User Reviews

India has, through the years, fascinated many a major film-maker, including Robert Flaherty, Fritz Lang, Louis Malle, Michael Powell, Roberto Rossellini and Jean Renoir. Renoir's film, based on a novel by English novelist Rumer Godden of BLACK NARCISSUS (1947) fame, is as gorgeously shot (in ravishing Technicolor) as can be expected from a master film-maker and the son of a famous French impressionist painter; however, the narrative itself is rather disappointingly thin to support its 99-minute running time. Having said that, the coming-of-age story of two English girls living in India and loving the same young officer wounded in WWII, is appealingly performed by Nora Swinburne, Esmond Knight, Arthur Shields and Adrienne Corri. The central character, played winningly by newcomer Patricia Walters (whose only film this turned out to be) is a stand-in for Godden herself, whose considerable writing talent was not encouraged by her stern family. The film offers Renoir another chance to show his humanist side dwelling as it does on the strange (to Western eyes) social and religious customs of the Indian people; even so, when all is said and done, there is just too much local color in the film. However, as Renoir is not only one of my favorite film directors but arguably the greatest of all French film-makers, I am confident that a second viewing of THE RIVER will elevate significantly my estimation of it, as it is probably too rich an experience to savor all at one go.

Among the copious supplements on the Criterion DVD, there is a typically enthusiastic interview with Martin Scorsese (who also helped in funding the film's restoration) who waxes lyrically on the effect the film had on him as a 9 year-old film-goer; surprisingly for me, he also confesses that the appeal of Renoir's masterpiece, LA REGLE DU JEU (1939), an automatic candidate for the title of the greatest film of all time, escapes him!!

The own Jean Renoir told on bonus material that was advised by many friends that will be hard to adapt this book to big screen and it returns enough profits, due the subject doesn't has any commercial appeals, somehow Renoir followed his feeling, he offers to Margaret Rumer Godden the writer that he was willing develops the book into a movie, Margaret could accepts in two conditions only, firstly the movie should be shot at India and she will be an adviser, then Renoir readily accepts, the plot is about the life nearest on a large river at India, their ancient traditions, their several Gods and having the main plot over a British family that has Harriet a young dreamer girl, her fancy friend Veleria and finally a young mixed daughter Melanie of a white man with a native woman, suddenly appears a lame American soldier Captain John, all them falling in love to him, among others minor events, a bit idyllic and pondering picture, slow pace neither, wasn't allowed to all tastes, unknown for mostly, including myself, although charming and some pristine feelings and humanity!!

Resume:

First watch: 2020 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8

Jean Renoir embraces Technicolor for the first time in his adaptation of Rumer Godden's coming- of-age novel THE RIVER, with the latter collaborating on the screenplay. The story takes place in Bengal, India, a teenage girl named Harriet (Walters) is the eldest child of a middle-class British family living near the riverbank of Ganges, her father (an one-eyed Knight) runs a jute mill, and her mother (Swinburne) is expecting a child no. 7.

It is a carefree scenario, growing up in the natural inculcation of an exotically profound Hindu culture while carrying on an genteel upbringing, sometimes, it conspires to be a false or at least parochial impression of the land and its people, which doesn't take up too much space in the story-line, the only native Indian who has a speaking part is Nan (Mukerjee), the family's convivial but gossipy nanny, and the rest sustains as an ethnic curiosity to meet the Westerners' eyes, although beguilingly and entrancingly so, after all, what we are allowed to watch is the smugly colonial tip of the Indian iceberg.

The plot revolves around Harriet's budding affection towards the guest of their neighbor Mr. John (Shields), an one-legged American Captain John (Breen), who takes his time in lolling on a foreign land, to find some peace with his battlefield past and physical disability, look for a new resolution for life. As John is the only eligible white young man on the market, to her chagrin, a besotted, but fairly plain-looking Harriet has a losing game against her rival, the maturer and more zaftig Valerie (Corri), by the way, a British girl too is also her best friend. And throughout this picturesque film, it is Harriet's voice-over that guides viewers traversing her prepubescent triviality (poems, indeed), to listen to her inner voice, to sympathize her unrequited love, to find empathy in this garden-variety tale.

