Renoir
Directed by Gilles Bourdos
This is an outstanding dramatization of the French painter Pierre-August Renoir (1841-1919) (Michel Bouquet) in his later years. (In French with subtitles.) It takes place in 1915 during the First World War. At the time Renoir lived on a farm in Cagnes near the Mediterranean coast above Nice. He seems to have had an entourage of women around him who took care of the household and attended to him. The film never explained exactly who they were or what their relationships were to him. Some of them seem to have been former models. His wife of 25 years, Aline, died prior to the time of the film, which would have been recently. He had three sons with Aline, two of whom figure prominently in the film, Jean (Vincent Rottiers), the older, and Claude (Thomas Doret), the younger.
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.
