Belle Du Jour
Hiroshi Amari
: RM> gets tragically wounded in the process. There's fantasy episodes,
: RM> and maybe the whole thing is a fantasy - but to me it doesn't
: RM> excuse the pretty tired message that All Women Want It From Really
: RM> Willfull Men. Is it just me or has this theme been done, like, a
: RM> hundred and fifty million times?
: I guess you didn't understand the message.
: The film certainly doesn't refer to "All Women",
: Luis Bunuel is -- as usual -- filming about the bourgeoisie.
: [Working class women need not apply.]
: And it is more a social comment on the contradictions and hypocrisies
: of bourgeois lifestyle (regarding sex, violence, prostitution) than a
: story about sexuality.
Although I agree with you on the role of bourgeois lifestyle, she was not
frigid because of its attitude toward sex, violence and prostitution.
She was naive about them. She was in a mental vacuum with all the
satisfying things. This is convicing and could happen to a middle class
woman, if she is sufficiently rich.
: Severine is not frigid by chance, her frigidity is a product of her
: social context. She has sexual needs, but she can only escape her
: frigidity by escaping her social context.
: One point of the surreal sequences of the film is that -- because of
: the mentioned and depicted contradictions of the life of the
: bourgeoisie -- it's hard to tell what's reality and what's just a dream.
I did not perceive them as dreams and fantasy. Rather, subconsciousness she
was not even aware of.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Shari L. Rosenblum
very common, very unimaginative tale of a beautiful yet inaccessible woman
and how the men she rejects (gorgeous, successful, caring ... ask them
...) would like to believe she works inside. Hell, the story goes, all
"frigid" women really want abuse.
Bunuel was mocking the audience with this film. There is no surrealism,
just disjointed mock-up fantasies he knew the generally pretentious
audience would bow to in their certain belief that what they don't fully
get must be truly profound. Bunuel was better than this. But he knew
his critics and he understood his audiences.
There is no message to understand in this film. This is not a critique
of the bourgeoisie. The entire bourgeoisie comes out smelling clean and
fresh, the way the world is supposed to be -- except of course for those
frigid women and the men who refuse to abuse them.
Though it is true that this is not about the working class, this time that
has nothing to do with the internal workings of the class, but rather with
the anger of the men represented by Bunuel's camera. It is no moral
victory to overcome a working class woman -- they all think they can do
that with their money and their looks. But what to do when there's a
woman not so susceptible -- or needy (understanding of course that
Bunuel's dismantling of the bourgeoisie carries within it a belittling
scorn for the working class ... .) The victory is in bringing a disdainful
"classy" woman to her knees -- a woman about whom they cannot murmur to
themselves that she's worse off without them.
Nor is this film a social commentary on the hypocrisies of the bourgeois
lifestyle, unless of course one believes the premise that haughty women
are all (or commonly, at least) daytime prostitutes aching for abuse ...
To buy into the rhetoric, one has to buy into the truth of the
tale. Frightening, indeed ...
It is equally untrue that Severine was naive about violence and
prostitution. Cold, but not stupid. She lived in a world where mores
were far more expansive than such a reading allows. But not just among
the bourgeoisie. Among all classes. Perhaps least among the middle
classes, but all the same ... And to pretend on any level that this could
happen to any woman with money is to misunderstand both women and money.
As to whether one can perceive the difference between fantasy and
reality, or the conscious and unconscious mind, it's actually quite
simple. Indeed, it's rather simplistic. When the beautiful woman is
unmoved by the men who want her, it is some distorted view of reality.
When the beautiful woman is knocked down and about by men who care
nothing for her, it is some sort of misogynistic fantasy at work.
Nothing here but grist for the mills of the pretentious. And fodder for
the anger of men who've been turned away.
I bet Bunuel is still laughing, somewhere ...
Shari
Richard Metafora
: I guess you didn't understand the message.
: The film certainly doesn't refer to "All Women",
: Luis Bunuel is -- as usual -- filming about the bourgeoisie.
: [Working class women need not apply.]
Ohhh. Oh. The _bourgeoisie_! Oh, I get it now. Only _capitalists_ go to
prostitutes.Now I understand. Now _Socialists_ : these are people who love
and respect women. That's why why women are on that rocket sled ride of
self fulfillment in China and Russia and Eastern Europe. All those old
ladies in the black dresses and no teeth - and the stoop laborers here in
the US - now _these_ are women whose sexual gratification should be our
guiding lights.
: And it is more a social comment on the contradictions and hypocrisies
: of bourgeois lifestyle (regarding sex, violence, prostitution) than a
: story about sexuality.
: Severine is not frigid by chance, her frigidity is a product of her
: social context. She has sexual needs, but she can only escape her
: frigidity by escaping her social context.
Wait a miunte. She's bourgeois, but she escapes to ... what, Johns who
_aren't_ bourgeois?
<snip>
: Perhaps you have to be a European bourgeois (preferably catholic)
: to fully appreciate it :-)
I am. I still don't get all the reviewer fuss about it. I guess I get
annoyed with artists who reap all the celebrity and bourgeois rewards
from us scummy bourgeoisie but preaching to us how scummy we are.
-RM
Hiroshi Amari
: Belle de Jour is neither about all women nor the bourgeoisie. It is a
: very common, very unimaginative tale of a beautiful yet inaccessible woman
: and how the men she rejects (gorgeous, successful, caring ... ask them
: ...) would like to believe she works inside. Hell, the story goes, all
: "frigid" women really want abuse.
I think this movie allows many ways of appreciation because this movie
does not have any obvious one-line message. However, it is rather
surprising that you put men's hope that classy women want sex on the top.
: Bunuel was mocking the audience with this film. There is no surrealism,
: just disjointed mock-up fantasies he knew the generally pretentious
: audience would bow to in their certain belief that what they don't fully
: get must be truly profound. Bunuel was better than this. But he knew
: his critics and he understood his audiences.
It often happens that listeners hear more than what speakers say and a
viewer of a picture in a museum see different beauty than its painter.
When we see pictures, we wonder if some scenes are real or fantasy. 'The
answer' may be found in their original novels. But we are often better off
with this sorts of ambiguity programmed into films. One extreme view of
this movie would be that the whole thing except the last scene is her
imagination that has helped her. This is perhaps 'wrong', but this
process of pondering is fun.
: Though it is true that this is not about the working class, this time that
: has nothing to do with the internal workings of the class, but rather with
: the anger of the men represented by Bunuel's camera. It is no moral
: victory to overcome a working class woman -- they all think they can do
: that with their money and their looks. But what to do when there's a
: woman not so susceptible -- or needy (understanding of course that
: Bunuel's dismantling of the bourgeoisie carries within it a belittling
: scorn for the working class ... .) The victory is in bringing a disdainful
: "classy" woman to her knees -- a woman about whom they cannot murmur to
: themselves that she's worse off without them.
I do not think this movie is about the anger of rejected men. Given that
many of the men in the movie did not realize the social class of
Sererine, your interpretation is hard to swallow.
: Nor is this film a social commentary on the hypocrisies of the bourgeois
: lifestyle, unless of course one believes the premise that haughty women
: are all (or commonly, at least) daytime prostitutes aching for abuse ...
What I meant in my earlier post in that this is more about the bourgeois
than about sexuality. This is not a social commentary, but it centers
around the hypocritic nature of the bourgeois.
: It is equally untrue that Severine was naive about violence and
: prostitution. Cold, but not stupid. She lived in a world where mores
: were far more expansive than such a reading allows.
She thought the custom had died out. 'naive' does not mean 'stupid'.
But not just among
: the bourgeoisie. Among all classes. Perhaps least among the middle
: classes, but all the same ... And to pretend on any level that this could
: happen to any woman with money is to misunderstand both women and money.
Why? What distinguishes the bourgeoisie from other classes is more about the
social upbringing than women and money. What kind of social norm among
the bourgeoisie had made her frigid? I feel that the society in which
everything is supposed to be pleasant, comfortable and perfect could be
threatening when the feeling for a partner is less than perfect.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Shari L. Rosenblum
way to appreciate Belle de Jour is to come to it with either preconceived
notions of women and sexuality or to be unquestioningly accepting of
contributions to an art by an artist whose name has already been made.
In other words, though you say there are many ways to appreciate the
film, I think all are equally repugnant.
You say it's interesting that I see the sexual angle of men's fantasies
as the substance of the film -- but there is nothing remotely substantive
in any other analysis I've heard or seen. The mere fact that the woman
is of the bourgeoisie does not make the film a critique of the
bourgeoisie. The mere fact that she rejects her dull husband and his
lecherous friend does not make her frigid.
The fact that the film "flashes back" to incidents of Severine as a girl
with a man ... the same man, luck would have it, who appears in her
daydreams ... does not mean that she was sexually abused. It may mean
that her fantasies carry to other points in her life (this is not unusual
in fantasy life ... ). It may mean that she's been having the same
fantasy for 30 years. It may mean that Bunuel enjoyed the prospect of
our debating such superficial nonsense without any effort whatsoever on
his part. I vote for the latter.
: It often happens that listeners hear more than what speakers say and a
: viewer of a picture in a museum see different beauty than its painter.
: When we see pictures, we wonder if some scenes are real or fantasy. 'The
: answer' may be found in their original novels. But we are often better off
: with this sorts of ambiguity programmed into films. One extreme view of
: this movie would be that the whole thing except the last scene is her
: imagination that has helped her. This is perhaps 'wrong', but this
: process of pondering is fun.
I saw no ambiguity, only artistic deceit. Incoherence is not
ambiguity. Disjointedness is not surrealism. Bunuel was toying with us,
not his story.
: I do not think this movie is about the anger of rejected men. Given that
: many of the men in the movie did not realize the social class of
: Sererine, your interpretation is hard to swallow.
Did I say that the movie was about the anger of rejected men? Certainly
not. I said the camera's eye represented angry men. It's not the
same thing at all. It wasn't the story's base, it was its frame.
Moreover, you are, I think, incorrect in your assertion that the men did
not realize Belle de Jour's class. She was dressed in Yves St. Laurent.
She had an air. They commented upon it. It was palpably evident. Class
is not something that one needs to speak about ... we wear it with
everything, we carry it with us. That's one point the film hammers home.
: What I meant in my earlier post in that this is more about the bourgeois
: than about sexuality. This is not a social commentary, but it centers
: around the hypocritic nature of the bourgeois.
The film has nothing to do with the bourgeoisie. Or hypocrisy. In fact,
the people in the film (of all classes) are exceedingly honest. There is
only Severine (and the other presumably haughty femme fatale) who lead a
double life.
On what substance are you basing your analysis to the contrary?
: : It is equally untrue that Severine was naive about violence and
: : prostitution. Cold, but not stupid. She lived in a world where mores
: : were far more expansive than such a reading allows.
: She thought the custom had died out. 'naive' does not mean 'stupid'.
No. Naive means innocent or unaware, stupid means numbed or slow. She
was neither. To believe otherwise is not to have read her face. She
never thought the "custom" (the custom??????) had died out, she used that
as a means to get the men to tell her more about it. She was working
through them.
