Opiniones de usuarios

La Marseillaise takes place during the phase of the French revolution that was the most optimistic and the least bloody. Director Jean Renoir is concerned with how this moment is viewed by both the monarchy in Paris and the everyday people of Marseillaise who march to Paris singing their song (Battle Hymn of the Rhine Army). His presentation is realistic and probably more accurate than most films that have dealt with the subject.

La Marseillaise has been proclaimed as a masterpiece but, while I liked the film, I cannot share in that acclaim. Jean Renoir is considered one of the (if not THE) greatest French directors in film history. I love The Rules of the Game, but have found many of Renoir's other films slow going. This is true of parts of La Marseillaise as well. The running time is 132 minutes; there is (intentionally) no main protagonist; an assumption is made that the audience knows more about the historical events than some viewers (like me) may.

Despite some restlessness on my part, La Marseillaise remains a worthwhile film. Every Jean Renoir film has wonderful moments, La Marseillaise especially. My favorite is Louis XVI's long walk with his family to Parilament. Renoir uses a crane shot to view the pedestrians. The dejected look on the King's face is powerful. He and his son share a reflexive moment over fallen leaves. This scene powerfully contrasts with the buffoonish way Louis was portrayed at the beginning of the film. This is a perfectly made scene. The film has other great scenes as well.

Although it did not affect me as deeply as it has others, I would recommend La Marseillaise, especially to French film admirers, students of Jean Renoir, and history buffs.

Jean Renoir's classic tribute to the glory of the French Revolution, the film captures the personal flavor of the struggle and the philosophical background to the revolutionary upheaval. In a rapid series of vignettes we are introduced to the elegance and nobility of the court of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette... the contrasting plight of French peasants governed by laws they cannot understand...the storming of the Bastille in 1789 by an undisciplined mob...the plotting of France's exiled nobility to return to power...the Republican march on Paris...and the capture of the Tuilleries in 1793, ending the revolution. The film follows the adventures of two young patriots who join the Peoples' army in Marseilles. As their battalion begins its long journey north to Paris to join with the Federate army, they adopt as their anthem a song from the Army of the Rhine. This song was soon to be known all over France as "La Marseillaise" and would lead the newly unified nation to victory.

This film, despite being directed by Renoir, is largely forgotten today. This is a pity, as there are few films actually about the French Revolution (though it is used as a backdrop for a variety of plot lines), and none that really deal with the birth of the Republic.

It was made at the tail end of the 'Popular Front' government, a coalition of parties (including the communists) formed to protect the Third Republic from right-wing domestic subversion and the baleful influence of the Nazis.

It chose to use the early years of the revolution as a metaphor for this political situation - France was still a (constitutional) monarchy, and the King possessed the power of a constitutional veto. The Queen and her circle were said to be plotting a counter revolution.

Within this context, each city and region of France is requested to send a Battalion to Paris, to defend the government against its domestic enemies. We follow the adventures of some of the ordinary men in the battalion from Marseilles (who sing a new song called the "Marseilles" as they march. We see their experiences in Paris (including a love interest), and their simple and honest defence of what they believe in. Finally, they participate in the coup that leads to the establishment of the Republic and the arrest of the King.

The film is episodic, and some of the scenes are a little melodramatic. But the characterisation is excellent. The King and his court are not one-dimensional villains. The scene of his departure is quite moving.

In short, a film well worth rescuing from obscurity.

This film was an opportunity to view the French revolution from the view of the common people. Most viewers have only seen, perhaps, A TALE OF TWO CITIES or THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL, so this film does offer fresh insights. However, to me, some of the dialog and one-sidedness of the film seemed as one-dimensional as the other two movies I just mentioned.

The film deals with events from 1789 to 1792 and so it really doesn't delve into the bloodier years of the Reign of Terror. It is understandable that these abuses aren't covered in depth, but to omit the be-headings completely seems rather dishonest. I'd really like to see a film that gives a balanced view of this period, but have yet to see it--and that's a shame, as it's a fascinating and tumultuous period.

FYI--From my point of view as a history teacher, it does seem amazing that within only two years of the completion of this very rousing and patriotic film the French capitulated to the Nazis.

Given the monumental importance of the French Revolution in history, it is surprising that so few films have been made about it or have even used it as a setting. "The Assassination of the Jean Paul Marat" is probably the most interesting and offbeat film, but it takes place 20 years after the revolution and only debates and argues about it. "Scarlet Pimpernel," "Reign of Terror," and "Tale of Two Cities" just use the revolution as backdrops to tell fun adventure stories. "Danton" is boring, anti-revolutionary and childish, everyone is presented in black and white terms. Griffith's "Orphans of the Storm" has lots of delights and some great action sequences, but is too didactic and anti-revolutionary. "Marie Antonette" (2006) and "Affair of the Necklace" are beautiful and great works, but show little interest in the revolution itself.

Although it deals with only some events leading to the overthrow of the monarchy, "La Marseillaise" is possibly the best film. It shows the complexity of the events and deals with them in an intelligent and reasonable manner. It shows how "the Brunswick Manifesto" led to the arrest of the King and Queen. While Marie and Louis, are not shown in a particularly good light, neither are they caricatured.

The movie is episodic and slow, but there are a number of dazzling shots and scenes. The attack on the King's palace at the end is the dramatic highlight.

There is a fabulous scene in the middle of the film where the aristocrats are singing a song about how they are going to "hang the traitors" and shortly the revolutionaries answer by singing about how they are going to "hang the aristocrats." It shows the most humanistic, balanced and honest presentation of the situation of any film on the subject that I have seen.

