IMDb > La Marseillaise (1938) > IMDb user reviews

IMDb user comments for
La Marseillaise (1938) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 6 reviews in total 

18 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
The Country is in Danger!, 18 September 2004
Author: Dr. Barry Worthington (shrbw) from dundee

This film, despite being directed by Renoir, is largely forgotten today. This is a pity, as there are few films actually about the French Revolution (though it is used as a backdrop for a variety of plot lines), and none that really deal with the birth of the Republic.

It was made at the tail end of the 'Popular Front' government, a coalition of parties (including the communists) formed to protect the Third Republic from right-wing domestic subversion and the baleful influence of the Nazis.

It chose to use the early years of the revolution as a metaphor for this political situation - France was still a (constitutional) monarchy, and the King possessed the power of a constitutional veto. The Queen and her circle were said to be plotting a counter revolution.

Within this context, each city and region of France is requested to send a Battalion to Paris, to defend the government against its domestic enemies. We follow the adventures of some of the ordinary men in the battalion from Marseilles (who sing a new song called the "Marseilles" as they march. We see their experiences in Paris (including a love interest), and their simple and honest defence of what they believe in. Finally, they participate in the coup that leads to the establishment of the Republic and the arrest of the King.

The film is episodic, and some of the scenes are a little melodramatic. But the characterisation is excellent. The King and his court are not one-dimensional villains. The scene of his departure is quite moving.

In short, a film well worth rescuing from obscurity.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Summary of La Marseillaise, 7 August 2005
8/10
Author: HistoryDTE from United States

Jean Renoir's classic tribute to the glory of the French Revolution, the film captures the personal flavor of the struggle and the philosophical background to the revolutionary upheaval. In a rapid series of vignettes we are introduced to the elegance and nobility of the court of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette... the contrasting plight of French peasants governed by laws they cannot understand...the storming of the Bastille in 1789 by an undisciplined mob...the plotting of France's exiled nobility to return to power...the Republican march on Paris...and the capture of the Tuilleries in 1793, ending the revolution. The film follows the adventures of two young patriots who join the Peoples' army in Marseilles. As their battalion begins its long journey north to Paris to join with the Federate army, they adopt as their anthem a song from the Army of the Rhine. This song was soon to be known all over France as "La Marseillaise" and would lead the newly unified nation to victory.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
A people's epic, 27 May 2007
7/10
Author: TrevorAclea from London, England

Jean Renoir's 1938 La Marseillaise is a people's epic, and not just because it was initially backed by public subscription before budget overruns necessitated a more conventional form of funding. Even its credits proudly boast its association with France's short-lived Popular Front, while the picture is as much a celebration of the everyman's role in the great events of history as it is rabble-rousing propaganda for the impending war with Germany. Unfortunately it gets off to a surprisingly bad start. Indeed, the first twenty minutes are so poor you wonder if the film can ever recover. A stilted historical pageant in the very worst sense, with awkward editing, speech-making, initially clumsy characterisation and a crude jumps forward in time, it's unpromising stuff.

It's only with the taking of the fort that Renoir really finds his feet as one character notes that sunsets are only glorious in novels – anyone who has to get up that early for work knows that they're usually cold, damp and grey. And with that comes Renoir's real manifesto for the film: he's less interested in the confused politics of France's messy revolution than he is in the people caught up in it, and from this point on it becomes a celebration of the ordinary people whose names have been forgotten in the great events. Aside from the King (a fine turn from Pierre Renoir, the director's brother) and his court, we never see any of the great names of the Revolution. Renoir's constantly roving camera is just as likely to settle on a pair of children playing in the street than the thousands of extras around them waiting for battle to be joined, while the political satire of a shadow play is far less important to him than a soldier taking his girl out for a night at the pictures. Even the royalists are allowed some intelligence and a genuine love of France, even if they are fatally undermined by the ease with which they are sidetracked from politics to trivia: after all, everybody has their reasons.

It's not a great film, but it is a surprisingly entertaining one once it gets going and the camera-work is often stunning, with Renoir demonstrating such a mastery of the epic form that it's a pity he never returned to the genre.

