376. VIRIDIANA (1962)

Running Time: 90 minutes
Directed By: Luis Bunuel
Written By: Julio Alejandro, Luis Bunuel
Main Cast: Silvia Pinal, Fernando Rey, Francisco Rabal, Margarita Lozano, Victoria Zinny
Click here to view the trailer

FAREWELL BUNUEL

With only a handful of film left to go it's getting exciting now. Soon, my movie choices will not be prearranged, but will, instead, be what I want to watch! I've already added a handful of movies to the bottom of my Netflix queue to receive for when I'm finished. But I won't get ahead of myself - there's still thirteen more movies to see and fourteen more reviews to write...

How about this half creepy, half heartbreaking scene with Don Jaime trying on his dead wife's clothing, including heels and corset. At this point, the film was shaping up to be quite flavorful, something "very Bunuel" indeed. 

On the day before she is to take her final vows and become a full fledged member of the convent, nun Viridiana (Pinal) is asked by her Mother Superior to visit her ailing uncle. Though she's never been close with him, she agrees at the insistence of her Mother Superior, if only to thank him for paying her way through the nunnery. Once she arrives, her uncle, Don Jaime (Rey) is astounded by the resemblance Viridiana bears to his late wife and almost immediately falls in love with her, keeping it concealed for the time being. Meanwhile, Viridiana isn't shy about telling Don Jaime what she thinks of him, calling him disgusting for abandoning his son when he was only child. One night, Don Jaime finds Viridiana sleepwalking and decides not to wake her, but instead gets an idea which he capitalizes on later. Fast forward to later and Don Jaime, with help from his maid, Ramona (Lozano), spikes a cup of tea intended for Viridiana, with plans to rape her in her sleep. However, Don Jaime comes to his senses while in the act and before he can corrupt Viridiana, he backs off. The next morning, Don Jaime comes clean, but Viridiana refuses to grant him forgiveness, instead returning to her convent. However, before she can return, she is caught up with at the station by a group of authorities who have some bad news for her.

We're actually not even scratching the surface there, but we'll leave it at that...

SPOILER ALERT!

Man, what a disappointment this was! I guess I should preface this by saying two things: 1) I knew nothing about Viridiana going in and 2) Remember, I just watched Tristana (which I would give a mild thumbs up to) just a week or so ago. So the film starts out as something very special - a classic black & white affair, but with ideas and themes not usually explored in the golden age of film and certainly ideas that you don't tend to get when you think of an old, black & white picture. We start out with a great template for a film: niece goes to visit her estranged uncle and uncle falls in love with her, since she bears an uncanny resemblance to his dead wife. You throw in the whole sleepwalking deal and you have the grounds for what could be a spectacular film. Hey, I'm not into the whole incest deal or anything, but as a theme to explore on film - why not? - as it's mostly uncharted territory when it comes to story ideas - at least as far as I'm concerned. So I'm digging the film well enough and it's reminding me of an even edgier Tristana and one that was made eight years prior, no less. And then, it all ends abruptly and it's as if the whole movie restarts from the beginning with an entirely new idea. WTF!?

From this point - which is probably at around the thirty - forty minute mark, the film turns into a story about Viridiana opening up her uncle's home as a shelter for the poor & unfortunate. And don't think we eventually get more of the Uncle Don Jaime story, as he's almost never mentioned again for the duration of the film, as the film completely switches gears. What's the deal? I feel like Bunuel (of all people) could've made a piece of erotic fiction that dealt heavily with themes of incest, perhaps even intermingling themes of worship with Viridiana acting as a Christ-like figure for Don Jaime, who sees her as such, since he views her as his wife resurrected. So then you get Viridiana becoming a false idol and Don Jaime becoming like Viridiana, once the worshipper, now the worshipped. Throw in the maid and her bratty, little daughter and do something with the sleepwalking bit and I think you have yourself a hell of a movie. But that's all a pipe dream, as that's not what goes down here, at all - as you who have crossed the spoiler barricade know.

