ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

guedesnino By embodying in a woman the archetype of an idealized France, Renoir, positively expands the perception of the feminine role, issues already evoked and debated in that period of the fifties, but that Renoir, inserts in a farces France of 1890, about to live a blow Where Elena (Ingrid Bergman) is the muse capable of influencing General François Rollan (Jean Marais), and consequently changing the political directions. In order to move this turbulent relationship further, there is the figure of Le Comte Henri DE Chevincourt (Mel Ferrer), who falls in love with Princess Elena, tries anyway to keep out the possible opponents of his love affair, something not simple for Henri, since Elena Is a poor finance widow, but rich in candidates for a new marriage."Elena ET Le's hommes" already begins with a comical and embarrassed request of marriage of Martin-Michaud (Pierre Bertin), suddenly refused by the Princess. In this first "take" we are already inserted in marks that have made the work of Jean Renoir singular and prosperous in the cinematographic grammar. The play with windows and doors (perhaps inherited from the theater and the circus spectacles), the effects of cutting in planes and against fields, working with depths, but without adding something new, Renoir more than inventing, I knew, mainly in this Delimit the necessary number of resources to tell a story.One reason why Renoir is regarded as a modernist is that many of his films have a looser narrative compared to the typical Hollywood films of the time, Renoir's plots were generally less structured and more open to the digression, which would become The dominant mode of European art films from the 1960s, but Elena and her men unfortunately are not. The great cast and the need to follow historical events closely together give the film a much more complicated story line, which is much less open and enjoyable than the other two. The only excursions that Renoir allows himself are the many scenes of farce, but framed in a contained, even bland laugh, due to the novelty nothingness of the jokes. Renoir thought it would be fun to see serious actors in scenes that were pushed to the point of absurdity, but forced humor attempts do not work.Elena, while occasionally suggesting that the state of the nation is at stake, represents more a theater of the heart than a theater of war, and Renoir seems determined to move completely out of the domain of realism, but contradictory it is on that road he prefers The opposite of what is suggested by the prophetic shadow of wars or battles there is a palette of vivid and colorful colors, for the battle here is of love, as it is phrased in the film "In a country where the Love, there is no room for wars. " In addition to the colorfully used to counter the proposals of a war movie, its importance is also in the perspective of an archetype of the protagonist of the film, Elena is a contrary joyful widow, although all the adversity of his life still maintains traces of the freshness of youth , The joy of better days and the sensuality of colors, reflected in their costumes and the colorful composition of the paintings - excellently captured by the photograph of Claude Renoir, nephew of Jean Renoir - paintings always ornamented with flowers, a spring and Utopian's France , Considering the events of the past and the threatening future.Curiously it is with a flower (daisy), that Elena presents General Rollan, claiming to be a lucky charm. Among the many symbolic that this flower evokes, the most interesting is the wisdom to use as a resource to promote links, since the general, for various reasons, always loses it, and the repair of this amulet only occurs when Elena offers another , That is, Elena herself is the lucky charm. The good things that happen to the general and consequently to France occur when Elena is close to the general. A second curiosity is that 14 years before, in the movie "Casablanca", it is also with a daisy that Ilsa Lund Laszlo (Ingrid Bergman) presents Richard Blane (Humphrey Bogart), and with the same effect of an amulet that finally gives luck, But can not promote the bond between the characters.A sum inseparable from what nourishes the film is the quality of its actors, especially when considering the little experience or familiarity with comedy and or farce. Ingrid Bergman as Princess Elena Sokorowska is a ladder to various comic moments, but rarely can she produce comedy of her own, which is not a problem in the film at all, her princess turns out to be moments of female freedom, sensuality and action leader. Jean Marais as Gènèral François Rollan is also more ladder than comic, but he punctuates his general and the love triangle with Le Comte Henri DE Chevincourt (Mel Ferrer), but the high point of the comedy is in the characters that appear to be, a A reference to characters such as the harlequin, Pierrot and Columbine of the comedian dell'Artie, depicted in the film by Eugène (Jacques Jouanneau), Lolotte (Magali Noël), the princess' maid and Hector (Jean Richard).Although the use of Renoir's misc en scene is as interesting as ever, and the positive performances, this is possibly his least interesting film. For, it generates a superficial and less enveloping tale.

jjnxn-1 Silly concoction is a minor work for all involved. Ingrid, in her last foreign film before her Rossolini fueled exile from Hollywood ended with her triumphant return in Anastastia, is charming and her dresses are incredibly beautiful. But the settings have a sense of falseness to them, even wealthy people's homes look like someone lives there, these are obvious sets. Even the outdoor scenes have a claustrophobic feeling of being stage-bound. Renoir doesn't seem comfortable with the material or perhaps he didn't believe in it, either way it's missing a light touch that would have turned the film into a charming soufflé instead of the flat farce that it is. Mildly amusing but almost completely forgettable.

