It's a really interesting documentary, but I can only imagine a Political Science professor watching it more than once every couple years (with a classroom at that).
I get that feeling..can't say I'm really interesting in the subject matter much, so I haven't really considered it.
My happiness lasted 10 seconds; it ended when I found out it was a region B locked (that is an awesome cover). Thanks anyway pro-B.
I need a region free blu ray player
You are welcome, Fellini. The transfer is from an older master, but it is quite nice, very organic. (And much, much better than the one the French release uses). Good upgrade over the R1 DVD.
I've come very close to getting The Naked Kiss and Shock Corridor so many times, but they keep getting pushed down the list with other titles that have priority.
I saw Shock Corridor many years ago, but can't remember much about it.
I haven't seen The Naked Kiss, but I do like B-grade pulp films. I should probably follow up on these two... Funny, but these films and Fuller don't often get discussed here and today he's the hot topic.
I would definitely like to see a blu-ray of Pickup on South Street...
Looks like I can move the Fuller films out of my "least talked about" list, for awhile anyway. I love it when a plan is successful
I'm pretty sure the least talked about Criterion Blu-rays (at least around here) would be:
The War Room
The Times Of Harvey Milk
I thought about those two, but they have been mentioned a few times in the past year, and even show up on some people's "buy" lists when they post them. The Last Emperor and Broadcast News - can't even remember when they were last discussed or even on a recommendation list (unless it was mine). They've both been around longer too.
[Show spoiler]Although a search might bring a hit or two. It's all relative anyway.
Looks like I can move the Fuller films out of my "least talked about" list, for awhile anyway. I love it when a plan is successful
Hi, oildude. Do you have this box set? It is not Blu-rays, but it is a wonderful collection which together with Criterion's Eclipse set covers just about all of Fuller's important early films. Look it up if you don't have it. I think you will like it a lot
I've been looking into that Sam Fuller DVD set. I've only seen three of his so far: Shock Corridor, Naked Kiss, and Pickup on South Street. Thought they were all great, but Naked Kiss is my favorite due to Constance Towers.
Do you think a blu-ray release for the films in that set is unlikely to happen any time in the next few years? I'll pick it up if I can get it for a good price.
I think that it is highly unlikely that we will see all of these films on Blu-ray soon, Spanky. I could be wrong, but even when DVD was at its peak, Sony was not exactly in a rush to release Fuller's films.
If Olive Films had access to them, I would say that there is a very good chance that we would see them on Blu-ray, and have them priced right.
Fuller is one of the greatest American directors and this set can be had for less than $50. As far as I am concerned, it is definitely worth owning, together with the Eclipse set
Very exciting! The Archers are among my favorite directors (or director/writers).
And speaking of the Sony sets, the Michael Powell set of A Matter Of Life & Death and Age Of Consent is also a great one. ML&D is an acknowledged masterpiece, but the one that I really loved was Age Of Consent.
I've been looking into that Sam Fuller DVD set. I've only seen three of his so far: Shock Corridor, Naked Kiss, and Pickup on South Street. Thought they were all great, but Naked Kiss is my favorite due to Constance Towers.
Do you think a blu-ray release for the films in that set is unlikely to happen any time in the next few years? I'll pick it up if I can get it for a good price.
Looks like I can move the Fuller films out of my "least talked about" list, for awhile anyway. I love it when a plan is successful
A discussion on Fuller without any reference to his monumental "The Big Red One (1980)"?? This was a very fine entry in the pantheon of Second World War films and it had the singular advantage of the fact that Fuller was himself a decorated combat veteran who served in the 1st Infantry Division campagns in North Africa, Sicily, and elsewhere in Western Europe. He did use his personal combat experience both to enhance the scripting and plot development and to provide a special insight and perspective on the material.
It's been some years since I last watched this but I do recall that it does leave an impact. While a good many generic 'war films' seem to meld into one another in a sort of hazy fog of recollection, I can recall many, many vivid and memorable scenes from this fillm and can also recall the complexity of the ideas and the poetry and irony with which they are presented. It could almost be argued that Fuller's approach in this instance is somewhat 'pre-Malickian', without the voice-over. And Lee Marvin is simply a force of nature as the platoon NCO.