: Why? What distinguishes the bourgeoisie from other classes is more about
: the social upbringing than women and money. What kind of social norm
: among the bourgeoisie had made her frigid?
Don't you see, right here, that the problem is not with her class but
with your acceptance of the premise that she is "frigid" and that this
"frigidity" (a female trait) is somehow the product of something that is
never challenged in the film. You're bringing to the film more than
Bunuel put into it and more than he left room for.
: I feel that the society in which
: everything is supposed to be pleasant, comfortable and perfect could be
: threatening when the feeling for a partner is less than perfect.
Do you truly not see in this the very point I was making? That because
she does not respond to a man whom we find ideal she must be frigid.
That's male propaganda 101. Standard (though more and more discredited)
rhetoric. Nothing new. Nothing creative. Nothing insightful. Nothing
worth spending money to see.
Of course, the film posits, if a woman does not respond to the men society
(i.e., men) think perfect for her, there must be some sort of sexual
dysfunction.
I truly thought we'd come farther than that. Or hoped. I guess, hoped.
Shari
Stefan Kahrs
m> Stefan Kahrs (s...@dcs.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
m> : I guess you didn't understand the message.
m> : The film certainly doesn't refer to "All Women",
m> : Luis Bunuel is -- as usual -- filming about the bourgeoisie.
m> : [Working class women need not apply.]
m> Ohhh. Oh. The _bourgeoisie_! Oh, I get it now. Only _capitalists_
m> go to prostitutes.Now I understand.
Obviously you don't. Capitalist doesn't mean bourgeois, it overlaps,
but it's not the same. Bunuel doesn't refer to the
political standing of the people he depicts but their lifestyle,
including their conventions and rituals.
Politically, they could be socialists, fascists, liberals, anything...
m> Now _Socialists_ : these are
m> people who love and respect women. That's why why women are on that
m> rocket sled ride of self fulfillment in China and Russia and
m> Eastern Europe. All those old ladies in the black dresses and no
m> teeth - and the stoop laborers here in the US - now _these_ are
m> women whose sexual gratification should be our guiding lights.
Oh Dear. Oh Dear, Oh Dear.
From my frequent use of the word "bourgeois" in my posting
Mr. Metafora seems to have implied that I'm a socialist.
But using this word is quite simply the handy thing to do
when describing Bunuel's work. [BTW I'm not declaring my political
convictions here, they are quite simply irrelevant in this context.]
m> : And it is more a social comment on the contradictions and hypocrisies
m> : of bourgeois lifestyle (regarding sex, violence, prostitution) than a
m> : story about sexuality.
m> : Severine is not frigid by chance, her frigidity is a product of her
m> : social context. She has sexual needs, but she can only escape her
m> : frigidity by escaping her social context.
m> Wait a miunte. She's bourgeois, but she escapes to ... what, Johns
m> who _aren't_ bourgeois?
Whether her customers at the brothel are bourgeois or not does not
matter. Simply by working there she lives a second non-bourgeois
life, a life that does not comply with bourgeois conventions.
m> : Perhaps you have to be a European bourgeois (preferably catholic)
m> : to fully appreciate it :-)
m> I am.
Surprised to here that. You sound more like an American puritan
to me, probably lower middle class.
m> I still don't get all the reviewer fuss about it. I guess I
m> get annoyed with artists who reap all the celebrity and bourgeois
m> rewards from us scummy bourgeoisie but preaching to us how scummy
m> we are.
Fair enough, but it is a good olde European tradition;
it goes back to Moliere, Goldoni, etc.
Of course, "scummy" is the wrong word here, insert "decadent";
[to explain the significance of the distinction from a British
perspective: being decadent is consistent with being a gentleman,
being scum is not.]
and "preaching" is also wrong, because Belle de Jour is not a
political film, it does not have a political message.
Bunuel is a surrealist and the contradictions of bourgeois lifestyle
are artistically of great help when you want to make a surreal movie.
That doesn't necessarily imply a criticism of that lifestyle.
To watch Bunuel when he actually is preaching: see Viridiana!
--
Stefan Kahrs
Hiroshi Amari
: I saw "Belle de Jour" more as condemnation of the family and social
: structure that allowed a small girl to be abused and to have no way to
: deal with it, instead of a villification of all men.
I think you are right. It is not only for small girls, but for adult women.
The
: two flashbacks to Severine's childhood -- which I did interpret as
: flashbacks, not fantasies -- told me pretty much what I needed to know.
: The first flashback showed a man kissing Severine when she was a little
: girl - in other words, she is the victim of sexual abuse, probably by a
: relative or trusted family friend. In the second flashback, she is
: taking her First Communion and she refuses the Host. She feels
: unbearably guilty and dirty, but so horribly ashamed she cannot confess,
: therefore she cannot take the Host, in her mind.
I did not understand what the First Communion is supposed to be. Could
anyone explain?
Her "frigidity" as an
: adult, her exploration of loveless sex and her need to be punished,
: result from this childhood trauma. Unfortunately, in the repressed
: world of mid-60s bourgeois France, there is no other framework with which to
: deal with it except through her bizarre acting-out.
I think she dreaded punishments. I thought her behavior of sleeping with
people from the other social strata was a revenge to her class and husband. I
thought he was very insensitive to talk about prostitution in front of
her. French society still accepts sexual misconducts more generously than
the US. When a French phone company announced a service to record the
phone numbers of the other party in the bill last year, it chilled men
there.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Janet Bertot
|> I think she dreaded punishments. I thought her behavior of sleeping with
|> people from the other social strata was a revenge to her class and husband. I
|> thought he was very insensitive to talk about prostitution in front of
|> her. French society still accepts sexual misconducts more generously than
|> the US. When a French phone company announced a service to record the
|> phone numbers of the other party in the bill last year, it chilled men
|> there.
Sorry but you lost me at the last sentence. In france, you can get detailed
phone bills (i.e., listing all the people you called). i know of no country
where, in a detailed phone bill, you get all the numbers of people who called you.
i don't doubt that most phone companies can generate such bills, but i don't know
any that send these along to the customer. Do you?!
Or perhaps i just misread completely the end of your message.
--janet
Joel Kuntonen
to project one's ideological baggage into, to see criticism of the
bourgeois, manifestations of the male gaze, and whatnot.
However, what a lot of you are ignoring is that the film is
accurate in its psychology, and that's the position all criticism of the
film must start from. The character of Severine refers not to male
fantasy but to reality; Severine is not merely a representative of the
bourgeois.
My closest friend behaves much like Severine due to childhood
abuse. She is "frigid" with the "right men" (i.e. those who are not
abusive, those who are supportive) and seeks out transient,
sometimes abusive relationships. This is reality. The portrayal of such
a character in a film does not amount to a political statement, but
rather to a human statement. And if such a character is portrayed, just
because we don't like what we see we shouldn't condemn the film on
ideological grounds.
I for one felt very deeply for Severine. Consequently, I
reject utterly the idea that the camera is somehow victimizing her.
If this were a film about male fantasies, furthermore, wouldn't you think
Bunuel would've made the male characters a little bit more appealing?
They are, after all, portrayed as little more than pond scum (the guy
with the bad teeth is enough to give anyone nightmares) -- not exactly
characters a male viewer would want to side with. The strength of
presence Catherine Deneuve projects makes it hard _not_ to empathize with
her. (I assume that's why she was cast in the part.)
jjk "Forward! Courage! Follow my example! Don't
be afraid! I am a citizen of the world -- all
countries are alike to me."
-- Lord Byron
Shari L. Rosenblum
Moliere or Goldoni do. Moliere, for one thing, mocked all levels of
society -- the aristocracy along with the then yet to be established
middle class, the church along with the crown. For another, his works do
not derive from preconceived notions about class -- they are far broader
in their sweep. They attack the nature of man (in the generic) and mock
the adaptations man makes to his nature according to his class. More
important, perhaps, to the point you made that Bunuel's reaping the
benefits of the bourgeois lifestyle and critiquing it is part of a long
European tradition, I think it important to note that Moliere had to
abandon his "place" in society (in the palace, no less), abandon his legal
credentials, and abandon his name to create the art he created. And he
died without the sacraments and was buried in an unmarked grave. That, in
fact, is the long European tradition. In any case, there is no comparison
between Moliere and the history he represents and this throw-away piece by
Bunuel.
Belle de Jour would need to be entirely rewritten to come anywhere near
the sophistication of Moliere's general tenor -- and even moreso to reach
its level of integrity.
: and "preaching" is also wrong, because Belle de Jour is not a
: political film, it does not have a political message.
This, of course, is a distinction without difference. Just as it is
untrue that your political perspective is irrelevant to your commentary
(or that mine is irrelevant to mine), it is completely false to pretend
that a film with a political message is not a political film.
: Bunuel is a surrealist and the contradictions of bourgeois lifestyle
: are artistically of great help when you want to make a surreal movie.
With this I wholeheartedly agree. I just think that the attempt was not
even made in Belle de Jour. And certainly not achieved.
You wouldn't happen to know what Andre Breton thought about it, would
you? I'd be curious to see what the man who wrote the manifesto on
surrealism thought of this particular film as a surrealist piece. Not
simply whether or not he liked or approved it -- but whether he saw in it
the depths that others have attributed to it.
Shari
Shari L. Rosenblum
in some way parallels the situation in the film. I deny that the film in
any way suggests that that psychology is at work. I found the
"flashbacks" of Severine's childhood to be less than convincing as
evidence of abuse. Bunuel was pushing buttons, no doubt, but not
portraying any real suggestion of the situation you take for granted as
underlying the character's actions.
In addition, I don't know about your friend, but I'd be curious to learn
whether her "frigidity" is manifested in marriage to a "good" man and some
form of -- for lack of a better expression, decadence/debauchery -- with
others. Did you not say her reality is to be in abusive relationships?
It's my understanding that, more often than not, abuse victims choose
situations in which they will be abused, not situations in which they will
be put on a pedestal so that they may fantasize about abuse.
If Belle de Jour were, in fact, meant to be a psychological portrayal, my
experience with sex abuse victims would lead me to an equally disdainful
review of the film -- as too superficial and far too pat. In other words,
my ideological criticism would be that the film trivializes and reduces ad
mundanum a complex and serious reality of our society. But I don't think
that's what it's meant to be. And either way, my aesthetic criticism
would be the same.
Moreover, although my statements have been interpreted by you and others
to equate the camera with the male gaze, as you put it, I tried to be
clear that I thought the camera represented angry and bitter men, not all
men. I don't think the two are synonymous, and certainly apologize if I
made it sound as if I did.
: If this were a film about male fantasies, furthermore, wouldn't you think
: Bunuel would've made the male characters a little bit more appealing?
Not at all. I never suggested the film was about sexual fantasies, but
rather about revenge fantasies. The revenge of the angry men who see
themselves as ideals is that the woman who scorns them winds up far worse
off than she could ever be with them. If the men were appealing,
Severine's deception would make sense on some level, even to the most
priggish among us. But to have her be debased by characters who make your
skin crawl, that's true victory.
