I watched The Rules of the Game primarily because it's ranked at #3 of 'They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?' top 1000 films of all-time, despite it not seeming to be too acclaimed anywhere else. I can see why it's considered a classic among the top of those films, but it's overrated to be considered as high as #3. It's definitely beyond its time regarding its characters and narrative structure, a clear influence on Luis Bunuel, Robert Altman and subsequently Paul Thomas Anderson, as it studies multiple characters in inter-connected stories altogether and exclusively. It was clearly the beginning of an essential archetype. It has slick and crisp cinematography with a great depth of field and made the best use of the limited fourth wall style of pre-Citizen Kane filmmaking, despite it not having as much iconography as it could potentially have had. As it skips between characters within one day, the pacing is sublime and flows gracefully giving the The Rules of the Game a timeless quality.The film is really remarkable for the complex relationships as the key characters all have different and altering relationships throughout the film with them falling in and out of love and friendship. For 100 minutes, it's impressive how even the side characters have distinct personalities beyond stereotypes and well-rounded stories, especially how they're all morally challenged, each with their good and bad qualities and honest indecisiveness. However, as there are so many and not enough of them were visually distinct enough (besides Renoir's own performance as Octave for example), I found myself often confused, having to go back and rewatch a scene so I could understand who was talking and about what. This meant I struggled to have consistent investment in the characters, though I did have strong investment in them during particular significant scenes, but it rendered the ending to not be as powerful as it could have been. Nevertheless, I eagerly await Renoir's other films such as The Grand Illusion and Picnic as The Rules of the Game is worth watching for its entertaining innovation in storytelling for cinema.8/10

Jean Renoir is often considered as one of the masters of French cinema of the thirties. He surprised in the diversity of the genres he tackled during that era: literary adaptation (Madame Bovary, 1933), entertaining comedy (Boudu Sauvé Des Eaux, 1932) or political manifestation (la Marseillaise, 1937). Perhaps more than "la Grande Illusion" (1937), "la Règle Du Jeu" is the magnum opus of that era and perhaps of Renoir's whole career. A movie offering a great variety of tones and a liberty of style which looks like a light comedy but which conceals delicate topics. Given that it was a mirror of French society, it encompassed an unusual construction, a highly worked and unconventional directing, it is easy to understand why the movie was decried by French public in 1939. Throughout the years, it was butchered, was cut several times before fortunately being restored to favor in 1965.Renoir had developed in some of his anterior films a scathing critic of French bourgeoisie. Movies like "Nana" (1926), "la Chienne" (1931) or "Boudu Sauvé Des Eaux" (1932) already embodied a wholesale massacre of the upper-class milieu whom Renoir underscored their hypocritical aspect. "La Règle Du Jeu" is his last attack on this society. The filmmaker understood that it was impossible to change the aristocratic world and its shallow rules. The tail end is here to prove it. Robert De la Chesnaye (Marcel Dalio) by qualifying Jurieu's death as a "deplorable accident" whereas it was a premeditated murder saved the appearances. But Renoir also knew that the Second World War was about to break out and was going to put an end to the aristocratic domination. So, he felt that it was his duty to give a true image of French bourgeoisie before the tragedy.Renoir's magnum opus is an innovative film because the director did the opposite of what a majority of French filmmakers did at that time. Many of Renoir's French peers relished on Hollywood conventions to tell and shoot the stories of their films. Here, the movie isn't built from one character's standpoint but from a group of characters belonging to different social classes, a scheme which was unusual in the thirties. Renoir used this device for a better observation of French society in decay and he was audacious enough to break the rules of narrative continuity and to use a complex directing. For example, he had tapped the depth of field in his wondrous "Partie De Campagne" (1936), here, he used it again with startling results to create memorable images, notably during the party sequence.Renoir knew very well the aristocratic world he described in his film because he used to belong to it. He was the son of the famous French impressionist painter, Auguste Renoir. An important part of the film takes place in "la Colinière", a mansion which seems to be virtually cut off from the world, it's the sole world which exists. "La Règle Du Jeu" represents a world with a constricting etiquette, immutable values. Two camps: the smug, posh bourgeoisie and the servants. Its members are walled up in their respective social background and the two most important criteria of distinction are money and property. Apart this hard-hitting assessment, Renoir's genius shines when it comes to underline their mediocrity and lack of education. Jackie tells Mrs La Bruyère that she studies Pre-Colombian art and the latter assimilates it to Buffalo Bill. Moreover, the "rule" in question is based on lie, hypocrisy and injustice. La Chesnaye has an affair with his mistress Geneviève and his wife Christine ignores this. But the sight at the shooting party is a symbolic object because she makes Christine's eyes open about this illicit love affair. But perhaps the most powerful symbol of this society is the automatons. They are clockwork toys just like the rules, the manners which govern an ossified world. Then if Jurieu died at the end of the film, it's because he remained honest in a world of corruption.Although there are no direct references to war, there are veiled hints at it throughout Renoir's work. Of course, the famous hunting sequence was often interpreted as warning signs to the tragedy, but also during the party with the "danse macabre", the way the audience reacts: a mirror of French society about the impending tragedy which weighs like a Sword of Damoclès and the military capacities of French army. But there another allusions to war elsewhere in Renoir's work: the tolling of the bells when the guests arrive to la Colinière, the gun shots La Chesnaye can hear when he walks in his domain, his gamekeeper Schmacher's persona... Moreover, there are clear signs that this society is in poor running, notably during the party sequence. The frontier between masters and servants is abolished. An impression of disorder is enhanced by an astute use of the depth of field and long takes during which several actions take place in the same time. Then, Christine who will think of fleeing from this rotten microcosm. But, in the end, La Chesnaye will have saved the appearances. But for how long? Every sequence, every character of "la Règle Du Jeu" should be studied in detail. It's an unqualified must for any cine buff. The technical innovations will have an influence on future directors like François Truffaut while the bourgeois satire will be later resumed by Henri-Georges Clouzot and Claude Chabrol.

