Info

Art Opinions

Posts tagged Belle de Jour

It was an odd question.

Let’s say you must lose all material possessions except for ten of your Criterion Collection Blu-Rays. Which ten titles do you keep?

key_art_criterion_collection

I rolled my eyes and shrugged the question away. There is no way I could ever limit myself to only ten Criterions! But the silly question inspired me to really think about the movies I have via The Criterion Collection. Which are my absolute favorites? Which titles do I watch the most? Which do I value above others? Could I narrow it down to only ten movies? Would I have to organize them in some order of preference? No. I would not be able to rate one more valued than the other.

My friend did not frame her question with the context of a desert island. If she had I would have countered back with obvious challenges of having a monitor, BluRay Player and electricity to run both. No. The question was simply which ten I would keep above all others. Ideally I would smuggle a few more titles with me. Yes. I would most definitely find a way to sneak a few more under protection under my hoodie. No one would be the wiser. Most certainly not the friend who posed the question. After much contemplation, here are my most treasured members of my Criterion Collection

 

Don't Look Now Nicolas Roeg, 1974 Cover Design: Fred Davis

Don’t Look Now
Nicolas Roeg, 1974
Cover Design: Fred Davis

I think there tends to be one common thread in the choices I have made from my Criterion Collection: Identity. It seems to me that the idea of identity is at the core of all we pursue in life. One could easily argue that food gathering, sex and conflict are the shared drivers for the beings called human, but it is within the pursuit of these needs that much of our respective identities take form. It is both amazing and a little horrifying how identity is challenged and altered by drivers, circumstances and experiences. Films that delve into the psychology of identity vary in genre and philosophy, but often provide endless interpretation.

Surreal films like Buñuel’s Belle de jour, Roeg’s Don’t Look Now, Polanski’s Repulsion, Altman’s 3 Women and Breillat’s Fat Girl find new ways of exploring the inner workings of how our identity forms, survives and sometimes crumples. Allegorical, metaphorical and symbolism reign supreme in these films. Repeated viewings offer fresh perspectives and understanding. A documentary like Grey Gardens works brilliantly in the hands of the Maysles Brothers. The use of Direct Cinema offers insights into mother / daughter dynamics as well as a humanistic study of adapted survival. Altman’s Nashville is satire, but as this experimental epic unwinds the ideas of damaged identities are pushed by societal and cultural pressures that have only become stronger in the 40+ years that he made his film. Don’t Look Now is far more than a horror film. It does haunt and stirs dread, but it also captivates in its eloquence of exploring human nature under the sway of reawakening hope.

  • Don’t Look Now
  • Nashville
  • Belle de jour
  • Repulsion
  • Grey Gardens
Antichrist Lars von Trier, 2009

Antichrist
Lars von Trier, 2009

 

"But you see in dealing with me, the relatives didn't know that they were dealing with a staunch character and I tell you if there's anything worse than dealing with a staunch woman..." Little Edie makes a stand. Grey Gardens Mayflies, Hovde, Meyer 1976

“But you see in dealing with me, the relatives didn’t know that they were dealing with a staunch character and I tell you if there’s anything worse than dealing with a staunch woman…”
Little Edie makes a stand.
Grey Gardens
Mayflies, Hovde, Meyer
1976

 

America caught in a scary moment points us to an even more horrific future... NASHVILLE Robert Altman, 1975

America caught in a scary moment points us to an even more horrific future…
NASHVILLE
Robert Altman, 1975

Two other common elements are the uncomfortable mixture of humor and horror. Lars von Trier’s controversial Antichrist offers up skin-crawling levels of disturbing images that are almost impossible to watch — yet the elements of dark humor and surrealism move our attentions away from the grotesque. If we look, listen and think — the strange film offers perspectives on a number of topics from cultural misogyny, the intimacy of marriage and the tragedy of grief. Nashville, 3 Women, Fat Girl and Grey Gardens allow us to chuckle as much as they make us squirm.

  • Antichrist
  • Fat Girl
  • 3 Women
"1 woman became 2/2 women became 3/3 women became 1..." 3 Women Robert Altman, 1977

“1 woman became 2/2 women became 3/3 women became 1…”
3 Women
Robert Altman, 1977

 

No one's victim... Fat Girl / À ma soeur! Catherine Breillat, 2001

No one’s victim…
Fat Girl / À ma soeur!
Catherine Breillat, 2001

  • Persona
  • Black Moon

I am not assigning these titles in any particular order because I am unable to really rank one of these films over another. Each film is exceptional, but some do work better than others. Louis Malle’s experimental and surreal Black Moon is of interest despite itself. This film is very much a reflection of European tension and confusion resulting from sociopolitical revolutions, challenges and fears of its time. Much of the political has been lost over time. What remains is a tipsy and uncomfortable take on Alice in Wonderland. The film may be flawed, but it is extraordinary.

"Just a minute, please." Black Moon Louis Malle, 1975

“Just a minute, please.”
Black Moon
Louis Malle, 1975

As for the other beloved titles that I would creatively find a way to retain…

  • The Innocents
  • Videodrome

It would be challenging to think of two films that are more hinged to the times in which both were made. And yet, both of these Cult Film remain powerful and equally unsettling. Repeated viewings are never dull. Revisiting these two movies is as much fun as it is disorienting.

"What are you waiting for, Lover?" Videodrome David Cronenberg, 1983

“What are you waiting for, Lover?”
Videodrome
David Cronenberg, 1983

  • Band of Outsiders
  • In the Realm of the Senses
  • Wings of Desire

The ideas of identity are taken to whole new levels with the three films listed above. Each of these movies are totally unique. And each of these iconic films offer three very different experiences. The only one I feel the need to defend is Nagisa Oshima’s In the Realm of the Senses. Does he push the use of unstimulated sex and violence too far? Yes, but that is also his point. If you are over 18 years of age, this movie offers an astounding and masterful study of the horrors of sexual obsession and repression.

"Now is the time for a digression in which to describe our heroes' feelings..." Band of Outsiders Jean-Luc Godard, 1964

“Now is the time for a digression in which to describe our heroes’ feelings…”
Band of Outsiders
Jean-Luc Godard, 1964

It hurts my feelings to imagine my world without Dressed to Kill, Harold and Maude, Satyricon, 8½, Jules et Jim, Red Desert or Valerie and her Week of Wonders. But I can only get away with sneaking so much. Even if I were to slip into my Large sized hoodie — it would most likely be obvious if I had more than 5 titles hidden behind the zipper.

"But no sooner was she back on shore, when..." Red Desert Michelangelo Antonioni, 1964

“But no sooner was she back on shore, when…”
Red Desert
Michelangelo Antonioni, 1964

But who am I fooling? I would most definitely try to sneak Gates of Heaven into my ownership. Hell, I would also grab Branded to Kill and Eraserhead. I would then make a run for it. I’m sneaky like that.

"You’ve been badly trained." Branded to Kill Seijun Suzuki, 1967

“You’ve been badly trained.”
Branded to Kill
Seijun Suzuki, 1967

Matty Stanfield,  7.21.2016

People always ask me why I like such dark and often surreal movies. For me, these strange cinematic explorations into the darkest corners of the human mind act as a sort cathartic entertainment. But perhaps on a deeper level they hold an interest for me that allows me to feel a bit lucky compared to the characters and images struggling through crisis of reality, circumstance and identity.

Roaming through an old house, a gangster faces dangers of memories and lingering ghosts... Keyhole Guy Maddin, 2011 Cinematography | Benjamin Kasulke

Roaming through an old house, a gangster faces dangers of memories and lingering ghosts…
Keyhole
Guy Maddin, 2011
Cinematography | Benjamin Kasulke

Struggle. This is what I have been doing on a daily basis for the last several years. It is not so much that I need to learn the techniques to calming my subconscious, I know them. The challenge is putting them into action so that these exorcises actually become tools I can use. It seems like a simple thing to master, but the subconscious is an alternate world filled with illogical concerns and masterful ways to impede the conscious state from doing what it needs to do. Finding the pathway into the subconscious takes a great deal of work all with an eye toward not making it think that the conscious is out to defeat it. While the process seems to lend itself to the idea of Zen Yoga Meditation, it is a great deal more complex.

Studying more than mental illness or simple concepts of identity, Paddy Chayefsky's script was unfilmable, but Ken Russell speeded-up the dialogue. The sense of self, reality and identity are deconstructed to a whole new level. Altered States Ken Russell, 1980 Cinematography | Jordan Cronenweth

Studying more than mental illness or simple concepts of identity, Paddy Chayefsky’s script was unfilmable, but Ken Russell speeded-up the dialogue. The sense of self, reality and identity are deconstructed to a whole new level.
Altered States
Ken Russell, 1980
Cinematography | Jordan Cronenweth

After three decades of a successful life, my subconscious coping skills began to fall apart. By the time I slammed into 42 years of age I was no longer successful. I was stumbling, falling and lost. Fast forward a couple of years and far too many doctors and tests later I found out with what I was dealing. I had known for some time that I was living with PTSD, but when two doctors and a therapist informed me I was actually living with a more extreme form of PTSD known as DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder.)

I was God-smacked. It would take me a full year before I could actually believe this diagnosis to be true. And it has taken a couple more to fully acknowledge and own it.  In the last year I’ve become far better at turning technique into tool, but I am far from attaining Master – Level Use.

