La grande illusion

Like some other people have mentioned, why is this a classic. It’s welldirected, has two very good performances (Gabin and von Stroheim), but itwas kind of boring, seeming much longer than it was, and the anti warmessage was obvious and done with sledge hammer subtlety. Maybe back in thelate 1930s this was considered powerful, but it hasn’t aged well with time. Also we’ve had other anti war films that are much better. In fact "AllQuiet on the Western Front" came out in 1931, was also about World War 1 andis twenty times better than this! Worth seeing, but don’t go out of yourway.

Excellent casting and some fine performances. But the editing isprobably the film’s greatest flaw, especially early on in shifting fromthe French squadron to the German squadron; no transitions at all. Justplain amateurish: a grade school student with a film splicer could havedone as well. Those easily avoidable flaws reduce my rating to a 7.

GOOF: why oh why does the floral wreath to a fallen French flier havethe date "March 12, 1914." The film is set in 1916, but the wreath’sdate was five months before the war began!

GOOF: Stroheim made the greatest pistol shot in movie history: a movingman, in the dark, at 150 meters. But the French victim indicates he’shit in the forearm–certainly not a fatal wound.

I should clarify. In what is known as the first prison break film evermade, I was initially surprised at how similar Grand Illusion was tothe 1963 film The Great Escape, which is to be expected, of course,since this film probably had such a profound impact on that one (andany respectable break-out movie that has ever come out, as it were). Iwas also surprised to see that, not only does the movie move at analarmingly slow pace during much of the middle of it, but several ofthe characters come across as almost stereotypical caricatures, likethey are filling in expected roles in a formula film.

But then (and here is where it really struck me how great this movieis), before I even realized anything was changing in my mind, itoccurred to me that the combination of the slow pace and thecaricatures were almost like a cinematic justification of the pace ofthe film and the characters that appeared in it. After more and moreseemingly slow or even irrelevant scenes, you suddenly see thesecaricatures not only as characters rather than caricatures, but aspeople rather than characters.

At least as important is Director Jean Renoir’s desire to present itnot as a movie about relationships between people of differentnationalities (an understandable conclusion, since it takes place in atime of war), but of HUMAN relationships, of common bonds of humanityrather than nationality. He explains this in a wonderful videointroduction to the film, in which he also talks about the film’snearly miraculous survival after years of having been lost. If you geta chance to catch it on DVD, you will be watching a copy that wasthought to have been destroyed by the Nazis decades ago!

First there’s the whole class structure theme, and the changes in theEuropean economic classes. There’s a theme about how regardless of class orrace we are all brothers, regardless of what side we areon.

I’m sure that this must have been one of the first films to address all ofthese issues. They would later creep up in a dozen Hollywoodfilms.

This is a very hard movie to critique. The first 30-40 minutes is verytrying and painful to watch at times. I’m not sure if Renoir didn’t knowquite how to lay the foundation of the story, or what the reason is. Itclubs you over the head with its obvious statements about the absurdity ofwar (which I think is told better in "All Quiet on the Western Front" and"The Big Parade"). And as one other person wrote, there is hardly anexterior scene in the beginning. It’s almost as if there were a differentdirector at the helm.

About 45 minutes into the film, after the drag show, it starts to click. Thestory is clearer, and more interesting. The performances are better, also.By the time von Stroheim returned I was fully absorbed into the story.

His performance of a German officer who knows that his time has passed ishonest and heartbreaking. I found the most profound moment to be hisclipping of the flower after Boeldieu is killed. I think that it is one ofthe strongest performances on film.

At first I couldn’t warm up to Jean Gabin as Marechal. Perhaps he was notinvolved enough, until his time the jail(which wasn’t made clear as to whyhe was in solitary, was it because he made the announcement at the show?).After the escape however, his performance was superb.

I think I can understand why this film is considered such a classic. I justwish that Renoir could have done a better job of getting through the firstthird of the movie.

7 out of 10

When we talk of the "Golden Age" of films during the late 1930s, it iseasyfor fans of cinema to become myopic to American releases. But not allgolden celluloid comes from southern California, nor even theUSA.

