241-244 Stage and Spectacle: Three Films by Jean Renoir

[Martha]

Stage and Spectacle: Three Films by Jean Renoir

[img]http://criterion_production.s3.amazonaws.com/release_images/1361/241_box_348x490_w128.jpg[/img]

Near the end of his long and celebrated career, master filmmaker Jean Renoir indulged his lifelong obsession with life-as-theater and directed The Golden Coach (1953), French Cancan (1955), and Elena and Her Men (1956), three delirious films, infatuated with the past, love, and artifice. Awash in jubilant Technicolor, each film interweaves public display and private feelings through the talents of three immortal film icons—Anna Magnani, Jean Gabin, and Ingrid Bergman. The Criterion Collection is proud to present these three majestic films by Jean Renoir for the first time on DVD.

Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled
Elena and Her Men

[img]http://criterion_production.s3.amazonaws.com/product_images/346/244_box_348x490_w100.jpg[/img]

Set amidst the military maneuvers and Quatorze Juillet carnivals of turn-of-the-century France, Jean Renoir's delirious romantic comedy stars Ingrid Bergman in her most sensual role as a beautiful, but impoverished Polish princess who drives men of all stations to fits of desperate love.

Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled
French Cancan

[img]http://criterion_production.s3.amazonaws.com/product_images/292/243_box_348x490_w100.jpg[/img]

Nineteenth-century Paris comes vibrantly alive in Jean Renoir's exhilarating tale of the opening of the world-renowned Moulin Rouge. Jean Gabin plays the wily impresario Danglard, who makes the cancan all the rage while juggling the love of two beautiful women—an Egyptian belly-dancer and a naive working girl turned cancan star. This celebration of life, art and the City of Light—with a cameo by Edith Piaf—is a Technicolor tour de force by a master of modern cinema.

Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled
The Golden Coach

[img]http://criterion_production.s3.amazonaws.com/product_images/289/242_box_348x490_w100.jpg[/img]

The Golden Coach (Le Carrosse d'or) is a ravishing eighteenth-century comic fantasy about a viceroy who receives an exquisite golden coach, and gives it to the tempestuous star of a touring commedia dell'arte company. Master director Jean Renoir's sumptuous tribute to the theatre, presented here in the English version he favored, is set to the music of Antonio Vivaldi and built around vivacious and volatile star Anna Magnani.

Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled
Special Features

-New high-definition digital transfers, with restored image and sound
-Introductions to The Golden Coach and Elena and Her Men by Jean Renoir
-Video introduction to The Golden Coach by filmmaker Martin Scorsese
-Video introduction to French Cancan by filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich
-Jean Renoir—Hollywood and Beyond: Part two of the BBC documentary by David Thompson
-Three-part interview with Renoir: Jean renoir parle de son art, conducted by French New Wave director Jacques Rivette
-Galleries of production stills
-New and improved English subtitle translations
-Essays by film critics Jonathan Rosenbaum and Andrew Sarris, and Renoir historian Christopher Faulkner
-Optimal image quality: RSDL dual-layer editions

[Gregory]

Apparently, for their release of The River Criterion is using the Ultra Resolution process (previously said to be available only to Warner) that combines technicolor strips by aligning them digitally. I wonder if they had any idea they would have access to this technology last summer before Stage and Spectacle was released. It sure would have been worth the wait to be able to see the end of Golden Coach remastered.

[Narshty]

That's only on the condition that the separation elements for that scene actually still exist. Seeing as those final shots were only restored to the film a few years ago, they might have only been able to uncover poorer quality pre-composited elements, but it was felt that their content overruled their inferior quality. Has anyone seen the LD? Does it have the same problem?

(Then again, seeing how Criterion royally fucked up on Tunes of Glory...)

[evillights]

I just watched 'The Golden Coach' for the first time through, and I'm sure all on here can understand my incredible disappointment at what happens in the final minute (the ending on Renoir's part is magnificent, on Criterion's part unacceptable) -- I've heard that Criterion issued a long reply/excuse as to why they put they released it as they have, and that the reply was posted here, but apparently it's vanished since the boards went down.

Would someone be so kind as to re-post Criterion's reply, if he or she still has it on hand -- maybe Matt?

