216 The Rules of the Game

[Martha]

The Rules of the Game



Considered one of the greatest films ever made, The Rules of the Game (La règle du jeu), by Jean Renoir, is a scathing critique of corrupt French society cloaked in a comedy of manners, in which a weekend at a marquis’s countryside chateau lays bare some ugly truths about a group of haute bourgeois acquaintances. The film was a victim of tumultuous history—it was subjected to cuts after premiere audiences rejected it in 1939, and the original negative was destroyed during World War II; it wasn’t reconstructed until 1959. That version, which has stunned viewers for decades, is presented here.

Disc Features

- Restored high-definition digital transfer
- Introduction to the film by Jean Renoir
- Audio commentary written by film scholar Alexander Sesonske and read by filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich
- Version comparison: side-by-side analysis of the film’s two endings, and an illustrated study of Renoir’s shooting script
- Selected-scene analysis by Renoir historian Christopher Faulkner
- Excerpts from Jean Renoir, le patron: La Règle et l’exception (1966), a French television program directed by Jacques Rivette
- Part one of Jean Renoir, a two-part 1993 BBC documentary by David Thompson
- Video essay about the film’s production, release, and later reconstruction
- Jean Gaborit and Jacques Durand discuss their reconstruction and rerelease of the film
- Interviews with Renoir’s son and assistant cameraman Alain Renoir, set designer Max Douy, and actress Mila Parély
- Written tributes to the film and Renoir by J. Hoberman, Kent Jones,Paul Schrader, Wim Wenders and others
- Improved English subtitle translation
- Plus: A booklet featuring writings by Sesonske, Renoir, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Bertrand Tavernier, and François Truffaut

2004 DVD:
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled
2011 DVD:
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled
Blu-ray
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled

[FilmFanSea]

Selected comments from the "Old Board" (I was only able to retrieve cached copies of pages 1,2, and 4 out of 5 total):

why why why why is this film so great? I don't understand this. Explain why this film is so great.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD.

Why why why?

For me, the thing that makes this film so great is how well it illustrates how humans construct the social artifices and codes of behavior that prevent us from acting in a way that makes any kind of rational sense at all. You have to act a certain way because to do otherwise "isn't done". You have to be phony to your friends and enemies because to be genuine is the worst social disgrace possible.

Throughout the film, everybody follows these "rules". By following the rules, nobody ends up happy, and some people end up dead. But what makes the film truly great is that Renoir shows us how foolish and fake we all are, and loves us just the same. The crucial point is when character tells another that "everybody has their reasons."

I think it also works on a number of different levels. It can be seen as a knockabout farce about the vanity of the idle rich; or, as a comedy of manners and the blind observance of the social contract; or, as an allegory about cowardice in the face of fascism, and the inevitability of the European War.

The Rules of the Game is a deceptively straightforward film on its surface, with a complex masterpiece hidden beneath. Like most masterpieces, it improves with subsequent viewings.

It's a great depiction of the deceitful, belligerent, and hypocritical nature of people. Throughout the film we see lies being told, infidelities being committed, and a few lives being taken (most memorably in the hunting scene). The film's ending is, again, where lies, deceit, and death resurface, which is sad and absurd at the same time.

The film is also innovative technically. It uses a lot of deep-focus photography and overlapping dialogs (not unlike Citizen Kane that was made two years later).

The Peter Bogdanovich commentary on the laserdisc version is apparently going to be duplicated on the DVD.

I got it yesterday, too. It's a fantastic release, absolutely top notch. I think this is the best Criterion release EVER for a single film. However, I think I prefer the subtitles of the French R2 release, but, all in all, that's a minor quibble. I never thought I'd see the movie look this good. Criterion should be proud.

Some films are obviously great works of art, but not much fun to watch (think "Cries and Whispers"). "Rules of the Game" however is both enormously entertaining and a consumate work of art.

The print looks better than I've ever seen it. Even better, this is a perfect film to own on DVD... each time you watch it, you notice new things. A consumate work of art. As good a print as you'll ever see. Generous but more importantly intelligent and insightful extras.