THE GRAND ILLUSION comes from France and is without a shadow of the doubtone of the greatest movies ever made. The story was thoroughly engrossingand entertaining. The acting was superb. The directing was outstanding.The camerawork was always on bullseye.

The bill calls this an antiwar film. Frankly, I didn’t see that at all.Itwas, however, honest and real about the first World War. To interpretthatas pro- or anti- is to project a personal bias. There are no blood andguts. No gore. Rather caring personal relationships are made and thenshattered, across social, political, and racial lines.

Orson Welles, Francois Truffaut, Ingmar Bergman, and on and on, they allreferred to this as one of greatest, important and most influential moviesever. It demands not be missed.

The title? I think the movie is called 'The Great Ilusion', regardlessof Renoir's own delusions about gentleman-like WWI and the like,because it portrays in a heartbreaking manner the death of Romanticism.People tend to think that war has something idyllic about it, warstories always made good novels and impressive movies, wars revealcharacters, love stories in the middle of wars are always touching etc.But this is all an illusion, there is nothing good about war. It isalso a certified historical fact that WWI was about the fiercest war inhistory (it was more cruel that WWII for that matter because in thelatter the killing techniques were more efficient and people generallydied faster). If the screenwriters had no idea about this 20 yearsafter the hostilities came to an end and two years before the outbreakof another world conflagration than they must be taken at least asextremely naive. But I think this is not the case, Renoir wants toreturn to an ideal of the earlier centuries, unfortunately ONLY anideal, seldom practiced in real life. The tragic conclusion of deBoildieu that after the war la noblesse will disappear is Renoir's owntragic conclusion that the Romantic ideal will be for ever lost, butthat maybe other ideals such as that of true love could take its place.This is what links the several parts of the story and gives the filmits classic status it will probably never loose.

Orson Welles called this his favorite film at one point, and it isquite clear that some of the techniques Renoir uses were part of theconcept of directing Welles himself used from his earliest movies.Renoir cuts the movie in a virtuoso manner, the takes are long andcomplex functioning almost like chapters in a novel; their unity iscentered around an idea making the movie very clear and elegant. Thevirtuosity of the takes is coupled with a very ingeniousexperimentation with deep focus that gives the story a new layer ofmeaning. And even when we have no deep focus the action is alwaysdistributed in the whole space of the movie not strictly in the
frontof the camera. Actors, of course, are doing a terrific job identifyingthemselves with the characters and making the whole thing seem veryreal. Maybe the filming techniques and the engaging actors are whatmakes people think that the movie reflects reality "as it is" and maybeRenoir intended it this way. But what strikes me in Renoirs movie andin Welles' Kane is the discrepancy between the form (sparkling use oftechniques) and the content (the tragedy of illusions in both cases).It's almost like the only way to convey the lack of reality is bypretending to present it in the most exotic fashion. This idea is veryfar from the usual interpretations of the film that insist it is veryhuman, with heartfelt characters etc. But is it really like this? WWIsaw the death of over fifty million people and those responsible werethe likes of de Boildieu et co. To blame for the deaths is their lackof touch with reality, the fact that their pompous chivalry andRomantic ideas of nobility and honor lead the world to fight one of thecruelest wars in human history. And the point of that war??…twentysomething years of unrest followed by yet another disaster. This trulywas a great illusion…

A bunch of guys who all look the same are sitting around in a dreary,depressing setting talking for a long time, about 45 minutes to beexact. Then another big long scene with some guys dancing and playinginstruments that seemed to go on for hours. Then 3 guys are standing inline and one guy decides to go and tell another guy that there is atunnel back where they just came from. Cut to next scene with a mansitting at a table expressing his disgust for coffee then he talks tothe two guys who just came from the line up. More talking, and then twoguys (presumably the two main characters) escape and meet a woman, theytell her a bunch off stuff, she waves them goodbye, they say goodbye toeach other and escape to Switzerland. End of film. Supposedly this is agreat "prison escape" movie. But throughout the whole film there isjust ONE 3 minute scene of them planning an escape.

