O Crime de Monsieur Lange

It's a crime drama about unprincipled capitalism set in 1936 in Paris, France. Paul Batala (Jules Berry) is an unprincipled owner of a low-brow publishing company who exploits his female staff sexually and everyone financially. Mild-mannered Amédée Lange (René Lefèvre) works for Batala but also writes Western short stories featuring Arizona Jim. Valentine Cardès (Florelle), the head of the company's laundry, pursues Lange romantically. Batala is in debt to Mr. Meunier (Henri Guisol) and flees Paris on a train that experiences a crash. Batala then fakes his death by changing identities with a priest (Edmund Beauchamp).

The film opens with Lange and Cardès fleeing, and we learn Lange is charged with Batala's murder. Cardès tells the story of events at the inn near the border where they are recognized. Her narrative includes the period after Batala's initial "death," when the publishing company established a successful workers' cooperative that sells Arizona Jim stories. The movie's ending portrays the inn's patrons' decision whether to turn Lange over to the police.

"Le Crime de Monsieur Lange" is a simple story with a clear economic perspective. Social attitudes vary considerably from what Hollywood could portray at the same time. The film is primarily a period piece illustrative of pre-war French cinema. Florelle and Jules Berry are the strongest characters.

Jean Renoir is one of the classic French directors and films like La Grande Illusion and The Human Beast show that. This film, The Crime of Monsieur Lange, is not one of the man's best films; but it's still a more than adequate example of French film-making in the 1930's. Adapted from a story by Jean Castanyer (the same man that wrote the story for Renoir's earlier film 'Boudu Saved from Drowning'), The Crime of Monsieur Lange tells the story of a man and woman that bed down in a hotel for the night. The man is recognised by the patrons as being the same man that killed another man, but before they can turn him in; the woman decides to tell the story of exactly why her man is a murderer and then let the customers decide whether or not he should be convicted. This premise offers an interesting base for a film, as themes of justice and morality can easily be tied in; but this is the film's main problem. While Renoir presents the story behind the murder in an interesting way, we never really get into whether or not the protagonist should be convicted.

The film is left open ended, probably so that the audience can 'make their own minds up' about the events; but this idea is never really explored and it's a shame because it could have presented a very interesting backbone for the movie. Quite what Renoir's intentions were for this film, therefore, are rather quite muddled. The film is never exciting enough to be considered a straight thriller, the story isn't deep enough for it to be a deep and complex drama, and we're not presented with enough themes for it to be viewed as a cross section of justice and morality. Jean Renoir seems to have been too much of a complex man to have simply intended this film as a quick Saturday-morning style drama, and themes of living in France at the time aside, that's pretty much what this is. The actual drama in the film is good, however, with the actors giving life to their characters through realistic acting. Renoir's direction is as assured and as vivacious as ever, and you really get the impression with this man that he really puts his back into making films. This certainly isn't a bad movie; but it's not great either. Most people, like me, would probably expect a little more from Renoir...but it's still worth seeing.

It takes a while to locate one's bearings in this work, although that speaks to its emotional and thematic complexity. The film has the constant pace and vivacity and glee that is (stereotypically?) associated with Renoir - the film is something of a romantic whirl, with the interconnections of men and women are beguilingly dramatized in all their fleeting glory. Even the scenes with the wicked boss have an initial joie de vivre. Lange himself retains a restrained calm at the heart of it all - until he comes to illustrate the normal man who takes a desperate, self-sacrificing stand for the good of others. Although idealistic, his action resonates when offset against the explicitly cartoonish heroism of the Arizona Jim character (which we see embodied in some epically corny tableaux), and the impact thrives from being based in a muscular evocation of left-wing collectivist sympathies (a strand that comes over heavily in the almost idyllic scenes of things after the demise of the capitalist - with workers happy and lovers unfettered; although I found the very end of the film a bit puzzling).

The Jacques Prevert-Jean Renoir teaming provides for an exciting tale of murder, mens rea, judgment and justice. The narrative frame introduces the story through straightforward exposition. Great depth of field and uneven staging/blocking of characters constructs a space unobtrusively in order to make room for the free interchange of political positions of everyday people. It is difficult to deny that M. Lange isn't a call for French citizens to become politicized, but one cannot overlook the contribution of Prevert to that end. Mobile framing is employed once Florelle's character introduces the past events that led her and M. Lange into the provincial regions. The mobile framing operates to connect lives that might otherwise require the conjuring of contrived connections by the audience. The fact is that these people live and work together - that is the essence of their connection, and for Prevert (and Renoir) such a connection is enough to create a demand for respect, dignity and autonomy. Batala throws a wrench in all that good stuff and provides the catalyst for politicization. Is murder condoned in this film or is it representative of the sacrifice that will be made to take up a firm political position? (a massive issue at the time of the Popular Front) M. Lange is all about context but in the most self-reflexive manner. Even the Arizona Jim storyline has a direct conversation operating within the French film industry at the time. M. Lange isn't anachronistic but for a contemporary audience, the concept of group responsibility has distorted and perverted into an amorphous hideous blob cranking up the volume of the latest tech trinket to drown out the screams of a Kitty Genovese in the alley below. This makes M. Lange a refreshing take on politics but a depressing one, given the contemporary spectator has the foreknowledge that WWII happened and that international corporate conglomeration (Batala's wet dream) has become so dominant that an Occupy Movement on Wall Street looks more like a corporate-sponsored Hoedown-cum-Pow-Wow... and just wait for the time management game version to be released on iPhone in the next three months. If M. Lange were real life in 2013 we can be sure that Batala "getting his" would mean getting the highest amount of profit participation and controlling the creative accounting end of things when the box office closes on the film's run. It is beautiful to see a world fighting for what is right. Prevert was unabashed in that regard. Renoir was fighting for something else - both more personal and universal. In a true Renoir film, Batala would have been a more complex character... likely something between King Louis in La Marseillaise and Dede in La Chienee. That is to say, his return would be announced and his escape would be ensured at the expense of some poor bugger's own life... in a kind of reprehensible accident. What does the 360 shot mean to me? I believe that it represents a political statement about the deferral of responsibility. The Lange and Batala roles are a clever reversal of the real issue... where do you stand against the threat of fascism that will soon begin stomping faces (which it did in abundance).

Most of the film is in flashback and as soon as this gets under way the film seems to move at such a pace I had trouble keeping up and along the way it only gradually dawned on me it was a comedy. So, once I had sorted that out and got used to the bold and challenging edits and dissolves the film was well under way and I was playing catch up. As has been pointed out by others, looking at this today it would seem that more time than necessary is given to convincing that the old boss is bad and that it would have been good to spend more time with the good times. However, we have to allow for the fact this is almost 80 years old and those early audiences would have needed that time to be fully convinced so that the ending could be accepted. Interesting, bold, amusing and entertaining with plenty of fulsome performances.