Wielded as an emotional clincher, a tragic incident materializes as one downside of having a brood of many caused by adult negligence, but here also emanates a disquieting undertow to pinpoint the virulence of a foreign society with a local boy standing by as an unwary abetter. And a cheesy solution to get it over is taking the pro-procreation flag, babies are being borne all the time.

The cast is mixed with adult professionals and amateur players, but comes off barely adequate, a major gripe is the narrative ellipsis in the story of Melanie (Radha), the mixed-race daughter of Mr. John, who stands out (there is not much competition though) with a massively pleasurable Ganesha-courting dancing sequence, but whose dislike of herself, waffling identity never been considerably mapped out as a pre-eminent counterpoint of Harriet's more orthodox background.

So, all above sounds like a pejorative critique against a film who has earned a hallowed reputation since its genesis, yet, it is as plain as the nose on one's face, the picture's eye-catching glamour and aural accompaniments are undeniably supreme, technologically speaking. And it is smart enough for Mr. Renoir to treat it as a philosophical prose other than a heady narration of banal proceedings, only a 60-odd-year later, its allure fades away slightly due to the original novel's awkward stance on a colonized land and Renoir's condoning deference.

This is a little known film, but well worth watching if you're lucky enough to find it on Video or TV. The director Jean Renoir is the son of the French Impressionist Painter Pierre Auguste Renoir ( the cinematographer Claude Renoir is Jean's nephew ) and the family talent shines throughout this film, which is beautifully shot. Whether showing the amazing landscape of India and the river itself, the colours and intricacies of the many Indian festivals, or even a close up of Valerie's face as she gazes at Captain John, every frame displays grace, beauty and style that film rarely captures.

The plot itself, how a troubled outsider affects three teenaged girls, is a simple tale, and all the more powerful for it. We've all had a crush, and know the river of emotions that are awakened by one. Each of the three girls, the irrepressible and dramatic Valerie, the talented but awkward Harriet, and the stoic Melanie ( who despite schooling in the West is somehow more Indian in nature than her friends who've been brought up in India ) vie for Captain John's affections in their own way.

However, the real love of this film is India itself - it's fascinating people, beliefs, festivals, and the constant River that runs through them all. It's a slow paced film, not in a hurry to get to any kind of conclusion, and you are immersed in the country, and what it's like to live there. Like relaxing on one of the many river boats, as its floats gently downstream, the film meanders along, showing us different scenes along the way, from the local postman's route to the house gates to the son's fascination with Cobras, with the story always moving on, though always interwoven with more day to day life. This brings a familiar reality to the film, it doesn't just skip moments that might not immediately concern the main characters - like life, other events happen, and they have their place in this film too.

Actually getting to watch this film will be hard, it's not well known ( and not even considered one of Renoir's best ), but if you ever come home one night, flick on the TV, and see this starting, then get comfortable, and enjoy a lovingly made film about a country and the people, both native and foreigners, who live there.

It's difficult to argue with Gabridl's remarks about the film - and I'm sure Renoir would have pleaded guilty as charged. Of not making a civics lesson. So, if that's what you want out of art, then this is not the film for you. At all. You will learn nothing of Indian politics, the "exoticism" will drive you mad, and you'd do better to go back and re-read Said's "Orientalism," as Gabridl suggests.

Renoir went to India, and made a film from the perspective of an entranced outsider looking in, creating his own, personalized world - not India, but Renoir's world, where everything is transitory, including beauty and death, and where every sight and sound becomes that much more precious.

I am glad that we have come so far since I've been a kid, when so many ideas and prejudices carried over from the colonial era were still floating through the air, and it's true that no one except that most naive among us would make a film like THE RIVER today. But Renoir was alive in 1950, not now, and he made his film for his time, and that time attaches itself to the film, just like it does to every artwork. I doubt that even Gabridl would suggest that it was the work of a craven exploiter of the masses, and that its "faults" are not the faults of a corrupt man, but of a generous and compassionate one. It's one of the most generous films I know of.