The visuals are dramatic and a Criterion blu-ray would be spectacular particularly played with a really good sound system. 'The Reconstruction' of the original release, completed in 2004 with remastering and digital restoration and with 47 minutes of additional footage, would make a really nifty package!
I'm just looking into the titles from Sony's Sam Fuller dvd set. Underworld USA and Crimson Kimono sound the most interesting. I might pick up the set to see those.
Like 3 Women, Buñuel's Belle de jour kept me awake all night trying to fully figure out what it really is about. I have a pretty solid idea on 3 Women(I posted my thoughts on it here earlier), but this one is a bit more trickier.
This is how I see it for now:
[Show spoiler]
Séverine was sexually abused as a child. She is still a virgin(in a way) and loves Pierre deeply but because of her past, she is lost and distant to him even though she does not want to. After a conversation with her friend about brothels, it becomes a part of her fantasy. Through this extreme course of sexual therapy, she comes to terms with what she is and accepts it. She has now faced all the types of guilt fostered in her from childhood upwards, and she has grown up sexually as well. Her relationship with her husband is now normal. In the end the carriage of sexual repression and masochism is empty. Séverine is no longer a passenger. She is cured.
BUT:
Is Pierre's recovery in the end fantasy? I believe so. If the brothel story was indeed all fantasy, what was Henri's visit to Pierre about? Or perhaps he did visit him, but the subject was all her fantasy. Do we know for a fact that Pierre was shot by Marcel? Séverine describes this as an 'accident'.
But then I found this on imdb and now that I've read it, it makes more sense.
[Show spoiler]I believe that Marcel does in fact shoot and attempt to kill Pierre. That is not a fantasy and the only reason it presents itself as being a possible fantasy is that earlier we saw her dreaming of Husson and Pierre duelling over her. Of course, in the dream, Pierre "wins" her, thus untying her and "releasing" her sexually (remember, she's tied to the tree, in a red dress, with a hint of menstruation on her). Also, take note, that earlier she had a dream sequence in which Husson is with her under the table--she wanted him then--but once he crossed over into her "fantasy" life (Husson is represented as being "reality") it became too much for her, so she makes the decision that she will tell Pierre about what she's been doing (the duel sequence also presents itself as her finally being able to tell her husband, the truth about her job and that she is in fact into humiliating sex, etc.). In short, she's ready to open up and be his wife.
Pierre is definitely in the wheel chair; that isn't a dream--it's reality. Earlier in the film, when he's walking down the street and he sees the wheelchair, he remarks that it's "funny" and it is (there is a similar scene in TRISTANA). Pierre seeing the wheelchair is pure coincedence; Bunuel was an absolute believer of such occurrances. For example, he made LAS HURDES from money that a friend of his won in a kind of lottery. The friend had told him, some six or seven months prior that if he won this lottery, then he'd fund the LAS HURDES doc. Sure enough, he did, and the friend kept his word. Pure coincedence, but there is an alternately sad ending to this story: the friend and his wife were executed by the Franco regime for funding the movie (it was banned as soon as it was released).
That said, Pierre being bound to the wheelchair after all is supposed to make us laugh. Look at his face, the glasses, his crippled body--it's hilarious. I can laugh at this because Bunuel wants us to; he was a scathing wit, but more importantly he was unsympathetic to every character in all of his movies, and viewed them all as the same [note the camera distance in his pictures--we view and observe the characters--and how he never forces us to side with one character more than another. He never shot like a melodramatist--meaning close-ups, etc.; he wasn't Von Sternberg. Also, he never promoted heroism in his films and it is one of the staggering reasons why his films are so great]; he doesn't feel sorry for Pierre in the least. The wheelchair that we see at the end is in fact the same one we saw earlier, however, it doesn't matter that it's "that" wheelchair, so much as it's "a" wheelchair. He chose to use the same wheelchair from the previous encounter, solely to make us question the blending of reality and fantasy; Bunuel is being very playful with these scenes because he's jerking us around and laughing every minute. The coincedence isn't that he's in the same exact wheelchair, but a wheelchair period; the "image" itself is what's central (and like all of his movies, the "image" is always central and of the utmost importance).
