MovieChat Forums > The River (1951) Discussion > Why I am the only one who doesn't like t...

Why I am the only one who doesn't like this...

posted 18 years ago by sidekick86
23 replies | jump to latest

I've come on here after watching the River at my local cinema and I'm amazed to see that no one has a bad word to say about it. This film just isn't very good and far below the standards of Jean Renoir. The characters are flat and lifless. The direction is dull and boring, even the great locations don't spark any thing and Renoir seems to fail to capitalise on his beautiful location dseciding instead to concentrate everything in the very european grounds of the big house. The few scenes where we get a taste for Indian life with festivels and things lack energy.
I know I'll probably be laughed at for being stupid and unable to appreciate Renoir but I strongly feel this is by far Renoirs worst film and just because it is Renoir doesn't mean it should be instantly loved by all modern audences who watch it.
I some times think that modern audiences watch films like this already convinced that it's a classic just because of what they've heard, read or seen. Or in this case purley because of who Jean Renoir was.
Renoir was no doubt a master but even masters have off days.

[–] underdog777 18 years ago

You aren't the only one. I too found the characters flat and lifeless, and the film being a collection of set piece scenes made it seem random and disjointed to me. Some of the scenes, the dialogue struck me as utterly random, and too many of them just left me scratching me head.

I only looked this film up on IMDB because, after running across it tonight on Turner Classic Movies, I wondered if it could possibly really be considered a classic. It certainly isn't anything approaching a classic in my book.

[–] jovos_suck123 16 years ago

hmm i think thats just your taste...nothing to so with the film

Ozu and hiroshi films do very simular things to that....but there are plenty of people that adore it

[–] bobvious 18 years ago

All of you - pearls before swine. More for me.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bobvious 18 years ago

Which "impressionistic cinematography" are you referring to? I believe I have found your error: You didn't watch the right movie! The cinematography is not impressionistic. In fact it borders on documentary. Static camera setups filming cultural events followed by some landscapes followed by some very staged dramatic sequences. What is impressionistic about any of this?

You didn't like The River. Does that make it a bad movie - the fact thaht you didn't like it?

Here's a concept for you: you don't have to like everything you see.

When you don't like something, you look for flaws in it. And you find them. Because everything has flaws. Want to ruin your favorite movie? Start looking for the inevitable flaws in it.
Because everything has flaws. Even your favorite movie does; though you probably won't allow yourself to see them, because you like it, and that makes it a perfect movie.

Script: I'm not a script expert. This is not my favorite Renoir movie - I own both Grand Illusion and Rules of the Game and GI is my favorite. I watch it at least one a year. But I have no idea if the script is poor or not - give some examples and maybe I'll see your point.

Non professional actors: have you seen Bicycle Thief? Umberto D? Or anything by Herzog? The use of non-actors is a hallmark of even some of the finest movies ever made. Some of the acting in The River is wooden. It didn't make the movie less of an experience for me. I trust the director and was taken on a journey. I wasn't analzying the movie as I went along (that's too much work). When a movie presents interpretive elements for me to chew on and it does it without being pretentious and cloying, I love it. When a movie doesn't do this I don't even notice.

I don't go up to a painting and, upon deciding I don't like it, begin dismantling the painter's technique, pointing out flaws in brush strokes, and declaring how bad the color is. I just realize I don't like it. When I DO like a painting, I examine the reasons if I feel like it. Sometimes I realize the painting I like has a lot of flaws in it. Just like me.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bobvious 18 years ago

What's a 'color scheme'?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jovos_suck123 15 years ago

actually you are confusing non-actors...with non professional actors

visconti/de sica etc (italian neo r) all used non-professional actors (still actors, just not pros)

non-actors are a completley different thing...read robert bressons book on cinematography

non-actors are "not" actors they are cinematic models that naturally posses a innate essence the director wants...non professional actors are just actors thst are not professional

[–] bobvious 15 years ago

Thank you but I don't need to read a book on cinematography in order to find supporting evidence for your point, now that you've corrected my terminology. I have your post to do this, and it's convincing enough. My confusion was shameful and embarrassing. Thank you for the correction.

