I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Just perfect...

Great Film overall

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Renoir's almost-lost pre-WWII demoralizing comedy is the introductory piece invites me for a first glance into his everlasting cinematic legacy. After numerous reconstruction, the extant version of THE RULES OF THE GAME is nearly intact, the narrative circles around a bourgeois couple Robert de la Cheyniest (Dalio) and Christine (Gregor), who invite their friends and kins to the countryside château for a leisurely sojourn, yet it is an acrid send-up of the callousness and duplicity of French society at that time, an exceptional chamber drama which anticipates the likes of Altman's GOSFORD PARK (2001, 9/10) and Woody Allen-esque moral satires. Among the guests, there is André Jurieux (Toutain), a heroic aviator who has just accomplished a record-breaking transatlantic flight, he is greatly enamored of Christine, and his relentless courtship would stir up her unresponsive veneer. Meanwhile, Robert's mistress Geneviève (Parély), whose presence also ups the antes of the hysterical dramatization in the film's climatic running-and-chasing farce. Upstairs are in a ridiculous imbroglio, downstairs is no peace either. Christine's young maid Lisette (Dubost) doesn't resist the flirt from a newly-recruited poacher- turned-servant Marceau (Carette), while her jealousy-driven gamekeeper husband Edouard (Modot) determines to shoot the brazen libertine. During the al fresco scenes, the quasi-non-fictional shots of hunting-for-pleasure segment bears witness of Renoir's sleight-of-hand as an avant-garde adventurer as well as the elegant progression among a simultaneously-conversing large cast, the château under his hands, is closer to a labyrinth than a regal residence. Buffoonery aside, the film ends up with an unannounced tragedy based on mistaken identities, which would vexingly evolve into one of the most clichéd antics in the narrative tactics. But here, the incident transcends the fluffy tonality running on and on for 90 minutes, and from which derives a pungent bitter taste when all the courtesies are shed in front of viewers, it is only an inconvenient interlude, everything must return to status quo.A commendable cast indeed, Gregor is a far cry to be young and attractive, but shimmers with self-regarding aloofness, Dalio is effeminate and a caricature of the decadence of his class, Carette and Dubost strike more naturalistic than others, and Renoir himself plays Octave, a plump friend of Christine and André, how he gets out of Christine's brother-zone is perplexing, but it is him who inadvertently dodges the bullet on a whim to adhere to the rules of the game, so the sole scapegoat is the one who is too upstanding for the game, the film scores the bull's- eye and the irony is all in-your-face!

This farce about love, flirtation and decadence in the upper class society was too much for the rich and famous when this Jean Renoir film premiered in France before the outbreak of the second world war in 1939. The film got bad reviews, and some of the angry viewers trashed interiors, and on of the premiere cinemas was fire lit with a newspaper by an angry cinema goer. Obviously one from the aristocracy, and no wonder they were upset. Because in this film Renoir ridicules the rich and famous in a way that must have been provocative.After a rather insightful, but still rather static start, where we get to see the importance if radio and mechanical playing dolls and music boxes, leading up to when we meet the whole ensemble at a big mansion party, where also a madly-in-love pilot is maneuvered in thanks to help from a friend. The weekend is about hunting rabbits and women, and eventually men. The film winds up like a bad party, with crying and a messy love/jealousy lite night when the whole party is going to pieces. Still it ends, in a way, quite happy.The film is, of course, very 1939, but has remarkable quality, though it was thought lost, as both the original rolls were bombed to bits during the war, as well as most copies were burnt both by the French haters, as well as the German occupiers the following years. They also hated the film for more than one reason. Some copies was found 17 years later, which made it possible to restore all, except one scene, according to Renoir himself.The film ridicules also the light hearted and easily scared and hysterical women (this is why women tend to like this film less than men), though it's really the men which I think come out silly here, the Jews and also have a couple of other things we today actually would find non appropriate. But then this was back in 1939.Jean Renoir plays one of the more significant roles himself, as the guy bounding the whole charade together. It's easy to see this film has influenced many later film makers and novel writers in many countries. I find many scenes which resembles scenes I've seen before in films which has come out far later. I would even count in late films like Von Triers "Melancholy" and some of the great ensemble films by Robert Altman. So you could surely say this is essential, and is also often used as a film reference for film students.After the slow start, the film really rolls on to be significant and a cut above most if the Hollywood films from the same time era. The instruction and acting is the thing assuring this. It doesn't hurt that the film was regarded as a provocation to the rich back then, and the same to the Nazis. A classic!