Once Husson arrives, and tells Severine that it's time for Pierre to know, he even asks her if she wants to be in the room as well; he's hinting at her inclination to be humiliated, she catches it, and declines. Once she re-enters the room, we're not allowed to see Pierre yet (the camerawork here is mesmerizing), but when we do, he is crying. Severine takes a seat. Then the camera focuses on his extended arm (again, it's the imagery that tells this story) and we see that he's dead. Severine smiles. Why does she smile? Because he's dead? Maybe--I did laugh though. Then we see him awake, and he appears to be perfectly fine. I take this as symbolism and here's why: we never see Severine and Pierre talk about her job, but we know that Husson told him. And it kills Pierre (figuratively speaking), but we see him wake and she's smiling. Now, we don't actually see him "wake up", we just see her reaction to it (again, Bunuel plays that she could be smiling because he's dead or now alive). I regard Pierre waking up and her reaction to it as him dying (emotionally) and being "re-born" or waking up, meaning that he has forgiven her and wants to give her a second chance. I believe that's how it works and that is why we see Severine smile. But then something else happens: for the first time, Severine isn't just happy, she's elated. Again, she's not elated because he's alive, but because he has forgiven her. Before she steps onto the balcony, we hear the bells, and we hear the cats, and she even asks Pierre if he can. He doesn't, obviously, because those sounds are in her mind. However, I take it as her finally being able to include her husband into her sexuality finally (this also works because of the duel sequence) and she's no longer hiding anything. She feels free--guilt-free even and no longer constrained or repressed. As for the carriage being empty, simple: in the end of the first dream sequence, we left with her husband telling the guy to have his way with her. Well, he did. We do not see Pierre and Severine on the carriage at the end because wherever they were in the woods, they are now having sex for the first time. Yes, it's still in her mind for sure, but from that we can assume that's what she's dreaming about now--not the two guys on the carriage whipping her. She doesn't want them; she wants Pierre (remember, it's the only dream sequence without her actually in it). Bunuel chose not to show that occuring because he's more interested in the idea of sex, rather than sex itself. It's a very ambiguous ending, and film for that matter. And I think it's a masterpiece.
My brother however saw a different film than I did, but his interpretation is nonetheless tantalizing. The beginning of the film, with the four of them in the carriage is actually the end; it's not a dream at all. The beginning is actually when we cut and see her lying in bed and Pierre asks, "What are you thinking about?" From there, he told me, that the only "dreams" we actually see are those that are the most obvious: Husson and Pierre throwing mud at her; Husson and Severine underneath the table; Husson and Pierre's duel, etc. And like me, he also believes that Marcel did in fact shoot Pierre, just as we both agree that Husson told Pierre the truth. Now this is where our view becomes quite divurgent: he doesn't think that Pierre "dies" in the scene, so much as he is just defeated. When we see him rise out of the chair, and her ask if he can hear the bells, etc., and he can't, my brother saw that as her going back to her old ways, still shunning her husband. Then we cut to the empty carriage.
My brother believes the beginning with her in the carriage, is in fact, the end. When she goes outside and hears the bells after Pierre stands up and says "no," that scene is complete. He told me that what he believes happens is this: Pierre decides to take Severine out on an afternoon carriage ride. He tries to get close to her, but she still shuns him, even after he was almost killed because of her. So, he decides to get his revenge against her for never putting out. That's why he tells the men to stop and that's why he has the one rape her, however, take note of how she reacts to it. She likes it. A lot. And also, look at how Pierre watches all of this--he is definitely not happy, but at the same time, he looks in disbelief and realizes what Husson told him was true. For the first time in his life, Pierre isn't being a "nice" guy, and that's exactly what Severine wants and needs. We both believe that he stays with her and the reason we don't see them in the carriage is because they're having sex; I took it more as a dream, he saw it as being real, but we both conclude that they're together and having sex for sure.
And it also explains why she says, "release the cats." When she first utters those words, we have no clue what she's talking about, but around the middle of the film--the necrophiliac scene--the butler/servant interrupts them and asks about the cats. The road that we see Severine and that guy riding down, isn't necessarily the same road the carriage is on later when she gets raped.
The big difference with our views I think is that I see the story coming from her perspective more, whereas he sees it from the male perspective. And they both work.
Any thoughts? I love films with complex stories and endings that really make you think. One of the best films I've seen recently. What a masterpiece.