Actually, I kept thinking Don Jaime was faking his death. The scene right before Viridiana is informed of his death, we see Don Jaime sitting at a desk, seemingly getting an idea and then pulling out a piece of paper and a pen. We think he's scheming of how to get Viridiana back, but we soon find out that wasn't the case. In fact, we never even find out what he wrote in the letter. And in case you haven't figured it out by now, I really hated the second half of the film, with the beggars coming to live at the house and the introduction of Don Jaime's son. It was all too muddled and seemed to be throwing out messages that I wasn't picking up on, most notably in a scene that seems to resemble, to a tee, the last supper. Okay, okay so maybe it wasn't ALL bad, as I sort of liked the aspect that Viridiana set out to create a house of the holy and instead, ended up creating a den of sinners. It's almost as if Viridiana is God, the house is the Earth and what starts out as good intentions, ends up being a travesty, with more sinners being produced that genuinely good people. Definitely some food for thought here, not just from half one, but also half two - two completely different flavors of food for thought, for sure. I will say this, though: After watching Viridiana, one has to wonder if Bunuel had some incestuous fantasies that went unexplored or even had a strong maid figure in his home as a child. This would actually work well as a double feature with Tristana.

RATING: 6.5/10  I have to give it credit, because before they killed off Fernando Rey, I was really liking this. As I said above, I've added a handful of movies to my Netflix queue with Bunuel's That Obscure Object of Desire being one of them.

MOVIES WATCHED: 988
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 13

October 23, 2015  11:33pm

508. TRISTANA (1970)

Running Time: 95 minutes
Directed By: Luis Bunuel
Written By: Julio Alejandro, Luis Bunuel, from novel by Benito Perez Galdos
Main Cast: Catherine Deneuve, Fernando Rey, Franco Nero, Lola Gaos, Antonio Casas
Click here to view the trailer

NOTE: I've received my every-other-year, complimentary copy of the new edition of the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die book. I MIGHT wait until I'm all finished to write something up about it, but for the unaware who are curious, there were ten changes this time around. The films that were removed were mostly expendable and the ones that were added were mostly unnecessary inclusions, but I'll talk more in depth about that when I write my piece. For now, I'd just like to thank Eric Lax and the AWESOME people at Barron's Educational for sending me out the review copy. You can check out all of their catalog by clicking here.

INNOCENCE LOST

When I first started rifling my way through THE BOOK, I would check Turner Classic Movies monthly to make sure they weren't playing any of the hard to find BOOK movies. I taped approximately twenty titles off the classic movie channel and Tristana is the final one, that I'm finally getting around to watching.

The title character is played by Catherine Deneuve - orphaned at a young age, Tristana is adopted by nobleman Don Lope (Rey). After raising her as his daughter for many years, Don Lope eventually falls in love with Tristana and becomes both his daughter and his wife (creepy, I know). After years of living as Don Lope's lover, Tristana meets Horacio Diaz (Nero), a young artist, more suited to Tristana's tastes. Being intimidated by Don Lope, however, makes Tristana fearful of leaving him. The maid eventually confronts both Tristana and Don Lope about the affair and plans are made for Tristana to leave with Horacio Diaz, via train. Fast forward two years and Tristana is back in town. Don Lope is visited by Horacio Diaz, who informs him that Tristana has taken ill, a tumor in one of her legs. It turns out that Don Lope never stopped caring about Tristana and since it is her wish to be ill in a familiar place, Horacio makes it known that she wishes to return to Don Lope's residence. Back in the house, Tristana is given the news that her leg must be amputated if she has any chance for survival. Following the amputation, Tristana marries formally marries Don Lope and instead of sunnier days for a happy couple, things go downhill. Before, Tristana was obedient and submissive, the new Tristana, however, is mean and wants almost nothing to do with Don Lope, even confessing to a priest that his touch sickens her.

SPOILER ALERT!

Even though it's clearly not true, it seems like I've watched more Luis Bunuel films than any other director. It seems like he just keep popping up. Can you believe I still have one more to go (Viridiana)? Anyway, I'm not necessarily complaining, since I mostly like his movies. Even when they're bad, they usually leave a certain amount of intrigue on the table. There's always, at least, a hint of interest. He seems to be a self indulgent filmmaker, who at least tries to pull the audience in on his own fascinations. He seemed to be exploring certain innocence lost themes in the recently reviewed "La joven" and even when he's exploring themes that seem to interest him, he always backs his work up with a somewhat solid story - even if it fails to captivate (namely, "La joven").

