Now that Criterion has released not one but two 'Lower Depth' features, one by Renoir, the other by Kurosawa, you have a double bill of masterpieces to look forward to. Renoir's contribution to this menage is a surprisingly buoyant one. Gabin and Jouvet dominate the film with their mano-a-mano discussions on life and freedom. Suzy Prim is properly bitchy as the woman scorned, although Junie Astor as her oppressed sister doesn't have it in her to elevate the scenes that she's in. The plot is almost completely different from Gorky's, yet the playwright read and publicly approved of the project. In Renoir's world there is always a way out for those who are kind and strive. There are doomed souls too, but their fates are laid out in a gentle, loving manner. This isn't the best Renoir film, but it reflects his lifelong humanism and warmth (and many depth-of-field shots for those mise-en-scene fanatics). Needless to day, I enjoyed it thoroughly.
19 Reviews
Highly watchable!
birthdaynoodle22 August 2006
The Criterion Collection offers two different film versions of "The Lower Depths": one made in 1936 by Jean Renoir and another one made in 1957 by Kurosawa. The two directors never worked together on either film. In fact, they only met once in their lives, many years later. Both films are based on Russian writer Maxim Gorky's 1902 play, which describes life in a miserable slum where most characters have lost all sense of hope. Renoir deals with this serious subject matter in a much more humorous and amusing way than Kurosawa, whose film is slower, decidedly somber and a lot more difficult to digest. While Renoir's work takes the viewer in an out of the slums, Kurosawa doesn't allow one to see beyond the wretchedness of the underworld. Both films are great, but it was probably Kurosawa's which left a more durable and deeper impression on me.
Strong drama
MarioB27 July 1999
Very dark but strong drama, about a bunch of people with no faith and no hope. It's very cynical, but Jean Renoir's directions gives the movie a unique twist. Great acting by Jouvet and Gabin, and young Junie Astor.
Renoir Does Gorky
aliasanythingyouwant15 July 2005
Jean Renoir's The Lower Depths is centered around a contrast in personalities. Jean Gabin, the great proletarian star, plays Pepel, a petty thief who remains jovial despite his restless desire to escape his deprived circumstances. While on a robbery job, Pepel meets The Baron, a disgraced nobleman, and the two strike up a friendship. These two men could not be more diametrically opposed, both in their social circumstances and their bearing. Pepel carries himself with the casual ease of a man who knows who he is, who's possessed of a basic trust in himself. The Baron, on the other hand, moves like he's perpetually running to the bathroom, his bowels - and his entire soul - afflicted with a painful case of tightness. The contrast between these two personalities, one open to life and the other closed off, is made all the more explicit by the differing acting styles of the two performers. No one was ever more natural than Gabin, with his understated charm and leonine presence. On the other side of the acting spectrum lies the extreme stylization of Louis Jouvet, who plays The Baron as a shambling collection of strained mannerisms. There's something elementally interesting about watching this clash of styles, this meeting of the naturalistic and the bizarrely theatrical. By some weird act of alchemy the two personalities, rendered in wildly different ways, mingle so pleasingly that we could scarcely ask for more.
Jean Renoir has made a highly-detailed, richly-textured humanist film out of Gorky's play. The story follows the various denizens of a lower-class boarding house lorded over by the slimy Kostylev, who's married to the jealous Vassilissa, who loves the restless Pepel, who's in love with Vassilissa's abused sister Natacha. The Baron, after losing his luxurious apartments over a money scandal, moves into the boarding-house, and alone among its inhabitants discovers bliss amidst the squalor. This might seem like a rather too glaringly pro-Socialist turn-of-events, the nobleman who becomes happy when he's brought low, but it works because Louis Jouvet is so subtly funny in the way he portrays The Baron's transformation. He makes The Baron seem a little bit teched, which helps to smooth out the character's ascent from suicidal desperation to grass-dozing, snail-fondling contentment. The acting overall is marvelous: Vladimir Sokoloff plays the old landlord Kostylev as a Dickensian creep; Suzy Prim brings a bitchy edge to the ambitious Vassilissa; and Junie Astor plays Natacha with a Cinderella-like down-trodden radiance. These characters find themselves embroiled in a scenario that's a bit more straight-forwardly melodramatic than in some of Renoir's other '30s films, but the plot barely matters what with all the physical detail and accomplished emoting - all orchestrated with a master's touch by Renoir, who tinges everything with a slightly sour irony. The staging is strikingly assured from start to finish, the camera-work possessed of an under-stated expressiveness that is purely Renoir. If the film falters anywhere compared to Renoir's other work it's in the slight sense of conventional melodramatic emphasis that creeps into some of the later scenes. The storytelling is sometimes casual and organic as in Renoir's masterpieces Grand Illusion and Rules of the Game, but there are other times when the plot-mechanics show through. Renoir normally smooths over these rough-spots, but in The Lower Depths he seems to have left them in, perhaps intentionally - perhaps meaning to give the film a certain conventional sense of climax. At any rate this hardly matters - the film is so richly textured and rhythmically satisfying that we can forgive Renoir for indulging in a few theatrical flourishes. This is one of the unquestioned classics of French poetic-realism.
