Sight & Sound-Off: #4 - 'The Rules of the Game' and '8 & 1/2'

With wealth comes privilege, and entitlement, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the films featured at number four as part of Sight & Sound's Best Films of All Time list.

With privilege comes perspective. Of course, it's almost always self-serving and insular. F. Scott Fitzgerald argued that the rich are "different", and for the most part, the famous writer was right. Stripped of all the everyday cares that come with most of life (money, property, class), they tend to concentrate on meaningless minutia. It's as if they have to invent problems in order to seem more 'normal', more 'real'. Now, granted, this tends to be a gross overgeneralization. One imagines a world of wealthy people who scoff at the superficial complaints of their brothers and sisters in affluence. On the other hand, the media loves to make out like greenback bandits, bashing the prosperous and the well-healed because of the perceived disconnect between those who have... and the rest of us.

Nowhere is this truer than in film, which finds seemingly divergent and energetic ways of making the affluent pay of their particular lack of selflessness. In fact, we can look at the two choices sitting at number four on Sight & Sound's recent Best Films of All Time list (Rules of the Game overall, the previously cited 8 & 1/2, now for the directors) to witness such a wide aesthetic swatch. As noted before, Federico Fellini's semi-autobiographical statement about an artist in freefall doesn't dwell on the mechanics of making movies as much as the spoiled man sitting at the middle of this amazing fictional career. Trying to balance things between a wife, mistress, producers and the press, our harried hero escapes, running away in hopes of finding perspective, and the reason he is having such problems.

For Jean Renoir, the issue was far more frightening. While Rules of the Game is often cited as one of the first "modern" movies ever made (from subject matter to cinematic approach), it's real purpose is as social commentary. As the son of the famous painter, Renoir knew privilege. He also felt a tremendous burden to rise above such selfish ideals. He ran away from the snotty boarding schools he was sent to, and suffered injuries while serving in World War I. It was there that he discovered cinema, and with his father's blessing, pursued his dream of being an artist. Instead of working in ceramics, as his dad suggested, he decided to work in celluloid. By 1937, and the release of Grand Illusion, he was an international success.

He was also a scandal. The rising tide of Nazism in Europe saw Illusion banned in Germany, with propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels calling it "Cinematic Public Enemy No. 1". With Rules, he hoped to get away from the more naturalistic approach he had been taking and, instead, emulate the opulence and style categorized by the films coming out of America. Fashioning a simple romance over a party-filled country weekend, he stayed away from direct criticism. However, in the carefree, calm, complicity of the rich characters at the center of the story, Renoir denounced his countrymen (and women) as ready, willing, and able to turn France over to Hitler, just to save their skins. While there is no obvious sign of such indirect treason, the entire movie mocks a group who would allow war and death to occur, as long as their status remained secure.

Of course, audiences who saw themselves reacted badly, causing the government to stand up and ban the film as "demoralizing". Renoir was not happy, and would spend the rest of his life angry at his homeland. Even today, it's not hard to comprehend the backlash. Set among the idyllic countryside outside Paris, Rules of the Game is a weird combination of genres. On the one hand, you have the standard contrivances of a he/she courtship, the filmmaker forcing his hand with all the moon/June joys. It's the fringes, the places where you aren't looking, where Rules redefines its position. Take the mid-act bird hunt, captured in an amazing combination of edits and mise-en-scene montages. As they callously cut down nature, taking pleasure in the death they decry, we get the age old idea of self-centered superiority and class cluelessness.

Fellini is not as obvious in his condemnation, though something similar happens in 8 & 1/2. Though he supposedly is based on the filmmaker himself, Guido Anselmi seems to lack his source's lust for life. Instead, the downtrodden director wants to blame everything but himself on the problems. He sees his lack of creativity as caused by the past...and the present. The lack of harmony in his home life is as much a result of his wife/concubine combination as it is a desire to indulge in everything his celebrity has to offer. As a character, Anselmi is like the rich folk in Rules. They don't deny their place as much as wonder why anyone would deny them such. The means of getting there may not have been typical, but once they are on the pedestal, they feel entitled to do what they want.

That's the key word: entitlement. It's something that's carried over the many decades since Rules arrived and Fellini found his idealized idiosyncrasies. In both films, we have characters for whom the everyday world, as we see it, no longer exists. Parties become lavish outpourings of power, while a man who basically makes things up for a living can run away and enjoy a tryst and time away from the problems that plague him. We react in kind, looking at their lives and simultaneously wondering what it would be like within a psychological "how dare they" framework. We long for a life free of financial worry, yet both Renoir and Fellini argue that the troubles that come with wealth and position can be just as destructive...and damning.

That both movies can move past the obvious insularity of their subjects and strike us as emotional and authentic speaks to the talent of the men behind the lens. Both Renoir and Fellini find ways to turn the private predicaments of their privileged characters and turn them a tad universal. Before long, we no longer feel we are watching a spoiled filmmaker or a group of elite Reich sympathizers. Instead, Rules of the Game and 8 & 1/2 use their narratives as a knowing dissection of their discordant parties. On the one hand, it is clear that wealth provides a bubble of obscured reality that reduces even the most right thinking person to a thoughtless troll. Sure, we can act the same. But as Fitzgerald warned, it's this difference that defines the rich...and out aesthetic approach to same.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.