lasttimeisaw A Jean Renoir vaudeville stars Ingrid Bergman as a Polish princess-cum-widow Elena Sokorowska in pre WWI Paris, merrily philandering with her suitors, until they are pinned down between two, the radical party general François Rollan (Marais) who is a candidate for the prime minister of the country and a romantic count Henri de Chevincourt (Ferrer). My second Renoir's film after THE RULES OF THE GAME (1939, 8/10), ELENA AND HER MEN is on a splendid parade of polychromatism with exquisite costumes and interior decoration, whereas the movie is indulged in its own flamboyance and fecklessness, not even Juliette Gréco's superb rendition could ease the despondent frown. Maybe it was Renoir's intention to make a film pandering for French audience and foreign Gallo- savants at its time, but the story is utterly uninvolving, all the rapid talking side characters pop up and romp around inordinately, which causes great trouble to comprehend what is going on on the screen, soon or later, all of them will inexplicably lapses into ridiculous buffoons, and more unsatisfying is that there is never enough room for viewers to savor the farce. Bergman has a gregarious presence in this light-hearted rom-com, a skip-deep socialite can equally excel in conquering any man she wants and appeasing any man she deserts, with her charm daisy. Two besotted gentlemen, either the aristocratic and uptight Marias or the more characterless Ferrer, fail to make strong impact other than a convenient pawn to be blindly swept off his feet by Elena ever since the first glance.Supporting roles galore, Jean Richard is Rollan's guard Hector, fights for the love of Lolotte (Noël), Elena's young maid, with Eugéne (Jouanneau), Elena's soon-to-be son-in-law, and truly, Elena is going to remarry with shoe businessman Mr. Martin-Michaud (Bertin), and their will be a double wedding with Eugéne marries his fiancée Denise (Nadal), things are all mismanaged under a political turbulence which one might find it difficult to decipher with its fast pace. Not to mention Rollan's quartet political corp, things could not be more messier. Renoir certainly is still good at his trick with various characters bungle together within a carefully measured frame, but it doesn't change much for the haphazard love-triangle, in the end, one can only wish it could end as soon as possible, since our rationality determines that it doesn't worth all the effort.

writers_reign Several posters have quoted Renoir voicing his desire to make a film showing Ingrid Bergman smiling to camera. The short answer is wouldn't we all whilst the harsh reality is that only a select few got to do so. At this stage of her career Bergman couldn't get arrested; in 1949 she left Hollywood to make a picture in Europe, fell for director Roberto Rossellini and never looked forward. After five turkeys in Italy she was probably ready to open a vein but within the year, after making this for Renoir, she was back where she belonged and with an Oscar to boot for Anastasia. This is one of three movies that Renoir made in color around this time and on balance it's better than The Golden Coach, which isn't hard, and about even with French Can Can. Renoir probably figured that with so much going for her Bergman could get away with a couple of wooden leading men and Renoir picked two doozys in Jean Marais and Mel Ferrer, solid mahogany in both cases. The plot is actually based on a real incident in French history but Renoir is content to give it a once-over-lightly and concentrate on replicating the paintings of his father in set up after set up. In its pastel colors it resembles another film of the period Les Grandes Manouvres which is no bad thing. All in all it remains a pleasant trifle showcasing a beautiful and charismatic actress.