I liked "Tristana", but wouldn't go so far as to call it great or "must see" or anything. It was a fine film, a perfectly acceptable way to spend ninety minutes, but when it was over, it was over and I wasn't particularly glad that THE BOOK pointed me in this film's direction. I'll never understand the appeal of Catherine Deneuve. I mean I guess she's okay looking, but I know that she was renowned worldwide as one of the great beauties and I just don't see it. Speaking of the cast, it was nice to see Fernando Rey in something besides The French Connection. I'm a huge fan of The French Connection and I'm always pleased to see actors that I liked in one thing, pop up unexpectedly in something else. It gives you a nice scope of their work to see them in something else. Now, the next time I see The French Connection, I'll have some frame of reference for Fernando Rey, instead of him just being THAT bad guy in the Gene Hackman movie.

The film was interesting in that it showed us how emotions can change. At one point in Don Lope's life and at a younger point in Tristana's life, the two treated each other one way and then fast forward so many years and their attitudes and actions toward one another completely change. Lope becomes a lot more submissive to his wife once she returns, probably because he's afraid of losing her again, so he's willing to withstand any punishment to keep her. Earlier in life, Tristana is the submissive one, probably because she doesn't know any better and because she still looks at Lope as a father figure, who should be obeyed. You get the sense that her two years away with the artist made her realize what an evil man Lope was for stealing her youth and innocence and upon her return, she wanted nothing more than to be with her father at her time of need, but realizing that this man couldn't really be regarded as a father any longer, so later, she grows to resent him and treat him badly. Definitely good stuff, especially if you go in expecting little.

RATING: 6.5/10  Wow and I thought I'd have nothing clever to say about this one and ended up spewing into three paragraphs. Good for me...

MOVIES WATCHED: 978
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 23

October 16, 2015  5:32pm

360. La joven/The Young One (1960)

Running Time: 95 minutes
Directed By: Luis Bunuel
Written By: Hugo Butler and Luis Bunuel, from the story Travellin' Man by Peter Matthiessen
Main Cast: Key Meersman, Zachary Scott, Bernie Hamilton, Claudio Brook, Crahan Denton

THE EVER VERSATILE BUNUEL

The original plan was to set my alarm for eight a.m., get up and knock out a couple of movies while my wife was at work. Except my dog got an upset tummy in the night and kept both of us up all hours. Therefore, when the alarm went off this morning, I slept right through it. I still managed to get awake by ten and I've knocked out one movie already - The Young One.

The plot is pretty straight forward. The film takes place on an island, populated only by a game warden, Miller (Scott), a grandfather and his teenage granddaughter, Evvie (Meersman). When the film gets underway, the grandfather has just died, leaving only Evvie and the game warden, whom she looks upon as a father figure, despite his meanness toward her. One day, a black man rows ashore and despite a sign warning trespassers to flee, a boat without gas and the fact that he has no food, make him ignore it. He happens to come ashore during a time when the game warden has gone into the mainland to get supplies, meeting up only with Evvie, who reluctantly feeds him. The black man, Travers (Hamilton), takes a shotgun and a can of gas, leaves $20 for it and heads out. Except his troubles continue when he accidentally shoots a whole in his own boat. Meanwhile, Miller returns from the mainland to find a missing shotgun and missing gas, beating Evvie for giving it to Travers, whom she tells him of. Travers eventually returns to the cabin that Evvie and Miller occupy and is greeted by a very racist Miller. It should also be mentioned that Travers is on the run, as he's been accused of the rape of a white woman, adding even more fuel to the fire heading into the climax.

This film has made me realize just how versatile Luis Bunuel is. You've got the early period and films like "An Andalusian Dog" and "The Age of Gold", his middle period which showcases films like this one - which were quite normal by comparison. And, my favorite period, his late period which presents us with films like "Belle de Jour" and "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie". All very different films, by a seemingly different person and if one didn't know better, you'd be hard pressed to convince that person that all of these eras were from the same man. In fact, it's entirely possible for someone to both love and hate Luis Bunuel - in fact, I'm one of them. I admire his late mind benders like the ones I mentioned, as I believe they have qualities that make them rewatchable and memorable. However, films like "Los Olvidados" and "Land Without Bread" are nigh unwatchable and films I never hope to revisit.