Jean Renoir has made a highly-detailed, richly-textured humanist film out of Gorky's play. The story follows the various denizens of a lower-class boarding house lorded over by the slimy Kostylev, who's married to the jealous Vassilissa, who loves the restless Pepel, who's in love with Vassilissa's abused sister Natacha. The Baron, after losing his luxurious apartments over a money scandal, moves into the boarding-house, and alone among its inhabitants discovers bliss amidst the squalor. This might seem like a rather too glaringly pro-Socialist turn-of-events, the nobleman who becomes happy when he's brought low, but it works because Louis Jouvet is so subtly funny in the way he portrays The Baron's transformation. He makes The Baron seem a little bit teched, which helps to smooth out the character's ascent from suicidal desperation to grass-dozing, snail-fondling contentment. The acting overall is marvelous: Vladimir Sokoloff plays the old landlord Kostylev as a Dickensian creep; Suzy Prim brings a bitchy edge to the ambitious Vassilissa; and Junie Astor plays Natacha with a Cinderella-like down-trodden radiance. These characters find themselves embroiled in a scenario that's a bit more straight-forwardly melodramatic than in some of Renoir's other '30s films, but the plot barely matters what with all the physical detail and accomplished emoting - all orchestrated with a master's touch by Renoir, who tinges everything with a slightly sour irony. The staging is strikingly assured from start to finish, the camera-work possessed of an under-stated expressiveness that is purely Renoir. If the film falters anywhere compared to Renoir's other work it's in the slight sense of conventional melodramatic emphasis that creeps into some of the later scenes. The storytelling is sometimes casual and organic as in Renoir's masterpieces Grand Illusion and Rules of the Game, but there are other times when the plot-mechanics show through. Renoir normally smooths over these rough-spots, but in The Lower Depths he seems to have left them in, perhaps intentionally - perhaps meaning to give the film a certain conventional sense of climax. At any rate this hardly matters - the film is so richly textured and rhythmically satisfying that we can forgive Renoir for indulging in a few theatrical flourishes. This is one of the unquestioned classics of French poetic-realism.
Renoir's Human Realism
ilpohirvonen14 December 2014
Strictly speaking there are two alternate ways of making an adaption. One is to adapt the original text to the screen as it was written, the other is to modernize the text completely, thus giving it a new interpretation. These extremes locate to the opposite ends of the axle loyal-disloyal. Jean Renoir's "The Lower Depths" (1936) is far from the former, though it isn't particularly radical nor a modernization. One who is interested in the loyal fashion might wish to take a look at Kurosawa's 1957 version of the same material. The original material in question is Maxim Gorky's famous play of the same name which premiered in the early 1900's.
Gorky's play is often regarded as a hallmark of socialist realism, but it lacks the unambiguous moral message which we usually associate with the style. It's a play without a formal plot, paying more attention to characters and their relationships. Renoir has changed a lot and added new milieus, scenes, and minor characters. For example, Renoir gives more space for the friendship between the bankrupt baron and the thief, probably in order to highlight his view of humanity above social borders. Overall, Renoir has taken the most interesting characters of Gorky's play and chosen to focus on their drama rather than creating a film about a cave-like milieu and its relation to its various inhabitants. It is the spectator's choice whether this is for the better or worse, but Renoir's motives seem clear: he most likely wanted to give coherence to the story and thus enhance its ethical nature.
Due to these choices Renoir's "The Lower Depths" grows into a story about a thief (Jean Gabin) who falls in love with a girl. They live in the same slum -- a typical courtyard-ish milieu for Renoir's 30's films -- with the girl's sister, the thief's former partner, who is married to the owner of the slum apartments but wants to escape her marriage. Meanwhile the thief befriends a baron who has lost his social status and is now creating a new life in the lower depths.
Gorky's story is really ideal to the French Poetic Realism, but the film has replaced Gorky's pessimism with warm romance and an optimistic spirit. To me, whether this makes "The Lower Depths" better or worse is not an interesting question. What is interesting, on the other hand, is that it makes it different. Renoir once again manages to approach themes of friendship and solidarity with an authentic yet non-sentimental perspective. The final shot, which has righteously been compared to the famous finale of Chaplin's "Modern Times" (1936), expresses faith and hope, but not in excess, precisely because Renoir's image is indeterminate enough. Or, as Luka puts it, "If you believe in it, it is real."
Gorky's play is often regarded as a hallmark of socialist realism, but it lacks the unambiguous moral message which we usually associate with the style. It's a play without a formal plot, paying more attention to characters and their relationships. Renoir has changed a lot and added new milieus, scenes, and minor characters. For example, Renoir gives more space for the friendship between the bankrupt baron and the thief, probably in order to highlight his view of humanity above social borders. Overall, Renoir has taken the most interesting characters of Gorky's play and chosen to focus on their drama rather than creating a film about a cave-like milieu and its relation to its various inhabitants. It is the spectator's choice whether this is for the better or worse, but Renoir's motives seem clear: he most likely wanted to give coherence to the story and thus enhance its ethical nature.
Due to these choices Renoir's "The Lower Depths" grows into a story about a thief (Jean Gabin) who falls in love with a girl. They live in the same slum -- a typical courtyard-ish milieu for Renoir's 30's films -- with the girl's sister, the thief's former partner, who is married to the owner of the slum apartments but wants to escape her marriage. Meanwhile the thief befriends a baron who has lost his social status and is now creating a new life in the lower depths.
Gorky's story is really ideal to the French Poetic Realism, but the film has replaced Gorky's pessimism with warm romance and an optimistic spirit. To me, whether this makes "The Lower Depths" better or worse is not an interesting question. What is interesting, on the other hand, is that it makes it different. Renoir once again manages to approach themes of friendship and solidarity with an authentic yet non-sentimental perspective. The final shot, which has righteously been compared to the famous finale of Chaplin's "Modern Times" (1936), expresses faith and hope, but not in excess, precisely because Renoir's image is indeterminate enough. Or, as Luka puts it, "If you believe in it, it is real."
Dry, amusing, dramatic
funkyfry15 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Jean Renoir takes us slumming -- everybody should know right off the bat that it'll be fun to be this miserable. There's always that touch of human spontaneity in his films, in his characters, that somehow feels really genuine. The city in his gaze feels truly alive. Jean Gabin in this film is sort of a French Cary Grant, comfortable and strangely admirable in any setting. Of course the centerpiece of the film in terms of its dark comedy is the scene where Gabin breaks into the house of the Baron (Louis Jouvet) to rob him but ends up being his drinking companion instead, and walks off with an equestrian trophy. Baron has lost all his money gambling, and so he says "take it, none of it is mine anyway). Then when the cops bring Pepel (Gabin) to justice, they're mortified by the Baron showing up to accost them for bothering their friend. Quite excellent.
