Una salida al campo

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.

The family of a Parisian shop-owner (André Gabriello) spends a day in the country. The daughter (Sylvia Bataille) falls in love with a man (Georges D'Arnoux) at the inn, where they spend the day.

This simple film, less than 45 minutes long, is now available thanks to Criterion. Who can say no to Jean Renoir in the 1930s? So many of us are preoccupied with American comedies of the era, we forget that other countries exist. And this one at a time that France was just about to be invaded by Germany!

Although her career spanned over 20 years, this would turn out to be Sylvia Bataille's most memorable role. Renoir never finished filming due to weather problems, but producer Pierre Braunberger turned the material into a release in 1946, ten years after it was shot. Braunberger was right to release the film.

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/

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.

Unfinished,this is a one of Renoir's most remarkable works.As far as Guy DE Maupassant is concerned,only Max OPhuls's "le plaisir"(1951) and Christian-Jaque's "Boule de Suif" (1950)equal it.

This is apparently a very simple story:a couple of bourgeois (Jane Marken and Gabriello) ,their daughter (Sylvia Bataille) and her less-than-handsome husband leave for a day in the country (title).There the young girl meets love ,short-lived happiness.

Beneath the placid surface,tragedy emerges.The beautiful landscape,the simmering water,the whispering grass,the swings which seem to reach for a pure sky,the small fish you savor in the guinguettes down by the river,the thrill of it all!The young girl's longing for true love is harder to endure in such a peaceful paradise.This is one of these rare movies in which you experiment happiness tinged with an infinite sadness.

A whole sequence is missing:a card explains the events which were not filmed.Sylvia Bataille's last line(to the man she fell in love with) will make you cry out:"I've been thinking of it every day".Woman has always been sacrificed in Maupassant's work.At a running time of 40 minutes,a lot of people claim it for Renoir's best though.I do.Claude Renoir marvelously conveys Maupassant's depictions with his pictures.