3,5 Don't know what neoclassical gauge of stern virtues the erstwhile bourgeoisie used to judge itself against or projected outside as desired appearance to cause the film raise such a ruckus back then, but I could bet the situations mounted here would warrant a class's confused and endearingly maladroit humanity nowadays. It persuades one for a spell that the 'gaya scienza' of relationships is a truly French affair.
В фильме всегда разбавляют жестокость юмором, интонационно облегчают собственный пессимизм, но с более или менее пронзительной ясностью хорошо отдают себе отчёт в том, что описывают закат мира.виртуозности в использовании глубины кадра, длинных планов, сложных и плавных проездов камеры, превращающих театральную декорацию в последовательную смену пространств, через которые, как в маскараде, дефилирует целое общество
Quite innovative in terms of cinematography, being an ensemble piece and containing dialogue that doesn't necessarily move the plot along but adds to the realistic nature. In the beginning, it's quite cluttered and has too many moments of characters talking about other characters. However, the slapstick fight and Andre's death at the end are quite powerful. Also, Renoir is a great actor.
57/100 (Birinin çıkıp şuna kötü demesi gerekiyordu. Yılına saygı duyup puanların arşa çıkarmayı kesin artık. Aslında son 20 dakikaya kadar 8/10 luk bir potansiyel varken son 20 dakika malesef sıçıp batırıyor. On tane tesadüfün bir araya geldiği berbat Türk komedi filmlerinden oluyor. Eleştirmek istediği hususlar mantıklı, kamera açıları yılına göre değişik ancak bunlar hiçbir şey ifade etmiyor. Devamı yorumumda...)
I know it is the type of film I should love - a neglected film that was removed from the public in twenty years - hated and booed at the premiere, but somehow I just can't see to warm up to it. It is probably a film that demand repetitive viewings in order to appreciate it. Great decor and costumes and it's sharp dialogue was the highlights for me, but maybe I just wasn't in the right set of mind this day?
I tought I was in for a tale of class struggle;turns out the criticism of the bourgeousie is very tame.(Maybe it wasn't at the time.) It's a story about love & the conventions around it.Didn't like the plot much-too many implausible developments.Also didn't care about the dramas of the characters;they weren't developed enough.I know this was groundbreaking, but I just couldn't get into it.Great camerawork,though
Un film ou plutôt une "fantaisie dramatique" qui passe de prime abord pour une comédie légère et vaudevillesque et qui porte au fur et à mesure un regard beaucoup plus incisif sur cette petite société aristocrate. Les plans et mouvements de caméra soulignent d'ailleurs ce regard et dénoncent la cruauté et la froideur de ce monde.
A perfect film. A rare comedy with incredible depth of characters and a simple but complex story. They are all very colorful and well acted characters. It is hilarious, sad and extremely entertaining. The dialogues are meticulously well written and the camerawork really immerse you into this interplay of characters "stealing" each other's wife. Lying is one of the rules of the game
Seen on 35 at the Metrograph, and I realized for the first time how much, quite apart from a rich masterpiece, this is also a robust audience movie. What does it mean? First, that pure heroism has no bearing in how we lead our lives. Second, that upper- and lower-class people are both human beings like anyone else. Only, when "accidents" happen, one side will have to pay, and one won't. Them's the rules. Essential.
'La Règle Du Jeu' is a film written with fire. Renoir not only paints a meticulous, diabolic portrait of his characters; his constrained use of graceful closeups (faces with shimmering eyes on glossy, blurred backgrounds) makes us fall on our knees, as our hearts start to burn and we can't help to fall in love with man.