About La règle du jeu (1939)

I'm a French cinephile with very little admiration for French cinema, preferring movies from elsewhere (mostly US but also Italian, early German, Russian and British). I've seen many classics and New Wave films, although not all of them since I profoundly dislike the work of staples such as Truffaut and Rohmer. I admire (some of) the work of Godard but more because of what he was trying to do rather than what he actually did. I feel that the main impact of the French New Wave was to push American cinema in new directions. But, with some exceptions, I don't enjoy watching the French films themselves. One of my favorite French films is the work of an exiled American: Du rififi chez les hommes by Jules Dassin (1955), a wonderful portrait of Paris with 30 minutes with almost no dialog and great camera work, rhythm and sensibility.

A friend who is aware of this predicament asked me if I had seen La règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game) by Jean Renoir (1939). I had, of course, twenty years ago, and hadn't thought much of it, but I watched it again yesterday. I found it unbearably talkative and theatrical, very badly acted by almost the entire cast (especially Renoir himself), and nothing to write home about from a cinematic point of view. A few interesting moments of layering multiple simultaneous actions in the frame (which were essentially quite theatrical) but nothing particularly inventive or engaging. Its inclusion in the top ten of French films in almost every list escapes me completely.

I am wondering if we would still be talking about this film if France hadn't lost the war against Germany. One of the main arguments in favour of this film is the fact that it portrays, with an undeniable premonition, the decomposition and rot of pre-war French society. This is true, but in my opinion it doesn't concern the film's artistic merit. It might be important from a historic and sociological perspective — and it probably is — but this has nothing to do with cinematic art, craftsmanship or even technical interest. The young directors of the New Wave elected it as one of their fetish masterpieces, and gave it a renewed life and aura. But I fail to see the artistic reasoning behind this choice, which seems to me a way for French cinema to distance itself from the shameful war years by adopting a politically clairvoyant, but artistically sterile, alarm call.

I'm interested in the opinions of those who love this film and who watch it regularly with enjoyment, as I do hundreds of films that I watched dozens of times each. Scenes that touch you, moments that are genuinely innovative or ingenious, inspired camera work and editing, or anything else. I probably missed something.