Finally, I would add that while this is a film made by a westerner for other westerners, it was certainly inspirational to Satyajit Ray, who worked as Renoir's assistant.

After a family tragedy, an adolescent girl blurts out angrily at the dinner table, "We just go on as if nothing has happened". "No", her mother responds, "we just go on". The River, Jean Renoir's first color film, is about going on -- the ebb and flow of life that mirrors the path of the sacred river Ganges that flows nearby. Filmed on location in India, The River is a sumptuously beautiful film that was called by Martin Scorsese ""one of the two most beautiful color films ever made" and one of his "most formative movie experiences." The film has been brought to life magnificently in a new Criterion DVD that contains an introduction by Jean Renoir, an interview with Scorsese, and a biography of author Rumer Godden, who grew up in India and whose work formed the basis for Powell and Pressburger's Black Narcissus (1947).

Set in India at the time of independence, its themes are universal: the feeling of being an outsider, of running away from unpleasant situations, and the hopelessly romantic stirring of adolescent love. While the film reflects the point of view of a British colonial family, it is respectful of the surrounding culture and pays homage to Hindu and Buddhist traditions through stories, documentary footage, and dance sequences. Harriet (Patricia Walters) is the adult narrator who looks back on her days as an adolescent. About thirteen in the film, she lives with her four sisters and brother Bogey in a colonial house in India that looks out upon the Ganges. Renoir's camera captures the energy and rhythm of life on the river: its peddlers, ships, markets, people coming and going, the crowds, everything in constant motion juxtaposed with the timeless tranquility of the river.

Harriet's father (Esmond Knight) who lost an eye during the war, runs a jute manufacturing plant while his pregnant wife (Nora Swinburne) takes care of the house, assisted by governess Nan (Suprova Mukerjee). When a young American named Captain John (Thomas E. Breen) comes to visit his cousin Mr. John (Arthur Shields) after losing his leg in the war, his dreams of being left alone are short lived. Harriet becomes infatuated with Captain John but has to contend with two other female admirers: her older friend Valerie (Adrienne Corri), a flaming redhead, and Mr. John's daughter Melanie (Radha Shri Ram), a young woman of mixed ethnicity who was born in India but reared in a British boarding school. The arrival of Captain John brings a clear signal that the girls must face the end of what has been an idyllic childhood.

All feel like outsiders: Melanie is caught between two cultures and questions whether she will ever fit into either, Harriet expresses her adolescent longings in idealistic poetry, Valerie is overwhelmed by her innocent desires, and Captain John is a deeply troubled man who only wants to live a normal life. Although the acting can be a bit wooden especially during peak dramatic moments, it does not detract from the film's authenticity. The River is definitely of its time and its attitudes towards women are dated, yet it is a work that transcends time and place to capture universal emotions. It is a great film that can be relished over and over again with increasing appreciation.

In Bengal, India, the teenager Harriet (Patricia Walters) is the oldest daughter of a British family composed by her father (Esmond Knight) that lost one eye in the war and is the manager of a jute factory; her mother (Nora Swinburne) that is pregnant; and her four younger sisters and one little brother. They have a quiet and comfortable life living in a big house nearby the Ganges River. Valerie (Adrienne Corri) is the teenage daughter the owner of the jute factory where Harriet's father works that spends most of her time with Harriet. Melanie is the British-Indian daughter of Harriet's neighbor Mr. John (Arthur Shields) that has just returned from an education in England. When the young American Captain John (Thomas E. Breen) that lost one of his legs in the war comes to Bengal to visit his cousin Mr. John, the three teenagers fall in love for him.

"The River" is a story of first love in the exotic India and metaphorically compares the Ganges River with the flow of life with the lead character leaving her childhood and becoming an adolescent. The screenplay of this romance has many beautiful quotes, but excessive narrative from a grown-up Harriet. The cinematography is stunning, with the use of bright colors in the environment of India. Thomas E. Breen performs an outcast character that has a great complex due to the loss of one of his legs but he does not transmit this feeling to the audience. The red-haired Adrienne Corri is a very beautiful young woman that gives credibility to her sixteen year-old character. The Brazilian DVD was released by Continental Distributor. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Rio Sagrado" ("The Sacred River")

A really glorious, spellbinding movie. Filmed in Bengal, India, on the Ganges, it captures the essence of India, the timeless quality of life on the Ganges, without being patronizing.

