I am doing some fascinating research with an original draft copy of THE RIVER script, complete with many handwritten revisions, obtained from BFI Special Collections... Among other things, Arthur Shields/Cousin John is clearly identified as Irish, and hence Captain John as Irish American, and there is a more stated discussion of philosophies... Makes therefore an interesting national representation, and also a modernist liberal characterisation where Radha and her father are exploring territory between a more traditional Irish Catholic position including structured convent education, and more freeflowing Indian culture, Eastern philosophy and religion... Interestingly I talked with Mira Nair about her similar experience a couple of years back, she having been educated by Irish nuns at the Loreto Convent in Simla.... Neither Radha or Cousin John feature in Rumer Godden's source novella, and are original creations for the film scripted by her and Renoir....
Followed up with research in The Arthur Shields archive in Galway University... He kept call sheets, letters, postcards, photos, contracts relating to THE RIVER....
Documents reveal the filmmakers clearly thought of themselves as politically aware Republicans (European not US style) – French Republicans in Renoir and his French team (‘La Marseillaise' etc), an Irish Republican in Arthur Shields (Irish Volunteer veteran of GPO in the Easter Rebellion of 1916 and co-director and player of Padraig Pearse in the 1936 John Ford film ‘The Plough and The Stars'), and Indian Republicans (the Indian crew took the production team, mid shoot, through a cross cultural shared celebration of India's Republic Day 26th January, 1950 and its runup, including a Saraswati Celebration, she being a Hindu river goddess of knowledge music and the arts - sometimes referred to appropriately as 'a mighty river with creative, purifying and nourishing properties')…
There' also a large cast and crew photo for the shoot featuring about 100 people, at the centre close to Renoir is possibly Satyajit Ray...
276 The River
-
cgray
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:21 pm
- Location: Erie, CO
Bump! Saw this for the first time this evening. I had really only seen pre-war Renoir, and wow. What a wonderful film. What a beautiful film.
Thoughts still coalescing, but something that immediately strikes me -- and elevates the film to a very high level, in my opinion -- are that the epiphanies, or any sudden insights into the nature of life and truth and everything, are small, subtle ones.
I find this to reflect my own experiences or realizations in life, but it is not so easily borne out in films. Rather, many films (even non-mainstream) have such resounding, over-the-top 180 degree character turnarounds that -- while it may be understandable -- it is difficult to empathize with or relate to.
While the signals that epiphanies are occurring in this film may be a bit heavy-handed (e.g. #1: "You'll have to help me. I only have one leg, you know.", e.g. #2 All three girls drop the letters from Capt. John when the baby starts crying.), the epiphanies themselves are not. I appreciated the subtlety... In fact, with the gentle rolling river, the discussions about the flow of life (e.g. "The day ends. The end begins.") -- this is really the only way it could be: the character stays, but the character begins, too. There is much the same, but there is a difference too. That difference is small, but it changes the sameness, too.
I also really liked the word "everything" (or variations upon) in the film. I'd like to watch it again to see at what point it first is spoken, but by the end, it feels like such a loaded, emotional term. Here's two examples that take place towards the last 10 min. of the film:
When Capt John is asked who he likes: "Everybody."
And again:
John: "What do we do now?"
Melanie: "Consent"
John: "To What?"
Melanie: "Everything"
Those aren't the only instances. The film seems to be all-embracing, all-natural, all-flowing. I used the word empathy above, and I think that bursts form all parts of the movie. The girl: "Why do we quarrel with things all the time?" Accept! Be kind! Feel the rhythm around you! Celebrate the change of the seasons! Empathy bursts from the camera (who I think I understand was an Indian cameraman Renoir picked up), to the treatment of the cultures, to the river, to the surrounding nature, to the nature of life. The most visually impassioned speech to me seemed to be Mr. John's speech after Bogey's death: "We should celebrate that a child died a child. That one escaped." Back into the fold of life. By existing -- by growing -- we quarrel. By quarreling, we gradually leave the natural order of things. We stop noticing when a mouse is born, when a leaf drops on the pond. But be empathetic, embrace -- hope for little epiphanies and be smart enough to realize when they are there -- and maybe we can approach a peace and an embrace with the nature around us. We approach childhood and a return to innocence. "The world is for children. The real world."
Of course it's inevitable, but I hate to think of people's/critics' negative views of the film because of it's image of colonialism. Renoir was working within an established framework, an established culture and an established reality. For all the reasons above, I think it'd be too bad to let that filter on the film take away from it's magic.
Anyway, I was very struck and enjoyed it very much. I'd enjoy reading any further reactions to the film itself.
Edit: I like and agree with this earlier comment. Part of what I am saying above (page 2). I believe that humanity and humility go with empathy, ability to empathize, etc. I really think this film does it on all levels.
Thoughts still coalescing, but something that immediately strikes me -- and elevates the film to a very high level, in my opinion -- are that the epiphanies, or any sudden insights into the nature of life and truth and everything, are small, subtle ones.
I find this to reflect my own experiences or realizations in life, but it is not so easily borne out in films. Rather, many films (even non-mainstream) have such resounding, over-the-top 180 degree character turnarounds that -- while it may be understandable -- it is difficult to empathize with or relate to.
While the signals that epiphanies are occurring in this film may be a bit heavy-handed (e.g. #1: "You'll have to help me. I only have one leg, you know.", e.g. #2 All three girls drop the letters from Capt. John when the baby starts crying.), the epiphanies themselves are not. I appreciated the subtlety... In fact, with the gentle rolling river, the discussions about the flow of life (e.g. "The day ends. The end begins.") -- this is really the only way it could be: the character stays, but the character begins, too. There is much the same, but there is a difference too. That difference is small, but it changes the sameness, too.