Sneaking a peak beyond the other side of a keyhole, "Ulysses Pick" sees far more than he can process. Keyhole Guy Maddin, 2011 Cinematography | Benjamin Kasulke

Sneaking a peak beyond the other side of a keyhole, “Ulysses Pick” sees far more than he can process.
Keyhole
Guy Maddin, 2011
Cinematography | Benjamin Kasulke

A life-long friend who I consider to be my sister is in The City for work. This is one of the dearest people in my world. There is no way I’m going to miss visiting and hanging with her. But challenges spring forward intent on preventing me from being out in public spaces. After the recent tragic terrorist attacks, my phobia of being in crowded spaces has morphed into full-blown clinical panic attacks. Suddenly driving downtown becomes as challenging for me as being told I must climb Mount Everest. But despite an unusual down pour and high winds, I was determined. I’m was also more than a little wary.

Groundbreaking and iconic, it is important to remember that this book and subsequent Sally Field TV Movie were "based" on a true story. Neither were "true."

Groundbreaking and iconic, it is important to remember that this book and subsequent Sally Field TV Movie were “based” on a true story. Neither were “true.”

There are a lot of exaggerations around what DID is. Pop Culture has presented an odd view point. Certainly we’ve come a long way since the 1970’s Sybil idea. A recent entertainment examination of the disorder, The United States of Tara, attempted to be more realistic. But even here DID was presented in a painfully extreme and comedic way. Very few people who have DID exhibit such behaviors as “switching” into an alternate personality complete with different voices and wardrobes. And for those few who deal with it at such a level, none could manage to function as a safe parent or a remotely dependable spouse. Even still, it presented the character in some realistic ways with the support of those most close to her.

I’ve never kept my PTSD a secret. I’ve written a good deal about it. Once I understood DID, I did not keep that a secret. I do not write a great deal about it because it is an on-going challenge I’ve yet to fully meet. But when it does come up I can see the discomfort in peoples’ faces.

For the record:  I do not have dueling identities. I do not have a secret wardrobe. I do not have a double life. I do not lie. I do not cheat. I am not a harm or threat for others or myself. In the past, when I did “switch” it was seldom if ever noticed by anyone. It quite simply is not that glamourous. In reality DID is tedious, defeating and a constant source of ever-growing self-defeating phobic tendencies that I’m constantly trying to beat.

No TV Show or book here. It is a condition with which one has to deal through therapy and anxiety-reducing exorcises. It is not particularly interesting. It is certainly not funny. There is nothing glamorous or theatrical about it.

Uh, oh. The Good Cop / Bad Cop: A toy w/ DID The Lego Movie Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, 2014

Uh, oh. The Good Cop / Bad Cop: A toy w/ DID
The Lego Movie
Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, 2014

The truth is that most women dealing with DID will not realize that they even have a problem until into their late 20’s to mid 30’s. For men it is usually not until their late 30’s upward to their early 50’s before they fully notice that there is a problem. As strange as it sounds, the power of a mind that copes a person out of grim experiences so that she/he can survive is extremely skilled at getting that person through whatever challenges may or may not get in the way. The concept of an alternate personality is normally so nuanced that the individual and those near him/her will never notice. Nor will the individual. Time is lost, but the individual being protected in this manner by their subconscious will usually not notice. Or, as in my case, never really consciously note it.

While not altogether "untrue," United States of Tara is a very exaggerated and unbelievable study of DID. It has value, but the main goal was to entertain.

While not altogether “untrue,” United States of Tara is a very exaggerated and unbelievable study of DID. It has value, but the main goal was to entertain.

DID is tricky and many think that there are more than a few folks walking around out there who do not know they have it — and most likely never will. I wish I were one of those folks.  Surviving can come at a cost. A survivor is tough, but none of us are superheroes. Jessica Jones is an interesting and well crafted empowerment idea, but she is fantasy.

I’ve not fully switched or lost time in over 3 years now. My mastery of coping techniques as tools has improved dramatically. But I’m no Master of Myself. So this morning as the wind howled and the rain poured and I drove toward my destination filled with worry, I was on high alert. When an SUV failed to stop in time at an intersection, it skidded out onto California Street and briefly lost control. I was able to navigate my car out of its way without putting anyone else in danger.

Fictional Satire, Cultural Commentary, Mischief, Mayhem & Soap. Brad Pitt manifests as a fragment of identity bent on rebellion... Fight Club David Fincher, 1999 Cinematography | Jeff Cronenweth

Fictional Satire, Cultural Commentary, Mischief, Mayhem & Soap. Brad Pitt manifests as a fragment of identity bent on rebellion…
Fight Club
David Fincher, 1999
Cinematography | Jeff Cronenweth

Success! As the SUV got itself back on track and other drivers honked for no real reason, I pulled my car back into moving action. And then it happened. Familiar voices filled with fear and panic began whispering and speaking all at once. These voice seemed to be coming from the backseat.

I’m not crazy. Actually, I feel I am about as far from crazy as possible. Two years ago this sudden fury of voices from behind me would have freaked me out. But now, I know that there are no hidden passengers in my car. These, you see, are my alters.

I calmly pulled my car over to a safe parking spot. Put the gear into park. Took a deep breath and began utilizing calming techniques to use as tools. It probably took me about thirty minutes, but those voices began to move out of the backseat and into my mouth. I continued to tool away. In approximately ten minutes those voices moved out of my mouth and back into my brain. Then I spoke out loud in a normal tone to calm them (me) down. Within another ten minutes I was ok. I lit up a cig, turned the iPhone to some of my favorite music and just chilled. In all it took about 80 minutes before I was certain I was competent to drive. I turned around and came back home.

Completely spent, head hurting, legs aching — I knew I’d not be venturing back out today. Embarrassed I had to contact my friend/sister and let her know I would not be able to make it downtown. She knows of what I am dealing. She was supportive and kind. She is taking a cab here tonight and we’ll order take-out. But it feels as if I’ve let another person I love down. It sucks.

Identities merge, split, engage and threaten reality beyond recognition. Laura Harring / Naomi Watts Mulholland Drive David Lynch, 2001 Cinematography | Peter Deming

Identities merge, split, engage and threaten reality beyond recognition.
Laura Harring / Naomi Watts
Mulholland Drive
David Lynch, 2001
Cinematography | Peter Deming

Once I master these techniques into better tools, I will not be so exhausted. It might seem strange, but I was not freaked out. This is my current reality. I accept it, but I’m still deeply embarrassed by it. I am ashamed of not only the disorder but the fact that it has created so many phobias with which I have trouble fighting. Making plans to meet up with friends does not usually mean I’ll be able to carry them through. Just this past week there was an event at The Castro Theatre and I was unable to even contemplate attending. A few years back and you would had to fight me to prevent me from attending.

It just sucks.

I’ve not been able to go into a movie cinema since May of this year. A walk into a mall is a true challenge. Visits to the pharmacy, doctor or therapist are tough but I mange to do those. I can go to the grocery store and the local coffee shop without too much worry. However, I need to arrive to the store between 6:45 / 7:00 am to be sure I can do it without having to tool the process. I can do the coffee shop at about any time as long as I know I’m drinking the coffee outside while walking or back in my car. However, meeting up for dinner in a restaurant on a weekend night is almost an impossibility. My friends and family know that if we go out, I usually need to be outside to hang.

This is how my life “works” right now. It will be getting better. I push forward past the fear as best I can, but in the coming year I hope to be a better master of these coping techniques into full-on hardcore tools.  Will I be able to return to full-time and rewarding employment? I have no idea.

Submerged, floating and ready to explore himself inside out to through to the core of earthly identity. William Hurt Altered States Ken Russell, 1980 Cinematography | Jordan Cronenweth

Submerged, floating and ready to explore himself inside out to through to the core of earthly identity.
William Hurt
Altered States
Ken Russell, 1980
Cinematography | Jordan Cronenweth

At the moment the bigger picture must be pushed aside until the daily challenges are met. Currently, my main focus is on gaining better access to coping techniques. Upcoming plans involve visiting in-laws in Canada, a  nephew on The Cape and a soon to be born nephew in NYC. All of which involve getting on crowded planes and being in crowded social situations. All of these upcoming visits are very important to me, but sometimes it is hard to view things as positive when I feel so threatened by the challenges involved.

"I like myself" Edward Norton Fight Club David Fincher, 1999 Cinematography | Jeff Cronenweth

“I like myself”
Edward Norton
Fight Club
David Fincher, 1999
Cinematography | Jeff Cronenweth

When I watch David Lynch’s Inland Empire or Mulholland Drive it is hard not to relate on some level to the plight of his heroines. An actress seemingly forever lost within her own identity and that of her roles. Which of her selves are real and which have been co-created for art? Which actress gets the part and which faces a tragic end? Or are they stuck in some cerebral horror logic that runs forever in circles? With each viewing of these two films I walk away with some new layer of meaning that confounds back to the meaning’s source. Mr. Lynch’s magical cinematic slight of hand.

Chuck Palahniuk’s novel, Fight Club, was a fascinating read into confused ideas around masculinity, friendship, love and life as we moved toward the 21st Century. All of the ideas and concepts literally fighting each other till the book’s end. David Fincher’s film adaptation took that novel of societal commentary and crafted a darkly comical and satirical view of an identity crisis that grows to fantastical and horrifying size.

