gavin6942 Three adolescent girls growing up in Bengal, India, learn their lessons in life after falling for an older American soldier.While I am not at all familiar with the cinema of India, my impression is that it probably did not get started until the 1960s. Maybe this is wrong. But Jean Renoir's "River" may be the first significant film to come out of India following the country's independence in 1948.The "coming of age" aspect of the three girls is very interesting and a good narrative, but more important is the way Indian culture and religion is shown. When did the West become interested in India? Long ago, surely. But there seems to be a Renaissance mid-1900s with such writers as Christopher Isherwood. This film, no doubt, helped push that Renaissance.

LobotomousMonk The River is all about the construction of space and how people find their way through life. Filmed in India and in color, the spectator is immediately invited to the exotic. The title cards are imprinted into the diegetic world through scrolling long take, fusing the authorial voice with the fiction. There is a theme of auteurship in the story of The River that overtakes the superficial story of first love. The idea of first love is objective but the authorship is far from that. The portrayal of India is ethnographic but also biographical. The great depth of field serves a sense of pseudo-documentary. Identification is confounded somewhat through a lack of closeups. When there is a closeup, it is a two-shot. The adaptation beguiles an otherwise obvious example of the development of Renoir's famous stylistic system. Candid honesty is at the fore rendering the realism of group dynamics similar to Regle or M. Lange. However, the adaptation renders the literary directly to painterly while the authorship in voice-over narration retains a pure psychological focus on Harriet. Captain John is the object, that which provokes jealousy never has its own position elucidated. The voice-over narration gets intriguing as Harriet's character knows of events she was not present for. Harriet's diegetic character then narrates a story whose events are shown on-screen rendering multiple diegeses. When we believe we have returned to the first layer of diegetic, unpredictable events beg the question of whether we have slipped into a deeper secret layer and what connection they might all have to each other. The power of the authorship of Renoir and Godden combined subvert a political or even ethnographic study of the story. We are forced to submit to the coming-of-age-love-story alone. These self-reflexive characteristics have a strong connection to Renoir's Woman on the Beach. Again, many characters are underdeveloped highlighting the power of the authorial voice as a non-Transcendental 'Other'. According to Renoir, the universal element of the film was dance, however, I found its tableau framing to be inert in an unattractive way. Perhaps I am too much of a control freak to submit fully to a powerful authorial voice and as such The River is a film best left to those who love being taken along for a ride as opposed to those who must play at being a backseat driver. Of course, this statement has a deep irony in Renoir's own philosophy of the cork in the river.

dougdoepke How wonderful are the rhythms, color, and imagery as they flow lyrically along - man, beast, spreading tree. They succeed one another like the film's central metaphor, the living continuum, the river of life. The lyricism, however, tends to flatten out the story's sparse drama in a way that requires some patience. In fact, these rhythms are the point -- life, death, renewal -- all beautifully photographed in great splashes of Technicolor. To contemporary audiences, a film like this must seem an import from an alien world, and I suspect it was not commercial even on release -- who else in the US but an art house would show it! The story is slender and idealized, set indelibly in India, and likely the author's fond reminiscence of childhood under the British protectorate. Except for the boy's muted passing, not much really happens.The only conflict involves three girls competing for a youngish war veteran, and it's a measure of Renoir's approach that the competition never interferes with their friendship. Everyone, it seems, behaves with admirable restraint, even the dutiful servants, all of which serves to somewhat prettify the British presence. Nevertheless, this is one of those movies that creeps up on you. It's only afterward, when the images have had a chance to linger and luminesce, that their sum total registers and you know you've seen something lasting. I, for one, am glad Renoir defied the rule and did not use pretty people; that would only have emphasized plot over theme, and individual over universal. Moreover, I wish more ordinary looking people appeared in movies, especially from Hollywood. Finding the unusual in the usual is the kind of thing I believe this movie was trying to bring out, while learning that lesson would do much to heal our celebrity- driven culture. This is a Renoir classic and demonstrates once again, amidst a slam-bang world, what can be done on the plane of artistic understatement

MARIO GAUCI India has, through the years, fascinated many a major film-maker, including Robert Flaherty, Fritz Lang, Louis Malle, Michael Powell, Roberto Rossellini and Jean Renoir. Renoir's film, based on a novel by English novelist Rumer Godden of BLACK NARCISSUS (1947) fame, is as gorgeously shot (in ravishing Technicolor) as can be expected from a master film-maker and the son of a famous French impressionist painter; however, the narrative itself is rather disappointingly thin to support its 99-minute running time. Having said that, the coming-of-age story of two English girls living in India and loving the same young officer wounded in WWII, is appealingly performed by Nora Swinburne, Esmond Knight, Arthur Shields and Adrienne Corri. The central character, played winningly by newcomer Patricia Walters (whose only film this turned out to be) is a stand-in for Godden herself, whose considerable writing talent was not encouraged by her stern family. The film offers Renoir another chance to show his humanist side dwelling as it does on the strange (to Western eyes) social and religious customs of the Indian people; even so, when all is said and done, there is just too much local color in the film. However, as Renoir is not only one of my favorite film directors but arguably the greatest of all French film-makers, I am confident that a second viewing of THE RIVER will elevate significantly my estimation of it, as it is probably too rich an experience to savor all at one go.Among the copious supplements on the Criterion DVD, there is a typically enthusiastic interview with Martin Scorsese (who also helped in funding the film's restoration) who waxes lyrically on the effect the film had on him as a 9 year-old film-goer; surprisingly for me, he also confesses that the appeal of Renoir's masterpiece, LA REGLE DU JEU (1939), an automatic candidate for the title of the greatest film of all time, escapes him!!