La Chienne

I think the remake Scarlett Street from Fritz Lang is better. But this one is also worth watching.

Some scenes are a little clunky, but when it matters, the dialogue turns razor sharp and the force of the narrative becomes compelling. The epilogue makes the film, casting the whole thing in the light of another dimension. The advantage of restoration is that it becomes possible to see what an unusual number of shots contain a fly walking obliviously through the scene: see if you can count them!

Simon excels in this early Renoir as a meek dupe who is getting played left and right. It's very cynical for an early 30's film, and Renoir injects some jet black humour into the proceedings that just increases the sting of the insults and betrayals that fall upon poor Legrand, who is far from innocent. Renoir's jaundiced perspective on class, morality, art and desire produces both laughs and pathos, and the building blocks of his narrative style had already fallen quite firmly into place.

I understand that it's an important building block in Renoir's path, but it's also primitive: rigid, static, and jarred in ways his films soon would not be. There are a few beautiful scenes, but in general it's as if nothing exists outside the four corners of the frame. A shame, because the characters are dimensional and their relationships shift, but they aren't captured in engaging manner. Lang would do it better years later.

Great Paris street atmosphere, and an excellent performance by Michel Simon. I have to admit, though, that I like Fritz Lang's version ("Scarlet Street") better.

"Not that hot" is incorrect, this is OK but aged. Darkman's review matches my thoughts "I think the remake Scarlett Street from Fritz Lang is better. But this one is also worth watching." There are differences so it's worth watching both.

Okay but Lang's remake, Scarlet Street, is much better. It's worth seeing but is a bit uneven. Feels slightly noir-y at a time when it was very early for noirs.

While it’s easy to pity Legrand, we ought to admire him (in contrast to Fritz Lang's Christopher Cross) for his incorruptible nature, and this is because of and not despite his murdering of Lulu and his allowing Dédé to be led to the gallows. The fact that Legrand has to paint and is very good at it yet refuses to proclaim himself an artist is another reason to admire him. What really catches my eye is the way Renoir and Sparkuhl ‘move the camera’ to convey the dynamism of the dancing scenes.

Well ahead of its time in both form and content. The visuals are contradictorily meticulous in design and completely natural-feeling. The story threatens to become a kind of misogynistic cautionary tale but the final half hour reveals it to be far beyond a Ballad of the Incel, forsaking moral judgment for an unusual brand of thematic poetry.

88.50

Excellent characterization for the two leads, as well as a tonally complex effort from Renoir, who deftly moves us with ease from sharp and sarcastic comedy to the bleakest tragedy. Furthermore, the energy of the camera consistently adds dimension to the film, while the use of sound seems advanced for 1931.

Viewed May 30, 2017.

I'm confused by this film. The main message I understood it was trying to get across was that the meek, nerdy "nice" guys of the world are just as entitled, violent and misogynist as any physically abusive pimp. It's not the person that's the problem but masculinity as a whole. But on the other hand, any feminist message it's trying to make it's completely undermined by giving this film such an overtly misogynist title. So what gives? Is it feminist or not? I'm leaning toward the latter.

Definitely not as good as the first two. Actually nodded off during this instalment. Watched the 1st one over and over (in cinemas and DVD), the second also but not as much. Reread the book several times. Saw Mockingjay once and that was enough....

A semi-comedy with a deceptively winding plot, quite devious in the way it plays out, and I loved that. Michel Simon is iconic as Legrand. Top tier Renoir.

There was so much to love about this movie. Most of all the way Michel Simon portrayed his character of a shell of a man into a mare ghost during the course of this movie being both a simple dignified man and undignified at the same time. Just human nature and it's temptations. Jean Renoir was one of the masters of cinema at the time and even with the arrival of sound he's still on top!

#632

834

Renoir's early use of direct sound and location filming in the streets of Paris adds to the excellence of the film.

847

A very cynical but enjoyable film full of despicable characters. The beginning is a bit hard to get through with bad sound and somewhat annoying characters but once it gets rolling it's all worth it.

# 744

Sometimes hilarious, sometimes brutal, and always extremely cynical dram-edy from Renoir. The hero is a whipped, broken-down shell of a man, mocked by his colleagues, unappreciated and unloved by his shrew of a wife, and manipulated by his whore mistress. It has a lot to say about people taking advantage of each other, and about the fate of artists. The puppet show intro is quite unique and funny. A very interesting, entertaining and worthwhile movie.