I also really liked the word "everything" (or variations upon) in the film. I'd like to watch it again to see at what point it first is spoken, but by the end, it feels like such a loaded, emotional term. Here's two examples that take place towards the last 10 min. of the film:
When Capt John is asked who he likes: "Everybody."
And again:
John: "What do we do now?"
Melanie: "Consent"
John: "To What?"
Melanie: "Everything"
Those aren't the only instances. The film seems to be all-embracing, all-natural, all-flowing. I used the word empathy above, and I think that bursts form all parts of the movie. The girl: "Why do we quarrel with things all the time?" Accept! Be kind! Feel the rhythm around you! Celebrate the change of the seasons! Empathy bursts from the camera (who I think I understand was an Indian cameraman Renoir picked up), to the treatment of the cultures, to the river, to the surrounding nature, to the nature of life. The most visually impassioned speech to me seemed to be Mr. John's speech after Bogey's death: "We should celebrate that a child died a child. That one escaped." Back into the fold of life. By existing -- by growing -- we quarrel. By quarreling, we gradually leave the natural order of things. We stop noticing when a mouse is born, when a leaf drops on the pond. But be empathetic, embrace -- hope for little epiphanies and be smart enough to realize when they are there -- and maybe we can approach a peace and an embrace with the nature around us. We approach childhood and a return to innocence. "The world is for children. The real world."
Of course it's inevitable, but I hate to think of people's/critics' negative views of the film because of it's image of colonialism. Renoir was working within an established framework, an established culture and an established reality. For all the reasons above, I think it'd be too bad to let that filter on the film take away from it's magic.
Anyway, I was very struck and enjoyed it very much. I'd enjoy reading any further reactions to the film itself.
Edit: I like and agree with this earlier comment. Part of what I am saying above (page 2). I believe that humanity and humility go with empathy, ability to empathize, etc. I really think this film does it on all levels.
HerrSchreck wrote:Think of the incredible gentle nature, humanity, and amazing intelligence of this director to go up out of his geography on a dime and create such a gentle, beautiful, delicate film about one entirely alien culture after another: India, the English language, the world of young women, the growing pains of female adolescence, nothing in the film has anything to do with the life Renoir himself had lived. Yet the subject matter is handled with such beauty...
-
ellipsis7
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:56 pm
- Location: Dublin
Very apposite commentary Cgray!
How Renoir directed the actors (and non actors) can actually be seen in the short documentary LA DIRECTION D'ACTEUR PAR JEAN RENOIR (1968) where he demonstrates his technique with Gisele Braunberger, adapting a speech from a Rumer Godden novel, and taking the actor through from a flat toneless reading to an authentic expressive performance...`
Edward Said has said words to the effect that the traditional colonialist narrative needs a white male hero, and Renoir seems determined not deliver one in THE RIVER, instead presenting as the most positive male character, Irishman Mr John, and centring the drama round the narrator and protagonist of the novel, the young English girl Harriet...
Renoir distinguished his casting of this film by giving roles to non-actors and actors very close to their real life characters. Perhaps ironically, Mr John’s Irish American cousin Captain John, who has lost a leg in the war, is played by real life veteran and amputee, Thomas E. Breen, son of the US Film Censor, Joseph I. Breen. Also invalided by war, was actor Esmond Knight, playing the father, who was virtually blind from wounds suffered during naval action in 1941, and he is flanked in the film by his real life wife, actress Nora Swinburne, in the role of the Mother. The central character, Harriet, is played by non-actor Patricia Walters, a real life daughter of the Raj, recruited by Renoir, and Melanie, by noted Indian dancer Radha. The young son, Bogey, is played by Rumer Godden’s own nephew, Richard Foster. Mr John is played by 1916 Easter Rising veteran and Abbey actor Arthur Shields (brother of Ford favourite Barry Fitzgerald).
Much as portrayed in his previous film THE WOMAN ON THE BEACH (1947, with its male characters, a blind and bitter painter and a war traumatised veteran), Renoir seemed to have evolved his thinking from the politically motivated leftist position of the late 1930’s to view the destruction of the Second World War as a product of untrammelled male psyche and over weaning masculine ambition on all sides, leading him to seek new alternative mindsets while portraying conventional male characters as damaged mentally and physically, their growth stunted, unable to effectively move forward in the post war world of peace and reconciliation. The exceptions in THE RIVER would be Mr John, of which more in a moment, and the poor pre-adolescent boy Bogey, whose unfettered and innocent masculine curiosity and conditioning, as son of ‘The Big House’, lets him follow his instinct to explore, leading him to attempt to collect and control (even colonise and command) nature, in the form of the wild cobra, which will not submit, and which ultimately bites back, killing him.
THE RIVER is a coming of age story told through the eyes of a young English girl, Harriet, growing up in the twilight of Imperial India. It is true that some Irish, a colonised people themselves, have nevertheless played their part in the colonial apparatus. So what kind of Irishman does Arthur Shields play as Mr. John?
In this drama where art mirrors life, as exiled Irishman Mr John, Arthur Shields encourages his daughter Melanie to embrace both her Western and Eastern heritages, while practising a life of tolerance, acceptance and contemplation himself, having opted out of the treadmill of wealth creation and status seeking. Melanie and Mr John are new characters, not appearing in Godden's novella, created by Renoir for the film.
In a longer version of the scene taken from the shooting script, Captain John and Mr John stand at the top of a set of steps leading down to THE RIVER.
Capt. John: “I just wanted to see how you spend your days. Is this your place of meditation?”
Mr. John: “Meditation is hard work. I’m too lazy for the big philosophies so I invent little ones of my own.”
Capt. John (sitting down): “Such as?”