First-rate in every department!

I saw the film on the 1989 Criterion laserdisc a few times. Needless to say, the DVD has much better video quality than the LD. Both the audio commentary and the jacket essay by Alexander Sesonske were carried over from the LD to the DVD. The opening credits on the DVD are all in French, while on the LD they are partly in English (such as the dedication to André Bazin). The subtitles were significantly rewritten compared to the LD. In the quote from The Marriage of Figaro during the opening credits, "Is it not to fly?" becomes "Was it not to flitter?"

This is a dialog-heavy film. But the meticulous details of the numerous character portrayals are impressive. For instance, even the minor character of Berthelin (uncredited in the film) is given a meaningful presence. He is the one who puts on the skeleton costume in the "Danse Macabre" sequence. He is the one who gives the telescope to Christine, while lecturing her about its wonderful abilities (an advocate of science, like André Jurieux?). His telescope, of course, will later lead to unpleasantness. And he is the one who blows the trumpet during the night. His trumpet sound can be heard in the background in many scenes, amidst all the farce and/or tragedy. Surely Renoir wanted to use this character to make a certain point...

I've got to tell you, I'm not so crazy about the commentary. Bogdanovich just sounds so rushed, because he's got to say all that stuff so fast. Also, all that blathering on about matched pairs or whatever starts to get really confusing and annoying after a while. I've seen this move dozens of times now, and the whole thing started to baffle me last night. Maybe Criterion should have done one of those diagram things like John Madden used to do when explaining football tactics.

Still I'm learning stuff from the commentary, so it's not a waste of time, I just wish it were better. But I probably wouldn't be happy with less than two or three commentary tracks.

Just want to point out that Bogdanovich isn't giving the viewer his own ideas or comments on this commentary track, he's reading an essay written by Alexander Sesonske that is time synchronized to the film. That's part of the reason he's rushing through parts of the commentary. He has to get through specific paragraphs of the essay in order to synchronize with the images on screen. I don't know if that's what Wenders does on the Fassbinder DVD, so I can't comment on the comparison or whether director's are the wrong people to read the commentary of others. As for the comments about matched pairs, I thought it was well done, but I could see how others find it confusing, boring, etc. I personally enjoy these audio essays and Rules and 8 1/2 are among my favorite commentary tracks.

This has got to be Criterion's classiest presentation to date. I have some qualms about the package too (the plastic cover could have extended to the top to keep dust out) but it just looks so nice; elegant but not too practical--fits the film to a T. And the extras are fantastic. I anticipate the next 3 parts of those programs nearly as much as I do the next Renoirs. The video comparison totally supplants any need to seek out the short version of the film. Say what you will about the commentary but a technical-minded commentary was what this movie needed and that it was so thorough is a boon, fer chrissake. And comments from people in the biz, critics and historians are always fun. Not even mentioning the actual film, davebert's spot on, they've set the bar mighty high this year. Ikiru was the nicest Kurosawa release but this has to be one of the nicest in all Criteriondom.

I finally received my pre-ordered copy tesyerday. This has got to be the classiest presentation of a film that I have ever seen. To my modest senses, the audio-visual quality of the film itself is perfect. The packaging is simply stunning. I enjoyed all of the essays found in the booklet. I thought they all had something different and insightful to bring to the table. I loved the little comment about Henri Cartier-Bresson being an amateur and was also surprised to learn that he was an assistant director on the film. His own recollection about what it was like to work for Renoir is also included and is a must-read. Also keep an eye out in the booklet for a copy of Truffaut's hand-written letter to Renoir when these two had not yet met.

The filmed introduction by Renoir is, not surprisingly from such an insightful man, perfect. He covers the troubled history of the picture and explains his personal preoccupations and ambitions for making it.

I could go on about every element of this classroom-in-a-box but I would run out of superlatives. I cannot think of anything missing. This is one of the best 30 bucks I have ever spent in my life.

Seeing this great work for the first time, I must admit that despite my original reservations, all the praises I had heard are true. I'm not surprised that some guy tried to set the theater on fire when it was first shown in Nazi (funny how that rhymes with Vichy) Paris. This is a relevant and ageless film.

After my recent deception with the image quality of Ikiru and the unexplainable feeling that Journal d'un Curé de Campagne could have been an even more 'special' edition, this dvd is the best presentation of a film I have ever experienced. Simply mind-altering.

migrave,
Welcome to the forum. So glad you enjoyed Rules of the Game, one of my favorite films. When I first saw it in a film class in college, I was so thrilled by the reflexivity that I felt like my hair was on fire at the end. I was looking around at my fellow students, thinking, "Who can I talk to about this great film?" That's what this forum is all about.

By the way, my enthusiasm was crushed by the two dolts in front of me, who mumbled this exchange as they stood and stretched:
Dolt #1: "That was the stupidest movies I've ever seen."
Dolt #2: "I wouldn't know, I fell asleep."

Also by the way,

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not surprised that some guy tried to set the theater on fire when it was first shown in Nazi (funny how that rhymes with Vichy) Paris.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


is not historically accurate. The film debuted in Paris on July 8, 1939; Germany invaded France on May 10, 1940. It was free French crowds, not those under Vichy control, that revolted. As I'm sure you gleaned from the essays, commentary, and extras, the reason the film infuriated crowds was that Renoir was attacking French classes (upper, Bourgeois, and working) for their laissez-faire attitude while dark storm clouds gathered across their border; the French symbolic hero (an aviator) whom we first meet to throngs of adoring fans is foolishly and slavishly sniffing after the skirt of his upper-class mistress, and is ultimately punished for it (albeit, by accident); after the clear anti-war sentiment of Grand Illusion (though, perhaps, not so clearly understood anti-caste message), crowds were baffled by this "upstairs/downstairs" nonsense, full of dithering nabobs who pave the road to ruin with their classy "reasons". Lots of people in many nations (including my own) had "reasons" then to avoid confrontation with the Nazis, hoping the road would lead to peace rather than death.

I finally sank into this set last night and I'm speechless. This is the "best package in all Criteriondom" for me.

The side by side comparison of the short and long versions couldn't have been done any better (and it must've taken a while to do, split screen, fastforwarding, etc.) - brilliantly thought out and executed.

The introduction to the film by Jean Renoir was a *magnificent* find/inclusion.

"Jean Renoir, le patron: La Règle et l’exception" (1966), by Rivette, was "riveting". Loved his conversation on the steps of the chateau.

Don't know how I missed the 1993 BBC documentary by David Thompson first time round, but this was the crown on the set for me. Brilliantly made docu with contributions from Malle, Chabrol, Bertolucci, and Renoir family members... lotsa ace clips from BOUDU and PARTIE, etc.

Not forgetting the amazing work of Jean Gaborit and Jacques Durand who discuss their reconstruction and re-release of the film in a fantastic interview from the late 50s (I presume). This release wouldn't have been possible without their mad love.

I was floored, and I've still got the commentary to go. The picture looked remarkably better than I'd ever seen it before. The new BBC print that was shown last year with new subtitles was about 5 times worse looking.

The disappointment expressed here over the commentary is surprising, as I think it's one of the strongest, most engaging, most informative I've come across. Sesonske hits the mark with every point he makes and clearly understands the film better than nearly anyone. There's no psycho-babble, no reading into the film things that aren't there. I also enjoy Bogdanovich's reading of it; his pacing and tone are just right.

It's an insightful and scholarly commentary that can be understood and appreciated by everyone, first-time and seasoned viewers alike.

[alandau]

Can we please sign a petition for NO MORE BOGDANOVICH commentaries. He killed Rules of the Game for me, and I refuse to listen to any other crap he has to other.

[BWilson]

Can we please sign a petition for NO MORE BOGDANOVICH commentaries. The dickhead killed Rules of the Game for me, and I refuse to listen to any other crap he has to other. He is the con of the century.

