Una salida al campo

This movie is a beautiful looking one and is like a day in the life of of a family on their summer holiday on the countryside, somewhere in early 20th century France.

The movie is filled with some unexpected contrasts and metaphors. The movie in now way can be called a formulaic one and it picks its own path with its story. This ensures that the story is both realistic as well as unexpected in parts.

The way how the movie ends is in large contrast with the rest of the otherwise happy and cheerful beginning of the movie. It has a summer holiday look and feeling over it, in which the main characters, from the big city, are obviously enjoying the beauty and quietness of the country life. You would expect the love story to unravel as a romantic one but the romantic first encounter really doesn't go as often gets portrayed in movies. I must say that the movie is just like life and it doesn't try to bloom things. But perceptions differ, as can be also seen in the final sequence of the movie, in which the events of that one summer day in the country left a big lasting impression on the girl.

What Jean Renoir does really well is capturing the right mood and atmosphere of the movie. Even though I obviously wasn't around in 1936, it still feels all very familiar and pleasant. Of course the movie gets helped by its country side environments, which gets captured perfectly on camera.

Not all of the actors were real experienced professionals, which can be seen back in their performances but overall this shouldn't trouble you to much, since Jean Renoir perfectly knows to tell the story with its images and character behavior, rather than relying completely on the actor's skills.

I wouldn't go as far as calling this Renoir's best but it's nevertheless a great, humble, realistic, honest, warm portrayal of life.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Partie de campagne (Jean Renoir, 1936) is one of the great unfinished films. Usually such projects exist in tantalising snippets because a director snuffed it before realising his vision, or failed to get a movie off the ground due to short-sighted financiers. In this case, Renoir quit because it kept raining. Admittedly it rained for much of a six-week shoot, but even so... Happily, the 40-minute Partie de campagne doesn't seem unfinished, with an intriguingly-paced three-act structure that works just fine and a heady summer atmosphere that stands as perhaps the most inspired example of its director's quiet lyricism. It's an often breathtaking pastoral film, creating a fully-realised rural world a la Tol'able David and Louisiana Story into which to throw our protagonists.

Sylvia Bataille is Henriette, a Parisian girl who decamps to the countryside for the weekend with her parents, her grandmother and her fiancé. There, she and her mother (Jane Marken) encounter a prospective-family-man-cum-intense-romantic and his caddish mate, who sweep them off their feet and onto a pair of rowing boats. But this is 19th century France, and the ties that bind won't slacken just because someone's fallen in love.

The film is gentle, entertaining and sometimes very funny, benefiting from superb performances by Bataille, Marken and young romeos Georges D'Arnoux and Jacques B. Brunius, a luscious musical score composed for its 1946 release and Renoir's effortless, transcendent handling of the material. Its coda is absolutely heartbreaking: the perfect wrap-up for a film that's shot through with unshakeable conviction and a tangible love of the countryside. Renoir's fondness for Bataille's expressive, elfin face is just as obvious - he would return to it later the same year in his fascinating serio-comic polemic Le crime de Monsieur Lange. A set piece here that sees her guilelessly embrace the pleasures of a swing is slight but somehow unforgettable. Elsewhere, Renoir's script matches the exalted treatment, encompassing as it does themes of nostalgia, teary joy and the essence of being.

But Partie de campagne does have one - perhaps major - flaw, so bizarre as to be unintelligible. That's the presentation of the father and the fiancé, Anatole, as music hall imbeciles. The younger is particularly ridiculous, resembling a young Stan Laurel as he repeatedly squawks and wobbles his bottom lip. For that matter, the dad looks not unlike Oliver Hardy. Really odd. Perhaps Renoir, adapting Guy de Maupassant's novel, is making a satiric point about the unredeemable unsuitability of the young couple, or the ineptitude of Parisians cast adrift several miles from the big city, but it's a directorial decision that's never really justified.