Our Narrator attempts to calm and talk some since into his alter-hero who upends not only his world but possibly that of his culture. Brad Pitt / Edward Norton Fight Club David Fincher, 1999 Cinematography | Jeff Cronenweth

Our Narrator attempts to calm and talk some since into his alter-hero who upends not only his world but possibly that of his culture.
Brad Pitt / Edward Norton
Fight Club
David Fincher, 1999
Cinematography | Jeff Cronenweth

Like the novel, the film has bite. Unlike the novel, it pulsates into our mind as we watch a sort of white “Every Man” who can only accept himself by beating his damaged shell to a pulp of absolute submission and non-existence. Unrestrained, Absurdist by way of Surrealism gets a glam and bloody reboot in David Fincher’s 1999 Cult Film. This is a movie that amuses and amazes me every time I see it.

Another movie that has always fascinated me is Ken Russell’s final box office hit, Altered States. I suppose in reality it was more of a sleeper hit, but it was discussed and beloved by a Sci-Fi / Fantasy audiences that wanted a bit more for their money. Our Uncle Ken Russell had no idea what was in store for him when he accepted this American Film Studio “Job.” There is no question of Paddy Chayefsky’s talent, but his script’s goal was all but lost amidst some of the most laughable and intricate film dialogue ever put to page. Russell was intrigued by the philosophical ideas around identity and self-understanding via organic means, but how does one get to the meat of the film when bombarded by so much inexplicable intellectualized discussion? Ever innovative, Ken Russell instructed his profound Master Class Film Actors to speak their lines at top-notch speeds. William Hurt, Blair Brown, Bob Balaban and Charles Haid speak at a speed which almost seems to reach that of light itself. It works.

Dr. Jessup likes what he sees. At first, anyway. William Hurt Altered States Ken Russell, 1980 Cinematography | Jordan Cronenweth

Dr. Jessup likes what he sees. At first, anyway.
William Hurt
Altered States
Ken Russell, 1980
Cinematography | Jordan Cronenweth

The script’s dialogue could not be changed, but it was delivered with fast and masterful precession. But the winning card for Altered States is the fact that no one can deliver images to challenge notions of the human senses better than Ken Russell. Altered States soars when Russell is allowed to plunge the camera into Dr. Jessup‘s mind’s eye. At times stunningly beautiful, always symbolic to the concepts of The Human Condition, consistently horrific and magically tilting toward something beyond understanding — Ken Russell understood this film far better than the artist who wrote it.

One of many modern human symbols stretches, morphed and careening within the human psyche. Altered States Ken Russell, 1980 Cinematography | Jordan Cronenweth

One of many modern human symbols stretches, morphed and careening within the human psyche.
Altered States
Ken Russell, 1980
Cinematography | Jordan Cronenweth

Russell has no problem with the movie monster trope that Chayefsky ties to the Evolution Of Man, but he was far more interested in how that evolution has impacted not only our identities but our relationship to the present. Always at some sort of odds within itself, Altered States is entertaining and far more relevant than many care to admit. It is also is a very interesting bit of twisted cerebral fun. Ken Russell seems to be hiding just out of frame with his middle finger firmly up toward the overt intellectual spasms with which he had no choice but to work. Rebellious, but dead-on to the film’s core meaning.

Fears, symbology mix with neuro / intellectual impulses. Altered States Ken Russell, 1980 Cinematography | Jordan Cronenweth

Fears, symbology mix with neuro / intellectual impulses.
Altered States
Ken Russell, 1980
Cinematography | Jordan Cronenweth

David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive is a Surreal Neo-Noir nightmare. A perverse fantasy of dreams tossed from both the dizzying heights of movie stardom and the Lower than Low of the Hollywood outcast. In Hollywood, nothing is more horrifying than failure. There are two girls here. One of them is a Movie Star and the other a Failed Wanna-Be. But which girl is which?

There is a mysterious blue box and a blue key that promises to unlock its secrets. However one is not likely to resolve the film’s essential mystery of who is who.

I’ve never believed that was the point. The point is that when it comes to the pursuit of dreams, love and the resulting guilt — there is often no where left to go but to retreat into the circular horror of a fragmented identity.

The key to the box... Mulholland Drive David Lynch, 2001 Cinematography | Peter Deming

The key to the box…
Mulholland Drive
David Lynch, 2001
Cinematography | Peter Deming

This may be your film, but two things are most certainly true: This is the girl and This is not the girl.

Which girl is real? When you go this far for meaningless dreams and love as bitter as it is sweet, it really doesn’t matter.

Then we have Guy Maddin’s under appreciated brilliant experimental film, Keyhole. In an attempt to escape arrest, a gangster holds up in an old home with a mysterious hostage. Surrounded by police and with an unwilling hostage, the gangster, Ulysses Pick, soon finds himself wandering through the decaying house’s many corridors, rooms and memories. Is it ghosts who threaten his sanity? Not likely.

Looking for understanding... Jason Patric Keyhole Guy Maddin, 2011 Cinematography | Benjamin Kasulke

Looking for understanding…
Jason Patric
Keyhole
Guy Maddin, 2011
Cinematography | Benjamin Kasulke

The biggest threat in this decaying old house is our protagonists’ own identity. First as voyeur, then curious and finally desperate — Ulysses begins to interact with a troubled childhood, past crimes, buried love, guild and ultimately facing the truth of his mother. Splintered, confused, sad and spent — Maddin’s Ulysses is trapped within the fragmented and often disjointed aspects of himself.

A ghost isn't nothing, but it also isn't everything... Keyhole Guy Maddin, 2011

A ghost isn’t nothing, but it also isn’t everything…
Keyhole
Guy Maddin, 2011

Like a perverse fable, he must stand in judgement. A judgement not to be delivered by ghosts or memories. A judgement issued from deep within the unknown self.

So while I do like to get lost in this dark, experimental, intelligent and surreal worlds that explore complex ideas around “identity” — I also gain break from the reality of actually sorting through my personal issues to regain the ability to function. There are a vast number of strange films dealing with identity. From the heights of Art House Cinema with Repulsion, Belle de Jour, 3 Women and Persona to the obscurity of films like Simon Killer, Bellflower, Hesher, Bullhead, Reality, Institute Benjamenta, Brazil or Performance. 

The subject is himself, but the exploration takes him far deeper. Altered States Ken Russell, 1980

The subject is himself, but the exploration takes him far deeper.
Altered States
Ken Russell, 1980

The question and exploration of identity and its meanings are limitless and often limiting.

Matty Stanfield, 12.13.2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I was wondering if you could do me a favor and write a think piece on Polanski’s Repulsion? Perhaps you could post it on your blog. I’d really appreciate it.”

"The nightmare world of a virgin's dreams becomes the screen's shocking reality!" REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965

“The nightmare world of a virgin’s dreams becomes the screen’s shocking reality!”
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965

This request brought me back to my college daze. An English Major, during my sophomore year a professor challenged me to form my semester thesis on Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter. The challenge was not the thesis, but the actual assignment:

Create a thesis “with something new” to offer about the Scarlet Letter.

An odd and somewhat cruel way to make or break my grade. I wanted to bang my then-stoner-head into a wall. I took a real leap into my deconstruction of Hawthorne’s novel. And, I pulled out all the stops.

On her way up to the flat she shares with her sister, Carol bites her nails. I was doing something similar as I tried to find something "new" in "The Scarlet Letter" Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

On her way up to the flat she shares with her sister, Carol bites her nails. I was doing something similar as I tried to find something “new” in “The Scarlet Letter”
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

My thesis argued that the book was an account of actual demonic possession. As I made my presentation to a class full of actual adults, I was met with snickering and eye-rolling. However, I had strange supporting information for every question designed to make me look the idiot. In the end, the professor gave me a “B.”

Not a horrible grade, but this was an advanced course in which I was the only student not yet working on their Masters. It was the lowest grade I ever received in a literature course. A year later I asked this professor why he gave me such a task. His answer? The conversation went something like this:

I wanted to take you down a peg or two. I didn’t feel a Sophomore should have been in that class.

So you wanted to humiliate me by having me read a book normally studied in Freshman year?

Yes and I wanted to give you an impossible assignment. I had no intention of failing you. My plan was to give you a “C” no matter what you presented.”

You gave me a ‘B.‘”

Yes. Your thesis was absurd, but you supported it well. I almost gave you an ‘A-‘ but your ridiculous rebellion against grammar would not allow me that opportunity.”

The following semester I discussed this with another professor who would become my university mentor and friend until her death in the mid-1990’s. She indicated that my experience was actually a surprising compliment from that professor.

So when an individual of some note asked me to write a piece about Roman Polanski’s Repulsion, I had to laugh. What can one possibly write about that infamous film that hasn’t been written about six million times before? I thought about it and politely declined. But as it turns out there is a strangely valid reason for this person’s request.

And so I now ask for your indulgence as I attempt to take another exploration into Repulsion.

Catching her reflection in a vase, Carol seems transfixed by the contour's warped perspective. Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Catching her reflection in a vase, Carol seems transfixed by the contour’s warped perspective.
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

It speaks volumes that 50 years after it first screened, Repulsion continues to not only entertain, but unnerve audiences. Roman Polanski’s first English-speaking film is at simultaneously experimental and resoundingly accessible. It also happens to be one of the most intimately disturbing films ever made. The intimacy of this film emanates not only from the style in which it is crafted but also from a universally shared fear of losing grasp with our own perception of reality. The film gradually pulls us into the protagonist’s hysteria leaving the viewer disoriented and distressed. I do not care for the term “hysteria” but I think it is perfectly suited here. By the time Polanski’s grim little movie comes to its ambiguous ending and circular cinematic “logic,” it is impossible to not relate to Catherine Deneuve’s character.