My point was never that the men would identify with the "pond scum." The
film is set up so that men identify with the husband, good and gorgeous,
or, perhaps with the affable lecher who leads her to her secret life.
The pond scum are her punishment for rejecting all that's good and right.
You found it hard not to empathize with Catherine Deneuve? She left me
cold. Both the character she played and the actress herself for having
played her. And I suspect that it was not her acting ability that got her
the role, but rather the fact that she oozes that untouchable beauty of
the ivory madonna.
Shari
Hiroshi Amari
> Hiroshi, I would argue, and I suppose have been arguing, that the only
> way to appreciate Belle de Jour is to come to it with either preconceived
> notions of women and sexuality or to be unquestioningly accepting of
> contributions to an art by an artist whose name has already been made.
>
> In other words, though you say there are many ways to appreciate the
> film, I think all are equally repugnant.
As a viewer who did not know the director, I disagree. I left the theater
pleased with the movie, but did not understand what this movie really is
all about. I can only say that this movie is more about X than Y, where X
and Y are some themes we've been discussing. I would hesitate to say that
this movie is a criticism, or description of men/women with certain
traits. I'm interested in someone else's life and experiences, especially
when that person is very different from me. I do not need any message or
moral in order to enjoy this film.
> You say it's interesting that I see the sexual angle of men's fantasies
> as the substance of the film -- but there is nothing remotely substantive
> in any other analysis I've heard or seen. The mere fact that the woman
> is of the bourgeoisie does not make the film a critique of the
> bourgeoisie. The mere fact that she rejects her dull husband and his
> lecherous friend does not make her frigid.
What I felt is this. If some woman rejects me, I do not want to see her
sleep with men professionally. The rejection does not make me angry, but
sad. Or more generally, it isn't fun to believe that all women want sex.
I think one reasonable thing to do is to interpret the screenfuls of
images as things the director wanted to convey. As I said earlier, I did
not think this is a mere critique or a propaganda film. I do not see how
you can reject the idea that she is frigid after seeing her rejections
and her adventure in spite of her innate disstate for sexual activities.
> The fact that the film "flashes back" to incidents of Severine as a girl
> with a man ... the same man, luck would have it, who appears in her
> daydreams ... does not mean that she was sexually abused. It may mean
> that her fantasies carry to other points in her life (this is not unusual
> in fantasy life ... ). It may mean that she's been having the same
> fantasy for 30 years. It may mean that Bunuel enjoyed the prospect of
> our debating such superficial nonsense without any effort whatsoever on
> his part. I vote for the latter.
As I wrote earlier, I did not get the First Communion part. I do not
know about the significance and severity of the child abuse, but still stick
the former (the abused).
> I saw no ambiguity, only artistic deceit. Incoherence is not
> ambiguity. Disjointedness is not surrealism. Bunuel was toying with us,
> not his story.
One of the surrealistic notion is that you put significance in dreams and
subconsciousness. Also, it doubts the existing order of the society.
> Moreover, you are, I think, incorrect in your assertion that the men did
> not realize Belle de Jour's class. She was dressed in Yves St. Laurent.
> She had an air. They commented upon it. It was palpably evident. Class
> is not something that one needs to speak about ... we wear it with
> everything, we carry it with us. That's one point the film hammers home.
If you go to the place, you may see a prostitute who is in the nun
costume. Some people want to see fantasy in sex. I would not surprised if
I meet Jeanne d'Arc, Cleopatra, Marie Antoinette or Mother Teresa. Also,
there your social class is upgraded.
> : What I meant in my earlier post in that this is more about the bourgeois
> : than about sexuality. This is not a social commentary, but it centers
> : around the hypocritic nature of the bourgeois.
>
> The film has nothing to do with the bourgeoisie. Or hypocrisy. In fact,
> the people in the film (of all classes) are exceedingly honest. There is
> only Severine (and the other presumably haughty femme fatale) who lead a
> double life.
Honest about their desires? Not sure honesty is a virtue in the movie.
> : : It is equally untrue that Severine was naive about violence and
> : : prostitution. Cold, but not stupid. She lived in a world where mores
> : : were far more expansive than such a reading allows.
>
> : She thought the custom had died out. 'naive' does not mean 'stupid'.
>
> No. Naive means innocent or unaware, stupid means numbed or slow. She
> was neither. To believe otherwise is not to have read her face. She
> never thought the "custom" (the custom??????) had died out, she used that
> as a means to get the men to tell her more about it. She was working
> through them.
Then, why did not she talk to the driver and ask him about where to go?
She asked a friend of his husband about it. (I do not remember the time
sequence.) If she has known it already, she got nothing in the taxi.
> Don't you see, right here, that the problem is not with her class but
> with your acceptance of the premise that she is "frigid" and that this
> "frigidity" (a female trait) is somehow the product of something that is
> never challenged in the film. You're bringing to the film more than
> Bunuel put into it and more than he left room for.
I was not sure why she was frigid. I thought the experiences,
consciousness and subconsciousness, the environment, and the society are
all responsible. Again, I do not know how you can prove she is not
frigid. It is easy to prove that there is a mosquito in a house, but much
harder to prove the opposite.
> : I feel that the society in which
> : everything is supposed to be pleasant, comfortable and perfect could be
> : threatening when the feeling for a partner is less than perfect.
>
> Do you truly not see in this the very point I was making? That because
> she does not respond to a man whom we find ideal she must be frigid.
> That's male propaganda 101. Standard (though more and more discredited)
> rhetoric. Nothing new. Nothing creative. Nothing insightful. Nothing
> worth spending money to see.
Do we find ideal in the husband? No.
I also disagree with your view that Deneuve was chosen for her looks
rather than her skill. She is an excellent actress. Grace Kelly may have the
looks for this role, but Deneuve is better when it is about sexuality and
she attracts men. Both are very good actresses and this is not an easy role
to act.
We do not want to know the 'truth' of her motives explicitly however. We
do not want to hear narration about what she feels.
Hiroshi Amari
Hiroshi Amari
: |> her. French society still accepts sexual misconducts more generously than
: |> the US. When a French phone company announced a service to record the
: |> phone numbers of the other party in the bill last year, it chilled men
: |> there.
: Sorry but you lost me at the last sentence. In france, you can get detailed
: phone bills (i.e., listing all the people you called). i know of no country
: where, in a detailed phone bill, you get all the numbers of people who called you.
: i don't doubt that most phone companies can generate such bills, but i don't know
: any that send these along to the customer. Do you?!
: Or perhaps i just misread completely the end of your message.
I heard it on the radio. It may be about calls within a city. It was
about the time when President Mitterand's (sp?) popularity went up when
he admitted his affair.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Shari L. Rosenblum
: In some ways this sympathetic posting is even more depressing than the
: original lengthy one about what a sexist fucker Bunuel was.
I find it curious that you reduce a detailed film analysis about
portraiture, surrealism, and perspective to an attack on Bunuel as
sexist. I never called Bunuel sexist. I never even suggested he was. I
said this particular film was an incoherent collection of misogynistic
vignettes, but certainly you understand that that's not at all the same
thing.
Unfortunately, you seem to have ascribed my critique to knee-jerkism and
dismissed the substance without considering it. That's nearly as
offensive as the film itself.
: The best
: summation I can give of Belle de Jour is that it is about the difference
: between a young woman's bland, blonde exterior as presented to the world,
: and the incredibly rich and baroque world that is going on inside her
: head. We all have, to some greater or lesser degree, that world inside
: us, much of it glorious and much of it unspeakable, and nearly all of us
: do as much as possible to keep it safely locked up.
This is actually an interesting perspective, though only possible if one
finds that there is something healthy or baroque in self-hatred and abuse.
Baroque, perhaps in some abstract sense -- but not in the sense of baroque
complexity contrasted with classical superficiality. The film comes
nowhere near such expression. No doubt many who appear impenetrably cold
to the world are richly warm within. But if you saw that in Belle de
Jour, it seems to me that it was you who brought it with you to the film.
It's not in Bunuel's portrayal.
: To reduce it to being only a sexist male fantasy, as the first poster did,
: is a typical American reaction which mainly comes out of A) not getting
: the joke and B) assuming that something that is distasteful in its
: presentation cannot, by definition, contain worthwhile content.
You're making assumptions without basis. I'm not sure why my analysis of
the film as representing the vengeance fantasy of angry and resentful
rejected men has been taken to be an attack on the film as a sexist male
fantasy. I don't imagine you think the two categories are one and the
same -- why would you assume I do?
I can only imagine that you did not read the substance of any of my posts
if you assume that my critique is simply my not getting a joke. I
conceded the attempt at subtle humor ... but I made the point that the
real joke was Bunuel's mockery of the far too uncritical aficionados of
the genre who, he knew, would read disjointed as surreal, and
incomprehensible as deep. This is not unlike the scorn Picasso showed in
a certain work or works to the self-proclaimed intelligentsia who worship
rather than evaluate his artistry.
Surrealism, according to Breton, is the "[a]utomatisme psychique pur par
lequel on se propose de s'exprimer... le fonctionnement reel de la
pensee" (the pure psychic automatism by which one attempts to express
oneself ... the true functioning of thought). My point, of course, is
that Belle de Jour never achieves this on any level -- and that to
believe it does is to believe that what you (and other critics) claim is
a knowing tongue-in-cheek portrait is a conception in which you actually
find a taste of reality. I find none there.
Lastly, you assume that I make the determination that the film has no
worthwhile content because I find it offensive. It is, rather, as I said,
that I find it offensive because it has no worthwhile content.
There is, to my mind, but one relationship in the film that even hinted of
creative insight ... that between the madame and Severine -- power play,
woman against woman before man as subject, woman bonding with woman before
man as object. There was room here for true genius -- but Bunuel threw it
away in favor of the decadence of simplistic suggestion at the war between
the sexes as sex v. love, pleasure as pain, and all the other
bourgeois/anti-bourgeois cliches. The male characters were all too
formulaic, too sketchy, too unidimensional. Severine was not even given
the depth of a carboard cutout. The most powerful agent in the film was
the camera's angry eye. And that's what I find offensive.
Perhaps most offensive is that the scorn for his audience Bunuel
transferred into this work has proved to be deserved. I've said this
before, but I'll say it again. Belle de Jour is, on some level, a
reflection of the audience, having mud flung in its face and cooing with
delight.
Shari
Shari L. Rosenblum
: I would hesitate to say that
: this movie is a criticism, or description of men/women with certain
: traits. I'm interested in someone else's life and experiences, especially
: when that person is very different from me. I do not need any message or
: moral in order to enjoy this film.
Let me ask you this. Do you not see that reading Severine's story as
"someone else's life and experiences" is buying into the realism of the
portrayal? This is, in fact, the preconceived perception I suggested was
required to find this film "valid."
: What I felt is this. If some woman rejects me, I do not want to see her
: sleep with men professionally. The rejection does not make me angry, but
: sad. Or more generally, it isn't fun to believe that all women want sex.
