A Carruagem de Ouro

Jean Renoir's colorful English language comedy is not the masterpiece prevailing critical opinion would have you believe ("riotously textural!" raved the Village Voice), but it is a pleasant and entertaining novelty. A spirited Anna Magnani leads a troupe of Italian actors to a Spanish colony in 18th century Peru, where the appreciative Viceroy rewards her talent (and beauty) with the gift of a golden coach, setting off a small political and romantic scandal. It plays for the most part not unlike a literate stage farce, and Renoir emphasizes the theatricality of the story by directing (and shooting) it like theatre, with deliberate, flat compositions and distracting color costumes; the action even begins on a legitimate stage, the walls of which 'disappear' as soon as Renoir's camera dollies into it. The (at the time) newly struck 1992 print, presented by Martin Scorsese, shows obvious evidence of restoration only in the curious epilogue, which brings the story back to its original stage setting, and appears to have been poorly reconstructed on video.

I was afraid that this movie would turn out to be a case of style over substance because of the movie its visual splendor. But I should had known better really, since this movie had Jean Renoir at the helm, a man who really knew how to always tell a story, in the combination with some impressing visuals.

I liked the movie definitely better than expected and I enjoyed it from basically start till finish. It's being a bit of an odd movie, since its a comedy but set in this very serious upper-class world. The movie becomes often an absurd one but not in the way that it's ever ridicules. It's a delightful movie, that has great characters, some nice universal and timeless themes and some great dialog that really all make the movie, fore there is not much else within this movie really. It's definitely not really a movie for 'todays' audience, so to speak.

The movie got shot in color, from which it definitely benefits. It's visuals are still what impresses the most about this movie, no matter how great everything else in it is. It has some great sets and costumes in it, that help to give the movie a certain atmosphere, consistent with the time period it got set in. It doesn't ever feel though as if the movie got set in a small town of Central America, that is a Spanish colony. The movie for all that matter could had just as well been set in France or England for instance but than of course we wouldn't had had a bull fighter as one of the movie its main characters.

It's a movie that as well handles some social themes are all of all times it seems. The corruption of money, power and love all come by here. It keeps the movie going and intriguing to watch throughout, mainly because it's also all being so well written and timed within the movie. The movie got also written by Jean Renoir himself, who often always wrote his own movies, though this movie got based on a play by Prosper Mérimée, who also wrote the novel "Carmen".

A movie that I simply enjoyed watching from start till finish!

9/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

... or La Carrozza d'Oro, or Le Carrosse d'Or. Take your pick: the film has an early flavour of the "Euro-pudding", with a mixed (and sometimes mixed-up) Anglo-Italian cast. It was shot principally in English, which meant an extra layer of strain for La Magnani, whose manic, over-the-top performance can't quite hide the somewhat anaemic storyline.

Luckily, her overacting fits well enough with the character's context and the decidedly light and bawdy mood of the whole piece: she's a professional Commedia del Arte 'actor' touring a 16th Century Latin America which decadent Spaniards hold in their venal grip. The great Italian star drags behind her a motley crew of fellow-Italians who match her quiver for quiver in the wild hand-gesturing repertoire and performs convincingly the stage stunts that were the Commedia's stock in trade. Magnani's antics also serve as a welcome distraction from leading man Paul Campbell's comatose acting. This American non-entity gives "wooden" a bad name. Whilst La Magnani keeps running through her vast back-catalogue of facial expressions, he only ever seems able to muster two, at best. Was Renoir asleep when this guy auditioned?

Anyway, none of that matters, because this is a film that is as much art-directed as it is directed. Huge respect is owed to designers Mario Chiari and Gianni Poldori for sets that manage to be both lavishly theatrical and convincingly lived in. Maria de Matteïs and Ginevra Pasolini match their male colleagues' panache and inventiveness with a dazzling range of costumes that combine with the lush colour palette of the sets to deliver an exquisitely sensuous fantasia of this distant time and place. Rarely was the glorious three-strip Technicolor process used with such erotic abandon and sheer vitality.

Thank God for this too, because it's not as if the lame script, with its flat-footed storyline and schematic comedy was anything to write home about. There is no doubting Renoir's genuine desire to pay tribute to the Commedia genre, and his loving attention to the detail of early theatrical craft draws you in. After all, wasn't this popular form of street theatre an early precursor to the great art perfected later on the big screen by the likes of Lubitsch or Renoir himself?

In the end, I feel an indulgent love for this film, a late entry into the great French master's career and -like French Cancan - a little bit 'so what?'. Not only could I get drowned again and again in its sensuous celebration of Technicolor as life and drama, but there is also a core quality that has to do with how Renoir renders the spiritual essence of the Commedia company: throughout the film, these displaced paupers and underfed globe-trotters display total servitude and total freedom in equal measure. These are the two opposites of their fraught but impassioned lives and the source of the manic energy they need for the performance that will buy them the day's only meal. As a filmmaker who frequently struggled to achieve his vision against the strictures of the commercial film industry, Renoir seems to know intimately what those characters' lives were about.

This film is really a masterpiece. This was also French director François Truffaut's opinion, and he named his film company "Les Films du Carrosse" as a tribute to it. I once read a review in which the critic expressed the opinion that Anna Magnani's looks couldn't make it likely that the male characters of the plot fell in love with her. But this is a complete misunderstanding of the story, it is not because of her beauty they love her, but because she makes them laugh, she brings them to that other world which theater creates. For aren't we all made of the same stuff dreams are made of, as the great Will once wrote?... If you haven't seen this film, don't wait if you get a chance to watch it. In France, where I live, it's not available in DVD yet, but since it recently came out in the US, and in Japan, I am looking forward to soon finding it here.

This tale of an Italian commedia dell'arte troupe just landed in eighteenth-century Peru is an enjoyable time spent with Renoir and his company of players. It is similar in many ways to Renoir's masterpiece, The Rules of the Game (La règle du jeu) from 1939: the members of a large cast fall in and out of love with one another, with the inevitable jealousies, disappointments, and ecstasies. Renoir's sensibility also remains steadfastly eighteenth-century, as expressed in the quotation of a vaudeville song from the Marriage of Figaro in the titles before The Rules of the Game: 'Sensitive hearts, faithful hearts, who blame fickle Cupid, stop your cruel complaints. Is it a crime to change lovers? If Cupid has wings, is it not to flit about?' Renoir's feel for music is as clear in the Golden Coach as it was in Rules. Excerpts from Vivaldi form the soundtrack, and as familiar as they may sound to us in the twenty-first century, it was surely a more daring choice in 1952, when these pieces were only entering the mainstream. And how many films have a sight-gag with a serpent (the instrument, not the snake)?

Unfortunately, comparing the two films also shows that in revisiting these themes Renoir is not as inspired the second time around. Perhaps the difference is Renoir anxiously watching his world on the precipice in 1939 and gratefully seeing that something survived in 1952. The film is beautifully shot in Technicolor by Claude Renoir (Jean's nephew, who also shot Barbarella and The Spy Who Loved Me!) and the actors are uniformly good, especially Anna Magnani. If the Golden Coach isn't a masterpiece, it's still 109 minutes of pleasure for the eye, the ear, and the spirit from a master of his craft.