This is a coming of age movie about three teenage girls, two British and one Anglo-Indian, and how their lives are affected by the arrival of a one-legged American war veteran. It's very easy to fall into sentimentality in a movie like this, but Renoir avoids this obvious pitfall. Though I have to say, I found this film very moving.

It helps that this movie is filmed in Technicolor, and is one of the best uses of Technicolor of that era.

Some of the performers were amateurs, including the actor who played the veteran and some of the children, but overall the performances are outstanding. A fine, low-key performance by Esmond Knight. This was the only film for Patricia Walters, who played Harriet, and Thomas Breen, the war veteran who played Captain Jack, never made any other movies. Watch for Arthur Shields, the brilliant Irish actor, as father of Nan.

This film was very lovely to look at and it was obvious that both the author and director had a great love for the material. It is seen in the gentle and non-hurried scenes of everyday life for an English family living in the Bengal region of India.

There are a couple aspects of the movie that might put off the average viewer. First, many of the actors are obviously not professionals and occasionally their acting does seem a little amateurish--though it is be no means terrible. Second, because the movie moves at such a slow and gentle pace, some may also become bored very quickly. While I was not bored, I was feeling a bit "antsy" and wish they had picked up the pace a bit. So, overall, it was a good film but I have seen several Indian films I liked much more than this one.

This is one of those rare films which give you the impression after viewing it that you have truly lived and shared the lives of its characters (not just 'two people received that kiss', as they say in the film, but everyone who's watching the movie).

You became part of that river as the film progresses, it is perhaps the picture which has described the passage of time better than any other. It is life, running within its waters, that catches your soul, which melts with the river and the film and your memory...

I think it is the only movie that made me run to a bookstore to buy the book it was based on. Rumer Godden's work is beautiful indeed, but the film is far better for me.

Highly recommended!

Jean Renoir's gentle, meandering film is about three young women coming of age and awakening to romantic and sexual desires while growing up in India.

The film is a little bit reminiscent of "Pather Panchali" in its attempts to capture the day-to-day life of Indian culture and of "Black Narcissus" in its story about a virile man who upsets the delicate emotional balance of a bunch of young women. But it has more artificial dramatic narrative imposed on it than "Pather Panchali," and it treats its story with much less gusto than "Black Narcissus," so it ends up feeling a bit pale compared to either film. I just didn't care all that much about who (or whether anyone) ended up with the appealing American who throws this group of women into a tizzy. I did, however, enjoy the parts of the film that are closer to documentary or travelogue, explaining Indian customs and traditions, all captured in restored Technicolor.

I think the other Renoir movie this one reminded me of most is "The Southerner," obviously not in its setting or even plot, but in the mood and the way it goes about telling its story. But I was riveted by "The Southerner" while I found myself merely admiring "The River."

Grade: B

I believe that both Karina and Gabridl are slightly off when they say that the film is supposed to depict post-independence India. I don't believe this is true and, therefore, Renoir cannot be taken to task for not covering India's independence struggles. Although the film was made post-independence (1951), it does not cover the period of independence itself (late 1930s to actual independence in 1947). Remember, that the film is a "memory film" and is based on the autobiography of Rumer Godden, who was born in 1907. The adult narrator is a grown-up Harriet. A grown-up Harriet in 1951 would be speaking of an earlier time--probably sometime in the 1920s--that was a more peaceful time for the English colonial inhabitants. The clothing and hairstyles can't be used to indicate when the film takes place. Harriet's blue sack of a dress would have been worn by any 13 year-old girl from the 1920 through the 1940s. And Valerie's rather unkempt and flowing hair could be anytime, too.

