Robin Wood wrote that there are many similarities between Renoir's
The Rules of the Game (
La regle du jeu) and
Grand Illusion (
La grande illusion). Wood states that in both films Renoir discusses the differences between people and what keeps them apart. "'How to belong, how to meet'--another way of putting it is to say that Renoir's perennial concern is with the boundaries; that keep people apart and the possibility of transcending them. The four-part structure [of both films] enables him to develop this theme through a network of shifting, interlocking relationships presented consistently in terms of difference and the overcoming of difference." He says of
Grand Illusion: "The film's basic assumption--that 'difference' is socially constructed but so thoroughly internalized and so strongly institutionalized as to be very difficult to overcome..."
Think about the characters in each film and their relationships, and in 3-4 well-developed paragraphs discuss how they overcome or don't overcome their differences. Think cinematically, as well as narratively.
Bonus points (10): Add one well-developed paragraph that discusses a film you've seen (either in class or on your own) that examines differences and boundaries between people and how the director presents this theme.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Jean Renoir’s films “The Rules of the Game” and “Grand Illusion” class is a major theme and an effect on all of the characters. The plots of the films are very different; “The Rules of the Game” is a comedy of manners that explicitly deals with class and how it prevents people from ever truly being happy, while “Grand Illusion” is a war prison-break drama that deals implicitly with the ideas of class. The way that class is presented in each of the films is slightly different. “The Rules of the Game” presents class as a meaningless order that does nothing more than separate people, however, there is no real difference between the supposedly different people. The lower class of 1930s French society in “The Rules of the Game” acts no differently than the upper class. The lowly maid Lisette cheats on her spouse just like the sophisticated Christine de la Chesnaye does, and accordingly they are both shown in a hard lighting and the same angle (eye level) so that there is no cinematic difference between them, with the camera judging them the same way; the only difference between them is in the plot and the class structure within it.
ReplyDeleteIn “Grand Illusion” the rules of class are not as outwardly negative. In “Rules of the Game” the separation that class brings about is bad plain and simple, however, these class separations are also just within the French people. In “Grand Illusion” the idea of class is taken a step forward by encompassing the French and the German people. The French aviator Captain de Boeldieu and German aviator Captain von Rauffenstein are both aristocrats brought into the First World War. Although there are definitely some negative connotations, there is something almost majestic to it: the two men are on opposing sides of the war, one German and one French, yet they have a mutual respect for one another because of their class, and Rauffenstein actually cares for Boeldieu like he is a human being and not just another prisoner of war. However, this cannot be said for Rauffenstein and his treatment of the poorer, lieutenants, Marechal and Rosenthal. When Marechal, Boeldieu, and another prisoner are brought in front of Rauffenstein there is a jump cut to Rauffenstein as he is sitting down, which highlights the importance of this specific part as well as the awkwardness of the situation (and Renoir’s view of class itself). As Rauffenstein is shown from a lower angle than Marechal, this highlights his supposed superiority. Likewise, Rauffenstein and Boeldieu are both shown in eye level shots when they are talking in private to show that they equal to each other – at least in their view. Camera angles are always a way to convey how the audience is to view a character with low angles meaning superiority and high angles meaning inferiority. However, the camera can also be a biased view as well; such as in this scene when it is clearly the opinion of the two characters that they are equal to each other. The audience does not necessary agree with this and the director might not either, or the direct may employ this tactic for ironic purposes. When Boeldieu risks and eventually gives his life to save the two lieutenants that he has befriended he is shown at a much lower angle than Rauffenstein, who still believes that he and Boeldieu are worth more than those of the lower class.
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteNone of the characters in either “The Rules of the Game” or “Grand Illusion” are able to overcome the idea of class and the rules and ideals that accompany it. All of the characters in “The Rules of the Game” end up miserable or even dead, and the same could be said for “Grand Illusion”. However there is one example that makes “Grand Illusion” different from Renoir’s latter film which is that one character does break this “class barrier”. “Grand Illusion” deals less specifically with class and since “The Rules of the Game” was made after it this may show Renoir’s increasing frustration with how people conform to a class-ruled society, and also his readiness to expose it to the world.
