Partie de campagne (1936) Online

Just how unfinished "Partie De Campagne" truly is remains something of a contentious issue. There are countless differing theories and opinions, some of which seem to have been instigated by the director himself. There are those, this reviewer included, who believe Renoir originally intended this film as one-half of a double feature of Guy De Maupassant adaptations. Whatever might have once been planned, however, does nothing to soften the radiant beauty and brilliance of the film.

Renoir had collected around himself a group of friends and family in the hope of creating what he later described as a "holiday" atmosphere during the scheduled week of filming. In accordance with the story on which it is based, long summer days and balmy afternoons by the river banks were called for in Renoir's script. Unfortunately, the cast and crew were faced with a damp, dismal July which continued long into August. Cramped up in the lobby of the hotel, sheltering from the storms outside, personal tensions and rivalries soon inevitably surfaced. With the months continuing to pass and little to show the financial backers in the rushes, money became scarce. Eventually, after refusing Sylvia Bataille's request for leave so she might audition for a future project in Paris, the director himself nonchalantly announced he would be abandoning the film to concentrate his efforts on his next film, Les Bas-fonds.

Considering all of the above, it is miraculous that the film we see today is such a luminous, sensual masterpiece.

Much is made of Renoir's use of deep focus techniques in films such as Le Regle de Jeu and La Grande Illusion, quite rightly so, but it is also used to great effect in this film. The film's early scenes largely take place inside a rural inn. Renoir keeps the camera mostly in one place, stationary. Then, suddenly, a window is opened; light floods in, we see trees, a breeze blowing lightly through grass, a young woman and her mother arcing high into the summer air on swings. Now we cut to a close-up of the girl, with the camera fixed to the swing, an accomplice to her every movement. She is laughing, ecstatic, exhilarated by her surroundings. It is an exhilarating moment in cinema, the sudden infusion of life and nature into the film echoes in the viewer's mind throughout the short running time.

Renoir is a great film-maker, perhaps the greatest of all, and this is a great film, perhaps his greatest of all.

My prep school could hardly be described as being particularly sophisticated or advanced regarding the arts but at some point I benefited from a projected showing of Renoir's Une Partie de Campagne and the beautiful, romantic, sentimental and sad imagery and story got under my skin and has remained there ever since. I probably saw it when I was nine years old and I am now thirty five. I haven't seen it since but I can still see moments and sequences clearly in my minds eye. Certainly a child is a blank canvas and liable to be more influenced by something than an adult - I am just glad that amongst all the rubbish I was exposed to, someone thought fit to show something this beautiful to me at that moment.

Partie de campagne (Jean Renoir, 1936) is one of the great unfinished films. Usually such projects exist in tantalising snippets because a director snuffed it before realising his vision, or failed to get a movie off the ground due to short-sighted financiers. In this case, Renoir quit because it kept raining. Admittedly it rained for much of a six-week shoot, but even so... Happily, the 40-minute Partie de campagne doesn't seem unfinished, with an intriguingly-paced three-act structure that works just fine and a heady summer atmosphere that stands as perhaps the most inspired example of its director's quiet lyricism. It's an often breathtaking pastoral film, creating a fully-realised rural world a la Tol'able David and Louisiana Story into which to throw our protagonists.

Sylvia Bataille is Henriette, a Parisian girl who decamps to the countryside for the weekend with her parents, her grandmother and her fiancé. There, she and her mother (Jane Marken) encounter a prospective-family-man-cum-intense-romantic and his caddish mate, who sweep them off their feet and onto a pair of rowing boats. But this is 19th century France, and the ties that bind won't slacken just because someone's fallen in love.

The film is gentle, entertaining and sometimes very funny, benefiting from superb performances by Bataille, Marken and young romeos Georges D'Arnoux and Jacques B. Brunius, a luscious musical score composed for its 1946 release and Renoir's effortless, transcendent handling of the material. Its coda is absolutely heartbreaking: the perfect wrap-up for a film that's shot through with unshakeable conviction and a tangible love of the countryside. Renoir's fondness for Bataille's expressive, elfin face is just as obvious - he would return to it later the same year in his fascinating serio-comic polemic Le crime de Monsieur Lange. A set piece here that sees her guilelessly embrace the pleasures of a swing is slight but somehow unforgettable. Elsewhere, Renoir's script matches the exalted treatment, encompassing as it does themes of nostalgia, teary joy and the essence of being.