For what it's worth, I just sent this note off to the company:

This problem ... has been documented at DVDBeaver -- I only wonder why I haven't heard any more on, or an explanation about, the terrible blurring that occurs in the last couple shots of the film as Anna Magnani's real-life and stage-life hauntingly merge. On an otherwise dazzling disc, this flaw so much distracts from the film's final moments that the emotional and intellectual wallop almost dissipates... I noticed a similar bleed on the opening titles, but the same effect repeating at the end as it does seems egregious to the point of 'abhorrent'. Will there be a re-mastering, or re-print, offered to customers of this disc?

I'm sure many here have already done the same, and I'm not sure what if anything I can expect in reply.

[Gregory]

Now that they have access to Ultra Resolution, a new transfer and disc replacements would be a fine gesture on Criterion's part, if they want to keep their reputation as a company committed to outstanding quality after a year with many blunders and disappointments.
Based on what flixyflox posted about this problem being absent from Criterion's LD release of Golden Coach, it would seem that better elements, or at least elements compatible with the Ultra Resolution process, exist.

[ellipsis7]

Any idea anyone why the Jean Renoir filmed intro to FRENCH CANCAN is not on that disc? It's transcribed in the book RENOIR ON RENOIR... Maybe the actual film is lost?....

[Cinesimilitude]

could anyone tell me, do all three of these films have happy endings?

[Narshty]

I might be tempted to be flippant and say "The feeling after watching a Renoir is always a happy one," but why would you want these lovely films potentially spoiled?

[GringoTex]

could anyone tell me, do all three of these films have happy endings?

One's happy and two are bittersweet.

[Cinesimilitude]

could anyone tell me, do all three of these films have happy endings?

One's happy and two are bittersweet.

thats what I needed. thanks.

[Cronenfly]

Is this set worth $40 CAN used, as a blind buy, by someone who hasn't seen enough Renoir to really formulate an opinion? As well, are the transfers as hard on the eyes as the Beaver caps seem to indicate? They seem pretty washed out overall. And are the Cancan cuts and Golden Coach ending error too glaring (to the point of making it not worth purchase)?

[Steven H]

Is this set worth $40 CAN used, as a blind buy, by someone who hasn't seen enough Renoir to really formulate an opinion? As well, are the transfers as hard on the eyes as the Beaver caps seem to indicate? They seem pretty washed out overall. And are the Cancan cuts and Golden Coach ending error too glaring (to the point of making it not worth purchase)?

I'm a Renoir fan, and I wouldn't recommend a blind buy for this. I would, however, consider The River to be a blind buy.

[jbeall]

Of the three, I've only seen French Cancan, but I liked it a lot and would probably buy it if it was available separately. Can't speak to the other two, however...

[GringoTex]

If you haven't seen these three, then you're no real Renoir fan. All three are so much more important than The River. The Golden Coach is Renoir's bookend to Rules of the Game.

[CSM126]

The Golden Coach is Renoir's bookend to Rules of the Game.

? Perhaps you mean Elena and Her Men, which is more or less a more light-hearted remake of Rules? I see no connection between Rules and Golden Coach.

[Tommaso]

Not wanting to contest anything that David said about the prints and 50s Renoir (though I don't share the admiration for "Caporal Epinglé", which for me borders on the mediocre at times), I would still recommend this CC set, even if the prints are not ideal. They are still probably the best dvd editions of these films around, by all accounts the version of "Elena" in the new Optimum set is far worse, and for "Golden Coach" and "Cancan" there is, I think, no english-subbed alternative at the moment anyway. Plus a host of excellent extras, these interviews with Rivette would almost be worth the purchase alone.

And the films? Well, "The Golden Coach" certainly is the most impressive here, not just because of Magnani, but simply for the incredibly stylized sets, and the pure eye candy of the whole film (the latter goes for the two others as well), and even the transfer problem at the end does not distract too much from its poetry. I would agree that "Elena" doesn't work well, not least because of Bergman who I find curiously miscast, but still it's a well-crafted film. "Can Can" didn't do too much for me, either, but that's probably because one invariably compares this to his early works, "Nana" especially. This sounds more critical than I actually am about these films: they are perhaps weaker than some of his best pre-war work, but still they are must see films, all of them, and blow away almost anything made in France around that time. In a way they are almost a return to those 'grand' early 30s films before the French industry got into troubles and settled down for things much more sparse (as you can guess, I'm moling my way through "Les Miserables" at the moment and am influenced by Eclipse's liner notes, but I hope it's still not a wrong statement).