Of course not. The camera's delight in Severine's debasement is not that
of all men ... it is a vengeance fantasy. I'm pleased that it's not one
you share, but that doesn't change the fact.
: I think one reasonable thing to do is to interpret the screenfuls of
: images as things the director wanted to convey. As I said earlier, I did
: not think this is a mere critique or a propaganda film. I do not see how
: you can reject the idea that she is frigid after seeing her rejections
: and her adventure in spite of her innate disstate for sexual activities.
I didn't see any hint of a distaste for sexual activities. I saw that
her husband and his friend did nothing to spark her desires. I saw that
their inability to excite her was translated by the film into her
inability to be excited.
"Frigid" is, to some extent, a male-created deception to explain the
spurns of certain women. Or their failure to bring certain women to
climax. The camera reflects Severine as frigid even though she shows
great delectation at sexual relations under certain circumstances. Do
you not see that as the perspective of an angry and resentful rejected man?
: One of the surrealistic notion is that you put significance in dreams and
: subconsciousness. Also, it doubts the existing order of the society.
It's a mistake to reduce surrealism to a disjointed reflection of mock
subconscious. It is, rather, the rejection of a repressive consciousness,
a state in which creative spirit controls. If anything, then, this film
is anti-surrealistic. The manipulations of the film are entirely directed
and exceedingly deliberate ... no creative spirit unbound. And Belle de
Jour, both the character and the film, rather than reject repressive
consciousness, simply chooses to switch off between two variants of
repressive consciousness.
: If you go to the place, you may see a prostitute who is in the nun
: costume. Some people want to see fantasy in sex. I would not surprised if
: I meet Jeanne d'Arc, Cleopatra, Marie Antoinette or Mother Teresa. Also,
: there your social class is upgraded.
True. But this has nothing to do with whether or not the clients of
Belle de Jour were aware of her class. She reeked her class. Not only
because of what she wore ... but because of how she wore it. And the
film makes clear that her clients know it.
: Then, why did not she talk to the driver and ask him about where to go?
Mock innocence ... hiding the reality of her "baseness." She did not
need to ask him, but she needed to pretend (for herself) that she didn't
know.
: She asked a friend of his husband about it. (I do not remember the time
: sequence.) If she has known it already, she got nothing in the taxi.
Except for the comfort of the false image.
: I was not sure why she was frigid.
Right. But you believed she was frigid. That's the problem, right there.
See my discussion of this above.
: I thought the experiences,
: consciousness and subconsciousness, the environment, and the society are
: all responsible. Again, I do not know how you can prove she is not
: frigid. It is easy to prove that there is a mosquito in a house, but much
: harder to prove the opposite.
I can prove she was not frigid because of her satiated smile (for one)
after her encounter with the Japanese gentleman. And because when the
other prostitute commented about how dreadful the experience must have
been, Belle de Jour dreamily replied ... that the other didn't understand
a thing. Frigid? Clearly not. When "touched" she responds.
: Do we find ideal in the husband? No.
Because he's too sketchily drawn. But he is the outline of an ideal.
Gorgeous, caring, intelligent, rich, understanding, and loving. That's a
hell of a good start on an ideal.
: I also disagree with your view that Deneuve was chosen for her looks
: rather than her skill. She is an excellent actress. Grace Kelly may have
: the looks for this role, but Deneuve is better when it is about
: sexuality and she attracts men. Both are very good actresses and this is
: not an easy role to act.
I didn't say that Deneuve couldn't act. I said that her acting was not
what got her the role. And Grace Kelley doesn't have the looks for the
role. Too much humanity in her face. Deneuve looks like she's made of
plastic. Or opaque glass ... It's not her beauty, in other words, but
her cold exterior.
As to whether it's a hard role to act, I don't know. She doesn't have to
show emotion or depth. That seems reasonably doable to me.
Shari
Paula J. Vitaris
: : In some ways this sympathetic posting is even more depressing than the
: : original lengthy one about what a sexist fucker Bunuel was.
: I find it curious that you reduce a detailed film analysis about
: portraiture, surrealism, and perspective to an attack on Bunuel as
: sexist. I never called Bunuel sexist. I never even suggested he was. I
: said this particular film was an incoherent collection of misogynistic
: vignettes, but certainly you understand that that's not at all the same
: thing.
*I* wrote the paragraph about that MGMax is complaining
about... he was criticizing what he thought was my interpretation of the
film as an examination of Severine's "inner child." What I was
trying to say was that the movie was about *HER SOCIETY's* -- inability to
deal with the experiences that had led her to become the person she is, not
that it was completely and totally about Severine's childhood. The
film itself gives us the barest of clues as to what happened to Severine
as a girl, clues which we may interpret in a number of ways (they could
also be fantasy)... I saw them through the prism of the experiences of a
friend (see below). But it's certainly too rich and complex a film to
reduce to being merely about one thing, Severine's "inner child," a
phrase I don't recall using (though I'd have to go back and check)
because I don't like that terminology. It indeed does smack of pop
psychology.
Nevertheless, MGMax states the film is about Severine's inner woman, as
opposed to what he calls the "inner child," but the child is mother of
the woman. Does anyone around here seriously think that Severine's
acting out of her fantasy life a healthy expression? Her outer life
doesn't bring her any peace of mind, and her inner life, while
satisfying a need, doesn't bring that either. And when the two collide,
disaster ensues... or does it? I can't say what really happens in this
movie at all. Somewhere there is a happier place for Severine - she's
not going to find it in her stiff, rich circle, or in the bordello.
She's trapped, though, by her circumstances. There may be an
alternative for her somewhere, but she doesn't see it.
I do know one thing... I have a friend who was seriously -- and I mean
seriously -- abused as a child, and she acted a LOT like Severine did.
Fortunately, she got help... and she is now married and much
happier than she ever was when she was behaving as Severine seems to have
done.
I've only seen "Belle de Jour" once. I imagine the next time I see it, I
will be struck by something totally different.
-Paula
MGMax1919
>structure that allowed a small girl to be abused and to have no way to
>deal with it, instead of a villification of all men.
In some ways this sympathetic posting is even more depressing than the
original lengthy one about what a sexist fucker Bunuel was. The best
summation I can give of Belle de Jour is that it is about the difference
between a young woman's bland, blonde exterior as presented to the world,
and the incredibly rich and baroque world that is going on inside her
head. We all have, to some greater or lesser degree, that world inside
us, much of it glorious and much of it unspeakable, and nearly all of us
do as much as possible to keep it safely locked up.
To reduce it to being only a sexist male fantasy, as the first poster did,
is a typical American reaction which mainly comes out of A) not getting
the joke and B) assuming that something that is distasteful in its
presentation cannot, by definition, contain worthwhile content. (You
should see The Young One, in which a child molester turns out to be the
hero because his transgression of sexual mores leads him to transgress
against another societal dictate-- that blacks should be treated like
subhumans.) That's a p.c. attitude, but at least the first poster was
fairly thoughtful and literate about it all.
But to reduce it to pop psychology, as the second, more sympathetic poster
did-- that's unforgivable! It is not Belle's inner child that the movie
is about-- it is the inner woman, the bizarre and disturbing fully grown
woman, who is so much at odds with the child-bride outside!
mgma...@aol.com (Michael Gebert)
"It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either
charming or tedious." --Oscar Wilde
Hiroshi Amari
: I can prove she was not frigid because of her satiated smile (for one)
: after her encounter with the Japanese gentleman. And because when the
: other prostitute commented about how dreadful the experience must have
: been, Belle de Jour dreamily replied ... that the other didn't understand
: a thing. Frigid? Clearly not. When "touched" she responds.
(I will respond to the other questions later)
That Japanese guy was weird, wasn't he? He was supposedly the first man
she slept with there. Did we smell any hypocracy or comformity to social
norms in him? He is an outsider who does not even try to behave as a
'gentleman'. He cannot have dinner at a decent restaurant with his
insect. In other words, he does not belong to the same category as her
husband.
Both of them chatted about the insect before they kissed each other. I
thought the insect relaxed her. Smile is part of the trade.
Belle de Jour's body looked hot after the intercorse, but her eyes were
fearsome, almost scary, when she replied to the other prostitute. She did
not have fun in the traditional sense.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Shari L. Rosenblum
Distribution:
Hiroshi -- watch the scene again. Belle's smile was not the practiced
smile of the prostitute (compare Klute), but the sybaritic smile of a
sated woman. In fact, the client had already gone ... No. She was
not frigid at all.
: That Japanese guy was weird, wasn't he? He was supposedly the first man
: she slept with there. Did we smell any hypocrisy or comformity to social
: norms in him?
We know nothing about him by which to judge if he's hypocritical. And
despite the insect (a hint, no doubt), we cannot assess his conformity to
social norms. However, I think that his being Japanese is relevant to the
scene. It is not only the insect, but his size and his "foreignness,"
that make him different from the world she's rejecting with her coldness.
: Both of them chatted about the insect before they kissed each other. I
: thought the insect relaxed her. Smile is part of the trade.
The insect let her know that this was not going to just be more of the
same. This was a man who expected of her exactly the sort of thing a man
(the film suggests) has no right to expect from her (notice that even the
other prostitute found it too repulsive to engage in). It was simply
stylized degradation.
: Belle de Jour's body looked hot after the intercorse, but her eyes were
: fearsome, almost scary, when she replied to the other prostitute. She did
: not have fun in the traditional sense.
Whose traditional sense, Hiroshi? Of course she was not responding to
traditional sex. That was the whole point. But she was most assuredly
satisfied. Most assuredly. Watch her face again.
Shari
MAIKO YOSHIKAWA
Sorry to jump in, guys..
Shari L. Rosenblum (slr...@is2.nyu.edu) wrote:
: <41mbb1$k...@news.ycc.yale.edu:>
: Hiroshi -- watch the scene again. Belle's smile was not the practiced
: smile of the prostitute (compare Klute), but the sybaritic smile of a
: sated woman. In fact, the client had already gone ... No. She was
: not frigid at all.
This scene left such a lasting impression on me because it showed
the *only* two really "happy" face of Belle's... the laugh when she
is listening to the bells, and the expression when the maid asked
her how it must have been hard.. "What do you know?" she says.
[compressed}
: The insect let her know that this was not going to just be more of the
: same. This was a man who expected of her exactly the sort of thing a man
: (the film suggests) has no right to expect from her (notice that even the
: other prostitute found it too repulsive to engage in). It was simply
: stylized degradation.
Although I agree that the Japanese man was treated as very exotic
and weird (the laughable Geisha Card, etc), I believe the other
prostitutes rejected him because of what was in the box. I don't
get where the "right" and the "degradation" comes in.
Maiko Yoshikawa
myos...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu
Arthur Wouk
Shari L. Rosenblum <slr...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote:
><41mbb1$k...@news.ycc.yale.edu:>
>Distribution:
>
>Hiroshi -- watch the scene again. Belle's smile was not the practiced
>smile of the prostitute (compare Klute), but the sybaritic smile of a
>sated woman. In fact, the client had already gone ... No. She was
>not frigid at all.
