User reviews

This film is really a masterpiece. This was also French director François Truffaut's opinion, and he named his film company "Les Films du Carrosse" as a tribute to it. I once read a review in which the critic expressed the opinion that Anna Magnani's looks couldn't make it likely that the male characters of the plot fell in love with her. But this is a complete misunderstanding of the story, it is not because of her beauty they love her, but because she makes them laugh, she brings them to that other world which theater creates. For aren't we all made of the same stuff dreams are made of, as the great Will once wrote?... If you haven't seen this film, don't wait if you get a chance to watch it. In France, where I live, it's not available in DVD yet, but since it recently came out in the US, and in Japan, I am looking forward to soon finding it here.

"La Carozza D'Oro" is the only Italian film made by Jean Renoir. As Renoir recognized later, his main collaborator in the making of the film was Antonio Vivaldi in a form of his music that director used to hear while writing the script which is based on a stage play by Prosper Merimee. Vivaldi's music is also extensively used throughout the film.

The story is about the group of Italian actors that move to XVIIIth century Spanish South America. Anna Magnani gives a superb performance as a main star of the group - Camilla, whose main passion in life is theater. She finds herself in the center of attention of the three man: a toreador Ramon (Riccardo Rioli), a Vice King Ferdinand (Duncan Lamont) and a young adventurous officer Felipe (Paul Campbell) facing the tough choice in making a decision: whom to choose?

A funny theatrical comedy of life from great French director Jean Renoir, with superb acting and wonderful music from Antonio Vivaldi. 8/10

Jean Renoir's colorful English language comedy is not the masterpiece prevailing critical opinion would have you believe ("riotously textural!" raved the Village Voice), but it is a pleasant and entertaining novelty. A spirited Anna Magnani leads a troupe of Italian actors to a Spanish colony in 18th century Peru, where the appreciative Viceroy rewards her talent (and beauty) with the gift of a golden coach, setting off a small political and romantic scandal. It plays for the most part not unlike a literate stage farce, and Renoir emphasizes the theatricality of the story by directing (and shooting) it like theatre, with deliberate, flat compositions and distracting color costumes; the action even begins on a legitimate stage, the walls of which 'disappear' as soon as Renoir's camera dollies into it. The (at the time) newly struck 1992 print, presented by Martin Scorsese, shows obvious evidence of restoration only in the curious epilogue, which brings the story back to its original stage setting, and appears to have been poorly reconstructed on video.

... or La Carrozza d'Oro, or Le Carrosse d'Or. Take your pick: the film has an early flavour of the "Euro-pudding", with a mixed (and sometimes mixed-up) Anglo-Italian cast. It was shot principally in English, which meant an extra layer of strain for La Magnani, whose manic, over-the-top performance can't quite hide the somewhat anaemic storyline.

Luckily, her overacting fits well enough with the character's context and the decidedly light and bawdy mood of the whole piece: she's a professional Commedia del Arte 'actor' touring a 16th Century Latin America which decadent Spaniards hold in their venal grip. The great Italian star drags behind her a motley crew of fellow-Italians who match her quiver for quiver in the wild hand-gesturing repertoire and performs convincingly the stage stunts that were the Commedia's stock in trade. Magnani's antics also serve as a welcome distraction from leading man Paul Campbell's comatose acting. This American non-entity gives "wooden" a bad name. Whilst La Magnani keeps running through her vast back-catalogue of facial expressions, he only ever seems able to muster two, at best. Was Renoir asleep when this guy auditioned?

Anyway, none of that matters, because this is a film that is as much art-directed as it is directed. Huge respect is owed to designers Mario Chiari and Gianni Poldori for sets that manage to be both lavishly theatrical and convincingly lived in. Maria de Matteïs and Ginevra Pasolini match their male colleagues' panache and inventiveness with a dazzling range of costumes that combine with the lush colour palette of the sets to deliver an exquisitely sensuous fantasia of this distant time and place. Rarely was the glorious three-strip Technicolor process used with such erotic abandon and sheer vitality.

