Still Life by Edward Drobinski - HTML preview

Still Life

Page 126

depth of field and deep focus mise-en-scène resembled that seen in ‘Citizen Kane’ and ‘The Best Years of Our Lives.’

Many contemporary film critics have written favorably about the film. It has been hailed as a masterpiece by Kent Jones, Adolf Heinzlmeier, Berndt Schulz, and Penelope Gilliatt, who said it was ‘not only a masterpiece of filmmaking, not only a great work of humanism in a perfect rococo frame, but also an act of historical testimony.’ Its themes have been analyzed by film scholar and Renoir's biographer Leo Braudy, who observed that the film ‘embodies a social world in which there are rules but no values. If you don't know the rules, you are crushed; but if you do know the rules you are cut off from your own nature.’ Dudley Andrew described the film's ‘complex social criticism’ while Kenneth Browser and Peter Cowie wrote about its sense of humanity. Other critics have written about the film's darker themes. Andrew Sarris praised its depiction of class differences. The complexity of Renoir's storytelling techniques have been examined by Roger Ebert, who called it ‘so simple and so labyrinthine, so guileless and so angry, so innocent and so dangerous, that you can't simply watch it, you have to absorb it.’ Lucy Sante labeled it ‘a dense clockwork mechanism’ and Robin Wood, said the film ‘operates on all levels.’ Critics have praised its farcical elements. Pauline Kael characterized it as