Last edited by KrugerIndustrial; 02-18-2013 at 10:11 AM.
It was probably originally intended for a stage play, and Malle was only "adapting" it for film, but Shawn and Gregory were certainly in on the idea.
Malle kept his connection with off-Broadway theater, and you have to watch them in their day jobs in "Vanya on 42nd St." to bring the conversation full-circle. We sometimes forget just how influential Wallace Shawn was as an off-Broadway playwright in his pre-Inconceivable days.
If I remember correctly, they never intended to stage a production. The idea was to film a faux rehearsal in the dilapidated theater.
I'm curious about Mamet's involvement. Inconceivably (sorry) prolific as Shawn could be, Mamet was a real get for scripting the adaptation. The best I've read is that he was brought in to give the script a more contemporary American tone.
Add to my Criterion, well, Eclipse wishlist: a box set of Broadway Archive filmed plays. I have a handful of the DVDs but their collection is said to be IMMENSE, though the quality may on occasion be dodgy, thus limiting titles. Much as these plays are inert from their stagy set-ups, they are a marvel to behold.
Sooo guys. I'm on a budget (kind of ironic since I've spent about $500 in blu-rays the last month)
If you were pick 6 out of this group for me to buy which would you pick?
Anatomy of a Murder
The Killing
The 39 Steps
Paths of Glory
A Night to Remember
Diabolique
I'm leaning towards: Anatomy, Killing, Dictator, Godzilla, Paths to Glory and Diabolique
No matter what you select, Diabolique must be one of them.
It is among the nearly flawless films in the CC.
Choosing The Killing merely because you enjoyed 2001 may leave you disappointed, but you'll never know if you don't give it a whirl. You get Kubrick's Killer's Kiss with it as a bonus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellini912
I had hopes that criterion would release some more Sam Peckinpah on blu ray. Sam Peckinpah with Warren Oates ideally.
If you know your movie titles, you know whats in the bag.
Along with that...
The Ballad of Cable Hogue would fit into the collection very well.
Last edited by Simple Lines; 02-18-2013 at 12:46 PM.
I had hopes that criterion would release some more Sam Peckinpah on blu ray. Sam Peckinpah with Warren Oates ideally.
If you know your movie titles, you know whats in the bag.
Oh man if only the New Years clue had something like a jar of Alfredo sauce in a duffel bag, or something like that! The ending to that film is a top 10 ending in all of cinema imho.
Wouldn't balk at a CC release of Cross of Iron, don't have a region free player so the European release is out of the question.
Like 3 Women, Buñuel's Belle de jour kept me awake all night trying to fully figure out what it really is about. I have a pretty solid idea on 3 Women(I posted my thoughts on it here earlier), but this one is a bit more trickier.
This is how I see it for now:
[Show spoiler]
Séverine was sexually abused as a child. She is still a virgin(in a way) and loves Pierre deeply but because of her past, she is lost and distant to him even though she does not want to. After a conversation with her friend about brothels, it becomes a part of her fantasy. Through this extreme course of sexual therapy, she comes to terms with what she is and accepts it. She has now faced all the types of guilt fostered in her from childhood upwards, and she has grown up sexually as well. Her relationship with her husband is now normal. In the end the carriage of sexual repression and masochism is empty. Séverine is no longer a passenger. She is cured.
BUT:
Is Pierre's recovery in the end fantasy? I believe so. If the brothel story was indeed all fantasy, what was Henri's visit to Pierre about? Or perhaps he did visit him, but the subject was all her fantasy. Do we know for a fact that Pierre was shot by Marcel? Séverine describes this as an 'accident'.
But then I found this on imdb and now that I've read it, it makes more sense.
[Show spoiler]I believe that Marcel does in fact shoot and attempt to kill Pierre. That is not a fantasy and the only reason it presents itself as being a possible fantasy is that earlier we saw her dreaming of Husson and Pierre duelling over her. Of course, in the dream, Pierre "wins" her, thus untying her and "releasing" her sexually (remember, she's tied to the tree, in a red dress, with a hint of menstruation on her). Also, take note, that earlier she had a dream sequence in which Husson is with her under the table--she wanted him then--but once he crossed over into her "fantasy" life (Husson is represented as being "reality") it became too much for her, so she makes the decision that she will tell Pierre about what she's been doing (the duel sequence also presents itself as her finally being able to tell her husband, the truth about her job and that she is in fact into humiliating sex, etc.). In short, she's ready to open up and be his wife.