Later the two share and idyllic moment on the grass by the side of the river, bringing back again memories of "Boudu" (and premonitions or inspiration for "The Fisher King"?). There is just so little time to get away from the crazy life of the city. Suzy Prim is a heartless pimp for her sister Natacha, who despairs of romance and a moneyed life at the same time.
Notably less oppressive and stagnant than the overly theatrical adaptation done by Kurosawa in Japan (both films are based on Gorky's play). I haven't seen the Kurosawa film in a while, but it strikes me that he sought to impress the audience with the stagnation of the characters' lives by making a stagnant film. Instead Renoir gives us the moments in these people's lives when they are in flux, when possibilities for change seem to hang heavy in the air, and thereby gives us the proper contrast to their dire circumstances without making a dire film.
Excellent performances from the cast, and Renoir's distinct visual sensibilities are on display in every frame.
Later the two share and idyllic moment on the grass by the side of the river, bringing back again memories of "Boudu" (and premonitions or inspiration for "The Fisher King"?). There is just so little time to get away from the crazy life of the city. Suzy Prim is a heartless pimp for her sister Natacha, who despairs of romance and a moneyed life at the same time.
Notably less oppressive and stagnant than the overly theatrical adaptation done by Kurosawa in Japan (both films are based on Gorky's play). I haven't seen the Kurosawa film in a while, but it strikes me that he sought to impress the audience with the stagnation of the characters' lives by making a stagnant film. Instead Renoir gives us the moments in these people's lives when they are in flux, when possibilities for change seem to hang heavy in the air, and thereby gives us the proper contrast to their dire circumstances without making a dire film.
Excellent performances from the cast, and Renoir's distinct visual sensibilities are on display in every frame.
Well done,
Marduk19801 June 2008
I was not aware of the Gorki's job and I was interesting of one of Jean Renoir's work as he is one of the best French director of all time. My global feeling was good but mixed with some aspects.
First the reflexion about low class condition is good on many ways but was losing his force at the end. I think the optimistic way that it ended (Pepel going with Natasha) was an attempt to give a romantic aspect and was deviated from his social purpose. I expected a more dramatic final more realistic.
Let's talk about the Baron who seems to be a central character at the beginning. In the second half, he becomes a secondary one. The first part of the movie let suggest an ambiguous relation with the main character Pepel. Nothing like this in the second part. I am wondering why there is so much emphasize in their relation at the beginning (Many fascination between each other). The rhythm is sometime unequal especially around 2/3 of the movie. There are some satisfactions: Jean Gabin has got a natural presence in front of the camera and we always enjoy seeing him. Despite of some defaults, reflexions and painting of the lower dephts are very real and authentic.
Jean Renoir was following his instincts and his interests for socialism more than looking for something entertaining. There are bad aspects but I have enjoyed watching this one. Let see Kurosawa with his adaptation. Marduk
First the reflexion about low class condition is good on many ways but was losing his force at the end. I think the optimistic way that it ended (Pepel going with Natasha) was an attempt to give a romantic aspect and was deviated from his social purpose. I expected a more dramatic final more realistic.
Let's talk about the Baron who seems to be a central character at the beginning. In the second half, he becomes a secondary one. The first part of the movie let suggest an ambiguous relation with the main character Pepel. Nothing like this in the second part. I am wondering why there is so much emphasize in their relation at the beginning (Many fascination between each other). The rhythm is sometime unequal especially around 2/3 of the movie. There are some satisfactions: Jean Gabin has got a natural presence in front of the camera and we always enjoy seeing him. Despite of some defaults, reflexions and painting of the lower dephts are very real and authentic.
Jean Renoir was following his instincts and his interests for socialism more than looking for something entertaining. There are bad aspects but I have enjoyed watching this one. Let see Kurosawa with his adaptation. Marduk
Despite the horrible little world Gorky created, Renoir makes it so very watchable.
planktonrules6 July 2014
Seeing Maxim Gorky's play about the lowest level of society is an ultra- depressing depressing experience. Everyone is miserable and wretched and the entire production is filled with people who are complete messes. However, in this movie version, director Jean Renoir manages to make the film watchable and quite watchable! How does he do this? Well, he did a great job directed, got some wonderful performances AND used a script that changed the original play--giving it a hopeful and relatively happy ending!! While I usually would never want to see this (such as how they gave happy endings in "The Hairy Ape" and the recent version of "The Scarlet Letter"), in this it was a good thing! Giving the audience something to hope for makes this well worth seeing--not an exercise in masochism! All in all, extremely well made and the best version of the Gorky story I have seen.
Pepel 'E Moko?
writers_reign3 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This was the first of three collaborations between Jean Gabin and Jean Renoir in the mid-late thirties and there is a distinct link between this and Le Grande Illusion in the friendship across the classes as epitomised in both films by Gabin's prole and respectively Louis Jouvet's and Pierre Fresnay's aristocrat. Gabin was a star in all but name by 1936 when this was shot and it came more or less in the centre of his great fertile first period surrounded by La Bandera, La Belle Equipe, Pepe Le Moko, Quai des Brumes, Le Bete Humaine etc. Louis Jouvet was first and foremost a man of the theatre but he made several successful forays into film and also had a masterpiece (Feyder's La Kermesse heroique) behind him when he made this. Not unnaturally he and Gabin walk away with the piece despite a 'flashy' turn by Robert Le Vigan and solid support by Suzy Prim. Despite Russian names none of the principals is convincing as a Russian - and to be fair they don't try all that hard - but they do, nevertheless, weigh in with some top of the line acting and though the 'happy' ending clashes with Gorky's original it remains a fine movie.
If you could do it all again...
