Boudu Saved from Drowning

..sorry from the river.but it's important to bear in mind that Boudu is a metamorphosis of Legrand,the hero of Renoir's precedent work "la chienne" ,who became a tramp at the end of that movie.And like Nana in Renoir's eponymous silent movie adapted from Zola,he rose from the waters ("sauvé des eaux" is the exact meaning of the name "Mosis")to shake the well meaning bourgeoisie.A bourgeoisie where a piano is in the house because you must have one even if you do not play the piano. Almost thirty years before Luis Bunuel ("Viridiana" 1961) ,Renoir denounces the bourgeois charity ,which is a great weight off our guilty minds.Boudu is revolutionary,like Moliere's "Tartuffe" ,he squeezes Lestingois dry,but he knows from the start he will not be part of them .He refuses conventions,marriage is the worst of them all.These final sequences ,where Renoir made the best use of "blue Danube" I know (with Kubrik's "2001",but in a diametrically opposite way),are the key of the movie.Boudu looks like,at the end of the movie, like some distant cousin of Charlie Chaplin ,but a Chaplin who would have discovered cynicism.

Needless to say,"Boudu" would not be "Boudu" without Michel Simon's extraordinary presence.Such an actor does not exist anymore in French contemporary cinema.And his filmography is full of treasures.To think that he also worked with Duvivier,Carné,Clair,Decoin and so many more..

Remakes "down and out in Beverly Hills" with Nick Nolte and Bette Middler. "Boudu" ,by Gérard Jugnot,this very year. Are they necessary?

It's a movie with some more subtle humor but nevertheless it's not really a movie that could ever make me laugh, which was mostly because due to Michel Simon his very over the top portrayal of the tramp Boudu. You know, the kind of performance in which he plays his character constantly in a drunk way in an attempt to make him look funny. Also his look is far from convincing, with his fake looking beard and big wig. Hello afro! It just isn't the best or most likable character imaginable. When it comes down to French comedy from the early days of cinema ('20' and '30's) this really isn't the best the genre has to offer. For instance you're way better off watching a René Clair movie.

The movie can be seen as a social commentary to the French bourgeoisie and difference between classes. It's this element mostly that makes the movie an interesting watch. No denying that Jean Renoir was a great director who knew how to set up a story and scenes. He also always gets his point across, without having to force too much. Like always, he also in this movie uses some interesting sequences that have deeper meanings to it and the movie is filled with some metaphors.

As you could expect from a Jean Renoir movie, it's also technically a good one. The movie features some interesting camera-shots, which must have also been really original and revolutionary for its time. The editing isn't always too great however.

Not Renoir's best but it's an enjoyable enough little movie.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Boudu Saved from Drowning (1932)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

A wealthy man saves a homeless guy from drowning and then takes him into his home where the bum soon starts to seduce his wife and mistress. As Jim stated earlier I too prefer the remake Down and Out in Beverly Hills. I think the biggest problem with this film is that the homeless guy is such a jerk it's hard to really care about him and he does the dumbest things that just seem so over the top that I couldn't laugh at him either. Halfway through the movie I was wishing the rich guy had let him drown so that the movie would have already been over.

Some lightweight, Chaplainesque stuff from Jean Renoir. This is the story of a tramp who tries to kill himself and is rescued by a lazy, unmotivated bookseller. Apparently, the rescuer now feels an obligation to provide a home for this hopeless man. Instead of showing gratitude, Boudu takes advantage of everyone, projecting his coarse being in every direction. He seduces the man's wife, spits on the floor, floods the house; you name it. He also gets a dose of civilization and finds it a two edged sword. Michel Simon is awesome in the role, bumbling through life. It's hard to imagine him having enough angst to commit suicide (maybe he was just taking a bath or going for a swim anyway). This popped up as a treat on Turner Classic Movies and I was immediately hooked. I've seen most of the "big" films of Renoir. This little piece is a classic as well. See it if you can.

Grief-stricken from the loss of his dog, tramp Boudu throws himself into the river to end his woes, only to be pulled out by kindly book-shop-owner Edouard Lestingois and given shelter in his home. The Lestingois family take silent pride in the good deed they are doing in rescuing and perhaps reforming this tramp but Boudu himself seems singularly ungrateful and retains his own approach to life even now surrounded by the middle-class ideal.

I am sort of conflicted on this film in regards my take on it. On one hand it is generally regarded as a classic while also being "of its time" in some aspects – so the pressure is on me to join the "intelligent" voice of praise and also put down anything I didn't "get" to being of time and period. But then on the flip of that, the film as a story or commentary just didn't really work for me. I understand the challenge to the idea of Chaplin's genial little tramp but the message from the film is not delivered as well as it could have been and as such it didn't work that well. If the film is meant to be a dig at the pompous middle-class then it missteps by focusing so much Boudu's wild behaviour instead of making more of his inability to accept the trimmings of this ridiculous middle-class world. By not bringing out this middle-class world, Renoir prevents the viewer from doing that.

So the message then seems to suggest that some people prefer to life this wilder life and to try and change them is pointless. By my standards this is a point that I would need more convincing on and it isn't helped by being done in a comedic and farcical way such as it is. Perhaps though I am reading too much into it and it is just meant to be a broad class-clash farce? If it is then it is certainly broad because the lack of strongly formed commentary on either the poor or the middle-classes means that we get lots of aping rather than barbed physical comedy. It certainly has a light air of comedy to it that is amusing but it is rarely really funny or enjoyable.

Where the film is impressive though is in the direction. Renoir takes affectionate and "strolling" approach to his shots of Paris. Not going for full-on tourist stuff so much as he just lets Paris "be" around his film. Better still is his work in and around the house, specifically some of his shots where he films from one side of the house, through rooms and windows into the where the action is – really interesting and effective shots that prevent it feeling like a sound-stage and create the idea that this is all real. The cast are solid enough for the material. Everyone loves Simon so I guess again I am alone on that. For my tastes he is just too broad and obvious in his Boudu – he feels like he is acting in a silent movie because all his actions are big and telegraphed and he is too excessive in all aspects to win me over with rough charm. Gravval, Hainia and others are actually better as they have more grounded characters to deliver and thus have more of interest for me.

I'm open to being criticised on this because I appreciate that most people are falling over themselves to praise this and even those with issues with it seem to follow up with "but" in their reviews. However for me the story and content just didn't work and what it left was a sort of broad farce that didn't have any commentary teeth and wasn't funny or charming enough to get away without them. Technically it was engaging and impressive in the direction of the camera but otherwise I was really very disappointed with it for what it didn't manage to do.