He's only reading the Rules of the Game commentary. The comments are by Alexander Sesonske. But PB still has very little to say, which is odd considering how much he knows and how much contact he had with so many of the great directors. It's like he's hording the information.

[ezmbmh]

Just re-watched this film, first time in a few years. What amazes me, as always, is Renoir’s generosity—there’s no denying the moral intent of the film, but while not backing off from it, or excusing any of the indulgent lies the characters allow themselves, Renoir makes all of them, even the smallest, so fully human that we can’t help but see ourselves in them. It’s satiric but much more than a satire. Matchless.

[hearthesilence]

I'm floored by the picture quality. I've only seen this on a crappy VHS cassette of dubiuos origins (all they had at my library) with old, burned, white subtitles that disappeared in the lighter portions of the film. I can actually appreciate the amazing photography, not to mention the dialogue.

[Andre Jurieu]

He's only reading the Rules of the Game commentary.

As though he were auditioning for a new round of Micromachines commercials, no less. Exasperating.

He's reading it at a faster pace because it's an actual essay he is reading and it's timed to the scenes on screen. If he were to slow down, the words by Sesonske would no longer correspond to the action on screen. Would it be better if he read slowly and commented on the editing of the hunting expedition while Christine spies on Robert, or worse when the characters are all back at the chateau arguing with one another? I might be alone on this, but he doesn't even seem to be speaking very fast in my estimation.

When left to his own words and thoughts for more than 70 minutes, Bogdanovich seems to fail miserably. However, I understand why Criterion chose him for the commentary track given that his voice has a certain charm.

[FilmFanSea]

And still one of my very favorite commentaries.

[TheRanchHand]

I bought this film blind based on its placement in cinema history. My first viewing I was not blown over by it. I just watched it again with the commentary which will probably have me watching it again some day soon a little differently. I was not really taken by the commentary either, but it at times did help clarify and place the story in context.

Still by no means a favorite film, but the package CC put together is a nice one to give one a good understanding of the film's importance in history.

[Michael]

My experience was similar to yours, Ranch. I did a bit reseach on the film - its significance to the history of cinema - but it still didn't improve anything for me. Some scenes are a bit too "clumpsy", especially the part when Christine dressed in a black cloak sneaks out to meet her lover by the greenhouse. Poor directing, I feel. The film doesn't match the perfection of Walsh's The Roaring Twenties (made the same year).

I can't believe I'm dissing Renoir! I probably should give it another chance, maybe this time it will congeal better.

[ellipsis7]

Everyone has their reasons... LA REGLE DU JEU is sublime and searing in its seemingly sedate subtlety... A (or even the) masterpiece of 20th century cinema...

[Via_Chicago]

I'm one of the few people I know who actually loved the movie the first time I saw it. My esteem has only grown with each subsequent viewing, but I've had friends for whom things really didn't click until their third viewing. I'd recommend giving it another shot somewhere down the line.

[HerrSchreck]

I'm one of those people whose initial viewing was a bit "Scorsesian" to coin a phrase (he's said, or I think he said, that he "appreciates" it but was more of a Grande Illusionite rather than a Regle-ite haw haw).

The only way I can explain the wonder of this film (at least for me, and the way the damned thing just exploded in my brain causing me to make it a nearly quarterly ritual at least), is to advise--- watching this film on a "pass-by" will not do it. You have try to get to know the characters fully, understand all their backstories, appreciate all the little dramas so that no innuendo escapes you, no little gag waving of the arms, tooting of a hunting horn, flubbing of "Buffalo Bill" or "le negro" etc goes by without appreciating the jawdropping fullness going on there. It's all so perfect and full and captured by a man at the peak of rarest powers (it's not a painterly film at all, indeed the it's the kind of film that the Cahierist crowd justifiably aches for more of since there's so few tours de force of this nature; kind of the anti-Bernard if you will.. no painterly pictorialism, pure humanity). The comment "every time I watch this film I almost expect it to turn out different" sums it up perfectly (I forget who made it, it's in the booklet but I'm not near it now). The effortless movement of characters vs a sublimely moving-- and deepfocused-- lens, the essential lack of a central character, the fact that the statement (France is going to hell in a handbasket) is never put in anyone's mouth, the author's groundbreaking sympathy with his "vapid" yet utterly human midwives of WW2, you could go on and on. Doppelganger kicks have been around since the teens, but the hi/low doubling of the entire cast here is sublime, and flawless.

