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

[HerrSchreck]

I think the major problem running beneath the surface with all of Hessling's appearances on film is that the gal just acts like an annoying fucking asshole -- thru and thru. For me there's just no other way to put it, I have to be honest with myself. There are some people I just cant stand to be around, and for me she seems to be one of those people where, if stuck in her presence, I'd just have to make my excuses and leave the room. It's telling that, when confronted by the fact of her poisonous nature at the box office, and Renoir couldn't use her in CHIENNE, she left him. She strikes me as a self-centered little Napoleonic female with very little talent who walked around sneering and sticking her rubbery little ass in everyone's face, and led Ren around on a string. That's the vibe I get looking at her. She may have been, in truth, a doll and an angel, but somehow I doubt it. Of Jannings is chewing a bit of the scenery in FAUST, Hessling takes the whole in and out of every studio & location, plunks it in a food processor and swallows it bricks and all on ice. She grates on my nerves. Her leaving Renoir SAVED HIS CAREER and at least left him his forties-and-forward to start making viable cinematic product.

[ellipsis7]

I suppose I came to terms with the reality of her when I saw one of her costumes from NANA at the Renoir-Renoir exhibition in Paris... She was really tiny, almost child sized - her waist so thin that you could stretch the fingers of two hands round it.... She must have presented a real fireball of energy (maybe sensual to some) in person.... To me she comes over on film as raw, animalistic, unmediated by performance, thus ultimately unsubtle and unsuited for Renoir's developing art (but probably the qualities that led his father to select her as a model)... Thank God he came to his senses and dropped he dropped her for LA CHIENNE... But I still appreciate NANA and the others....

[Tommaso]

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.

Well, Renoir obviously fell for her completely in real life, though apparently he didn't think of killing himself for her But let's perhaps forget for a moment her influence on Renoir's life and the way she would probably have gotten on all our nerves (I tend to sympathize with Schreck's and David's comments completely), even if that's perhaps not easy (and I admit that she IS good-looking).
Tryavna, I see what you mean, but I perhaps tend to give the whole thing a little bit more benefit of the doubt. That may have to do with the fact that I always tended to see "Nana" more as a typical specimen of 1920s silent films than as a Renoir film in the first place (and it was actually one of the very first Renoirs I ever saw, way before it was released on that Lionsgate set, which may also influence my judgement). And there are a lot of silents which ask us to accept over-acting and apparently unbelievable love stories in a not totally dissimilar way (think of "Asphalt" or Lubitsch's "Wild Cat", for instance). I think that Renoir wasn't so much apart from what was going on in silent cinema at that time, and perhaps a lot of what we see in "Nana" that now strikes us as odd for a Renoir film was regarded as completely normal then. Of course Simon is much better (as is the whole of "Bete Humaine", no doubt), but in a way these films are not really comparable.

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.)

Unfortunately, I agree with David on this one, though "downright poor" is indeed perhaps a little too harsh. The 'hodgepodge' you mention isn't the problem, but rather how these disparate elements never really gel into a unity. They appear like unrelated passages, almost as if made by different filmmakers, which then were cut together to form that plot. Some of it is really beautiful, especially that dream sequence, but indeed I cannot help thinking of precisely those films you mention, though to Renoir's credit, they were all made later than "Whirlpool'. But again, as in "Nana", if one thinks about it I'm sure one could find earlier films which have similar scenes that inspired Renoir. The dream sequence is definitely 'Germanish'.

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?

Yes, it makes sense, but I simply can't share your view here. It seems what you admire in Renoir is a feeling of 'authenticity', even of 'naturalism' perhaps. While this is certainly important and is often mentioned, I also find it one-sided, because it overlooks the 'fantastic' side of Renoir. Take "Boudu": that's a realistic look at the society of the 30s and the way it treated outsiders, but on the other hand the whole story almost has 'fairy-tale' aspects with the bookseller being so utterly philanthropic and naive and Boudu appearing almost as some 'outside' force whirling around all that is settled in that daily life existence. In this respect, I don't find "Boudu" realistic in the narrower sense of the word. "Nana" of course is much more distanced and lacks this "lived-in feel" you mention. But this artificiality is no distraction for me, it's just different from most of his other work. And I would say the same for the "Stage and Spectacle" films as well. I don't feel like living in "Can Can" or "Elena" either, but that alone isn't the problem with them.

By the way: did you or David (or anyone else) ever see the first film he co-directed with Hessling, "Une vie sans joie"? (or "Catherine", by which name it is also known). It's available on its own in Spain, but I couldn't bring myself to buy it yet, not having been overly enthusiastic about "Whirlpool". But I guess any Renoir is worth having one way or other...

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.)