We saw it just the other night at a screening in our university’s libraryand absolutely loved it. Such a positive, beautiful film about acceptingand loving others. It taught such a great message without seemingboringlydidactic. A must see for anyone and everyone.

I understand that movie historians have long debated just what is theillusion referred to in the title. Perhaps we could start our owndebate?

There is the illusion that chivalry can make modern warfare palatable. VonRauffenstein invites the French to luncheon after having just shot them downand many other gestures during the movie. The bubble is burst when he hasto shoot de Boieldieu. No matter how you dress it up, war is ultimatelyabout butchering your fellow man.

Then the many social illusions. The illusion of aristocracy shared by VonRauffenstein and de Boieldieu, of which they are both keenly aware that itis about to pass. (This must have struck a chord with Kurosawa who camefrom a samurai family and was intensely proud of it.) The illusion of classdifferences as between the rich Rosenthal and the working man, Marechal. The illusion of racial differences as, again, between the Jew, Rosenthal,and the gentile, Marechal. The illusion of nationality as between Marechaland Elsa, the German farmer’s wife.

But hanging above all is the illusion that this was the war to end all wars.All that gallantry, all that sacrifice, all that bravery - for nothing. Intwo decades, the same antagonists were at each others’ throats again. TheGrand Illusion makes you understand why the French armee was unable to fightin WW II. And why the madness of appeasement gripped the British before thewar. Disillusionment sapped their will to fight. The Germans were just asdisillusioned, of course, but they had revenge to motivatethem.

So what do *you* think is the grand illusion?

Nice of some poster to mention that the actress who played Elsa was inL’Atlante. (Was it in Day for Night that Truffaut showed the street sign,"Rue Jean Vigo"?)

I see Grand Illusion at 10 yr intervals and each time it acquires new layersof meaning. Just saw it this last weekend in a newly restored print. Themovie doesn’t change (of course), but the viewer does. The more youexperience of life, the more this movie will mean to you.

Is this the greatest French movie? I understand the enthusiasm of somefans, but this is a silly question, especially given the richness of thatcountry’s movie heritage. What about Les Enfants du Paradis? Or Renoir’sown Rules of the Game? But hey, what would life be if we couldn’t indulgein a little silliness once in awhile? I’m sure Renoir, with his joie devivre, would have approved.

– ray

I’ve been reading the comments on "la Grande illusion" and I’mpuzzled. Many viewers only keep the political the historical, or thesocial aspect of the film while, in my opinion and in the opinion ofmy friends, the central message of the film is the christian "we areall brothers". Despite the religion, the social class, the nationalityand the historical circumstances.

Renoir describe an event, the WWI (maybe the craziest butchery inthe whole history - see The path of glory), from the backstage.Passive or active fraternisation, complicity and compassion iseverywhere. He says to us, many years before Lennon "Give peacea chance".

I’ve seen it at least 50 times and still cry. If you believe in humanity,you’ll cry too.

read comments (0)

A Day at the Races

After the slight disappointment I felt when I recently watched "A Night AtThe Opera" for the first time, I was hoping that the supposedly inferior"Day At The Races" would actually turn out to be an underrated treasure.Unfortunately, this 1937 comedy also fails to live up to its reputation,although I DID find it slightly more enjoyable than itspredecessor.

There are some memorable and cleverly conceived sequences here (the one withChico selling books with betting tips to Groucho is particularly funny - "1Dollar for printing charges? Then give me one without printing!"), but theoverlong (if generally well-executed) musical numbers interrupt the comicflow, and the whole movie is so painfully overextended that when it’s overit leaves almost no residue.

The plot is something about Groucho running a sanitarium but that’s notimportant. What is important is the comedy…the Marx Brothers were attheir peak when this was made and they’re fantastic. Their comedy bits areuproarious. But this is not as good as "Duck Soup" or "A Night at theOpera". Two big problems–the boring romantic pairing (and acting) ofMaureen O’Sullivan and Allan Jones (some of the dialogue is horrid beyondbelief) and some truly wretched musical numbers that go on forever. TheWinter Carnival sequence is bearable (it’s tinted blue in the print I saw,but it didn’t help), but the song with the black singers and dancers istruly offensive. I realize it wasn’t offensive back then but it is today. All the black people are so happy and cheerful and overacting that it’sembarassing to watch. To make matters worse, the Marx Brothers actuallysmear grease on their faces so they appear in black face! Sad. Still, thisgets an 8 for the comedy alone. See it on video or DVD where you can skipthe musical numbers. Get rid of those and you have one hell of amovie.

