His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz (1914)

Scarecrow of Oz

During his lifetime, L. Frank Baum was eager to franchise his talents, whether it be his popular series of Oz novels or (since he felt himself chained to the Land of Oz) the many other original fairy tales he preferred to be writing. He proclaimed that he would launch a Land of Oz amusement park, which, although never realized, sounds like it would have been a proto-Disneyland. He was also a big fan of the theater, and after the runaway success of the 1902 musical adaptation of The Wizard of Oz, wrote The Woggle-Bug (based on his second Oz novel, The Marvelous Land of Oz), which opened and closed with unfortunate speed in 1905. Baum pressed on with 1913’s The Tik-Tok Man of Oz, which played to modest success in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago, but the production was deemed too expensive to continue. In 1908 he began to merge stage with cinema in the Oz-themed Fairylogue and Radio-Plays: Baum himself would narrate in person as the play was performed both on stage and on hand-tinted film, and the production contained the earliest documented original film score. But this was so expensive to produce that it nearly ruined Baum, and drove him to write more and more Oz books to satisfy his debts. Years later he was lured back to the silver screen once more. As Peter Glassman writes in his 1998 afterword to Baum’s Rinkitink in Oz, “Baum – who had moved in 1910 to the small community of Hollywood, California – agreed to participate in a new venture involving the fledgling silent-film industry that was burgeoning all around him. With several friends from a fraternal organization named The Uplifters, Baum started The Oz Film Manufacturing Company.” A studio was constructed off Santa Monica Boulevard, promising “magnificent photo-extravaganzas of L. Frank Baum,” and the 5-reel films The Patchwork Girl of Oz (which Baum had previously planned for the stage), The Magic Cloak (based on Baum’s non-Oz novel Queen Zixi of Ix), and His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz. These, along with The Last Egyptian (based on a book Baum wrote under a pseudonym), were produced by the studio in 1914. But the films were indifferently received by the public, and after sputtering onward with a handful of shorts (now lost), the studio closed in 1915.

Ozma's smiling face welcomes young viewers to the film.

Ozma’s smiling face welcomes young viewers to the film.

His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz (1914), directed by J. Farrell MacDonald, was intended to exploit one of the most popular characters of the books, the bumbling, kindly Scarecrow. Baum intended some marketing synergy, releasing the film to help promote his forthcoming Oz novel, The Scarecrow of Oz (1915), and vice-versa. (The book features a dedication to the Uplifters, who financed his production studio: “They are big men – all of them – and all with the generous hearts of little children.”) Both the film and the novel share many plot elements, though they’re dissimilar enough that the book could hardly be called a novelization. In the novel, Baum used as his protagonists two characters – Cap’n Bill and Trot – from his non-Oz books The Sea Fairies and Sky Island. In this way, Baum demonstrated not just the marketing savvy of Walt Disney but also Marvel Comics – you had to collect a bookshelf’s worth of Baum to follow the thread. But for the feature film, there’s no sign of Cap’n Bill or Trot. The leads are mostly characters from the Oz series which would have been very familiar to the young audience: the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, Dorothy Gale, the Wizard, Button-Bright, the Sawhorse, the Cowardly Lion. As in the book, Princess Gloria (Vivian Reed) falls in love with a gardener’s son, Pon (Todd Wright), but is ordered by her father, King Krewl (Raymond Russell) to wed a courtier named Googly-Goo (Arthur Smollett). When she refuses, her father takes her to see the witch Mombi (Mai Wells) – a character from The Marvelous Land of Oz – so that her heart can be literally frozen by Mombi’s magic. Dorothy (Violet MacMillan) and Pon intervene, and Pon is ultimately transformed into a pantomime kangaroo. Dorothy takes Gloria to see the Wizard (J. Charles Haydon) so that her heart can be melted, along the way gathering together the Scarecrow (Frank Moore), the Tin Woodman (Pierre Couderc), the Cowardly Lion (Fred Woodward, credited as playing all the costumed animals), and Button-Bright (Mildred Harris, the future Mrs. Charles Chaplin).

The Wizard's Sawhorse pulls the trapped witch Mombi (Mai Wells).

The Wizard’s Sawhorse pulls the trapped witch Mombi (Mai Wells).