Mr. John: “Digestivism. There is a magnificent sunset. I look at it and digest what I see”.
Capt. John: “A digestivist? That’s a good thing to be… But didn’t you ever do any work?.”
Mr. John: “I did once, but I earned too much money. You see I’m rich.”
Capt. John: “How rich?”
Mr. John: “For you: (he measures a tiny distance with his finger and thumb) For me: (he makes a wide ample gesture) To have so much I had to learn, not to add, but to subtract. That wasn’t achieved in a moment.”
This was reflected in the minimalist approach of Production Designer Eugene Lourie to the ‘Little House’, occupied by Mr John & Melanie: “I designed the Mr John set as a large room with high ceilings. It was kept completely bare of decoration, conveying the quiet, reflective spirit of Mr John and the general feeling of simplicity in Indian interiors… When Jean (Renoir) first came to the set, he was surprised by its sparseness. However, he soon accepted my point of view, and I saw him eagerly pointing to a lonely chair or a single sideboard, asking, ‘Is this piece really necessary?’”.
Responding to the death of Bogey, Mr John echoes the sentiments of Renoir himself.
Mr John: “We should celebrate that a child died a child. That one escaped. We lock them in our schools, we teach them our stupid taboos, we catch them in our wars, we massacre the innocents. The world is for children. The real world. They climb trees and roll on the grass, close to the ants…”
The portrayal of Mr. John by Arthur Shields and his daughter Melanie (played by Indian dancer Radha) represents a fresh and progressive representation of Irish character, in a drama that Ian Christie notes, “…has survived falling out of fashion to re-emerge as a touchstone for a certain kind of modernity in cinema.” To this end, the extended documentary sequences, capturing the rhythms, sights and sounds of life by and on the Bengal riverside, which in editing Renoir put together to act as a framework for the film, further dissolve the flow of the classical narrative, so that time sometimes seems to stand still, further evidence of the modernity of his storytelling in THE RIVER.
Renoir in ‘Personal Notes’ published in 1952, explained: “When I made LA REGLE DU JEU (in 1939) I knew where to go. I knew the evil which gnawed my contemporaries. This doesn’t mean I know how to give a clear idea of this evil in the film. But my instinct guided me. Consciousness of danger provided me with the situations and the answers, and my companions felt as I did. How worried we were! I believe the film to be good. But it is not so difficult to work well when the compass of disturbance plots one’s true course."
"I found the same kind of certainty with THE RIVER. I felt mounting inside myself this desire to make contact with my neighbour which I believe the whole world shares vaguely today. Perhaps evil forces deflect the course of events. But I feel in the heart of men a desire, I will not say for brotherhood, but – more simply – a curiosity. But this is better than nothing. Men are very tired of wars, privations, fears and doubt. We have not yet reached the period of great enthusiasms, but we are entering into the period of goodwill. I and my companions felt this in India, even during the bad days when Hindus and Moslems were killing one another. The smoke from fired buildings did not stifle our confidence. We thought only that these men were behind their times.”
In 1972 Renoir rewatched THE RIVER, and wrote of the film and labour, the labour of the workers of TONI (1934), LE CRIME DE MONSIEUR LANGE (1935) and LA BETE HUMAINE (1938), the labour of war of LA GRANDE ILLUSION (1937) and LA REGLE DU JEU (1939). “For people of my generation the God is action. The most popular form of this action is work. Modern society is founded on work. It is necessary to move, to buy and to sell, to produce, to manufacture. Among adults, meditation is still largely unknown. But now today, I know a lot of young people who meditate. It is very dangerous for the equilibrium of our commercial world."
"The characters of THE RIVER believe in work. They believe in the virtues that made the success of the Victorian era. Rumer Godden’s subject was not the condition of Hindus. What she and I dealt with in our screenplay of THE RIVER, was the story of an English family, symbolising the state of things, that if it exists again, historians in future centuries may categorise as the passing of an era. However perhaps the viewing public will guess that the fisherman that I show on the river boats, the coolies who animate the factories with the buzz of their incessant activity, the crowds that circulate in the bazaar, and those individuals from all classes who drowsily loll on the steps of the temples, are unconsciously the authors of the collapse of the world established by western technology."
"They will not revolt, they will not take up arms, they will calmly accept everything as it is. So very gently, and unawares, their belief in the vanity of effort, submerges the world. What real importance is it that aircraft fly, or that trains arrive on the hour, since these instances are but minute manifestations of the great dream of Brahma.”
Clearly, while ‘everyone has their reasons’, the western character that most embodies these philosophical principles is Mr John. For him it is not ‘the end of an era’, it is the starting of a new one, as it is ultimately for Harriet too. And if Harriet is Rumer Godden’s fictionalised alter ego in the piece, then Mr John is Jean Renoir’s.
As Mr John, Arthur Shields, with his daughter Melanie, played by Radha, strive to embrace her cross cultural heritage and identity, while practising a contemplative life of acceptance and consent, having opted out of the rat race of (colonialist and capitalist driven) acquisitiveness, aggression and self aggrandissement.
While it is in ‘The Big House’, which has become “the house of women”, a girl baby is born to replace the dead boy Bogey, and Harriet achieves rebirth and redemption on the river, and in the future, as we know from her adult narration, fulfils her feminist ambition of becoming a writer.
How Renoir directed the actors (and non actors) can actually be seen in the short documentary LA DIRECTION D'ACTEUR PAR JEAN RENOIR (1968) where he demonstrates his technique with Gisele Braunberger, adapting a speech from a Rumer Godden novel, and taking the actor through from a flat toneless reading to an authentic expressive performance...`
Edward Said has said words to the effect that the traditional colonialist narrative needs a white male hero, and Renoir seems determined not deliver one in THE RIVER, instead presenting as the most positive male character, Irishman Mr John, and centring the drama round the narrator and protagonist of the novel, the young English girl Harriet...