This resonation is the film’s most horrific element: deep down we all worry that sanity is just a few pegs away from leaving us alone, isolated and afraid beyond recognition.

Roman Polanski has always refused to answer direct questions about what we are seeing or how we are to interpret what is shown. While this is a smart move for any filmmaker, I suspect Polanski’s refusal is actually deeply valid. Certainly the movie is about a young woman going insane, but questions about “reality” vs. “hallucination” or simply “Surrealism” continue to form Repulsion‘s Film Theory discussion. However, the idea that Polanski himself was not entirely sure of what he was striving to present fails to hold water. Roman Polanski is far too intelligent a filmmaker and Repulsion is far too acutely acted, set-up and edited to have come from an unsure footing.

Moving closer is the vase's distortion somehow more aligned with Carol's perceptions? Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Moving closer is the vase’s distortion somehow more aligned with Carol’s perceptions?
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

I’ve read so many essays on this film. I would not know how to reference all of the different theories. These range from “Feminist Statement” to “It all really happens!” to “Childhood Rape Survivor / PTSD” all the way down to Cinematic Metaphor on a wide range of topics. One of the many metaphors tied to the film is the Counter-Cultural Impact of the 1960’s. Another ties the film to Sexual Revolutionary Reaction. Going even further beneath the surface of the film’s simple complexity have been theories about the actual meaning of the protagonist’s name. I must admit that even the most far-out theories interest me. The way we deconstruct artwork is always interesting and revealing.

Perhaps the most valid of the many theories is grounded in three Polanski films that are often referred to as The Apartment Horror Trilogy. One would have a hard time arguing against the connections between Repulsion, Rosemary’s Baby and The Tenant. All three of these films play with senses of perception, claustrophobic induced fears, paranoia and insanity. Then of course there is the knee-jerk tendency to connect Polanski’s profoundly horrific childhood, the devastating tragedy he endured in the late 1960’s and his personal sexual transgressions of the 1970’s which led him into exile. Certainly an artist’s life experience will color his/her work, but unless the artist is willing to discuss the connection — it really feels inappropriate to read the personal into the work. And yet can we just dismiss the facts that two of the characters are immigrants, deal with sexual confusion, are put in the position of outsiders and all fall prey to paranoia.

But my personal concept of this strangely timeless film is tied to perception. A deeply warped and disassociated perception that has been manifesting within the mind that when faced dead-on with confrontation, loneliness and isolation triggers a spasm into the darkest corners of insanity. The most telling signals Polanski delivers, with a great deal of assistance from Gilbert Taylor’s cinematography, are the ways in which he starts and ends the film. The first thing we see on the screen is Carol’s eye in extreme close-up. As the camera pulls back we realize that we are seeing Deneuve’s “Carol” staring out into space. She is clearly not looking at anything, yet there is something “off” about her expression. It hints that she might be looking at something which is not visible to us. In reality, she has sort of spaced-out during application of a manicure in the beauty salon that employees her.

The opening shot... REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

The opening shot…
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Her client, her co-worker and her boss all seem to think she is caught in the dewy haze of love. The pretty manicurist is daydreaming of her Prince Charming. If only they knew. Carol is an immigrant and she lives with her sister, Helene, in a fairly spacious and charming apartment. It is important to note that Carol’s apartment is simple and it appears spacious. However, after we enter the apartment with Carol it is clear that it is not all that large. Upon entering this home which will soon morph into a sort of self-imposed prison of horrors, we note that the entry way is short. The living room is off to the immediate left, the kitchen off to the immediate right. The hallway leads to the modern bathroom. The bedrooms appear at first to be opposite each other at the end of the hall.

Carol's "safe place" quickly transforms into a living, breathing, shape-shifting space of horrors. REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Carol’s “safe place” quickly transforms into a living, breathing, shape-shifting space of horrors.
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

It is also interesting to note that the apartment is appointed with furniture that would have most likely been accumulated from various sources. Only Carol’s elder sister seems to have taken the time to actually fashion a look for her bedroom. Both young women still have remnants of childhood in their respective rooms. However, there is an important difference between Carol and Helenes’ rooms: Helen has a couple of stuffed animals, but a sexy feminine atmosphere. Carol’s room is oddly void of personality. Yet there a few things of note: a child’s night lamp and a sense of untidiness. The living room has a cluttered collection of items which we can safely assume have all been placed by Helene. LifeMarie-Claire and gossip magazines lay near a simple turntable/radio with some 45’s and a couple of record albums. Judging by the way we will later see Carol rummage through the items in the living room — none of these things are hers and none seem to interest her. Except for one item.

It is Polanski’s repeated return to this item that it is clear that is great meaning here. An old childhood family photograph which we will later learn was taken in Brussels. This photograph seems draw Carol’s attention. She clearly wants to look it, but it seems to hold a threat within the borders of the frame.

A childhood family portrait taken in Brussels... REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

A childhood family portrait taken in Brussels…
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Early in the film Helene points out that Carol needs to be more social. She needs to get out more and meet people. As Helene begins to prepare a meal with a freshly skinned rabbit as the core component, Carol seems to only be interested in two things: Helene’s boyfriend who has begun to leave his personal items in Carol’s bathroom glass and a crack springing out from what appears to be some sort of kitchen ventilation screen. Helene has little patience for Carol’s dislike of her boyfriend. An impatience which we later will understand comes from the fact that Helene is dating a married man.

When Carol studies the crack in the kitchen wall she mutters, “I must get this crack mended.” Helene only briefly appears to be concerned by the comment. It is only with hindsight that the viewer wonders if that initial crack was ever there in the first place.  Helene’s boyfriend is loud, jovial and more than a bit of a flirt. He clearly disgusts Carol. When he dismisses the idea of eating a rabbit dinner, he promises to take Helene out on the town for a grand meal. Helene quickly places the skinned and seasoned rabbit in the tiny kitchen refrigerator. Carol is clearly upset that Helene is leaving her alone in the apartment but refuses to admit it. As Helene and her man step into the elevator to leave for some fun he points out that “something” is wrong with Carol and she should see someone. It is the first time we see Helene become upset. Perhaps a little too upset. She seems furious that he would insinuate that anything is wrong with her little sister.

Auto-pilot at the salon... Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Auto-pilot at the salon…
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

We have already witnessed Carol’s strange manner of falling into her thoughts. She has drifted away while applying nail polish causing the client to ask if she is asleep. Despite this sort of behavior she is able to communicate well with her boss explaining that the salon is out of a particular shade of polish, she is polite and she never appears hostile. If anything, she appears shy but friendly. When we follow her on her lunch break it is clear she is on a sort of auto-pilot as she walks. The only things that cause her to snap out of her “daydreaming” are the sexual catcalls that greet her as she passes a street construction crew.

A quiet walk seems to be an open invitation to sexual advances... Catherine Deneuve faces the catcalls. REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

A quiet walk seems to be an open invitation to sexual advances…
Catherine Deneuve faces the catcalls.
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

The initial shot shows Carol’s back and working class construction men. But after the catcalling begins, Carol can’t help but glance. Suddenly the camera perspective on the loudest of the crew presents a somewhat distorted shot of the man. The camera’s perspective makes him appear slightly distorted and evil. Of course, anyone would feel uncomfortable in this situation. This male public assertion of sexuality and sexual intent displaces the identity of women. They become nothing more than an object for sex. It is threatening. However, there is something about that camera angle and the way in which Carol reacts that seems to be not quite right.

Cracks in the walls and the pavement. Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Cracks in the walls and the pavement.
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

The other thing that snaps Carol out of “daydreaming” or zombie-like walking are a couple of cracks in the pavement. These cracks upon the cement ground which Carol treads cause her to halt and study them. It is as if the cracks in the pavement have pulled Carol into another type of “daydream.” So intense is her interest in these cracks, she calmly takes a seat on a public bench and stares at them. This is far more than “daydreaming.” This is at the very least OCD behavior only without any level of energy. Once again with hindsight, one can’t help but wonder what Carol is actually seeing as she stares at the cracks.

What does Carol see in the cracks? Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

What does Carol see in the cracks?
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Perception and Gilbert Taylor’s cinematography is key to understanding Repulsion. Returning to the film’s opening shot, if one thinks about the way in which Polanski chose to displays the film’s credits — it is clear that was far more than a “creepy” method to indicate a genre. Initially the title and words appear to be coming out from behind the iris of the eyeball, but very quickly any logic to the way the words appear on the screen are not limited to the eye itself. The letters and names float about without any level of logical editing. The credits present themselves in a visually discordant manner. And as the words scroll about the screen, the eyeball and eye socket seem to be twitching, blinking and gaze out and around but not at all in coordination with the words. Actually, if a person only sees this film once there is a feeling that Polanski’s budget has caused the credits to be done in a ramshackle messy manner that might have been intended to be a harmoniously clever horror-genre opener that has failed and simply looks like a poor but ambitious choice. After viewing the film even only once, it clear that these credits and the way in which Deneuve’s eye is reacting is all intentional. There is no connection between the eye and the credits that roll about it.