And as to "The River": this film makes me almost speechless every time I watch it. Perhaps really the best purchase if you want to start with 50s Renoir. But after seeing this, I'm sure there's no way around the S&S-set anyway.

[Steven H]

If you haven't seen these three, then you're no real Renoir fan. All three are so much more important than The River. The Golden Coach is Renoir's bookend to Rules of the Game.

I've seen them a number of times, and I appreciate them, but I wouldn't call the set a "blind buy" for someone uninitiated with late Renoir, especially The River. The River would be the gateway drug to the rest, I think, but it seems like we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree on this (though in my experience, this works really well introducing people to late Renoir). I would wholeheartedly agree with David that their essential for a full understanding of Renoir, but for the price especially, its hard to call it a "can't miss" or "blind buy".

Oddly some of the 50s movies on the Lionsgate box like Cordelier, and Caporal Epingle seem more impressive than even the "Theatre Trilogy" than they did back when, despite their lesser reputation as 50s Renoir.

Definitely, David. For the money, the Lionsgate set is the way to go. Cordelier is beyond fantastic and ridiculous. I can't imagine Renoir going much farther in the opposite direction with this compared to the Stage and Spectacle films. I also enjoyed The Little Match Girl, though I can't see myself giving it too many repeated viewings (and Charleston, Charleston always makes me laugh). Haven't had time for Nana yet.

[tryavna]

I also think it's worth mentioning that the second half of David Thompson's two-part docu on Renoir's career is available as an extra on the Elena and Her Men disc. (The first half, of course, is an extra on CC's Rules of the Game.) That may sweeten the deal a bit....

The short answer is basically this: You can never go wrong with more Renoir.

BTW, out of the Lionsgate set, I was most disappointed with Nana. I had really expected to enjoy it more. But it struck me as Von Stroheim-lite, with very few Renoir-esque touches. At any rate, the real gem for me was oddly La Marseillaise, which doesn't seem to be too popular around here.

[ellipsis7]

I agree with David that LE CAPORAL EPINGLE holds up very fresh... It reflects the sophistication and dilemma of political belief and personal choices in WWII and beyond, right up to 1962 when the film was made... Renoir's career is unrivalled in cinema (I am just reading Francois Poulle's fabulously passionate and post May '68 political investigation 'Renoir 1938 - ou Renoir pour rien?'[1969] - great assessment of CARREFOUR included)...

STAGE AND SPECTACLE is simply essential... JR was a fabulously emotional and intelligent filmmaker, politically committed, yet acutely informed by wider developments throughout his career...

Following his alliance with the popular front in the 1930's moving from the barking Hitler of LA VIE EST A NOUS to his sharply observed 1939 masterpiece LA REGLE DU JEU, there is no understating his disillusion with the machinations of the established left as well as the right, in the years surrounding WWII, much of what he put down to the hegemony of male dominated structures... Hence his exploration of the damaged leading men of THE WOMAN ON THE BEACH and THE RIVER... And then of art ruling politics, and women holding men at bay, in the STAGE AND SPECTACLE trilogy...

In the later films, CORDELIER can be read as the dual personality of the male psyche, charming and intelligent yet dangerous and self destructive, while PICNIC IN THE GRASS pits controlled technology versus unharnessed nature (masculine versus feminine?) and the CORPORAL depicts boys learning that pow stories are not Boys' Own, ultimately reentering as men to a new and complicated world where feelings and learned experience are the touchstone...

His filmmaking after WWII is a remarkable journey in search of what should be believed in, and the issues to be confronted in the contemporary world... I term his attitude as proto-feminism, not modern per se but formed and conditioned by his father's household where women determined the rhythms, restrictions, rules and rituals of the day!....

[Tommaso]

BTW, out of the Lionsgate set, I was most disappointed with Nana. I had really expected to enjoy it more. But it struck me as Von Stroheim-lite, with very few Renoir-esque touches..