The films the Marx Brothers made for Paramount are still possibly thefunniest things ever caught on camera. Being such a devoted fan ofthose pictures, I've always found the MGM years rather depressing. TheMarxes don't seem as lunatic as they had and were obviously watereddown. Also, MGM seemed convinced the Marxes weren't able to carry afilm by themselves, so they added musical numbers and romanticinterludes which, viewed nowadays, hopelessly date the products (not tomention destroy the pacing, this film is nearly two hours!).

Fortunately, the Marx Brothers are still very funny no matter what theproceedings are. Even when given what appears to be second-ratevaudeville material, they're still hilarious. In particular, the finalhorse race comes close to recapturing the impeccable football game atthe end of "Horse Feathers". The film is pretty much funny the wholeway through, making the absolutely atrocious musical numbers andromantic subplot somewhat bearable. "A Day at the Races" isn't primeMarx Brothers, but its still funnier than most of what else passes forcomedy. (7/10)

"A Day at the Races" gets off to a start in the Standish Sanitarium,and that should tell you something about this Marx Brothers movie.Perennial hypochondriac Emily Upjohn (Margaret Dumont) may provide thefinancial key to solvency for owner Judy Standish (Maureen O’Sullivan),but only if experienced and trusted psychiatrist Hugo Z. Hackenbush(Groucho) can be persuaded to take over. Translate that horse doctorHackenbush, who in the course of the film is conned by Chico in aversion of the "tootsie fruitsie" scam, gets plastered by both Chicoand Harpo as he woos blonde troublemaker Flo (Esther Muir), and donsblack face grease along with both brothers in the finale of an allblack musical number featuring "All God’s Chillun Got Rhythm".

As others have noted in their postings, the musical numbers can gettedious, and for his part, Groucho doesn’t have his way with the oneliners as effectively as in some of the Marx Brothers’ more appreciatedfilms. But the maniacal frenzy is still there, punctuated by the horserace finale of the title, appropriately sealing the fate of thesanitarium in a twist when jockey Harpo loses his horse "High Hat" toan aggressive jockey who winds up taking him across the finish line.

There is one particular scene though in the "Winter Carnival" interludethat amazed me, as dancer Vivien Fey literally turns into a spinningtop, encircling the dance floor in a blur. I’ve seen it done on a pairof skates, but to see it performed by Fey on tiptoe was trulyincredible - and at the finish she was still standing!

Oh, and lest I forget, the romantic subplot to the story involvesMaureen O’Sullivan and Allan Jones in an off again, on againrelationship that doesn’t really serve to move the story along otherthan Jones’ character providing the financial backing for "High Hat",but with the Marx Brothers involved, the outcome of the race is neverin jeopardy.

A Day at the Races is a funnier film than A Night at the Opera, but itis also seriously flawed. Judy Standish (Maureen O’Sullivan) is theunlikely owner of a failing sanitarium that appears to have only onepatient, the rich Mrs. Upjohn (Margaret Dumont). Judy is in love withGil Stewart (Allan Jones, again), a radio singer who buys a horse namedHigh Hat without realizing he’s a jumper, not a race horse. Mrs. Upjohnsuggests that Judy hire Dr. Hugo Z. Hackenbush (Groucho) to take overthe sanitarium, which Morgan (Douglas Dumbrille) wants to buy to turninto a gambling casino. The only problem is that nobody knows that Dr.Hackenbush is a horse doctor.

