FILMS. 4th EDItION LA PASSION DE JEANNE D'ARO Baron, R. F,""Renoirs Neglected Masterpiece: Une Partie de Maupassant's tale, it is an understandable, if mistaken, conclusion. campagne, in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Fall 1983 Published versions of the Pescatore. G, " La grana del cinema, in Cinema Cinema (bolo- further confused the issue. However, closer examination of the gna), January-August 1989 relationship between the story and the film will dispel such miscon- Webster, R M, ""Renoirs Une partie de campagne: Film as the Art of ceptions. Renoir wrote in his autobiography, My Life and My Films, Fishing in French Review, vol 64. no. 3, 1991 that when he was asked to increase the original footage to feature Tesson, Charles, "La robe sans couture, la danse, le patron, in length. he refused because he felt that it would have been Cinematheque(Paris), no 5, Spring 1994. the intent of Maupassant's story and to his screenplay to lengthen it. Magny, J, ""Partie de campagne deuxiem! " in Cahiers du Cinema Moreover, what many critics have failed to notice is that Renoir, ( Paris),no.479-80,May1994. although he adapted the events of the fiction faithfully, greatly altered Benoliel, Bernard, " Autour d Une partie de campagne, in Mensuel the story s tone, which allowed him to drop the final scenes from the du Cinema(Paris), no. 18, project incomplete Curchod, Oliver, and others, Partie de campagne de Jean Renoir, Maupassant's tantalizingly brief tale is largely satiric in tone. He in Positif( Paris), no. 408, February 1995 makes fun of the pretensions and foibles of his bourgeoisie often rather harshly: the natural setting is kept in the background; and the atmosphere of the country is diminished. Renoir not only places greater emphasis in the rural atmosphere and setting but also makes Andre Bazin, in his unfinished study of Jean Renoir, described a film that by bringing such natural elements into the foreground turns Une partie de campagne as a"perfectly finished work, one that is Maupassant's rather strident attack on the Dufort family into a com- not only faithful in letter and spirit to the Maupassant story from passionate and understanding film about unrecoverable moments and which it was adapted but also actually improved by Renoirs additions he inevitable sadness of the loss of innocence and love. As andre and refinements to the original tale. This is high praise, indeed, when Bazin has noted, such changes do improve the original. The story is one realizes that the films completion was highly problematic. Many given a resonance, the characters motivation, and the ending a poignance of Renoir's films have had checkered careers, but none was quite so lacking in the fictional source. As Pierre Leprohon has described it fusing as Une partie de campagne. Renoir originally intended to there is an overflowing tenderness, and extraordinary responsive- just as if it were a full-length film. Renoir chose a gentle, 19th-century e ss to the existence of things, and a transformation of the common- shoot a 35-or 40-minute story which he would make, he wrote later, e into the sublime. In Une partie de campagne, Renoir has tale and planned to spend a relaxed summer filming along the banks of created a poetic compression of those things that he holds dear,which the Loin near Marlotte, an area he knew extremely well. The entire is one of the reasons the film evokes such fond memories and experience should have provided him, as Alexander Sesonske has responses from its viewers. Although unhappy and somewhat ironic described it, with a""brief and pleasant respite in mid-career he ending is nevertheless not unhopeful. Life and the river will both Despite the rainiest summer in memory an extremely volatile politi- flow on and be renewed cal climate, tensions on the set and the fact that the film sat for nearly 10 years waiting for its final editing, Une partie de campagne is harles l. p. silet a remarkably fine film, some say a masterpiece: Sesonske thinks that no Renoir film seems"more unstudied, more a pure flow of life aught unaware There are sound reasons for the films critical success: it is a film THE PASSENGER of uncommon gentleness and beauty, and it forms less of a"respite See PRoFESSIONe: REPORTER in Renoirs career than a concentration of his most important themes and images: the river, the countryside, the loving scrutiny of bour- geois life. Une partie de campagne forms a poetic centre for renoir French films. Rather than a sense of diversion. the film reflects LA PASSION DE JEANNE D'ARC a completeness. Renoirs rendering of his subject matter is incisive, his style mature, his vision complete: it is a seamless work of art. CThe Passion of Joan of Arc) Many critics have called attention to the films impressionistic quality, suggesting that it is a homage to the director's father, the Fra painter Pierre Auguste Renoir. Indeed, impressionistic moments do grace the film--but for one to try to understand it as an attempt by the Director: Carl Theodor Dreyer dly underestimate the qualities of the movie. The""look Production: Societe generale des Films(Paris); black and white, of the films of Renoir fils have done much to strengthen his popular 35mm, silent; running time: originally 110 minutes, later 86-88 director of surfaces. much to the detriment of his standin as a filmmaker of depth and perception. Copenhagen. Re-released 1952 in sound version produced by Gaumont The shortness of the film also has strengthened the perception of Actualite and supervised by Lo Duca, musical accompaniment from Renoir as an impressionistic filmmaker, and many critics today still works by Scarlatti, Albinoni, Gemianani, Vivaldi, and Bach. Filmed respond to the film as incomplete, an interesting but unfinished May-October 1927 in Paris experiment. The fact that Renoir left two scenes from the Maupassant tory unshot has been used as evidence for regarding the film as Screenplay: Carl Theodor Dreyer and Joseph Delteil, from a book by a fragment, and considering Renoirs relative fidelity to the events of Joseph Delteil; titles: Carl Theodor Dreyer; photography: RudolphFILMS, 4 LA PASSION DE JEANNE D’ARC th EDITION 921 Baron, R. F., ‘‘Renoir’s Neglected Masterpiece: Une Partie de campagne,’’ in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Fall 1983. Pescatore, G., ‘‘La grana del cinema,’’ in Cinema & Cinema (Bolo￾gna), January-August 1989. Webster, R.M., ‘‘Renoir’s Une partie de campagne: Film as the Art of Fishing,’’ in French Review, vol. 64, no. 3, 1991. Tesson, Charles, ‘‘La robe sans couture, la danse, le patron,’’ in Cinémathèque (Paris), no. 5, Spring 1994. Magny, J., ‘‘Partie de campagne deuxiem!’