Film Double Bill: Paul Morrison, director of `Soloman and Gaenor', now on release on his ideal cinematic pairing
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.LA REGLE DU JEU (JEAN RENOIR, 1939)
BRINGING UP BABY (HOWARD HAWKS, 1938)
LA ReGLE du Jeu is an incredible combination of satire, farce and tragedy, and Bringing Up Baby is a screwball comedy, which has a totally absurd edge.
Both films were incredibly ahead of their time; now people see them as great films, but Renoir's film was actually banned by the French government for its subversive nature and Bringing Up Baby is a pre-feminist satire on masculinity and romance.
La Regle du Jeu attacks pre-Second World War French politics, and it involves several love triangles and affairs, set in a big country house.
It has an Upstairs, Downstairs feel and links the lives of the rich people who are there to enjoy a weekend shooting, with what is going on downstairs in the servants quarters. It ends with death, and genuine tragedy. But it is amazing how the film somehow combines all these different levels, farce with deep tragedy, and makes it somehow feel innovative and natural.
Bringing Up Baby is basically a love story, or rather a battle, with feisty Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant as two people who are obviously attracted to one another, but can't stop arguing and exposing each others' faults. It's a critique of masculinity, as Hepburn constantly undermines Grant's authority; she deflates him. Howard Hawks tends to be seen as a masculine director, but here is this total desire to strip away male pretensions.
There is something about both movies that feels so fresh. Perhaps it is because the characters look as though they have been improvised, and I think that Hawks actually did encourage improvisation on the set.
You think of Katherine Hepburn as a stiff actress, for instance, but she lets loose this fantastic timing and comic flair. And in neither film is the emotion laboured, which means that they go against the modern grain of having to have people actually speak the emotions. Both of them have this delight in people and human nature yet manage to avoid sentimentality.
You would have a really rich afternoon if you saw these two films together, and my own fantasy is to go hooky one day and do just that. To take delight in a variety of human existence.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments