Though I haven’t made any conscious effort, I seem to have watched quite a few Jean Renoir films lately: The Grand Illusion (La Grande Illusion), The Rules of the Game (La Règle du Jeu), and this film.
Of the three, I found Lower Depths to be the most compelling. I wasn’t impressed with Grand Illusion or Rules of the Game. Perhaps I’m just not familiar enough with the period they were made in, or perhaps their cinematic devices have been copied so much that they don’t seem extraordinary anymore, but I found them dull, even mundane.
Lower Depths is better, though it seems almost to have a Hollywood Formula ending. It centers around the exploits of Pepél, a common thief, and a character only known as The Baron. The Baron has fallen on hard times; he gambles and loses, embezzles to cover the debt, and is still going bankrupt. His servant, Felix, informs him that creditors are coming to seize his assets the next day, but he doesn’t seem to care; “They’re welcome to it,” he says. They interact like an old married couple.
The Baron catches Pepél in the act of robbing him, but this doesn’t seem to matter, either. Whether it’s from apathy or interest, The Baron doesn’t throw him out, but strikes up a conversation. This leads to a long night of playing cards and drinking, which leads to a kinship which lasts through the rest of the film.
Pepél is somewhat surprised to find The Baron looking for lodging in the slum he’s staying in, having been stripped of his possesions (but not his title.)
Later, we learn something of The Baron’s apathy. He feels out-of-place, like he’s only been wearing different suits all his life. The rags of his former riches are merely his latest suit, and the ones that seem to make him the happiest of them all.
So, what is Renior trying to say here? That possessions don’t matter, that it’s the quality of a man and his happiness that are important? Honestly, I don’t know. While I enjoyed the film, I find it more inscrutable than most.