In one of the funniest scenes ever filmed, Chico, as the"Tootsie-Fruitsie" ice cream man, sells Groucho a whole library ofbooks (concealed in his ice cream wagon) on how to win at the races.Another hilarious moment is when Chico gets Harpo admitted to thesanitarium as a patient. Groucho, upon examining him, finds him to behuman, but just barely. Towards the end of the film. Mrs. Upjohn isexamined by Dr. Leopold X. Steinberg of Vienna (Sig Rumann), whosegoatee comes to a perfect point (Groucho: "And don’t point that beardat me-it might go off!")

MGM was well-known for making the longest pictures in the industry, andthere is a lot of unnecessary material here. The overproduced "WaterCarnival" adds nothing to the movie, and the scene where the Brothershide out in the "colored" neighborhood is offensive even by 1937standards, despite the fine singing of Duke Ellington’s Ivie Anderson.

Producer Iving Thalberg died during the filming, and Groucho felt thatnobody else on the lot cared about the Marx Brothers (certainly notLouis B. Mayer, who despised him). The stupid plot device that ends thefilm would never have been approved by Thalberg. High Hat (with Harporiding) is racing in the steeplechase against Morgan’s horse. At thefinal jump, the horses land in a mud puddle, throwing both jockeys.Dazed, they climb back on, and Morgan’s horse wins. Or does he? Itseems that the jockeys climbed on the wrong horses, so High Hat’s thewinner! Nobody seems to care that Harpo actually lost the race. Thislame ending spoils what could have been a truly great Marx Brothersfilm.

‘A Day at the Races’ has small bits that reach the magic of the MarxBrothers we have seen in ‘Duck Soup’ and ‘A Night at the Opera’,although as a whole it does not come close to both. If you considerthose two movies as their highpoint this is the first stop in theirslide down, which of course means it still is pretty funny.

Here we have Groucho as Dr. Hackenbush, a vet pretending to be adoctor, who must be the savior of a sanitarium that almost has to closeits doors. A rich woman (Maragret Dumont) really likes the doctor soher money could be very useful. The sanitarium is owned by Judy(Maureen O ‘Sullivan) and the man who loves her, Gil (Allan Jones),hopes to win the money with a new race horse h
e has bought. Chico andHarpo Marx have the same goals although their characters are mainlythere for some great moments of comedy.

Yes, there are some great moments here. There is an early scene whereChico helps Groucho making a bet which is hilarious even though it goeson and on, Harpo has some great mime acts, and of course we have theusual musical number with the piano (the other musical numbers arequite dull). Simply said, there is nothing wrong with ‘A Day at theRaces’, it only has the disadvantage that it comes right after ‘DuckSoup’ and ‘A Night at the Opera’. They were funny from start to finish,constantly giving us a smile on our face. ‘A Day at the Races’ isdefinitely funny, but not the entire time.

I think this may have been their second picture for MGM, made underThalberg, who died during filming. It was a personal loss to the MarxBrothers because Irving Thalberg was a personal friend as well as atasteful if commercial executive. It didn't damage their performance.

The MGM films don't show the reckless antinomian impulses of theirearlier Paramount films but they have better production values and whatthey lack in anarchy they make up for in structure. This is a veryfunny movie if you're in the mood for this kind of comedy.

It has some classic set pieces and some memorable Marx-Brothers lines.I'll just mention a few in passing, without getting into the storybecause the story, as usual, doesn't amount to much and ends in a sillyhorse race.

1. The scene involving Harpo as a peanut vendor and Edgar Buchanan as alemonade stand attendant. Chico shows up and they begin harassingBuchanan. There is a silent sequence involving the switching of droppedhats in front of the peanut stand. I can NOT watch it without crackingup. The encounters end with Harpo dunking his feet in Buchanan's vat oflemonade. "Pea — NUTS, to you."

2. The medical examination of Margaret Dumont by Groucho, aveterinarian posing as a doctor, under the scrutiny of two realdoctors, including a skeptical Sig Rumann. The farcical goings ondestroy the set when they wind up with the overhead sprinklers turnedon. "Are you MAD?" Dumont screams. "No, we're not mad, just terriblyhurt," Groucho mutters and the brothers exit the examining room onhorseback.