Thank God for this too, because it's not as if the lame script, with its flat-footed storyline and schematic comedy was anything to write home about. There is no doubting Renoir's genuine desire to pay tribute to the Commedia genre, and his loving attention to the detail of early theatrical craft draws you in. After all, wasn't this popular form of street theatre an early precursor to the great art perfected later on the big screen by the likes of Lubitsch or Renoir himself?

In the end, I feel an indulgent love for this film, a late entry into the great French master's career and -like French Cancan - a little bit 'so what?'. Not only could I get drowned again and again in its sensuous celebration of Technicolor as life and drama, but there is also a core quality that has to do with how Renoir renders the spiritual essence of the Commedia company: throughout the film, these displaced paupers and underfed globe-trotters display total servitude and total freedom in equal measure. These are the two opposites of their fraught but impassioned lives and the source of the manic energy they need for the performance that will buy them the day's only meal. As a filmmaker who frequently struggled to achieve his vision against the strictures of the commercial film industry, Renoir seems to know intimately what those characters' lives were about.

To this reviewer's reckoning, one has to inure the fact that French auteur Jean Renoir's latter track record smacks of resting on his tremendous laurels, THE GOLDEN COACH, the first of his post-Hollywood musical comedies trilogy, will be followed by FRENCH CANCAN (1955) and ELENA AND HER MEN (1956), headlines Anna Magnani as the pillar of an Italian Commedia dell'arte troupe, setting its foot in a 18th century colonial Peru.

Ms. Magnani is Camilla, whose romantic embroilment with 3 different male suitors: Ferdinand (Lamont), the Spanish viceroy, Ramon (Rioli), an indigenous toreador and her longtime Italian beau Felipe (Campbell), will be immediately thrown into a whirlpool of romp and pomp, with the titular golden coach as a token of love from the noble viceroy, which can be put into practical use to save his pending deposition if Camilla feels up to do it.

First things first, amped up by Vivaldi's repertoire, gingered up by Magnani and her troupe shrouded in sheer Technicolor splendor and variegated costumes, not to mention the deadpan aristocratic panoply and comic skits impromptu, THE GOLDEN COACH is so eye-pleasing and ear-soothing that, for one second, one might assume it is a masterpiece in the making, to certain extent, that expectation is partially validated by Renoir's effortless facility to beautifully refine the stodgy with freewheeling ease and the Midas touch, a compassionate, pyrotechnic Magnani, who defies any moral obligation and jaundiced ageism to attest that for a woman in the mellow years, her Camilla is second to none in commanding her own life path and expressing her own feelings, and she has many options at hand: retreating to a simpler, quieter life with Felipe, becoming a celebrity couple among locals with Ramon, aiding with Fedinand in his silk-stocking intrigues, or just resuming her stock role of Columbina with the troupe, it is her call and hers only.

A Cinecittà production bursts into its full-blown lavishness of its visual complexion and texture, THE GOLDEN COACH is a vintage farce hampered by its folly-driven staginess and erstwhile flippancy, unwieldy in its glittering sheen but still a very different kettle of fish from any other vanity projects, for one thing, Renoir is quite au fait with men's sophomoric foibles and a believer in a woman's elemental beneficence.

I saw this recently at a retrospective celebrating the 50th anniversary of the founding of Cahiers du Cinema, and I approached it with some trepidation. I didn't know if I would like it as much as Renoir's more famous films of the 30s, and I had previously found some of the color films he did in the 50s to be less accessible. I needn't have worried; this film is a masterpiece. The color is sumptuous and breathtaking; I have always like Technicolor, in which this film is shot, for the richness of its palette. The acting is brilliant and introduced me to some wonderful actors I have never heard of before. Well worth viewing.