>:(Hirosi wrote)
>
>: Belle de Jour's body looked hot after the intercorse, but her eyes were
>: fearsome, almost scary, when she replied to the other prostitute. She did
>: not have fun in the traditional sense.
>
>Whose traditional sense, Hiroshi? Of course she was not responding to
>traditional sex. That was the whole point. But she was most assuredly
>satisfied. Most assuredly. Watch her face again.
i wrote this first directly to hirosihi, but i think it needs
repeating in public.
when i first saw the film, in the comapny of others who had seen the
film on its first release in 1967, i remarked, and they agreed, that at
least one scene had been cut. i pointed this out to the newsgroup
about a month or so agon, and everyone else said that this was exactly
the film which was last exhibited in 1971.
now, what was that scene? it is precisely the scene in which severine
comes out after seeing her first client, the japanese (?, this is NOT
certain) client. the material cut consists of the maid coming out
with a towel on which there is a small circle of blood. the certain
conclusion is that anal intercourse took place. the maid's expression
and severine's are connected!
now, it may be that that portion of the scene was cut between 1967 and
1971. i cannot deny that. but it was present in 1967. the published
script is of the version showing in 1971, possibly; what i describe
is not in the printed script (i have been admonished by people on this
newsgroup), but is in the minds of those who saw the first release.
original release.
*****
as a second issue, to which i have seen no response, i also noted the
very poor quality of the english subtitles. i have seen other french
films of earlier or similar vintage with far superior translations.
any others note this?
--
--
arthur wouk Disc Space - The Final Frontier
internet: wo...@cs.colorado.edu
MGMax1919
>vignettes, but certainly you understand that that's not at all the same
>thing [as saying that this person reduced Bunuel to a sexist fucker]
Oh, I don't know, I think that sums it up reasonably well, especially
since I was trying not to do what too many people do, which is requote an
entire post. However, I accept your slightly longer reduction,
"incoherent collection of misogynistic vignettes."
>This is actually an interesting perspective... [snip] But if you saw that
in Belle de
>Jour, it seems to me that it was you who brought it with you to the film.
>It's not in Bunuel's portrayal.
Actually, I would argue that historically it is, given the importance the
Surrealists placed on the dream world, and in particular the influence on
the Surrealists of, for instance, Joris-Karl Huysmans' novel Becalmed,
which combines a mundane, day-to-day portrait of a trip to the countryside
with the baroque, disturbing dreams that the character has each night
during his trip-- and treats them as being of equal importance. Having
said that, I wouldn't claim by any means that what the film probably meant
to Bunuel, given his background and literary influences, is the ONLY thing
it should be taken to mean by other viewers-- but it's certainly one
fairly important meaning, and wasn't just mine.
>I'm not sure why my analysis of the film as representing the vengeance
fantasy of angry >and resentful rejected men has been taken to be an
attack on the film as a sexist male
>fantasy.
And I, try as I may, can't read it your way-- even though you've obviously
thought it through pretty well. There are certainly elements of male
fantasy here-- it is awfully close to an Emmanuelle film in certain ways--
and yet to me the men are all clods (excepting maybe Michel Piccoli's
decadent adulterer, and yet he, too, is ultimately shown to be ruled more
by the little head than the big head and by his conventional ideas of sin
and sexuality), while Belle is a powerful, fascinating character, a woman
who pursues her own kicks within the framework of a pre-existing society's
darker side. If she did all the same things but as a lesbian, she'd be a
great feminist heroine-- as you sort of hint at later on, focusing on her
relationship with the madam. I think Americans, and especially Americans
who tend to see sexual relations as primarily power relations with women
inevitably on the bottom, just can't see how a character could be
liberated through screwing around in, often, debasing ways. It's a very
European idea, and it may indeed be a bad idea, but it's one with a lot of
adherents (Foucault, Bataille, etc.) that Americans with a dual heritage
of Puritanism and feminism will understandably have a lot of trouble with.
(My apologies for borrowing a bit of Robert Hughes' commentary from
"Crumb" here.) It's why French philosophers can read Sade for the
philosophy of personal liberation and take the often horrific sexuality in
stride as, literally, of minor importance.
Again, if Belle was a beautiful young male, and the movie was by Pasolini
(or Robert Mapplethorpe), I think some people would buy the idea easier
because male-female relations, and the attached suppositions about them,
would be removed from the picture. Now, you might say that those
male-female relations are integral to it and removing them is
nonsensical-- but I think Belle is a certain kind of Bunuel hero(ine),
even a certain kind of European philosophical adventurer, who transcends
the fact that she's a pretty blonde. (Though I'm sure the producers
preferred it that way-- I certainly wouldn't argue with the fact that
aspects of the film are driven by commercial calculations.) It's kind of
cool, I think, that Bunuel could make that sort of film with a female,
rather than male, protagonist. Pasolini and Fassbinder certainly
couldn't.
>the real joke was Bunuel's mockery of the far too uncritical aficionados
of
>the genre who, he knew, would read disjointed as surreal, and
>incomprehensible as deep.
There are undoubtedly art films which were made in contempt as jokes on
their audiences, but I cannot believe, seeing how Belle de Jour ties in to
themes in other Bunuel films and in the works that influenced him so
deeply (such as Sade, Huysmans, Octave Mirbeau, etc.) that Belle de Jour
was solely a joke on its audience-- though it does play a number of jokes
on its audience.
>Surrealism, according to Breton, is the pure psychic automatism by which
one >attempts to express oneself ... the true functioning of thought). My
point, of course, is
>that Belle de Jour never achieves this on any level
Whatever that means, if anything, I doubt that Bunuel took it or any of
Breton's other doctrinal pronouncements very seriously by the time he was
in his 60's and had made a couple of dozen films. Bunuel was very far
from a pure Surrealist-- and indeed he is truer to classical 18th-19th
century Surrealist antecedents like Sade, Huysmans, Gogol, and Galdos (two
of whose books he filmed) than he was to the deconstructionist spirit of
the avant-garde movements of the 20's.
>Severine was not even given the depth of a carboard cutout. The most
powerful agent >in the film was the camera's angry eye.
Oh, that male gaze thing!
If ever a movie was ruled by the unfettered gaze, and thought, of a woman!
>The camera reflects Severine as frigid even though she shows
>great delectation at sexual relations under certain circumstances. Do
>you not see that as the perspective of an angry and resentful rejected
man?
No, because I believe it establishes her claim to get excited, or not get
excited, about what she wants to be excited by. You seem to think Bunuel
is condemning her for not being a good dutiful wife, which is the second
furthest thing from his mind.
>But he is the outline of an ideal. Gorgeous, caring, intelligent, rich,
understanding, and >loving. That's a hell of a good start on an ideal.
And now you seem to think Bunuel is portraying a boring bourgeois as the
manly ideal! That is the furthest thing from his mind! This is not The
Bridges of Madison Arondissement, in which Belle gets her one thing before
she does the Right Thing and goes back to being a good wife! I don't see
how anyone can view the marriage as idealized in the slightest. It's a
prison.
>Belle de Jour is, on some level, a reflection of the audience
And that is where we will have to leave it, I fear, because I cannot see
the Belle de Jour that gazes back at you from the screen, nor can you see
mine.
Shari L. Rosenblum
I find it fascinating that you feel in this film (separating it out of
Bunuel's work) echoes of the tone or temperament of Huysmans or de Sade.
Though neither of their hypnotically depressing visions appeals to me on
an emotional (or political) level, there is an element of artistic
integrity in them that I find nowhere in Belle de Jour.
I guess it would suffice to say that what you (and many critics)
responded to as the dream state that interrupts the supposed lucidity of
waking touched me, instead, as an overly conscious attempt to create
such an imaage. I felt the storyteller's presence, the camera's
presence, throughout. There was a stiltedness to the recounting, to the
images, that rang (to me) as overconscious rather than subconscious.
: And I, try as I may, can't read it your way-- even though you've obviously
: thought it through pretty well. There are certainly elements of male
: fantasy here-- it is awfully close to an Emmanuelle film in certain ways--
: and yet to me the men are all clods (excepting maybe Michel Piccoli's
: decadent adulterer, and yet he, too, is ultimately shown to be ruled more
: by the little head than the big head and by his conventional ideas of sin
: and sexuality),
I suppose there are elements of the stylized fantasy works such as
Emmanuelle, but that wasn't the kind of fantasy I was talking about.
Perhaps fantasy is too misleading a word. I mean lust for revenge ... I
mean imaginings born of anger and frustration.
I agree that the men are all clods, and I can see why with such portraits
it seems odd that I attribute to it the meaning I do. But they are
different kinds of clods, and both angles contribute to what I see as the
camera's lust for revenge (using the camera as the angry, rejected man ...).
The husband and the adulterer each embody standard elements of the
bourgeois ideal. Looks, money, success, oblique charm. But they are
fools and dullards ... why? Or rather, how is it that the film
communicates this to us? By their not grasping the means to get, keep,
or control this beautiful woman. They are unworthy of our admiration
because they fail to put Severine in her place and get what they want
from her -- which, the film tells us, was easily gotten.
The clients at the brothel are more obviously repulsive. And yet they
manage to break Severine's shell ... in a very real sense, the metaphor
working on more than one level. But rather than admire them for their
conquest of Severine, we recognize their appeal for her is no more than a
desire for self-abasement and abuse.
: while Belle is a powerful, fascinating character, a woman
: who pursues her own kicks within the framework of a pre-existing society's
: darker side.
This is really where it is that we disagree. I see Belle as weak --
seeking the punishment she needs to feel to be excited. But there is no
strength in self-abuse and shamed maneuverings. Her acts flow not from
some force of character, but from some uncontrollable urge that carries
her along. No choice, really.
More precisely, I don't see her pursuing her kicks ... if I did, I'd
agree with your analysis. I see her, rather, as pursued by some demons.
Not because of what she does ... but because of how and why she does it.
: If she did all the same things but as a lesbian, she'd be a
: great feminist heroine-- as you sort of hint at later on, focusing on her
: relationship with the madam.
That isn't quite what I meant. It is my opinion, in fact, that using
lesbianism as a symbol or signal of female strength or greater desire is
a cop-out political statement.
What I found compelling in the relationship with the madam (or in what
could have been the relationship with the madam) was a sexuality without
lust ... or even without sex. The de-sublimation (i.e., the rising into
consciousness) of the power play beneath the sexual play without the
detour to the bedroom.
: I think Americans, and especially Americans
: who tend to see sexual relations as primarily power relations with women
: inevitably on the bottom, just can't see how a character could be
: liberated through screwing around in, often, debasing ways. It's a very
: European idea, and it may indeed be a bad idea, but it's one with a lot of
: adherents (Foucault, Bataille, etc.) that Americans with a dual heritage
: of Puritanism and feminism will understandably have a lot of trouble with.