Throughout the film’s first act, we see Carol’s limited interactions in only a few spaces. Actually, the spaces in which we see Carol interact are essentially limited to three places: The beauty salon, the streets on which she walks and her shared apartment. Polanski and Taylor are careful to pace the presentation of Carol’s perceptions of these spaces and interactions slow enough so that our awareness is initially limited. We visit the salon and the streets about three times. Each time a bit more is revealed. The reveals are not so much about the spaces or interactions as they are about the way in which Carol is perceiving them.

"Are you alright?" Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

“Are you alright?”
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

The busy beauty salon appears small and a bit cramped. The client, the beautician and Carol barely seem to fit into the room where facials, massages and manicures are performed. But when Carol loses her focus, drifts off and cuts the finger of her client — her tray falls to the ground. Suddenly it appears there is far more space in the room than we initially thought. As Carol stares at a spinning nail polish bottle we become disoriented by Gilbert Taylor’s camera. There is an odd expansion of space and shadow. Carol seems almost animalistic as she watches the spinning bottle. A tiny bottle which due to the placement of camera and use of lens looks bigger than it is.

When her boss inquires about what is wrong, we realize that she has missed three full days of work without having ever called the salon. When pushed for an explanation, Carol clumsily mutters that an “Aunt arrived for a visit unexpectedly.” The salon boss automatically assumes that Carol is telling her that she was ill due to menstruation, it is apparent that this was not the meaning Carol was attempting to imply. As a co-worker helps her into her street clothes she encages Carol in a conversation. She suggests that Carol take in a movie. She manages to bring Carol out of her “shell” and gets her to giggle as the girl describes a scene from a Charlie Chaplin movie she has just seen. Carol seems connected, but her laughter becomes to feel like a nervous reaction. As the girl goes to hand Carol her purse, she notices it is open. She looks inside and discovers the head of the rabbit waiting amongst a compact and lipstick.

Walking without focus and ever-increasing ticks. Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Walking without focus and ever-increasing ticks.
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

In the beginning of the film we meet a potential suitor for Carol. Played by John Fraser, this would-be suitor seems harmless enough. This is not to say that he isn’t persistent. He follows Carol on her lunch break. Sits himself down at her table and pushes to get a date. Carol is polite, but clearly not interested. Or is she? She never clearly brushes Colin off. As he follows her back to the salon he presses for a date. She seems shy, but not entirely dismissive. She smiles. The second time she encounters the ever-pushy Colin, she is clearly forcing a smile. Despite his humor and flirtation, she never gives a clear signal. However, most men would let it go. She clearly is not going to fully agree to a date, but Colin presses on.

The viewer’s first time in the sisters’ apartment, we discover that Carol can hear her sister having sex. As Helene reaches orgasm, Carol looks forward toward her sister’s room and covers her ears with her pillow. We know she dislikes Helene’s married boyfriend, but it is never clear why. However, she does not hesitate to toss out his things. When Helene asks Carol why she has thrown out his things, Carol gives a strong declaration that she simply does not like him. However she states this in a passive tone. We have already noticed that his straight razor has caught her eye and thoughts. The second time she notices it she picks it up and studies it. Her face and eyes dulled, she is physically mute of thought.

Studying a straight razor. Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Studying a straight razor.
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

When Helene and her boyfriend leave for a trip to Italy, Carol seems more than a little panicked. How long will they be gone? 10 or 15 days. Maybe. Carol’s need for more rigidly defined dates is not just for reassurance, it is as if despair and fear demand it. Helene refuses to cater to the silly insecurities of her grown sister. But as the two leave, Carol is clearly concerned. As much as she despises Helene’s boyfriend, she’d rather put up with him than be without her sister.

She is physically repulsed by Helene’s boyfriend. Even the scent of an undershirt makes her vomit. Yet when she pulls out the plate of uncooked rabbit, she stares at it in the same way she has stared at the cracks and the straight razor. There is no clear indication of what she might be thinking, but she is not repulsed. The scent of an undershirt makes her ill, but as the rabbit begins to rot in the living room it causes her no concern. The phone rings and we discover she has the straight razor which she sits on the rabbit’s plate. As we will soon learn, she uses that razor to cut off the rabbits head. A head which she stores in her purse.

Sister's uncooked rabbit does not seem to bother Carol, but something about the bunny's head is of particular interest. The first use of the straight razor. Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Sister’s uncooked rabbit does not seem to bother Carol, but something about the bunny’s head is of particular interest. The first use of the straight razor.
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Looking back earlier in the film after her sister leaves for Italy, Carol walks about the apartment. She looks at the family photograph. She glances through her sister’s record collection. She walks into her sister’s bedroom. She looks around. She approaches her sister’s wardrobe. She opens the door and examines one of Helene’s sexy dresses. Carol seems to study the dress. As she moves the wardrobe’s mirrored door, we catch a quick glimpse of a man’s reflection behind her. It is a jarring moment. Without any sort of musical cue, it is a scene that never fails to make me jump.

It is shortly after this that the audience is put in the position of not knowing if the steps Carol seems to hear in her apartment are actually in her apartment or in one above or below. No, they must be in her apartment. We notice that her wardrobe is blocking a thus far unknown door. A light goes on behind that door. It may not always become obvious to the viewer upon the first viewing of the film, but this door is suspect. Where does it lead? Carol’s bedroom is opposite from Helene’s. Isn’t it? Wait, are the two bedroom now next to each other? Later those steps behind that door will force the door open — pushing Carol’s wardrobe out of the way. The man who emerges rapes Carol.

Sometimes the hall's walls turn into a flesh-like surface. Other times aggressive male arms emerge to ravage and rape Carol. Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Sometimes the hall’s walls turn into a flesh-like surface. Other times aggressive male arms emerge to ravage and rape Carol.
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

There is no question that these are rapes. But there no confusing the fact that Carol has imagined them. There is a bit of confusion regarding her reactions to these sexual violations. She seems at once horrified and aroused. We know these rapes are rape fantasies. We know this because we have seen Carol rush from her sister’s bedroom into the hall. She touches the hall wall and it appears to be a soft porous surface in which her hands leave an impression. Wait. Is the hall suddenly a wall of flesh? Soon arms will emerge from the wall body and seemingly sexual violate Carol. Once again, her reaction is a mix of shock, horror and possibly sexual pleasure. Later she will walk down the hallway which fills with outreaching, grabbing male arms.

A walk down the hall becomes a sexual threat that offers no escape. Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

A walk down the hall becomes a sexual threat that offers no escape.
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

During one particularly brutal rape, the screen fades to black. When we return we find Carol laying nude on the floor of the hall. She does not look traumatized. It is actually the only time in the film that Carol looks relaxed. A jarring phone ring will snap her back into a state of frenzied paranoia and fear. The cracks are getting worse. They are no longer limited to just the two in the kitchen. At one point Carol cautiously approaches the childhood family photograph. As we see discomfort and fear grip her eyes and body, the wall behind the photograph cracks apart threatening to crumble to pieces. Carol flips on a light only to see the entire wall crack apart.

She had planned on getting the crack in the kitchen mended, but new cracks are emerging everywhere. Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

She had planned on getting the crack in the kitchen mended, but new cracks are emerging everywhere.
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

As Carol descends into insanity her perspective has taken over every aspect of the apartment’s space. After her desperate suitor has attempted to call her over and over again, he has a few drinks and works up the nerve to show up at her front door. The once pushy, but somehow nice guy suddenly takes on a threatening aspect. Carol looks through her front door peep hole and so does Gilbert Taylor’s camera. Distorted and furious, Colin demands that Carol open the door or he will bust it down.

Turns out this is not an idle threat. He lunges at the door. Carol backs away from the door. She reaches for a heavy metal candle stick. Her once kindly suitor breaks through the front door’s lock and busts into Carol’s warped space. Even though he tries to apologize for his behavior and expresses his love and desire for Carol, it is too late. He is a threat. He is danger. The small entry way no longer appears small. It seems very dark and long. The camera’s perspective reveals a nosy elderly neighbor looking in as Colin tries to defend his actions.

Does this potential suitor really have good intentions? If so, why did he break the door's lock to secure access to Carol's apartment? A nosy neighbor watches from the hall. John Fraser & Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Does this potential suitor really have good intentions? If so, why did he break the door’s lock to secure access to Carol’s apartment? A nosy neighbor watches from the hall.
John Fraser & Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Carol refuses to make eye contact. When Colin notices the old neighbor spying on them, he walks down the once short entry way, the elderly woman rushes into her apartment. As he attempts to close the door, Carol’s fear turns to rage.

He just wants to be "with her." Metal candlestick at the ready... John Fraser & Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

He just wants to be “with her.” Metal candlestick at the ready…
John Fraser & Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Carol is no longer passive. She brutally attacks her suitor. Putting all her force into it, Carol bludgeons Colin to death. Blood splatters all over the door. Carol does not seem to be concerned that she has just murdered someone, but she is very upset by the sight of blood coming out of his ear and staining the door. She drags Colin down the ever-expanding hallway and manages to get his body into the tub of water that she had drawn earlier and had allowed to overflow. Suddenly full of manic energy, Carol uses the candlestick to hammer a shelf she pulls from the kitchen to act as a barricade for the apartment entryway.

It isn’t long before the landlord shows up. Carol gives us a peep hole view of Patrick Wymark. Like Colin, the landlord must bust his way into the apartment. At first angry at the state of the apartment, he quickly changes his tune as he looks at Carol in her almost sheer night gown. Soon rage gives way to lechery.

