Purely Joyful Movie!

Powerful

best movie i've ever seen.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I have watched this film a couple of times throughout the years. While being very familiar with most of the films of Renoir, this is one that always received a lot of praise, that I despised. In terms of film craftsmanship, it's very well made. This is a reason why Renoir has a lasting legacy and his name prevails many decades since the film's completion. The style and technique used, could easily fool many people that this was produced in the 50s. But, as we all know, style does not make movies great.Boudu is a detestable character. Where this film strongly misfires is when it fails to properly have us identify or empathize with Boudu himself. Boudu in a nutshell, is a homeless person who tries to commit suicide. Upon being saved by someone who is genuinely concerned for his well being (unlike the rest of the paper thin bourgeois depicted in the film), he is given free room, board, and given food and clothing. However, Boudu is flat out, a scumbag. He is disrespectful, mean-spirited, is tyrannical the way he tries to destroy the kitchen, destroys clothing, and borderline rapes one of the female servants. You can argue it was later consensual because they got married, but any man that is groping a woman while she slaps his hands away and in the previous scene RAN AWAY from him, displays very borderline sexual behavior.Then in the end of the film, after marrying this woman he conveniently fell in love with (exposition anyone?) he fakes a drowning and after discarding his Pygmalion clothing, puts on his traditional trampish clothing and continues on with life.What a great guy! So, let us review what a likable and great character Boudu is. Destroy property of others? Check. Groping and molesting females against their will? Check. Borderline raping a woman? Check. Marrying a woman only to fake death to continue on with your selfish ways? Check. The list could go on and on. This is why I never found this movie to be enjoyable or a "classic" (which has be hailed so by simply because of being in the Criterion Collection imo). After watching this film, it's a poor send up of the upper class values of France, and really, who would want to entertain Boudu in their household? He'd probably wipe his dirty body on your blanket, break some of your dishes, spit in your floor, and possibly rape your wife. Charming fellow!

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.

I really enjoy watching old Michel Simon films. When I find one of his films, I always QUICKLY grab it and watch it as soon as possible. That's because even if the film isn't that great, his performance is always very interesting and quite unusual. My favorite film of his is Drôle de drame (1937), but he did several others that are among my favorites.Well, once again Simon's performance makes this film worth watching. While in this case his acting is NOT subtle or perhaps as high quality as he's done in other films (it's a bit over-the-top), it's fun to just turn off your mind and watch the silliness. This film will not change your life and is a pretty insignificant film but still good to watch nonetheless. I think, for me, the reason I didn't enjoy the film more is that the character of Boudu is a pretty awful person and I just couldn't buy that he was such a sexual dynamo that he was able to make these women forget how crude, selfish and disgusting he was just by turning on the old libido! So my verdict is that this is a good film that you can watch only if you suspend disbelief. Oh, and I forgot to mention, director Renoir did a great job on the film. For a 1931 French film, the sound and camera work are superb--something you DON'T see in many other films from this country until the later 1930s--he was truly ahead of his time.