Pierre is definitely in the wheel chair; that isn't a dream--it's reality. Earlier in the film, when he's walking down the street and he sees the wheelchair, he remarks that it's "funny" and it is (there is a similar scene in TRISTANA). Pierre seeing the wheelchair is pure coincedence; Bunuel was an absolute believer of such occurrances. For example, he made LAS HURDES from money that a friend of his won in a kind of lottery. The friend had told him, some six or seven months prior that if he won this lottery, then he'd fund the LAS HURDES doc. Sure enough, he did, and the friend kept his word. Pure coincedence, but there is an alternately sad ending to this story: the friend and his wife were executed by the Franco regime for funding the movie (it was banned as soon as it was released).
That said, Pierre being bound to the wheelchair after all is supposed to make us laugh. Look at his face, the glasses, his crippled body--it's hilarious. I can laugh at this because Bunuel wants us to; he was a scathing wit, but more importantly he was unsympathetic to every character in all of his movies, and viewed them all as the same [note the camera distance in his pictures--we view and observe the characters--and how he never forces us to side with one character more than another. He never shot like a melodramatist--meaning close-ups, etc.; he wasn't Von Sternberg. Also, he never promoted heroism in his films and it is one of the staggering reasons why his films are so great]; he doesn't feel sorry for Pierre in the least. The wheelchair that we see at the end is in fact the same one we saw earlier, however, it doesn't matter that it's "that" wheelchair, so much as it's "a" wheelchair. He chose to use the same wheelchair from the previous encounter, solely to make us question the blending of reality and fantasy; Bunuel is being very playful with these scenes because he's jerking us around and laughing every minute. The coincedence isn't that he's in the same exact wheelchair, but a wheelchair period; the "image" itself is what's central (and like all of his movies, the "image" is always central and of the utmost importance).
Once Husson arrives, and tells Severine that it's time for Pierre to know, he even asks her if she wants to be in the room as well; he's hinting at her inclination to be humiliated, she catches it, and declines. Once she re-enters the room, we're not allowed to see Pierre yet (the camerawork here is mesmerizing), but when we do, he is crying. Severine takes a seat. Then the camera focuses on his extended arm (again, it's the imagery that tells this story) and we see that he's dead. Severine smiles. Why does she smile? Because he's dead? Maybe--I did laugh though. Then we see him awake, and he appears to be perfectly fine. I take this as symbolism and here's why: we never see Severine and Pierre talk about her job, but we know that Husson told him. And it kills Pierre (figuratively speaking), but we see him wake and she's smiling. Now, we don't actually see him "wake up", we just see her reaction to it (again, Bunuel plays that she could be smiling because he's dead or now alive). I regard Pierre waking up and her reaction to it as him dying (emotionally) and being "re-born" or waking up, meaning that he has forgiven her and wants to give her a second chance. I believe that's how it works and that is why we see Severine smile. But then something else happens: for the first time, Severine isn't just happy, she's elated. Again, she's not elated because he's alive, but because he has forgiven her. Before she steps onto the balcony, we hear the bells, and we hear the cats, and she even asks Pierre if he can. He doesn't, obviously, because those sounds are in her mind. However, I take it as her finally being able to include her husband into her sexuality finally (this also works because of the duel sequence) and she's no longer hiding anything. She feels free--guilt-free even and no longer constrained or repressed. As for the carriage being empty, simple: in the end of the first dream sequence, we left with her husband telling the guy to have his way with her. Well, he did. We do not see Pierre and Severine on the carriage at the end because wherever they were in the woods, they are now having sex for the first time. Yes, it's still in her mind for sure, but from that we can assume that's what she's dreaming about now--not the two guys on the carriage whipping her. She doesn't want them; she wants Pierre (remember, it's the only dream sequence without her actually in it). Bunuel chose not to show that occuring because he's more interested in the idea of sex, rather than sex itself. It's a very ambiguous ending, and film for that matter. And I think it's a masterpiece.
