
by Allan Fish
(France/Italy/Spain 1967 101m) DVD1/2
Only in the afternoons
p Robert Hakim, Raymond Hakim d Luis Buñuel w Luis Buñuel, Jean-Claude Carrière novel Joseph Kessel ph Sacha Vierny ed Louisette Hautecoeur, Walyer Spohr art Robert Clavel cos Yves Saint-Laurent
Catherine Deneuve (Sevèrine Serizy), Jean Sorel (Pierre Serizy), Michel Piccoli (Henri Husson), Geneviève Page (Madame Anais), Françoise Fabian (Charlotte), Pierre Clementi (Marcel), Francisco Rabal (Hippolyte),
A horse and carriage move towards the camera through a row of autumnal trees. A man talks to his wife, but suddenly he orders the carriage stopped and roughly drags his wife from the carriage. He then orders his two coachmen to take her into the woods, where they tie her to a rope hanging from a tree. Tearing the back off her dress and unfastening her bra, they begin to whip her, until the man orders them to stop and tells them that they can have their way with her. From this Sade-like beginning we cut to the same woman sitting upright in bed awaiting her husband.
Never was there a more ambiguous beginning to any film, quite appropriately for cinema’s premier professor of ambiguity. Belle de Jour may detail the escapades of a sexually cold young woman, but Buñuel’s film dares to remain lukewarm, its passions below the surface. The story goes on to follow the woman, Sevèrine, as she overcomes her frigidity and boredom by taking a day job at a brothel, that of the splendidly named Madame Anais. Yet what the film is really about is open to question. To some it’s merely a Buñuelian exercise in games playing, with Deneuve as both the prize and the contestant. To others it’s an attack on bourgeois values and the rather unforgivable boredom of their class. While to some it’s a representation of the erotic nature of one’s daydreams and darkest fantasies. To equally as many it may be about the subservience of women. One might also add a dissection of the Hitchcockian blonde that Deneuve represented, if never actually became. In truth no interpretation is more or less valid than the other, and it’s that ambiguity that stays with you. It’s an erotic film, but ne’er a nipple or a bottom is shown (unless under the black sheer robe Deneuve wears for a bizarre ceremony). It plays with the audience, Deneuve seemingly remaining chaste to them as we never actually see her make love, only the preparations for and the aftermath to (most memorably her truly shagged out appearance after a visit from a Chinaman of strange habits who also seems to want the teenage schoolgirl niece of the proprietress). She truly does lead a double life, both to the audience and her husband, in a way looking forward to his later That Obscure Object of Desire (where two women played the chaste and carnal side to the same woman) yet remaining very independent of his later oeuvre.
In short Belle is a gorgeous erotic tapestry of a movie, so finely weaved that one scene removed or rendered differently would cause the whole work to come apart. It’s as stylised as the clothes worn in the film; the epitome of sixties chic, from the skiing sweaters and Deneuve’s short tennis skirt to the knee length skirts and final outfit, like a maid without an apron, symbolising her final submission to her master/husband. It’s a film that is not afraid to show that though Piccoli may be largely right when he observed that most women enter prostitution for the money, that it isn’t a cast iron rule. Deneuve enters it to give spark to her life, to liberate herself while contrastingly enslaving herself. It’s this willingness to surprise you that makes it a truly great Buñuel film, rather than just a merely important film. Well, that and the gorgeous photography of Sacha Vierny – relishing those autumnal exteriors – and the exquisite performances. Page as the brothel proprietress, Piccoli as the perverted sophisticate and Fabian as a sexy whore are memorable, but Deneuve is legendary, her performance both the epitome and the antithesis (there’s ambiguity for you) of her heroine in Repulsion. “There’s nothing as beautiful as the autumn sun” we are told; nothing that is except for a woman as ravishing and mysterious as Deneuve at her absolute zenith.




In order to find out additional information just follow this link to:
In order to donate just follow this link to:
I am reminded of the title of a b-noir from the 50s – Blonde Ice. I have always felt that Sevèrine (play on ‘sévère’?) is in every liaison dominant: she is in her cold indifference always in control, the men are merely supplicants, and in each climax she is exacting a perfect revenge on the bourgeois enslavement of women…
Thanks I found this blog really useful, I’ll recommend it to friends.
