Grief-stricken from the loss of his dog, tramp Boudu throws himself into the river to end his woes, only to be pulled out by kindly book-shop-owner Edouard Lestingois and given shelter in his home. The Lestingois family take silent pride in the good deed they are doing in rescuing and perhaps reforming this tramp but Boudu himself seems singularly ungrateful and retains his own approach to life even now surrounded by the middle-class ideal.
I am sort of conflicted on this film in regards my take on it. On one hand it is generally regarded as a classic while also being "of its time" in some aspects so the pressure is on me to join the "intelligent" voice of praise and also put down anything I didn't "get" to being of time and period. But then on the flip of that, the film as a story or commentary just didn't really work for me. I understand the challenge to the idea of Chaplin's genial little tramp but the message from the film is not delivered as well as it could have been and as such it didn't work that well. If the film is meant to be a dig at the pompous middle-class then it missteps by focusing so much Boudu's wild behaviour instead of making more of his inability to accept the trimmings of this ridiculous middle-class world. By not bringing out this middle-class world, Renoir prevents the viewer from doing that.
So the message then seems to suggest that some people prefer to life this wilder life and to try and change them is pointless. By my standards this is a point that I would need more convincing on and it isn't helped by being done in a comedic and farcical way such as it is. Perhaps though I am reading too much into it and it is just meant to be a broad class-clash farce? If it is then it is certainly broad because the lack of strongly formed commentary on either the poor or the middle-classes means that we get lots of aping rather than barbed physical comedy. It certainly has a light air of comedy to it that is amusing but it is rarely really funny or enjoyable.
Where the film is impressive though is in the direction. Renoir takes affectionate and "strolling" approach to his shots of Paris. Not going for full-on tourist stuff so much as he just lets Paris "be" around his film. Better still is his work in and around the house, specifically some of his shots where he films from one side of the house, through rooms and windows into the where the action is really interesting and effective shots that prevent it feeling like a sound-stage and create the idea that this is all real. The cast are solid enough for the material. Everyone loves Simon so I guess again I am alone on that. For my tastes he is just too broad and obvious in his Boudu he feels like he is acting in a silent movie because all his actions are big and telegraphed and he is too excessive in all aspects to win me over with rough charm. Gravval, Hainia and others are actually better as they have more grounded characters to deliver and thus have more of interest for me.
I'm open to being criticised on this because I appreciate that most people are falling over themselves to praise this and even those with issues with it seem to follow up with "but" in their reviews. However for me the story and content just didn't work and what it left was a sort of broad farce that didn't have any commentary teeth and wasn't funny or charming enough to get away without them. Technically it was engaging and impressive in the direction of the camera but otherwise I was really very disappointed with it for what it didn't manage to do.