Renoir distinguished his casting of this film by giving roles to non-actors and actors very close to their real life characters. Perhaps ironically, Mr John’s Irish American cousin Captain John, who has lost a leg in the war, is played by real life veteran and amputee, Thomas E. Breen, son of the US Film Censor, Joseph I. Breen. Also invalided by war, was actor Esmond Knight, playing the father, who was virtually blind from wounds suffered during naval action in 1941, and he is flanked in the film by his real life wife, actress Nora Swinburne, in the role of the Mother. The central character, Harriet, is played by non-actor Patricia Walters, a real life daughter of the Raj, recruited by Renoir, and Melanie, by noted Indian dancer Radha. The young son, Bogey, is played by Rumer Godden’s own nephew, Richard Foster. Mr John is played by 1916 Easter Rising veteran and Abbey actor Arthur Shields (brother of Ford favourite Barry Fitzgerald).
Much as portrayed in his previous film THE WOMAN ON THE BEACH (1947, with its male characters, a blind and bitter painter and a war traumatised veteran), Renoir seemed to have evolved his thinking from the politically motivated leftist position of the late 1930’s to view the destruction of the Second World War as a product of untrammelled male psyche and over weaning masculine ambition on all sides, leading him to seek new alternative mindsets while portraying conventional male characters as damaged mentally and physically, their growth stunted, unable to effectively move forward in the post war world of peace and reconciliation. The exceptions in THE RIVER would be Mr John, of which more in a moment, and the poor pre-adolescent boy Bogey, whose unfettered and innocent masculine curiosity and conditioning, as son of ‘The Big House’, lets him follow his instinct to explore, leading him to attempt to collect and control (even colonise and command) nature, in the form of the wild cobra, which will not submit, and which ultimately bites back, killing him.
THE RIVER is a coming of age story told through the eyes of a young English girl, Harriet, growing up in the twilight of Imperial India. It is true that some Irish, a colonised people themselves, have nevertheless played their part in the colonial apparatus. So what kind of Irishman does Arthur Shields play as Mr. John?
In this drama where art mirrors life, as exiled Irishman Mr John, Arthur Shields encourages his daughter Melanie to embrace both her Western and Eastern heritages, while practising a life of tolerance, acceptance and contemplation himself, having opted out of the treadmill of wealth creation and status seeking. Melanie and Mr John are new characters, not appearing in Godden's novella, created by Renoir for the film.
In a longer version of the scene taken from the shooting script, Captain John and Mr John stand at the top of a set of steps leading down to THE RIVER.
Capt. John: “I just wanted to see how you spend your days. Is this your place of meditation?”
Mr. John: “Meditation is hard work. I’m too lazy for the big philosophies so I invent little ones of my own.”
Capt. John (sitting down): “Such as?”
Mr. John: “Digestivism. There is a magnificent sunset. I look at it and digest what I see”.
Capt. John: “A digestivist? That’s a good thing to be… But didn’t you ever do any work?.”
Mr. John: “I did once, but I earned too much money. You see I’m rich.”
Capt. John: “How rich?”
Mr. John: “For you: (he measures a tiny distance with his finger and thumb) For me: (he makes a wide ample gesture) To have so much I had to learn, not to add, but to subtract. That wasn’t achieved in a moment.”
This was reflected in the minimalist approach of Production Designer Eugene Lourie to the ‘Little House’, occupied by Mr John & Melanie: “I designed the Mr John set as a large room with high ceilings. It was kept completely bare of decoration, conveying the quiet, reflective spirit of Mr John and the general feeling of simplicity in Indian interiors… When Jean (Renoir) first came to the set, he was surprised by its sparseness. However, he soon accepted my point of view, and I saw him eagerly pointing to a lonely chair or a single sideboard, asking, ‘Is this piece really necessary?’”.
Responding to the death of Bogey, Mr John echoes the sentiments of Renoir himself.
Mr John: “We should celebrate that a child died a child. That one escaped. We lock them in our schools, we teach them our stupid taboos, we catch them in our wars, we massacre the innocents. The world is for children. The real world. They climb trees and roll on the grass, close to the ants…”
The portrayal of Mr. John by Arthur Shields and his daughter Melanie (played by Indian dancer Radha) represents a fresh and progressive representation of Irish character, in a drama that Ian Christie notes, “…has survived falling out of fashion to re-emerge as a touchstone for a certain kind of modernity in cinema.” To this end, the extended documentary sequences, capturing the rhythms, sights and sounds of life by and on the Bengal riverside, which in editing Renoir put together to act as a framework for the film, further dissolve the flow of the classical narrative, so that time sometimes seems to stand still, further evidence of the modernity of his storytelling in THE RIVER.
Renoir in ‘Personal Notes’ published in 1952, explained: “When I made LA REGLE DU JEU (in 1939) I knew where to go. I knew the evil which gnawed my contemporaries. This doesn’t mean I know how to give a clear idea of this evil in the film. But my instinct guided me. Consciousness of danger provided me with the situations and the answers, and my companions felt as I did. How worried we were! I believe the film to be good. But it is not so difficult to work well when the compass of disturbance plots one’s true course."
"I found the same kind of certainty with THE RIVER. I felt mounting inside myself this desire to make contact with my neighbour which I believe the whole world shares vaguely today. Perhaps evil forces deflect the course of events. But I feel in the heart of men a desire, I will not say for brotherhood, but – more simply – a curiosity. But this is better than nothing. Men are very tired of wars, privations, fears and doubt. We have not yet reached the period of great enthusiasms, but we are entering into the period of goodwill. I and my companions felt this in India, even during the bad days when Hindus and Moslems were killing one another. The smoke from fired buildings did not stifle our confidence. We thought only that these men were behind their times.”