As for Melanie having an Indian accent. I don't believe that it was ever said that Melanie was educated in England. I believe that the film says she was educated in a convent, and there were certainly convent schools in India in the 1920s. I find it interesting that when it is said that Melanie will probably marry Anil, an understanding that they have had since childhood, she is still wearing her convent uniform. When she develops a crush on Captain John, she starts to wear saris, maybe hoping to attract him through the exotic.

All in all, a beautiful, lyrical film that should not be missed.

The quality of the image on the Criterion Collection is superb. It is the highest quality I have seen on my HDTV - you would miss a lot on a lower-resolution screen. The movie is a visual treat for its color and scenery. However, the acting is weak, pretty awful really. Captain John turned me off to such an extent that he kind of soured the movie for me. Somewhere it was mentioned that they were trying to get Marlon Brando for the part of Captain John - he would have been able to project brooding, rather than the sulking we get with Breen.

There is an excessive amount of voice-overs, which I think is never a good sign - usually happens when you can't get the story to convey what is desired. But, in some ways, I think the movie might have been better for me if it had gone to the extreme and just been still images with music and voice-overs - kind of in a beautiful colored Ken Burns style. But, an exception would have to be made for one incredible dance scene. All of the scenes of local Indian culture are most interesting. I have the feeling that I would like the book better than the movie.

Some of the ideas were a bit dated, like Harriet's mother telling her that women are put on earth to bear men's children.

I liked the extras more than the actual movie. The introduction by Renoir was interesting, how he explained that making this movie, and being in India, changed how he viewed the world and made him more accepting. That certainly was one of the main themes of the movie. And how Renoir came to team up with McEldowney (the co-producer) was of interest. The interview with Martin Scorsese is a highlight- his enthusiasm for the movie rubbed off a bit and made me less critical. He is a captivating speaker with a tremendous knowledge of movies.

Also, the BBC documentary on Rumer Godden was, for me, better than the movie. I think she was indeed a little peculiar, an adjective she applied to herself. And there were some peculiar scenes in that documentary, like when Godden was sitting on the porch and there were a bunch of Indians all lined up to her left on the grass. And she just continued sitting there and the Indians just kept looking at her. There was a similar scene with her on a busy street. And then there were all of those shots traversing Godden 360 degrees while she just stood there. And all of those close-ups of her that went on for thirty seconds or so while she just stared off in the distance. Her own personal story could make a good novel.

I could not make it through the interviews with McEldowney - he bored the pants off of me.

We can all agree on two things at least: 1) Renoir is a genius and 2) This film has some stunning visuals with excellent uses of color etc. Those two things being said, I think - no I honestly believe - that this film has received so high a rating here on IMDb simply because it is by Renoir, and people fear that if they express distaste in Renoir, they make themselves appear foolish and uncultured. Thus, this film has an unjustly high rating. I only rated it as high as I did because of the stunning visuals, but the fact of the matter is even a master like Renoir can produce a dud. He's not the only one; Hitchcock directed Under Capricorn, Faulkner penned Mosquitoes, and Gary Oldman allows himself to be used in countless terrible movies - as Vonnegut says: "So it goes." The sad fact is that this film falls flat on glorious Technicolor face. The acting is wooden to the point of being nonexistent and the screenplay is horrible to the point of being cacophonous. I do not feel that it deserves the distinction of a Criterion release as a so-called "Important Classic Film" and I recommend, even as a personal fan of Renoir, that you pass on this one.

There is something special about this movie. In fact, to say there is something special does not tell much, and it could be equally applied to hundreds of films which are much less special than this. So let's start again. I had never seen a film like "The River" before. Thanks to the Spanish TV program "Qué grande es el cine" I discovered this piece of Art created by a major artist: Renoir. Some of my other favourite movies are similar in some aspects to others. And so, "North by Northwest" resembles other thrillers with Cary Grant; "A Touch of Evil" is a moral fable and also a nightmare which reminds a bit of "The Night of the Hunter", and so on. But "The River" reminds me of nothing I have seen on a screen. It has to do with ethics and with life. It has to do with balance, with understanding human nature. I think this film has everything which can be told in a film. Absolutely everything. I believe this film reflects an attitude towards life and towards art. So I got it finally! This film is if anything an attitude. Once you have seen, you feel better, you know more about life, your perspective has changed. It is a ray of light. I should be compulsory in High School and everywhere.