But Partie de campagne does have one - perhaps major - flaw, so bizarre as to be unintelligible. That's the presentation of the father and the fiancé, Anatole, as music hall imbeciles. The younger is particularly ridiculous, resembling a young Stan Laurel as he repeatedly squawks and wobbles his bottom lip. For that matter, the dad looks not unlike Oliver Hardy. Really odd. Perhaps Renoir, adapting Guy de Maupassant's novel, is making a satiric point about the unredeemable unsuitability of the young couple, or the ineptitude of Parisians cast adrift several miles from the big city, but it's a directorial decision that's never really justified.

Still, that's the only gripe about this amazing piece of work, which largely hums with brilliance and ultimately stands shoulder-to-shoulder with La grande illusion as the director's greatest achievement.

Trivia note: That's Renoir himself as the restaurateur, Poulain.

Unfinished,this is a one of Renoir's most remarkable works.As far as Guy DE Maupassant is concerned,only Max OPhuls's "le plaisir"(1951) and Christian-Jaque's "Boule de Suif" (1950)equal it.

This is apparently a very simple story:a couple of bourgeois (Jane Marken and Gabriello) ,their daughter (Sylvia Bataille) and her less-than-handsome husband leave for a day in the country (title).There the young girl meets love ,short-lived happiness.

Beneath the placid surface,tragedy emerges.The beautiful landscape,the simmering water,the whispering grass,the swings which seem to reach for a pure sky,the small fish you savor in the guinguettes down by the river,the thrill of it all!The young girl's longing for true love is harder to endure in such a peaceful paradise.This is one of these rare movies in which you experiment happiness tinged with an infinite sadness.

A whole sequence is missing:a card explains the events which were not filmed.Sylvia Bataille's last line(to the man she fell in love with) will make you cry out:"I've been thinking of it every day".Woman has always been sacrificed in Maupassant's work.At a running time of 40 minutes,a lot of people claim it for Renoir's best though.I do.Claude Renoir marvelously conveys Maupassant's depictions with his pictures.

Day in the Country, A (1936)

**** (out of 4)

Incredibly touching and extremely beautiful film from the French master Renoir. A Parisian father takes his wife, mother-in-law, daughter and future son in law on a trip to the country where they plan to have a picnic. While the men fish two gentlemen with not-so-innocent plans take the women on a canoe ride. I've been looking to see this film for quite sometime even though the reviews I've read have been rather mixed. I personally found this film to be incredibly beautiful and I'd probably put it as the greatest French film I've seen. The peacefulness of the country that Renoir brings to the screen is quite breathtaking and he really does capture the freeness of being out in the middle of no where surrounding by silence. I thought all of the characters were very well written and the dialogue suited each of them perfectly. A lot of times all the characters sound the same but I was very please to see how different each of them were. The film runs a very short 40-minutes but Renoir throws everything into the picture. This includes terrific laughs and some very heartfelt moments towards the end of the movie. The film also features some very beautiful cinematography including a terrific sequence near the end where the river is shown with rain drops hitting it. Another great sequence comes early on when the two men are inside the diner and push the window open to reveal what's outside. This scene works even better thanks in large part to the terrific score by Joseph Kosma. All of the performances are great but Sylvia Bataille is the real standout as the daughter who is going to encounter and lose love over the span of a short evening. Jacques Borel is also worth mentioning as the womanizer who adds a lot of the comedy to the film. I've heard various stories about the short running time. It seems Renoir never go to finish the film but to me the running time is perfect and it's amazing what the director does capture and show in the short time.

