305 Boudu Saved from Drowning

[Napoleon]

What's with the spider crawling up the left side of the frame during the opening credits?

Looks like the poor little guy just happened to be caught in the optical printer while the credits were being printed. He's happy and alive on the "Interprétation" title card, but quite visibly squashed on the next.

Those without the ability to zoom out the image probably can't see the spider due to overscan.

That would have to be pretty severe overscan. The little guy is about 1/8th of the way into the left side of the image on my set. That said, this probably means that I've been unknowingly losing an 1/8th on the right hand side for 5 years.

[AZAI]

How ignorance can be bliss........

[Cinéslob]

Just finished exploring the film and all the extras and it's my pick for DVD of the Year so far. Both the Jean-Pierre Gorin interview and the conversation between Rohmer and Douchet are outstanding (I was surprised just how adoringly insightful former radical Gorin could be about classic French cinema), and the interactive map is minblowing. You click on different locations on a map of Paris and it gives you the historical background of the location mixed with archival materials and appropriate clips from the film. It's incredibly inventive and we need to see more extras like this. May be my favorite dvd extra ever.

I'd have to agree, being blown over as I am by the effort that's been invested into this disc. However, I have just one small quibble, namely the two easily spotted and rectifiable grammatical errors in the subtitle track. It's rather petty I know, but I would've thought that Criterion's Q&A department would have noticed such malapropisms as "I've see so many" and "the man who spit" long before the disc was pressed.

Also, I can distinctly remember noticing a similar fault on Criterion's Crazed Fruit disc, but a quick scan through of that the other day didn't throw up anything awry. Still, eke out these little niggles Criterion, needless blemishes upon great work that they are!

[Michael]

Since receiving the DVD last September, I've watched Boudu more than ten times.. and I want to watch it again. It instantly danced into my top 5 favorite films of all time. It is my pick for the Best Criterion of the year. Am I the only one who loves Boudu more than Renoir's still-magnificent Rules of the Game?

Boudu is so hilarious, provocative, sensitive and uniquely heartbreaking all at once. It is also surprisingly modern and the cinematography is utterly luxurious without being overdone. I couldn't think of a better DVD than Boudu to give away for the holidays.

[Brian Oblivious]

Am I the only one who loves Boudu more than Renoir's still-magnificent Rules of the Game?

I did for years, having only seen either film on VHS. Then I saw both on the big screen on the same day and switched my opinion to the common consensus. My conclusion: Rules of the Game works better as cinema, but is far more compromised by the limitations of television. I still adore both films.

[HerrSchreck]

Since receiving the DVD last September, I've watched Boudu more than ten times.. and I want to watch it again. It instantly danced into my top 5 favorite films of all time. It is my pick for the Best Criterion of the year. Am I the only one who loves Boudu more than Renoir's still-magnificent Rules of the Game?.

I think owing to the more deliberate pacing, tightly structured nature of RULES-- which gives the appearance of having been worked & reworked & polished to a seemingly impregnable, masterly composition-- BOUDU is always going to tend to fall into second place in the average critical mind, which loves formal structures. (Not that Renoir was a Formalist) Formal structures give the non-creative wannabe something to at least hang their hat on when they try to imitate their heros with their own creative endeavors (most critics are working on their own secret masterpiece). Visceral blasts of genius like BOUDU drive them a little crazy in that they cannot be duplicated as there is simply no formula to use as a roadmap. There'll always be a RULES 'genre' (ALTMAN), but how in god's name could there be a BOUDU genre?

RULES is a carefully built structure, weighed carefully (owing to all the doubling with it's inherent requirement of character mapping and thru-lines, subtext and the like), whereas BOUDU feels more like a cryptic, secretly though-out but half made-up-on-the-spot (how he achieved that contradiction is the fascination for me) blast of topical anarchy. BOUDU can feel very much like much of it's action was crystalized during improv, that decisions were made for the fun of it as a goof (a good thing) which in the subtext keep scholars guessing at the ultimate "symbolic intention".

The wonderful thing about both is they are equally sincere blasts right in the eyeball of the smug bourgoisie. The funny thing is-- since Renoir was wealthy-- how these films have been appropriated most emphatically by the upper-class, who, each individually, take it as an ode to their own isolation as that exception, like Renoir, as Wealthy But Knowing & Real Individual. Very few of the folks those films were aimed at would watch them and feel like a member of the indicted class.

[HerrSchreck]

The class thing is critical.
But both movies are masterpieces, as are Les Bas Fonds, Toni, La Bete Humaine and la Nuit du Carrefour.