Wow. What a special film this was! On the surface so basic but underneath a deeply spiritual and satisfying adventure... I cannot say enough about the color, and the process used, something Martin Scorsese talks about in length during an interview on the Criterion disc. To him, along with the Red Shoes, this is the most beautiful color film ever made, and I would have to agree with him. A shot of an orange tree stands out in my mind towards the end, it sways in the wind against a bright blue background, and it gave me goosebumps all over my body. The film plays very much like a dream, beneath somewhat mediocre acting and story, but I won't get into that, because I didn't feel as though that mattered as much as the overall feeling and purpose the film left with me afterwards... Some people I was with really didn't respond to it the way I did, but I think you have to enjoy it on a different level or it has the potential to fail, but when I saw it I found it a great, great masterpiece, better than any other Renoir film I have ever seen (I know Rules of the Game is considered his greatest, but that doesn't stand next to this at all in my mind). See it also for the beautiful cinematography of the culture of India during colonial rule, which has all but transformed by now.

How wonderful are the rhythms, color, and imagery as they flow lyrically along - man, beast, spreading tree. They succeed one another like the film's central metaphor, the living continuum, the river of life. The lyricism, however, tends to flatten out the story's sparse drama in a way that requires some patience. In fact, these rhythms are the point -- life, death, renewal -- all beautifully photographed in great splashes of Technicolor. To contemporary audiences, a film like this must seem an import from an alien world, and I suspect it was not commercial even on release -- who else in the US but an art house would show it! The story is slender and idealized, set indelibly in India, and likely the author's fond reminiscence of childhood under the British protectorate. Except for the boy's muted passing, not much really happens.The only conflict involves three girls competing for a youngish war veteran, and it's a measure of Renoir's approach that the competition never interferes with their friendship. Everyone, it seems, behaves with admirable restraint, even the dutiful servants, all of which serves to somewhat prettify the British presence.

Nevertheless, this is one of those movies that creeps up on you. It's only afterward, when the images have had a chance to linger and luminesce, that their sum total registers and you know you've seen something lasting. I, for one, am glad Renoir defied the rule and did not use pretty people; that would only have emphasized plot over theme, and individual over universal. Moreover, I wish more ordinary looking people appeared in movies, especially from Hollywood. Finding the unusual in the usual is the kind of thing I believe this movie was trying to bring out, while learning that lesson would do much to heal our celebrity- driven culture. This is a Renoir classic and demonstrates once again, amidst a slam-bang world, what can be done on the plane of artistic understatement

I rated this film 9 instead of 10 because of its slow start and because of some of the acting. But what a movie! I don't think it's an accident that Renoir is the son of the great impressionist painter, because in this film, he uses the screen as a canvas. The shot of Valerie standing in midscreen with the green pond and foliage behind her is indescribably beautiful. Moreover, the sensuousness achieved here is rare in film. I felt that I was in India 50 years ago, so skilled was Renoir in being able to absorb the viewer into the film. A real find!

In Jean Renoir's introduction to this film the great master cites Rumer Godden's book The River as the greatest work of literature about English colonialism in India. I can think of at least two books that are greater, E.M. Forster's A Passage to India, and George Orwell's Burmese Days, two works of literature which seem to indicate that Britain's endeavors in India produced more harm than a few damaged human relations among the English.

Never the less, Jean Renoir brings unbelievable beauty to this film, which was his first attempt at full Technicolor, and it's a glorious attempt, called the most beautiful color film (along with Powell and Pressburger's The Red Shoes) by Martin Scorsese.

The color has a warm subtlety and grace which can only be described as characteristic as his father's paintings, cheap as that sounds.

Is The River the Rules of the Game of Renoir's color period, as Andre Bazin claims? No, I'm afraid no movie is as good as The Rules of the Game, yet this is a wonderful and important work all the same.