This is unequivocally a children’s film, with its pantomime mule and kangaroo hamming it up for the camera, little jokes that children can follow (the witch is trapped in a can called “Preserved Sandwitches,” and the Wizard paints over the “Sand” and “-es”), and a simple story which is faithful to the linear style of plotting in the Oz books. But most charming are its early-cinema special effects – crude at times, but always inventive and generously supplied. The witch conjures beautiful dancing girls from a cauldron, who then turn into hags that fly away on broomsticks. When she freezes Gloria’s heart, she holds a hand over the girl’s chest, the heart appears in it, and then – through a dissolve – becomes covered with ice. Later, the witch sets upon the Scarecrow and tears the straw out of him, and there is an effective switch where the actor is replaced by an unoccupied suit which Dorothy lifts off the ground. The Tin Woodman nearly chops off the Scarecrow’s head when he’s oiled out of immobility, and a few moments later actually decapitates Mombi, in a Méliès-style effect. She holds it in her hands and gently places it back between her shoulders. In the film’s most successful gag, a river journey by raft is interrupted when the Scarecrow gets the pole stuck in the mud, and is lifted off the raft while it drifts on. He sinks slowly down into the water, where he fights a swordfish and encounters a mermaid with a parasol. When he climbs to the surface again, he’s carried away by a pantomime crow. The crow drops him to the ground, and they dance – hilariously – before Dorothy scares the crow off.

At the Tin Castle of the Tin Woodman.

At the Tin Castle of the Tin Woodman.

What’s most enjoyable about this artifact of early film is that it represents L. Frank Baum’s vision – not the 1939 film and all it influenced – but an Oz of the early twentieth century, an Oz usually illustrated by John R. Neill, an Oz quaint, simple, and cheerfully odd. Although not a perfect adaptation, it looks like the books come to life, or at least as much as was possible in 1914. The Cowardly Lion looks like Neill’s lion, the clown-like Scarecrow very much like Neill’s. Even the Sawhorse – who arrives pulling a box with the Wizard astride it – is brought to life with loving accuracy. (I don’t know how it was done – either by puppetry or by a very uncomfortable actor with the commitment of Lon Chaney.) But His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz didn’t find much of an audience, and neither did its predecessors from the Oz Film Company. It was re-released as The New Wizard of Oz a few months after its initial release and performed slightly better, but Baum’s new venture couldn’t hold out for much longer. The commercial failures of his production company came at a time when Baum was already suffering from angina, and his health began to steeply decline, though he continued to write Oz books up until his death in 1919. In The Magic of Oz, the first of two Oz books published posthumously, Baum left a final message to his readers, an optimistic hello rather than a farewell: “A long and confining illness has prevented my answering all the good letters sent me – unless stamps were enclosed – but from now on I hope to be able to give prompt attention to each and every letter with which my readers favor me. Assuring you that my love for you has never faltered and hoping the Oz Books will continue to give you pleasure as long as I am able to write them, I am/Yours affectionately, L. Frank Baum, ‘Royal Historian of Oz.'” Below this he left an address: “‘Ozcot’/at Hollywood/in California/1919.”

Scarecrow of Oz

Posted in Theater Midnight Matinee | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz (1914)

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969)

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed

It’s a well kept secret that Hammer’s Frankenstein series (1957-1974) is a good deal more interesting than its more popular sibling, the Dracula series. The Dracula formula was straightforward, cemented by its third film, Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966): Christopher Lee is resurrected, he corrupts some innocents, he is killed; repeat. But with the Frankensteins, a decision was made to make Peter Cushing – Dr. Frankenstein – the recurring character, not his monster. This created a distinct break from the 1930’s-40’s Universal series, in which various horror icons would don the same bolt-necked makeup from one film to the next. As a result, Hammer’s Frankenstein films were liberated from the castle dungeon. They could be more imaginative, and – best of all – were anchored to the charisma of Hammer MVP Cushing. Cushing is simply compelling to watch, whether casually murdering in the interest of science in the breakout hit The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) – which launched the full-color, blood-spattered Hammer Gothics – or wearily condescending to a courtroom in Frankenstein Created Woman (1967). His character is fairly consistent: brilliant, arrogant, impatient with all the idiots around him. He is convinced that any crime he commits is justifiable, because his aims are far-reaching, world-changing; it isn’t his fault that the fools around him don’t share his vision, and he certainly isn’t going to waste his time trying to explain himself. But by the fifth entry, Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969), he has reverted to a ruthlessness and cruelty not seen since the original 1957 film. Most of this was the design of director Terence Fisher, who had directed all of the series’ previous chapters except for Freddie Francis’ Universal-style throwback The Evil of Frankenstein (1964). But one bit of nastiness was imposed upon him by Warner Brothers and Hammer head honcho James Carreras. He wanted nothing to do with it, and neither did his stars; more on that in a moment. Regardless, Fisher came to regard Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed as one of his personal favorites.