I think you overstate your case here. Or make assumptions about mine
that I've given you no basis for.
Though I might agree that there is a strand of American feminism that
tends to gloss over the reality that there is pleasure in sex despite
and/or because of the power game, I think we have to recognize that that
is a limited group. It is error, I think, to generalize from them.
It is error, too, to attribute too much sophistication or life wisdom to
the French. Foucault, of course, recognized the power relations within
sexual relations ... but, in a manner representative of the French
literary and philosophical tradition ... he didn't give full credence to
the woman's perspective in this. Belle de Jour is in that same tradition.
I've always found it interesting that de Beauvoir's Second Sex, a
practical political manifesto, devotes a good chunk to some standard
French authors. The French literary line, like Belle de Jour, gives a
palpably non-female perspective and claims it to be a voyage through the
feminine soul.
: It's why French philosophers can read Sade for the
: philosophy of personal liberation and take the often horrific sexuality in
: stride as, literally, of minor importance.
I think this, too, is not quite on mark. Of course it's true that
decadence was part of an aesthetic in France that took on many
permutations, not the least effect of which is the desensitization of
those familiar to the genre to certain repeated or stylized horrors.
And though I know that there is often an underlying theme equating
subjugation with liberation, it falls on my ears as a chant of persuasion
rather than an interpretation grounded in reality.
I don't see why it should be difficult, conceptually, to separate a
liberation in which the person seeks out non-standard acts from a
subjugation in which a person submits to non-standard acts because s/he
thinks it is her/his due. It's decadence v. degradation. And I think
there's a tremendous difference between the two.
: Again, if Belle was a beautiful young male, and the movie was by Pasolini
: (or Robert Mapplethorpe), I think some people would buy the idea easier
: because male-female relations, and the attached suppositions about them,
: would be removed from the picture.
I don't think there's much of a difference between male/female sexual
politics and the politics of the male/male couple. But that's a topic
that can take us on a long digression ...
I agree, though, that there'd be less of a shock to the story for those
whose political or sexual orientations made them likely to see the film.
: Whatever that means, if anything, I doubt that Bunuel took it or any of
: Breton's other doctrinal pronouncements very seriously by the time he was
: in his 60's and had made a couple of dozen films.
That may well be true. But I wasn't responding to Bunuel's claims or
attitudes. I was responding to assertions by critics on and off this
group that Belle de Jour was a surrealist masterpiece, and to accusations
that one who doesn't appreciate the disjointedness simply doesn't get the
surrealism.
: If ever a movie was ruled by the unfettered gaze, and thought, of a woman!
Yes. Superficially. The gaze of a woman as a certain man imagines it to
be and therefore simply a male gaze rechanneled. This is not a
condemnation (necessarily); it is simply a correction. The camera in
Belle de Jour was faithful neither to the gaze nor thought of woman as
woman ... and yet it teetered so close ...
: No, because I believe it establishes her claim to get excited, or not get
: excited, about what she wants to be excited by. You seem to think Bunuel
: is condemning her for not being a good dutiful wife, which is the second
: furthest thing from his mind.
Dutiful wife? I think if anything in the film is without true relevance
to the story it is her marriage. Or the fact that she is married. I am
not sure where you get that from my writing.
However, though Bunuel is clearly not condemning Severine for failing the
bourgeoisie, nor is he admiring her for escaping from it. And the reason
for this, I say, is that she does not escape. I find it truly fascinating
that you read strength and independence in her character ... where to me
every tentative and surreptitious step she takes contradicts such a
character reading.
Why? You attribute independence to her because (I get from your writing)
she chooses to take her pleasure in a way that satisfies her needs. But
in truth, she makes no real choice because she takes no responsibility
for her acts. There is something missing from the independence angle.
She hides, denies, pretends, evades, and in the end escapes back without
ever making the commitment to her own sense of pleasure, decadent or
other. That's not choice. That's simply going with a certain flow ...
: And now you seem to think Bunuel is portraying a boring bourgeois as the
: manly ideal! That is the furthest thing from his mind!
You misread me ... or I was not sufficiently precise. No, Bunuel does
not idealize the husband. Yes, the husband represents a static ideal.
(I discuss this in more detail above ... )
In any case, I never suggested that the marriage was idealized ... or
desirable on any level. What I said was that he was rich, handsome, and
loving and that their marriage was financially secure. That his image
hints at an ideal ... and his failure to be that ideal is a scorn the film
heaps upon him (not only because he is boringly bourgeois, but also
because he drowns out all of his potential strengths). It is quite apt
that he becomes paralyzed -- he suffered from that mundane paralysis of
the too good and too right throughout the film.
: And that is where we will have to leave it, I fear, because I cannot see
: the Belle de Jour that gazes back at you from the screen, nor can you see
: mine.
True enough. But I can see now better than before what others saw in
this work ... and though not persuaded on any level, I am enlightened.
Shari
Michael Appleby (GD 1999)
: now, what was that scene? it is precisely the scene in which severine
: comes out after seeing her first client, the japanese (?, this is NOT
: certain) client. the material cut consists of the maid coming out
: with a towel on which there is a small circle of blood. the certain
: conclusion is that anal intercourse took place. the maid's expression
: and severine's are connected!
Although I admire your imagination (no offense!), it would give credence
to her claim that she was a virgin.
: as a second issue, to which i have seen no response, i also noted the
: very poor quality of the english subtitles. i have seen other french
: films of earlier or similar vintage with far superior translations.
: any others note this?
Sorry, my French is not so good. Time allowed to read subtitles put
serious limits on subtitles. When people talk fast, the quality declines.
In fact, I realized some subtitles in the Macedonian language in *Before
the Rain* were not precise enough to my taste.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Michael Appleby (GD 1999)
Hiroshi Amari
no idea why my name suddenly changed and, as a result, I cannot delete
the messages. I hope I will be me in this article :-(
Shari L. Rosenblum (slr...@is2.nyu.edu) wrote:
: Surrealism, according to Breton, is the "[a]utomatisme psychique pur par
: lequel on se propose de s'exprimer... le fonctionnement reel de la
: pensee" (the pure psychic automatism by which one attempts to express
: oneself ... the true functioning of thought). My point, of course, is
: that Belle de Jour never achieves this on any level -- and that to
: believe it does is to believe that what you (and other critics) claim is
: a knowing tongue-in-cheek portrait is a conception in which you actually
: find a taste of reality. I find none there.
The same Breton said,
"Everything leads me to believe that there exists a certain point, a
state of mind in which life and death, the real and the imaginary, the
past and the future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and
low, cease to be perceived as contradictions. It would be useless to seek
in Surrealist activity any impulse other than the hope of determining
this point."
If being a Surrealist restricts the art forms and expressions, it would be
a contradiction, in the sense that it is not free from its *rigid* rules.
The director did not have to attack the whole society ferociously, nor did
he have to be realistic and in depth in the description of the characters.
I would say that this movie is in the tradition of Surrealism, but who
cares if it isn't a typical Surrealism?
--
Hiroshi Amari
Shari L. Rosenblum
Subject: Re: Belle Du Jour
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
Hiroshi wrote:
: The same Breton said,
: "Everything leads me to believe that there exists a certain point, a
: state of mind in which life and death, the real and the imaginary, the
: past and the future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and
: low, cease to be perceived as contradictions. It would be useless to seek
: in Surrealist activity any impulse other than the hope of determining
: this point."
Exactly, Hiroshi. The Surrealist activity is to reflect the naturalness
of that give and take between two worlds of perception, unobstructed by
the superficial values and restrictive structures we impose upon
ourselves. But Belle de Jour reflects only the conscious, waking, real,
communicable world (and conscious and deliberate assumptions of what
imaginary world might call to audiences). And it consciously embraces
superficial values ... and though it plays with the restrictive
structures, it does so in conformity with them. Even if we cannot agree
that this is mere mockery of the audience, we can hardly deny that it is
too obviously deliberate in its thinking ... too easily perceived ... too
easily grasped in its intent (at all levels) to approach this ideal of
Breton's that you cite.
: If being a Surrealist restricts the art forms and expressions, it would be
: a contradiction, in the sense that it is not free from its *rigid* rules.
I agree.
But if a work is restricted in its expression to the mundane and cliched
(even 30 years ago), there is an equal contradiction of sensibilities if
one calls it surreal.
: The director did not have to attack the whole society ferociously, nor did
: he have to be realistic and in depth in the description of the characters.
But he should have had to show integrity in his form to be deserving of the
accolades this work has received -- and he did not.
: I would say that this movie is in the tradition of Surrealism, but who
: cares if it isn't a typical Surrealism?
A reasonable question. My response though, as I wrote in another post to
this list, is to the mini-masses of the film world who claim it as a
surrealist masterpiece. If not surrealist, there's no mastery at all. So
it matters greatly if it is or isn't. In the tradition of surrealism?
Well, no doubt. Even failed attempts and mockeries of surrealism fit in
the tradition.
Michael Gebert, in another post, suggested that the film was more in the
tradition of the decadents, as pre-surrealists (which is not how I see the
decadents, but that aside ...). This seems to me more plausible, both for
its political and narrative content. And it makes the critical acclaim
more palatable, because under that analysis, the film reeks less of
hypocrisy.
But it doesn't change the cliched offensiveness of the work, and it
doesn't make me like it any better.
Shari
Shari L. Rosenblum
Distribution:
Hiroshi Amari (eco...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:
: I thought the film was realistic. We've seen a couple of people in this
: thread who knew sexual abuse victims identify Severine with them.
It seems to me that the identification was more imagined than real.
Severine does not reflect the typical reaction of the victim of abuse.
That was a bone Bunuel threw to those in the audience who would need to
ground the work in the very psychological mundanity that he was mocking.
Severine may have in common with abuse victims the pattern of seeking
abuse, but I've seen nothing written on this thread that draws a parallel
beyond that superficiality. People tend to reduce individual experiences
in the same way they magnify cinematic ones. It isn't surprising that
the two sometimes come together.
: Your
: criticism about the preconceived perception is beyond my understanding. No
: everyone carries his stereotypical idea to the theaters.
Hiroshi, everyone carries his or her conceptions of the world
everywhere. We don't unpack our expectations of reality at the cinema
gate. Without them we wouldn't be able to assess a film, to read it as a
naturalist, realist, surreal, dadaist, baroque or classical piece. Our
preconceived notions are woven into the fabric of our thought processes.
We can reject them if we choose, and it must be an active choice. But
if we simply leave them at the gate, we're not likely thinking at all.
: I met Severine in the film. She was unlike anybody I knew.
And from this, nevertheless, you determined she was real. On what
basis? Against what notions of real and false did you make this
judgment? I imagine that by real, you mean believable. And even then
... on what grounds do you believe her?
: If every character is thoroughly defined by
: his/her sex, a movie is a terrible bore.
This seems to me a non-sequitur, but one better applied to you than by
you. It is my argument that you (as representative of those who share
your opinion) accept Severine as believable as a woman because something
in her behavior is consonant with your notions of how a woman can or might
behave. In other words that you are defining her by her sex, even if the
film is not.