In 1972 Renoir rewatched THE RIVER, and wrote of the film and labour, the labour of the workers of TONI (1934), LE CRIME DE MONSIEUR LANGE (1935) and LA BETE HUMAINE (1938), the labour of war of LA GRANDE ILLUSION (1937) and LA REGLE DU JEU (1939). “For people of my generation the God is action. The most popular form of this action is work. Modern society is founded on work. It is necessary to move, to buy and to sell, to produce, to manufacture. Among adults, meditation is still largely unknown. But now today, I know a lot of young people who meditate. It is very dangerous for the equilibrium of our commercial world."
"The characters of THE RIVER believe in work. They believe in the virtues that made the success of the Victorian era. Rumer Godden’s subject was not the condition of Hindus. What she and I dealt with in our screenplay of THE RIVER, was the story of an English family, symbolising the state of things, that if it exists again, historians in future centuries may categorise as the passing of an era. However perhaps the viewing public will guess that the fisherman that I show on the river boats, the coolies who animate the factories with the buzz of their incessant activity, the crowds that circulate in the bazaar, and those individuals from all classes who drowsily loll on the steps of the temples, are unconsciously the authors of the collapse of the world established by western technology."
"They will not revolt, they will not take up arms, they will calmly accept everything as it is. So very gently, and unawares, their belief in the vanity of effort, submerges the world. What real importance is it that aircraft fly, or that trains arrive on the hour, since these instances are but minute manifestations of the great dream of Brahma.”
Clearly, while ‘everyone has their reasons’, the western character that most embodies these philosophical principles is Mr John. For him it is not ‘the end of an era’, it is the starting of a new one, as it is ultimately for Harriet too. And if Harriet is Rumer Godden’s fictionalised alter ego in the piece, then Mr John is Jean Renoir’s.
As Mr John, Arthur Shields, with his daughter Melanie, played by Radha, strive to embrace her cross cultural heritage and identity, while practising a contemplative life of acceptance and consent, having opted out of the rat race of (colonialist and capitalist driven) acquisitiveness, aggression and self aggrandissement.
While it is in ‘The Big House’, which has become “the house of women”, a girl baby is born to replace the dead boy Bogey, and Harriet achieves rebirth and redemption on the river, and in the future, as we know from her adult narration, fulfils her feminist ambition of becoming a writer.
-
Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:09 pm
Finally watched The River last night. One viewing is still not enough for the film to fully congeal. Nearly nonstop VO was off-putting at first but after realizing who the voice belonged to, I finally let myself carry on her voice and Renoir's images simultaneously.
While the film is strikingly beautiful, I'm still perplexed by Scorsese' assessment of the film - being the most beautiful color film along with The Red Shoes. Does he mean by the film's use of colors or the film as a whole?
Many complaints pop up everywhere saying how wooden the acting is. That doesn't bother me at all. I'm not sure if the wooden acting's intended by Renoir. I hope we all can agree that the actress who played Harriet gave a magnificent performance as an awkward young teen. Since the VO belongs to her, I think it makes some sense that some characters around Harriet appear wooden. Or maybe I'm trying to excuse what is considered a flaw by many people. but I don't think Renoir sets out to make a character study of anyone therefore he treats everyone pretty much on the same level despite the unbroken narration by one character.
While the film is strikingly beautiful, I'm still perplexed by Scorsese' assessment of the film - being the most beautiful color film along with The Red Shoes. Does he mean by the film's use of colors or the film as a whole?
Many complaints pop up everywhere saying how wooden the acting is. That doesn't bother me at all. I'm not sure if the wooden acting's intended by Renoir. I hope we all can agree that the actress who played Harriet gave a magnificent performance as an awkward young teen. Since the VO belongs to her, I think it makes some sense that some characters around Harriet appear wooden. Or maybe I'm trying to excuse what is considered a flaw by many people. but I don't think Renoir sets out to make a character study of anyone therefore he treats everyone pretty much on the same level despite the unbroken narration by one character.
-
Jean-Luc Garbo
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:55 am
- Contact:
I saw this last month and he said they were the most beautiful Technicolor films he'd seen.Michael wrote:While the film is strikingly beautiful, I'm still perplexed by Scorsese' assessment of the film - being the most beautiful color film along with The Red Shoes. Does he mean by the film's use of colors or the film as a whole?
-
Queiroz
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:28 pm
I always feel there’s something mysteriously appropriate about the naïve and awkward acting, it seems to equate with the simple and essential issues that Renoir is getting at - civilisation and the family etc. Not that he meant it as such; after all, he originally wanted Brando for Captain John. For me it’s a case of bad acting transcending itself and become very touching. (After all, “great” acting can be very boring). Renoir often rejected certain obvious elements in favour of capturing something primary and elemental, which is why The River has always been for me one of the most beautiful films in the world, in every sense.
-
Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:09 pm
Very nice, Queiroz. I'm looking forward to experiencing more riches I know this film will offer on subsequent viewings.
I can see that. However the most beautiful Technicolor film to my eyes remains for years is All That Heaven Allows.Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:I saw this last month and he said they were the most beautiful Technicolor films he'd seen.Michael wrote:While the film is strikingly beautiful, I'm still perplexed by Scorsese' assessment of the film - being the most beautiful color film along with The Red Shoes. Does he mean by the film's use of colors or the film as a whole?