The 'one of the greatest films ever made' tag is a lot for a film to carry. There seems to be two sets of these 'greatest films ever made' - the audience's films (the likes of The Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather, Star Wars), and the critics' films (Ozu's Tokyo Story, Murnau's Sunrise, Hitchcock's Vertigo). Without wanting to sound snobbish or pretentious, I do tend to lean my preference to the critics' films. Jean Renoir's truly great film belongs in the latter category, and it's one of those films that regardless of its popularity amongst cinephiles, seems to sadly get lost on a mainstream audience.Heroic pilot Andre (Roland Toutain) touches down after a record-breaking flight to find out that the woman he loves, Christine (Nora Gregor) is not there to greet him. He is, however, greeted by his friend Octave (Jean Renoir), who, determined to cheer his friend up, arranges for Christine and her husband Robert (Marcel Dalio) to invite Andre to their lush party at their country estate. Robert knows about Christine and Andre, but is having an affair himself with Genevieve (Mila Parely), which he promises to break off. Also, Christine's maid Lisette (Paulette Dubost) finds herself more devoted to her madame than to her groundskeeper husband Schumacher (Gaston Modot), who notices her flirting with the new servant Marceau (Julien Carette).The film was sighted as such a despicable and savage mockery of the bourgeoisie upon its release that it was hit with a ban after a public outcry. The upper classes are seen as uncaring in their actions, and relatively passive upon unearthing adultery. When Robert discovers Andre and Christine together after the former promises that it is over, the two begin a lengthy and highly comical fight. At the end, the two compliment each other on their fighting styles. It seems they fought because that was what they were supposed to do. But it seems that Renoir isn't just attacking the upper classes - the maids and servants are just as bad. Lisette repeatedly flirts with Marceau, even though she knows Schumacher will ultimately kill him, and again they seem unconcerned with the consequences of their actions. French society was rotten to the core, apparently.Social commentary aside, the film is a technical marvel. Renoir deploys slow and creeping camera-work that looks in on its strange characters with an air of curiosity, as if an onlooker at a zoo. It's a film that every self-respecting film student will have studied (even though I found myself studying Erin f*****g Brockovich at college) as it is a masterclass of mise en scene. Large rooms are full of objects, yet are noticeably empty. They surround themselves with expensive crap, and fill their country estate with people, but these people are ultimately alone and out for themselves. They are going through the motions of the game, and Renoir cleverly uses black and white tiling on the mansion floor, making the characters appear like pawns on a chess board.It is a real shame that 99% of people I will meet in my life will never have heard of this film and will never watch it, even though it is one of the giants of cinema and is often cited as 'the greatest film ever made'. It is hilarious, poetic, beautiful, disturbing, and frustrating. It breezes by like Shakespeare mixed with slapstick comedy with some French farce thrown in for good measure. Make of that what you will.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

There's always fascination in getting a look behind the doors of a stately house, to see how the other half live as it were and on the evidence of Renoir's celebrated "eve of war" movie, it's a place better to visit than inhabit.There's always the feeling however, that like dancing on the edge of a cliff tragedy will eventually overtake these merry pranksters and so it proves. However, even when it does, everyone seems to accept it as almost an occupational hazard,shrug their shoulders and move on.That shouldn't be surprising given what's gone before though as the myriad characters above and below stairs interact in a social and sexual comedy of manners. Renoir sets women at the centre of the maelstrom, firstly Lady Christine, a bored intellectual society wife, torn between three lovers, including her husband, whose own mistress struggles to come to terms with his leaving her after a long-standing affair, while Christine's maid, the coquettish Lizette plays fast and loose with her big lunk of a husband by flirting outrageously with the domestic staff's new recruit, the poacher and unwittingly sets in motion the tragedy that follows.I enjoyed the drama despite some longeurs, only natural in such an old film, but I was certainly intrigued enough by the characters and their very fluid situations to keep watching throughout. All of the actors seem excellent to me, particularly Nora Gregor, who has a vaguely Garbo-like demeanour and Paulette Dubost as Lisette, who recalls her namesake Paulette Goddard with her sprightliness and general joie-de-vivre. Of the male actors, I most felt the presence of Jean Renoir as the lovable but hapless Octave, the unwitting accomplice to the murder of playboy Jurieux.Yes, it's dated to some extent and some of the allegory is a touch strained at times, but I found this a fascinating social document on the lifestyles of the rich and famous c.1939 and to be truthful, one never knows when it will prove to be topical again.