Renoir and his films “The Rules of the Game” and “Grand Illusion” have clearly made a lasting effect on contemporary cinema and his deconstruction of class has inspired many films. One film that deals strongly with the idea of class is Peter Medak’s aptly named “The Ruling Class”. The film revolves around the life of a young Earl Gurney who inherits the seat in the House of Lords when his father dies. However, Gurney is convinced that he is actually Jesus Christ. Even though Gurney is clearly insane he is blissfully ignorant and happy in his life, but his ruling class family quickly conforms him to higher society ways. Gurney does a flip as he takes on his seat in the House of Lords and convinces himself that he is in fact Jack the Ripper; he goes on a killing rampage, murdering woman of the upper class in the style of the famous murderer. The film is as sharp a satire as any of Renoir’s films, but the film has a more tongue-in-cheek tone to it. In this way Medak is more so making fun of English society at this time than Renoir’s expose like films. Also unlike Renoir’s films Medak studies only one class instead of a comparison of two and how they interact. But like Renoir, Medak very seldom uses close ups and prefers the use of wide shots as if showing the audience through a window how the other half, the upper ruling class, lives.
Between Renoir’s films “Rules of the Game” and “Grand Illusions there was definitely the connection between the two about having a plot that is based around relationships, but both of the films had a different way of portraying its relationships. “Rules of the Game” I felt had a more confusing ,behind closed doors type of relationship plot because there were many love triangles that I felt were viewed only from the audiences perspective, but nobody knew about it from the outside world. It may have seemed as though they were very obvious of their love triangles, but I think that the director did that for the audience to help them understand the ties. The one thing that was different between these two films in regard to the emotions of the relationships is that in “Rules of the Game” it seemed as if the characters involved in these relationships were happy with it, even though they might not have been with the one they married.
ReplyDelete“Rules of the Game” didn’t really have much of a class differentiation, especially between the multiple relationship triangles. The only differentiation that I found was between classes, but it wasn’t obviously brought out to be noticed by the audience, and that was the affair between the maid who was considered a lower class, and a man that was portrayed as being upper class. The main technique used to show the class differentiation between these two characters was the wardrobe. All you see the maid wearing is her uniform, but the man that she is in love with has a classier, well dressed image. Other than this differentiation, overall in this film it showed that the lower-class and the upper-class can have the same intentions, and I think this was risky at this time to publicize this because a lot of the films at this time were based off of upper-class citizens, and rarely showed the true reality of life.
“Grand Illusion” was another film that had the idea of a relationship as its basis of the film. There wasn’t only female-male relationship, but also an unexpected relationship was built between the two soldiers, one is French and one is German. This was really surprising for the viewer because these men are fighting in the war, but they are not on the same side, they are actually against each other but they end up excepting each other for human beings with a personality and not just a person that just so happens to not be from the same part of the world that he was. These two men didn’t engage in any deep relations, but they did become friends, and this has to do with the idea of class in this movie. In this film class was a little more noticeable just because the emphasis was put on it because of the fact that they were “enemies” of war. Besides this relationship, there was also a relationship that was built between one of the soldiers and a woman that took them in as they ran away from the camp. The expressions and lighting in the scenes that have these soldiers, this women and her child always seem to be happy moments for the women and her child. Even though these men may have considered set in a class ranking, at this point this women and her child are at a higher class ranking than these two men since they currently are run-away’s that have no home or family. The fact that this women took these lower class men into her home and welcomed them, they ended up changing her life and when they had to leave it was a very sad moment for all three of them, which I think goes to show that class doesn’t matter and that money doesn’t make a person and I think that that was the point that Renoir was trying to make in these two films, and also that just because you may be considered upper class, it doesn’t mean that you are perfect…
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJean Renoir is a famed French film director, who wished to expose the glaring problems with mid-twentieth century European society, specifically the severe class distinctions. In both his 1937 WW1 film Grand Illusion and 1939 satire Rules Of the Game, Renoir drew on these seemingly immobile classes for inspiration. Both films highlight the willingness for people in upper classes to dominate those below, while illustrating that at their cores they are really no different from one another.