I'd hate to think that one needs to have made a film-- or be heavily enough into the technique of film-- to understand how extreme the achievement of all this is (I certainly have never made one)... although the heaviest rhapsodies seems to come from filmmakers. Truly, this is the film to be re-viewed, over and over again, and-- screw the technique-- once you sort of "make friends" and get to know all the people at the hunting party, you'll keep coming back to shoot a few rabbits yourself.

[Michael]

My initial viewing of Rules of the Game turned out to be more on the "appreciation" side, very much like my very recent experience with Two-Lane Blacktop. It didn't move me in any way - except for that bunny dying in the field, which made me cringe big time. It didn't make me to drop my knees; it didn't make me go crazy, like films such as (limited to CC titles) Passion of Joan of Arc, 8 1/2, Mala Noche, The Scarlet Empress, and Grey Gardens did for me. All those films (with every tech aspect, every character) punched the soul out of me. Rules of the Game felt flat. Why did Renoir bother with instilling some embarrasingly handled slapstick in the film? That was a part of my initial impression of the film. Someone here said (was that you, Narshty?) that Dazed and Confused is Linklater's Rules of the Game. I agree with it but the difference is that Dazed and Confused MOVED me - the hell a lot more. It still resonates me, even every single day since I saw it years, years ago.

The scene I mentioned earlier with Christine in a black cloak meeting Andre in secret remains very vivid in my mind for many years. For a good reason because it completely destroyed the film for me. From my memory, that scene seems so awkwardly directed. Perhaps it's intended so I don't know. I suspect the whole thing's to be treated as a stage play and Dalio is the puppeteer. I'm sure there's another layer to the film that I'm missing. But to think it was made in the 30s - one of the most fantastic decades for cinema, I can come up with films more exciting, more beautiful, more "fuck yes!" - the Walshs, the Sternbergs, the Astaire/Rogers, the Cukors, the Hawks....

That didn't stop me from catching more of Renoir - Boudu and The River. I LOOOOVE the sublime Boudu. Now, that one sticks to me. It works so much better for me. Michel Simon and his black poodle, hell yeah! And that tracking shot from the wedding boat is a dream.

[tryavna]

Via_Chicago, mark me up as one other person who fell in love with this film upon first viewing.

I think the trick is actually to come to this film as cold as possible. Hearing multiple critics, historians, and filmmakers rank it as one of the -- if not the -- best movie ever made does it a big disservice because it tends to lead a lot of people to expect cinematic pyrotechnics, a la Citizen Kane or Passion of Joan of Arc. Renoir's visual style is, of course, much more subtle.

It works much better if you follow Schreck's advice and focus on the characterizations. In this respect, Renoir is a lot like John Ford. Their films really do become richer upon subsequent viewings, once you're able to focus on all the small details rather than the bigger picture.

[HerrSchreck]

It's true, only qualifier I'd tag on the Ford comp is there's usually a stronger narrative arc of "standard" melodrama in Ford that sucks the typical viewer right in (central character, basic structure of 1)main character/conflict, 2)main character resistant to entering conflict, 3)something happens to change characters mind and he gets involved in conflict/film takes off in earnest, 4) escalation yadda yadda), whereas Regle lacks a strong (or obviously) central protagonist and big arc as in Fords archtypes. But I see what you mean.

Treat it like any other human get-together. If you spend a weekend with a bunch of people and do not really know them or get involved past a degree of "really knowng them", the weekend will be a bust. You really hafta make friends here, and just like life itself, all these hidden meanings and implicattions about the world etc come spilling out like a magic cornucopia. I daresay it's difficult-to-impossible to tweeze out what Ren was looking to do in one viewing. ALso think about the world Ren came from, the world of his father, and the excellence of the son of Pierre August Renoir saying what he did about this his own millieu.