Peephole perspective: the unwanted visit from the landlord. Patrick Wymark REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Peephole perspective: the unwanted visit from the landlord.
Patrick Wymark
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

As he brutishly attempts to mount Carol, she pulls out the straight razor and viciously begins slashing him. Filmed in black and white with Catherine Deneuve’s maniacal slashing, blood spurts everywhere. It only takes a few minutes before it is clear that Carol has hit some vital veins.

"You would not even have to worry about the rent..." Patrick Wymark propositions Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

“You would not even have to worry about the rent…”
Patrick Wymark propositions Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

She has committed her second murder. Once again, she seems more concerned with the mess than the murder. She pushes the sofa over on top of the dead landlord to hid him and his mess from her view.

Insanity has almost completely taken over. As we see Carol sitting in the once small and modern bathroom, we notice that the tub is no longer directly next to the bathroom door. The tiled walls are gone. The bathroom looks old, wet and moldy. It also appears to go deeper than possible. This is not the bathroom we have seen before. Welcome to Carol’s perspective.

Over the course of the film nearly every aspect of Carol’s apartment has been shifted, re-shaped, extended, shortened, architecturally re-arranged and bent to fit within Carol’s skewed perception. It isn’t until Helene and her boyfriend return from their holiday that the apartment’s spacial and visual aspects are fully formed back into the spaces to which we were first introduced. In other words, as Helen enters the wrecked blood stained apartment that “reality” returns to our perspective.

As our realistic perspective returns we discover that Carol has slipped far beneath insanity. Her eyes appear to be frozen open. She almost appears to be dead. But in the most horrifying way, our protagonist has slipped into something far worse than death. She is found under her bed in a catatonic state. While we are given no clear indicators, it feels as if this will be the state she will remain. Can there be anything more terrifying than be shut off from reality and stuck in the darkest and murky waters of a ill mind.

There are more than a few things wrong with this "picture." Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

There are more than a few things wrong with this “picture.”
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

As brilliant as Roman Polanski’s film and his use of Gilbert Taylor’s cinematography and Seamus Flannery’s art direction, there is another essential element to Repulsion that often is dismissed as “accidental” or “luck.” Catherine Deneuve gives a superb performance as Carol. At the time she was cast in Polanski’s film she was thought to be incredibly beautiful and might possibly have a strong career ahead of her in fashion modeling or light entertainment. Her appearance in the sensational French musical, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. The film and she had garnished a great deal of well deserved attention, but once again — she was hardly more than a beautiful face. Jacques Demy had not required a great deal from her in the female leading role. Her own singing voice was not used. Essentially all she needed to do was look happy, mad and sad while lip synching to another’s voice. (Actually, she and all the actors were dubbed and they were required to sing along with the recordings.)

But her work in Repulsion is not just happy accident. Her presence and being fill the screen and linger in the mind. Her mannerisms, twitches, horror and cautious use of words is never doubted. It should be noted that Polanski and the two others who assisted him in adapting the screenplay knew very little about mental illness.

Catherine Deneuve proves her on-screen value as Carol REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Catherine Deneuve proves her on-screen value as Carol
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Deneuve’s stares and facial expressions are never over or under done. Somehow she captured the presence of a fractured mind. And she did so brilliantly. Barely a year would pass before Luis Buñuel pursued her to play the lead in the still controversial and highly regarded experimentation into the Surreal, Bell de jour. His decision to cast her laid not just in her angelic beauty, but in what he saw in Polanski’s film. This might be the other overly examined film from the 1960’s.

I cringe when I hear film scholars or critics dismiss her 1965 portrayal as a lucky use of “icy beauty.” …This is a memorable and valid on-screen performance. In fact there is very little of the “real” Catherine Deneuve present. If one is to fault any aspect of her performance it lies in the hands of the film’s stylist. The only thing about Repulsion that fails is Deneuve’s always flawless hair. Her face covered in sweat and smeared-on lipstick with eyes reflecting sheer terror, her hair is still brilliantly coiffed. Hair aside, I find it hard to believe that any other could have played this role better. And, of course, Deneuve has gone on to build one of the most enduring and important film careers in cinematic history. A year ago Pierre Salvadori managed to convince her to take the female lead in his little seen cinematic gem, In the Courtyard.

Oh no. Not another crack!?!? Catherine Deneuve at 72 plays Mathilde In the Courtyard Pierre Salvadori, 2014 Cinematography | Gilles Henry

Oh no. Not another crack!?!?
Catherine Deneuve at 72 plays Mathilde
In the Courtyard
Pierre Salvadori, 2014
Cinematography | Gilles Henry

This was the first time I’ve ever seen a filmmaker sneak in a nod to her Repulsion performance. In the 2014 French independent film she plays a retired elderly woman who is slipping into a state of depression. Her character becomes obsessed with a crack in her living room.

Returning back to the theory of Repulsion being an examination of insanity’s perspective, as Helene stands back in shock and her boyfriend lifts the now catatonic and mentally absent sister to carry her toward the ambulance and police who are on their way — Polanski has Gilbert Taylor expertly flow through and over the apartment’s wrecked state. As always, Taylor’s camera work is steady and intently focused to slowly capture the film’s closing image. As we move closer to Carol’s childhood picture, Polanski finally allows us to actually see Carol as a child. The whole family is encaged and posing happily. Save Carol. The little girl stands rigid and staring off at something. Many cinephiles like to say that we are meant to think that she is staring at the man (father? uncle?) to her left. The idea being that the child is looking at her victimizer.

This does not hold up. As the camera moves in it is clear that she is not looking at anyone in this photograph. And based on the film’s shared perspective, her gaze has never been focused on anything within the realm of perceived reality. Polanski drives this point even more precisely as the image has been edited slowly to black out the rest of the photo. We can only see a little girl with a disturbing look on her face. The camera never stops it’s slow zoom. Taylor’s camera is aiming directly into young Carol’s right eye. The same eye from which the film’s title slipped out at the beginning of the film. The zoom continues until little Carol’s eye becomes nothing but speaks blurred into darkness.

Repulsion attempts to pull us to a restricted place that has been growing since childhood: the warped psyche of insanity.

And we come back to the childhood photograph of Carol. Polanski chooses to slowly zoom into Carol's eye until it becomes a blur of particles. An isolated stare into horror. REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

And we come back to the childhood photograph of Carol. Polanski chooses to slowly zoom into Carol’s eye until it becomes a blur of particles. An isolated stare into horror.
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Matty Stanfield, 10.22.2015

When I hear or read “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger!” I want to curl myself into a cataclysmic ball of rage and explode. No. The horrors and challenges in life that do not kill you do not really make you stronger. In reality they make you cynical, confused, damaged and tired. When discussing the survival of child abuse trauma we enter a whole new realm of fresh Hell.

Jean-Luc Godard Editing "Weekend" Paris, 1967 Photographer | Unknown to me

Jean-Luc Godard
Editing “Weekend”
Paris, 1967
Photographer | Unknown to me

For me this saga continues. It isn’t like I’m not fighting like hell to resolve it. But as I’m so tired of hearing: “There is no time limit on these things.” or “Let’s just take it day by day and further develop coping skills” or worse yet, “But you are getting better!” But I push onward and forward as best I can. I don’t know, maybe I am stronger because of what I endured or survived. However, I can’t help but thing I’d be more effective had I not had to survive such things. I suspect I’d still be strong. Who knows? It is hardly worth considering. As much as I hate this phrase, it does hold true: “It is what it is.

And sometimes we just don’t have the ability to change “it.” The “it” just sits on us as we try to understand exactly what “it” needs or wants so that we can be free of the weight. Damage is impossible to avoid. If you are 30 and have not been seriously damaged in one way or another – you are most likely not actually living life. You are probably avoiding it. Sadly, some damage is more significant than other types.

And this brings me to Film Art.

And chaos reigns. Surrealistically, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are working through some of life's cruelest turns. Antichrist Lars von Trier, 2009 Cinematography | Anthony Dod Mantle

And chaos reigns. Surrealistically, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are working through some of life’s cruelest turns.
Antichrist
Lars von Trier, 2009
Cinematography | Anthony Dod Mantle

Much to the bewilderment of my love, my family and my friends — I often find “comfort” in the darkest of film. Steve McQueen’s Shame is especially important to me. As is Christophe Honre’s Ma Mere or Darren Aronofsky’s Requiem for a Dream or Lars von Trier’s Anitichrist.

These are very bleak and almost apocalyptic movies. Yet, each one seems to offer me a chance to escape into someone else’s personal horrors and remind me that not only am I not alone — but it could be ever so much more worse. These films also offer resonation and catharsis.

Sugar-sweet brain candy cinematic manipulations tend to annoy me. I find no means of escape within them. If one is particularly good, such as Mel Brook’s Young Frankenstein — if I’m in the right mood I will love watching it over and over again.

Persona Ingmar Bergman, 1966 Cinematography | Sven Nykvist

Persona
Ingmar Bergman, 1966
Cinematography | Sven Nykvist

But if one of those toxic waves crash into me I’d much prefer to watch Ingmar Bergman’s Persona or David Lynch’s Earaserhead. Another couple of films that provide me with escape is Luis Bunuel’s Belle de jour, Robert Altman’s 3 Women and Ki-duk Kim’s Pieta. As well as David Cronenberg’s Naked Lunch, Nicolas Roeg’s Don’t Look Now or Godard’s Weekend. All of these movies project complex ideas and themes that require the mind to focus and think about what is being shown (or often not shown) — therefore, I find a way to temporarily escape my problems.