ReplyDeleteIn Grand Illusion the idea that status brings people together is at the core of the story. Captain Rauffenstein, a German aviator, and Boeldieu, a French officer, are on completely opposing sides of the war. However, both men are members of the aristocracy and thus treat each other with an almost warm respect. This is demonstrated by the scene in which Boeldieu and Marechal arrive at the camp of which Rauffenstein is in charge. As soon as he sees Boeldieu, Rauffenstein shakes his hand and expresses his condolences. He then proceeds to brush off the two officers who belong to a lower class, this explicitly demonstrates the importance he puts on status. Rauffenstein’s feeling of superiority is portrayed not only through the dialogue in the scene (by which it is clear that Rauffenstein favors Boeldieu) but also through the cinematography. After the initial conversation, the camera pans with Rauffenstein as we walks towards his desk. The movement of the camera as it follows Rauffenstein implies that he is the person in a position of power, both because of his aristocratic status and position of domination over the frenchmen. His power is further highlighted by the composition of the shot at the end of the pan, with Rauffenstein in the middle of the frame, as if to draw the viewers attention. The other men have their backs to the camera, implying their submission. This shot also serves to strengthen the idea of separation between the classes as Marechal and the other lower class officer are together towards the left of the frame, while Boeldieu, a member of a higher class is alone at the right. Boeldieu’s separation from the other two officers is further demonstrated, at least in Rauffenstein’s eyes, through the placement of Boeldieu behind a painting of an important military figure. Boeldieu has a similar appearance to this man, whom Rauffenstein admires enough to have displayed on his desk, implying that Rauffenstein has respect for Boeldieu. This respect is made even more evident as Rauffenstein gives Boeldieu the pamphlet before the others and nods as he does so. Throughout the film, Rauffenstein and Boeldieu are also frequently filmed so that they take up the same amount of the frame, equalizing them even further. Although Rauffenstein treats Boeldieu with respect, he looks down upon the officers who belong to a lower class, despite them having the same rank and ethnicity as Boeldieu because even in a state of war, class prejudices are hard for people with an inert feeling of entitlement to overcome. Despite the seemingly inflexible nature of class structures, Boeldieu breaks the norm as he realizes that the aristocratic class is on the decline and is thus able to befriend the officers of lower classes, most notably Marechal. Although it is easier for Boeldieu to identify with Rauffenstein, he does not disregard his fellow prisoners, but instead helps them. He is not as fixated on class as Rauffenstein is, and even sacrifices himself so that two men of a lower class may escape, something Rauffenstein would never have done. As such, Grand Illusion demonstrates that while class does influence ones life and interactions, it should not define them entirely. The tendency for class to become someone’s singular focus is something that Renoir clearly frowned upon, as implicitly stated by his portrayal of Rauffenstein in the film.
CONTINUED:
ReplyDeleteRules of The Game is another film in which class plays a large role, but unlike Grand Illusion in which different classes remain largely separated, Renoir wished to use this film to demonstrate that people were frivolous regardless of class. This is demonstrated most notably by Christine and Lisette, two women who, despite belonging to different classes, are very similar. Narratively, they are both unfaithful to their husbands, implying that moral “class” does not coincide with higher status. The two are further equalized by the film’s mise-en-scene as demonstrated by a scene before the infamous bunny slaughter. Both women are clothed in black and have curly hair, this draws the viewers to their physically similarities, thus implying that they are similar in other respects as well. Both women are also illuminated in high-key lighting, causing them to produce very few shadows. This equalizes them morally, which was Renoir’s implicit statement that all classes were becoming equally corrupt at this time. However, there are distinctions made between the classes in this film as well. The members of the Working class are seen doing what their name implies, and although some of their actions are just as morally reproachable as the upper class (infidelity etc), the very fact that they do have to work and are forced to eat separately etc. makes them easier to sympathize with, especially when compared to spoiled aristocracy with outrageous salt specifications. However, Renoir did not portray either group in a very positive light, implying that all of society was corrupt. This made it easier for the main aristocrats to befriend those in a lower class, as demonstrated by Christine joking with Lisette and Robert helping to hide Marceau from Schumacher, while still being aware of their higher status. Although the aristocracy in this film were technically “superior” to the servants, their behavior was not. This serves to make a mockery of a corrupt system as Renoir used class in this film, not to highlight one groups superiority over another, but to present France in a realistic fashion, with class distinctions creating an arbitrary and inconsequential divide.