3. "All God's Children Got Rhythm." It takes place in anAfrican-American shanty town, a musical number in which the darkies areled around by Harpo playing a pennywhistle. Yes, it's racist, but theperformances by the black cast can't be faulted. (They include a youngDorothy Dandridge.) The jitterbug numbers are brief but stunning. Thethree couples are really excellent dancers, and it's not just a matterof radiating some inner agency. Sometimes a dancer pauses, holding apose for a beat, the way Fred Astaire (but not Gene Kelly) did. Theirtiming is exquisite. The troupe we see are "Whitey's Lindy Hoppers,"organized in the mid-30s by the head bouncer at the Savoy Ballroom inNew York. "Who dat man?"

4. Finally, I won't really try to describe the scene in which Grouchotries to seduce the blond Thelma Todd and is constantly interrupted byChico and Harpo in various disguises, except to note that when Toddenters Groucho's hotel room, she hands him her coat. "I always take thewrap," he says, throwing it on the floor. "Thank you," says Todd."Thank YOU!" (Can't help chuckling as I think about it.)

See it if you can.

The Marx Brothers were the Beatles of comedy. And you could take any ofa number of their films, and it would be funnier than anything producedin the last twenty years. This is a good example They play their usualselves. Groucho is the authority figure who is just as big a cheat andfake as Chico, who is the poor bum scheming to get ahead, and the greatHarpo is the silent bum who is so much like a child. Dumont is theusual high society lady who Groucho antagonizes. And now we have thestunningly beautiful Maureen O'Sullivan playing the heroine. All weneed now are gags. And they deliver. There's the scene where Groucho,Chico, and Harpo prepare for an examination, the scene where Grouchoacts like different people on a telephone call with a bad guy. The"tutti frutti" scene. Plenty of great scenes. This has a plot, by theway. Saving a sanitarium from being taken over by a bad guy. As usual,logic does not become involved. Just great gags that make you roll overlaughing, done by the masters.

Having picked them up after their Paramount period, MGM seems to havedecided it didn’t trust the Marx Brothers. Just as with most modern studioproducts there’s a feeling of a package designed by committee, in whicheveryone is guaranteed to dislike something. Did MGM execs seriously thinkpeople who didn’t find the Marxes funny would come along to see theproduction numbers?

It’s a movie of loosely strung-together set-pieces (of course), and onewants to watch individual scenes rather than sit through the whole show.Groucho’s mastery of verbal and physical comedy remains immenselycompellingand Harpo is an excellent clown, but the plot is rather tiresome as well asbeing (of course) total nonsense, and the male romantic lead (Allan Jones)is a prize bore to end all prize bores. There’s a surplus of productionvalues at the expense of pace, and the musical sections seem to havewandered in from several other films, none of them awfully good.

MGM simply hedged too many bets, and it’s already clear the formula hasn’tmuch of a future. One has to treasure this film for enshrining some iconiccomedy routines, but it feels less like a shrine than asarcophagus.

Strange as it sounds, a three-and-a-half star movie like "A Day at theRaces" represents a slump for the Marx Brothers, who’d been hitting grandslams for years. Still, this is one of their best latter-day movies. Groucho’s masquerade as a "proper" doctor is brilliant, and Chico gets someunusually strong material since he acts as the friend and confidant ofMaureen O’Sullivan, one of the loveliest and most likable Marx heroines.

The movie’s pacing is off, particularly when the action grinds to a halt fora lengthy musical number involving some tacky blackface. For years, I usedto watch a version taped off TV that was actually better than the theatricalcut, because it edited out the brief and unnecessary moments of racist humorand kept the action moving faster. But I’ve managed to come to terms withthe flawed complete cut, even if it is a bummer to discover new footage thatpretty much reeks.

All the film’s sins are forgiven in the final reel, when the Marx Brotherscut loose for wild tomfoolery on the racetrack. The tricks they pull todelay the race are awesome, and the action builds furiously to a great"fakeout" ending.

Apropos of nothing, I watched "A Day at the Races" after seeing Smarty Joneslose his Triple Crown bid. It seemed appropriate. Maybe Harpo slipped somesoap under Smarty’s saddle…

read comments (0)