I jump into the problems and horrors examined in these dark films.

A serial killer roaming through the canals of Venice are the least worries facing Julie Christie as she and her husband face the despair, grief, isolation, guilt and tragedy of loss. Don't Look Now Nicolas Roeg, 1973 Cinematography | Anthony B. Richmond

A serial killer roaming through the canals of Venice are the least worries facing Julie Christie as she and her husband face the despair, grief, isolation, guilt and tragedy of loss.
Don’t Look Now
Nicolas Roeg, 1973
Cinematography | Anthony B. Richmond

The resonation most likely comes from the one actual gift of survival: The ability to understand. While I do not suffer with Sex Addiction or an inability to connect beyond the sexual, I do feel an understanding and empathy for those who suffer with it. When life teaches one that his/her’s worth is tied to sexuality, it leaves that individual with every limited abilities to connect and encage. If ever mankind is haunted by demons, they are manifestations of Self-Loathing, Isolation and Loneliness. The two characters in Shame roam about a blue-toned Manhattan lost, unsure, impotent and desperate.

"We're not bad people. We just come from a bad place." Michael Fassbender Crushing under the weight of human damages SHAME Steve McQueen, 2011 Cinematography | Sean Bobbitt

“We’re not bad people. We just come from a bad place.”
Michael Fassbender
Crushing under the weight of human damages
SHAME
Steve McQueen, 2011
Cinematography | Sean Bobbitt

Neither knows how to escape their respective prisons. The actors, Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan do not even need much dialogue. So strong are these talents, they can convey more with a glance, a gesture or most powerfully for Mulligan — in the singing of a song. Mulligan’s deconstruction of the standard, New York, New York, belongs on a pristine shelf of the perfect actor moment.

"If I can make it there..." Carey Mulligan SHAME Steve McQueen, 2011 Cinematography | Sean Bobbitt

“If I can make it there…”
Carey Mulligan
SHAME
Steve McQueen, 2011
Cinematography | Sean Bobbitt

In her hands and voice, the infamous anthem becomes a defeatist glimpse into grief and regret.

In Ki-duk Kim’s dark and angry, Pieta, we are stolen into a world of injustice, cruelty, betrayal and vengeance. Min-so Jo plays “the mother” to Jung-jin Lee’s “son.” Both navigate with minimal use of words. Contrary to what one might expect from the often soap-opreaish work one normally sees these two actors in, here they are both given the freedom to fully explore the veins under the skins of their characters.

Ki-duk Kim’s film is a set-up for both the viewers and the two leading characters. There is nothing holy to be found in this Pieta. The catharsis of vengeance comes with a price that I can only believe is absolute truth. While one might fantasize of extracting vengeance, the reality is far removed from the pleasure we might expect.

Jung-jin Lee opens the door to the parent, Min-so Jo, who abandoned him with a knife at the ready... Pieta Ki-duk Kim, 2012 Cinematography | Young-jik Jo

Jung-jin Lee opens the door to the parent, Min-so Jo, who abandoned him with a knife at the ready…
Pieta
Ki-duk Kim, 2012
Cinematography | Young-jik Jo

Being a survivor, I often find myself imagining what I would do to my attacker if I could and how very happy it would make me. However, being a survivor has also taught me how to examine the tragedy from all sides.

There would be no happiness or pleasure in securing vengeance even if I could. My attacker has long since died. The bitter truth is that we humans are complicated animals. The reality is a child not only needs the love of his parent, he requires it. No matter how cruel a parent might be, there is something in us that needs to be able to love that person who gave us life. And while I have no children, I’m mature enough to know that a parent can feel great love for a child and still manage to deeply harm him/her.

It is a set-up. Despair, Grief & Anger turn to Vengeance.  Min-so Jo Pieta Ki-duk Kim, 2012 Cinematography | Young-jik Jo

It is a set-up. Despair, Grief & Anger turn to Vengeance.
Min-so Jo
Pieta
Ki-duk Kim, 2012
Cinematography | Young-jik Jo

The insanity that drives the parent to such acts in many ways has nothing to do with the love they might feel for the child. It is a tricky proposition to understand and requires a great deal of emotional logic to place this in the appropriate context, but often a victimizing parent is a victim themselves. The strange and very twisted truth is I know my father loved me. I know this to my core. I also know that he damaged me in ways beyond repair. Despite this, when he died I felt no relief. I only felt grief. A grief far deeper than I had ever felt before or since. So much unresolved and so much confusion. As the characters in Pieta secure their “need” for revenge — there is no turning back. They reduce themselves to the level of the victimizer. The “victory” comes at a price too strong to bear.

It is interesting and very telling that I seem to avoid films which tackle the subject of fathers raping, harming and emotionally abusing their sons. Perhaps this is too dark for even me. When I see a film addressing this it rings too close to my own horrors and confusions related to my late father. It is as if I need a bit of distance. These kind of conflicts involving a mother and a son are distanced enough from my life that I’m able to find something to gain.

Perhaps the most confusing film in which I find escape is Christophe Honre’s controversial and often banned film, Ma Mere.

"Wrong isn't what we're about to do. Wrong is wanting to survive it." Ma Mere Christophe Honre, 2004 Cinematography | Hélène Louvart

“Wrong isn’t what we’re about to do. Wrong is wanting to survive it.”
Ma Mere
Christophe Honre, 2004
Cinematography | Hélène Louvart

Very loosely adapted from the infamous and posthumously published George Bataille novel which intended to shock as a way of both societal and cultural commentary — Christophe Honre had something a bit different in mind. Honre is very intellectual filmmaker. He is almost cliched French. He will stubbornly create a grim musical that refuses denial by a culture which seems to hold little value or appreciation of film musicals. He likes to force his hand. With the great Isabelle Huppert as his leading lady, Bataille’s novel is transferred to the modern day Canary Islands. We are expected to already know that this beautiful place has long succumbed itself to serve as both a tourist destination and a location for anything goes morality. Public sex, sex workers and fringe-dwellers litter the beaches and fill the after hours bar-hopping mall where the characters wonder about in the film’s first  act. Honre does not care to focus his attention to that.

"The pleasure only begins the moment the worm is in the fruit." Isabelle Huppert and Louis Garrel Christophe Honre, 2004 Cinematography | Hélène Louvart

“The pleasure only begins the moment the worm is in the fruit.”
Isabelle Huppert and Louis Garrel
Christophe Honre, 2004
Cinematography | Hélène Louvart

In the film version of Ma Mere, he seeks to tell the very complex, grim and perverse relationship of damaged mother to her damaged son. This is not a sexy movie, but it is very much about sexual experimentation, humiliation and a vexingly profane philosophy that the mother is hellbent on searing into the mind of her barely adult child. Louis Garrel has been raised by his strict Catholic grandmother — a family decision to “protect” him from his depraved parents who have long been exiled to The Canary Islands far from their families. We learn a great deal about the family history in the most casual of ways. Isabelle Huppert’s performance is a below the belt gut punch of realism over what must have appeared as absurd in script form.

Yet as Isabelle Huppert delivers a stream of profane and almost comical ideas, it is never funny. It feels real.

As Garrel’s “son” grapples with his own torn feelings about the loss of his Grandmother and her faith, he is also pulled toward this cruel version of a mother. While he may be technically adult, he is an innocent. He desperately craves the love and acceptance of his mother. He is unable to filter this need.

As she leads him into her confused and brutal world of psychological cruelty, BDSM and most certainly sadomasochistic rituals, the son becomes a sort of pawn with which his mother cannot decide to crush or love.

Victim turned Victimizer Isabelle Huppert and "Friend"  Ma Mere Christophe Honre, 2004 Cinematography | Hélène Louvart

Victim turned Victimizer
Isabelle Huppert and “Friend”
Ma Mere
Christophe Honre, 2004
Cinematography | Hélène Louvart

We learn that her marriage to his father was born of statutory rape. Most likely he himself is the result of this rape. The film goes farther than it needs, but it is clear that the mother’s abuse is a conflicted result of anger, insanity and love.

As I watch these two almost surrealist characters perform their tragic dance, I do feel a worrying reality to it all. And of course this is the point of Ma Mere. We love our mothers. Our mothers love us. It does not mean they are not capable of inflicting cruelty beyond measure. The mother could just as easily be replaced with a father and a daughter for the son. But Mon Pere would be even more controversial and serve the idea of the film in an even more complex way.

Even his early childhood nanny can't seem to stop the son from desperately seeking the love of his mother... Dominique Reymond and Louis Garrel  Ma Mere Christophe Honre, 2004 Cinematography | Hélène Louvart

Even his early childhood nanny can’t seem to stop the son from desperately seeking the love of his mother…
Dominique Reymond and Louis Garrel
Ma Mere
Christophe Honre, 2004
Cinematography | Hélène Louvart

Most importantly, Christophe Honre’s film never seeks to eroticize or celebrate the profane actions of its characters. It also  does not seek to judge them. It doesn’t need to. As Ma Mere grinds into its abrupt and deeply disturbing end, the tragic implications of human damage are clear. Worst yet, they seem to be on-going.