And it's a pleasure, as always, and I would say the same to you. I guess that's what this forum is or should be all about: getting a better understanding of why we like or do not like a specific film, and making us aware of the great lines of connections that run through film history. I learned a lot here from discussions like this (not to speak of the many films I would never have heard of otherwise). As to the "Harakiri" thread: I'm reading it and thought of joining in, but it's too long ago that I watched the film to say something substantial. But if it helps: I guess that you're right in what you said there about the film and of the importance of Kobayashi's work. The simple mentioning of "Kwaidan" should silence all those who doubt his greatness, and "Harakiri" is a masterpiece of its own, too.

[tryavna]

I always tended to see "Nana" more as a typical specimen of 1920s silent films than as a Renoir film in the first place (and it was actually one of the very first Renoirs I ever saw, way before it was released on that Lionsgate set, which may also influence my judgement).

You know, my lack of love for Nana probably boils down to the fact that I've seen so many other Renoirs already -- at least fifteen or twenty, including most of the masterpieces. So perhaps it was simply disappointment over not seeing what I love/expect in a "typical" Renoir film.

The 'hodgepodge' you mention isn't the problem, but rather how these disparate elements never really gel into a unity. They appear like unrelated passages, almost as if made by different filmmakers, which then were cut together to form that plot. Some of it is really beautiful, especially that dream sequence, but indeed I cannot help thinking of precisely those films you mention, though to Renoir's credit, they were all made later than "Whirlpool'.

Again, perhaps this is due partly to the circumstances under which I watched Whirlpool (which was before Nana at any rate). I saw it late in the evening of a very long day, so perhaps the lack of a central narrative fit my mood. It is a mess, structurally speaking. But it's a pleasant mess if you're not thinking too hard.

Take "Boudu": that's a realistic look at the society of the 30s and the way it treated outsiders, but on the other hand the whole story almost has 'fairy-tale' aspects with the bookseller being so utterly philanthropic and naive and Boudu appearing almost as some 'outside' force whirling around all that is settled in that daily life existence. In this respect, I don't find "Boudu" realistic in the narrower sense of the word.

That's a very good point, and I hadn't thought about that film in quite those terms. However, there again, you've mad me realize that it's not the "fantastic" elements of Nana per se but the fact that the movie isn't grounded in a realistic/"authentic" setting. Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps that's precisely why I like Boudu. It isn't self-consciously stylized in the ways that Nana is. It still has a "lived-in" setting. It is, after all, a recognizable Paris, middle-class household, etc., etc. The "fantastic" elements still occur within a reasonably realistic framework. So to repeat, it isn't "fantasy" that I object to, but rather that difficult-to-define impression of a real world that always seems to be operating in the best Renoir films. I feel a bit guilty if that's limiting Renoir or causing me not to appreciate some of his work. But I guess I can't help it. Perhaps I should watch the S & S films again. It's been so long that I've actually forgotten some of their details.

(By the way, I have not seen Renoir's first film, though wasn't the co-director Albert Dieudonné? I've always heard that Renoir mainly participated as producer and later re-cut the film. I don't know how much on-set directing he actually did.)

The simple mentioning of "Kwaidan" should silence all those who doubt his greatness, and "Harakiri" is a masterpiece of its own, too.

Damn straight!

[Tommaso]

You know, my lack of love for Nana probably boils down to the fact that I've seen so many other Renoirs already -- at least fifteen or twenty, including most of the masterpieces. So perhaps it was simply disappointment over not seeing what I love/expect in a "typical" Renoir film.

As I said, my liking for it may have to do with the fact that I saw it relatively early, plus my general tendency to favour somewhat 'formalistic'/artificial films more than other people do. But even now that I caught up with most Renoir films available with English subs (and I really envy David for having seen "La chienne" and "Nuit du carrefour") except the American films, I still like "Nana" very much. It's untypical, but so are "Charleston" and "Match Girl", though in a different way which might more appeal to you.

Whirlpool:

It is a mess, structurally speaking. But it's a pleasant mess if you're not thinking too hard.

Agreed.

However, there again, you've mad me realize that it's not the "fantastic" elements of Nana per se but the fact that the movie isn't grounded in a realistic/"authentic" setting. Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps that's precisely why I like Boudu. It isn't self-consciously stylized in the ways that Nana is. It still has a "lived-in" setting. It is, after all, a recognizable Paris, middle-class household, etc., etc. The "fantastic" elements still occur within a reasonably realistic framework.