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A grand moment in French history, beautifully told with the seeds of Renoir's greatness showing, 19 November 2007
8/10
Author: OldAle1 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Coming as it does between the much better-known and acclaimed La Grande illusion and La Bête humaine, it's not surprising that this epic story of the French Revolution told mostly from the point of view of several peasant and laboring-class men who find themselves (mostly uneasily) caught up in the events of the early part of the revolt would get glossed over by many film historians. And it's not quite on the level of those masterpieces nor of La Règle du jeu from the following year or for that matter most of Renoir's 40s and 50s output, but it's also hardly worthy of dismissal.

The film begins in the countryside and the Mediterranean port city of Marseilles, as a middle-aged man is about to be tried (and presumably executed) for the killing of a pigeon on his lord's land. He instead escapes into the country, into the mountains, where he meets up with with other like-minded impoverished proto-rebels. Slowly over the course of the first half-hour the struggle takes on political tones rather than just the personal gripe of one man, and it is the genius of the film to keep slowly building to the inevitable climax of "The Nation" versus "The King" while never forgetting to regard participants also as individuals.

By the middle of the film the royal family and nobles have begun to understand the dangers they face, or at least some have -- the king still ignores the growing strife -- and they begin to play a major role in the film. Interestingly, the prime revolutionaries themselves though mentioned never take the stage; the focus is always on the lowest and the highest members of society, with the intellectuals who fomented the events offstage. Renoir is, it seems, trying to tell us that events were inevitable, and the prime movers really aren't all that significant if we look at the lives of those who stood most to gain, or lose.

The final battle sequences are impressively staged, the film as a whole is strikingly well-acted and pretty seamless for all its shifting of focus between the oblivious king and his progressively angrier subjects. Particular acting honors would go to Edmond Ardisson as Bomier, whose growing beginnings of an understanding that revolution is not merely about him, but about the whole world around him are very moving. Pierre Renoir as Louis XVI manages to be foolish, brutal, and sympathetic by turns.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Aristocrats aren't the only ones with stories to tell!, 1 August 2007
10/10
Author: Cornelie from United States

Aside from being a brilliant film, at different times humorous and moving, LA MARSEILLAISE is hands down the most accurate film out there when it comes to the French Revolution.

Some have noted it's "one-sided" aspect, but allow me to make an observation: when royalists want to make a one-sided film on the French Revolution, they... make stuff up! Usually utter bilge, such as THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL or A TALE OF TWO CITIES, films (and original books) whose only basis in historical fact can be summed up as, yes, there was a revolution in France in 1789, and yes indeed, Britain and France are on opposite sides of the Channel. Those who support the republic, on the other hand, have typically had the scruples to actually *do their research* before setting out to mold the public's impressions of so momentous an historical event. Such is the case with LA MARSEILLAISE, where a large percentage of the dialog is taken from historical records. (In fact, the only real complaint one could have as far as historical accuracy goes is costuming, but I've yet to see any film from that era--1938, in this case--that had accurate costumes.)

All this is not to suggest that LA MARSEILLAISE is dull. Far from it! As mentioned before, LA MARSEILLAISE is witty and often poignant. In showing the Revolution from the point of view of ordinary citizens instead of aristocrats or well-known revolutionary leaders, the film shows to what point common citizens were dedicated to the ideals of the Revolution, as well as showing a human side to the "mob" so frequently portrayed.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
pleasant historical piece, 24 October 2005
6/10
Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida

This film was an opportunity to view the French revolution from the view of the common people. Most viewers have only seen, perhaps, A TALE OF TWO CITIES or THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL, so this film does offer fresh insights. However, to me, some of the dialog and one-sidedness of the film seemed as one-dimensional as the other two movies I just mentioned.

The film deals with events from 1789 to 1792 and so it really doesn't delve into the bloodier years of the Reign of Terror. It is understandable that these abuses aren't covered in depth, but to omit the be-headings completely seems rather dishonest. I'd really like to see a film that gives a balanced view of this period, but have yet to see it--and that's a shame, as it's a fascinating and tumultuous period.

FYI--From my point of view as a history teacher, it does seem amazing that within only two years of the completion of this very rousing and patriotic film the French capitulated to the Nazis.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history