Boudu - Aus den Wassern gerettet

Boudu (Michel Simon), a tramp, jumps into the Seine. He is rescued by Mr. Lestingois, a gentle and good bookseller, who gives shelter to him. Mrs. Lestingois and the maid Anne-Marie (Mr. Lestingois' mistress) are far from delighted, for Boudu is lazy, dirty and salacious...

Pauline Kael called it, "not only a lovely fable about a bourgeois attempt to reform an early hippy...but a photographic record of an earlier France." The film was remade in 1986 for an American audience as "Down and Out in Beverly Hills", directed by Paul Mazursky.

Now, I don't know that Boudu is a hippie. That might be an insult to him, and it is certainly an insult to hippies. But there's plenty of comic potential in wealthy people trying to reform the slobs of the world. This theme is addressed in other films, such as "Trading Places", and the comedy writes itself.

This is a difficult film to review succinctly. I didn't really enjoy it, but the film is well-made, well acted, and the underlying message is still poignant. At the time, "Boudu Saved from Drowning" was quite controversial, with Michel Simon's portrayal of the antisocial, uncompromised tramp (Boudu) inciting audiences to actual riot. (In fact, the film was apparently pulled from theaters by French police several days into its screening). Essentially, "Boudu Saved from Drowning" is an attack on liberalism, as well as a sort of black satire about societal class differences. Through their interaction with Boudu, a stereotypical Burgeouise family showcase the consequences of liberal idealism, as their efforts to help and reform Boudu all backfire unpredictably. Boudu is an irredeemable, unchangeable, and uncompromised outsider and he is happy as such. In the words of Jean Renoir, "...Micheal Simon was more than a tramp. He was the personification of all tramps." In other words, the lower class. Michel Simon does a great job with the part and the Boudu character is memorable. However, the rest of the characters are unlikeable (e.g. a perverse, overweight philanderer; his unabashed housekeeper mistress, a caustic wife, etc.) and the film's narrative is just, well, stuffy. I'd probably appreciate a film like this much more at 60 than I do at 30. For a film from 1931, "Boudu" does seem pretty fresh and the print looks terrific. Nonetheless, I didn't find "Boudu" very engaging. I can't recommend this one. ---|--- Reviews by Flak Magnet

I really enjoy watching old Michel Simon films. When I find one of his films, I always QUICKLY grab it and watch it as soon as possible. That's because even if the film isn't that great, his performance is always very interesting and quite unusual. My favorite film of his is Drôle de drame (1937), but he did several others that are among my favorites.

Well, once again Simon's performance makes this film worth watching. While in this case his acting is NOT subtle or perhaps as high quality as he's done in other films (it's a bit over-the-top), it's fun to just turn off your mind and watch the silliness. This film will not change your life and is a pretty insignificant film but still good to watch nonetheless. I think, for me, the reason I didn't enjoy the film more is that the character of Boudu is a pretty awful person and I just couldn't buy that he was such a sexual dynamo that he was able to make these women forget how crude, selfish and disgusting he was just by turning on the old libido!

So my verdict is that this is a good film that you can watch only if you suspend disbelief. Oh, and I forgot to mention, director Renoir did a great job on the film. For a 1931 French film, the sound and camera work are superb--something you DON'T see in many other films from this country until the later 1930s--he was truly ahead of his time.

..sorry from the river.but it's important to bear in mind that Boudu is a metamorphosis of Legrand,the hero of Renoir's precedent work "la chienne" ,who became a tramp at the end of that movie.And like Nana in Renoir's eponymous silent movie adapted from Zola,he rose from the waters ("sauvé des eaux" is the exact meaning of the name "Mosis")to shake the well meaning bourgeoisie.A bourgeoisie where a piano is in the house because you must have one even if you do not play the piano. Almost thirty years before Luis Bunuel ("Viridiana" 1961) ,Renoir denounces the bourgeois charity ,which is a great weight off our guilty minds.Boudu is revolutionary,like Moliere's "Tartuffe" ,he squeezes Lestingois dry,but he knows from the start he will not be part of them .He refuses conventions,marriage is the worst of them all.These final sequences ,where Renoir made the best use of "blue Danube" I know (with Kubrik's "2001",but in a diametrically opposite way),are the key of the movie.Boudu looks like,at the end of the movie, like some distant cousin of Charlie Chaplin ,but a Chaplin who would have discovered cynicism.

Needless to say,"Boudu" would not be "Boudu" without Michel Simon's extraordinary presence.Such an actor does not exist anymore in French contemporary cinema.And his filmography is full of treasures.To think that he also worked with Duvivier,Carné,Clair,Decoin and so many more..

Remakes "down and out in Beverly Hills" with Nick Nolte and Bette Middler. "Boudu" ,by Gérard Jugnot,this very year. Are they necessary?

It's a movie with some more subtle humor but nevertheless it's not really a movie that could ever make me laugh, which was mostly because due to Michel Simon his very over the top portrayal of the tramp Boudu. You know, the kind of performance in which he plays his character constantly in a drunk way in an attempt to make him look funny. Also his look is far from convincing, with his fake looking beard and big wig. Hello afro! It just isn't the best or most likable character imaginable. When it comes down to French comedy from the early days of cinema ('20' and '30's) this really isn't the best the genre has to offer. For instance you're way better off watching a René Clair movie.

The movie can be seen as a social commentary to the French bourgeoisie and difference between classes. It's this element mostly that makes the movie an interesting watch. No denying that Jean Renoir was a great director who knew how to set up a story and scenes. He also always gets his point across, without having to force too much. Like always, he also in this movie uses some interesting sequences that have deeper meanings to it and the movie is filled with some metaphors.

As you could expect from a Jean Renoir movie, it's also technically a good one. The movie features some interesting camera-shots, which must have also been really original and revolutionary for its time. The editing isn't always too great however.

Not Renoir's best but it's an enjoyable enough little movie.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/