Somehwere, in one of my innumerbale Renoir books, he talks about a preference always for the "vulgar" (slightly different meaning in French) to the "common". One could apply the same discretionary analysis to Wild Side over Brokeback (not wanting to go OT.)

Re class, and Renoir's love for the (Translated) "Vulgar". You can see, all those years in interviews, his & Simon's eyes light up and their smiles beam with delight at the idea of eating sardines with one's fingers, wiping a fine bed linen with shoewax... blowing away adorable creatures in gorgeous compositions... these for me reveal the sincerity of their rage vs. the indicted class. These guys were the real thing. It is very easy nowadays for a wealthy individual, entrepeneur or even filmmaker to strike a pose of the counterbourgoise, even of an anarchist-- because it is good business sense. But back then people might and did rip the fucking seats out of the theater.

Their (Simon & Renoir) lust for shaking the storied class by the the neck is clear enough vis a vis the visible delight on their faces during the recollection decades later on the CC disc. These "disturbing" images (whether of a tramp fucking a vested bourgoise woman, or the vulgarization of precious class rituals via the blasting of adorable actual bunnies to actual death) are subterfuges, acts of sabotage versus the indicted class whereby-- like a true avante garde looking to shake the viewer out of their stupor-- after viewing the rubbing through the dirt these vaunted rituals, ideals, expensive objects, there is no total way back. "The profanation of the host" a la Cocteau. Sullying a cherished, or ritualized, or fetished object/ideal/individual forces a confrontation with one's ideas regarding them... ruins the way back because, if these objects can be 'spoiled' via mere 'greasy fingers' or shoe polish, etc, the assigned value therefore becomes too glaringly vulnerable to outside forces, sitting on too shaky ground.. and True WOnderfulness should not be so non-durable. At least that's the desired effect, thereby bringing the target-- perhaps, with any luck-- just a bit closer in mindset to the filmmaker/cultural sabateur... or at least softened up for an ongoing & future examination & reexamination of their false ideals, and made more vulnerable to the next cinematic blast.

There's a flat out, blatantly simple, far less symbolic aspect to the above sabotage of precious social touochstones-- to use an absolute terrible, awful analogy about the lack of there being 'a way back' for the viewer: in the most horrible situations of rape, some men cannot go back to their wives or ever see them the same way again. In BOUDU and RULES I see a similar desire to seperate the bourgoisie from the cherished ideals to which they're wedded, by sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly taking a public dump all over (or 'raping', sullying) that class's most beloved ideals.

I'd mention that the above is an attempt to articulate the subversive intent of a pioneering filmmaker, and it's a multifaceted intent that is quite simple on one hand, but enormously complex to articulate on the other.

[Mental Mike]

Yeah, how awful was Gosford Park compared to the Rules of The Game. Altman ripped off Renoir because he's got old and lost much of his creative power, it seems.

[HerrSchreck]

It's Simon's progression from l'Atalante, and the anarchy of Zero de Conduite.

I'm a little thrown... L'Atalante was made in late 33, came out in early 34, after BOUDU. ZERO came before that in 33, but was still after BOUDU, and Simon wasn't in ZERO (which certainly shares a hell of a lot in common with BOUDU, as does L'ATALANTE in a sense, though mostly in the chaos of the anarchic embellishments which decorate the central love poem. And of course in the sense of Simon fleshing out and perfecting the character he gave birth to in BOUDU.

Now we are travailing Vigoville, which is a city I love far more than Renoir. I never laughed as hard at another film in the past ten years as I did at L'Atalante. I humbly admit to my humilated state of having not yet seen L'apropos Nice.

[HerrSchreck]

Moi Aussi (never seen a propos that is) and I confess to a chronological miscalculation. But Renoir saw Simon as a life force

No sweat on the dates. The thirties in France-- from the dawn of the decade to it's final moments-- is just unbelievably jam packed with masterpieces. It can get confusing. Masterpieces flying everywhere. From Cocteau & Bunuel at it's dawn, to Carne & Renoir at it's close-- it makes the head spin. Like Germany in the 20's.

[Michael]

Of both films, Boudu feels more organic and spontaneous. Maybe that's why I enjoy Boudu so much. Michel Simon breathes so much vitality into the film that it's endlessly entertaining and gorgeous no matter how many times you watch it. I also adore some of the long, slow tracking shots.. a very lovely one moving slowly backward on the wedding boat in the near end. Breathtaking. As Boudu returns to his "natural" form, kicking back, being so happy on the grass, it is such a joyous and amazingly emotional moment that ultimately fill up my eyes with tears every time.