: The movie does not explain what matters to Severine most, how strongly she
: feels, and suffers through the 'fantasy'. This is not disjointedness as
: you claimed. It is ambiguity.
No. It's an attempt at ambiguity, at best.
: For example, I believed that the coffin scene was real at first, but I am
: not sure right now. I actually do not know how much Severine knows about
: herself, what leads her, and what is wrong.
Bunuel was playing with the audience in that sequence. It does not start
off the way the other fantasy scenes do, nor does it have the same cast
of characters ... and yet as it goes on, the style of the filming
changes, and so you begin to doubt your original response. That's
skillful filmmaking, but it has nothing to do with the character. It's
between Bunuel and us.
: This ambiguity works very well here. Our brains want cause-effect, natural
: time order and logic. When we see something else (Godard, for instance),
: our brains are disturbed and try to restore the equilibrium. In this case,
: when we are not sure about something (real/unreal, sexual abuse/not), we
: try to find a clue and analogues in our lives. This process requires
: active participation of our mind and imagination.
No. In fact it actively counters the participation of our mind and
imagination, challenging them in their proper functioning. That's part
of what I meant by the deliberateness of the films supposed flow between
reality and fantasy -- you can feel the director's presence, directing,
teasing. But it's on a level apart from the script.
The scene didn't cause me to wonder at what it was; it made me angry at
myself for allowing Bunuel to play with me that way to no artistic
purpose I could see.
: You might call this
: preconceived conception at work, but it is just a tip of the iceberg. Our
: brains do not have time to all the information logically, so that we have
: to take homework, just as we are doing now.
Your logic is faulty here. Of course our brains took in the information
logically, otherwise we'd not be able to discuss the film at all. This
is not work we've taken home, this is a disagreement on aesthetics and
politics. At this point, to a great extent, Bunuel and Belle de Jour are
merely incidental to our discussion.
Shari
Hiroshi Amari
: : Hiroshi -- watch the scene again. Belle's smile was not the practiced
: : smile of the prostitute (compare Klute), but the sybaritic smile of a
: : sated woman. In fact, the client had already gone ... No. She was
: : not frigid at all.
This is perhaps the key scene of the film. I thought it was more like a
smile after examination hell, relieved from anxiety and suffering inside.
Her eyes were not relaxed. The guy was perhaps wilder. We do not know how
her husband behaves differently and if she even tried, though. We cannot
seperate the physical pleasure from deeper psychological satisfaction
easily from the sequence.
: : The insect let her know that this was not going to just be more of the
: : same. This was a man who expected of her exactly the sort of thing a man
: : (the film suggests) has no right to expect from her (notice that even the
: : other prostitute found it too repulsive to engage in). It was simply
: : stylized degradation.
But the insect does not tell you anything about sex. Keeping an insect is
not easy. He might be a kind, and amoral person. So, do you think she
wanted more exciting sex and came to the place to find right people?
--
Hiroshi Amari
Hiroshi Amari
Distribution:
: : Shari L. Rosenblum (slr...@is2.nyu.edu) wrote:
: : : The insect let her know that this was not going to just be more of the
: : : same. This was a man who expected of her exactly the sort of thing a man
: : : (the film suggests) has no right to expect from her (notice that even the
: : : other prostitute found it too repulsive to engage in). It was simply
: : : stylized degradation.
An alternative:
She liked *even* one of the nastiest clients. I just mean to say that
your interpretation is not *the* one we accept.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Hiroshi Amari
human drama, and we should not feed the social class aspect into our
thinking. I kind of agree with you, but the movie seems to have the
social aspect and express it in many ways.
Shari wrote that the movie's description of the bourgeoisie is shallow
and it is one of the weaknesses of this movie. I took it as intentional.
We do not know what kind of character and personality the bourgeoisie in
this movie has. They are the same, dressed in dark coats in Severine's
day dreams, and collectively take advantage of women. Her husband, in
particular, gets very superficial treatment. We have no way to imagine
his feeling with strong empathy. The movie never described them as
smellingly clean, gorgeous, and caring. The opposite is the case.
Severine met men on the job, and they are unique. They are different from
the bourgeoisie who acts on the rules as they supposed to do, with little
care and respect for women.
(Our newreader has gone through reorganization. It acted like an idiot. I
was about to comment on Shari's August 25 3:27 AM article, but it's gone
from my site. The latest one I can see here is Maiko's. If someone can
e-mail it and Paula's response to Michael to me, I would appreciate it.)
--
Hiroshi Amari
Hiroshi Amari
: : I would hesitate to say that
: : this movie is a criticism, or description of men/women with certain
: : traits. I'm interested in someone else's life and experiences, especially
: : when that person is very different from me. I do not need any message or
: : moral in order to enjoy this film.
: Let me ask you this. Do you not see that reading Severine's story as
: "someone else's life and experiences" is buying into the realism of the
: portrayal? This is, in fact, the preconceived perception I suggested was
: required to find this film "valid."
I thought the film was realistic. We've seen a couple of people in this
thread who knew sexual abuse victims identify Severine with them. Your
criticism about the preconceived perception is beyond my understanding. No
everyone carries his stereotypical idea to the theaters. I met Severine in
the film. She was unlike anybody I knew. We do not see many people who we
can identify with our friends. If every character is thoroughly defined by
his/her sex, a movie is a terrible bore.
The movie does not explain what matters to Severine most, how strongly she
feels, and suffers through the 'fantasy'. This is not disjointedness as
you claimed. It is ambiguity. Recall, for example, our diverse opinions
about Severine's feelings and motives. This movie is not so simplistic.
For example, I believed that the coffin scene was real at first, but I am
not sure right now. I actually do not know how much Severine knows about
herself, what leads her, and what is wrong.
This ambiguity works very well here. Our brains want cause-effect, natural
time order and logic. When we see something else (Godard, for instance),
our brains are disturbed and try to restore the equilibrium. In this case,
when we are not sure about something (real/unreal, sexual abuse/not), we
try to find a clue and analogues in our lives. This process requires
active participation of our mind and imagination. You might call this
preconceived conception at work, but it is just a tip of the iceberg. Our
brains do not have time to all the information logically, so that we have
to take homework, just as we are doing now.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Hiroshi Amari
: : Surrealism, according to Breton, is the "[a]utomatisme psychique pur par
: : lequel on se propose de s'exprimer... le fonctionnement reel de la
: : pensee" (the pure psychic automatism by which one attempts to express
: : oneself ... the true functioning of thought). My point, of course, is
: : that Belle de Jour never achieves this on any level -- and that to
: : believe it does is to believe that what you (and other critics) claim is
: : a knowing tongue-in-cheek portrait is a conception in which you actually
: : find a taste of reality. I find none there.
I believe that surrealism has many levels. Breton's remark shows just one
level. Surrealists use play to achieve higher creativity; some activities
just does not look serious.
: : bourgeois/anti-bourgeois cliches. The male characters were all too
: : formulaic, too sketchy, too unidimensional. Severine was not even given
: : the depth of a carboard cutout. The most powerful agent in the film was
: : the camera's angry eye. And that's what I find offensive.
This is the quote I was referring to.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Hiroshi Amari
: blank? I'd agree that Bunuel's style is starker and less intrusive, or
: directorial in the actual sense, than Hitchcock's or Lang's or Fellini's.
: But does that make it blank? *Can* it make it blank? Or, rather, do you
: not think that the blanker the filmmaker tries to be the deeper inside the
: director's private mind the audience gets?
: Baldfaced simplicity, perhaps, but one that carries some perspective on
: its subject. Don't the camera angles, the close-ups, the lighting, the
: choices of when to cut and what to cut to all convey a certain
: deliberateness of opinion? Do you not think there is an inevitability of
: betraying our own subjectivity when we declare something purely objective?
I agree with Shari that the camera and lighting meant something. I did
not see men's anger in it, though. The gangster was angry, but he is
probably unreasonable all the time. A friend of her husband was not angry.
The distance and the area the camera covered were fairly constant and the
lighting also. Close-ups usually imply dramatizing the character's
feelings. The camera let us keep our psychological distance from the
characters. Almost no close-ups, ambiguous facial expressions, no inner
voice over Severine's imagery, and therefore we cannot deeply empathize
with the characters. We have to think ourselves what really is going on.
In a way, it is like Severine's cluelessness.
I do agree that the word "shallow" in terms of the description of male
characters was confusing.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Shari L. Rosenblum
: I believe that surrealism has many levels. Breton's remark shows just one
: just does not look serious.
I think I've responded to this in detail on the list, and I imagine that I
have no choice but to accept your broader acceptance of surrealism.
Nevertheless, I still find applying the term to Belle de Jour to be overbroad
and insufficiently critical. I sat there and felt Bunuel playing with us
rather than with his material ... and that angered me.
And, as my many posts to the thread have made clear, it was just one of
the things that angered me.
: : : bourgeois/anti-bourgeois cliches. The male characters were all too
: : : formulaic, too sketchy, too unidimensional. Severine was not even given
: : : the depth of a carboard cutout. The most powerful agent in the film was
: : : the camera's angry eye. And that's what I find offensive.
: This is the quote I was referring to.
Okay. I didn't read "shallow" (your rephrasing of my criticism) as a
synonym for "formulaic" -- I read "shallow" as a personality trait, and
meant "formulaic" as an artistic sloppiness. It was, I think, given as a
reason for which the social commentary seemed to me like superficial
drivel. My point was that I felt the camera's presence more than that of
any of the characters. And that that offended me.
I didn't expect the characters to be drawn in three dimensions; satire and
superficial commentary rarely get to that depth. But I did think that the
depth that was there was inadequate to qualify the film as social or
psychological commentary. To that extent, I did say and mean that the
characters were too shallow for the purposes others were attributing to the
work.
Not that it was one of the film's weaknesses, but one of the critics'.
Shari
Hiroshi Amari
Hiroshi Amari (eco...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:
: The distance and the area the camera covered were fairly constant and the
: lighting also.
Weren't fantasy scenes a little darker than real scenes? This includes the
very last scene.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Hiroshi Amari
:Hiroshi Amari (eco...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:
:: I thought the film was realistic. We've seen a couple of people in this
:: thread who knew sexual abuse victims identify Severine with them.
:It seems to me that the identification was more imagined than real.
:Severine does not reflect the typical reaction of the victim of abuse.
:That was a bone Bunuel threw to those in the audience who would need to
:ground the work in the very psychological mundanity that he was mocking.
:Severine may have in common with abuse victims the pattern of seeking
:abuse, but I've seen nothing written on this thread that draws a parallel
:beyond that superficiality. People tend to reduce individual experiences
:in the same way they magnify cinematic ones. It isn't surprising that
:the two sometimes come together.
We know very little about Severine in her normal daily life, but some of
us may know what those victims are suffering. I am not the person who know
them. So, I cannot comment.
:: Your
:: criticism about the preconceived perception is beyond my
::understanding. Not everyone carries his stereotypical
::idea to the theaters.