Still, that's the only gripe about this amazing piece of work, which largely hums with brilliance and ultimately stands shoulder-to-shoulder with La grande illusion as the director's greatest achievement.

Trivia note: That's Renoir himself as the restaurateur, Poulain.

Day in the Country, A (1936)

**** (out of 4)

Incredibly touching and extremely beautiful film from the French master Renoir. A Parisian father takes his wife, mother-in-law, daughter and future son in law on a trip to the country where they plan to have a picnic. While the men fish two gentlemen with not-so-innocent plans take the women on a canoe ride. I've been looking to see this film for quite sometime even though the reviews I've read have been rather mixed. I personally found this film to be incredibly beautiful and I'd probably put it as the greatest French film I've seen. The peacefulness of the country that Renoir brings to the screen is quite breathtaking and he really does capture the freeness of being out in the middle of no where surrounding by silence. I thought all of the characters were very well written and the dialogue suited each of them perfectly. A lot of times all the characters sound the same but I was very please to see how different each of them were. The film runs a very short 40-minutes but Renoir throws everything into the picture. This includes terrific laughs and some very heartfelt moments towards the end of the movie. The film also features some very beautiful cinematography including a terrific sequence near the end where the river is shown with rain drops hitting it. Another great sequence comes early on when the two men are inside the diner and push the window open to reveal what's outside. This scene works even better thanks in large part to the terrific score by Joseph Kosma. All of the performances are great but Sylvia Bataille is the real standout as the daughter who is going to encounter and lose love over the span of a short evening. Jacques Borel is also worth mentioning as the womanizer who adds a lot of the comedy to the film. I've heard various stories about the short running time. It seems Renoir never go to finish the film but to me the running time is perfect and it's amazing what the director does capture and show in the short time.

My prep school could hardly be described as being particularly sophisticated or advanced regarding the arts but at some point I benefited from a projected showing of Renoir's Une Partie de Campagne and the beautiful, romantic, sentimental and sad imagery and story got under my skin and has remained there ever since. I probably saw it when I was nine years old and I am now thirty five. I haven't seen it since but I can still see moments and sequences clearly in my minds eye. Certainly a child is a blank canvas and liable to be more influenced by something than an adult - I am just glad that amongst all the rubbish I was exposed to, someone thought fit to show something this beautiful to me at that moment.

When I see lists of the supposed 'great films', I often wonder some films makes these lists and others do not. Two films that often make such lists and make professional reviewers drool are a couple shorts which I'm not even sure belong on any such list--since they are SHORT films! While good, the films seem to be considered among the greatest works of art as well--and I just don't get it. Both films are French and I have no bias against French films--in fact, French films are probably my favorite of all the international cinema. But, I still can't see why "Zero for Conduct" and "A Day in the Country" are considered such amazing films--especially "Zero for Conduct". Yet, I know that many sophisticated people would immediately assume I'm a Neanderthal for not loving these films!

As this review is specifically about " A Day in the Country", I'll confines the rest of my comments just about this particular short. I see that it's currently rated 8.2 and as I said above, makes many 'must-see' lists. While I might agree that it should be on a list of the top 100 shorts, you can't seriously compare it to a full-length in my opinion for many reasons. First, the film seems like a fragment--without the completeness or structure you'd find in a 'normal' film. Second, director Renoir himself intended to make a full-length film but only stopped part-way through the project because of time constraints--there was too much rain and he had to wrap up filming! While I think another film, "Fitzcaraldo" is a bit overrated, at least Werner Hertzog went to hell and back to get this incredible film made--yet Renoir gets a pass when he just calls it a wrap!

So is this a bad film? Certainly not! In fact, it's one of the most artistically satisfying shorts I've ever seen. The combination of music, great camera work and restrained acting make this a lovely piece of art. But, with a woefully incomplete story and not much plot, I just can't take the film as serious as some have. Good, yes. Great, no. It's well worth seeing--just don't try to convince me it has achieved greatness or should be compared to traditional films.