My brother however saw a different film than I did, but his interpretation is nonetheless tantalizing. The beginning of the film, with the four of them in the carriage is actually the end; it's not a dream at all. The beginning is actually when we cut and see her lying in bed and Pierre asks, "What are you thinking about?" From there, he told me, that the only "dreams" we actually see are those that are the most obvious: Husson and Pierre throwing mud at her; Husson and Severine underneath the table; Husson and Pierre's duel, etc. And like me, he also believes that Marcel did in fact shoot Pierre, just as we both agree that Husson told Pierre the truth. Now this is where our view becomes quite divurgent: he doesn't think that Pierre "dies" in the scene, so much as he is just defeated. When we see him rise out of the chair, and her ask if he can hear the bells, etc., and he can't, my brother saw that as her going back to her old ways, still shunning her husband. Then we cut to the empty carriage.
My brother believes the beginning with her in the carriage, is in fact, the end. When she goes outside and hears the bells after Pierre stands up and says "no," that scene is complete. He told me that what he believes happens is this: Pierre decides to take Severine out on an afternoon carriage ride. He tries to get close to her, but she still shuns him, even after he was almost killed because of her. So, he decides to get his revenge against her for never putting out. That's why he tells the men to stop and that's why he has the one rape her, however, take note of how she reacts to it. She likes it. A lot. And also, look at how Pierre watches all of this--he is definitely not happy, but at the same time, he looks in disbelief and realizes what Husson told him was true. For the first time in his life, Pierre isn't being a "nice" guy, and that's exactly what Severine wants and needs. We both believe that he stays with her and the reason we don't see them in the carriage is because they're having sex; I took it more as a dream, he saw it as being real, but we both conclude that they're together and having sex for sure.
And it also explains why she says, "release the cats." When she first utters those words, we have no clue what she's talking about, but around the middle of the film--the necrophiliac scene--the butler/servant interrupts them and asks about the cats. The road that we see Severine and that guy riding down, isn't necessarily the same road the carriage is on later when she gets raped.
The big difference with our views I think is that I see the story coming from her perspective more, whereas he sees it from the male perspective. And they both work.
Any thoughts? I love films with complex stories and endings that really make you think. One of the best films I've seen recently. What a masterpiece.
Here are my thoughts on the film:
[Show spoiler]Severine was sexually abused as a child, and as a result, has a hard time dealing with men. Look at her relationship with her husband. They never have sex and it seems very distant. By taking the job at the brothel, Severine is essentially able to overcome her anxieties by unleashing all of the sadomasochistic fantasies that she keeps having. Some of the clients are into kinky things and she's able to be a part of that.
All of the guilt, however, from her father keeps manifesting itself through her dreams. The first dream at the beginning she's tied up from the tree and humiliated. This is also seen at another part of the film in which Pierre and his friend throw mud at her and insult her. She has another dream midway through the film in which she is roleplaying a man's daughter who was raped by her father. The last dream that I recall her having is at the end. It was not until tragedy hit that she was able to see the beauty in Pierre and appreciate him. She wanted a normal life and ultimately it was impossible.
I posted more in-depth details here (in my review). I analyze the symbols that are present throughout the film:
[Show spoiler]The Beauty Of The Day
Many may argue that Belle de Jour ("Beauty Of The Day") is an ordinary drama about a woman who decides to spend her early afternoons working as a prostitute at a Paris brothel. However, there are many elements and symbols throughout this film that allude to it being a psychological thriller.
The beautiful and talented Catherine Deneuve stars as Séverine Serizy, a sexually frustrated housewife. The relationship between Séverine and her husband Pierre is very awkward. While the two love each other, they both come and go as they please, they sleep in separate beds, and they do not have sex with one another. It appears that Séverine has difficulties with sex due to a trauma experienced earlier in her life. As a result, she is trying to come to grips with herself. While in a taxi with her friend Renée one day, Séverine learns that their mutual friend, Henrietta, now works at a brothel. The idea of working in one of these places is planted in Séverine's mind and she decides to visit a nearby brothel for herself. After meeting with the owner, Madame Anaïs, Séverine decides to take up prostitution as a side job during the early afternoons. The results of this decision ultimately have both positive and negative effects on Séverine and her husband's relationship.
