(France/Italy 1954 103m) DVD1
Aka. Only the French Can
Tobacco, sheep and roses
p Louis Wipf d Jean Renoir w André-Paul Antoine ph Michel Kelber ed Borys Lewin m Georges Van Parys art Max Douy
Jean Gabin (Henri Danglard), Françoise Arnoul (Nini Olympe), Maria Félix (Lola), Jean-Roger Caussimon (Baron Walter), Anna Amendola (Esther Georges), Dora Doll (La Genisse), Giani Esposito (Alexandre), Franco Pastorino (Paulo), Michel Piccoli (Captain Valorgeuil), Philippe Clay (Casimir), Lydia Johnson (Mme Guibolle), Edith Piaf,
Much has been made of the comparison between Jean Renoir’s exquisite billet doux to the Montmartre of his father and the eponymous show palace of Baz Luhrmann’s revisionist Moulin Rouge. Essentially, Jim Broadbent and Jean Gabin are playing the same person, but you can forget all thoughts of comparison, because Renoir’s film was always looking back, and encouraging his audience to do the same. Even then few in his audience could recall the real Moulin Rouge, they knew it mainly through the art of Toulouse-Lautrec and through the numerous reincarnations of that immortal dance to Offenbach. Renoir had been there before, of course, with his 1926 silent of Nana, and the period had also been evoked in his sublime Une Partie de Campagne. Partie had evoked the outdoors of the French countryside so beloved of his father and the Impressionists, where Can Can revels in the theatricality of the infamous pleasure dome with its iconic windmill façade.
Appropriately the plot is a flimsy one, centring around Danglard, the middle-aged theatrical impresario who’s been through more women and more enterprises than he has shirts. His current squeeze is exotic dance specialist Lola, who has numerous other admirers, including Danglard’s principal backer, Baron Walter. When Danglard takes an interest – at first purely professional – in a pretty young laundress, Nini, and tries to make her the principal attraction in a new revamp of the old cancan for his newly acquired theatre, Lola throws the proverbial fly in the ointment, and ensures the jealousy of Nini’s baker’s son lover Paolo. Eventually, Danglard and Nini becomes lovers, but at the expense of their enterprise, doomed until a love-struck foreign prince comes along.
The photography by Michel Kelber is so exquisite as to seem like the old Impressionist masters brought to life, and the sets have a delicious artificiality that evoke Montmartre through the rose-tinted spectacles of memory. Danglard is an institution of a character, an ageless but paradoxically ageing Casanova flitting from one delectable bird’s nest to another. A man fascinated not by women per se, but by the public presentation of his vision of femininity. Much wreckage is left on the wayside, principally in the guise of Esposito’s hauntingly lovesick prince and Pastorino’s big-baby jealous lover, but the principal pain is given to the women. There’s the imperishable Félix, queen of Mexican cinema, who’s a delight from start to finish, with her voluptuous figure barely contained in period negligees and a tantrum of Callas proportions seemingly always ready to burst forth. Gabin, reunited with Renoir two decades after their immortal thirties collaborations, is as iconically stylish as ever; even in his fifties, he can pick and choose his girl, but let’s remember him as he is at the end, recalling Warner Baxter in 42nd Street, tapping along to the music of the dancers from his prop throne backstage. Yet if I remember it for anyone above all, it’s the lovely Arnoul, previously seen in states of semi-undress as young sluts in Forbidden Fruit and La Rage au Corps, but here both vivacious and achingly tender under Kelber’s caressing lens, the colour bringing a flush to her cheeks and her sad eyes seemingly predicting her ultimate romantic disappointment. But then, as Broadbent’s variation on Danglard knew, she also knows “the show must go on.” And what a show it is, the exhilaration of the final cancan rarely matched on film. It’s what everyone remembers it for, but in truth, it’s merely the garter on the dancer’s stocking. Admire the whole delectable leg, Messieurs, and of course the faces. Those lovely faces.
Bonjour! Allan Fish, Sam Juliano, and WitD readers…
Allan Fish, said,”Danglard is an institution of a character, an ageless but paradoxically ageing Casanova flitting from one delectable bird’s nest to another. A man fascinated not by women per se, but by the public presentation of his vision of femininity…”
Hmmm…After reading this quote from your review…the character Danglard (Jean Gabin) kind Of, remind me Of Maurice Chevalier’s character (Honoré Lachaille) in Vincent Minnelli’s Gigi…
…By the way, the writer for my blog Andrew Katsis, also reviewed this film and in the end…I think that he reached the same conclusion that you, reached here: “Appropriately the plot is a flimsy one…” about Renoir’s 1954 film French Cancan…(Aka The French Can)
Once again, a very interesting, very detailed, and very honest review Of a film that I will seek out to watch too.
“It’s what everyone remembers it for, but in truth, it’s merely the garter on the dancer’s stocking. Admire the whole delectable leg, Messieurs, and of course the faces. Those lovely faces.”
Oh! oui, the French Can-Can is a “cute” dance, but on the other hand, with me being a very independent (minded) person and a person who try to be honest, but tactful, person this comment also remind me Of a paper that I once read entitled “Your Gaze Hits the Side of My Face”…The author/artist comments “on the male gaze in her artwork and what she is saying that the viewer only looks at one aspect of the artwork, in this case, the side of the woman’s face.” and how women are (sometimes) viewed as objects to be admired and to quote from the article…
“The same can be said for the male gaze, in that the viewer is only looking at one aspect of the object being viewed. They are only seeing the woman in one way. Rather than seeing a female as strong, independent, or intelligent, she is portrayed as an erotic object, valued only for her physical beauty and loyalty to a male figure. They only see the value of a woman as far as it pertains to the pleasure of the man. Women who don’t fall under this category, who dare to break the traditional mold, are looked down upon as “catty outcasts” who get what they deserve in the end…
…In another of her artworks, They Blind Your Eyes and Drain Your Brain, the artist examines how women are forced to take on the male gaze as well. Instead of seeing through their own eyes and thinking their own thoughts, females must see the world through male eyes. To be successful, she must understand how the male sees the world, and adapt to his vision…”
I Of course agree with the comments that I just quoted,but Of course…this is just a “lone” Mademoiselle opinion…about women, men, and art…whether it’s pertaining to films, paintings, and sculptures…etc, etc, etc…
…Merci, pour le partage!
DeeDee 😉 🙂
This is a very great comment here Dee Dee of a noteworthy film by one of the cinema’s most gloried artists! Nice to bring in the references to Katsis too!
+++The photography by Michel Kelber is so exquisite as to seem like the old Impressionist masters brought to life, and the sets have a delicious artificiality that evoke Montmartre through the rose-tinted spectacles of memory.+++
The one who comes to mind is Auguste Renoir for obvious reasons. I love Renoir, but have not seen this film. The comparisons to Moulin Rouge are interesting, though we know which film you like better.
Just beautiful. Love your description of the immortal Felix. Thanks to your critique I want to see this again.
Your account is an aptly warm spotlight upon a masterful slice of the Belle Epoque and its percolating toward unimaginable adventures.
Fantastic shot!!
Which one? 😉
A wonderful movie, memorably evoked here. Probably my personal favorite Renoir. And I agree with Alan, that is a great shot. You know perfectly well which one. 🙂
Coda (I didn’t remember that I’d commented on this already): isn’t it amazing how the world Renoir captures on film in the era of color film, television, fast cars, and rock ‘n’ roll is one he could have been brought to as an infant? I think one of the reasons there were so many rich, great works of art and artists in the first half of the 20th century (roughly speaking) is that these people had experienced so much, just by virtue of being people alive in the most rapidly changing, and tumultuous, era in history.