LobotomousMonk9 March 2013
Les Bas Fonds carries some weight in the fidelity department - the production was done through the Russian emigres' Albatros Film company while Gorky personally approved Renoir's script. That being said, most academics note Renoir's film to have a significantly less gloomy atmosphere, characterization and mode of expression overall than the novel. The opening shot is a tongue-in-cheek construction through pov mobile reframing. The identification of spectator with higher authority (the Count) is a method of placating the politics that would naturally arise when juxtaposing the milieu of the flophouse. Clearly, Renoir had an intention to take the edge off from the get-go. The long take and mobile framing is employed in the opening scenes (following the drunken young accordion player, also at the restaurant). A great depth of field frames social groupings and profiles multiple characters at once. Renoir attempts to fully establish his more famous stylistic system as dominant, however, some psychology creeps in on him (he'd be horrified to hear it I'm sure). Both Gabin's Pepel and Jouvet's Baron get one-on-one treatment from the camera. Pepel walks through an alleyway with shallow depth of field and later provides a police confession basked in hi-key lighting setup, while le Baron stands in one-shot closeup to contemplate the possible error of his ways at the casino. One starts to wonder whether Renoir was ever truly political given his portrayals of social classes always retain some element of genial acceptance. Gabin's Pepel was "raised with certain manners" while Jouvet's Baron distinguishes kindness through small gestures. Clearly not all bourgeois are up-tight "ham-grovelers" while not all working class are dangerous or rowdy. Then again, exploiting the stereotypes can be amusing (which Renoir does as well). There are some rare edits in Fonds, where Renoir employs vertical wipes (as if it represented flipping the pages of a book) and lends to a more psychological identification. The themes of "putting on airs" and "shedding upbringing" are played out through Pepel and le Baron, however they would certainly evoke a powerful unconscious psychological identification with spectators. This effect is reinforced through the blindfolded children's game and the concept that we are blind to the games we play and the lies we tell ourselves and others. The story plays off of the ancient Greek aphorism "Know Thyself". The baron explains that he has "fog in the brain" and it is a confession about a universal human nature. The ritualistic murder mirrors M. Lange but the collective is certainly a different 'animal' in Fonds with different aims and alms. Some have felt that Fonds fits into the category of 'poetic realism'. Pepel's rage, the gloomy mood, foggy nights, tight spots, criminal activities, working class milieu have all the makings of a Carne-Prevert entry to the subgenre. However, Gabin's apple scene with the baby provides far too much uplift as does the solidarity of the collective. The characters of Renoir's Fonds are inherently invested in their world unlike a film like Le Quai des Brumes. Consider the difference between the painter in Le Quai and Le Vigan's actor in Fonds. Le Vigan's character considers suicide a new beginning whereas the painter hopes not only to reach an end, but to erase everything that has already happened. If the actor could do it all again he would repeat himself like an actor does with their lines, whereas the painter would change everything. It is films like Les Bas Fonds that helped build Renoir's reputation as a 'humanist'... and with good reason because he cared deeply about the reciprocity of respect and the autonomy of creativity.
Gorki's Parisian Rendezvous with Chaplin
ElMaruecan8218 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Adapted from Maxim Gorki's novel of the same name, "The Lower Depths" is a strange but oddly captivating immersion in French post-Depression misery and pre-War life contemplation. Or maybe I should correct this statement, the film is supposed to be set in Russia, the characters kept their original Slavic names and the currency used is definitely not Francs, so I stand corrected, Jean Renoir intended to be faithful to the crux to the novel
but did he really expect the audience to be fooled? Behind the Russian facade, it is a no less relevant depiction of French mentalities, which is perhaps the best credit to Gorki's universal appeal.
Universal, international, those were words with strong resonance in the France of 1937, one year before, it was marked by election of 'Popular Front' government, the historical triumph of the left-wing united parties whose first symbolical initiative was to implement the two-year paid vacation. The image of people traveling across France in bikes and to the seaside, some for the first time, was one of the most emblematic images of the pre-war period, a sort of fresh breath of air before politics would change the map of the world. It was a time where many artists embraced that sense of freedom and inter-classes fraternity that characterized France and maybe it's not such a hazard if the film features the unlikely friendship between a wealthy baron and a burglar, both played with immense talent by legends Louis Jouvet and Jean Gabin.
It might have helped a little that the baron went bankrupt because of gambling and the thief was looking for the one robbery to make him rich and honest once and for all, these are people who try to look beyond their conditions and could see their path crossing. It is also quite interesting that Renoir, who would later make two masterpieces about the fall of the grand bourgeoisie and aristocratic order in "Grand Illusion" and "Rules of the Game" always told it from the perspective of the bourgeois people, as he was said to be, contrarily to Marcel Carné, more at home with the upper class setting than the blue-collar, his world doesn't feature crowded streets or vendors, it's not the same 'atmosphere' than "Hotel du Nord" (the connoisseurs will get the reference), it is like Renoir adopted a naive approach to misery, in a sort of 'Grand Hotel' setting, where poor people discuss about marriage, freedom, liberty and have no interactions with the baron.
To a certain extent, there seems to be an order in that class where order doesn't prevail, while the aristocratic world is collapsing through social conventions and gambling, like the real theater for rebellion. Renoir is no Dickens but that doesn't affect at all the quality of the film and some superb imagery. There is a shot I especially loved where Jouvet is staring at the camera incapable of burning a cigarette, it is one of the most eloquent shots of anger, and you could tell it is directly addressed toward himself. And it is strange how in the other world, there is an obvious antagonist, an old and mean landlord whose wife flirts with Gabin as Pepel (who happens to be in love with her sister, played by Suzy Prim). The slums are filled of a love triangle, a villain, a jealous mistress, all the social archetypes of the upper class while the real rebel and free-spirited 'hero' or antihero is the bankrupt baron Jouvet, no wonder he immediately befriends Gabin, who's not exactly like a fish in water in the slums and strikes as much a misfit as the baron.