Peter Cushing makes a memorable, chilling entrance disguised by a sinister mask.

Peter Cushing makes a memorable, chilling entrance disguised by a sinister mask.

The film is also unique because it takes its time getting to what one commonly associates with Frankenstein films: a laboratory, some bloody tools, the dead coming to life. In fact, this happens about two-thirds of the way through the film. The opening sequence is a series of feints. First we hear Third Man-style zither music – composer James Bernard being clever – as Fisher’s camera cuts across empty nighttime streets. Then blood is splashed against a window: someone has been slaughtered. Elsewhere, a burglar tries to jimmy a lock, but he hears approaching footsteps and ducks inside an empty house. There he stumbles upon a Chamber of Horrors, including a frozen body suspended in a tank. A grotesquely disfigured man enters from the street. He places a container on the floor, out of which spills a severed head. The burglar barely escapes with his life, and the monstrous figure removes a mask to reveal – Peter Cushing. Indeed, this is the Frankenstein film in which Cushing finally becomes a monster, albeit by a gradual descent into immorality that has been ongoing for five films; in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed we will see him at his most depraved.  The burglar attracts the attention of the police, including an inspector who will be tracking the Baron for the remainder of the film – an amusingly annoyed Thorley Walters (Dracula: Prince of Darkness). Frankenstein, looking for a place to set up shop, decides to blackmail a young medical student, Karl (Simon Ward, If…), and his fiancée, Anna (Veronica Carlson, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave). Both of them share a secret: that Karl has been peddling stolen drugs to raise money for Anna’s ailing mother. Upon discovering this, Frankenstein uses it not just for free room and board, but to gain a new assistant for his experiments. As he tells Karl, “Your medical education is about to be vastly improved.”

Karl (Simon Ward), Baron Frankenstein (Cushing), and Anna (Veronica Carlson).

Karl (Simon Ward), Baron Frankenstein (Cushing), and Anna (Veronica Carlson).

Gradually revealed is that the Baron has come to the village to retrieve the brilliant Dr. Brandt (George Pravda, Thunderball), with whom he was corresponding before Brandt went insane and was committed to an asylum. Before his unraveling, Brandt believed that it was possible to freeze a brain at the instant before death, then transplant it into another body, preserving the man’s intelligence. With the reluctant Karl, he steals into the asylum and together they kidnap Brandt. In the shock, the fragile Brandt suffers a heart attack – giving the Baron the perfect opportunity to test the man’s theory. He needs a vessel for Brandt’s brain. “Remember,” he patiently says to Karl, “Dr. Knox had Burke and Hare to assist him. Think what they did for surgery between them. Now I have you.” So Karl is persuaded to murder one Professor Richter (Freddie Jones, The Elephant Man). With the surgery complete, Brandt’s consciousness slowly stirs within Richter’s body. When, late in the film, he escapes Frankenstein, he wants only to reconnect with his wife (Maxine Audley, Peeping Tom) – but of course she doesn’t recognize him. Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed plays as a chain of hostage situations. The Baron keeps a tight hold on Karl and Anna through blackmail and power games; and Brandt isn’t above holding his own wife hostage while he locks down the house as a trap for the Baron. But the main focus of the film is on Karl and Anna, Frankenstein’s principal victims (the title might as well be This Young Couple Must Be Destroyed). After they are compelled to bury Brandt’s body in the garden, the next morning a water main bursts, and the corpse’s hand thrusts out of the soil and flops about in the fountain. Anna, the sole witness, is left to crawl into the wet mud, heft out the heavy body, and drag it out of sight. Her duty complete, she stands there sopping wet, shivering, her shock total, and when a woman offers to help her, she lashes out, “Go away! For God’s sake go away! Leave me alone!”