-
Matango
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:19 am
- Location: Hong Kong
I have also always thought the acting appropriate to the film, giving it a kind of semi-documentary feel, continuing the documentary-style opening. Also, I have spent quite a bit of time in that part of India, and the mood Renoir created is very evocative. (Despite all the IT and economic growth, India hasn't changed much outside the main cities since those days. Comparatively speaking).
-
Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:09 pm
The River has such a strong pull. I went back to watching it last night. What an astoundingly beautiful and humane piece of art it continues to grow for me. For those of you who haven't seen this film yet, please take my words to heart: SEE IT! If that means anything to you, I actually prefer The River more than everything else by Renoir.
In in the Great Double Bills thread, Sveven "double-billed" this film with Meet Me in St. Louis. I can see that more now - luxurious and dreamy Technicolor cinematography, blossoming sexuality/crushes/first loves, family going through changes and seasons, quaint, personal and emotional. Hoppity with her princess crown and Agnes' kitty with a blue bow should pair up.
In in the Great Double Bills thread, Sveven "double-billed" this film with Meet Me in St. Louis. I can see that more now - luxurious and dreamy Technicolor cinematography, blossoming sexuality/crushes/first loves, family going through changes and seasons, quaint, personal and emotional. Hoppity with her princess crown and Agnes' kitty with a blue bow should pair up.
-
ellipsis7
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:56 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: 276 The River
My article on ARTHUR SHIELDS AND THE POLITICS OF JEAN RENOIR'S THE RIVER @ Senses of Cinema...
-
Drucker
- Your Future our Drucker
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 1:37 pm
Re: 276 The River
I just watched this film for the third time, and first time watching the Carlotta blu ray, and for the first time, I see how different this is from Renoir's other films. Different from both his classic films of the 30s and his Stage and Spectacle films. But while you can surely make allowances for the awkward acting, the film is still visually beautiful and perfectly paced (flows like a river as Scorsese says).
What strikes me the most about this film is the absolute isolation everyone seems to feel. Many of his 30s classics seem to me so much about brotherhood and a certain fraternity. La Grand Illusion and Rules of the Game and even Elena and Her Men are built around communities of people. There are groups of people in these films working towards a common goal. But in The River, everyone is isolated. While they may be family and part of the same "community", they are in such different parts of their lives and going through such different personal turmoil. Try as they may, each individual's peers can't really identify with what they are going through. The River seems unique in this way in the Renoir cannon.
The age disparity of all of major players in the film I think adds to this isolation. The children as I said, are all at different places in their lives, and it seems that each is struggling with the loss of "purity" that being a child allows you to have (Melanie's father talking about how "free" children are makes this point) and the tragedy of the film is the loss of that freedom. The youngest children still have it. The young brother who dies has it, but it is of course his undoing. Valerie has lost it as has Captain John and Melanie. They are now struggling with how to live a structured life within the rules of their society. Harriet seems to be in the middle of these two camps. Awkward in a way that illustrates her freedom, but trying to be one of the adults.
One more point: each person seems to face life lessons once they need to and/or are ready. Captain John's going to war didn't happen until he was ready, and it was necessary for him to realize that he didn't fit in. What's striking is how Renoir stops people from attempting to grow up too fast. The second youngest daughter walks up to Melanie, Valerie, and Harriet as they are opening Capt. John's letter, but she is sent away, because she is not ready for that. And then at the end of the film, as a new child is born, all of the girls are kept away from the birth-room, because none of those girls are ready to experience child birth.
Of course, after the son dies, people are forced to confront part of life that they weren't ready for, and you can see the emotional toll it takes on everyone, with even the parents breaking down a bit. It seems that life lessons cannot adequately prepare you for life itself. It must be lived, as painful as that can be.
What strikes me the most about this film is the absolute isolation everyone seems to feel. Many of his 30s classics seem to me so much about brotherhood and a certain fraternity. La Grand Illusion and Rules of the Game and even Elena and Her Men are built around communities of people. There are groups of people in these films working towards a common goal. But in The River, everyone is isolated. While they may be family and part of the same "community", they are in such different parts of their lives and going through such different personal turmoil. Try as they may, each individual's peers can't really identify with what they are going through. The River seems unique in this way in the Renoir cannon.
The age disparity of all of major players in the film I think adds to this isolation. The children as I said, are all at different places in their lives, and it seems that each is struggling with the loss of "purity" that being a child allows you to have (Melanie's father talking about how "free" children are makes this point) and the tragedy of the film is the loss of that freedom. The youngest children still have it. The young brother who dies has it, but it is of course his undoing. Valerie has lost it as has Captain John and Melanie. They are now struggling with how to live a structured life within the rules of their society. Harriet seems to be in the middle of these two camps. Awkward in a way that illustrates her freedom, but trying to be one of the adults.
One more point: each person seems to face life lessons once they need to and/or are ready. Captain John's going to war didn't happen until he was ready, and it was necessary for him to realize that he didn't fit in. What's striking is how Renoir stops people from attempting to grow up too fast. The second youngest daughter walks up to Melanie, Valerie, and Harriet as they are opening Capt. John's letter, but she is sent away, because she is not ready for that. And then at the end of the film, as a new child is born, all of the girls are kept away from the birth-room, because none of those girls are ready to experience child birth.
Of course, after the son dies, people are forced to confront part of life that they weren't ready for, and you can see the emotional toll it takes on everyone, with even the parents breaking down a bit. It seems that life lessons cannot adequately prepare you for life itself. It must be lived, as painful as that can be.
-
member24958
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:11 am
Re: 276 The River
I watched this on Hulu. Was the Bengali dialogue supposed to be subtitled at all?
I am guessing not but I have come across a few titles on Hulu, not Criterion, that were a mix of English and non-English dialogue that Hulu omitted subtitles for the non-English dialogue portion (and that have been confirmed were supposed to have them). I just wanted to make sure that wasn't the case with The River.