Ah damn, you reminded me that I've never seen any films directed by Stroheim apart from "Greed", and I guess you rather have "Foolish wives" or "Blind Husbands" in mind.... So I can't really say anything about this, but you also raised a question which went through my mind often: what precisely is the "Renoir touch"? It would be rather easy to pin down stylistic particulars with directors like Cocteau or Bernard, for example, but I've never come to terms with this for Renoir, with his films being so different but always unmistakeably Renoir. Is it a certain sense for landscape, a certain way of blocking or moving around actors in front of the camera ("Rules of the game" is the best example for this, of course). Or is it the typical sense of 'humanity', as we discussed before, of not-judging the characters? In this respect, "Nana" is perhaps indeed different, as it is actually a rather 'cold', perhaps sarcastic film in places, which might have made you think of it being not 'Renoiresque' enough. I rather had that feeling with "Cordelier", which struck me as a departure from almost anything he did before.

At any rate, the real gem for me was oddly La Marseillaise, which doesn't seem to be too popular around here.

Oh, I quite like "La Marseillaise", though I am normally not too much into large epics about the French Revolution, regardless whether the films are pro or con regarding the subject (I found even "Orphans of the storm" almost boring after a while). Perhaps one shortcoming of "La Marseillaise" is precisely Renoir's 'humanity', which leads to the aristocrats almost being pitiful creatures in their helplessness (and the way he portrayed the king made me smile more than once, in a good-natured way). "La Marseillaise", though somewhat slowgoing, is certainly a major film, though no second "Regle du Jeu", and for me the real gem of that set was certainly "The little match girl". Which only goes to show again that nobody seems to agree about the relative merits of Renoir's films, which also indicates their richness. All I would say is: give "Nana" a second chance. I'm really amazed by it, though as I said before, I can't exactly say why.

[Greathinker]

Biggest surprise so far for me was Charleston Parade; hilarious and captivating, and complete, despite whatever it was supposed to be-- the lack of music actually helps it, though the doc on Rules lets us hear an interesting rag-time sax score.

In any case, I can't say I share the same admiration for the Stage and Spectacle films as others here-- I think Renoir's 30's films make the best entry point.

[lubitsch]

Having seen almsot all Renoir films and read a few books, I can only confirm that Renoir is a relatively unimportant silent director, a partly great director in the 30s and then goes into a heavy decline. One has to be a completely blind auteurist like Truffaut in order to talk up some of his later films. Acting, camera, scripts, every department falls apart. Therefore one cannot recommend the box set as essential, virtually every available film of the 30s is more important.

ELENA is simply dreadful, it's not funny, not very intelligent, unimaginetively lit (like e.g. DIARY OF A CHAMBERMAID). That's more or less general opinion and I find it a pity that so bad films are easily available just because the director is famous while better films of the era are mostly forgotten, the same goes e.g. for Fritz Lang's late German films which wouldn't rank even among the top 50 of the German postwar output until 1965, but are much more known.

The opinions on the two other films differ. CANCAN is obviously a very commercial affait in order to regain ground after the disaster of COUCH. The ambitions are modest, but the film is always entertaining and has a rousing finish. Not exactly advancing the musical genre years ahead, but one can do worse.

COACH is revered by some people, but at our Renoir course at uni it flopped badly including our two profs. I completely fail to see any merit in it whatsoever. Magnagni has obvious troubles with her role, the plot leads nowhere, it's neither comedy nor drama and again it's painfully static.

Renoir describes mysteriously in interviews and his autobiography that he changed in America and it's hard to deny that there's a break stylistically and thematically. I have often the impression that he has not really found a new theme after France's defeat and the end of the front populaire.

[tryavna]

Ah damn, you reminded me that I've never seen any films directed by Stroheim apart from "Greed", and I guess you rather have "Foolish wives" or "Blind Husbands" in mind....

"Nana" is perhaps indeed different, as it is actually a rather 'cold', perhaps sarcastic film in places, which might have made you think of it being not 'Renoiresque' enough.

Perhaps one shortcoming of "La Marseillaise" is precisely Renoir's 'humanity', which leads to the aristocrats almost being pitiful creatures in their helplessness (and the way he portrayed the king made me smile more than once, in a good-natured way).

and for me the real gem of that set was certainly "The little match girl". Which only goes to show again that nobody seems to agree about the relative merits of Renoir's films, which also indicates their richness. All I would say is: give "Nana" a second chance. I'm really amazed by it, though as I said before, I can't exactly say why.

