"Belle Toujours" *** (out of ****)Filmmaker Manoel de Oliveira is one of the most respected directors in the world. He has won and been nominated for numerous awards all over the world including having several films nominated for the palme d' or at Cannes and the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival.
In America however it is sadly a different story. His movies open to mixed reactions. Most of the general public has not only never seen one of his movies but they have probably never heard his name before either. I'm even willing to bet people who consider themselves filmbuffs have not seen one of his movies. It is because of this I wanted to review one of his movies.
Oliveira was born in Portugal in 1908, he is currently the oldest living filmmaker. And even in his old age the master finds time to make one movie a year. He is currently working on a new film.
He started out making documentaries, his first was in 1931, "Working on the Douro River". Eventually this lead to a career in feature length films. "Aniki-Bobo" (1942) was his debut.
Unfortunately his work is very hard to come by. A select few of his more recent films have been made available however. Of all the films he has made, I've only seen one, "A Talking Picture" (2003) which had an all-star international cast consisting of John Malkovich, Stefania Sandrelli and Catherine Deneuve. So clearly I am not an authority on his work. I'm still searching for his titles. But even after only seeing two films by the man, I recognize his talent and want to see as much of his work as possible.
"Belle Toujours" (2006) is a little seen sequel to Luis Bunuel's masterpiece "Belle de Jour" (1967). It was the story of a sexually repressed housewife (Catherine Deneuve) who finds a daytime job as a prostitute. It was typical of the kind of films Bunuel engaged in. Most of his work took a very cynical look at the upper-class. It has been years since I first saw "Belle de Jour", and I must admit I remember very little of it. Watching "Belle Toujours" I tried my hardest to recall scenes from the original. All I could think of was a dream sequence out in the woods where Deneuve fantasizes about getting gang banged, yes you read that right.
The final image in "Belle de Jour" was of Severine (Deneuve) with her crippled, wheel-chair bound husband, who knows nothing of her double life. Severine is afraid her husband's friend, Henri (Michel Piccoli) has told him of her secret, since he is the one who suggested it to her. The final image was of a tear in her husband's eye. But the question was never answered, did Henri reveal the secret? That is where "Belle Toujours" starts off.
Michel Piccoli reprises his role as Henri as he sees Severine (this time played by Bulle Ogier) at a classical music concert at the start of the film. After the concert he chases after her, following her to a bar. She has just left when he enters. He sits down and orders a drink in an attempt to get some information from the bartender (Ricardo Trepa). And he does, nothing extremely useful however. But after a few drinks, Henri brings the young man into his confidence and tells him his story of his relationship with Severine, without revealing his part.
After that night Henri doesn't give up his search. Fate keeps bringing the two together. He finds out where she lives and they casually meet. It is clear she remembers him and wants nothing to do with him. She is not the same person she was before. When do they finally meet de Oliveira pulls the camera back for an extreme long shot and as a result we cannot hear their conversation.
In many ways this is fitting. A lot of things happened off camera in "Belle de Jour" and de Oliveira is giving the characters their space by not allowing us to eavesdrop. Finally the two characters do meet for dinner at what I assume is Henri's hotel. As they eat they do not say as word. For us, the viewer, this actually creates some tension. I wasn't comfortable watching them sitting across from each other not speaking. I suppose in some way though that is how it often is in real life. We want something but when we get it we don't know how to react. Suddenly we have nothing to say.
All of this may not sound like much but I've actually just describe the entire movie for you, give or take a scene or two and not the final moments of the film. As you can tell "Belle Toujours" is very light on plot. And if you read some of the public's reaction you will notice this bothered a lot of people. Many feel this film, as well as most of de Oliveira's work, moves very, very slow.
There was a lot in "Belle Toujours" I quite honestly didn't understand. I had some difficulty figuring out de Oliveira's use of the camera. He has a lot of cut away shots of the Paris landscape. I looked for a deeper meaning but couldn't think of one. As for the film's final moments, what does it all mean. Where does "Belle Toujours" leave us? Does it really resolve anything? I suppose in a sense it does, but, is it satisfactory? In fact, was a sequel to "Belle de Jour" really needed?
But there are elements of the film which I must admit I found quite charming. The film has a very pleasant tone. While others complain the movie moves slowly, I found the pace brisk and carefree. The film is only 66 minutes. And though this is a sequel to a Bunuel film, de Oliveira makes the material his own. His films appear to be very conversational, at least this and "A Talking Picture" both were. I like movies like that. Think of Eric Rohmer, though without all the philosophy about love. Here the dialogue is all about memories.
For me the best moments in the film are not with Severine and Henri. They are in the bar with Henri and the bartender. I enjoy their conversation and banter. Henri and the bartender debate what really happened between these people and the nature of humans in general. These scenes also try and find some humor as two prostitutes (Leonor Baldaque and Julia Buisel) frequently visit the bar hoping to get picked up. They each have their eye on Henri who pays no attention to them.
The film also has some beautiful visuals. My favorite is at the end of the film, the dinner between Henri and Severine. It is by candle-light. Henri shuts off the room's light as light from the window comes through. We only see them in shadows. Here they are having a very personal conversation about what exactly happened 40 years ago. It is fitting it should take place in the dark. In the dark we lose our inhibitions. We speak and act more freely. While the characters may be sitting in the dark, their answers to questions will see the light. Now finally they may have some peace of mind and let go of these memories.
There is something sweet and almost innocent to the performances here. I'm not familar with Ogier, she was in last year's "The Duchess of Langeais" directed by Jacques Rivette. But for me Piccoli steals the movie. The film is told from his perspective, he carries the movie. Besides being in "Belle de Jour" he was in such films as Chabrol's "Wedding in Blood" (1973) and the charming musical by Jacques Demy, "The Young Girls of Rochefort" (1967). Here Piccoli is able to bring us into his memories. We want to hear his stories. I found him very charming in this role. There is a sensitivity to what he is doing. It is very effective.
I don't think a large portion of the public will admire this film. They will say it is slow moving, boring, too slight. They will complain it doesn't go anywhere. On the last account they may have a point. This film couldn't work without "Belle de Jour". That film is needed as a reference point. And that can hurt the film. "Belle Toujours", just like any sequel or film, must be able to stand on its own. "Toujours" doesn't really do that, but I appreciate the acting, the dialogue and the charm of the film. While it is not a great movie I do feel it is worth seeing regardless.
Posts