I could probably write paragraph after paragraph about "The Young One" - talk about the racism aspects, the social class aspects and the pedophilia aspects, but I'd rather keep it simple and just give my quick and dirty thoughts. I liked it, I suppose. It certainly wasn't bad, by any means. But was it good? Not particularly. It was just sort of there and when it was over, I wasn't happy or sad for it to have ended. Sure, there were lots of issues that the film tackled, but I'm not necessarily in the business of dissecting social issues or even racial issues. As I sit here writing, it makes me wonder why filmmakers through the ages have tackled such issues? I mean, I'm not racist. I treat everyone equally - I'm proud to say there's not a racist bone in my body. However, if I was ambitious enough to make a film, I certainly wouldn't find it cathartic or even necessary to tackle a film about race. I guess some people are just deeper thinkers than I or are, perhaps, more bothered by bigotry than myself. I'm bothered by it, sure, but my approach is to ignore it, rather than to shine an even brighter spotlight on it. Okay, I'm rambling.

If you're looking for a top notch Bunuel, go with his later stuff. It's much easier to digest, despite being more confusing as far as plot goes. The confusion adds intrigue and makes you need to know exactly what's going on. The earlier stuff is just too out of this world for my tastes and if "The Young One" is any indication, his middle period is just bland.

RATING: 6/10  Not bad, not necessarily good, but I'll easily put it closer to the good side than the bad side.

MOVIES WATCHED: 968
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 33

October 3, 2015  12:44pm

230. Los Olvidados/The Young and the Damned (1950)

Running Time: 76 minutes
Directed By: Luis Bunuel
Written By: Luis Alcoriza, Luis Bunuel
Main Cast: Roberto Cobo, Alfonso Mejia, Alma Delia Fuentes, Stella Inda, Miguel Inclan

THE ART OF BEING A HOODLUM

Myself and Luis Bunuel have had a real love/hate relationship going on ever since I started watching my way through the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" text. It has become apparent that he is, as it pertains to my personal tastes, a real hit or miss director and it's obvious that I'm partial to his later works, such as "Belle de Jour" and "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", as opposed to earlier works like "Las Hurdes", "The Age of Gold" and "Los Olvidados".

The film isn't long and is probably one of the first of a theme/idea that would go on to be quite prevalent in the cinematic world and I'm talking about the idea of a thug/hoodlum/criminal trying to turn his/her life around and go down the path of righteousness, only to be pulled back by their hoodlum cohorts. Jaibo (Cobo) is a juvenile who's just been released from prison. Upon his release he immediately hooks back up with his gang of misguided youth. Together the group wastes no time getting back into trouble with Jaibo, first attempting and later succeeding in robbing a blind man. Jaibo's best friend is Pedro (Mejia), who wants nothing more than to be good and to make his mother proud, but for one reason or another can't escape the path of villainy. His mother (Inda), on the other hand, has given up on Pedro, no longer concerned for him, like a mother who has finished mourning for a the lost soul of a son she once had. Meanwhile, Jaibo takes it upon himself to track down the boy responsible for ratting him out and sending him to jail, Julian and kills him. When the news of Julian's death breaks, Pedro and Jaibo are the only two who know the truth about Julian's murder.

Ya' know, I read that plot synopsis that I just wrote and I think to myself, "Now, why didn't you like that? It sounds so good!". However, there was just something about the picture that repelled me and honestly, even at seventy-six minutes, I was doing a lot of clock watching with this one. In his early days, Bunuel seemed to be more concerned with making poetic statements, so much so that he threw plot & story to the wind. Granted, this one has a viable plot, it's just that it's obvious that Bunuel's modus operandi is to send a message and not tell a story. Not only does he harp on the "criminal escaping the path of villainy" plot line, but he also aims to tell us that youth brought up in impoverished circumstances are more likely to become criminals. Sure, that's true and honestly, I don't think Luis was really telling us (even the "us" of the 1950s) anything we didn't already know. So why do the youth of less wealthy homes turn to from the path of righteousness? Honestly, I don't know and the film really didn't urge me to think it over any further, not did it even try answer the question itself. It simply spoke to us, made it's statements and "FIN".

I feel like I'm rambling more than usual here, so I need wrap this up. All I can tell you about this one is that it's short and there seems to be a spark of something there, yet I just didn't take to it at all. I liked the themes that were explored and the ideas that were set forth, however I had major problems with the execution and ultimately I chalked it up to Bunuel being a little too "out there" in his younger days, as far as his mindset.

RATING: 4.5/10  I'll give it some points, but in the end it's something that will probably, easily be forgotten. Either I'm getting a lot pickier, or this has just been a rough start to the season. I REALLY need something stellar to come along....like soon.