There are rare and fleeting moments in film history when one is suddenly given a glimpse of the specific beauty of the medium. This sort of ephemeral beauty can only be expressed by the marriage of temporal and spacial (and some may include auditory) elements that is singular to film. One such moment is the storm sequence in "Une partie de campagne." I saw this film once, several years ago, and yet the haunting poetry of that scene still sticks in my mind vividly. Combined with the intense love scene which precedes it, and its contrast to the overall frivolity of the narrative, makes it the most beautiful film of one of film's greatest directors. If you get the chance to see it, its well worth your 40 minutes.

This movie is a beautiful looking one and is like a day in the life of of a family on their summer holiday on the countryside, somewhere in early 20th century France.

The movie is filled with some unexpected contrasts and metaphors. The movie in now way can be called a formulaic one and it picks its own path with its story. This ensures that the story is both realistic as well as unexpected in parts.

The way how the movie ends is in large contrast with the rest of the otherwise happy and cheerful beginning of the movie. It has a summer holiday look and feeling over it, in which the main characters, from the big city, are obviously enjoying the beauty and quietness of the country life. You would expect the love story to unravel as a romantic one but the romantic first encounter really doesn't go as often gets portrayed in movies. I must say that the movie is just like life and it doesn't try to bloom things. But perceptions differ, as can be also seen in the final sequence of the movie, in which the events of that one summer day in the country left a big lasting impression on the girl.

What Jean Renoir does really well is capturing the right mood and atmosphere of the movie. Even though I obviously wasn't around in 1936, it still feels all very familiar and pleasant. Of course the movie gets helped by its country side environments, which gets captured perfectly on camera.

Not all of the actors were real experienced professionals, which can be seen back in their performances but overall this shouldn't trouble you to much, since Jean Renoir perfectly knows to tell the story with its images and character behavior, rather than relying completely on the actor's skills.

I wouldn't go as far as calling this Renoir's best but it's nevertheless a great, humble, realistic, honest, warm portrayal of life.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A 40 minute fragment of an unfinished movie which Truffaut describes as a cinematic short story, about a picnic in the country.

Renoir movies are always idyllic visually - like beautiful cinematic paintings, but Partie de Campagne is particularly idyllic. For some reason Renoir really wanted us to feel that we were in the country. This is his most visceral movie: he really takes you into the landscape in a way he does not usually do. Usually we merely sit back and admire it - here we are shown some gorgeous images of rain on the stream from the view of a boat on the water. The bottom half of the frame is virtually in the water we're so close to the action.

My favourite parts of Renoir movies are when he goes out on location (which he did quite a bit) and shoots wonderful scenes in nature. Here we have forty minutes of pure natural beauty (with a group of characters added for colour). I'm not sure that if Renoir continued with this project it would have retained enough interest over a two hour length - most likely its merely the central episode of a movie. Like Kubrick, Renoir made his movies up from several big, beautiful chunks. This applies most to Grand Illusion, so perhaps this sequence would never have been intended to supply enough dramatic interest for an entire story, but for lovers of Renoir, here are some of the most beautiful things he ever filmed. If you've never seen a Renoir film, the first experience is always the best, and it might be spoiling you if you start with this one, but it would be a beautiful introduction to him.

When I see lists of the supposed 'great films', I often wonder some films makes these lists and others do not. Two films that often make such lists and make professional reviewers drool are a couple shorts which I'm not even sure belong on any such list--since they are SHORT films! While good, the films seem to be considered among the greatest works of art as well--and I just don't get it. Both films are French and I have no bias against French films--in fact, French films are probably my favorite of all the international cinema. But, I still can't see why "Zero for Conduct" and "A Day in the Country" are considered such amazing films--especially "Zero for Conduct". Yet, I know that many sophisticated people would immediately assume I'm a Neanderthal for not loving these films!

As this review is specifically about " A Day in the Country", I'll confines the rest of my comments just about this particular short. I see that it's currently rated 8.2 and as I said above, makes many 'must-see' lists. While I might agree that it should be on a list of the top 100 shorts, you can't seriously compare it to a full-length in my opinion for many reasons. First, the film seems like a fragment--without the completeness or structure you'd find in a 'normal' film. Second, director Renoir himself intended to make a full-length film but only stopped part-way through the project because of time constraints--there was too much rain and he had to wrap up filming! While I think another film, "Fitzcaraldo" is a bit overrated, at least Werner Hertzog went to hell and back to get this incredible film made--yet Renoir gets a pass when he just calls it a wrap!