I couldn't translate these words in English without losing the rhetorical kinship but the friendship is between a 'déclassé' (socially downgraded) and an "inclassable" (indefinable) person, one who lost his place and is pretty content about it and one who seeks it. Pepel is in the romantic hero tradition, he believes only love can get him off prison, some lost hope and act like drunkards and other try to bribe the corrupt power incarnated by the fat policeman, this is overall one pathetic portrait of society reconciled through the sight of the two protagonists, the buddies. I must say I was more interested by the friendship than the romance as it had to be a driver to Gabin's escape, one that would justify the last shot that is a total homage to Chaplin's "Modern Times", and that's a tribute to Chaplin's impact on the world, one year after his masterpiece, he was already imitated.
And yes, maybe there's something Chaplinesque in "The Lower Depths", more than Gorki, which made me wonder if the film wouldn't have worked better with French names and French setting.The film received the Deluc prize and met with critical acclaim but it's not the most famous work from Renoir who'd make more consistent statements through his following masterpieces. But on its own, it's a good example of French poetic realism and one of Gabin's best pre-war roles.
Universal, international, those were words with strong resonance in the France of 1937, one year before, it was marked by election of 'Popular Front' government, the historical triumph of the left-wing united parties whose first symbolical initiative was to implement the two-year paid vacation. The image of people traveling across France in bikes and to the seaside, some for the first time, was one of the most emblematic images of the pre-war period, a sort of fresh breath of air before politics would change the map of the world. It was a time where many artists embraced that sense of freedom and inter-classes fraternity that characterized France and maybe it's not such a hazard if the film features the unlikely friendship between a wealthy baron and a burglar, both played with immense talent by legends Louis Jouvet and Jean Gabin.
It might have helped a little that the baron went bankrupt because of gambling and the thief was looking for the one robbery to make him rich and honest once and for all, these are people who try to look beyond their conditions and could see their path crossing. It is also quite interesting that Renoir, who would later make two masterpieces about the fall of the grand bourgeoisie and aristocratic order in "Grand Illusion" and "Rules of the Game" always told it from the perspective of the bourgeois people, as he was said to be, contrarily to Marcel Carné, more at home with the upper class setting than the blue-collar, his world doesn't feature crowded streets or vendors, it's not the same 'atmosphere' than "Hotel du Nord" (the connoisseurs will get the reference), it is like Renoir adopted a naive approach to misery, in a sort of 'Grand Hotel' setting, where poor people discuss about marriage, freedom, liberty and have no interactions with the baron.
To a certain extent, there seems to be an order in that class where order doesn't prevail, while the aristocratic world is collapsing through social conventions and gambling, like the real theater for rebellion. Renoir is no Dickens but that doesn't affect at all the quality of the film and some superb imagery. There is a shot I especially loved where Jouvet is staring at the camera incapable of burning a cigarette, it is one of the most eloquent shots of anger, and you could tell it is directly addressed toward himself. And it is strange how in the other world, there is an obvious antagonist, an old and mean landlord whose wife flirts with Gabin as Pepel (who happens to be in love with her sister, played by Suzy Prim). The slums are filled of a love triangle, a villain, a jealous mistress, all the social archetypes of the upper class while the real rebel and free-spirited 'hero' or antihero is the bankrupt baron Jouvet, no wonder he immediately befriends Gabin, who's not exactly like a fish in water in the slums and strikes as much a misfit as the baron.
I couldn't translate these words in English without losing the rhetorical kinship but the friendship is between a 'déclassé' (socially downgraded) and an "inclassable" (indefinable) person, one who lost his place and is pretty content about it and one who seeks it. Pepel is in the romantic hero tradition, he believes only love can get him off prison, some lost hope and act like drunkards and other try to bribe the corrupt power incarnated by the fat policeman, this is overall one pathetic portrait of society reconciled through the sight of the two protagonists, the buddies. I must say I was more interested by the friendship than the romance as it had to be a driver to Gabin's escape, one that would justify the last shot that is a total homage to Chaplin's "Modern Times", and that's a tribute to Chaplin's impact on the world, one year after his masterpiece, he was already imitated.
And yes, maybe there's something Chaplinesque in "The Lower Depths", more than Gorki, which made me wonder if the film wouldn't have worked better with French names and French setting.The film received the Deluc prize and met with critical acclaim but it's not the most famous work from Renoir who'd make more consistent statements through his following masterpieces. But on its own, it's a good example of French poetic realism and one of Gabin's best pre-war roles.
Two Great Performances by Gabin and Jouvet
bkrauser-81-31106428 March 2016
A funny thing happened on the way to WWII. In the midst of the Great Depression, hard-nosed political leftists all around Europe found themselves in a panic over the rise and consolidation of power of Nazi Germany. While Hitler was quietly rounding up Socialists and Communists all across the Rhineland, the French artistic intelligentsia found themselves utterly agog with the Russian economic and social experiment. The news had not yet sunk in that Stalin's Russia was just as dysfunctional, but what artists like Jean Renoir and Maximilen Luce did know was exiled socialist writer Maim Gorky had been accepted by Stalin to much fanfare in 1932. Perhaps as a form of unification, Renoir directed Gorky's play "The Lower Depths" to the screen.
The Lower Depths stars Jean Gabin as Pepel a miscreant who lives in a flophouse, in a crime-infested neighborhood by the Maine River. He plans to rob the Baron (Jouvet), an almost defiantly casual nobleman with a penchant for high-stakes gambling. When Pepel enters the Baron's home, the Baron finds him and tells him because of his debts, he's in-fact just as poor as the would-be thief. After multiple run-ins with each other and the law, the two develop a friendship that grows, as a love triangle at the flophouse threatens to consume Pepel.