This tale of an Italian commedia dell'arte troupe just landed in eighteenth-century Peru is an enjoyable time spent with Renoir and his company of players. It is similar in many ways to Renoir's masterpiece, The Rules of the Game (La règle du jeu) from 1939: the members of a large cast fall in and out of love with one another, with the inevitable jealousies, disappointments, and ecstasies. Renoir's sensibility also remains steadfastly eighteenth-century, as expressed in the quotation of a vaudeville song from the Marriage of Figaro in the titles before The Rules of the Game: 'Sensitive hearts, faithful hearts, who blame fickle Cupid, stop your cruel complaints. Is it a crime to change lovers? If Cupid has wings, is it not to flit about?' Renoir's feel for music is as clear in the Golden Coach as it was in Rules. Excerpts from Vivaldi form the soundtrack, and as familiar as they may sound to us in the twenty-first century, it was surely a more daring choice in 1952, when these pieces were only entering the mainstream. And how many films have a sight-gag with a serpent (the instrument, not the snake)?

Unfortunately, comparing the two films also shows that in revisiting these themes Renoir is not as inspired the second time around. Perhaps the difference is Renoir anxiously watching his world on the precipice in 1939 and gratefully seeing that something survived in 1952. The film is beautifully shot in Technicolor by Claude Renoir (Jean's nephew, who also shot Barbarella and The Spy Who Loved Me!) and the actors are uniformly good, especially Anna Magnani. If the Golden Coach isn't a masterpiece, it's still 109 minutes of pleasure for the eye, the ear, and the spirit from a master of his craft.

I see I'm in the minority. Oh, well. Been there before. What can I say? Where most of my IMDB colleagues see Delightful, I register Silly. With occasional forays into Mindlessness. And way too much operatic over acting from Anna Magnani and the guy who plays the king, and non acting from the bullfighter guy and Anna M's boyfriend. After about seventy five minutes I pulled the plug. It's fun to listen to Vivaldi, though, and it's gorgeous to look at. The director's nephew shot the thing and, ironically, made it look not like his grandfather's stuff but, appropriately, like Spanish painting of the seventeenth century. Give it a C.

I was afraid that this movie would turn out to be a case of style over substance because of the movie its visual splendor. But I should had known better really, since this movie had Jean Renoir at the helm, a man who really knew how to always tell a story, in the combination with some impressing visuals.

I liked the movie definitely better than expected and I enjoyed it from basically start till finish. It's being a bit of an odd movie, since its a comedy but set in this very serious upper-class world. The movie becomes often an absurd one but not in the way that it's ever ridicules. It's a delightful movie, that has great characters, some nice universal and timeless themes and some great dialog that really all make the movie, fore there is not much else within this movie really. It's definitely not really a movie for 'todays' audience, so to speak.

The movie got shot in color, from which it definitely benefits. It's visuals are still what impresses the most about this movie, no matter how great everything else in it is. It has some great sets and costumes in it, that help to give the movie a certain atmosphere, consistent with the time period it got set in. It doesn't ever feel though as if the movie got set in a small town of Central America, that is a Spanish colony. The movie for all that matter could had just as well been set in France or England for instance but than of course we wouldn't had had a bull fighter as one of the movie its main characters.

It's a movie that as well handles some social themes are all of all times it seems. The corruption of money, power and love all come by here. It keeps the movie going and intriguing to watch throughout, mainly because it's also all being so well written and timed within the movie. The movie got also written by Jean Renoir himself, who often always wrote his own movies, though this movie got based on a play by Prosper Mérimée, who also wrote the novel "Carmen".

A movie that I simply enjoyed watching from start till finish!

9/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

It is the film of Anna Magnani. and that is far to be a surprise. because it represents not only charming reconstruction of Commedia dell' Arte but the chance to admire a precise way to build the seduction of a woman discovering herself. it is a Jean Renoir film and his mark is obvious in each scene. it is the film of a great show and bitter commedy. but , if you see it with more profound interest, you have the chance to discover a profound exploration of art, society and significant things. and that transforms it in one of usefull films escaping from the circle of specific genre. because, in essence it is a wise parable about the clash between life and art.

A small and poor Italian Commedia dell'Arte troupe has gone to colonial South America. Its leading lady Anna Magnani (Camilla) has three admirers: poor Spanish nobleman Odoardo Spadaro (Don Antonio), the Colonial Viceroy Duncan Lamont (Ferdinand), and the leading toreador Riccardo Rioli (Ramon), who struggle for her attention.

Very theatrical and obviously shot in a studio. Includes nice reconstructions of Commedia dell'Arte performances (though probably much better in the film than in reality). The troupe's children are charming.

Jean Renoir, the masterful creator of such films as Les Regles du Jeu and La Grande Illusion tries his hand at a period piece, set in Spanish ruled Latin America, filmed in English with American and Italian actors. The memorable performance of the film was by its star Anna Magnani as Camilla, an Italian actress who has come to perform with her troupe and is courted by 3 men, a captain in the army, a sports hero matador and the viceroy. Of course the viceroy, with his offer of the Golden Coach starts to win out over the others. We are deftly led through the court life with its jealousies, backbiting, and hypocrisy. Acting is a passion though, even when an actor is considered an outcast. The ending ties together the message of the film as we see Camilla make her choice. The film in interesting and compelling if not powerful.

This movie is like this interesting meat pastry that I ate at Sabor Latino in Ann Arbor. Sabor Latino is a cheap, delicious little place on main street that serves Latin American food. I ate this Puerto Rican dish that is made from banana meal that is filled with savory chunks of meat with a delicious sauce and then deep fried. The plantains add an interesting light element to the dish, which is very good. It was filling, different and expertly prepared, but it will not become my favorite dish there (It's hard to beat melted cheese). 6.5/10 http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies

This is Jean Renoir at his most gorgeous and playful, although he was already getting old when this was made as an enthusiastic tribute to "Commedia dell'arte" staging Anna Magnani as the ultimate primadonna and diva, who in spite of her over-maturity attracts even a king to court her simply by her stardom as an overwhelming actress. The story is silly, of course, and not at all credible and gets steadily more ridiculous all the time, some scenes are actually quite trying for their tedious imbecility, but all comedies are like that - they are never serious, and in comedy everything is allowed, especially silliness. The outstanding merit of the film is how it brings the Commedia dell'arte alive and seemingly more alive than ever - the first theatre scenes are like fireworks in their ebullient sprightliness and a joy both to the eye and the intellect for being so rich in their apparent improvisations with new whims all the time, but it's actually nothing but mastery of expert direction, and jean Renoir knew all about that. Treat it for what it is, a hilarious comedy out of this world, and forbear with the impossible intrigue and hopeless failures of turn-outs that try your patience - Anna Magnani compensates fully for them all with her delightful troupe, where the children are an additional wonder to a gloriously preposterous performance.

Le Carrosse d'or / The Golden Coach (1952) : Brief Review -

Master Jean Renoir's colorful comical farce about a woman and her three lovers has got some amazing fourth wall theories. Renoir's French-Italian romantic comedy drama, The Golden Coach, breaks the fourth wall with some intellectual theories at the end to leave you stunned for a moment. It's the earlier show that looks messy, as you see a woman falling in love with three men at the same time, making the concept of love look like a big joke. Another big joke is the mindset of men, who still go after Camilla despite knowing her previous affairs/engagements. Felipe was so right when he slapped her; she was behaving like a good digger then. But why did he have to come back and try to reconcile with such a woman? The man of honor lost all his honor in my eyes there. Second, the bullfighter. This character made the most sense out of all three because he was attracted to Camilla and wasn't much bothered about the other two men. Yet, him going in for a crazy duel at the end looked so silly. The third man was on the highest level, the viceroy. A man with such a reputation had to give away all his wealth, position, and dignity for a stage performer? Didn't make much sense. Finally, the woman of the story. Does she have any loyalty? Did she get any soft corner from me, the viewer? No. Now that's the biggest drawback in the writing. Oh yes, I can overlook it since it's a farce and very colorful comedy, trying to set a different template for romantic comedies. That's the Renoir style we all have been aware of. The specific mention of troubled real life (unconventional) vs. Finding her own self on stage (metaphorical) brings some meaning to it. Breaking the fourth wall in the last frame was an absolute masterclass by the writer and the director. Felip mentioning normal life with Indians was also a terrific social taunt. Do watch it for these two things at least.