Deneuve always comes across as “ice cold.” She would have made a good Hitchcock heroine.
That’s for sure John! As cool a customer as we’ve ever had onscreen!
Interesting choice for #10. This might be my favorite of Buñuel’s cinenigmas, though “Viridiana” and “Discreet Charm” are perpetually breathing down its neck. I’m particularly fond of Michael Sragow’s notes in the New Yorker on this film — many of them could easily be applied to “Repulsion” as well:
The antiheroine of Luis Buñuel’s brilliant 1967 black comedy is a cool upper-crust blonde named Séverine (Catherine Deneuve), a survivor of child abuse and a frigid wife who moonlights as a prostitute…. Deneuve is magnificent in this role; her unusual combination of surface blankness and inner steel makes Séverine the kind of woman any man can fantasize about.
The note about child abuse — another “Repulsion” link — is especially trenchant: what are sex and murder but two equally effective revenge methods (ie Freudian soothing mechanisms)? One imagines “Belle De Jour” as the inverse of “Repulsion” when he considers that in the former Deneuve fulfills lewd fantasies and in the latter she mercilessly and neurotically unravels them — but then he realizes that what he desires more than anything in Polanski’s feverish nightmare is for Deneuve to beat him to death.
And while many have issues with it, I adore the denouement of “Belle de Jour” for its agile nebulousness: if I had to interpret it, I’d probably maintain that it distilled the maturation of Séverine’s fantasies as a result of her vocational trajectory. But, there are many other possible interpretations for a climax this muffled — Buñuel conjures the muted satisfaction, if not the voyeuristic frisson, of hearing a feminine orgasm from the other side of a thin wall.
This is one of those rare erotic social statements that really caught my attention when I first saw it years ago.. The fact that the eroticism is suggested is far more potent than ripping the clothing off the main player for all to see. I’ve felt this way with suggestive horror films as well being far
more frightening without having to splatter blood all over the walls. I also agree with the theme that Severine does know what she’s doing and that the power she allows her men to have is purely an allusion to the power she truly wields. Among other things BELLE DU JOUR is one of the only films that has ever truly aroused me, and I dare say that although I have great contempt for the so-called authenticity of female to male affections, this film is really hot. Again, another film that Allan has brought back to my dwindling memory…
By the way Allan, ever thought about printing out all of these reviews and putting them in book form for your friends and associates? Know it may sound crazy to some or maybe even you, but it might make for some really meaningful birthday or holiday gifts. Just a thought. Anyway, be well my friend.. Dennis
And one other thing… Deneuve isn’t always the cold customer in every film. I direct you to her touching work in INDOCHINE as well as the moments of her hidden grief and romantic passions in THR HUNGER. and for shame on Sam for not recognizing her touching turn as the heart broken factory worker in has favorite film of 2000 DANCER IN THE DARK. I’ve been a champion of hers for years since I first saw her in TRITANA, still have some of her magazine fashion spreads and will admit she is one of the half dozen women in the world that could even remotely turn my head. She is one of the rare talents that combines talent brains and pure physical beauty. I saw her on television recently and even in her sixties she’s still more beautiful than most of todays top models.
Dennis, you have identified a significant issue. Today’s films dish up soft-porn as erotica. But the erotic femme is the unknown even unknowable woman whose allure is her aura of the feminine, which Bunuel cleverly pronounced as “[that] obscure object of desire”. A woman is even more attractive if she is cold and insolent. This is what Kelis is singing about in her songs: “my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard… I’m icy cold.”
Look at Rita Hayworth in The Lady From Shanghai, and Lana Turner in The Postman Always Rings Twice.
This particularly struck me recently in a scene from a documentary on the German exiles in Hollywood. Included is Marlene Dietrich’s screen test for The Blue Angel. The clip starts before the actual performance of a song: Dietrich is atop a piano talking to someone off camera – Von Sternberg? – and adjusting ‘those’ stockings on ‘those’ thighs with no trace of the coquette and looking as cold as ice…
And Dennis, as you point out with Deneuve, erotic is not necessarily young and nubile. Witness 54-yo Fanny Ardant in Nathalie (2003) and 55-yo Stefania Sandrelli in L’ultimo Bacio (2001). Indeed, Sandrelli is fat and her face wrinkled, but her eroticism is undiminished.