So is this a bad film? Certainly not! In fact, it's one of the most artistically satisfying shorts I've ever seen. The combination of music, great camera work and restrained acting make this a lovely piece of art. But, with a woefully incomplete story and not much plot, I just can't take the film as serious as some have. Good, yes. Great, no. It's well worth seeing--just don't try to convince me it has achieved greatness or should be compared to traditional films.

Although "A Day In The Country" is a lovely, lyrical film I was disappointed to learn that it was never completed. Indeed, there is a gaping hole toward the end of the film which, if finished, could have answered some plot questions. And so, we must draw our own conclusions and try to fill in blanks. As you would expect, it mars the final product.

As is, it is a snippet of life fleshed out by the master director Renoir. Human feeling seems to be his strong point, humanity in all its strengths, shortcomings and foibles as illustrated by his depiction of a family picnic in the country. We are eavesdropping on them, almost. I wish he could have finished it.

A man, Monsieur Dufour, his wife, Juliette, his daughter, Henriette, her fiancé, Anatole, and the grandmother go the country for some fishing and a picnic. Two men, Rodolphe and Henri, take one look at the wife and the daughter and decide to knock off a quick piece, although they have some disagreement as to who gets which one. They manage to distract the husband and the fiancé by lending them fishing poles while Rodolphe and Henri each take one of the two women out on the river on a couple of rowboats. Henri, the one who paired up with the Henriette, had some misgivings about getting her pregnant and ruining her life, but he finally decided to screw her anyway. And it didn't take him long, about five minutes after he pulled the boat to shore and sat her under a tree.

It must have been pretty steamy for the both of them, because they are still thinking about how good it was years later. For some reason, Henriette marries Anatole, whom she no longer loves once Henri has had his way with her. In fact, we wonder if she ever loved him, because she sure didn't seem to. But maybe she finally had to marry Anatole anyway, for the same reason that Henri feared.

The word is that Jean Renoir, who directed this movie, never got to finish it, so maybe that is why we never find out how Rodolphe made out with Juliette. But as Rodolphe pointed out to Henri earlier on, when women are married, you don't have to worry about getting them pregnant.

The family of a Parisian shop-owner (André Gabriello) spends a day in the country. The daughter (Sylvia Bataille) falls in love with a man (Georges D'Arnoux) at the inn, where they spend the day.

This simple film, less than 45 minutes long, is now available thanks to Criterion. Who can say no to Jean Renoir in the 1930s? So many of us are preoccupied with American comedies of the era, we forget that other countries exist. And this one at a time that France was just about to be invaded by Germany!

Although her career spanned over 20 years, this would turn out to be Sylvia Bataille's most memorable role. Renoir never finished filming due to weather problems, but producer Pierre Braunberger turned the material into a release in 1946, ten years after it was shot. Braunberger was right to release the film.

