BELLE DE JOUR

France, 1966, Colour.
Catherine Deneuve, Michel Piccoli, Jean Sorel.
Directed by Luis Bunuel.

Belle de Jour is one of the most popular films by Luis Bunuel. He made it after his return to Spain from Mexico in the early 1960s. In the 1960s he made quite a number of significant films including Nazarin and El. In Spain he began controversially with Viridiana and The Exterminating Angel. This won him acclaim at Cannes. With Belle de Jour he won the Golden Lion in Venice, 1967.

Bunuel is usually associated with more surreal styles of films – something he continued into the 1970s with such films as The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and The Phantom of Liberte. However, with Belle de Jour, he aims at more simple style, more direct realism – even though the fantasies of the central character are surreal.

This also was one of the most significant performances by Catherine Deneuve who had just made Repulsion for Roman Polanski as well as the lighter musicals The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and The Demoiselles of Rochefort.

Here Catherine Deneuve portrays a suburban housewife who is unsatisfied in her marriage with Jean Sorel. She decides then to act as a prostitute during the day hours. She contacts a madam – played by Genevieve Page. Amongst her clients are Michel Piccoli and Pierre Clementi.

The film is reticent in its visual presentation of sexuality. A marked difference to the more explicit films beginning to be made at the same period. The film is intellectual as well as sensual, explores issues of morality and sexuality as well as marriage and fidelity. It explores the relationship between fantasies and reality.

Forty years later veteran Portuguese director Manoel de Oliveira made a sequel to this film, calling it Belle Toujours. It has the character played by Michel Piccoli returning to visit Severine. Unfortunately she is not played by Catherine Deneuve but by French actress Bulle Ogier. It is a brief film – and offers reflections on the action of Belle de Jour as well as a reflection on the consequences.

I. The ultimate impact of this film? How enjoyable was it and satisfying? How puzzling and thought and emotion provoking? Why?

2. What attitude did the film show towards Severine? Sympathy for her? An understanding of how she thought and felt? Did it make any judgements on her?

3. How important for audience response was the visual beauty of the film? Colour, the performance of Catherine Deneuve? her appearance, decor, the fact there was no music? Comment on the fact there was ugliness in beauty.

4. How real was the film? The nature of the fantasies and the repressions, the real life experience of Severine? Which sections were fantasy and which sections were reality? How was one able to tell? How important were the final sequences with Pierre for judging the fantasy and reality? Which of the final endings was reality? Pierre dead and paralysed or Pierre alive? How did this indicate the whole film may have been a fantasy on Severine’s part and none of it really happened? How important was fantasy for liberating Severine in her attitudes towards her husband, sexuality? Were the fantasies the liberating thing or was the reality of the prostitution the liberating thing? Comment on the film’s presentation of the objective and subjective and their inter-relationship? Does it matter what really happened or what was fantasy for the impact and theme of the film?

5. How important was the theme of identity, of love and relationship, and sexuality? What insight into the character of Severine did the film give? Her fantasies in themselves? As a woman, wife? Her love for Pierre and frigidity? Her fears? Was she a different personality as belle de jour? Her timidity, her change, her liking for prostitution? Initial fright, lowering of her standards, facing reality?

6. The encounter with the Japanese and his sadism? The professor and she was unsatisfactory? With the Count and the morbid and fantasy implications of photographing the dead? Her being thrown out by the servant? Her encounter with Husson and his inability to relate to her because she was not pure? The nature of her love for Marcel and the hold it had on her life, the sexual and physical fulfilment? Severine at home and being confronted with Marcel and the implications?

7. How did the film draw out the consequences of love and of guilt? If all was real, Pierre’s injury and paralysis? If unreal, the guilt that Severine felt? The guilt that she wanted to be rid of?

8. Was the character of Pierre drawn to contrast with Severine? As a husband and man,, his nobility and gentleness, his professionalism as a doctor, the way that Severine imagined him in her fantasies? As forgiving and in real life? The double presentation at the end Pierre in Severine’s mind and fears in reality?

9. The subtlety of the character of Husson - the initial meeting, his social chatter? His lust for Severine, his social position, his talk about the house of ill fame, his attitude towards sexuality, believing Severine’s innocence. the implications of his encounter with her, his telling the truth to the air? Why did he tell the truth? was this noble for him? So that Pierre would not suffer unjustly?

10. The character of Madame Anais – person, sexuality and relationship to the prostitutes and Severine, her role in the brothel? Her hold over the women, her seductive attitude towards her clients? Her hold over the cleaner and her daughter? Her moral standing and attitudes?

11. The violence in the film - was it credible, sadistic, real?

12. What values and insights into humanity did the film explore? The nature of reality and fantasy, repression, sadism and satisfaction? Such scenes as Pierre and Severine talking on the beach?

13. The use of visual symbols for the film, the coach, the horsemen, the cattle and their names, the duel? the count and his coffin? Could this be called a sympathetic case book of a modern woman facing sexuality and love?