Rules of the Game has more interesting, fleshed-out women characters. The film is still just as magnificent as Boudu but I kept reading about how influential and great Rules of the Game was throughout my life but never came across anything written about Boudu. So the new Criterion release was a surprise and threw me off with its visceral greatness because I had originally expected it to be lesser than Rules of the Game.

[HerrSchreck]

Whilst on Simon (Still grovelling from my mischronology.)

Take a look at his fastidious petit-bourgeois in Carne's terrific Quai des Brumes (he is offended by the rough trade gangsters and the cheap music, etc) while barely containing a Kraft-Ebing's worth of sexual perversity and obsession. Amazing performance!

I watch that film at least once a month. His (Simone's) bland elegance, his hypocritical selfishness as scum condemning other scum, his projection of muddy perversion covered over by genuine refinement... it's quite a sophisticated actorly accomplishment. It's a thespian performance by any measure-- completely at odds with his more visceral BOUDU which runs on burning gasoline of his pure charisma.

Michel Simon going from BOUDU or Per Jules, to his performance in QUAI is very nearly as astonishing as Curly from the 3 Stooges suddenly turning in a highly thought-out Olivier or DeNiro style attentive, meticulous performance. Usually actors are of one species or the other. Simon was both.

Doesn't QUAI DE BRUMES translate more appropriately as The Port of Fog, or the Foggy Port, or The Misty Harbor? Isn't "brumes" more accurately translated as a haze or mist?

[denti alligator]

since I re-discovered Carne's best work

David, are you also talking about Quai des Brumes?

[Steven H]

All this talk of comparing Boudu and Rules made me think of a certain character, or characters, in Rules that distinctly feel like a call back to the earlier film. Octave seems like the cleaned up Boudu, awkwardly walking around in a suit, and still playing the goof, the tramp, to his rich friends. Marceau also embodies Boudu's lustiness, though he has also been "corrupted" by bourgeois desires (Of course, nobody has Boudu's way of speach, but this may have something to do with Simon's inimitable ways). These two, like Boudu, end up walking away from the disgusting trap of high society life, like Boudu floating down the river. This connection probably has more to do with Renoir's general artistic sensibilities, but it definitely sprang to mind reading the discussion.

I'm very happy with the Criterion edition. It looks beautiful, and the extras are fantastic. Looking forward to more of his 30s work, and hope like hell someone gets Picnic on the Grass out.

[Gregory]

Doesn't QUAI DE BRUMES translate more appropriately as The Port of Fog, or the Foggy Port, or The Misty Harbor? Isn't "brumes" more accurately translated as a haze or mist?

Yes, it's more accurately haze or mist. Fog is "brouillard" as in "nuit et." I read that when the Carne film was first released in English-speaking countries it was also known as Foggy Quay or Misty Wharf! More accurate, needless to say, but I guess translaters also try to have something of an ear for what sounds good without straying too far from the literal.

[ellipsis7]

Studio Canal, to coincide with the stunning RENOIR/RENOIR exhibition inaugarating the new Cinametheque Francais building, have recently released this impressive limited edition boxset (no Eng subs)...

The disc of silents (CHARLESTON/FILLE DE L'EAU/ALLUMETTES) will be released singly on 01.01.06...

The National Film Theatre in London is running a complete retrospective of Renoir's films 30 Dec - 28 Feb, 2006...

Of course LA BETE HUMAINE comes from the CC in Feb and TONI from MoC in March...

And Taschen publish the English edition of their book JEAN RENOIR (in the Film Director's series) by Janet Bergstrom in September...

[otis]

Interestingly he got/chose Swamp Water as his first American picture. It's so long since I've seen it

Fox France are bringing out Swamp Water on 15th March

When are we going to get Diary of a Chambermaid? I have fond memories of Burgess chasing Paulette round the garden. Or was it butterflies? Anyone know who owns the rights?

[HerrSchreck]

Yes, it's more accurately haze or mist. Fog is "brouillard" as in "nuit et." I read that when the Carne film was first released in English-speaking countries it was also known as Foggy Quay or Misty Wharf! More accurate, needless to say, but I guess translaters also try to have something of an ear for what sounds good without straying too far from the literal

Another recalled clue is the great Lord High Emperor Dmitiri Kirsanoff was not filming the "shadows" of autumn circulating about the head of sad Sibirskaia.

[HerrSchreck]

And Monsieur Schrek, we have both completely forgotten Simon in La Chienne!

Man, I'm still stunned that that bad boy as well as DAY IN THE COUNTRY don't seem to have a release scheduled in r1 yet... CHEINNE has been on my mind quite a bit lately because of the attention to SCARLET STREET (owing to Kino's DVD release... looking at Tooze's screen caps, tho annoyed with the non-progessive issues , I doubt we'll see a better looking edition, and the Kalat commentary-- always a deal-closer for me... will always be grateful for him as well for bringing out Epstein's La CHUTE DE LA MAISON USHER and CHRIST IN CONCRETE).

[HerrSchreck]

I enjoy the man's obsession-- it's always genuine. That's what I like about him. Hyperliterary Criterion style commentaries put me to sleep half the time. I hate hearing commentaries delivered by souls (or in styles) who would be absolutely despised by the filmmaker. Kalat is a bit of a sick fuck, a film FREAK rather than scholar. Cowie style scholars who are talking with an eye towards Sophisticated Regard are a barbiturate brain drench for me... I want to hear a guy who's speaking out of a lifetime obsession with the film at hand and is a bit warped for it. Kalat, who I agree often doesn't speak from the collective unconscious, isn't much more guilty than Quandt in the here-highly-revered PICKPOCKET essay, which required a thousand self-delivered hammer-hits in the head to keep my eyes open for.

Just like the two numbnuts beating each other's brains in on the BOUDU disc with opposing standpoints, commentary is always a half-thankless business. One of the reasons, BOUDU being such an individual & maniacal film, that an "authoritative" commentary was likely avoided. How did you feel about the gay theory in PICKPOCKET, Monsieur Hare?

[HerrSchreck]

Yes I'm sure I'll be noodled for calling Rohmer & douchey I mean uh Douchet numbnuts.

But still... the Quandt question/comparison?

[ellipsis7]

Interesting op from Jonathan Rosenbaum on inclusion of excerpt not full episode of the 'Cineastes de Notre Temps' ep. JEAN RENOIR LE PATRON: THE DIRECTION OF ACTORS featuring Michel Simon and JR, directed by Jacques Rivette. Ep. was not transmitted originally on French TV, and transcript is not included (as are the other 2 parts of JR LE PATRON) in RENOIR ON RENOIR as much is in the gestures and inflection, rather than the words... Rosenbaum rates the doc as a masterpiece... A missed opportunity for the CC - could they have fitted it complete plus feature and other xtras on a single disc, I wonder?

Don't think you know what this documentary is doing if you've seen only clips from it, such as those included on the DVD of Boudu recently released by Criterion, which treats Rivette's film as raw material to be plundered. The full version -- edited by the legendary Jean Eustache (The Mother and the Whore), a post-New Wave figure as uncompromising as Renoir and Rivette -- is as radical in its own way as Boudu.

Full article here

I suspect one reason French TV refused to show "The Direction of Actors" in the mid-60s is the same reason it refused to show Out 1 a few years later -- its style and attitude, especially its radical humanism. This film takes the position that anything a good actor says or does is automatically interesting -- the same position that helped create Boudu in 1932 and Out 1 in 1971. Whether or not one agrees with that position, it's a privilege to look through the eyes of someone who does.

And if anyone from the CC is reading, how about LA CHIENNE and the full docu?

[hearthesilence]

I didn't realize this was so new (on Criterion that is). I just rented it having never seen the film before, unless you count "Down and Out In Beverly Hills" which I have vague memories of.

Surprisingly good, the compositions (particularly deep focus compositions, even when the lens couldn't quite capture every plane in focus) and even the soundtrack (rich, "natural" soundtracks in the outside scenes, like Boudu's rescue) are more impressive considering the film's origins - early 30's Paris.

I wished there was a commentary, but the extras more than make up for it. I wish Simon and Renoir had spent more time talking about the film, but it was really nice to see them looking back and laughing in their old age. The tour of Paris was surprisingly informative, at least for someone who's dying to see Paris but has yet to go. The way history, social class, and landmarks are tied in, and even the city's layout and how that was seen or 'cheated' in the film...all of it and the presentation was excellent.

[Narshty]

Well, thanks, but have a peek at the post above yours.

[hearthesilence]

could they have fitted it complete plus feature and other xtras on a single disc, I wonder?

I don't recall the transfer of the documentary clips looking particularly good. At 84 minutes, the movie itself probably took up the equivalent of one whole layer, so in the interest of picture quality, I think a second disc would've been needed.