Adapted from a Guy de Maupassant story, A Day in the Country is a short 40 minutes film is, in fact, just a part of a movie that Director Jean Renoir didn't finish. The opening lines tell you the reasons why. It stars Sylvia Bataille as Henriette Dufour and Georges Darnoux AKA George Saint-Saens as Henri. They meet by chance when Henriette's father (Andre Gabriello), a 19th century Parisian ironmonger, borrows a cart for a trip into the countryside. He's joined by his wife, Juliette (Jane Marken); his daughter; her fiancé, Anatole (Paul Temps); and his mother-in-law. Stopping at a small riverside restaurant, they are charmed by a pair of local young men: Henri and Rodolphe (Jacques Brunius). the mother has a harmless flirtation with a rural "rake," while the daughter has a more serious liaison with a handsome young man. The two locals offer to row the women down the river to see more of the countryside while their men rest and go fishing. Rodolphe, who has been lusting after Henriette since he first saw her, now has her in his boat and is prepared for action. Henri, concerned about what might happen to the girl, makes a deft switch, giving Madame Dufour to his friend and taking Henriette in his own boat. This movie is somewhat chilling. There seems to is suffused with such an overpowering sense of reality that watching it can make one feel a bit like a voyeur and lustful. The way the men plan their way to get to Henriette is predator like, even kneeing down in the grass watching them picnic like lions hunting. Also the way Henri makes his move on Henriette near the river can bother the audience as we're not sure if he rape her, or made love. The way, Henriette looks at him, near the ending shows fear, but we're unsure if it's the fact, she leaving, or what Henri did to her. This is where the film ends: Fourteen years later, the same family vacations at the same spot. The handsome stranger returns, hoping to renew his affair with the daughter; unfortunately, the girl is now married to a dull, insensitive jerk. The two former lovers ponder what might have been. Renoir had planned to film scenes depicting what happened in the years between the two holidays, but he closed down production due to an acute "creative block." For this reason, although the film was shot in 1936, it wasn't released to theaters until ten years later. For its American distribution, Day in the Country was bundled together with two other short European films -- Joifroi and the controversial The Miracle -- as the portmanteau film The Ways of Love. Sadly this movie will be more likely seen in film or art school, then at home. It's a great movie to study art. Many people say that Renoir's films mirror his father's art looking at the impeccable riverbank shots in this masterpiece. This is artistic filmmaking at its least pretentious and most absorbing have never been more moved by anything in the cinema. It is, despite the cliché, a moving poem and painting and does more in its forty minutes dealing with humanity and all its flaws and vulnerabilities than any other work of art. Renoir transformed Maupassant's cynical view of sexuality and the bourgeoisie with his own more generous and affectionate vision of humanity and changed Maupassant's jaundiced view of the countryside into a rapturous ode to nature. Profoundly loving, forgiving, gentle - above all, immediate. You can excitement of the lovely day ahead, feel the warmth and greenness and the flowing river and the beginning of love. Magnifique! Merci pour ce petit bijou

A lot of people make a point of calling attention to the fact that "A day in the country" is an unfinished film, cut short by bad weather conditions and a lack of sufficient funds; I feel that these filming disruptions and hastily put together ending, actually contribute more to the film than whatever was originally planned. Henrietta, her mother, father and fiancé, all head out for a day in the country; when they arrive at their destination Henrietta's father and fiancé go fishing together, while Henrietta and her mother enjoy the company of two men who live in the country. Henrietta, based on dialog between her and the man, seems to truly fall in love with the man she meets. The film, hastily finished, due to the aforementioned reason, is in my opinion a blessing in disguise. While the director took this movie as a chance to show off, the beauty of the French country side, the short length of the film, kept the scenery from overpowering the story line. This plus the abrupt nature of the films end, really served to show, that the main characters pain at not being able to marry the man she loved, was simply indescribable. That true pain such as that could not be faked, so they were not even going to have an actress try to portray it, instead by ending the film when they did, they allow the audience to interpret the ending however they wish. Placing their own thoughts and feelings upon Henrietta and imaging how they would feel if they were in her shoes. All in all the film was not bad, the scenery was lovely, the actors seemed to know just how to act to be in harmony with the scenes used, and while to some the film may seem unfinished I believe the correct choice was made in allowing the film to be published, as is.

Well.. if you ignore the last couple minutes and final developments, it is probably a contender. IMDb lists this 80-year-old movie as a drama, but really the only drama in the first 35 out of 40 minutes was the guys deciding who's going to pick which girl. People from the city spend some time in the countryside to relax and some bachelors who live in the countryside quickly take an interest in the females. They spend a nice day in the green and I could almost smell the fresh air through my computer screen. This film was written (adapted from a Guy de Maupassant short story) and directed by Jean Renoir, son of famous painter Auguste, pretty much in the middle of his career and he also played a part in this black-and-white movie. All in all, it was a very chilly watch and the female protagonist (Sylvia Bataille) was truly stunning. I think I recommend taking a look at this one, but make sure you find subtitles if you're not fluent in French.

Plot: On a day out in the country, a city girl is pursued by two young men.