:Hiroshi, everyone carries his or her conceptions of the world
:everywhere. We don't unpack our expectations of reality at the cinema
:gate. Without them we wouldn't be able to assess a film, to read it as a
:naturalist, realist, surreal, dadaist, baroque or classical piece. Our
:preconceived notions are woven into the fabric of our thought processes.
:We can reject them if we choose, and it must be an active choice. But
:if we simply leave them at the gate, we're not likely thinking at all.
I just mean that some fiction, whether classical or modern, could happen
in reality, and others do not. I do not know any French woman in that
situation, but her behaviors are understandable given ther imagination and
fantasy. I am extrapolating my imagination, which is different from
preconceived perception.
I do not think we have different views on this. I do assess films
based on its style, story, and treatment. We have many categories for
movies. In contrast, we can accept characters as believable, if they are
not so far-fetched.
:: If every character is thoroughly defined by
:: his/her sex, a movie is a terrible bore.
:This seems to me a non-sequitur, but one better applied to you than by
:you. It is my argument that you (as representative of those who share
:your opinion) accept Severine as believable as a woman because something
:in her behavior is consonant with your notions of how a woman can or might
:behave. In other words that you are defining her by her sex, even if the
:film is not.
As I stated earlier, I am not one of them. Some film characters are
believable without any concrete reasons. How many times have you thought
'Is it a true story?' after viewing?
:: For example, I believed that the coffin scene was real at first, but I am
:: not sure right now. I actually do not know how much Severine knows about
:: herself, what leads her, and what is wrong.
:Bunuel was playing with the audience in that sequence. It does not start
:off the way the other fantasy scenes do, nor does it have the same cast
:of characters ... and yet as it goes on, the style of the filming
:changes, and so you begin to doubt your original response. That's
:skillful filmmaking, but it has nothing to do with the character. It's
:between Bunuel and us.
It is still between Bunuel and us toward our attitude to her.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Hiroshi Amari
: : The same Breton said,
: : "Everything leads me to believe that there exists a certain point, a
: : state of mind in which life and death, the real and the imaginary, the
: : past and the future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and
: : low, cease to be perceived as contradictions. It would be useless to seek
: : in Surrealist activity any impulse other than the hope of determining
: : this point."
: Exactly, Hiroshi. The Surrealist activity is to reflect the naturalness
: of that give and take between two worlds of perception, unobstructed by
: the superficial values and restrictive structures we impose upon
: ourselves. But Belle de Jour reflects only the conscious, waking, real,
: communicable world (and conscious and deliberate assumptions of what
: imaginary world might call to audiences). And it consciously embraces
: superficial values ... and though it plays with the restrictive
: structures, it does so in conformity with them. Even if we cannot agree
: that this is mere mockery of the audience, we can hardly deny that it is
: too obviously deliberate in its thinking ... too easily perceived ... too
: easily grasped in its intent (at all levels) to approach this ideal of
: Breton's that you cite.
I do not think Belle De Jour reflects only the conscious, real,
communicable world. Reality and fantasy are not so separate. Fantasy
affects reality, and on the other hand, reality affects fantasy. It does
not embrace superficial values at all. The film never characterized the
wealth as a good thing.
Surrealist also advocate the abolition of psychic institutions. It is
easy to downplay this film as a film of a mental patient who is
dysfunctional. The film, however, does not give you such a message at
all. Putting patches on her minds by insisting and teaching how
irrational her belief may be effective in therapy, but the film does not
suggest any easy solutions. It is tough, but this type of therapy may
just be deceiving the problem that is so unintelligible and undescribable.
Many of known mental diseases are poorly understood, and we usually do
not know why problems happen. Severine may not be sick, but she is
hopelessly clueless.
: : I would say that this movie is in the tradition of Surrealism, but who
: : cares if it isn't a typical Surrealism?
: A reasonable question. My response though, as I wrote in another post to
: this list, is to the mini-masses of the film world who claim it as a
: surrealist masterpiece. If not surrealist, there's no mastery at all. So
: it matters greatly if it is or isn't. In the tradition of surrealism?
: Well, no doubt. Even failed attempts and mockeries of surrealism fit in
: the tradition.
Have you seen any other surrealist movies? I have not. I wonder what
sort of surrealism works in this medium.
Your question reminds me of my visit to National Art Gallery in D.C. One
room had a bunch of pictures. They are series of abstract pictures, titled
"One", "Two", "Three", ..... , and "Twenty-One" (or something). Each
picture is painted black and white. Each was like 'the above x % of a
picture is painted black'. This x % varies from picture to picture. I did
not understand how I should look at them. Two art students were sitting
with a notebook, describing what they could get from the series of
pictures. They probably got some connections among the pictures and the
intentions of the painter. This is perhaps a rare example of fine arts. Not
many pictures of fine arts offer contexts except their titles. But
I do not think any painter can describe the dynamics of the feeling of a
person in a picture. A movie can do this job easily. This is what
this movie is about. It is surrealistic. A movie is not a good place to
show weird pictures of surrealism such as Duchamp's. We need time.
: Michael Gebert, in another post, suggested that the film was more in the
: tradition of the decadents, as pre-surrealists (which is not how I see the
: decadents, but that aside ...). This seems to me more plausible, both for
: its political and narrative content. And it makes the critical acclaim
: more palatable, because under that analysis, the film reeks less of
: hypocrisy.
I really do not know much about the decadents. Could you explain their
main features? Michael may have mentioned Zola. I do not recall if I have
read him.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Hiroshi Amari
:Hiroshi wrote
:: when we are not sure about something (real/unreal, sexual abuse/not), we
:: try to find a clue and analogues in our lives. This process requires
:: active participation of our mind and imagination.
:No. In fact it actively counters the participation of our mind and
:imagination, challenging them in their proper functioning. That's part
:of what I meant by the deliberateness of the films supposed flow between
:reality and fantasy -- you can feel the director's presence, directing,
:teasing. But it's on a level apart from the script.
:The scene didn't cause me to wonder at what it was; it made me angry at
:myself for allowing Bunuel to play with me that way to no artistic
:purpose I could see.
The camera, I think, represented the way Severine sees the world, and
people around her. If she is a total mystery when we look at her face,
then we have to think about her mind, thought, and confusion. The
fantasy-reality sequences are the core of the movie. Not to toy with us.
As Michael suggested earlier, if you do not like this, then you will not
like it after this discussion. It is not a coincidence that you liked
*Shawshank* and I did not, while I liked this movie and you did not. I
doubt the directorial integrity of *Shawshank*, and you really cannot
change it.
:: You might call this
:: preconceived conception at work, but it is just a tip of the iceberg. Our
:: brains do not have time to all the information logically, so that we have
:: to take homework, just as we are doing now.
:Your logic is faulty here. Of course our brains took in the information
:logically, otherwise we'd not be able to discuss the film at all. This
:is not work we've taken home, this is a disagreement on aesthetics and
:politics. At this point, to a great extent, Bunuel and Belle de Jour are
:merely incidental to our discussion.
Sure, all the activities after the movie is optional.
:: I think one reasonable thing to do is to interpret the screenfuls of
:: images as things the director wanted to convey. As I said earlier, I did
:: not think this is a mere critique or a propaganda film. I do not see how
:: you can reject the idea that she is frigid after seeing her rejections
:: and her adventure in spite of her innate disstate for sexual activities.
:I didn't see any hint of a distaste for sexual activities. I saw that
:her husband and his friend did nothing to spark her desires. I saw that
:their inability to excite her was translated by the film into her
:inability to be excited.
We did not see anything about sexual activities. You must have been
daydreaming:-) She refused to have sex with the first man (florist?) at
the house of prostitution. If she did not want to, why did she go there?
Many scenes have suggested her discomfort with sexual activities in her
mind.
:: One of the surrealistic notion is that you put significance in dreams and
:: subconsciousness. Also, it doubts the existing order of the society.
:It's a mistake to reduce surrealism to a disjointed reflection of mock
:subconscious. It is, rather, the rejection of a repressive consciousness,
:a state in which creative spirit controls. If anything, then, this film
:is anti-surrealistic. The manipulations of the film are entirely directed
:and exceedingly deliberate ... no creative spirit unbound. And Belle de
:Jour, both the character and the film, rather than reject repressive
:consciousness, simply chooses to switch off between two variants of
:repressive consciousness.
It is not really clear what you meant by repressive consciousness. I
suppose you meant consciousness that limits the freedom of mind. I think
I have commented on this earlier. This movie did not have to make
Severine a creative, energetic, and spiritual person.
:: Then, why did not she talk to the driver and ask him about where to go?
:Mock innocence ... hiding the reality of her "baseness." She did not
:need to ask him, but she needed to pretend (for herself) that she didn't
:know.
This is unwarranted. She did not have to bring up the issue when no one
has asked. I really do not understand why she needed to pretend for
herself.
:I didn't say that Deneuve couldn't act. I said that her acting was not
:what got her the role. And Grace Kelley doesn't have the looks for the
:role. Too much humanity in her face. Deneuve looks like she's made of
:plastic. Or opaque glass ... It's not her beauty, in other words, but
:her cold exterior.
Humanity in her face can be hidden. It is easy to underestimate Grace's
acting. Her *Country Girl* was very good.
Hiroshi Amari
Hiroshi Amari
:I wrote:
Shari wrote
:: Belle de Jour's body looked hot after the intercorse, but her eyes were
:: fearsome, almost scary, when she replied to the other prostitute. She did
:: not have fun in the traditional sense.
:Whose traditional sense, Hiroshi? Of course she was not responding to
:traditional sex. That was the whole point. But she was most assuredly
:satisfied. Most assuredly. Watch her face again.
I do not think I can watch it any time soon. I was not talking about
traditional sex. By traditional way of fun, I meant care-free, and pure joy.
When someone smiles, the reason is not always clear. I am not a masterful
reader of women's mind. I am interested in what other people thought.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paula wrote:
:Nevertheless, MGMax states the film is about Severine's inner woman, as
:opposed to what he calls the "inner child," but the child is mother of
:the woman. Does anyone around here seriously think that Severine's
:acting out of her fantasy life a healthy expression?
No. I did not understand "inner woman" argument either.
:Her outer life
:doesn't bring her any peace of mind, and her inner life, while
:satisfying a need, doesn't bring that either. And when the two collide,
:disaster ensues... or does it? I can't say what really happens in this
:movie at all. Somewhere there is a happier place for Severine - she's
:not going to find it in her stiff, rich circle, or in the bordello.
:She's trapped, though, by her circumstances. There may be an
:alternative for her somewhere, but she doesn't see it.
This, I agree with. She seems to find something in the end through
destruction of the other person. She probably had never harmed others. She
was knitting when she came to him at one of the last scenes. I wondered
why she started it.
:I've only seen "Belle de Jour" once. I imagine the next time I see it, I
:will be struck by something totally different.
That's right.
Hiroshi
MGMax1919
Not to her dullard husband. Sort of to Michel Piccoli. Definitely to the
audience-- and scarier at the same time.