heroic - what the?

"Everyone?" Do you mean the characters in the film? As you say this is satire, a rather clever piece of satire in my opinion. If you mean everyone who's seen the film, then I have no comment: that's simply their viewpoint. Just remember that a film is not its fans. I certainly don't see Andre as being a hero in the grand scheme of things, but in the context of French society at the time he would have been, and that says more about French society than Andre himself (who never really comments on his feat. He doesn't seem to consider himself a hero either).

Supposedly this film is a critique of the wealthy Bourgeois, but the domestics, the poacher, everyone behaves with exactly the same dimwitted disconnect between their actions and the consequences. There have been so many much more withering critiques of class oppression in literature, this is so weak as to be pointless - what the?

Further the upper class treats their servants as equals, even friends, instead of looking down their nose at them because of their class. It is less a satire of class discrimination than any other movie I've seen. How funny and more realistic it would have been if Christine looked down her nose at Lisette's adultery, while in fact doing the same thing herself. But no, make her sympathetic - what the?

You've stumbled upon what the film really does: criticises every level of a society, as he put it, "rotten to the core," not just the bourgeois. Again, a film is not its fans, and just because it's described as one thing does not mean that was the director's initial intention. It seems to me as if Renoir is trying to show just how pointless the class divides are: at the core they are all the same foolish, farcical character stumbling between their lusts and their sense of propriety. Recall Marceau and Robert's conversation about Muslims and harems, and you see their only difference is where they were born. Juxtapose it with Marceau's goodbye to Robert, in which he thanks him for "trying to better me by making me a servant," and you'll see what I mean. It's not a truly Marxist film but it is interesting from a Marxist perspective.

This movie plays like a farce, done infinitely better by Moliere 200 years before, except the way the characters are established as worthless boring lunkheads at the beginning leaves no surprises, therefore no laughs, no involvement. Renoir said not one of his characters in this movie was worth saving, I heartily agree, yet I see lovers of the movie identifying with Andre (pursues a vapid married woman), Christine (seems to me the whole point is everyone is in love with a fickle dimwit with no redeeming values, she's even kind of dumpy compared to other glamorous woman of her time, her only attraction to self-hating Parisians is she's "foreign"), and even Marceau and Lisette are called 2 of the most lovable characters ever - two stupid self-destructive morons (in an utterly mundane predictable way).

I can't speak about Moliere from a point of experience, as he's one of those writers I've been meaning to get around to, but he, like Renoir, was simply commenting on what he saw around him, indeed when nobody else was. As for "lovers of the movie," again that's a criticism of its fans rather than the film itself and I won't leap to defend people I don't agree with. I agree with you if you think there wasn't anyone likeable as a person in the film, just as Renoir found nothing likeable about the French class system, but it is conceivable that they are likeable as characters. Let me put it this way: I love Stan Laurel's characters, but I wouldn't want one of them to help me paint my house.

Renoir said he wanted to make a "pleasant film" about a "society that is rotten to the core" Huh?! I guess he succeeded but why, what's next a pleasant film about the SS? What the?

The "pleasantness" of it, the amiability of the characters on the surface, is, with all due respect, a far more subtle satire than your suggestions that they be overtly obvious morons.

Is this just another case of pseudo-sophistication because it's French? Christine could have been a ridiculously funny character, a true lambasting of blasé upper crust facades, but the way Renoir blunts his satire (which is not just my opinion since even lovers of the film don't find her ridiculous, but instead intriguing). An equivalent character of her "depth and complexity" (as lovers of the film claim), or Lisette's "lovable character" would more likely be found these days in a Rob Schneider film, minus the faux artiness of vintage B&W "Frenchiness". What the?

Firstly I don't know what would be considered a sophisticated film, but I'd warrant this isn't one of them. It's certainly subtle, too subtle to have the central role be, as you suggest, "a ridiculously funny character." Christine is the eye of the storm and thus artistically speaking can't be a Marceau, an Octave or a Schumacher. It so happens she's not deep or complex, which is one of the films major strengths. She's played basically as a slut who tells one man one thing and another man something else. She doesn't really know what she wants and for all her upper class upbringing she's very of-the-moment and, like the rest of them, doesn't really think about the consequences of her actions. The fact she's reverred and lusted over as the lady of the manor in spite of all this makes it funnier.

People say the hunting scene is satire, but that's only because they are bringing their own values into the viewing, there is nothing IN the movie that satirizes the hunt, in fact someone who still indulges in the sport would likely find this sequence very pleasurable and without irony or criticism. What the?

The fact that there are unpleasant characters doing it would imply satire, not to mention the setting. Remember, it's after one world war, with another merely approaching, but they still have guns in their hands. The only difference between their hunt and the wars that book-end it is they are killing for sport rather than necessity. There is the irony, even before you start to analyse first the pleasantries and then the bickering over who killed what.

If people miss this in the film, then they're somewhat akin to those who see Salo as a porn film.

And unless you're a vegan, being disgusted by the hunt is as hypocritical as the characters in the film, they are just doing something honestly that we keep hidden behind factory walls, and those animals lived a much better life than those raised in captivity for slaughter. (I myself was sickened during the hunt scene, but my reaction is to eat less meat, not pretend I'm better than people who hunt).

I'm a vegetarian but I accept that people killing to eat is preferable to people killing for fun. What I find more hypocritical is the filmmakers themselves, although at least the animals killed in the film served some sort of purpose. Really, if people are watching this scene horrifyed before their Sunday roast then that, I agree, is irony in itself and perhaps an example of how the film is still relevant.