The love triangle involves Pepel, the landlord Kostylev (Sokoloff) his wife Vassilissa (Prim) and Natasha (Astor), Vassilissa's sister. Within the confines of the flophouse the pieces of class struggle are set with Natasha promised to a slovenly police inspector to further complicity of the tragic events to society at-large. The Baron stands outside of the proceedings, absorbing everything though too engrossed with the measly card games of the shacks denizens to pay too much mind. Unlike in Gorky's play, where the Baron seems uncomfortable wallowing in poverty, here the Baron seems liberated. He has no care for the material trappings of his former title. He just wants to distract himself with gambling.
Distraction seems to be a reoccurring theme in The Lower Depths. Many characters, instead of becoming disheartened by their situation, take heart with distractions such as cooking, gambling, idle entertainment, lofty unrealistic ambitions and religion. Vassilissa insists that "one day, everything will be ours." Meanwhile Pepel sits idly inattentive to her disillusions. At another point an elderly couple at the flophouse proclaim a Christian faith to Pepel disgust. "When we believe we make it real," says the man before resting on his hardwood bed.
Within that scene we get a glimpse into director Jean Renoir's inner thoughts. Unlike Gorky or other proponents of the French Popular Front, Renoir was not a moralist. As he's made plain in later films such as Le Grande Illusion (1937) and The Rules of the Game (1939) he's an excellent observer of human behavior. The Lower Depths proves to be his most pessimistic film but as with all true models of poetic realism, there's still a tiny slimmer of hope.
The Lower Depths is Renoir's most accessible comedy/drama providing some interesting insights into human behavior and some excellent acting on the part of Jean Gabin and Louis Jouvet. While some of the humor is a little dated and Junie Astor's performances as Natasha is as vapid as one can see on screen and still not mind, the film is nonetheless a great example of French film during the Golden Age of Hollywood.
The Lower Depths stars Jean Gabin as Pepel a miscreant who lives in a flophouse, in a crime-infested neighborhood by the Maine River. He plans to rob the Baron (Jouvet), an almost defiantly casual nobleman with a penchant for high-stakes gambling. When Pepel enters the Baron's home, the Baron finds him and tells him because of his debts, he's in-fact just as poor as the would-be thief. After multiple run-ins with each other and the law, the two develop a friendship that grows, as a love triangle at the flophouse threatens to consume Pepel.
The love triangle involves Pepel, the landlord Kostylev (Sokoloff) his wife Vassilissa (Prim) and Natasha (Astor), Vassilissa's sister. Within the confines of the flophouse the pieces of class struggle are set with Natasha promised to a slovenly police inspector to further complicity of the tragic events to society at-large. The Baron stands outside of the proceedings, absorbing everything though too engrossed with the measly card games of the shacks denizens to pay too much mind. Unlike in Gorky's play, where the Baron seems uncomfortable wallowing in poverty, here the Baron seems liberated. He has no care for the material trappings of his former title. He just wants to distract himself with gambling.
Distraction seems to be a reoccurring theme in The Lower Depths. Many characters, instead of becoming disheartened by their situation, take heart with distractions such as cooking, gambling, idle entertainment, lofty unrealistic ambitions and religion. Vassilissa insists that "one day, everything will be ours." Meanwhile Pepel sits idly inattentive to her disillusions. At another point an elderly couple at the flophouse proclaim a Christian faith to Pepel disgust. "When we believe we make it real," says the man before resting on his hardwood bed.
Within that scene we get a glimpse into director Jean Renoir's inner thoughts. Unlike Gorky or other proponents of the French Popular Front, Renoir was not a moralist. As he's made plain in later films such as Le Grande Illusion (1937) and The Rules of the Game (1939) he's an excellent observer of human behavior. The Lower Depths proves to be his most pessimistic film but as with all true models of poetic realism, there's still a tiny slimmer of hope.
The Lower Depths is Renoir's most accessible comedy/drama providing some interesting insights into human behavior and some excellent acting on the part of Jean Gabin and Louis Jouvet. While some of the humor is a little dated and Junie Astor's performances as Natasha is as vapid as one can see on screen and still not mind, the film is nonetheless a great example of French film during the Golden Age of Hollywood.
A fatalistic take on the rich vs poor statement in a comedic venture that nobody thought at that time. Nobody but Jean Renoir.
SAMTHEBESTEST26 August 2023
Les Bas-fonds / The Lower Depths (1936) :
Brief Review -
A fatalistic take on the rich vs poor statement in a comedic venture that nobody thought at that time. Nobody but Jean Renoir. Les Bas-fonds can be termed a less-experimented flick by the French master Jean Renoir since the production is stagy and it sticks to depicting a story of poverty rather than the actual issues and consequences. It's somewhat boring in those parts but survives because of the comedic statement on the traditional "Rich vs Poor" battle. I don't think any filmmaker attempted a rich vs poor theme at that time (pardon me if I am not aware of any films). I remember some comedies and feel-good dramas made on the same theme where the rich and the poor swap their places/indentities to learn about life, but that was mostly in the 60s or 70s. The 1930s were about crime sagas (including children-driven films) set in slums, and then there was Renoir's "The Lower Depth" which changed that "Versus" into "With". In the film, we see a rich baron lose all the money, make friends with a tramp and a small-time thief from the slums, and eventually become one of the slum members. This was unique and impressive. Actually, this was the only and most beautiful part of the film. The romance and the climax were nothing new. Coincidentally, Chaplin's Depression-era classic, "Modern Times" (1936), also came in the same year. Remember that hero-heroine's walk in the climax? Les Bas-fonds will remind you of Modern Times. Same context, just characters and situations differ. Jean Gabin is good in the role of Pepel, but it's Suzy Prim as Vassilissa who steals the show here. Louis Jouvet's baron is somewhat funny, and Jany Holt's stingy words to Pepel sound cute. As a whole, Jean Renoir's film lacks something but provides a lot for its time and especially for a new wave of that time in French cinema.
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest.