Between Jean Renoir's deeply humanistic 'La Grande Illusion' and the doom-laden 'La Bete Humaine', undisputed masterpieces both, comes this depiction of 1789, that monumental year in France's history, which is oddly devoid of drama and historical bias in its quest of documentary-like authenticity. A collective enterprise, financed mainly by the French trades unions, it is essentially Renoir's call to arms to a country facing the Fascist menace. Suffice to say it did not have the desired effect and proved a costly failure, was dismissed as politically naive, recouped a mere one-tenth of its 10,000,000 Franc budget and marked the end of the director's love affair with the utterly ineffectual Socialist/Communist coalition known as the Popular Front, for which he had earlier made the propogandist 'People of France.' The film was restored pretty much to its original length in 1967 by the Cinématheque Francaise but remains arguably of interest only to cinéphiles and Renoir devotees.

Despite being somewhat didactic and uneven it is performed with ésprit and contains a few marvellous scenes, notably the splendidly choreographed storming of the Tuileries and an effective little shadow play courtesy of animated feature pioneer Lotte Reiniger, in exile from Nazi Germany. As one would expect from this director, the emphasis is mainly on the individual and there are especially appealing performances from Edmond Ardisson as Bomier, representing Everyman and Nadia Sibirskaia as the girl he loves. Renoir being Renoir, he has chosen to demonise neither the aristos nor the Monarchy and as played by his brother Pierre the character of Louis XV1 is hugely sympathetic and whose observation "The leaves are falling early this year" whilst making his fateful way to the National Assembly is one of Cinema's most poignant moments. Lise Delamare as the much-maligned Marie Antoinette is imperious but at the same time rather pathetic. Aimé Clariond and a suitably somber Louis Jouvet have telling cameos.

Writer Joseph Conrad had no illusions regarding revolutions and maintained that they simply allow narrow minded fanatics and hypocritical tyrants to come to the fore and betray revolutionary hopes and ideals. One cannot but help agreeing with him.

Aside from being a brilliant film, at different times humorous and moving, LA MARSEILLAISE is hands down the most accurate film out there when it comes to the French Revolution.

Some have noted it's "one-sided" aspect, but allow me to make an observation: when royalists want to make a one-sided film on the French Revolution, they... make stuff up! Usually utter bilge, such as THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL or A TALE OF TWO CITIES, films (and original books) whose only basis in historical fact can be summed up as, yes, there was a revolution in France in 1789, and yes indeed, Britain and France are on opposite sides of the Channel. Those who support the republic, on the other hand, have typically had the scruples to actually *do their research* before setting out to mold the public's impressions of so momentous an historical event. Such is the case with LA MARSEILLAISE, where a large percentage of the dialog is taken from historical records. (In fact, the only real complaint one could have as far as historical accuracy goes is costuming, but I've yet to see any film from that era--1938, in this case--that had accurate costumes.)

All this is not to suggest that LA MARSEILLAISE is dull. Far from it! As mentioned before, LA MARSEILLAISE is witty and often poignant. In showing the Revolution from the point of view of ordinary citizens instead of aristocrats or well-known revolutionary leaders, the film shows to what point common citizens were dedicated to the ideals of the Revolution, as well as showing a human side to the "mob" so frequently portrayed.

La Marseillaise depicts lesser known stories attached to the events in Versailles in 1789 which led to the downfall of the monarchy. Renoir continues with a consistent stylistic system - great depth of field, two-shot closeups, framing of crowds, mobile framing, polyvocal (accents). In fact, aristocrats and citizens receive the same treatment from the camera. The exception is with the King and Queen who receive one-shot closeups, however, this seems more in the service of a dialectic regarding the Brunswick Manifesto than it being about psychological identification. This story is symbolic and likely the symbolism and abstraction is what led to the film not being as popular as was expected. There is also a confusion for the spectator because of Renoir's humanist treatment. Bumpkins are charming, aristocrats are accepting and armies more or less fight together instead of against each other. Renoir often spoke out against violence in film and this might be another disappointment for audiences at the time. Most violence is dissuaded through crafty acts of oration. The brains over brawn theme certainly lacks something of the 'common touch'. The breaking down of the song into parceled quotations reminds of the French New Wave's often lyrical and intellectual modes of expression. There is a monarchist rhetoric that runs through the film regarding order versus anarchy... yet there is little example of anarchy but also no false reprisal by monarchists against citizens. The treatment of war is tepid, but it just goes to show that Renoir was never comfortable representing hardened political positions.

Rousing! Brilliant cinematography. And perspicacious. Lovely moment with Louis XVI tasting tomatoes for the first time. Hadn't known the story of La Marsellaise leading up to the Tuileries attack. Quite well-done. Of course the revolution morphed from this point into so many strange permutations: Napoleon, Louis XVIII, Napoleon's nephew... In the 20th century alone, the constitution was been redone how many times?

The movie starts slow and perhaps not in the most engaging way, jumping from one location to the other and from one royal setting to a peasant's judicial troubles, but at least each change of scene is dutiful announced, so that the audience know where and when the scenes take place.

One would wish that they would still do this in movies, without assuming that the audience is smarter than it actually is. However, it's clear that there isn't a main character, even if the guys from Marseille get a lot of screen time.

Roughly the plot covers a few years, from 1789 to 1792 just before the revolution got bloody. The main thread of the narrative is how a group of people from Marseille formed a battalion and marched to Paris, singing the famous song which became France's anthem and then moved with other battalions to Valmy to defend France against Prussia and Austria.

Interesting but not Renoir's best.