A fascinating movie


I'm surprised how neglected Jean Renoir's fine movie is. First, it looks unlike any 1940s movie I can think of, and the set decoration is superb, with all sorts of vivid little details. Paulette Goddard is a vivacious, outspoken heroine who attracts trouble; she was one of the best actresses of the decade and was wildly underrated. Burgess Meredith gives himself some great scenes -- including when he's eating roses and waterlilies and when he accidentally crushes his pet squirrel to death, and Francis Lederer is excellent as the villainous valet, especially when he kills a goose with a long knife. (If and when PETA protests this movie, it could be a good thing -- the publicity could only help this overlooked film.) Judith Anderson and Florence Bates (two huge assets from "Rebecca") do wonderful work here, and Irene Ryan is a welcome sight; she looked like Granny even as a young woman, and she is hilarious. As for Hurd Hatfield -- I learned from looking up his bio that he and Yul Brynner were lovers in 1941. That fact alone made his plastic performance worth sitting through. Check out this movie. The National Board of Review named it one of the 10 best movies of the year, so I'm not the only person who liked it. I just seem to be.

reply

Can't say I cared much for the broad, goofy slapstick that dominated the first half - or the first two thirds - of the movie and the same goes for the often trite melodramatic flourishes. And did Celestine really need to perform that blunt piece of exposition concerning her motivations early in the film. Bunuel in the remake never resorted to that stuff, allowing the viewer to figure her out on their own, and his film is only better for it.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply