jrd_73 La Marseillaise takes place during the phase of the French revolution that was the most optimistic and the least bloody. Director Jean Renoir is concerned with how this moment is viewed by both the monarchy in Paris and the everyday people of Marseillaise who march to Paris singing their song (Battle Hymn of the Rhine Army). His presentation is realistic and probably more accurate than most films that have dealt with the subject.La Marseillaise has been proclaimed as a masterpiece but, while I liked the film, I cannot share in that acclaim. Jean Renoir is considered one of the (if not THE) greatest French directors in film history. I love The Rules of the Game, but have found many of Renoir's other films slow going. This is true of parts of La Marseillaise as well. The running time is 132 minutes; there is (intentionally) no main protagonist; an assumption is made that the audience knows more about the historical events than some viewers (like me) may.Despite some restlessness on my part, La Marseillaise remains a worthwhile film. Every Jean Renoir film has wonderful moments, La Marseillaise especially. My favorite is Louis XVI's long walk with his family to Parilament. Renoir uses a crane shot to view the pedestrians. The dejected look on the King's face is powerful. He and his son share a reflexive moment over fallen leaves. This scene powerfully contrasts with the buffoonish way Louis was portrayed at the beginning of the film. This is a perfectly made scene. The film has other great scenes as well. Although it did not affect me as deeply as it has others, I would recommend La Marseillaise, especially to French film admirers, students of Jean Renoir, and history buffs.

OldAle1 Coming as it does between the much better-known and acclaimed La Grande illusion and La Bête humaine, it's not surprising that this epic story of the French Revolution told mostly from the point of view of several peasant and laboring-class men who find themselves (mostly uneasily) caught up in the events of the early part of the revolt would get glossed over by many film historians. And it's not quite on the level of those masterpieces nor of La Règle du jeu from the following year or for that matter most of Renoir's 40s and 50s output, but it's also hardly worthy of dismissal.The film begins in the countryside and the Mediterranean port city of Marseilles, as a middle-aged man is about to be tried (and presumably executed) for the killing of a pigeon on his lord's land. He instead escapes into the country, into the mountains, where he meets up with with other like-minded impoverished proto-rebels. Slowly over the course of the first half-hour the struggle takes on political tones rather than just the personal gripe of one man, and it is the genius of the film to keep slowly building to the inevitable climax of "The Nation" versus "The King" while never forgetting to regard participants also as individuals.By the middle of the film the royal family and nobles have begun to understand the dangers they face, or at least some have -- the king still ignores the growing strife -- and they begin to play a major role in the film. Interestingly, the prime revolutionaries themselves though mentioned never take the stage; the focus is always on the lowest and the highest members of society, with the intellectuals who fomented the events offstage. Renoir is, it seems, trying to tell us that events were inevitable, and the prime movers really aren't all that significant if we look at the lives of those who stood most to gain, or lose.The final battle sequences are impressively staged, the film as a whole is strikingly well-acted and pretty seamless for all its shifting of focus between the oblivious king and his progressively angrier subjects. Particular acting honors would go to Edmond Ardisson as Bomier, whose growing beginnings of an understanding that revolution is not merely about him, but about the whole world around him are very moving. Pierre Renoir as Louis XVI manages to be foolish, brutal, and sympathetic by turns.

Cornelie Aside from being a brilliant film, at different times humorous and moving, LA MARSEILLAISE is hands down the most accurate film out there when it comes to the French Revolution.Some have noted it's "one-sided" aspect, but allow me to make an observation: when royalists want to make a one-sided film on the French Revolution, they... make stuff up! Usually utter bilge, such as THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL or A TALE OF TWO CITIES, films (and original books) whose only basis in historical fact can be summed up as, yes, there was a revolution in France in 1789, and yes indeed, Britain and France are on opposite sides of the Channel. Those who support the republic, on the other hand, have typically had the scruples to actually *do their research* before setting out to mold the public's impressions of so momentous an historical event. Such is the case with LA MARSEILLAISE, where a large percentage of the dialog is taken from historical records. (In fact, the only real complaint one could have as far as historical accuracy goes is costuming, but I've yet to see any film from that era--1938, in this case--that had accurate costumes.) All this is not to suggest that LA MARSEILLAISE is dull. Far from it! As mentioned before, LA MARSEILLAISE is witty and often poignant. In showing the Revolution from the point of view of ordinary citizens instead of aristocrats or well-known revolutionary leaders, the film shows to what point common citizens were dedicated to the ideals of the Revolution, as well as showing a human side to the "mob" so frequently portrayed.

MartinHafer This film was an opportunity to view the French revolution from the view of the common people. Most viewers have only seen, perhaps, A TALE OF TWO CITIES or THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL, so this film does offer fresh insights. However, to me, some of the dialog and one-sidedness of the film seemed as one-dimensional as the other two movies I just mentioned.The film deals with events from 1789 to 1792 and so it really doesn't delve into the bloodier years of the Reign of Terror. It is understandable that these abuses aren't covered in depth, but to omit the be-headings completely seems rather dishonest. I'd really like to see a film that gives a balanced view of this period, but have yet to see it--and that's a shame, as it's a fascinating and tumultuous period.FYI--From my point of view as a history teacher, it does seem amazing that within only two years of the completion of this very rousing and patriotic film the French capitulated to the Nazis.