Talk:Jean Renoir

-- Quote --

The unreferenced quote "the pitcher goes to the well so often that it eventually breaks" is a word-for-word translation of a famous French saying "tant va la cruche à l'eau qu'à la fin elle se casse". In French, there is a play on word, since "cruche" means pitcher, and by extension a "airhead" often describing young witless women. Hence the famous play on word by Beaumarchais in "Le mariage de Figaro" about a silly young servant girl who goes to the well to fetch water where she messes around with the son of the masters and gets pregnant "tant va la cruche à l'eau qu'à la fin elle s'emplit" ("the pitcher goes to the well so often that it eventually fills up"). 77.58.147.83 (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Pronunciation

How is his name pronounced? Is it Ren-Wah? or Rono-ar? --74.139.220.180 09:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

List of influenced directors

I would suggest this is deleted. The impact he had on Luchino Visconti and Satyajit Ray is mentioned in the articles about the films on which they worked (Toni and Thje River). The two film makers should be the body of this article too. Toni was significant in the the development of Renoir's methods of working (on location and with direct sound), so the films absence from the text (as opposed to credits) with a mention of Visconti should not be difficult to put right. Adding Ray to the passage on The River would be even easier.

The inclusion of the other names with these citations are more problematic. In the source for Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet they cite Renoir as an example in points they wish to make, rather than as an influence. In the case of Éric Rohmer, the cite is to a programme of the Harvard Film Archive, which would normally be a blue chip reliable source, but the reference to Renoir is in passing and is the opinion of the anonymous writer, not Rohmer himself. Even when the citation is explicitly citing Renoir as an influence, the actual comment seems too slight and casual. Robert Altman says in his cited article: "Everything I've learned has come from watching other directors: Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, Huston and Renoir." And that is it. The quote says something about Altman himself with concision, but as far as Renoir is concerned it is just a name check. It reads as too throwaway a comment for the weight which is being put upon it here. The same can be said about the Bogdanovitch source, and I think I have checked enough of the references to stand by my advocacy of their removal. Excepting a mention of Ray and Visconti for the reasons asserted earlier. Philip Cross (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Visconti and Ray, Straub and Huillet can be removed if you feel it's improperly sourced but Morris, Altman, Truffaut and Bogdanovich clearly all state being influenced by Renoir and as such qualify to be there. I'm puzzled why you question Altman so much... is stating that he learned EVERYTHING somehow not enough for you? i'm sure you know he is also on record as quipping "Rules of the Game taught me the rules of the game" and as for Rohmer, remove him if you will but i don't believe you really question he was influenced by Renoir, Rohmer was a major figure of the French New Wave was he not? Poetic realism

was a major influence on the French New Wave was it not? Jean Renoir was a major figure of Poetic realism was he not?

I'm surprised you find any of the sources problematic. As far as I can tell, they all confirm that Renoir was an influence on their work. And the most logical place to put this information is in the Legacy section. This is the standard practice, as it's where a reader would expect to find it. His influence shouldn't be hidden among the "Career" text. I think all the entire sentence should stay: it would be a shame not to indicate the massive influence Renoir has had. --Loeba (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The Orson Welles quote already implies the extent of his influence. A comment from a prominent critic or writer on the director is all that is needed to indicate Renoir's influence. As it is, the list will become unwieldy in due course; the "standard practice" often leads to this problem. Editors will find a link between Renoir and their favorite director, perhaps stumbling over a citation which will just about do, and then add his name. Given his "massive influence" this may be inevitable. Deletion is still the best option. Philip Cross (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at the other citations, and they are largely as problematic as I had assumed. The two references to Renoir in the Erroll Morris article for The Paris Review merely state that he saw the French director's work along with "a steady diet" of examples from the oeuvre of other film makers. He compares the work of Frederick Wiseman, the subject of the article, to Renoir and several of his peers. Nothing here about "influence." Mike Leigh is mostly compared with Renoir by the author of the cited study. It is stated that his TV play/film Kiss of Death (1977) is "indebted" (The Films of Mike Leigh, p.70) to the structure of Boudu Saved from Drowning, but that is all. It should be used in the article about the Mike Leigh work rather than here. The influence of one film directed by Renoir on one work of Leighs cannot be taken as being true of all of the British film makers work being influenced by the Frenchman. Yet this is the assumption which follows from citing Leigh in this list of 'influenced directors'. The Truffaut interview contains the most substantial comments about Renoir by anyone in this list of references, but as with Ray and Visconti, should be used to expand this comparatively short article. Philip Cross (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What if the passage was changed to read "Filmmakers as diverse as... have spoken of their respect for the director" you at least agree they have all shown admiration for Renoir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.24.242 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It would not be true of all the references, they vary in nature a good deal. Unfortunately, your idea is vague enough to encourage an endless list which is I have argued is best prevented. Philip Cross (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes but they all at least express an admiration for Renoir.. anyway it would be more accurate to keep the wording as is and prevent an endless list by simply removing any additions that are unsourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.24.242 (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sight & Sound Poll

The introductory paragraph said that he was ranked the 4th greatest director of all-time by Sight & Sound. In reality, he tied for 9th as evidenced by the following link. http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/polls/topten/poll/directors-directors.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Luke (talk • contribs) 01:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That is the Top Ten directors by film directors poll from 2002. Renoir did come fourth in the critics poll which is the one cited. Philip Cross (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

My Mistake. S. Luke (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Is this one of those ridiculous situations where, because there's some public domain paintings of him by his father from when he was a small child, we can't use any photographs of him from when he was an adult? Because there should be some damned photographs of him from when he was an adult in this article. 71.175.251.99 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

TWO paintings by father?

