Belle de Jour
(1967)
|
|
| Watch Trailer 0Share... |
Belle de Jour
(1967)
|
|
| Watch Trailer 0Share... |
| Cast overview, first billed only: | |||
| Catherine Deneuve | ... | ||
|
|
Jean Sorel | ... | |
| Michel Piccoli | ... | ||
| Geneviève Page | ... | ||
|
|
Pierre Clémenti | ... | |
|
|
Françoise Fabian | ... |
Charlotte
|
|
|
Macha Méril | ... |
Renee
|
|
|
Muni | ... |
Pallas
|
|
|
Maria Latour | ... |
Mathilde
|
|
|
Claude Cerval |
|
|
|
|
Michel Charrel | ... |
Footman
|
|
|
Iska Khan | ... |
Asian client
|
|
|
Bernard Musson | ... |
Majordomo
|
|
|
Marcel Charvey | ... |
Prof. Henri
|
|
|
François Maistre | ... |
L'ensignant
|
Severine is a beautiful young woman married to a doctor. She loves her husband dearly, but cannot bring herself to be physically intimate with him. She indulges instead in vivid, kinky, erotic fantasies to entertain her sexual desires. Eventually she becomes a prostitute, working in a brothel in the afternoons while remaining chaste in her marriage. Written by James Meek <james@oz.net>
To Author: SanTropez_Couch who did not understand Luis Buñuel's Belle De Jour
I have just read your review on Belle De Jour. I do not wish to bash it, I just want you to become aware of a few things since you obviously share an enthusiasm in film. Hopefully you will be able to understand Luis Buñuel a little better. First of all you wrote "It's not a masterwork," but this film is a masterwork. Why else would Martin Scorsese present it? You talked about being puzzled by the films weaving in and out of dream sequences, and that perhaps David Lynch would be able to do a more masterful job. You have to understand that Buñuel does this intentionally. He is a man who tries not to have a lot of logic in the story line of his movies. (Check out Phantom of Liberty) However there is a lot of symbolism that you missed in the film. It takes reading and maturity to find out what Buñuel is all about. The film is unclear weather the ending is a reality or fantasy. Even Buñuel himself said he did not know. If you wanted to make this film make sense it would kill what is great about it. Most people do not understand Buñuel that will and criticize him for doing something spectacular outside of the logical Hollywood system which people are use to. You also wrote "The film isn't very engaging visually." I have to disagree again. Look at the way Buñuel shots only Catherine Deneueve's feet in one of the earlier scenes before she enters the brothel. This is genius. Without showing concern on her face or through dialogue for that matter, he shows us what she is feeling through the actions of her walking. He does this again later in the film. Also you have to look Catherine Deneueve's apartment in this film, a very bourgeoisie like style which Buñuel likes to criticize. You can see how empty Catherine Deneueve's marriage to Marcel is. You really need to read up on Buñuel before you can criticize him like this. I'm not meaning to be rude either. I had no idea what was going on when I first watched this film. You should watch his first film ever made Un chien andalou. He made the movie have no logical sense at all.
Cheers,