In both Grand Illusion and Rules of The Game members of different classes are able to bridge the gap and treat each other with respect and admiration, with Boeldieu dying to save Marechal and Christine feeling love for Lisette. However, through the narrative and cinematography Renoir keeps the viewer from being able to forget that different classes exist, implying that class discrepancies are something that will be ever-present in society. Another film which delves into the ability of social class to separate and cause hasty judgments is The Titanic, however cliché that may seem. Class is the very essence of the film, beginning with the mise-en-scene. There is an enormous difference between the ornate, almost gluttonous cabins of the first class passengers which is juxtaposed with the cramped rooms of third class, barely big enough for bunk beds. The costumes are similarly oppositional, creating an obvious distinction between the two classes. As is typically the case, most of the aristocracy looks down upon the third class citizens, both figuratively and literally as the poorer passengers are confined to a lower deck, and never bother to get to know them or even pay them common courtesy. This reinforces the sharp class divisions present in the 1900s. However, two people in this film are able to overcome their inherent differences and ultimately find love, much to the dismay of Rose’s close minded wealthy family. This demonstrates that deep differences in upbringing and social standing do indeed create a sometimes impassable divide, but there are always exceptions.
Part of Jean Renoir’s cinematic genius was his uncanny ability to emphasize class struggles in contrasting fashions. Although his films “The Grand Illusion” (1937) and “The Rules of the Game” (1939) contain basic similarities in chronological structure, and both center around issues of class in society, Renoir’s portrayal of class and social boundaries is remarkably different.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Grand Illusion”, social class is frequently discussed straightforwardly by all social classes throughout the film. However, it is important to note that “The Grand Illusion” chronicles officer’s lives as POWs rather than the experience of the common POW soldier. Thus, the viewer is already confronted with an invisible class line. The film pays very little attention to soldier’s of lower ranks and because of this, the audience must recognize that a majority of the discussions of class that take place throughout the film are conducted by those who are highly ranked within the military. Regardless, within this high ranking military society there are men who are of lower social class. The most prominent of these men to the plot of the film is Lieutenant Marechal. Marechal is the classic proletariat; hardworking but distrustful of aristocracy. At one point in the film he mentions to Lieutenant Rosenthal that he “never really feels at ease with Bouldieu” despite their numerous escape attempts and apparent social camaraderie. While it remains unclear whether the feeling of unease is mutual, de Bouldieu always appears to be cordial yet slightly aloof towards his lower class coutnrymen. In contrast, when dealing with fellow aristocrat, Captain von Rauffenstein, he is warmer and seems to be more comfortable. This feeling is certainly mutual in von Rauffenstein who verbalizes his opinions regarding class in a much more candid nature. When the German captain requests Bouldieu’s word of honor that there are methods of escape in the room, Boeldieu questions why he did not ask for Marechal or Rosenthal’s word. Mildly, Boeldieu states “It’s as good as [our word].” and with a polite yet skeptical expression von Rauffenstein replies “Perhaps,”. Furthermore, von Rauffenstein and Bouldieu are both aware that their class’ reign over society is coming to an end. Bouldieu is more accepting of this end whereas von Rauffenstein seems regretful, however as Bouldieu lies on his deathbed von Rauffenstein bemoans his new “futile existence” in society and Bouldieu agrees that death is “a good way out”. In “The Grand Illusion” class and its associated natures are shown to be more inherent rather than prevalent throughout all society.
“Rules of the Game” portrays class in slightly more lighthearted nature. Rather then pigeonhole members of society into certain behaviors based on class, Renoir presents a setting in which infidelity runs rampant throughout generations and society with little regard for boundaries. For instance, Lisette and Octave carry on an affair in Paris regardless of their obvious differences in class. Social boundaries are crossed with surprising ease, as demonstrated by the implied relationship between the regal Christine and Andre, the daring aviator. Nonetheless, outsiders are still scorned. For instance, when Robert, Christine’s husband, tells his mistress, Genevieve that he wants to end their relationship, she warns him that Christine (who is Austrian) will never be able to understand him like a Parisian women would. It is also important to contemplate, as Flora discussed earlier, the way that Renoir characterizes Lisette and Christine. Both women are unfaithful to their spouses and appear to find some comfort in their mutual infidelities to the point that they can laugh at their marital missteps. However, throughout their relationship it is clear that Christine is the dominant force; this is appropriate according to the film because unlike “The Grand Illusion”, social class is still relevant in the society of “The Rules of the Game”.