I am guessing not but I have come across a few titles on Hulu, not Criterion, that were a mix of English and non-English dialogue that Hulu omitted subtitles for the non-English dialogue portion (and that have been confirmed were supposed to have them). I just wanted to make sure that wasn't the case with The River.
-
Giles
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
Re: 276 The River
I'm getting really tired of not hearing about any Stateside Criterion release of Renoir's 'The River' - I'll just give up and purchase the French import at this point... 
-
swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:25 pm
- Location: SLC, UT
-
Shrew
- The Untamed One
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:22 am
Re: 276 The River
So it looks like some stuff was dropped and some stuff added.
Original DVD exclusives
- Rumer Godden: An Indian Affair, a 1995 BBC documentary that follows the author as she journeys back to her childhood home in India
- Stills gallery featuring production photos and publicity stills
- Plus: Essay by Alexander Sesonske
Reissue Exclusives
- Around the River, a 60-minute 2008 documentary by Arnaud Mandagaran about the making of the film
- New visual essay by film writer Paul Ryan, featuring rare behind-the-scenes stills
- Plus: Original production notes by Renoir
I'm guessing the stills/publicity photos are mostly being folded into the booklet/pamphlet with Renoir's production notes or into the visual essay. I don't remember the Rumer Godden film, but Around the River does seem more pertinent. I imagine the BBC's rights costs were too much to include it again.
Original DVD exclusives
- Rumer Godden: An Indian Affair, a 1995 BBC documentary that follows the author as she journeys back to her childhood home in India
- Stills gallery featuring production photos and publicity stills
- Plus: Essay by Alexander Sesonske
Reissue Exclusives
- Around the River, a 60-minute 2008 documentary by Arnaud Mandagaran about the making of the film
- New visual essay by film writer Paul Ryan, featuring rare behind-the-scenes stills
- Plus: Original production notes by Renoir
I'm guessing the stills/publicity photos are mostly being folded into the booklet/pamphlet with Renoir's production notes or into the visual essay. I don't remember the Rumer Godden film, but Around the River does seem more pertinent. I imagine the BBC's rights costs were too much to include it again.
-
solaris72
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:03 pm
- Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: 276 The River
I've been region free since I started collecting, but prefer region A when possible as I do a lot of my movie watching at friends' houses. I saw this in 35mm about ten years ago at the National Gallery in Washington DC. Never got around to picking up the DVD; thrilled that this is getting an upgrade. (Pity they're dropping the Rumer Godden doc though!)
-
FakeBonanza
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:35 am
Re: 276 The River
I know that I'm on my own on this one, but The River is the only Renoir film I've seen that i haven't cared for. The film is much loved for Renoir's commitment to near-documentary realism in capturing the country of India, and though I can appreciate that, absolute realism has never been what attracts me to Renoir's films. Among its perceived weaknesses, the characters/performances and coming-of-age story are rather uninspired, and the energy that is so infectious in Renoir's best work seems absent to me, outside of a few inspired sequences.
I was practically crushed to find that, among all the great Renoir films in need of an upgrade, this was made a priority. It now seems far less likely that we will see Boudu or La bete humaine on blu-ray in the near future. Disappointment aside, I find myself tempted to pick this up in order to add to my collection of Renoir's work. Maybe I need to revisit the film, as I have only seen it once, and it may be that I was unprepared for something so different from his 30s films (at the time I had recently watched a number of those within a short period). Even if I still don't enjoy it upon revisiting the film, at the very least the supplements should provide some value.
I was practically crushed to find that, among all the great Renoir films in need of an upgrade, this was made a priority. It now seems far less likely that we will see Boudu or La bete humaine on blu-ray in the near future. Disappointment aside, I find myself tempted to pick this up in order to add to my collection of Renoir's work. Maybe I need to revisit the film, as I have only seen it once, and it may be that I was unprepared for something so different from his 30s films (at the time I had recently watched a number of those within a short period). Even if I still don't enjoy it upon revisiting the film, at the very least the supplements should provide some value.
-
theflirtydozen
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:21 pm
Re: 276 The River
Is the "not subtitled" part a typo? I know The Rules of the Game disc has a similar introduction and it for sure had subtitles.Renoir Introduction - in this archival introduction, Jean Renoir explains how The River came to exist and discusses the production process. In French, not subtitled. (8 min, 1080p).
-
Roger Ryan
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:04 pm
- Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
Re: 276 The River
As does his introduction for the recent A DAY IN THE COUNTRY release - it has to be a typo.theflirtydozen wrote:Is the "not subtitled" part a typo? I know The Rules of the Game disc has a similar introduction and it for sure had subtitles.Renoir Introduction - in this archival introduction, Jean Renoir explains how The River came to exist and discusses the production process. In French, not subtitled. (8 min, 1080p).
-
Ashirg
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:10 pm
- Location: Atlanta
Re: 276 The River
The capture of the intro at DVD Beaver has subtitles.
-
movielocke
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:44 am
Re: 276 The River
The River is almost a masterpiece, indeed visually the film is clearly at that level, sumptuously composed and conducted by a clear master, unfortunately the film grates hard against a plethora of exceptionally weak-to-bad performances that constantly undermine one's appreciation of the film. There are fleeting moments when the two main characters give good line readings and accompanying performances, but they are few and far between and I don't think they are ever consecutive, which gives you a roller coaster of relief followed by wincing in pain at the dead line reading. I imagine dubbed into French or Italian the film might well come across as a masterpiece, given that taking away the vocals would eliminate half of the weak "acting". The ebb and flow of the film is wonderful and the film has numerous truly great moments, perhaps my favorite (other than the unbelievably brilliant dance) was the conversation between the father and the mother, which features the best acting of the film.