theowinthrop I have only seen this silly film once on television, somewhere around 1979 or so. It was, naturally, with English dubbing, not sub-titles. In the years since, I have confused it's title with another silly film, PARIS WHEN IT SIZZLES (there seems a curse on films beginning with "PARIS", all of which are silly or expensive failures - add to these two PARIS HOLIDAY, TO PARIS WITH LOVE, and IS PARIS BURNING?). This one, though, does have a few things going for it - it was directed by Jean Renoir, it stars Jean Marais and Ingrid Bergman, and it deals (albeit in a farcical manner) with one of the great "ifs" of modern French history: what would have happened in 1889 to France (and Europe) had General Georges Boulanger (the man on horseback of the day) seized the moment and completed a planned coup - d'etat of the Third Republic. For that is precisely what the underpinnings of this comedy is about. Boulanger's name is changed to General Roland, but it is the same story. In the English version, Roland's adjutant (Mel Ferrer) is telling the story - and giving a sardonic account of how the naive patriot is primed to seize the country by a band of cartoon conspirators who use the General's fascination with a Polish countess (Bergman) as a lure. Renoir tries to get as much milage as he can out of the political shenanigans, and the fin-de-siec Paris setting, as he can. Both Marais and Bergman try hard to make what they can out of the frou-frou atmosphere of the film. But although both are good (so is Ferrer and Juliet Greco as a gypsy who loves the General)the screenplay is weak. The motivation of Bergman is highly self-centered (she is attracted to the idea of being the beloved muse to great men, and then leaving them when she feels they no longer need them). It might be good for a minor character, but it is hard for an audience to sustain interest in such a flighty idiot.It would have been better if they had stuck closer to the historical reality (and ultimate tragedy) of Boulanger's hour of historical importance. France was recovering from the humiliation of defeat in 1870, but the Third Republic was born with grave weaknesses: it signed the treaty of peace ceding Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, it had okayed the extermination of the Communards in Paris in 1871, and it lacked the legitimacy of French government. But its opponents were weak too - the defeat in 1870 was due to the Bonapartiste regime of Napoleon III. He had fled (and was dead in 1873). His son, the Prince Imperiale, died fighting for the British in the Zulu War in 1879. Most of the French, had they a choice of the Third Republic or Second Empire would have chosen the Second Empire, but without Napoleon III or his son they were not too interested in restoring the Bourbons or the house of Orleans. These two families had (by 1877) seemed prepared to compromise their rival feelings, and accept the restoration of the monarchy. The Bourbon pretender, the Comte de Paris, was childless, and would be restored, leaving his cousin, the Duc de Orleans as heir. The first President of the Third Republic, Marshal MacMahon, was ready to order the army to assist the Comte ascend the throne. But the Comte refused the deal unless the national flag reverted from the Revolutionary tri-color to the old Fleur-de-lys of the pre-1789 Bourbons. This was not acceptable. The Comte died in 1883. By then MacMahon had been eased into resigning the Presidency, and the Third Republic continued stumbling on and on.One of the few generals who had not been damaged by the disasters of the Franco-Prussian War was Georges Boulanger. He was an above average commander, and he actually did do some innovation. By 1887 he was attracting attention, and was elected to the Chambre of Deputies, and became Minister of War. At some point, he began to be approached by the Royalists in France. He had the choice of the Orleanists or the Bonapartistes. He remained vague about his view on whom he'd support, but this may have been his way of guaranteeing that he would be supported by both groups (with Boulanger it is hard to know if he was a brilliant opportunist or just a lucky fool for awhile). He catered to the Paris and French desire for revenge by speaking out against German acts of aggression or of spying - talking about the future war to regain the lost provinces. Initially he had the support of the Republicans, but this was slowly lost as their suspicions of the man grew. Clemenceau, sick of his one-time friend's antics, confronted him on one occasion with a bitter reminder: "General, at your age Napoleon I was dead!"Despite being thrown out of his cabinet rank, and his seat in the Chambre (he got reelected soon after from another district) Boulanger went on. Then, in September 1889 events climaxed with a series of pro-Boulanger desplays by the army and various supporters. It looked like the General was going to lead the troops onto the Chambre of Deputies or the Elysee Palace and seize control. The moment arrived....and passed. Nothing happened. The leaders of the Republic regained their nerve, and ordered his arrest. He fled, with his mistress. In fact, rumour had it that he wasted the critical hours having sex with the mistress [a rumour that has never been totally dismissed]. He spent the remaining two years of his life in exile in Belgium. His mistress died there, and in 1891 Boulanger committed suicide on her grave. Clemenceau, upon hearing the news, summarized the tragedy appropriately (if cruelly): "The General lived as he died, as a subaltern" [The lowest rank in the French army - and one where the young officers have cheap prostitutes for lovers.]In the English version of the film, Ferrer is gentler, suggesting that had Boulanger/Roland done what he was expected to do his biographical standing would be as large as Napoleon I's. Probably true. The film does show Roland leaving with his gypsy lover, not going into the sad death that awaited them soon after. To a viewer in the know it is a bittersweet ending. But a better version of the story remains to be done - and to try to come to grips with the General who held France, briefly perhaps, in his hands, and then dropped everything in so inexplicably a manner.

kentmiller Ingrid Bergman is a temporarily impoverished Polish countess in 1900s Paris who finds herself pursued by France's most popular general and a glamorous count -- and that's on top of being engaged to a shoe magnate. Such is the failproof premise that entrains one of the most delirious plots in movie history. There are backroom political machinations by the general's handlers, a downed balloonist and ecstatic Bastille Day throngs, but the heart of this gorgeously photographed film is the frantic upstairs/downstairs intrigues involving randy servants and only slightly more restrained aristocrats. Yes, it's Rules of the Game redux. Before it's all over even Gaston Modot, the jealous gamekeeper in Rules, puts in an appearance -- as a gypsy capo, no less! Things happen a little too thick and fast toward the end, resulting in some confusion for this non-French speaker, but what the heck -- Elena and Her Men is another deeply humane Renoir masterpiece.