Yes, it was Foolish Wives in particular that Nana reminded me of. Even in its incomplete state (due to studio interference and the ravages of time), Foolish Wives is an amazing film, so I can understand why Renoir would want to borrow from it. But I just don't get the sense that he makes the material in Nana his own -- as he would later with Bete Humaine. Of course, we're talking about a young filmmaker's second feature film, so I didn't expect a masterpiece. But while it is technically more accomplished than Whirlpool of Fate, it seems like a step backwards for Renoir.

Two things in particular stand out for me as being very un-Renoir-like: (1) Nana is very obviously studio-bound. Not that Renoir didn't use studios in his other early films, but not usually to this extent. There's a striking lack of "authenticity" to the look and feel of Nana, especially in comparison to the natural settings of Whirlpool. It's stylized in a way that you don't typically expect of Renoir. (2) It does lack that "humanism" so characteristic of Renoir. Specifically, Nana is a very cynical film, where all the characters are either manipulators or dupes. I can't think of another Renoir film quite like it -- not even the "horror" film Cordelier. (Of course, I do recognize that Nana's theatricality gestures towards a major theme of many of Renoir's later films, and that's probably it's most interesting characteristic -- and also relates it to the Stage and Spectacle "trilogy.")

I don't view the humanism of Marseillaise as a shortcoming. On the contrary, that's what distinguishes it from other "epics." (Marseillaise is really a non-epic, after all.) I didn't view the royal family as "pitiful" but rather as flawed characters who "have their reasons," but are simply out of touch with reality. They're human beings -- no more, no less. Like in all of Renoir's great films.

At any rate, I don't mean to suggest that I hate Nana. I'm sure I'll watch it again. (It is Renoir, after all.) But I like it the least of the films in the Lionsgate collection. I actually did like the two short films, too. Though the PAL->NTSC ghosting on Match Girl really hurts one's enjoyment of it.

Biggest surprise so far for me was Charleston Parade; hilarious and captivating, and complete, despite whatever it was supposed to be-- the lack of music actually helps it, though the doc on Rules lets us hear an interesting rag-time sax score.

Yes, a very funny, fun little experiment. I found that New Order works incredibly well as a "found" soundtrack to that movie -- particularly the odd numbered tracks on Power, Corruption & Lies.

[Tommaso]

. But I just don't get the sense that he makes the material in Nana his own -- as he would later with Bete Humaine. Of course, we're talking about a young filmmaker's second feature film, so I didn't expect a masterpiece. But while it is technically more accomplished than Whirlpool of Fate, it seems like a step backwards for Renoir..

Perhaps it rather was a step into a direction that he decided not to follow later on, that is, before he returned to it with "French Can Can"? One could perhaps describe "Nana" as being very theatrical, very stylized as opposed to the 'natural flow' of films like "Toni" or "Boudu". But there are a lot of theatrical moments in "Rules of the Game" as well, although here they are integrated much better into the film and don't assume such importance of their own. As you say, theatricality is of course an important theme for Renoir, but in "Nana" it's not only ABOUT theatre, but it IS theatrical in itself. The studio-bound character you mention is indeed very different from his later work, but that in itself isn't a distraction for me. It gives the whole film an air of artificiality, almost of mannerism, something which again would surface only in the "Stage&Spectacle" films. Sometimes "Nana" is form over content, but I'd say the same for the S&S films, too. And I sometimes quite like this (and as a Greenaway fan, I'm pretty used to it, anyway...). But compared to these, I'd still say "Nana" is fresher and certainly more 'up to date', while the S&S films evoke the feeling of nostalgia, of Renoir drawing back into a pure realm of art and a time now definitely gone by. The S&S films seem unwilling to accept the post WWII world, almost like Rauffenstein realizing the end of the old society but trying to hold up to this lost time as long as it is at all possible. Curiously then, Renoir wholeheartedly embraced the new age with "Cordelier" in a totally unexpected manner.

. (2) It does lack that "humanism" so characteristic of Renoir. Specifically, Nana is a very cynical film, where all the characters are either manipulators or dupes. I can't think of another Renoir film quite like it -- not even the "horror" film Cordelier.