MOVIES WATCHED: 718
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 283

August 26, 2013  10:49pm

77. Las Hurdes/Land Without Bread (1933)

Running Time: 27 minutes
Directed By: Luis Bunuel
Written By: Luis Bunuel, Rafael Sanchez Ventura
Main Cast: (voice): Abel Jacquin

BUNUEL TO PETA - "SCREW YOU"

Another one that I initially had to skip, during my days of moving in strict chronology, "Las Hurdes" finally stopped eluding me when I tracked it down via the interwebs, sometime last year. The film is a short documentary by Luis Bunuel - one that wasn't awful, as I kind of expected.

The film was shot in the village of Las Hurdes, a small impoverished village in Spain, where the the inhabitants literally have to struggle just to eat, drink, stay healthy and ultimately survive. It's only twenty-seven minutes long, so we get shots of the village's only drinking source - a small stream, used by everyone for drinking and bathing. The title, "Land Without Bread", comes from the fact that, at the time of shooting, the village had just been introduced to bread and a sequence of children eating bread that they got from their teacher, at school, is included. It shows the villagers as a very primitive people, who literally use sticks as kitchen utensils and are forced to eat unripe cherries, risking dysentery.

Bunuel, who killed a calf and cut it's eye open in "An Andalusian Dog", is up to his "death to animals" tactics once again. According to the Wikipedia page for "Las Hurdes", he literally smeared a donkey with honey and allowed it to be stung to death by bees - a hard scene in the movie to watch, I won't lie. There's also a scene where a goat falls off a cliff, tumbling to it's death. You really can't blame Luis for that one, because it's not like he pushed the goat or anything...it just fell. Otherwise, the film wasn't terrible. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a must see film, but at only twenty-seven minutes long, it wasn't that difficult to sit through and most of the time I was fascinated by the primitiveness of the villagers. The copy I had, had an Englishman doing the narration, so subtitles weren't necessary. Bunuel was obviously someone who was fascinated with many different kinds of culture and ideas and that shows in "Las Hurdes". Personally, I liked it better when Bunuel started making real movies, complete with plots and everything, such as "Belle De Jour" and "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie". Nonetheless, you can't say that Luis Bunuel wasn't a versatile film director, making short, experimental films, documentaries and purely fictional pieces, later in his career.

RATING: 4/10  Like I said, definitely not a "must see", but it's okay for what it is. If you're on the same journey I am and having trouble finding this one, just do a Google search and I'm sure you can track it down, as it's all over the place on the net.

MOVIES WATCHED: 666
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 335

April 25, 2013  12:16pm

553. Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie/The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972)

Running Time: 105 minutes
Directed By: Luis Bunuel
Written By: Luis Bunuel, Jean-Claude Carriere
Main Cast: Fernando Rey, Jean-Pierre Cassel, Delphine Seyrig, Paul Frankeur, Stephane Audran
Click here to view the trailer

AN UNPLANNED DOUBLE SHOT OF BUNUEL

Well, I sincerely didn't intend on watching another Luis Bunuel film, making it two, back-to-back for the director. However, I was so intrigued by "Belle de Jour", that I just couldn't help but to check out "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", as I knew it was streaming on Netflix.

The plot of the film isn't your run of the mill storyline, so bear with me as I try to put it all down in a paragraph long synopsis. The film opens with a P.O.V. shot, through the windshield of a car and looking out upon a dark road, illuminated by headlights. When the car arrives at it's destination, we find that it carries Raphael Acosta (Rey), Simone Thevenot (Seyrig), her husband (Frankeur) and her sister (Bulle Ogier). The quartet are about to meet their friends, Henri (Cassel) and Alice Senechal (Audran) for a dinner party. When the door is opened, Alice is quite surprised by their appearance, as she expected them the following night and informs them that Henri isn't even present. The couples, instead, decide to go to a restaurant and when they arrive they notice that the place is empty. They are told that the restaurant is, despite this fact, open and they they can be served. Once inside, the couples hear crying coming from another room and draw back a curtain to reveal a corpse. They're told that they corpse is that of the restaurant manager, who suddenly died earlier that day. This motif continues throughout the film, as the couples try, over and over again to have a meal with each other, but each and every time something happens that prevents this from occurring. It's more like an episodic movie, rather than a linear plot. The same characters continue to show up, but the events that occur are entirely different and loosely connected.