Review: This was a pleasant, short piece, with little moments that almost anyone can relate to. The general setting is a city family's outing to a countryside inn. The father tries to make out he's an expert on everything they see, the mother is more concerned about ants climbing into her underwear, the grandmother falls asleep with a kitten on her lap, and the daughter plays on a swing. Two local lads immediately engage in their favourite sport – girl watching, and the girl (Sylvia Bataille) quickly attracts their interest. After vying with each other for her attention, they quieter of the two boys finds himself alone with her and they share a passionate moment.

As the movie rolled by, it did not make an immediate impression as anything very special, but an unexpected bitter-sweet twist at the end helped explain why this short is held in high regard, in spite of being unfinished. Renoir had to abandon the movie because of bad weather and a commitment to another piece of work, but the pieces he'd shot were later put together to make a complete and coherent tale. It may be all the better for it, as I wouldn't have been so interested in sitting through a longer version, as good and more polished as it might have been. Very 'French' in tone, worth a look at if you get the chance.

www.thebestmovieof.com

I'm quite surprised at the uniform comments so far to this film. It is an interesting film I admit, and many film-scientists have analyzed and praised it, BUT: Isn't the "peak" of this story a rape scene? The daughter obviously plays an innocent virgin and being on a swing or in a boat is all she wants. Her mother on the other hand is quite "deprived" for her allusive request to her heavy husband to quickly go together behind the barn, gets turned "down". But here we have 2 other bored youngsters: One is a show-off Casanova, the other (as it turns out later) only seemingly disinterested in the game of love. This game is exemplified through the (male) sport of fishing. Now the climax is very skillfully displayed through the water and the upcoming storm metaphor, but the foreplay is quite politically incorrect: Numerous "touch-and-kiss-attacks" from the part of the guy and the numerous "shoving-aways" by the girl doesn't seem to stop him or take "No" for an answer. Eventually of course, she gives in, and many years later she tells him that it was and ever will be the happiest moment of her life. It smells like macho fantasy to me, where No from a girl means Yes! and that especially virgins need to be forced into the introduction of sexual pleasures. Well, possible, but still, what if not?

This short film is, in fact, just a part of a movie that Jean Renoir didn't finish. It shows the central part of the project. In the nineteen century, it shows a city family on a vacation on the countryside. A young peasant fell in love with the girl of the family, who was to marry an old man. This is a very beautiful movie, with poetry, charm and wonderful natural settings. At the end of the movie, we saw the original finale when the young woman, now marry to the old man, came back to the countryside where she once find true love. Simplicity at it's peak.

The 40-minutes may be flawed, but the following is my take on the short's quietly compelling nature.

Apparently, moviemaker Renoir was unable to complete the film. Still, the results amount to a subtle look at the seductive powers that nature can produce on sensitive souls. The story line proceeds more on tracking these poetic expansions than anything like a standard plot. City girl Henriette is immediately captivated by a lyrical expansion on her first visit to the French countryside. Sitting for the first time in the wild grass, her awareness responds both verbally and non-verbally to what is now a revealing enchantment beckoning to her. The trees, the grass, the river, even the critters that crawl. It is these moments of revelation that comprise the film's heart both literally and figuratively. And when in that same grassland, she later gives in to Henri's persistent pawing, it's like her surrender is not to a man, but to a climactic idea. To me, this is all provocatively rendered by Renoir and Co.

What's not compelling are the goofy male characters who seem to have wandered in from a Laurel and Hardy short. Then again, maybe these antics are intended as sportive comment on less sensitive souls, especially male. It also appears that their only concern is what they can extract from the natural world (fishing), not for what that world has to reveal. A partial exception is Henri. Instead, he amounts to a man somewhere between the two poles. Despite his rural background, he apparently retains a certain clouded openness. That's implied when he moves from simple sexual desire for Henrietta to a glimpse of the sublime once they are in congress together. For each, it's that moment of unity that amounts to an unforgettable experience, but one whose pristine nature can never be repeated. Thus each is left to endure a lifetime of wistful longing. The sublime thus carries a price.

Anyway, this is my take on a 40-minute film that may be flawed, but is also quietly provocative in a compelling way. It's also one I'll take with me, warily, next time I manage to backpack.