Yes, I had the feeling that this was your main point of irritation, and would certainly agree that it is even more 'inhumane' than "Cordelier". I wonder whether 'humanism' is a quality in itself, though. Of course that is something that any Renoir fan would describe as one of his films' main attractions, but I'd say that the absence of it doesn't necessarily make "Nana" worse. The film functions in its own ways and has his own attractions, not the least of which is Hessling, who I find stunning in that film (and ONLY in that film). She wasn't an overly gifted actress, to put it mildly, but her constant over-acting enhances the mannerism of "Nana" and pushes it even further into the realm of the artificial. So I guess the film works on its own lines, which are perhaps 'un-Renoirish', but for me are quite convincing in the end.

I don't view the humanism of Marseillaise as a shortcoming. On the contrary, that's what distinguishes it from other "epics." (Marseillaise is really a non-epic, after all.)

Yeah, I think I misphrased what I wanted to say. I don't view it as a shortcoming either, I was just looking for an explanation why people might like "La Marseillaise" less than other Renoir films. What I had in mind was rather that the humanism might clash with the topic of the film itself, or the way the French Revolution is generally portrayed (in which either the aristocrats or the revolutionaries are the bad guys, but certainly there ARE bad guys normally). That's why indeed it is, as you say, a 'non-epic', and almost a quiet, introvert film in places, and perhaps that somehow works against the grandiosity of the topic (or the other way round).

I actually did like the two short films, too. Though the PAL->NTSC ghosting on Match Girl really hurts one's enjoyment of it.

Yes, it's a shame, though it didn't stop me from enjoying it. I guess I'm getting used to it by having watched too many Kino discs
Wasn't the image on "Whirlpool of Fate" much worse, btw? Can't recall at the moment... I only wonder why "Charleston parade" looked so much better.

[tryavna]

As you say, theatricality is of course an important theme for Renoir, but in "Nana" it's not only ABOUT theatre, but it IS theatrical in itself.

I agree completely. As I said before, the echoes between this work and Renoir's later repeated returns to theater-as-life/life-as-theater are what I found to be most engaging. No doubt, Renoir's interest in the character of Nana herself is the fact that, even though a failure on the stage, she's a successful actress because her life has become her stage and that's where she excels.

Nevertheless, David is right in drawing attention to Hessling being a major stumbling-block to the success of this one and Renoir's other early pictures. You may like her in the role, Tommaso, but for the life of me, I just can't see any man killing himself for want of love from Hessling. She doesn't have enough charisma to carry the part, as far as I'm concerned. It's the kind of part that needed someone like Simone Simon, and of course, that's another reason why Bete Humaine is so much superior. And I find Hessling's overacting rather distracting, especially in comparison to Werner Krauss' nice performance.

Oddly enough, however, I actually don't mind her too much in Whirlpool of Fate -- as indeed I actually found that movie somewhat more interesting than Nana. It's a very minor work, but I don't think it's "downright poor," as David puts it. It's a hodgepodge that, at various moments, seem to anticipate Liliom (the gypsy scenes), La Chute de la maison Usher (the dream sequence), and L'Atalante (the early boat scenes). So for me, it's interesting to see all the different directions Renoir could have gone, and it reinforces (in an admittedly very minor way) David's oft-repeated point about how Renoir is the lynchpin to 1930s French cinema. (It's also got some nice naturalistic acting, despite Hessling.)

By the way, Tommaso, I didn't intend for you to conflate my objection to Nana's studio-bound quality with the film's themes/moments of theatricality. Perhaps they are related, and I'm just not appreciating what Renoir is doing. But what I'm specifically objecting to is that the "feel" of Nana in its entirety strikes me as too inauthentic for Renoir. You mention Rules of the Game as a counterpoint, and I'd agree that there are moments of theatricality in that film (the danse macabre, for instance). But it's more or less filmed on location. So you get a real-life, lived-in feel to that movie that just isn't present in Nana. Does that make sense?

By the way, as always, Tommaso, thanks for the conversation. You really have a knack for forcing me to think through my opinions. (I wish you'd join in on the Harakiri thread, where I seem to be stumbling around.)

PS: The ghosting on Whirlpool may very well have been as bad as or worse than Match Girl, but it was all of Match Girl's special effects that made the ghosting stand out more to me.