Does anyone else think that two paintings by his father of him as a child is excessive? The two paintings overrun and dominate the article, and obscure his adulthood and film career. Since this article is about Jean and not about Pierre-Auguste, I suggest we only retain one, and keep it within the bounds of the section about his childhood. Does anyone else agree? If so, I personally prefer the baby one, as most attractive. The other one is generic and neither instructive nor interesting nor particularly good art, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article does not need two paintings by Jean's father. I also agree that the one of him as a baby is preferable in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 00:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

All right, I am going to WP:BOLDly remove the second one. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• In fact, the images of Jean's pottery is not all that instructive either, and in my opinion detracts/distracts as well. Upon enlargement, it's clear that the pottery is not very good, in fact it's less-than-mediocre or less-than-generic. He only tried out ceramics briefly, and only at his father's suggestion. I say we should remove that as well. Opinions? Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've always thought it was an odd pic for the article. JR is known for his films and pottery was only one of his hobbies. I'm not sure that it adds to a readers understanding of the man. I don't know if there is any other article that it might be used in but I wouldn't be opposed to its removal from this article. MarnetteD|Talk 15:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. I personally think it is particularly egregious because of the huge "Renoir's pottery" headline that is part of the image. Anyway, just because an image is on Commons doesn't mean that it has to be used in an article somewhere. This image is just a tiny item from a museum that is probably chock full of things many times more interesting and relevant than three pieces of pottery. Anyway, since no one has objected, I am going to remove it. Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Jean Renoir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150713030633/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics.html to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130526064634/http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1937 to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1937
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130526062357/http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1938 to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1938
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130526045736/http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1945 to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1945
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130526074109/http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1946 to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1946
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130526063848/http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1951 to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1951
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140809050532/http://www.filmkritik.dk/1b.lasso?n=4 to http://www.filmkritik.dk/1b.lasso?n=4#anchor1962

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Film awards

I have taken the attitude that the awards for Jean Renoir's films belong in the article about those films. The awards and honours section may become unfeasibly long in due course even if restricted to Renoir himself. Their is a policy favouring the rendering articles in prose. As is appropriate, some of these awards are included in the main body of the article. Philip Cross (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If Renoir received the award, the award should be mentioned somewhere in this article, rather than deleted. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The point is the films received the awards, rather than Renoir as Best Director. The one exception is The Southerner, but the body of the text already says Renoir was nominated for a Best Director Oscar. We do not need to mention the lesser NBR award here as well because the film is already established as being considered noteworthy. A more comprehensive list is appropriate for the films themselves, and duplication of material across articles is advised against. Philip Cross (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The nomination wasn't a win. If he won an award (and he did for best director), in my opinion it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, not removed. There is no stricture anywhere that information cannot be in more than one Wikipedia article. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the first auteurs?

Softlavender just added a claim to the lede that Renoir is "one of the first filmmakers to be known as an auteur." While there is no doubt that Renoir is an auteur, I'm not so sure that he stands out as one of the first. I may be being pedantic, but I read the sources Softlander provides and I have a slightly different take on them than she did:

1. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-15/entertainment/ca-15822_1_jean-renoir
   • Leo Braudy notes, "Renoir himself called such directors auteurs, directors who wrote their own scripts. But the term was later expanded to identify those directors whose personal vision could overcome the fragmentations of a collaborative art." This was news to me as I've never before heard that Renoir was fond of using the term, auteur; but it doesn't exactly support the idea that Renoir was one of the first to be known as an auteur. He may have been among the first to use the term, but Braudy isn't quite suggesting that Renoir applied it to himself. (Indeed, Renoir, often as not, did not write his own scripts.) When the term was "later expanded" by Cahiers du cinéma it was first applied to Julien Duvivier, as I recall.
2. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZYPXXf-qsyYC&pg=PA14
   • Renoir interviews from Cahiers du cinéma are noted in a summary of the book, Renoir on Renoir. The summary says Cahiers viewed Renoir as "a totemic figure, a model French auteur," but not the first or even among the first.

Finally, to say that Renoir was "one of the first filmmakers to be known as an auteur" might also mislead readers to think that his films were among the first to be later identified as the work of an auteur. Although Renoir made silent films in the 1920s, there were other auteurs at work before him—such as Griffith, Eisenstein, Murnau, et al.

Okay... so I've probably gone into too much detail, but I'd argue for deleting this sentence. What do you think, Softlavander?

--Jeremy Butler 12:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

In a word, no. I've added more citations. Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jean Renoir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.villagevoice.com/specials/take/one/full_list.php3?category=10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415010441/http://www.hollywoodchamber.net/icons/walk_directory.asp to http://www.hollywoodchamber.net/icons/walk_directory.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability is not in the bot's scope. All it does is search for archives of broken links.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jean Renoir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1244403102038
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120707155533/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1236142605494 to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1236142605494
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506003016/http://www.fathom.com/feature/121697/ to http://www.fathom.com/feature/121697

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)