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 479–80, May 1994. Bénoliel, Bernard, ‘‘Autour d’Une partie de campagne,’’ in Mensuel du Cinéma (Paris), no. 18, June 1994. Curchod, Oliver, and others, ‘‘Partie de campagne de Jean Renoir,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 408, February 1995. *** André Bazin, in his unfinished study of Jean Renoir, described Une partie de campagne as a ‘‘perfectly finished work,’’ one that is not only faithful in letter and spirit to the Maupassant story from which it was adapted but also actually improved by Renoir’s additions and refinements to the original tale. This is high praise, indeed, when one realizes that the film’s completion was highly problematic. Many of Renoir’s films have had checkered careers, but none was quite so confusing as Une partie de campagne. Renoir originally intended to shoot a 35- or 40-minute story which he would make, he wrote later, just as if it were a full-length film. Renoir chose a gentle, 19th-century tale and planned to spend a relaxed summer filming along the banks of the Loin near Marlotte, an area he knew extremely well. The entire experience should have provided him, as Alexander Sesonske has described it, with a ‘‘brief and pleasant respite in mid-career.’’ Despite the rainiest summer in memory, an extremely volatile politi￾cal climate, tensions on the set and the fact that the film sat for nearly 10 years waiting for its final editing, Une partie de campagne is a remarkably fine film, some say a masterpiece; Sesonske thinks that no Renoir film seems ‘‘more unstudied, more a pure flow of life caught unaware.’’ There are sound reasons for the film’s critical success: it is a film of uncommon gentleness and beauty, and it forms less of a ‘‘respite’’ in Renoir’s career than a concentration of his most important themes and images: the river, the countryside, the loving scrutiny of bour￾geois life. Une partie de campagne forms a poetic centre for Renoir’s French films. Rather than a sense of diversion, the film reflects a completeness. Renoir’s rendering of his subject matter is incisive, his style mature, his vision complete; it is a seamless work of art. Many critics have called attention to the film’s impressionistic quality, suggesting that it is a homage to the director’s father, the painter Pierre Auguste Renoir. Indeed, impressionistic moments do grace the film—but for one to try to understand it as an attempt by the son to do what the father had already done with paint and canvas is to sadly underestimate the qualities of the movie. The ‘‘painterly’’ look of the films of Renoir fils have done much to strengthen his popular image as a director of surfaces, much to the detriment of his standing as a filmmaker of depth and perception. The shortness of the film also has strengthened the perception of Renoir as an impressionistic filmmaker, and many critics today still respond to the film as incomplete, an interesting but unfinished experiment. The fact that Renoir left two scenes from the Maupassant story unshot has been used as evidence for regarding the film as a fragment, and considering Renoir’s relative fidelity to the events of Maupassant’s tale, it is an understandable, if mistaken, conclusion. Published versions of the screenplay for those ‘‘missing’’ scenes have further confused the issue. However, closer examination of the relationship between the story and the film will dispel such miscon￾ceptions. Renoir wrote in his autobiography, My Life and My Films, that when he was asked to increase the original footage to feature length, he refused because he felt that it would have been contrary to the intent of Maupassant’s story and to his screenplay to lengthen it. Moreover, what many critics have failed to notice is that Renoir, although he adapted the events of the fiction faithfully, greatly altered the story’s tone, which allowed him to drop the final scenes from the completed film without leaving the project incomplete. Maupassant’s tantalizingly brief tale is largely satiric in tone. He makes fun of the pretensions and foibles of his bourgeoisie often rather harshly; the natural setting is kept in the background; and the atmosphere of the country is diminished. Renoir not only places greater emphasis in the rural atmosphere and setting but also makes a film that by bringing such natural elements into the foreground turns Maupassant’s rather strident attack on the Dufort family into a com￾passionate and understanding film about unrecoverable moments and the inevitable sadness of the loss of innocence and love. As André Bazin has noted, such changes do improve the original. The story is given a resonance, the characters motivation, and the ending a poignance lacking in the fictional source. As Pierre Leprohon has described it: ‘‘there is an overflowing tenderness, and extraordinary responsive￾ness to the existence of things, and a transformation of the common￾place into the sublime.’’ In Une partie de campagne, Renoir has created a poetic compression of those things that he holds dear, which is one of the reasons the film evokes such fond memories and responses from its viewers. Although unhappy and somewhat ironic, the ending is nevertheless not unhopeful. Life and the river will both flow on and be renewed. —Charles L. P. Silet THE PASSENGER See PROFESSIONE: REPORTER LA PASSION DE JEANNE D’ARC (The Passion of Joan of Arc) France, 1928 Director: Carl Theodor Dreyer Production: Société Générale des Films (Paris); black and white, 35mm, silent; running time: originally 110 minutes, later 86–88 minutes; length: 2400 meters. Released 21 April 1928, Paladsteatret, Copenhagen. Re-released 1952 in sound version produced by Gaumont Actualité and supervised by Lo Duca, musical accompaniment from works by Scarlatti, Albinoni, Gemianani, Vivaldi, and Bach. Filmed May-October 1927 in Paris. Screenplay: Carl Theodor Dreyer and Joseph Delteil, from a book by Joseph Delteil; titles: Carl Theodor Dreyer; photography: Rudolph