RATING - 6.5/10*

By - #samthebestest.

I would say that the only reason I gave the film a 5 was because it was so darn pretty. The vivid Technicolor and the amazing sets were certainly impressive. But the story itself? It was so very dull and unengaging. The film was intended to look like a play within a movie and unfortunately, this was part of the problem--it lacked realism and seemed stagy. Also, the casting of Anna Magnani as the gorgeous and captivating lead was just completely wrong. It seemed to really stretch credibility to have the earthy and rather unattractive lady be so ardently pursued. The Viscount was willing to give every thing up for this lady, but I just couldn't see why. He barely knew her and she just looked old. I usually don't comment on the unattractiveness of a star, as this seems really shallow, but when the woman is so incorrectly portrayed as possessing intense sexual magnetism, it does affect the viewing experience.

I would also like to add that the music was great. This film and The Wild Child (Truffaut) both had scores from Antonio Vivaldi. Considering Vivaldi's been dead for more than 2 centuries, I doubt if he got any royalties!

Renoir brought a new authorial voice to his work with The Diary of a Chambermaid which carried over into the "trilogy" of Carosse D'Or, French CanCan and Elena. The trilogy therefore is a bit of a misnomer despite Diary admittedly being more transitional than the three color productions which soon followed. Renoir introduces Carosse as a "fantasy" in the "spanish style" and it was at this time in his life where he was ready to dedicate himself to theater. The opening shot is a fantastic reflective juxtaposition of the theater stage and the cinema screen. Deep staging is important to the mise-en-scene, but there is little long take mobile framing. One-shot closeups, pov and shot-reverse-shot create a sense of psychological identification. The polyvocal system is less logical than Grande Illusion and more at the service of Magnani (much in the same way that Goddard was the focal point of Diary). A montage of shots connected through dissolves as well as the static camera solidify a sense of tableau fitting appropriately with the specularity of the commedia dell'arte theme. The viceroy is Camilla's muse sooner than the typical inverse. He provides a sensitivity that reminds of Le Baron in Bas Fonds... and his fascinations are just as patronizing and unsettling. There is a voyeuristic theme within the specular structure which raises questions about the great depth of field relating to privilege as opposed to realism. Renoir would take a new look at this at the end of Cancan when Gabin rehearses the performance in his mind from backstage. The Golden Coach is very much a film these for Renoir as he plays out the most important elements of his personal philosophy - that of internal and external truths and the masks that people wear to manage their relationship and mode of expression. For a fun, light film there is a lot of powerful expression in Carosse D'Or.

Jean Renoir, the son of famous impressionist painter Pierre Auguste Renoir, and brother of actor Pierre Renoir, shows painterly touches to add beauty to a dust-ridden town in Peru, where an Italian acting troop is on a tour.

The troop arrives simultaneously with a golden coach which symbolizes the gold that Spain sought from its South American colonies, the folly and fallacy of human power as represented by Viceroy Ferdinand, and a possession coveted by many. Ironically, the coach is given to Camilla (Magnani) by the viceroy and that just about costs him his high office.

Anna Magnani is justifiably famous for her performances in ROME, OPEN CITY; BELISSIMA, and other films, but this is the most rounded show I have seen from her. Albeit of striking eyes, Magnani was of plain face and body, but in LE CARROSSE she has such fire and joy in her soul, in the love of her profession, that she captivates more than the three men who love her.

She is the female. She loves with honesty in her soul.

Superlative cinematography by Claude Renoir (Jean's nephew), full of exquisite color and circus-like acts behind the main action, plus careful register of facial expressions.

Clever, solid dialogue script by Jean Renoir, Renzo Avanzo and other collaborators. Definite must-see. 8/10.