And yes, there's not a hint of pictorial formalism here. But the structure is nonetheless deeeeeeeply thought out, balanced in it's distribution across character/event like a mathematic masterpiece (none of this twaddle is noticeable owing to the towering ease & tour de force execution of this perfect miracle of a script). In these terms, the structure is as formalist as anything on the earth... it's just that in this case the formalism (probably a bad word here, but used to make a point about the massiveness of the technique and the labor involved in the script, all the ideas that went into it.. influences,parodies, the doublings, etc) is like a human skeleton, not the object to be seen (as say, in Eisenstein, to greater & lesser degree depending on the film) but operating in support of the perfect humanity it moves along and balances.

[ellipsis7]

Yes, couldn't agree more, it gets richer and more revealing with each viewing... The structure is masterful, so it's all the more fascinating to see it grow... Curchod & Faulkner's French language published Scenario Original of LA REGLE DU JEU remarkably presents the script in all its stages of evolution, the drafts, the excised scenes and reproductions of JR's handwritten manuscript pages...

And talking of father and son...



'Jean as a Hunter' - Pierre Auguste Renoir (1910)

[Michael]

Ok ok. I'm breathlessly convinced. Going to treat myself with a Christmas gift - the local store has the DVD waiting for me to snatch.

Treat it like any other human get-together. If you spend a weekend with a bunch of people and do not really know them or get involved past a degree of "really knowng them", the weekend will be a bust. You really hafta make friends here, and just like life itself, all these hidden meanings and implicattions about the world etc come spilling out like a magic cornucopia. I daresay it's difficult-to-impossible to tweeze out what Ren was looking to do in one viewing.

That's exactly how I see 8 1/2 and Dazed and Confused. Schreck, have you seen either one of them ?

[domino harvey]

I bought this film blind based on its placement in cinema history. My first viewing I was not blown over by it. I just watched it again with the commentary which will probably have me watching it again some day soon a little differently. I was not really taken by the commentary either, but it at times did help clarify and place the story in context.

Still by no means a favorite film, but the package CC put together is a nice one to give one a good understanding of the film's importance in history.

There is no movie that everyone is required to like, and it's a real step towards actualizing your tastes when you are able to form your own opinions on "Classics"-- as far as I'm concerned, it's okay that you didn't think the film was that impressive, because you still tried to understand why it was so well received. So by contextualizing the film, you've done your duty. You don't have to like it but now you've at least seen it.

[zedz]

It didn't move me in any way - except for that bunny dying in the field, which made me cringe big time.

On subsequent viewings you're likely to see bunnies dyiing all over the place. (And that's a good thing.)

[HerrSchreck]

That's exactly how I see 8 1/2 and Dazed and Confused. Schreck, have you seen either one of them ?

Sure, and I own the CC former, and saw the latter when it first came out on VHS years ago. But I do see what you mean.

Many films are like that. A lotta films become "nightlights" that way. Just speaking from personal experience, though, few films-- when they finally "click"-- pay back so many dividends on reivesting. Regle is a rare example.

[ellipsis7]

It didn't move me in any way - except for that bunny dying in the field, which made me cringe big time.

On subsequent viewings you're likely to see bunnies dyiing all over the place. (And that's a good thing.)

Robert Mc Kee used to teach the defining point in FATAL ATTRACTION was when Glenn Close (saying "I'll destroy your career, wreck your marriage" etc. to the unmoved Michael Douglas) boiled the pet bunny!... Game on!...

[Petty Bourgeoisie]

I bought Rules of the Game last month because of the $19.99 deal at Amazon. I give it a 10 for style and technique, but only a 4 for emotional resonance. And it's social relevance is overblown. Every single society, past and present, has a caste of over-indulgent, rich jerks. That's not a revelation.

[domino harvey]

What

[Petty Bourgeoisie]

Was your "what" directed at me?