"Maybe now you know desire reduces us to weakness." Isabelle Huppert Ma Mere Christophe Honre, 2004 Cinematography | Hélène Louvart

“Maybe now you know desire reduces us to weakness.”
Isabelle Huppert
Ma Mere
Christophe Honre, 2004
Cinematography | Hélène Louvart

While none of the above is my experience, I relate enough to feel the resonation of the art. It acts as a catharsis. I take a great deal of solace in knowing that I caught and understood what I “survived” soon enough to ensure that the abuse stops here with me. But in an all too clear way, what I survived has not made me stronger. The tragedy of what happened to me follows me constantly. And like the son in Christophe Honre’s tragically forgotten film, the implications seem on-going.

Matt Stanfield, 9.20.2015

An Adam Sandler

With each viewing of Luis Bunuel’s classic film, Bell de Jour, the power of the film seems to just get stronger. And, as Criterion has released a pristine and fully restored original version of the film to BluRay it seems a good time to write a bit about this very important cinematic masterpiece.

If one is to comment on this film by Luis Buñuel he/she must take The Surreal Movement and the era in which this movie was made.

As a Surrealist, Luis Buñuel was not concerned with providing particularly narrative conclusions or logical explanations. As a filmmaker, his focus was on capturing both “reality” and “fantasy” in order to merge the two which creates true Surrealism.  Meaning the state of art where the audience might not ever be completely sure where “fantasy” begins or ends and in what place “reality” slips in or out. A quiet discomfort comes with the odd familiarity of Surrealism.

Personally, I think it is safe to state that Luis Buñuel viewed life as surreal.

Catherine Deneuve and Luis Bunuel on set of Belle de Jour

I believe that he and such Surrealist as Salvador Dali were on completely different planes of thought than most of their fellow established/remembered artists of their era.  Though this may not be a fair statement if one considers such artists as Jean Genet, Kenneth Anger, Alejandro Jodorowsky, Raúl Ruiz, Fernando Arrabal or Jan Švankmajer who all tap into the Surrealist filmmaking experience. But if there is any one film artist who come close to this type of thinking in the 21st Century it might most probably be David Lynch. However, even with Lynch and the other artists I’ve mentioned, there is a most definite “vocabulary” at play. Metaphor and hidden meanings run throughout the work of these artists — and even the late Fellini or some works by David Cronenberg and Terry Gilliam flit toward Surrelaist concepts. But, they are not Surrealists in the true sense of the word as I understand it.

And, surreality must be kept in mind when watching Belle de Jour.

Another element that must be remembered when watching a film made in 1966 and released in 1967 is to expect the movie to be dated.

Even by today’s standards, Belle de Jour is way ahead of the cultural taste curve. Though, it is hard to imagine how most viewers responded to this French film when it was first released. The movie was considered controversial, perverse, bordering on pornography and shocking. I should think the average person watching this movie today would not feel it fits into any of those definitions. However, back when the film was released in caused a great deal of confusion within both the circles of film critics and intellectual audiences who championed it.

Catherine Deneuve as Belle de Jour

The challenge of trying to fully understand what the film is saying/showing still continues today. Even still, because of the time it was made, Buñuel’s approach to subject matter is now unintentionally confusing.

Luis Buñuel’s Belle de Jour bravely explores the mind of a female masochist at a time when the true understanding of such a person was not yet fully formed. In fact, it largely still isn’t. And, in 1967, while the psychiatric community and people were starting to understand the extent of what child abuse can cause later that child’s adult life — there was not a true understanding of the long term damaging aspects of sexual child abuse or the ways in which religion can further a child’s view of the world after having experienced molestation. The unarticulated and unspeakable guilt, horror, pleasure, self-loathing and desire for order and acceptance were not fully understood by most. Psychiatry was only just starting to get a firm grasp on this themselves. In the mid to late ’60’s our culture did not yet even have the ability to fully understand or accept the horrors of “shell shock” or PTSD other than for male soldiers who had survived terrible battles in war. Buñuel was charting new territory in a surreal way.

bells are ringing…

The Surrealist approach was probably his and the film’s saving grace with audiences. The mixing of a bored, wealthy and overly pampered woman’s fantasies with reality probably gave audiences a sense of appropriateness for finding humor and eroticism within the context of the story. With the lens of the 21st Century Culture, one must attempt to cleanse the collective pallet and accept that we are glimpsing into a surreal world created close to 50 years ago.

Even still, I can’t help but imagine how the average film audience must have responded to seeing French Beauty, Catherine Deneuve, in all her Yves St. Laurent and blond glory being bound, gagged, horse whipped, whoring herself out, being paid to play dead as her client masturbates below the coffin or being pelted with cow shit as her husband and lover both call her every vulgar name in the book. It is a bit startling now in 2012. How would this have been viewed in 1967? I have read one source that notes that many men and women who saw the film were not really sure if the john was masturbating or merely shaking in horror and that many misunderstood the horse dung to simply be mud.

Catherine Deneuve in Belle de Jour

The sheer masochistic desire of the main character is established in the first scene of the film. Without apology or explanation. It is shocking and Alice’s sexual fantasy merges with reality without warning or clue to the audience.

The “story” is simple. An upperclass young married woman is finding her marriage unsatisfying. Her husband, who looks a bit too perfect — a bit like a sexless Ken doll, obviously holds no erotic connection for her. However, it is clear she is in love with him and he with her. She is distant and cold. She is rather “removed” from her own life. Her day is pointless. And, with very clever editing  Buñuel manages to show that Alice was sexually molested as a little girl and stubbornly refused to accept her first reception of Holy Sacrament Communion — most likely because she did not feel worthy of accepting the Holy Spirit. She had already been stained and tainted. It is clear that she desires a force of eroticism from her husband that is beyond his understanding. Alice is as lost about her own desires as he would be if he knew them.

Catherine Deneuve and Jean Sorel in Belle de Jour

Alice hears about the existence of underground Parisian brothels where lower class housewives earn extra money. She ventures to explore this world. And, it is in this brothel that she discovers and has her sexual desires fulfilled. Once she finds the courage to enter the brothel she quite literally lets her hair down but it isn’t until her first client that her Madam discovers that forceis a major if not key part of her sexual appetite. This is something the brothel Madame quickly sees as ideal for some of her clients. She sternly advises Alice that she needs a firm hand.

Deneuve and Geneviève Page in Belle de Jour

A Firm Hand. Belle de Jour

Catherine Deneuve in St. Yves Laurent with bondage in Belle de Jour

Punishment. Real or Fantasy?

Catherine Deneuve as Belle working…

As Alice (AKA Belle de Jour— she can only work from between 3pm and never later than 5pm) — ventures into unknown sexual territory, she begins to learn how to assert her power as a woman. However, she is unable to name it or actually understand that she holds any power. She grapples through her reality and fantasies as if in the dark and without control.

Catherine Deneuve in Belle de Jour

At the conclusion of Buñuel’s movie the audience is given two endings. The two endings are literally interlaced at the beginning by visual and audio editing. Neither ending provides any resolution or clearly defined answer to our heroine’s situation. In fact, one could easily argue endlessly about which scenes are “real” and which are “fantasy”;  Did Alice actually work as a prostitute? Did anything we saw actually happen? How to explain the sounds we hear or the odd lines stated by the characters which feel so out of sync with the situation as it unfolds?

It is pointless to find any logical explanation for Belle de Jour.  This is clearly not Luis Buñuel’s intention. The merging of the “real” with the “fantasy” is the “surreal” and the perfect way in 1966  to attempt to explore such a culturally challenging topic as The Female Masochist.

Catherine Deneuve treading softly and without any clear idea of where the character is heading in Belle de Jour

If one requires a point to art – then my suggestion is to look at Belle de Jour as perfect example of an accomplished artist who desires to make his audience think and contemplate what has been seen. A key desire that our culture seems to be losing at a horrifying pace. As a world culture, we appear to be losing the ability to actually think.

Catherine Deneuve playing dead in Belle de Jour

Another curious aspect of Belle de Jour as seen through the early 21st Century lens is the way the collective culture views “beauty” “acting” and “filmmaking” : I’ve heard and read that many feel that Denueve had not yet found her footing as an actress. That is rubbish. She is brilliant in this film and delivers exactly what Buñuel wanted. She presents a vacant void of a woman who only seems to spring to life when punished or enraptured. The character is not intended to be fully formed. Alice is a stunted beauty at the mercy of those around her because she does not have the self-awareness or strength to even recognize her psychological challenges.

Catherine Deneuve and Geneviève Page contemplate options at the brothel in Belle de Jour

Additionally,  I often feel ill when I hear or read how the current perspective on the female body is viewed. The women in Belle de Jour are beyond beautiful. Sadly, the cultural collective has changed the definition of beauty in an extreme manner. Media wants us to think that beautiful women are to be painfully thin with fake boobs and little to no body shape/curve. The French actresses in Belle de jour have curves. They are not “fat” — the very idea that someone would think that Catherine Denueve was fat in 1966 puzzles me, but many do!

Catherine Deneuve’s beautiful nude scene in Belle de Jour

What has happened to us that actresses like Angelina Jolie or Kiera Knightley are considered beautiful when it looks like they are in dire need of a sandwich.

Anyway, I regard Belle de Jourof the most important films ever made. And, I’m happy to note that for once, I’m not all alone in my opinion!

Catherine Deneuve waits for her erotic senses to awaken in Belle de Jour

If you’ve not seen it — check it out. And, it most certainly should be seen by anyone who has an appreciation for film as art.

Belle de Jour

Luis Bunuel, 1967