It's funny because I actually had to stop the film at one point and look up Delphine Seyrig to see if she was the same actress from "Jeanne Dielman...". It's kind of a testament to THAT film, because when I think of "Jeanne Dielman...", I think of it as a more voyeuristic, reality based affair and words like "actress" don't enter into my head. Oh well, on to the movie at hand...

I actually had a hard time grasping this one, much like I did with "Belle de Jour", but this one was even harder to get a handle on. I actually don't think I'll have a whole lot to say, but I'll say what's on my mind and we'll leave it at that. I can say, definitively, that the film IS NOT boring, in the least. At no time during the picture was I watching the clock or did I want the film to just end. It does have a drawing power that kind of sucks you into this very foreign ("foreign" in terms of different and not in terms of country) environment. Despite all the nonsense that continues to unfold throughout the picture, I kept with it and it's a really easy film to follow, if you pay attention. In the two films of his I've watched in the past two days, I've learned that Bunuel does have the ability to intrigue his viewers, a sometimes rare quality in a director. However, when it comes to the intrigue that Bunuel evokes in me, it's the kind of intrigue that makes me not know whether I like the picture or not. He simply gets my wheels to turning, but when it comes to forming an opinion, I find it sort of difficult.

As to what Bunuel was exactly trying to say with "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", I really don't know. Maybe it reverberates back to what I was saying last night, where he really wasn't trying to SAY anything, but simply making a different brand of picture and giving the viewer the opportunity to dissect it how he or she sees fit. I do know that he's definitely making fun of the bourgeoisie lifestyle. These characters are made absolute fools of and can't even seem to accomplish the simple task of dining together. Maybe, he's saying that often times the charm of the bourgeoisie gets in the way of otherwise menial tasks. When characters say, "Oh we simply can't dine now, I'm not dressed for the occasion" or "I have an important function to get to, we'll have to postpone our luncheon", that theory kind of holds water. Whereas "everyday Joe's" will simply eat when they're hungry, whether all of the members of their party are present or not. I don't know, maybe I'm just grasping at straws and maybe there's no need to do that. Like I said, the film is intriguing and interesting enough now, when I have no clue what exactly was trying to be said or even what was going on and maybe I should just leave it at that. Ultimately, this is going to be one that I'll more than likely feel the need to revisit sometime in the future, but for now, we'll call that a review.

RATING: 7/10 Not sure why it's a '7', but it was certainly better than a '6.5' and a '7.5' seemed too high, so there's your reasoning. Whether or not this film will make the TOP 20 is beyond me at this point. We'll see how time treats it.

MOVIES WATCHED: 373
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 628

December 20, 2011 6:14pm

463. Belle de Jour (1967)

Running Time: 101 minutes
Directed By: Luis Bunuel
Written By: Luis Bunuel, Jean-Claude Carriere, from novel by Joseph Kessel
Main Cast: Catherine Deneuve, Jean Sorel, Michel Piccoli, Genevieve Page, Pierre Clementi
Click here to view the trailer

FANTASY OR REALITY?

Despite the fact that "Belle de Jour" wasn't scheduled to be one of the film's that I watched during this sixties filled 100, something about it caught my eye recently and I decided to slip it in. For the curious, the original plan was for me to do a week dedicated to Luis Bunuel, but because I can't find all of his films, I've decided to bust them up and watch them whenever.

In "Belle de Jour" Catherine Deneuve is Severine, a married, bourgeois housewife whom is quite frigid when it comes to her husband Pierre (Sorel) and their sex life (or lack thereof). However, even though Severine doesn't show any interest in building a sex life with her husband, she often fantasizes about different sexual exploits and fetishes. From the beginning, we get the sense that Severine seems to be very conflicted inside - on one hand she DOES love her husband, but doesn't wish to be sexually active with him and on the other hand she does have a very healthy sexual appetite, one that she is only feeding with fantasies. When Severine finds out that an old friend of hers has become a prostitute at a whorehouse, Severine seems intrigued. After talking with a friend of her husband's, Husson (Piccoli) and inadvertently getting the address of a local brothel, Severine goes for a visit and ends up with a day job. Severine agrees to work at the brothel weekdays, from 2pm until 5pm, when her husband (the doctor) is at work, in an effort to feed her sexual desires. She'll go by the name Belle de Jour when she's at the brothel, in an effort to conceal her private life and cleverly play off the time of day she's available. At first she's hesitant, but she soon slips into the job and becomes comfortable there. However, things become really complicated when her husband starts getting suspicious and one of her "johns" falls in love with her.

Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start. I'll go on record in saying that "Belle de Jour" probably has one of the best opening scenes that I've ever witnessed. A horse drawn carriage rides closer to the screen and eventually reveals our main couple, Severine and Pierre. I won't spoil the rest here, but trust me it's probably the best hook you'll ever find in a movie and it's something that, once I saw it, I knew I was going to be in for a real treat with this movie. Let me put it another way: If the opening scene of this movie had played out and then all of a sudden the DVD copy of this movie had crapped out on me and stopped working, I would have been a very pissed off individual! Enough about the beginning, let's get into the meat & potatoes of the picture, shall we. To be honest, the film was a little hard for me to grasp onto. I had a hard time settling in and from start to finish, there seemed to be a real feeling of unease going on within me as I watched the afternoon exploits of Belle de Jour unfold. The whole world that these characters existed in, really reeked of something impure & unsettling. Perhaps it was the severe degree of sexual perversions that are examined throughout the film. At different times in the film, things like bondage, necrophilia, pedophilia, domination and humiliation fetishes are hinted at, and those are just some of the ones I picked up on.

SPOILER ALERT!

However, Bunuel isn't blatant when it comes to the sexual part of the movie. There is no nudity, sex is never shown and even the perversions that I mention above are never said outright, but only hinted at (sometimes more heavily hinted that others, but still). And, hey, don't get me wrong, this film isn't a piece of pornography (although in the 60s, I'm sure it was considered as such) and deals with much more than just sexual desires and urges. Bunuel also provides us with characters, most notably Severine, a woman who is conflicted inside because she has urges that she can't succumb to. Perhaps Severine's desires are so extreme that she knows that Pierre will never be able to satisfy her and so that she won't shame him, she just decides to tell him that she's not ready. Perhaps in her mind, the idea of a conventional sex life between a man and wife just isn't taboo enough, but to fit in with society she decided to marry a doctor and live a good life, in a nice home, where she'll shop and welcome guests. Perhaps all the shopping, welcoming guests and day to day life of a doctor's wife has made her feel like she's living a watered down lifestyle and perhaps Severine needs to have a secret, hole in the wall place where she goes to do unspeakable deeds.

There's one thing to say for this film and that's that it makes you think. It also made me realize the obsession that people have with unlocking certain movies, trying their best to get the answers and be told how they were supposed to interpret art. Whatever happened to just sitting back and watching? Just letting things BE and letting movies unfold before your eyes. If you get ideas or interpretations, fine, explore them. If you don't form any ideas, but still find yourself drawn to the movie and intrigued by it, then just let it BE. I wanted answers when this film ended, but I felt more content to just mull it over on my own and let it seep in. Sure, the liens between fantasy and reality are a bit blurred in "Belle de Jour", but I think if you pay attention, it's not a hard movie to unlock. When there is fantasy we hear the jingle bells of a horse drawn carriage (how fitting so close to Christmas). The ending is ambiguous, but there is one idea that I thought was really clever...

The character of Husson is portrayed throughout the film as kind of a sleazy guy, or at least that's how I saw him. In the end, he arrives at the home of Severine and Pierre and tells Severine that he's prepared to tell Pierre everything about her "day job". He rationalizes his idea by telling Severine that if Pierre knows everything then he won't feel guilty about being a paralyzed man, condemning his "pure" wife to a lifetime of taking care of him. He'll know the truth and then his guilt will be eased. Husson enters the room where Pierre sits, but we never find out if he actually tells or not. I think he definitely tells Pierre, no question about it. By telling Pierre, he not only fulfills his own idea, but he also guarantees that Severine will never leave Pierre and that he WILL always have a caretaker. Think about it, we're dealing with a woman who had overwhelming sexual desires, so overwhelming that she took a day job at a whorehouse and hid the truth from her husband. She didn't leave her husband, nor did she ever even tinker with the idea of leaving him and simply becoming a full-time whore. She, in my mind, DOES, sincerely love Pierre. The guilt that she'll feel if she leaves a man, who knows she was unfaithful to him, would be unbearable to her. So, in the end, Husson actually does them both a favor: He ensures that Pierre will always have Severine to take care of him and feel guiltless about it and he makes it impossible for Severine to finally, fully succumb to her sexual temptation and leave the man she loves. That's my interpretation anyway. It's not right or wrong, it's simply how the story goes in my head. Oh yeah and the end is a fantasy and also a bit of a sign that Severine will, from there on, be forced to live in a fantasy world when it comes to personal excitement.