Though most people know this fact it bears repeating within the context of looking at A Day in the Country, the long-short film (though too short for a feature) that Jean Renoir directed in 1936 and released officially 10 years later, that he had blood-ties to the painter Renoir of the same name. Though the older artist had his own approach to depicting humanity and the filmmaker had his (and the latter often doing sort of gentle-but-really-not satires on how people live and interact, i.e. Boudu or Rules of the Game), there was a similar sense of, 'hey, they both want to bring out a freshness and vitality to being alive that is unique to them. And so in A Day in the Country, which is simply about two women, a mother and a daughter, who go out to have a picnic and go out on the lake and eat under a cherry tree and meet two men who basically spend their time hitting on them (and before this we see the two men contemplate how to do this), the filmmaker more than any other time I can think of uses the location and actors like a painter would.

It may also be because of the time period from the Maupassant story in the mid 19th century, but it's hard for me to shake when watching this how it's kind of like a painting from that time period (or a little after) of Renoir only done here in the flesh. When the two ladies are sitting on the grass laughing and smiling and having a feeling between total joy and a sort of latent lament about knowing this is just an escape until they go back to Paris it's shot like every little thing is artfully considered in placement: actors, where the tree is, the grass, the lighting. Ironic that the rain was a big issue and, according to him on the Criterion DVD, he had to rewrite the script to fit it (and in a way it's a good thing he did as it adds another dimension: it's not ALL sunny, and the rain can spoil a perfectly good way - or just add another level to it).

I could critique the film as not being especially "deep" and that it's mostly a gentle little dip with these characters, but that's not entirely true. I saw a lot of deep emotions with these characters and the details that accumulate by the end scene where it cuts ahead years later when things have changed for the daughter it has an impact - she marries another man who we also see here accompanying the two. There may be a lot of reliance on the music to lift things up with big swells of this or that for scenes, but mostly what makes Day in the Country so appealing is its simplicity and its spirit of gentility. There are characters who have just mildly varying degrees of sophistication, which may not even be much at all, and so when the mother character is in total delight and exuberation about something, or a character petting a tiny kitten, or how the daughter reacts when being asked by the man she's with if they can go to the shore to 'stretch their legs' (which means something else of course, kissing and getting more intimate), the reactions are totally genuine.

This isn't Renoir in satire mode; he's out to use his 40 minutes to bring us to a very pleasant but extraordinary feeling - whether he truly intended to finish this as a longer film or keep it as is is hard to say, as the Renoir of 1960 claims this version is fine the way it is. This may not mean it has the same rewatchability of a Grand Illusion but that's alright; it's like being along with these characters and experiencing things as pure views: the country IS a nice place to be in, and yet if you want to stay there for good is the question you have to ask yourself. And of course the love part of the story is another thing, but connected with this: if you really fall in love out here will it be the same as if you were in the city? It's a big, happy movie with subtle lines that are fascinating.

Wow, this sure is an amazing and epic movie, it is only 40 minutes long but is the best piece of French cinema I have ever seen. Coming right after the end of the "Silent Era" the acting and expressions are spectacular.

I loved this movie because of the irony and satire. I was also quite surprised at the sexual references, remember, this is an early 20th century movie.

Two men from the countryside seduce a French mother and daughter from Paris.

It was supposed to be a complete movie but instead, Renoir made it as a short before going to the USA.

Last week I watched Jean Renoir's 'The Rules of the Game (1939)' for the first time, and, while I quite enjoyed it, I felt rather distanced from the story, as though the film was so preoccupied with snappy characters and dialogue (as in a stage play) that it didn't bother with emotion or atmosphere, the evocation of time and place. Happily, this wasn't a problem with 'Partie de campagne / A Day in the Country (1936).' Renoir's unfinished adaptation of a short story by Guy de Maupassant gains a wonderful personality through its on-location filming. Even though we ourselves never observe the oppressive, polluted Parisian streets, Claude Renoir's outdoor photography sweeps over us with the cool and cleansing touch of a fresh breeze, somehow translating into visuals the revitalising sensation of clean country air in one's lungs. Unfortunately, it was also this on-location shooting schedule that proved the film's demise, weather problems delaying and eventually leading to abandonment of production. The film was not released until 1946, faithfully edited together using the existing footage.