Yes, that's true, though the 'fantastic' elements are so easily forgotten in appreciating Renoir because of the way he so marvellously handles the realistic frame. And the great effect of that Lionsgate set was that it explained to me via "Charleston" and "Little match girl" why I always liked Renoir's films so much ALTHOUGH they are essentially 'realist' (you couldn't make me touch a Rohmer film with a bargepole, for instance). These early films made me aware, much more than "Nana", of this undercurrent in Renoir's work, which I would say is there in in almost all of his later films though not so instantly visible (you could even approach "La Grand Illusion" to a certain degree as a kind of fairy tale, I guess). The same might go for much of what is called Italian Neorealism, and I don't just have "Miracle in Milan" in mind.... But perhaps I have a curious way of re-interpreting stylistic features so that they fit my general anti-realistic frame of mind...

(By the way, I have not seen Renoir's first film, though wasn't the co-director Albert Dieudonné? I've always heard that Renoir mainly participated as producer and later re-cut the film. I don't know how much on-set directing he actually did.)

To quote one Guido Vermeulen's statement on imdb: "The movie became an object of quarrel between Renoir and Dieudonné who directed this vehicle together and each played also a part in the movie. Was this a Renoir movie or one of Dieudonné, reducing Renoir to its pupil? The dispute became so heavy 2 versions exist, one cut by Renoir and one by Dieudonné." As always these imdb user opinions should be taken with a grain of salt, but I have no reason to distrust the man here. I also heard that this was a combined effort, and both the French and the Spanish market their dvds of it as a Renoir film. Again, this means probably nothing definitive. Would like to see it in any case sometime.

[denti alligator]

I'm finally making my way through this set. Cancan was a delight, and I had no problems with the transfer/contrast levels whatsoever.

The Golden Coach is another story. First of all, I didn't enjoy the film all that much. I couldn't understand how men could go nuts for Magnini, whom I found not all too stunning, and not really charismatic, either. The whole story seemed a little trite, and the precarious acting/real-life divide was not exploited to the degree I thought it could have been. Can those of you who love this film (David, Tomasso?) gush some of that love out here so I can get an idea of what I'm (apparently) missing?

Then there's the print/transfer of Coach. I found the whole thing distracting. The color temperature was shifting every other second, so that walls looked pale blue one second and green the next. This went on for the entire film. Surely not intentional. Perhaps this is what prevented me from enjoying what seems to be the true achievement of this picture, which is its set and costume design.

And then that last minute: horrendous butchery of a scene. Someone above had asked for the "official" Criterion response for this. Does someone still have this? I'd like to hear their excuse.

Elena remains to be watched another night.

[denti alligator]

Thanks, David.
I'm still surprised the fluctuating color temperature hasn't been remarked on. Even if the last minute looked like the rest of the film (which it certainly does not), it would still be a failed transfer, or a transfer of a deficient source material.

The real treasure of this set has to be the interviews with Rivette. I wish they went on for hours! Renoir is in fine form, spitting out philosophical wisdom on the arts like a machine-gun (yes, it's deadly stuff). He's so aware of the predicament film (art in general, even) is in, but he's not nostalgic, or defeated by it. These interviews are worth the price of the box, in my opinion. My god, it's glorious!

[GringoTex]

Can those of you who love this film (David, Tomasso?) gush some of that love out here so I can get an idea of what I'm (apparently) missing?

This is one of my top ten films of all time. What Renoir did with depth in his 30s materworks, he did with width here. It's all about style, and you have to be willing to bite.

[tryavna]

in one sublime sequence (as I recall Magani going to the Palace for the first time) Renoir starts a short (ca. three minute) Scarlatti Sonata

Not meaning to be too pedantic here, David, but isn't the entire soundtrack of the film Vivaldi? Or did I totally miss the Scarlatti?

[tryavna]

That's fine Try - no it's the single non-Vivaldi piece and, from memory it's Longo 104.

Ah, thanks for that, David. I guess I had totally missed it. Interesting that Renoir would depart from Vivaldi for that one piece/scene. You've given me a good reason to rewatch it.

[GringoTex]

You're kidding!

The recognized sublimity of The Golden Coach really shouldn't be a matter of surprise for anybody. Bazin loved it, Rosenbaum loves it, and Truffaut named his production company after it.

[denti alligator]

The image on Elena is incredible. It almost looks like an HD DVD. I am very impressed.

However, why is it that the first and last seconds of a number of scenes throughout the film are dark and hazy? If the fade-outs were even, it wouldn't be noticeable. But instead a scene starts (using by fading in) and then one second later the image brightens and sharpens dramatically, as if someone had flipped a switch. What is the source of the effect?

[ellipsis7]

They produce the optical effect of the fade up by using a step printer and creating the transition while going down a generation or two (via interpos then interneg, maybe even a dupe neg to begin with) from the original negatives just for the footage at and around the effect, losing some brightness and clarity in the process, they then cut within the shot (matching frame for frame) invisibly back into the original negative producing the effect you describe....