A fatalistic take on the rich vs poor statement in a comedic venture that nobody thought at that time. Nobody but Jean Renoir. Les Bas-fonds can be termed a less-experimented flick by the French master Jean Renoir since the production is stagy and it sticks to depicting a story of poverty rather than the actual issues and consequences. It's somewhat boring in those parts but survives because of the comedic statement on the traditional "Rich vs Poor" battle. I don't think any filmmaker attempted a rich vs poor theme at that time (pardon me if I am not aware of any films). I remember some comedies and feel-good dramas made on the same theme where the rich and the poor swap their places/indentities to learn about life, but that was mostly in the 60s or 70s. The 1930s were about crime sagas (including children-driven films) set in slums, and then there was Renoir's "The Lower Depth" which changed that "Versus" into "With". In the film, we see a rich baron lose all the money, make friends with a tramp and a small-time thief from the slums, and eventually become one of the slum members. This was unique and impressive. Actually, this was the only and most beautiful part of the film. The romance and the climax were nothing new. Coincidentally, Chaplin's Depression-era classic, "Modern Times" (1936), also came in the same year. Remember that hero-heroine's walk in the climax? Les Bas-fonds will remind you of Modern Times. Same context, just characters and situations differ. Jean Gabin is good in the role of Pepel, but it's Suzy Prim as Vassilissa who steals the show here. Louis Jouvet's baron is somewhat funny, and Jany Holt's stingy words to Pepel sound cute. As a whole, Jean Renoir's film lacks something but provides a lot for its time and especially for a new wave of that time in French cinema.
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest.
French perspective of poverty, love and death.
bobsgrock8 June 2011
Having seen Akira Kurosawa's 1957 version of the Maxim Gorky play prior to Jean Renoir's 1936 adaptation, I must admit that they couldn't be more different despite being rooted in the same material. Certainly the characters and situations are similar but the tone utilized by each of these world-class directors is so vast in comparison it bears mentioning. While Kurosawa insisted on focusing on these people's problems and their desperation to escape the futility of their world by remaining within the impoverished setting for the entire film, Renoir takes a lighter side by exploring the outside world, showing various methods of escape these characters dream of.
As with Kurosawa, the main focus of Renoir is the love triangle between the thief (played here remarkably by the subtle Jean Gabin) and two sisters, the elder shrill one being the landlord's wife and the other being rather sweet, gentle and somewhat innocent. To me, Renoir plays it better although it is certainly possible that Kurosawa meant specifically to showcase the love triangle as bleak as possible. As for Renoir, he gives all the characters something to say or reminisce about, usually love and death, life and happiness. The rhythm of the dialogue is so melodic and harmonious, it is one of the easiest listening experiences of any foreign film. The conversations between characters is brief but full of meaning, making for a terrific audience experience.
In short, both Renoir and Kurosawa's versions should be viewed although for different reasons. To see Kurosawa's is to see a master director able to balance several characters and story-lines all while maintaining the tone and decorum of futile loneliness. Renoir does the same, only with that particular French joie de vivre. Whatever is to your liking, rest assured each of these films will deliver.
As with Kurosawa, the main focus of Renoir is the love triangle between the thief (played here remarkably by the subtle Jean Gabin) and two sisters, the elder shrill one being the landlord's wife and the other being rather sweet, gentle and somewhat innocent. To me, Renoir plays it better although it is certainly possible that Kurosawa meant specifically to showcase the love triangle as bleak as possible. As for Renoir, he gives all the characters something to say or reminisce about, usually love and death, life and happiness. The rhythm of the dialogue is so melodic and harmonious, it is one of the easiest listening experiences of any foreign film. The conversations between characters is brief but full of meaning, making for a terrific audience experience.
In short, both Renoir and Kurosawa's versions should be viewed although for different reasons. To see Kurosawa's is to see a master director able to balance several characters and story-lines all while maintaining the tone and decorum of futile loneliness. Renoir does the same, only with that particular French joie de vivre. Whatever is to your liking, rest assured each of these films will deliver.
Oh!!... if you would know how is good laying on the grass!!!
elo-equipamentos7 November 2022
Adapted from a Russian writer Maxim Gorky's novel the director Renoir makes a true gem, sadly scarcely known by cinephiles, this was fully restored in 2020, featuring as made in 1936 as the best movie of the years in France, Jean Gabin as a similar name Pepel as the great "Pepe le Moko" in same year, just coincidences.
This tragic-drama tells the story of a slum place where lives countless sad lives, one of them a pleasant thief Pepel (Jean Gabin) who used sell commodities of burglaries for the stingy landlord Kostylev (Sokoloff) whom his young wife Vassilissa (Suzy Prim) he has been an affair, one day he goes to work at night in a stately home of a Baron (Louis Jouvet) who caught him at the act, instead to call the police the flamboyant Baron says to Pepel that there's aren't any money due to it bankrupt, actually he entered in trouble by over gambling using stolen funds of the state department which he works.
Thus they drink all night long gambling and goofing off, there rises a friendship, next morning he invites the Baron for a visit where he living, it's doesn't take too long the broken Baron gets together with Pepel and all those poor suckers who shares their sorrows and pains among extreme shabbiness, the Pepel realizes that must change his way of life and find out that Vassilissa's young sister Natasha (Junie Astor) nourish a secret love from him which is pleasant by Pepel due Natasha to be demure and extremally beauty, so Pepel starts thinking in the another future.
Les Bas-fonds grants to us apprenticeship about the hidden humanity of the society of well-off, those invisible people around us which we pretend don't see, those lost souls stacked in tiny space hopeless, this is a message from this little gem picture that Jean Renoir grasped by your camera.
Thanks for reading.
Resume:
First watch: 2022 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8.