The most important part of this film, in my opinion, is the symbols that are present throughout it. There are four specific symbols that I would like to discuss. They are the daydreams and sexual fantasies, religion, animals, and the brothel.
The first symbol that I would like to discuss are the daydreams and sexual fantasies that Séverine has throughout the film. Séverine is often plagued by sadomasochistic fantasies, in which she is taken to an isolated location, tied up, and humiliated. Many believe that this is due to the sexual abuse that she had experienced as a child by her father. These fantasies, just like the abuse, have haunted her for a good portion of her life. More specifically, they are the reason that she cannot be sexually aroused with her husband, Pierre. The second symbol that I would like to discuss is religion. When an individual thinks of religion, they often think of it being holy, pure, and sacred. Before entering the brothel, Séverine has a daydream of a time in her life when she was receiving Holy Communion at church. When a person receives communion, it's symbolically the closest that a person can be with God because they are receiving the body and blood of Christ. By taking on this role of a prostitute, Séverine is essentially going against the doctrines of the church and going against what it means to be holy and pure. Another instance with religion occurs when Séverine has a daydream that she is in in the park and she is approached by an older man. The older man asks her if she is willing to go to his house with him so that she can help him with reenacting a religious ceremony. It turns out that Séverine is to play the role of the older man's daughter at her funeral. The older man pours out all of his guilt for sexually abusing his daughter when she was younger and he feels responsible for her life playing out the way that it did. This can be interpreted as Séverine's conscious playing out her own repressed memories. Séverine holds a lot of frustration for the abuse that she had experienced as a child. I feel that she has always been longing for an apology from her father (as the older man did with his daughter). Because of her father, her innocence and purity died at such an early age. She also took on this role of a prostitute to help her deal with some of her internal stressors. The third symbol that I would like to discuss is the animals. During one of Séverine's sexual fantasies, Pierre and his friend, Henri Husson are working in a field. They are tending to some livestock and also working with what appears to be mud. Pierre asks Henri if the animals have any names, to which he explains that they do. The scene shifts to Séverine who is tied up from a tree branch. Pierre and Henri begin to argue with her and they begin to degrade her. They throw the mud at her until she is almost black and they call her a variety of names, such as "harlot", "*****", "slut", etc. The irony in this is that they treated the livestock with a lot more respect than they treated Séverine. They humanized these animals by giving them names, but they degraded Séverine and treated her like an animal. Another instance involving animals is with the horse and carriage. For a large portion of the film, whenever the horse and carriage is present, the viewer is able to recognize that they are in one of Severine's daydreams and sexual fantasies. The fourth symbol that I would like to discuss is the brothel. By taking on the position of a prostitute at the Paris brothel, Séverine is able to escape from the pressures of her everyday life and become somebody else. As Séverine, she is a sexually frustrated housewife who is dealing with her own past issues. However, as "Belle de Jour", she is able to unleash all of her sexual fantasies with the clients that she comes across on a day-to-day basis. As a result of this job, Séverine is able to open up more with Pierre and they are finally able to have a somewhat healthy and normal relationship.
The irony of the entire film is that by taking on a degrading job, such as prostitution, Séverine is able to fix her relationship with her husband, Pierre, for the better. Many women who take on these roles have marital troubles because they often feel guilty for sleeping with numerous men or because their husband finds out what they have been doing. Since Pierre does not know what his wife is doing, he just assumes that she is getting better - and she is. Through prostitution, she is able to live life again. She makes friends, she interacts with clients on a day-to-day basis, and she is ultimately able to get to the root of her problems.
The Criterion Collection once again comes through with another great release. The video quality and the audio quality on Belle De Jour are top-notch. If you did not know better, you would think that this is a 1980s film and not a 1967 film. The film also has a decent amount of extras, thus making it a must own in any collection.
This was the first foreign film that I have ever watched and it will definitely not be the last. I was a little hesitant of watching it at first because I felt that the subtitles would have turned me off, made me confused, and not keep my interest. However, I was first wrong. As a result of watching this film, I have a new appreciation and outlook for this film style and I could not recommend it highly enough.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
. The transfer is from an older master, but it is quite nice, very organic. (And much, much better than the one the French release uses). Good upgrade over the R1 DVD.
Linear Mode
