Um Dia no Campo

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.

Although "A Day In The Country" is a lovely, lyrical film I was disappointed to learn that it was never completed. Indeed, there is a gaping hole toward the end of the film which, if finished, could have answered some plot questions. And so, we must draw our own conclusions and try to fill in blanks. As you would expect, it mars the final product.

As is, it is a snippet of life fleshed out by the master director Renoir. Human feeling seems to be his strong point, humanity in all its strengths, shortcomings and foibles as illustrated by his depiction of a family picnic in the country. We are eavesdropping on them, almost. I wish he could have finished it.

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.

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.