This tragic-drama tells the story of a slum place where lives countless sad lives, one of them a pleasant thief Pepel (Jean Gabin) who used sell commodities of burglaries for the stingy landlord Kostylev (Sokoloff) whom his young wife Vassilissa (Suzy Prim) he has been an affair, one day he goes to work at night in a stately home of a Baron (Louis Jouvet) who caught him at the act, instead to call the police the flamboyant Baron says to Pepel that there's aren't any money due to it bankrupt, actually he entered in trouble by over gambling using stolen funds of the state department which he works.
Thus they drink all night long gambling and goofing off, there rises a friendship, next morning he invites the Baron for a visit where he living, it's doesn't take too long the broken Baron gets together with Pepel and all those poor suckers who shares their sorrows and pains among extreme shabbiness, the Pepel realizes that must change his way of life and find out that Vassilissa's young sister Natasha (Junie Astor) nourish a secret love from him which is pleasant by Pepel due Natasha to be demure and extremally beauty, so Pepel starts thinking in the another future.
Les Bas-fonds grants to us apprenticeship about the hidden humanity of the society of well-off, those invisible people around us which we pretend don't see, those lost souls stacked in tiny space hopeless, this is a message from this little gem picture that Jean Renoir grasped by your camera.
Thanks for reading.
Resume:
First watch: 2022 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8.
Renoir and the classics
dbdumonteil25 August 2007
It was not the first time Renoir had tackled a literary work:he had already transferred to the screen Zola's "Nana" and Flaubert's "Madame Bovary" .More masterpieces were to follow with Maupassant's "Une Partie de Campagne" -though unfinished,it's my favorite- and Zola's(again)"La Bete Humaine".
I do not think that "les Bas-Fonds" is in the same league as the four works I mention above.The problem lies in the fact that this is a Russian classic and that a French director cannot "feel" it like he does in a celebrated novel of his cultural heritage such as "Madame Bovary".Yes,the names are kept,and they pay in Roubles and Kopecks.It's not enough to create a Russian atmosphere .Renoir told that he wanted to Frenchify the novel :but Gabin and Jouvet ,although they are the creme de la creme of French actors of that era (and of all time) ,are not credible as Russians or Frenchified Russians.
Renoir's permanent features of the thirties are present.His anarchist mind ,present in such works as "La Chienne " and "Boudu Sauvé des Eaux" comes to the fore:the endings of "Boudu" and "Les Bas-Fonds" are similar ,when the two heroes hit the road,turning their back on a society they despise.Suzy Prim's Vassilissa is a distant relative of Lulu "La Chienne".
I do not think that "les Bas-Fonds" is in the same league as the four works I mention above.The problem lies in the fact that this is a Russian classic and that a French director cannot "feel" it like he does in a celebrated novel of his cultural heritage such as "Madame Bovary".Yes,the names are kept,and they pay in Roubles and Kopecks.It's not enough to create a Russian atmosphere .Renoir told that he wanted to Frenchify the novel :but Gabin and Jouvet ,although they are the creme de la creme of French actors of that era (and of all time) ,are not credible as Russians or Frenchified Russians.
Renoir's permanent features of the thirties are present.His anarchist mind ,present in such works as "La Chienne " and "Boudu Sauvé des Eaux" comes to the fore:the endings of "Boudu" and "Les Bas-Fonds" are similar ,when the two heroes hit the road,turning their back on a society they despise.Suzy Prim's Vassilissa is a distant relative of Lulu "La Chienne".
Renoir gives Gorky's grim tale a new twist
netwallah29 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Renoir claims that Gorky approved his screenplay, and even recommended some lines, but Renoir's version is hardly bleak, leaving an avenue of escape open for the thief Pépél (Jean Gabin) and his beloved Natacha (Junie Astor). Gabin is magnetic here, and counterbalances the humorous Baron (Louis Jouvet), who starts off stiff but relaxes into a new-found whimsical poverty of the screwball comedy sort. The scorned mistress Vassilissa (Suzy Prim) practically sets fire to the scenery with her eye-flashes, and the Actor (Robert Le Vigan) is mournful and poetic and mad. Of all the company, the ingénue Astor is the weakest, except when she's allowing herself to be courted by the vast, smirking, Oliver-Hardy-gone-all-wrong Inspector (André Gabriello), when she gets charmingly whimsical, too. The ending, with Gabin and Astor going off down the road, is Chaplinesque. Oh, and Renoir said he wanted not to make a Russian film, so he set it in the French countryside and used mostly French actors. Best seen with the bleaker Kurosawa version (with a Japanese setting but more faithful to Gorky), widely available as a Criterion Collection 2-disk set
Another excellent Renoir/Gabin Collaboration
gkbazalo19 July 2004
Jean Renoir's version of Gorky's Lower Depths is less faithful to the original than Kurosawa's film, but has its own charm. The film centers on Jean Gabin's character, the thief, and Louis Jouvet's character of the gambling baron, recently reduced to poverty through his embezzling and gambling losses. The scenes with Gabin and Jouvet together are tremendous, including their first meeting where Gabin is robbing Jouvet's mansion, later on lying in the summer grass recalling their past lives and their final parting. The other inhabitants of the flophouse, with a few exceptions, are not as delineated as in the Kurosawa version. This is not an ensemble acting piece like Kurosawa's, but very much a Gabin star vehicle. He and Jouvet really carry the film and make it one of Renoir's best. It's not in the same league as Grand Illusion and Rules of the Game, but very good. Four of 5 stars.
Beautiful black and white, French version of Russian play
deziree18 September 2006
Watch this movie if only to see the soul of Jean Gabin as it plays across his face. Louis Jouvet as the Baron is a marvel of understatement, of course. Beautifully filmed, the world of black and white film is a pleasure, in this movie, to watch. The scenes and the plot remind us of life not so long ago, a life that was harsh and brutal and filled with class divisions, you were wealthy or you were wretched. It made me want to read the original play by Maxim Gorky. Apparently Yvgeny Zamyatin, a long forgotten but brilliant Russian writer, contributed to the screenplay as well. Jean Gabin is a great actor, few people recognize his marvelous talents.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