Claudio Carvalho In the end of the Nineteenth Century, on the July 14th Celebration in Paris, the broken widow Polish Princess Elena Sokorowska (Ingrid Bergman) meets the bon-vivant Henri de Chevincourt (Mel Ferrer) on the streets. Henri introduces his friend General François Rollan (Jean Marais), who is a national hero. Elena has sold all her pearls and needs to get married to keep her lifestyle. Elena involves with a group of politicians that intend to promote the general to the presidency of France supported by the people. Rollan and Henti fall in love for Elena and dispute her love."Elena et les Homes" is a dull romance in a political environment in France that is homage to love and the French way of life. Ingrid Bergman shines with her beauty performing a likable character. The bright colors highlight the art decoration, with colorful sets and costumes. This movie was released in Brazil on VHS by Mundial Filmes Distributor. My vote is six.Title (Brazil): "As Estranhas Coisas de Paris" ("The Strange Things of Paris")

theowinthrop I have only seen this silly film once on television, somewhere around 1979 or so. It was, naturally, with English dubbing, not sub-titles. In the years since, I have confused it's title with another silly film, PARIS WHEN IT SIZZLES (there seems a curse on films beginning with "PARIS", all of which are silly or expensive failures - add to these two PARIS HOLIDAY, TO PARIS WITH LOVE, and IS PARIS BURNING?). This one, though, does have a few things going for it - it was directed by Jean Renoir, it stars Jean Marais and Ingrid Bergman, and it deals (albeit in a farcical manner) with one of the great "ifs" of modern French history: what would have happened in 1889 to France (and Europe) had General Georges Boulanger (the man on horseback of the day) seized the moment and completed a planned coup - d'etat of the Third Republic. For that is precisely what the underpinnings of this comedy is about. Boulanger's name is changed to General Roland, but it is the same story. In the English version, Roland's adjutant (Mel Ferrer) is telling the story - and giving a sardonic account of how the naive patriot is primed to seize the country by a band of cartoon conspirators who use the General's fascination with a Polish countess (Bergman) as a lure. Renoir tries to get as much milage as he can out of the political shenanigans, and the fin-de-siec Paris setting, as he can. Both Marais and Bergman try hard to make what they can out of the frou-frou atmosphere of the film. But although both are good (so is Ferrer and Juliet Greco as a gypsy who loves the General)the screenplay is weak. The motivation of Bergman is highly self-centered (she is attracted to the idea of being the beloved muse to great men, and then leaving them when she feels they no longer need them). It might be good for a minor character, but it is hard for an audience to sustain interest in such a flighty idiot.It would have been better if they had stuck closer to the historical reality (and ultimate tragedy) of Boulanger's hour of historical importance. France was recovering from the humiliation of defeat in 1870, but the Third Republic was born with grave weaknesses: it signed the treaty of peace ceding Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, it had okayed the extermination of the Communards in Paris in 1871, and it lacked the legitimacy of French government. But its opponents were weak too - the defeat in 1870 was due to the Bonapartiste regime of Napoleon III. He had fled (and was dead in 1873). His son, the Prince Imperiale, died fighting for the British in the Zulu War in 1879. Most of the French, had they a choice of the Third Republic or Second Empire would have chosen the Second Empire, but without Napoleon III or his son they were not too interested in restoring the Bourbons or the house of Orleans. These two families had (by 1877) seemed prepared to compromise their rival feelings, and accept the restoration of the monarchy. The Bourbon pretender, the Comte de Paris, was childless, and would be restored, leaving his cousin, the Duc de Orleans as heir. The first President of the Third Republic, Marshal MacMahon, was ready to order the army to assist the Comte ascend the throne. But the Comte refused the deal unless the national flag reverted from the Revolutionary tri-color to the old Fleur-de-lys of the pre-1789 Bourbons. This was not acceptable. The Comte died in 1883. By then MacMahon had been eased into resigning the Presidency, and the Third Republic continued stumbling on and on.One of the few generals who had not been damaged by the disasters of the Franco-Prussian War was Georges Boulanger. He was an above average commander, and he actually did do some innovation. By 1887 he was attracting attention, and was elected to the Chambre of Deputies, and became Minister of War. At some point, he began to be approached by the Royalists in France. He had the choice of the Orleanists or the Bonapartistes. He remained vague about his view on whom he'd support, but this may have been his way of guaranteeing that he would be supported by both groups (with Boulanger it is hard to know if he was a brilliant opportunist or just a lucky fool for awhile). He catered to the Paris and French desire for revenge by speaking out against German acts of aggression or of spying - talking about the future war to regain the lost provinces. Initially he had the support of the Republicans, but this was slowly lost as their suspicions of the man grew. Clemenceau, sick of his one-time friend's antics, confronted him on one occasion with a bitter reminder: "General, at your age Napoleon I was dead!"Despite being thrown out of his cabinet rank, and his seat in the Chambre (he got reelected soon after from another district) Boulanger went on. Then, in September 1889 events climaxed with a series of pro-Boulanger desplays by the army and various supporters. It looked like the General was going to lead the troops onto the Chambre of Deputies or the Elysee Palace and seize control. The moment arrived....and passed. Nothing happened. The leaders of the Republic regained their nerve, and ordered his arrest. He fled, with his mistress. In fact, rumour had it that he wasted the critical hours having sex with the mistress [a rumour that has never been totally dismissed]. He spent the remaining two years of his life in exile in Belgium. His mistress died there, and in 1891 Boulanger committed suicide on her grave. Clemenceau, upon hearing the news, summarized the tragedy appropriately (if cruelly): "The General lived as he died, as a subaltern" [The lowest rank in the French army - and one where the young officers have cheap prostitutes for lovers.]In the English version of the film, Ferrer is gentler, suggesting that had Boulanger/Roland done what he was expected to do his biographical standing would be as large as Napoleon I's. Probably true. The film does show Roland leaving with his gypsy lover, not going into the sad death that awaited them soon after. To a viewer in the know it is a bittersweet ending. But a better version of the story remains to be done - and to try to come to grips with the General who held France, briefly perhaps, in his hands, and then dropped everything in so inexplicably a manner.