Even before I became certifiably obsessed with movies sometime in 1999, I would get obsessed with individual films. As a child I knew every word and sound effect in movies like Clue, Batman, and Big Trouble in Little China. In my junior high years it was Dead Alive, Planet of the Apes, and Woodstock for some reason. Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon, Singin’ in the Rain and others were obsessions of mine at various points in time. Luckily when discussing a French film there is a French term for a movie with that special something, je ne sais quoi which literally translates to “I don’t know”. Although never widely dubbed a cult film, Rules of the Game does check off some of those boxes. In particular it was a flop upon it’s release, it was cut and mangled, and a devoted audience of another generation rediscovered it and restored it to it’s current standing. To me the most important feature of a cult film is a desire to repeatedly watch it, which this certainly has for me.
You may recall from the last time I ranked my top 100 films that Grand Illusion made the cut and Rules was left out. Since that list was made I have probably watched Rules of the Game 6 or more times. It is the perennial answer to the question “what do I want to watch?” Yesterday as Caroline was heading to sleep and I was facing an uncertain tomorrow I reached for the comfort of the familiar. It’s hard to really articulate what draws you back to a film over and over again, particularly one that might not have made a huge impact on the initial viewing. Admittedly the first time I saw Rules it was a very crappy VHS with subtitles that blended into the image so a large chunk of dialogue I couldn’t even read. I gave it another viewing before eventually getting it on DVD when Criterion put it out. I watched it with commentary and had a begrudging “oh I guess it is a good film”.
The fact is though that Rules holds a very exalted place in the lexicon of cinema. It is the only film to make Sight and Sound’s Top 10 films of all time list since 1952. The fact that it is highly praised and has remained so for decades speaks to it’s reputation. That might be one reason why I have watched it multiple times. When someone tells you a particular movie is the greatest of all time or even one of the top ten it is nearly impossible to appreciate it on a single viewing. At best you can say “That was good, but I wouldn’t rank it that high.” Many of you reading can probably think of a masterpiece that has been beaten over your head that you appreciate and respect but would still slap an overrated label on. For many people seeing it once and coming to this conclusion is sufficient. For me I’m curious to know why I don’t agree with the hordes. I wonder if I missed something, or is everyone crazy.
If you are not a native French speaker I attest that it is impossible to grasp everything in Rules of the Game on a single viewing. I might argue it’s impossible on three trips through it, but no one wants to read about a movie and be told they have to watch it at least three times to appreciate it. For many it’s not worth the effort, and I can’t blame you. No one needs to watch Goodfellas 3 times to appreciate it. Some films, including some of my favorites start to show cracks on multiple views. Scenes that slip past you when you’re wrapped up in the story or the acting. When you see it multiple times you might pick up on questionable decisions. Fight scenes are usually the easiest area to miss details. Perhaps everyone patiently waits their turn to attack the badass hero, or someone gets their ass kicked without bothering to block or defend themselves in any way (Goodfellas, The Godfather, The Irishman). The truly great ones that often fall into the cult territory are movies that reveal their brilliance multiple times through. You start to look for cracks in the veneer only to see there are none. What once seemed routine or imperceptible is actually flawless execution.
There is a beauty to simplicity but it can be shockingly difficult to make things seamless to the naked eye. Casablanca is one of those movies that multiple viewings only seem to enhance. The Big Lebowski on paper seems kind of stupid and it’s only after many, many viewings do you start to realize just how intelligent it is. Lebowski I know is one of those movies people are told about so often that they often have that dismissive attitude towards it on first glance. I feel like I was one of the generation that discovered it’s brilliance through time, so by the time I noticed it’s intricate plot machinations and hidden callbacks the rest of the world was slowly discovering it as well.
The question might be, what the hell does this have to do with Rules of the Game? Well it often gets praised in a brief snapshot that doesn’t offer much justice. When you’re told it was made on the eve of World War II and mirrored the French obliviousness to the approaching Nazi invasion it seems timely but dated. Then you read about the innovative ways Renoir shot in depth and utilized multiple planes of action within a shot. Renoir shot like this on multiple films before, and frankly many modern audiences might not be that impressed that a director would have gone to those lengths. For the same reason people today might roll their eyes at the similar technical achievements of Citizen Kane. The virtuoso staging is definitely one of the things that would go unnoticed on a couple of viewings, unless you had a particularly observant teacher pausing and pointing it out to you. You can appreciate something based on the time in which it was made but for the truly exceptional picture, it needs to hold up beyond that.