Non-actors is what I meant. People Renoir found locally, to be in his movie, who were without previous acting experience. Whether they were in church plays or the local street-acted passion play is beyond my slightest interest or knowledge.

Now that I have some hairs split in my soup I'll move on (this post was how long ago?)

[–] j2000-1 18 years ago

Absolutely one of the worst pictures I have ever seen especially coming from a well known director.The only good thing about it is the story line.The script dialog is so immature it could have been written by a ten year old.I actually felt sorry for the actors trying to make something out of such stilted dialogue.But then the actors cast for this film would certainly not be my first pick.
As for the cinematography I will admit that there are some great shots of India but that flat lighting which Renoir and his nephew decided to use is just so amateurish.Movies are all about lighting...that is where atmosphere is created.And atmosphere is what makes or breaks a movie.
So this movie fails on nearly every level and is not one that I would look at again.

That said some would ask if we should be so critical...well the answer is yes we should always be critical since we the viewers are the one who pay and we are also the ones who determine the acceptable level of quality which we are willing to accept in return for our hard earned cash.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Goldmund1710 18 years ago

In conclusion: The River is a flawed masterpiece.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] george23 17 years ago

mr j2000-1,
power to the people, right?
have YOU ever created ANYTHING in your life??? Instead of being so childishly demanding and judgemental about things you don't REALY understand, you should be forever grateful that there actually ARE people -great artists- who have the passion and generosity and talent to brighten up our dull-dull-boring-dull lives!!! Including yours! Even if what they get in return is ungratefulnes and lack of understanding from some of us.
sincerely yours,
george 23

[–] enbilal 17 years ago

This was my first Renoir. Wow! Wonderful. If I had read this back then, I would have clearly wondered what was a good Renoir if this was a bad one?

~~~~~~

[–] artihcus022 17 years ago

To me 'The River' is second only to 'The Rules of the Game' and as an Indian I was absolutely floored by Renoir's remarkable cultural portrayal. Especially the Diwali celebrations.

How much is a good nights sleep worth?

[–] Hyman_Flomax 17 years ago

To be fair, it is a very difficult film to get into, and it's not for all tastes. To fully appreciate this film, you need to bring a committed and focused approach, otherwise it will completely escape you. Much like the films of Yasujiro Ozu, as many have mentioned, it relies not on the unfolding of a plot, but on observations of everyday life and visual poetry. I personally don't think I'll fully be able to enjoy it without giving it a second viewing, as my initial reaction is that it's basically a lustrous pageant of a movie, albeit with many fine observations on Hindu culture and the wonderful difficulty that a child faces in their early pubescent years. The voice-over narration does tend to interfere with one's enjoyment; the way Renoir has structured the scenes it's easy to imagine the seeming lack of a traditional narrative to be maddening to some viewers. For someone such as myself who's studied India and the Hindu religion quite extensively, many of the narration patches that Renoir tossed in to explain the cultural festivals produced the same effect as watching a drab documentary on the same material; not something I found altogether fascinating given how familiar I was with much of it.

I don't think it's one of Renoir's great films, with many structural flaws abound, but a very good one. 'll be sure to check up on it again over the next few years as sensibilities tend to change with the winds because there is much to enjoy here.

Cinema is an old whore who knows how to give many kinds of pleasure.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] barbara520 15 years ago

I love India and movies about India. I love Jean Renoir. I do not like this movie. The technicolor ruins it for me. And it is more like someone reading from a book as far as the story line goes. Very odd movie. Hiroshima Mon Amour is one of Renoir's greatest movies.

I was disappointed in the RIVER. It is certainly in no way a great film.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alisotom 8 years ago

you're not the only one who doesn't like this movie.