Renoir's film undoubtedly feels like an unfinished work, but what exists is nonetheless brilliant. Unlike many unfinished or studio-butchered would-be masterpieces, that 'A Day in the Country' was not completed to the director's satisfaction causes minimal detriment to the sequences that remain today. The narrative up until the "ending" is perfectly-structured and enjoyable to watch, all planned sequences up until this point having presumably been filmed without incident. However, after Henri (Georges D'Arnoux) and Henriette (Sylvia Bataille) come together for the first time in a reluctant but passionate embrace, the story then jarringly cuts to a years-later epilogue, a wistful conclusion that reflects on events that seemingly never took place. "Every night I remember," confesses Henriette, as she meets her former one-time lover, having settled on marrying a scruffy imbecile (Paul Temps). But exactly what does she remember? There had been nothing in the film to suggest that she and Henri had fallen in love; this eventuality had always been implied, but never satisfactorily executed.

A strong cast – including André Gabriello, Jane Marken, Jacques B. Brunius and Renoir himself – bring lighthearted humour to their respective roles, but it is the budding romance (never quite realised) between D'Arnoux and Bataille that form's the story's heart. Following its eventual 1946 release, 'A Day in the Country' was lauded as an "unfinished masterpiece," and I suppose that such a description is appropriate. Had filming been completed, such that the story followed through its intended and logical arc, I can only imagine what a powerful piece of cinema the film might have been. Have you ever had a wonderful dream from which you were woken prematurely? This is how I feel about 'A Day in the Country.' Everything up until the hasty ending is funny, emotional, glorious, and invigorating, yet we're wrenched from the dream-like clasp of Renoir's hand unexpectedly and disappointingly. But I'm an optimist: we should simply be glad that this much of the film exists for us to enjoy. Reflecting on what might have been is a task that should ideally be left to movie characters.

The only reason I saw this film was because it featured in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. It should be said firstly that it is only just under forty minutes because director Jean Renoir cancelled filming, due to incessant rainy days, and they had only two scenes left to complete the film, but the incomplete scenes are filled with captions. So, anyway it is basically the family of a Parisian shop-owner spending a day in the country, like the title says. There is a daughter that falls for a man from an inn, and they spend time together, and then (after a caption) she is married, but it may not be to right person (or whatever). That's about it. It's short, but sufficient enough. Good, in my opinion!

> This short film is, in fact, just a part of a movie that > Jean > Renoir didn't finish. It shows the central part of the > project. In the nineteen century, it shows a city family > on > a vacation on the countryside. A young peasant fell in > love > with the girl of the family, who was to marry an old man. > This is a very beautiful movie, with poetry, charm and > wonderful natural settings. At the end of the movie, we > saw > the original finale when the young woman, now marry to > the > old man, came back to the countryside where she once find > true > love. Simplicity at it's peak.

Partie de Campagne is an enigma within Renoir's oeuvre. Many feel that it is his greatest film, partly due to a nostalgia created by its painterly Impressionist qualities and partly because of its active Potential through being a non-feature length film. The film text responds to its conditions of being quite well as the main theme posits consideration for temporality and the effects of passages of time on the lives of human beings. Partie is a pure film text and Renoir's stylistics adapt in kind. There is a group dynamic that provides natural spacing and independence while retaining linkages throughout. A great depth of field (especially through doorways and windows) provides vantage for spectators without implying transcendental subject positions. Character portrayals are genial (the Parisians are quite naive, but they genuinely praise Provincial life). Renoir makes his closeups two-shots. The camera is not very mobile and very few long takes combine to create ambiguity when juxtaposed with the shot-reverse-shot. This is perhaps the only disappointment (other than the end events of the story of course!). The swing shots remind of Fabri's Korhinta and is one of the visual and emotional highlights of the film. A beautiful montage introduces the storm that will provide the most gentle and endearing of climaxes. The storm is a bridge for the idyllic of the imagination and the complex of the real and where the river running under the bridge is itself allegorical for the experience of life.