-
Mr Sausage
- Has Risen from the Grave
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:02 am
- Location: Canada
Re: 276 The River
Finally caught up with this one and now its thread...I hadn't expected this thread to be so contentious, or to find myself agreeing with, of all people, lubitsch! Everyone's rightly enchanted with the glowing visuals, but so many past members felt the need for elaborate excuses for its dated plot and undeniable nostalgia for the British Raj. Look, I love Gunga Din, it's a favourite of mine, so I'm not here to shame anyone or this movie. There's nothing inherently wrong with liking problematic things; you just can't pretend they're not saying what they're saying. The River is not an apology for imperialism, agreed, but it does create a rosy picture of it, where conquerer and conquered live in peaceful harmony, race and class are a non-issue (the latter odd given Renoir's subtle examinations of class distinctions in the 30s), and the biggest conflict is which British girl loves the American visitor, ie. manor house melodrama. It'd be easy to leave the movie feeling the British Raj was a fine place to live for all involved. That the story is told from the point of view of a woman looking back wistfully on her childhood does allow for some plausible deniability, but only insofar as the motives of the author and filmmakers are concerned. The film still expresses what it expresses, and there's no point pretending otherwise. But you also don't need to like the movie any less for that.
For me the film's big flaw isn't that it's insufficiently post-colonial--at most that's just a fact. Its major flaws are all aesthetic: it aims to reproduce the banalities of a strain of mid century "women's fiction", usually set among upper class types who experience love, family, hardship, change and other conventions in exotic environments, with plenty of local colour to tantalize its middle-class audience, a simplified pseudo-philosophical outlook derived from local religious traditions, all told in a politely elevated 'poetic' diction. You can consider the source novel and its coevals as that era's version of Eat, Pray, Love: applying a comforting exoticism to upper-middle class banalities and anxieties. Rather than elevate that material, Renoir collaborates with the source author in reproducing it. The gorgeous visuals don't hide the shopworn themes and plot contrivances that constitute the movie: they flow from it. The style is its own romantic, exotic cliche to match those of the story. I got pictorial pleasure from it, but nothing more substantial than that. On top of that, the story telling is often lifeless, the characters unconvincing even aside from the poor acting, and the emotional palette oddly flattened. I kept waiting for the film to burst into joyful, colourful life, and on occasion it threatened to...and then pulled back for the same flat storytelling.
But this kinda thing can be done well. Look at Black Narcissus, a similar story by the same author, shot in a similarly rich poetic style, that works because it embraces its own artificiality to create something weird, gothic, and psychosexual, where the exoticism becomes a psychological element or manifestation rather than mere local colour. I'm sure that movie is also open to all sorts of post-colonial critiques, but it's a terrific movie unhindered by the cliches and commonplaces of its source material. The River sadly embraces those cliches and commonplaces, so I can't find much of interest in it. I've liked many of Renoir's other films, but not this one.
For me the film's big flaw isn't that it's insufficiently post-colonial--at most that's just a fact. Its major flaws are all aesthetic: it aims to reproduce the banalities of a strain of mid century "women's fiction", usually set among upper class types who experience love, family, hardship, change and other conventions in exotic environments, with plenty of local colour to tantalize its middle-class audience, a simplified pseudo-philosophical outlook derived from local religious traditions, all told in a politely elevated 'poetic' diction. You can consider the source novel and its coevals as that era's version of Eat, Pray, Love: applying a comforting exoticism to upper-middle class banalities and anxieties. Rather than elevate that material, Renoir collaborates with the source author in reproducing it. The gorgeous visuals don't hide the shopworn themes and plot contrivances that constitute the movie: they flow from it. The style is its own romantic, exotic cliche to match those of the story. I got pictorial pleasure from it, but nothing more substantial than that. On top of that, the story telling is often lifeless, the characters unconvincing even aside from the poor acting, and the emotional palette oddly flattened. I kept waiting for the film to burst into joyful, colourful life, and on occasion it threatened to...and then pulled back for the same flat storytelling.
But this kinda thing can be done well. Look at Black Narcissus, a similar story by the same author, shot in a similarly rich poetic style, that works because it embraces its own artificiality to create something weird, gothic, and psychosexual, where the exoticism becomes a psychological element or manifestation rather than mere local colour. I'm sure that movie is also open to all sorts of post-colonial critiques, but it's a terrific movie unhindered by the cliches and commonplaces of its source material. The River sadly embraces those cliches and commonplaces, so I can't find much of interest in it. I've liked many of Renoir's other films, but not this one.
-
therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:40 pm
Re: 276 The River
All fair criticisms! And agree that Black Narcissus is much better. I also watched this for the first time this year, and have seen it three times already within a couple months. I adore this film. Many elements are definitely (at-times-uncomfortably) dated, but this brought me a surging sense of pleasure in retelling a story of adolescent development, and painting it as both a unique experience that's also 'one-with-all'. There's a nice juxtaposition between the urge to make one's youth experience 'special', and the banalities and universal aspects of growing up on display. Renoir allows both to co-occur in a beautiful way. The film felt less static than its story probably is, and more like an odyssey that flowed through a wide range of emotions and episodic mini-adventures, often relating to small exchanges of grace. I guess I can't defend the film against its criticisms, but I know that it feels sublime beyond the visuals. Our early life development is so acutely sensitive and forming, and small details are stark and carry a lot of utility. It's inherently special in micro-terms, but I also liked the philosophical-spiritual integration of being part of a larger whole, diluting some of that self-focused meaning into something grander which we as an audience can all relate to on some level, but also learn from