Film Review
Winner of the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival in 1967,
Belle de jour is among Luis Buñuel's
most highly regarded films.
It is widely considered to be Buñuel's most accessible work, although its seamless blend of
reality and fantasy makes it a profoundly complex and ambiguous study
in desire.
Belle de jour
is significant in that it was the first film to explore female
eroticism, that mysterious avenue of human experience which Sigmund
Freud referred to as the Dark Continent. Compelling and
masterfully composed, it remains one of cinema's most potent and
incisive explorations of female sexuality.
Joseph Kessel's 1928 novel
Belle de
jour provided director Luis Buñuel and his screenwriter
associate Jean-Claude Carrière with the perfect springboard for
a darkly comedic study in sexual repression. The film combines
Buñuel's former interest in Freudian psychoanalytic theory with
his mocking dislike for bourgeois sensibility. In a similar vein
to the director's later film
Le Charme discret de la bourgeoisie
(1972),
Belle de jour
explores the perils and pitfalls of thwarted desire within a rigid
bourgeois context, a milieu in which one's sexual instinct is constantly frustrated
by materialistic concerns and a deeply ingrained compunction to comply
with the demands of social etiquette.
There are some striking similarities between
Belle de jour and Douglas Sirk's
classic melodrama
All That Heaven Allows
(1956). In both films, the central female protagonist is a woman
who is tragically stuck in a middleclass groove, from which she obtains
temporary escape through an improbable sexual awakening. In the
end, the heroine is confronted with a dilemma - she must choose between
desire and status, either to give up her life of wild abandon or else
to forego her place in society. Buñuel, predictably, opts
for the pessimistic (and more realistic) ending, and so Séverine's
attempts to evade the straitjacket of bourgeois conformity end in dismal
failure. The only escape she has is into the realm of the imagination, where she
can indulge her wildest fantasies whilst still appearing to be a model
of middleclass respectability.
By presenting his heroine's fantasies as realistically as her everyday
experiences, Buñuel makes no distinction between what is real
and what is not. This is a feature of Buñuel's cinema and
is a hangover from his early association with surrealist art - the
subjective viewpoint that characterises his films refuses to recognise
the boundary between reality and fantasy. What the film shows is
a set of experiences from the perspective of one character which may be
entirely real, partly real, or entirely the product of her
imagination. At the start, we may think we can delineate between
what is real and what is not, by dint of the fact that, in real life,
husbands generally do not allow their wives to be tied to a tree,
stripped and horsewhipped. However, when the film has run its
course, this smug certainty has all but evaporated, since reality and
fantasy have somehow become indistinguishable. As the film loops
back to its beginning after a bewildering coda, we are almost forced to
conclude that the whole thing has been a dream.
There are certainly enough hints to substantiate the view that the
events depicted take place entirely within the confines of a
dream. Pierre's precognition of his paralysis is one such
pointer, but what is perhaps more revealing is the similarity between
Marcel, the hot bit of rough who takes to Séverine like a wasp
to a jam sandwich, and the coachman who rapes her at the start of the
film. Both Marcel and the coachman are stereotypes of coarse
masculinity, easily recognised as the products of a wish fulfilment
fantasy. The dream sequence which opens the film is repeated, in
a more realistic but equally fanciful vein, in what follows, as
Séverine sets out to fulfil her desire, which is to be totally
subjugated by the dominant male. Inevitably, this quasi-real
fantasy runs away with itself when Marcel proves to be too assertive
and finds his way out of the time box Séverine has allotted for
him. Séverine's desire to be dominated exceeds her ability
to control it and so the fantasy must end, in the grotesquely
spectacular fashion of a male orgasm, so that another may begin in its
place. And so the dream, if that is what it is, continues,
ad infinitum.
The casting of Catherine Deneuve as Séverine is a marvellous
example of serendipity. At the time, she was in a relationship
with the film director François Truffaut, who was so impressed
with her acting skill that he lobbied Buñuel to give her a lead
role in his next film. Buñuel was initially lukewarm
towards Deneuve and insisted that she should not give a
performance. Ever the professional, Deneuve obliged and delivered
a non-performance
par excellence
that is perfectly suited for the film. It is the actress's
ice-cold aloofness and the tight grip she has on her emotions that
makes her so perfect for the role of Séverine. When
we first meet Séverine in her normal life (not the dream
fantasy), she is as cold and expressionless as a dressmaker's dummy,
her face a mask of statue-like impassivity. It is only when she
has begun work as a prostitute that she appears to come to life and
shows the first glimmerings of emotion. Deneuve's performance in
Belle de jour is among her finest,
a master-class in subtlety that takes the spectator by surprise every
time. Watching Deneuve in this film is like watching the walls of
a seemingly impregnable dam slowly fracture. The crack is barely
perceptible at first, but we are transfixed as it grows, caught in the
spell of a morbid anticipation of the cataclysm that is to come.
It is hard to pinpoint precisely why
Belle
de jour has had such an impact. It is not Buñuel's
most technically perfect film, nor is it his most inspired.
Perhaps the film's perplexing ambiguity is the key to its appeal.
The film is an enigma, a paradox, like the mysterious buzzing box that
Séverine is offered by her Japanese customer and which
remains to this day a subject of endless debate.
Belle de jour is like a dream that
compels us to look for meaning within it, as though it somehow has the
power to shed light on our own identity and the mysteries of our
desires. But it is not the dream itself that will enlighten us,
but rather the process by which we attempt to interpret it. The
main purpose of art is to help us to understand ourselves a little
better, and Buñuel's film does that, with knobs on.
© James Travers 2010
The above content is owned by filmsdefrance.com and must not be copied.
Next Luis Buñuel film:
La Voie lactée (1969)