Renoir -- Film Review
Renoir
Directed by Gilles Bourdos
The film begins
with the arrival of Andree Heuschling (Christa Theret), a.k.a. Catherine
Hessling, who becomes his last model and the future wife of his son, Jean. Born in 1900, she would have been fifteen at
the time of this film, although in the film she appears to be somewhat older,
probably in her early 20s. Renoir's son, Claude, whom she encounters at
the outset, in actuality was only a year younger, although in the film he
appears to be at least ten years her junior.
Theret is
gorgeous and she spends a good part of her time in this film naked or nearly
so, which is a huge plus. Her naked body
helps a great deal to maintain interest in this somewhat slow moving domestic
film. There isn't a lot of action in
this film. It is domestic drama, but it
is interesting and has substance. The
characters are intriguing and their circumstance dealing with the aging
patriarch against the backdrop of the horrendous First World War give the film a
strong engagement.
The center of
gravity of the film is not really Renoir, who mostly sits and paints throughout
the film, and sometimes talks -- and what he has to say is always interesting --
but rather, the romance that develops between the older son, Jean, and
Andree. I'll let you watch the film to see how that
goes, but it is very well done and both characters are strong and captivating,
particularly Andree.
What I want to
talk about are some of the comments Renoir made on painting and art. Renoir's paintings, particularly in his later
years, are warm, colorful, and his subject matter tends to be benign: domestic scenes, landscapes, portraits, and
nude women. His colors are strong, but
tend to be pastel, softening contrast and shapes. He didn't use black very much. He felt that viewing a painting should be an
enjoyable encounter, reflecting positive, uplifting themes. It wasn't that he was unfamiliar with the
darker side of life, but he did not wish to portray it. And this is the point. A painting, or a work of art more generally,
reflects the inner reality, and especially the values, of the artist who
created it. The choice of subject matter
and the way it is portrayed say a lot about who the artist is as a person and
what he finds most important and valuable in life. It takes considerable time, sustained
attention, and skill to create a work of art.
What you choose as a subject matter upon which to spend that time,
attention, and skill is not arbitrary.
An artist chooses to depict what he feels is interesting and important
to share with others. When you view a
work of art, you are immersing yourself in the mindset and world view of
another person. You are allowing your
attention to be guided by the interest and outlook of another person. He may be a good person or a bad person. His outlook may be positive and
constructive, or negative, hostile, and biased.
But it is highly personal, individualized, and idiosyncratic. This is the reason why art and artists often
run afoul of prevailing morays and attitudes of their societies. If they make political statements, they may
get into trouble with the authorities.
Art, at least in
our western tradition of individual creators, is a forum that lifts up the
inner world of particular persons for public view. In contrast to say, commercial art, which does
not do this, or does it to a greatly circumscribed extent. The operating values in commercial art are to
sell a product, promote a name, or create an image associated with a brand or
company. The artist who is commissioned
to do such work has limited, if any, choice over the subject matter or how it
is to be portrayed. The artist becomes
something of a technician, executing work with a predefined object. If he is skilled and imaginative, he may have
some influence over the final depiction, but the work does not come from his
own initiative, his inner need to share of himself. He is doing the work in the service of an
agenda that has been brought to him by someone else. In the Middle Ages, when life and art was
dominated by the church, religious themes were the norm in art. Individual artists found ways to express
themselves within that context, but radical departures from this prevailing
mindset were not tolerated and simply had no venue. The names of artists who created artworks in
ancient times were not recorded. The
individual was not important and the individual's perspective was not to be
emphasized in the public forum of art.
Art's role was to reflect the values of society as a whole, or at least
the dominant class within it.
Modern art that
you see in museums and galleries today, celebrates highly individualized,
idiosyncratic perspectives. If you
contrast the paintings of women by Renoir, and say, Picasso, you see very
different attitudes toward women and how they are portrayed. Renoir saw women as beautiful and sensual,
somewhat idealized, perhaps, but women are exalted in his paintings. They are set in congenial circumstances in
warm, vibrant colors. You see their
faces with expressions reflecting the mood and personality of the woman. Picasso's women, by contrast, are distorted,
grotesque, their faces blank, cold, expressionless. There is nothing beautiful or inviting about
them. Many of them are frankly
hideous. Certainly there is no
idealization. Neither is more
"real" than the other. The
point is that artists depict the world, not as it is, but as they need to see it. These needs are largely unconscious and are
shaped by early experiences going back to the beginnings of their lives. What you see in art is an interpretation, not
"reality". When you look at a
work of art, you are seeing a selective view of the world the way the artist
needs to see it and chooses to share it.
So it is very personal. Art is a
way of connecting with other people on the level of the inner self through
selective symbolic communication. It is
inherently limited, but on the other hand, it exposes one to aspects of another
person not readily available, and can thus expand one's awareness of the
external world, the inner world of another, and awaken unexplored aspects of
oneself.
The film is not
so preoccupied with this philosophical topic of the nature of art -- which
might be a relief to you. It emphasizes,
rather, the romance between the young lovers, which is intriguing and
spirited. It is well crafted and well
acted. Not an action packed film. You have to wear your thinking cap for this
one, if you have one. It does offer a
convincing picture of Renoir in his later years, and particularly the
inspiration he derived from attractive young women. Renoir seems to have used his wealth to
isolate himself from the world in an idyllic landscape surrounded by beautiful,
attentive women. (I would do the same
thing, if I had the money.) This was a
cause for some tension between himself and his older son, Jean, who had been a soldier
at the front. Wounded in battle, he felt
the pull of responsibility to his comrades and the nation, choosing to reenlist
and go back to the war, against the strong opposition of Andree and his
father. Renoir senior sat out the war
painting naked girls. His warm, sensual,
inviting paintings didn't seem to sit so well with Jean, who had seen action at
the front, which gave him a very different perspective on life from what his
father portrayed. Renoir painted until
the very end of his life in 1919. He was
still painting on the day he died. The
film is an excellent introduction to his life and work.