When I am about to watch a film which some label as "the greatest film of all time" I always feel a mixture of anticipation and foreboding. My anticipation stems from the fact that I am about to experience a "classic" for the first time. The foreboding stems from my feeling that there is no way the film will meet up to that high expectation. To call something the "greatest of all time" is to make it nearly impossible to approach with the right expectations. I'll never forget the first time I watched Citizen Kane. I was so excited to finally see the "best film ever made". I finished the film with a deflated feeling. Was it good? yes, but it was hard to think of it as the "greatest of all time". I had a feeling last night that The Rules of the Game would end up making me feel the same way. This French film from 1939 has been hailed by critics as a supreme masterpiece. Based on the synopsis, I did not see how this could be possible. The plot centers around a country estate wherein several members of the French aristocracy face many trials and tribulations with regards to that time honored of human emotions: love. It didn't seem like anything new or epic in scope and it didn't seem like the sort of canvas upon which a "masterpiece" could be painted on. Yet, the Rules of the Game defied expectations; it truly is one of the greatest films ever made.
The greatness of this film for me lies not in its biting social commentary of the French upper class on the eve of WWII, but rather in how absorbing this film is. The film brings you into its world so adeptly that after it was over I had to remind myself I had never actually lived in that house or known any of those characters. Today's blockbusters seek to bring people out of there ordinary world all the time. This summer I joined a gang of mutants, fought apes that could talk, and traveled through space with Chris Pratt, but none of these experiences was as engaging as the Rules of the Game. A lot of this has to do with the director, Jean Renoir's, use of the camera. It is a camera so free in its movement. In many scenes the people who the frame focuses on will change multiple times. This sense of fluidity creates a reality, a society, in which all of these people interact. The characters are well developed to be sure, but the film is focused more on their world than any specific character. To my mind there is no real hero in this film. There is no one who the audience is supposed to "root for". This further focuses the viewer on the society as a whole.
The realism is further created by having several scenes in which one can hear characters talking over one another. In some sequences many different actions are carried out at the same time. Many films of this period focused action on only one or two characters in a scene, but here the whole point is that many actions are taking place. Again this creates a world for the viewer rather than a narrative.
It is all so expertly shot that one can forget the marvelous dialogue which is spoken in the film. The script is razor sharp and each of the many characters feels unique. It is at moments funny and deeply tragic. I think that this mix of emotions helps to make the film all the more real for the viewer. At times we want to laugh and at others we are disgusted.
I think that some may read this and then see the film and be disappointed. That is inevitable when one lavishes such praise on a work. I think that seen in context it is difficult not to recognize the Rules of the Game as a great film but seen out of context I could understand, just like with Kane, how it would underwhelm some people. Nevertheless I wholeheartedly recommend giving this film a try and experiencing one of the greatest masterpieces cinema has to offer 5/5!