Dennis, these reviews are actually taken from an unpublished book, but it’s consistently updated, and the cost of printing (there are 1200 entries approximately) and then shipping overseas would be absolutely astronomical. On my pittance wages, I couldn’t afford it.
Allan, as I have mentioned to Sam before, an eBook is do-able and the cost would be next to zero.
As things stand, your reviews are ‘lost’ as soon as each link drops off the Recent Posts section…
Well, Tony, I’m no technological genius and wouldn’t know where to begin. And it’s the time involved…takes long enough writing them. I’ve written just shy of 1,200 reviews in 5½ years, plus intros, deciations, indices, intro, etc. It’s an average of one every other day for 5½ years. It’s not much when one considers only 30-45 minutes maximum per review, but even so. And I’m still going…they should just lock me up.
As for things going off the bottom, well, c’est la vie, it doesn’t really bother me. This book was never really intended to go online, it certainly wasn’t written to go online, it’s just sort of happened in the last six months or so. I don’t really have any belief in my abilities as a writer and am realistic enough to know the chances of a non-pro getting anything published are anorexic at best. Once you’re resigned to it never being published, you can just do it for the pleasure.
And honestly, once all the decade polls are done (by Easter 2010), except for odd sprinkling, there will be no more daily reviews from me on the site, just the occasional special piece here and there (maybe one every week or something like that). Time for others to step up to the plate then. I won’t have time from the summer of next year onwards anyway once I go back to Uni.
So now it is out in the open for all here to see—the reason why Allan Fish is the most doggedly “prolific” writer of film reviews on the net (only Ed Howard matches him in this sense) but it’s a testament to an undying sense of commitment that is only matched by a daily regimentation of film viewing that is frankly peerless.
In any case, Easter of 2010 is light years into the future–I guess we have to count our blessings just to be alive by then–so we have a long road ahead. Still, Allan’s back catalogue, apart from his poll countdown is still formidable, so we’ll see………
Needless to say, Tony’s suggestion is still most tempting, and it again demonstrates his interest in and respect for Allan’s work.
Fair enough Allan. It just seems a shame. And listen here, I have a possessory lien on the ‘I don’t think much of my writing’ excuse. Your work is better than a lot of the stuff I have read in books and in the press.
For the record, this is what I would do:
1. In the WordPress Dashboard, use the Export tool to download all WitD posts to an XML file on your PC.
2. Open the XML file in MS Excel or MS Access, or in OpenOffice, and filter all your articles into a query.
3. Design and print a simple report based on the query that outputs an article on each page, with a TOC and a Title page.
4. Print the report to a PDF document.
5. Viola eBook!
Tony: A most perceptive and interesting consideration there of eroticism, THE BLUE ANGEL, Ms. Deneuve and soft-core erotica there.
Dennis: Even in those fewfilms you mention there, Deneuve is hardly the effervescent soul. Her career throughout is dominated by the “cool” characters, and her acting demeanor is perfectly attuned. Others here brought out this fact and I simply expressed agreement. She is NOT the most emotionally generous performer out there, and has never been. Again, thanks for the insights.
Tony: Perhaps that five-step procedure can be negotiated!!!
Tony, I have all the reviews in MS Word format anyway, one page at a time per review, so I’d be as well adding them all to one massive word document as going through that rigmarole, but the size would be prohibitive…
[IMG]http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m157/shawndavis713/Smilys/AddEmoticons04264.gif[/IMG]
Tony: Your contributions on this thread in discussion Allan’s reviews and ways to get them published, Catherine Denueve, and the film that’s the subject here, are again superlative, and have fueled yet another banner discourse.
Jon: Your listing of the famous Michael Sragow’s statement is deserving of effusive compliment, as is your astute observations of this film within the Bunuel pantheon.
Dennis: Again, thanks much for your passionate and insightful comments.
Tony, if it’s any consolation, Sam and I have discussed putting up an archive of Allan’s “best of the decade” reviews on my blog, which he will then link to on this site. The post is prepared and ready to go, and will probably be entered at the end of this weekend, the most fortuitous time for all.