The script is extremely talkative. It’s hard not to spend the majority of the film watching the bottom third just to keep up. About a year ago I was pretty drunk and decided to watch the film with the goal of not reading a single subtitle, I just wanted to experience the visuals. It helped that having seen it approximately 10 times I know perfectly well what’s happening in any given scene. This helps explain some of the cultural differences in favorite films. An American equivalent would be Pulp Fiction. There are brilliant tracking shots, subtle sound design Easter eggs, and mesmerizing dialogue that might go completely unnoticed by a foreign audience. Some of the very specific references can also be wasted on certain groups, which is one reason why that film although highly praised doesn’t have the same universal recognition as others. I could argue this is what sets Rules back for many American audiences.
There is history that needs to be known, class structures to be aware of, societal mores and norms and so much repartee to keep up on that mise-en-scene can be missed. Knowing there’s a great film under there might seem pointless to try and dig out for others. If someone tells you duck confit is amazing and you order it three times without thinking it’s worth the price you might not be inclined to keep trying it. Luckily there is enough in the film that it works with little context and study. The slapstick chasing between Schumacher and Marceau is actually quite comical. It allows the dialogue to take a breather and allow the visuals to carry the load for a bit. The relationships all have a very modern flair to them that has aged quite beautifully as well.
As a plot there is a lot to unpack here. We might view it as particularly French or specifically Parisian for everyone to be in love with everyone else, but it can be hard to keep track of who is sleeping with who (spoiler the answer is everyone with everyone). Where the relationship drama starts to get interesting is the vacillating between jealousy and acceptance everyone seems to have. Christine, Andre, Marceau, Genevieve, the Marquis and Octave all seem quite alright with each others indiscretions then become violently jealous before coming to their senses and repeating the process all over again. Only Lisette the maid seems to be completely ambivalent towards any romance including her own husband. She takes life as she finds it and despite being married has very little interest in being a wife and seems to view infidelity as something to pass the time. She might be the most emancipated woman in the bunch but it is ultimately her that sets the final tragedy in action, despite it being perpetrated by her husband and jilted would-be lover.
Her character might seem thoroughly modern but not everyone else is on her level. Perhaps a question of casting but I never understood the widespread obsession all the men seem to have towards Christine. Perhaps their infatuation for her is simply because it seems like the thing to do, trying to win her affection. She is so flaky that it’s a wonder she ever settled down long enough to get married to the Marquis. He in turn carried on his extramarital affair with Genevieve before he was even married. Perhaps it is her foreignness that intrigues their set, or her shifting allegiance that convinces all men that she is within their grasp.
It is worth noting that the men in domestic capacities do not pursue Christine. Their attentions seem focused on Lisette who is one of their own, drawing parallels between the two classes. Only Octave, who oscillates between both circles because of his upbringing but also because of his lack of means courts both women at various points. His affection for Lisette is little more than flirtation but Marceau despite being one with a weakness for the ladies doesn’t seem to interested in chasing one of the rich women at the chateau, at least not seriously. Even the Marquis seems content with Andre running off with his wife because at least he’s part of their set. This is echoed in Renoir’s earlier Grand Illusion where social class is more binding than nationality.
I would be remiss not to discuss Renoir’s humanism while discussing this film. As a thesis for his entire career Rules of the Game is probably as great of an example as can be found. It brings me to why the shortcomings of Emma and to an extent Jane Austen made me compare it to this. Even though people have their place in society, no one in particular looks down on the help. The Marquis is quite sympathetic to Marceau, looks out for him, and even asks his advice. Andre and Octave are friends despite the former’s status as a national hero and the latter’s limited means. The servants all dine together but they’re essentially eating the same as the people upstairs. The General is more concerned with class than any financial position. There isn’t any great sermonizing about the class differences in the house. People have their place, but they’re still people, and Renoir effortlessly shows that the problems of the servants directly mirror those of the rich guests. In effect everyone has the same struggles and we would do well to remember that.
Much of the technical achievements and the legacy of this film have been covered in great detail over the years. The segment on depth staging in Observations on Film Art is a nice little capsule of how great the mise-en-scene is. It’s reputation might make the film seem a little boring or worse that it has something to prove. I can’t necessarily explain why it’s taken me 20 years and about a dozen viewings to agree completely with it’s status as one of the all time great films. I’m not sure what it is about the film that makes me want to watch it a dozen more times, perhaps the fact that every subsequent viewing just makes it better. More is revealed and a testament to the greatest cinema is something that unveils new joys at every view. So hopefully the world doesn’t burn down tonight and we can all take a sigh of relief while watching this masterpiece about a group of entitled promiscuous people unaware the end of days is approaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment