La partie de chasse

I cannot believe how badly the point of this film must have been missed! I am no snob, but people can't have understood the core ideas behind the film as otherwise it would be regarded as a classic.

I thought the film was very sad and a great reflection on a English time and traditions passing. The time of drinking fine wines and eating fresh game will be shortly over with the pending war.

James Mason is just perfect in this film! He represents the "good old boy" with principles and values that the younger more competitive Edward Fox misses. This partnership is a beautiful juxtaposition, both understated and acted masterfully.

ANyway, slight rant over but please watch again if you were not sure one way or the other

gareth

The Shooting Party is set in 1913, which is not very long ago, and yet is another world. This was the last year of the old world, and the start of the modern world. The opening narration by James Mason sets the theme: that the world of the haves and have-nots is doomed, and that the future holds great change.

This was Mason's last film, and his was a part very well suited to him. He is the great patriarch, head of the family, and benign chief of the great estate. He is not a soppy fool, but he is kind and means well to all. He invites many aristocrats to his estate for a few days of shooting, and these arrive, with their servants.

In the house, then, are representatives of much of the world at that time: the upper classes, some British, some foreign, and the lower classes, some servants, some local rustics who will be the beaters for the shoot. The film then shows us how they are all behaving.

Both the upper and the lower classes are stuck in their ways, though if anything, it is the upper class which questions whether this is the way things should be. When the shooting pauses for tea, the posh folk sit elegantly but uncomfortably in a clean white marquee, and drink from china, while the beaters look far happier drinking from mugs from a communal urn and chatting amongst themselves.

The foreign aristocrats are haughty, and annoy the British by referring to the beaters as "peasants". The British aristocrats are not happy. Two young idealists are in the agony of a forbidden love, others have sham marriages or petty rivalries.

The world is one full of love, but much of it frustrated. A boy has a pet duck, which he fears will be shot. Mason has a liking for a local poacher whom he hires as a beater, despite the contempt which the hunt master has for the man. By the end of the film, you feel great liking and sympathy for many of the characters.

To get the most from this film, some knowledge of history and British culture is required, but there is much to like in this film without these. The acting and dialogue are good, the setting atmospheric, and what is being said about the people of the time is so very fair. This film does not hammer home any of its points, but shows both the good and the bad in the characters, and lets the viewer decide.

All through the film, our present-day knowledge of the slaughter to come in the churned mud of the Somme, Ypres, Paschendale and the Dardenelles stays with us, affecting the way we perceive every nuance. The film makers were clearly aware of this, and take full advantage of it.

The ending is one of the most moving I know from any film. Simple, yet very effective.

If you remember Upstairs/Downstairs on PBS about the two different worlds in one house in London before the Titantic sailed and barbed wire and mass slaughter decorated the landscape of Europe,then this is a perfect accomplishment. Gordon Jackson who played the butler in the series is cast here as a poacher who gets hired to become a beater, someone who rouses the targeted wildlife in this case grouse I believe into the gunsights of the "swells". The English have a love- hate relationship with that time of determined inequality; James Mason in his last role, plays the lord of the manor,an intelligent patriarch of his ancestral holdings,several steps above the stereotype of a haughty inbred weasel satirized memorably by the Monty Python crew in their "Upperclass Twit of the Year" sketch. Mason is an aristocrat with a capital A who feels it is his DUTY to be the best not an entitlement. The others in this film range from starcrossed lovers he doomed to be a casualty of 20th Century warfare,the others representing snobs,fools, frivolous yet empty souled individuals who actually believed a little bloodletting would revitalize their spirits during the hunt and the subsequent war. While they may resent the foreigners for calling the ir English lackeys peasants it is how they treat them. Except for James Mason they are his yeomen the family's men at arms who probably followed his ancestors into battle when they raised a regiment of horse or foot for whatever struggle be it against the rival Europeans,killing rebel Scots or Irish ,or tangling with those American Cousins. Watch this film and see the difference between being a star and being an actor

While the whole film is beautifully accomplished on all levels, acting, directing, sense of time and place, the scene between James Mason and John Gielgud, which takes place during a shoot, reveals acting that has gone beyond acting. It is one of the most exquisite scenes in the history of the cinema. Mason and Gielgud are perfect.

I purchased this film just by chance as it seemed interesting. I had to view this title twice to get the picture so to speak. I have never heard of this production before so did not know what to expect. After viewing with a decent bottle of wine, I found the film thoroughly enjoyable with the all star cast. I was sorry to learn that this film was James Mason's last. A good performance by all the cast especially by the stunningly beautiful Judi Bowker (Olivia) who I can just remember as a sickly teenager in the TV series Black Beauty. So, was the DVD worth buying?? Answer is yes. I will even visit the location which is Knebworth house which was unknown to me.