You are right to treasure the CC ELENA, believe me the Optimum/Studio Canal disc for R2 UK is from a dire unrestored print, and the difference is clear...

[French completist]

Philippe Clay (Valentin in French Cancan) died today at age 80.

[GringoTex]

Posted a brief on The Golden Coach on my new blog/vanity website.

[martin]

A Region 2-disc of The Golden Coach is announced from Digital Classics (release: 19 Oct 2009):
amazon.uk
I have the Stage and Spectacle box and appreciate its bonus materials, but Since Criterions The Golden Coach has some problems imagewise, this new disk may be superior? I don't know much about Digital Classics though.

Artwork (probably not final)

[Zazou dans le Metro]

A Region 2-disc of The Golden Coach is announced from Digital Classics (release: 19 Oct 2009):
amazon.uk
I have the Stage and Spectacle box and appreciate its bonus materials, but Since Criterions The Golden Coach has some problems imagewise, this new disk may be superior? I don't know much about Digital Classics though.

Artwork (probably not final)

Maybe even more tantalisingly is the listing under bonus of "Full length film about Renoir." But one man's full length is another's... etc etc

[ellipsis7]

'La Premiere Super-Production Francaise en Technicolor' - likely explains the slight image problems at head and tail of GOLDEN COACH in the CC transfer... There appears to have been some shrinkage or suchlike damage of the three strip Technicolor negative at these points alone, meaning that the three separate strips of negative film that make up the colour elements are no longer perfectly aligned when combined into the full colour picture... If this is the problem, a major digital restoration (comme RED SHOES) would probably be necessary to correct...

[Dr. Snaut]

Can someone please provide me with some gushing praise for this set. I did not particularly enjoy Rules of the Game (I watched it 5 times since I owned it, trying to see if there was something I was missing) but enjoyed The River. It seems that this box is not the favorite of the Criterion box sets and I can't imagine whether it is the image/transfer or the films themselves. Any input would be appreciated.

[Napier]

Well Dr. Snaut, I can't go into a lengthy dissertation about the films,(I have to work), but if you can find the set on sale I wouldn't hesitate on picking this up. They are all good Renoir with strong leads by each of the respective female actress'. I wouldn't call them masterpieces, just good clean fun Renoir. The biggest problem with the set came with The Golden Coach, you have Scorsese giving an introduction at the beginning and touting the new "gloriously restored ending" and when you get there you are met with a muddled washed out abomination. But I for one, enjoyed all three.

[GringoTex]

Can someone please provide me with some gushing praise for this set. I did not particularly enjoy Rules of the Game (I watched it 5 times since I owned it, trying to see if there was something I was missing) but enjoyed The River. It seems that this box is not the favorite of the Criterion box sets and I can't imagine whether it is the image/transfer or the films themselves. Any input would be appreciated.

These films have a lot more in common with Rules than River. It's my favorite Criterion box for the films (Golden Coach is in my top 10 list) and for the absolutely brilliant Renoir/Rivette interviews. The only major transfer problem is the last 30 seconds or so of Golden Coach (which is terrible but shouldn't stop you from seeing the film), although there have been complaints about the color timing.

[Dr. Snaut]

What are the similarities between these films and Rules? I assumed they would be more in line with The River (probably because they are bright and beautiful technicolor). I guess my biggest issue was whether to buy this set or Boudu and Le Bete instead. It seems like a win-win situation, either way.

[GringoTex]

What are the similarities between these films and Rules? I assumed they would be more in line with The River (probably because they are bright and beautiful technicolor).

Like Rules, all three films are about Renoir's carefully controlled chaos between characters onstage and backstage. Plus, everybody's trying to fuck each other.

[ellipsis7]

What are the similarities between these films and Rules? I assumed they would be more in line with The River (probably because they are bright and beautiful technicolor).

Like Rules, all three films are about Renoir's carefully controlled chaos between characters onstage and backstage. Plus, everybody's trying to fuck each other.

Absolutely... Life as Art, Art as Life...

BTW among the profusion of extras, you also get BBC Renoir Omnibus docu #2 (#1 being on RULES)...

[Tommaso]

And even better, a very long interview with Renoir conducted by Jacques Rivette, unfortunately split in three parts over the three discs, but that's a minor point. As to the films themselves, "French Cancan" and especially "Elena" never really struck me as major Renoirs; they are in a way recapitulations of much of his early work thematically and even stylistically (I think we discussed "Nana" in this respect a long time ago), and less innovative than "The Testament of Dr. Cordelier", for example. But they are all very colourful, and well worth seeing.