Renoir’s films “Rules of the Game” and “Grand Illusion” in fact have many similarities. Both deal with the fusion of classes, the differences of people, and boundaries. Rules of The Game dealt heavily with the idea of fusion of different classes. This fusion was mostly through intimate relationships between men and women of the same race. In Grand Illusion however the focus is more on boundaries and the differences of people. The boundaries, having been mainly between the French prisoners and the German soldiers, were not as frequently crossed as those in Rules of the Game.
ReplyDeleteIn Rules of the Game the characters seem to have no shame in their scandals, considering that by the each and every one of them become publicized. While portraying the obscene affairs of many women of that time, Renoir also reveals the intentional disregard for the separation of classes. Christine the main character was the first person to get caught having an affair, yet it seemed to be taken light of, by her and her husband, as they talked casually about
Jean Renoir’s most influential addition to film was perhaps the implicit and explicit portrayals of class within society. In both “The Rules of the Game” and “The Grand Illusion,” these controversial themes explore the affects class can have on a group of individuals and its power to bring people together, as well as tragically destroy them. Although both directed by Renoir, these two films show remarkable differences when dealing with the same subject matter. In the end, both film’s implicitly scrutinize the fact that class should not be a dominating force within society, however, there will always be an invisible line separating groups of people.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1939 film, “The Rules of the Game,” class is displayed as a meaningless boundary amongst an old group of friends. Since the film is infused with acts of infidelity between clear class differences, it is revealed that class is merely just a silly ideal of society that Renoir disagrees with. For example, Lisette, the maid, is having an affair with wealthy Octave, showing a very distinct divide in class. They disregard their differences and only recognize the feelings they have for each other. This shows that these societal divisions are easy to cross and were not taken seriously during the 30’s and 40’s in France. Also, the similarities between Lisette and Christine are too closely related not to notice. Even though within the plot they are from much different areas of society, cinematically they are presented no differently. When the two women are together in Christine’s bedroom, they are both bathed in the same surrounding mise-en-scene, lighting, camera angles, and even have similar costumes. The fact that these women can openly joke about their marital issues and affairs creates for a more satirical and whimsical presentation of Renoir’s thoughts on class. This more deeply explores the notion that although society’s labels may separate them, they are no different after all. Even though this aspect is a very prevalent part of the film’s narrative, harsher ways of looking at class arise within the end of the film. As news on all of the affairs breakout around the hotel, people get increasingly angry and hurt, one even ends up dead. The ending reveals how even though in some situations (such as minute, meaningless affairs) these people can overcome their differences, issues of class will never be truly resolved and they will always be divided.
In “The Grand Illusion,” ideals of class are much more explicitly presented than in “The Rules of the Game.” Even though de Boldieu, a French officer, and von Rauffenstein, a German officer, obviously have racial and ethnical differences, they still remain esteemed colleagues. Despite the fact that they are aristocrats on completely opposite sides of war, they see themselves aristocrats nonetheless. They both greatly respect and engage with one another pushing back their differences and overcoming the racial divisions that are present in society. Even though there is still a clear divide, Marechal, a French mechanic, is even in camaraderie with these esteemed soldiers. Although throughout the film there are noticeable differences between the classes of men, the lines dividing them become quite hazy. For example when de Boldieu sacrifices his life just so members of the lower class can escape. This is something that Rauffenstein would have never done, revealing Renoir’s opposition to class’ affect on the way it makes people treat others. In the end, this shows how although class is an unfortunate yet very relevant aspect of society, it can not be the end-all be-all when forming relationships. Renoir wanted to show how class can be a very dangerous part of society, but inevitable after all. Both films demonstrate what can happen in a society trapped by the divisions of class, and implicitly show Renoir’s encouragement for people to push past these barricades and overcome their differences.
ReplyDeleteAnother film which examines the impact of class division in society is Richard LaGravenese’s “Freedom Writers.” This film focuses on the power class has specifically on teenagers and how it is a huge problem within the way they perceive each other and themselves. This theme is explored through the relationship between the teacher and students. As Hilary Swank’s character dressed in an expensive suit, pearls, proper speech, and confident demeanor enters the classroom full of underprivileged students, there is a clear class division. The students welcome her with a less than friendly attitude and give her no respect only because of the obvious racial and societal divisions between them. As the film goes on and as the teacher and students learn from each other, the divide in class are overcome in a cinematically and narratively beautiful way. They build an admirable relationship which demonstrates that even though contrasting upbringings often create extensive divisions amongst people, sometimes it can be overlooked.