Again rather than making fun of the upper crust, he shows them all to be excellent marksmen, they almost never miss! Unrealistic and paying them a compliment rather than making fun of them. A satire with teeth would show them fumbling, missing, nearly killing one another, overkilling the game against the advice of the gameskeeper, wasting the rabbits and pheasants rather than eating them, and conceitedly taking credit for the skill of their servants. What the?

That would be a satire of obviousness, not teeth. It's not a slapstick film, despite the similarities.

That said, I liked the photography, I always like B&W from other eras, but did not find it rising to a level to save the film. And the famous exchange "stop this farce", "which one?" at least finally gave me a smile. 75 more lines like that and maybe I'd like it half as much as "Manhattan".

I don't know about 75, but there are a good many quotes from this film that made me laugh for the same reasons!

Really I don't think your problems lie with the film, but how the film is lauded and perceived. Maybe if you watch it again, keeping some of these things in mind, you might enjoy it more.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Yet everyone else seems to accept this made Andre truly heroic - what the?

You are taking Andre's "heroism" too literally. Andre's feat of aviaton is enough for the highly nationalistic press to make him into a hero and it's enough for the bourgeosie to pretend that he's an hero. The film is about society and social conventions. The conflict between the individuals and the roles that society plays.

Supposedly this film is a critique of the wealthy Bourgeois, but the domestics, the poacher, everyone behaves with exactly the same dimwitted disconnect between their actions and the consequences.

Because the domestics, the poacher and other lower-class characters work for the middle class and so naturally themselves take on bourgeois attitudes in order to keep their job. "The most terrible thing in the world is that everyone has his reasons." A film with that attitude won't be interested in innocent and noble working people like the kind in Soviet films.

There have been so many much more withering critiques of class oppression in literature, this is so weak as to be pointless - what the?

The film isn't interested in saying that the wealthy aristocracts are bad and corrupt. It goes beyond that to a much higher level, really going into the heart of the class system on which society runs. The title of the film, "The Rules of the Game" according to Renoir are those rules which people have to observe so as they don't get crushed by society.

Renoir said he wanted to make a "pleasant film" about a "society that is rotten to the core" Huh?! I guess he succeeded but why, what's next a pleasant film about the SS? What the?

In case you skipped history, the real-life aristocracy of France went on to sell their country to the Nazis and sent more Jews than any other occupied nation to the camps. Most of them weren't evil or vindictive, just people living their lives in illusions and bad faith like these characters.

Andre (pursues a vapid married woman),

There's nothing vapid about Christine, though Andre is a naive fool(but he's a "hero"). And I've never met one lover of the film who identifies with him. The characters people like are Marcel Dalio's Marquis or Octave played by the big man himself.

Christine (seems to me the whole point is everyone is in love with a fickle dimwit with no redeeming values, she's even kind of dumpy compared to other glamorous woman of her time, her only attraction to self-hating Parisians is she's "foreign"),

Why don't you come back when you've grown up. If you can look at a JEAN RENOIR film looking for "redeeming values", or consider her dumpy then you're clearly not the kind of person for whom this film is made.

What about any satire of any other social issue than adultery - jeez!

The film isn't about adultery. Actually the social issue the film is attacking is in fact MARRIAGE.

A satire with teeth would show them fumbling, missing, nearly killing one another, overkilling the game against the advice of the gameskeeper, wasting the rabbits and pheasants rather than eating them, and conceitedly taking credit for the skill of their servants. What the?

So you won't cliches? Don't watch Jean Renoir!



"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Never in my entire life I have read such a breathtakingly stupid text. It's not about your opinion, it's about your argumentation which refers to a few supposed "ideas" which this film expresses instead of refering to what is actually there. It doesn't work.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

.
I have to pretty much agree with the OP. And in fact I saw nothing untoward about the hunting scene, in fact (except maybe its length compared to the rest of the film). They weren't killing inedible animals like foxes; they were shooting animals that would all be eaten (we know that because Marceau got dressed down for poaching one single rabbit). They weren't shooting innocent animals to put their heads on a wall like modern sport deerhunters do who often discard the carcass. It was all very normal -- we watch such things on Downton Abbey and think nothing of it but somehow this film made everyone upset? I don't get it. There are shots of a few rabbits twitching in the throes of death, but that's what animals do when they die -- they twitch; all that this revealed is that the shootings were real and not faked.

In sum, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about regarding the hunt scene. And I'm a person who will not re-watch Old Yeller because it will upset me, and who closes my eyes when there is any kind of blood or gore or even injury on the screen. Funny how no one gets upset when graphic, gory murder and dismemberment occur on the modern screen, but the very normal hunting of edible animals (and in the case of the rabbits - edible pests who destroy crops) scene in this movie has people all upset.
.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It it so many years since your post, and still I feel like commenting.
It is obvious from where you are coming. This is not to judge you, though to point out that your idea of 'movie' is different from some others. And you are by no means alone. Your expectations are different (from example of mine), and so we tend to see thing vastly different. Your questions are a clear indication.
If it is about the 'hero', and you rightly point out, that he isn't. Does that really matter? Can one not for a moment put oneself into some shoes that it actually was a heroic deed, without specifying why? It seems, it was. You also seem discontent with the fact that there are no 'good' people in that movie, not even the servants or poachers. Maybe the movie isn't about class oppression? (As much as you might like it to be, eventually.) How can it be 'wrong' that the rich handle their servants almost as 'equals', as you wrote? (I could go on, but I think I made myself clear.)
It seems - and that would be no mistake at all - that you have a strong feeling of what you would like to see in a movie, socially and politically. You even suggest a role for Christine. Fine, for you. Though I ask myself if a movie was supposed to be judged according to what I would have liked to see; or rather to open-mindedly watch how the director saw things and wanted to hand them to the audience for enjoyment, or discussion.
Your movie would have been a completely different movie, and that's good so.

reply share

add reply

formatting help