RATING: 8/10 I didn't really grasp it enough to go all the way, but it intrigued me enough to get, at least, an '8'. I actually did a lot of my grasping on this one as I was writing, so what you read above is a man trying to understand a movie.

MOVIES WATCHED: 372
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 629

December 20, 2011 2:06am

48. L'Age D'Or /The Age of Gold (1930)

Running Time: 62 minutes
Directed By: Luis Bunuel
Written By: Luis Bunuel, Salvador Dali

Main Cast: Gaston Modot, Lya Lys, Max Ernst, Caridad de Laberdesque

IT WON'T TAKE LONG TO SUM UP ANOTHER BUNUEL ODDBALL FLICK

Much like its predecessor, An Andalusian Dog, Luis Bunuel once again brings us another movie that makes us scratch our heads and say "What the fuck??!!" The Age of Gold certainly makes us do both of those things, but not in that good way that makes you wanna run right over to the computer and demand answers to your questions. Its that bad way, that makes you not really care and just be glad that the craziness has ended.

My review of The Age of Gold, will be kept short and sweet, because I really am not sure how to put this movie down into words. Suffice it to say that if you enjoy David Lynch's Eraserhead, then this flick is probably for you. Once again, I don't mind odd, I just like to have some idea of what's playing out in front of me, and if there's an amazing amount of symbolism, then I at least want it to make sense and not just be babble spread all over the screen for the viewer to look at and have to furrow their brow and be completely puzzled.

There were certain parts that I didn't mind, the sexual misadventures of the man and woman, were quite interesting, as the man and woman kissed and gnawed at each other's fingers and gazed at the feet of a statue, while the woman even resorted to sucking the toe of the statue. Quite odd, yet quite interesting and gloriously grotesque. I'll give it a few notches for the few scenes that didn't make me want to rip my hair out, but that's all I can give it, as most of this film was a complete waste of time. Sorry Mr. Bunuel, me and your films just don't seem to be seeing eye to eye.

RATING: 2.5/10 That's absolutely as high as I can go, and that's being generous.

NEXT UP: Earth...Should be ready either late tonight or tomorrow. Stay tuned kiddies.

October 29, 2009 11:16pm

40. Un Chien Andalou/An Andalusian Dog (1928)

Running Time: 16 minutes
Directed By: Luis Bunuel
Written By: Luis Bunuel, Salvador Dali
Main Cast: Pierre Batcheff, Simone Mareuil, Luis Bunuel, Salvador Dali

WEIRD, WILD STUFF

"To describe the movie (An Andalusian Dog) is simply to list its shots, since there is no story line to link them"
-Roger Ebert

At a running time of only sixteen minutes, Un Chien Andalou or An Andalusian Dog, is probably one of the most bizarre movies I've ever witnessed.

Linked together by a series of weird and surreal shots, An Andalusian Dog, was apparently made based on dreams that both Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali had, and made to intentionally make zero sense. Now, I've always been a fan of weird movies and films that really make you think and wanna research them to find out the answers that lie behind their seemingly impossible to follow plot, but An Andalusian Dog is intentionally confusing and apparently has no real plot.

The shots are totally bizarre though: a man slicing a woman's eye open with a razor blade, a transvestite riding a bicycle down the street and apparently falling over dead, ants crawling out through a hole in a man's hand, a man pulling a piano which is tied to two ropes and upon the piano lay rotting carcasses of dead horses, a woman's armpit and two people walking down a beach and shown later with sand covering them up to their chests, as they lay motionless. Sound weird enough for 'ya?

I guess I was a bit intrigued by this film, but can't say that I really enjoyed it all that much. I went ahead and watched it twice, since it was so short and since I was so perplexed by it. I had only seen one Bunuel film prior to this and that was "The Exterminating Angel" and that was another one that left me with a feeling of "HUH". One thing's for sure and that's is if you're a fan of David Lynch, then you'd probably love Bunuel and Bunuel seems even crazier and more of an oddball.

RATING: 4/10 That's just about as high as I can go, and I'm being generous. Can't say I really enjoyed it, but it was quite perplexing and I do commend the director for, at least, that much.

NEXT UP: The Passion of Joan of Arc...My introduction to Carl Theodor Dreyer

October 21, 2009 1:57pm