Regle exemplifies one of Renoir's stylistic systems - the famous one. For Braudy, it is the system concerned with realism (as opposed to theater). I tend to agree with the distinction, but also with some criticism against the thesis which objects to the formulation being either reductive or simply a misnomer. Closeups are two-shots, mobile framing and the long take constructs space unobtrusively, obstructions in the mise-en-scene support unobtrusive camera positioning, staging/blocking is uneven creating a natural arrangement, doorways and arches provide hints at offscreen space, little-to-no reframing or shot-reverse-shot prevents psychological identification and multiple characters get equal treatment through direction and the scenario on the whole. There are some interesting production notes for Regle, including that Renoir was about the last choice to play Octave (others like Michel Simon were unable to play the role) yet scenes like the car crash are auto-biographical for Renoir (the death of Pierre Champagne). Many apply a Kracauerian thesis to the significance of Regle and are wrong to do so. The film is less concerned with class politics and the "paralysis" of bourgeoisie to appreciate the threat of fascism as it is concerned with events on a micro level that are beyond the influence of the players connected to them. "Everyone has their reasons" is a concession and confession for Renoir who understands that people do what they can and what they must as they pass through life but that these disparate social actions cannot always be consolidated into an orderly and fair 'oneness'. This is the essence of comedy and tragedy for Renoir. "Everyone has their reasons" connects with Renoir's personal philosophy of the cork in the stream. Later (in Elena and her Men) the expression is retold as "everyone has their plans" underscoring that Renoir is flexible about his application of philosophy to human nature (hence equal development of two stylistic systems across his oeuvre). For Renoir, humans are compulsive creatures who wear masks to manage internal and external truths. The working class Schumacher is the most inept at managing his mask and also acts in the most reprehensible manner. His German surname is likely intentional as a comment on the rise of Nazi fascism, however, Renoir spares no social class in his critique of mismanagement of the self onto the social. The chaos that ensues is both comical and tragic. As Renoir asserted, the horizontal and vertical boundaries are illusory and will become obsolete as people realize that their internal truths are unique and external truths are false. The 'rules of the game' are that whoever you are, the management of a masked external self is imperative and at the same time false thus leading to compulsive behavior that cannot be calculated and whose results cannot be predicted. This is the gift and curse of life. Fortunately, we have more to be conscious of because of Renoir sharing this wisdom with all of us.

I begin to say that if the killing of animals we see in the hunting sequences are real this movie must be utterly condemned for cruelty against animals and I would refuse to rate or comment it. Therefore the rating and review I am doing here is in the supposition that these killings are feigned. Thus beyond this I think this is a good movie that can be called precisely what its great French director Renoir called it: a cheerful drama. The story takes place on the eve of World War Two and shows a corrupt society living in strong moral decay despite the appearance of good manners and usages. In a aristocratic castle a hunting party is organized and we can see a lot of intertwined adulteries not only in the aristocrats' and bourgeois' society but also in the society of their servants. Renoir treats this with real mastery but in a somewhat light and not too deep way which though while done with his great talent masks the dramatic features a bit superficially. This movie was a commercial failure when it was released in 1939 and only much later and not long ago has it begun to be considered one of the greatest films ever made. But after its release it was even banned by the French government as "demoralising" and "unpatriotic". War was already in the offing then.