My Rating : 9/10

Being an Indian I knew I would be able to connect to this on some level even though it's a different time and place. I found it on Scorsese's top 10 list for Criterion and it certainly piqued my interest.

Good film. Yes the acting is a bit wooden but I think you could overlook it as it's made in 1950's by a foreign director and just what he has managed is commendable. I absolutely loved the voiceover narration by the protagonist and the cinematography is gorgeous to boot.

Great experience. Recommended.

At some level this is high kitsch, but surprisingly it ends up feeling rather more profound that you would expect, in its depiction of the cycle of life, love, death and sadness, relentlessly running over the ambitions, hopes, desires, and heartaches of helpless individuals. It could have used better acting though - none of the younger cast members look like they've had a single acting lesson between them. As a film about India, this is of course about as inauthentic as it's possible to get, but the depiction of Indian culture is respectful, if slightly naive. From a technical perspective the film is very beautiful but clearly old school even for 1951, with its intro addressing the viewer directly, off-screen narration filling in for character development, and anthropological commentary over the (gorgeous) Technicolor shots of rural life.

Unlike many western movies i have seen that portrays Indians as if they were some nomadic people who are far from culture and sophistication, this film understands and illustrates the exact philosophy behind every deed that is performed by the Indians.

And also i wonder why can't so many great directors inspire from a film like this to understand that the true culture lies in philosophy and not in their race or color. I suppose it is easy to stick to stereotypes rather than educating through movies.

Therefore, it is not diversity for namesake that is important, but proper the depiction of one's understanding towards the diversity.

The River / Le Fleuve (1951) : Brief Review -

The great French director makes a Hollywood movie of American girls set in Bengal to show the world the beauty of India and Indian culture. My Incredible India! What a magnificent cultural crossover it was! Jean Renoir's final American film, The River, was based on Rumer Godden's novel of the same name and perhaps his only Film shot in India fully. We Indians say "Incredible India" for thousands of reasons, but it's a different feeling when someone from outside India says it and tells it to the entire world. Just for the trivia, our great Satyajit Ray had a meeting with Jean Renoir while he was filming this movie in Calcutta, and Ray was a student then. Coincidentally, I watched this movie today, on August 26th, which celebrates the anniversary of Ray's first classic, "Pather Panchali". I could feel how impressed and inspired Ray was by Renoir films and other Italian films of the 40s and 50s. The River is not an Indian film, but it feels more Indian than what Indian movies felt at that time. Hollywood's production was of higher quality, and their filmmaking was ahead of Indian filmmaking then (it is the same even today), so it was quite evident why The River looked better than all Indian films. It is so vivid and strong while explaining India, Indian history, Indian culture, Indian festivals, Indian traditions, Indian women, Indian mindset, and India's idea about the whole world. It put India on the global map like no other Indian filmmaker could at the time. The main essence of the film may be American because the characters are American and they follow a typical nature throughout their lives, but look at the way they have been transformed, the way they have been Indianized, and how gratefully they adopt Indian practices. Right from our Gods, holy rituals, festivals, love, marriage traditions, and family trends, the Indian blood flows like a "River" in "The River". The storyline isn't great, but the cultural metaverse is simply adorable.

RATING - 7/10*

By - #samthebestest.

I'm honestly not sure if I watched the same film as most of the other people here. It seems just because this is a Renoir film it has to be a masterpiece. I had what i thought was going to be a pleasure of seeing this on Sunday at a great little cinema I know. The few Renoir films I'd seen in the past were good and this was supposed to be another classic. I couldn't of been more wrong. This was dull from the very start. Unimaganitive script, hammy bad acting and even though it was filmed in a country as beautiful as Indian the direction was flat and very much uninspiring. There didn't seem any point this. The characters were never really explored, you only had the most basic of knowledge about who they were and what drove them. I came out of this utterly disappointed. I know I'll probably be blasted on here for being an uneducated heathen who could never understand the subtleties of a master like Jean Renoir but I just really didn't think this was a very good film.