sympathetic or critical toward characters?

[deleted]

Both.

I think Renoir was trying to be as objective as possible. He presents his characters with all their flaws and virtues and let the audience decide whether they like them. He never tried to manipulate the viewers into hating or liking a particular character.

One can't generalize too much here, which is entirely the point Renoir was trying to make: Each person should be observed and judged on their own merits. I would say his criticisms of the upper class in the film: Of la Cheyniest; most of the wealthy guests; and to a lesser extent, Christine, are polite on the surface but actually quite withering when closely examined. At the very least, they are portrayed as cowardly hypocrites generally lacking in morals and ethics. It is no accident that French reactionaries were outraged at this film upon its release; they correctly saw themselves being held up as liars and spineless phonies. It's only because Hollywood films have so conditioned current viewing audiences to be beaten over their heads with heavy-handed ideas that the subtle criticisms in this film are so hard to notice. Look closely, see how the characters behave in relation to what they say, and you'll discover Renoir was relentlessly skewering the entire culture of the rich.

On the other hand, I saw Renoir portraying both Jurieux and Jackie much more sympathetically. Both are the most honest and guileless characters in the film, although they are not shown to be saints, and I sense Renoir looked more kindly upon them, along with Christine.

If you didn't pick on any of this right away, don't worry. I had to watch this beautiful film a half dozen times over the last 15 years to notice this stuff. But once I found it, I decided this was one of the most rewarding films I'd ever seen.

"There's not a character in Rules of the Game who's worth the trouble of saving." -Renoir

Renoir was being (painfully) honest: crowd at the chateau could be assembled by random-picking among people in different times and with different social backgrounds (the domestic played it too!). it's just that the more idle the mind gets, the more mischievous it becomes - "privilege" of the upper class whenever they were.

it's hard to judge: on one hand they have been ridiculously honest (Jurieux trying to explain why he wanted to take la Cheyniest's wife away), and on the other hand they have been unbelievably abashed by their own feelings (now, how many times and to how many men did Christine declared her love in a day?). they thought it was okay if it was just for fun (Lisette to Octave), but when the facts of life and their own fragile emotions brought them in front of the wall, tragedy "smiled" upon them.

people cheat, people lie, those people are among us, sometimes the perpetrator abides in our bathroom's mirror... our strength in moral obedience and ethical codes is what makes difference. bourgeois always regarded themselves as a privileged bunch, an idle class a bit too playful when thinking it's them who set the rules of the game. well...rich are bored, poor want to forget, but la regle du jeu are the same for all of us.

sympathetic toward the characters ("everyone has their reasons")

No, the actual line is close to, "Unfortunately, everyone has their reasons". So, you can see how the meaning is not the same.

I knew going into the film that Renoir was supposed to have treated his characters with humanity, etc. and how he wasn't critical of them. I don't agree with the latter part after having seen the film (twice in two days, one of those times in a theatre). Renoir does condemn most of his characters, even if he doesn't make them all out to be cardboard cut-outs, which is what most directors do to the characters they condemn.

In the end, most of the people shrugh off the killing, or just think of how bad it turned out (for them). I think Renoir has sympathy towards Octave, who feels remorse over the murder--although that just may be because I like Octave.