Belle de Jour (1967)

Belle de Jour (1967) – A newlywed young woman tries to come to grips with her sexuality by working afternoons as a prostitute.

Directed by Luis Buñuel                               Starring Catherine Deneuve, Jean Sorel, Geneviève Page

We all need to be able to say “I don’t like it.”  Reminding ourselves that there is a difference between that and “This movie is terrible”.  There are terrible movies that I enjoy, great movies that I despise.  What I offer up here is strictly my opinion.

And I don’t like this movie.

Many movie experts, movie directors, and actors will shake their heads at that.  This is commonly acclaimed as a “great movie.”  It has won awards.  The director is a legend.

I just don’t see it.

Catherine Deneuve is at her most stunningly beautiful here.  The movie is intended to be erotic, titillating and provocative.  It is all of that.  In the 1960s, the Production Code was a thing of the past.  Moviemakers, like the surrealist icon Luis Buñuel, were exploring new ways of putting sex on the screen.   They seem pretty tame today, but they were pushing the edges in the day.

Séverine (Deneuve) is a young woman who loves her husband but feels no physical passion for him.  She is haunted by erotic dreams of being dominated and humiliated but has no idea what to do about them.  By happenstance, she is directed to a discreet bordello run by Madame Anais(Page).  They come to an agreement that Séverine will work only during the afternoon, hence her “working name” of Belle de Jour.

There is no graphic sex or nudity in the movie.  Everything is left to the imagination of the viewer.  In the end, I was just left feeling uncomfortable and unsatisfied.

Part of that is me.  I have a very limited taste for any of the various forms of Avante Garde art.  Buñuel is a surrealist icon.  While the movie only brings touches of surrealism, they manage to intrude and disrupt the storytelling.  There are several scenes among the fantasies that seem to indicate that Séverine was abused as a child.  We are left without any clear indication of what is fantasy and what is a flashback.  The first scene of the movie begins with just that confusion.  When I discover that the director has acknowledged that he has no idea what the end of the movie means, it just makes me insane.

My problem with “artistic” movies is the feeling that the creator has decided that the movie will be a test.  If you are as smart as they are, you will understand it all.  And if not?  C’est dommage.  For me, the story should always be first.  Too much of this movie struck me as form over function.  Telling the story fell behind the director’s style and “cleverness”.  Hitchcock can be very stylized, but it’s always in service to the story.  I didn’t get that feeling here.

Add in the archaic approach to female sexuality and how Séverine is treated when she decides she wants to stop, and I’m very uncomfortable with the movie.  The acting was often stiff, the dialogue was in French and the subtitles gave an awkward translation.  Overall, the approach to the topic of female sexual desire struck me as very male-centric as well.  Some stories about the production would seem to support that as well.

On the other hand, Roger Ebert put the movie on his “Great Movies” list and Martin Scorsese is a huge fan as well.

All of which is well and good.  Any movie fan is free to watch a movie and say “I didn’t like it.”

Why You Will Like It: If you tolerate edgier movie making, then the sensuality of the scenes and the beauty of Deneuve may be enough.

Rating – ** Not Impressed