In a parlor, Baron Frankenstein listens in on the gossip of doctors.

In a parlor, Baron Frankenstein listens in on the gossip of doctors.

Carlson gives an excellent performance as Anna, who – for a relatively minor sin (keeping her fiancé’s secret about the drugs) – is hauled into Frankenstein’s world of madness and murder. But her treatment at the hands of the Baron is particularly nauseating. In the film’s most notorious scene, the Baron rapes her in her bedroom while Karl is away. These are the pages that were forced into Fisher’s hands by a studio and distributor nervous about the edgier horror films making a splash on the market – the previous year saw both Rosemary’s Baby and Night of the Living Dead. And in the U.K., sexploitation was proving lucrative. Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed was one of Hammer’s last pictures before nudity became a requirement. Carlson had a no-nudity clause, but the rape was shocking nonetheless – in particular because it feels out of character for Frankenstein. Perhaps the young, depraved Baron of the 1957 film might have stooped this low, but the protagonist of the intervening films would not. Which means that we must read the rape as a power play, a way of putting Anna under his control. This is as dark as Hammer’s Frankenstein films ever got, and it came about because Fisher had to make do, his hand forced – another of the film’s hostages. In an August 2015 interview with Bruce G. Hallenbeck printed in Little Shoppe of Horrors #35, Carlson recalled that Fisher initially stormed off the set before they finally resigned themselves to filming the scene. “The more we tried to make it work, the worse it was and it just got grotesque. I was so miserable. And then, I remember, Roger Moore came from nowhere. He was on another sound stage. How he heard about it, I’ll never know. And he came over to comfort us both. He was reassuring me and patting Peter on the back. He understood the misery that we were in. And he knew the back-story of Frankenstein very well and knew that it should not be part of the film.” The Baron forcing Anna to submit to him sexually is only more stomach-turning in light of her ultimate fate, which is to be brutally stabbed by him after she threatens his creation. And by this point the audience will agree: yes, Frankenstein must be destroyed.

Publicity still: Freddie Jones carries Cushing back into a burning building.

Publicity still: Freddie Jones carries Cushing back into a burning building.

Despite the film’s pitch-darkness, there are moments of humor, however fleeting. Walters is enjoyable as the requisite comic relief (though he ultimately has no effect on the story’s outcome). When Mrs. Brandt discovers Frankenstein, rather than flee he switches on the charm and welcomes him into his laboratory, insisting he was going to invite her to see her abducted husband when the time was right. “He is simply asleep,” he says, indicating the bandaged and disguised figure on the slab. “Asleep and sane. He is cured…There is no one else in the world who could help you but me. And that I have done.” Then he says, casually, “What is important is that you speak of this to no one. I have seriously broken the law.” And when he hits the word “seriously,” he laughs. Cushing can’t help it. It’s the only sensible way to deliver the understatement. As soon as Mrs. Brandt departs, calmed and smiling and grateful, Cushing shuts the door and declares to Karl and Anna, “Pack! We’re leaving.” In a movie this dark, these moments come across as welcome gallows humor. And they help enliven a film which is unusually slow moving for a 1969 Hammer movie. Fisher takes his time, focusing upon the characters instead of Gothic trappings. Interviewed by Harry Ringel in Cinefantastique Vol. 4, # 3, in 1975,  Fisher said, “That was probably the first time within the Frankenstein series that you had a really emotional, character approach to brain transplants… And a brain with its own memory of a life which it has led, its loves and its hates. In the film…[Freddie Jones] goes to visit his wife who fails to recognize him and rejects him. I loved that subject, which I think was a most difficult one to portray, and I thought about that film more than any other I’ve done because of this element.”

Anna is stalked by Frankenstein's latest creation (Jones).

Anna is stalked by Frankenstein’s latest creation (Jones).

Jones gives a touching performance despite his limited screen time. When he visits his wife, he stands behind a screen, ashamed of his appearance (shades of his later film The Elephant Man, where he played someone exploiting another’s freakishness). Mrs. Brandt awakens only to hear his voice coming from the screen. Only we can see that he has tears in his eyes. Nevertheless, trapped within the violent vortex that Frankenstein carries with him wherever he goes, he must do what he must do: destroy his home (literally and metaphorically) and the Baron with it. With all this rich thematic material, it’s only on reflection that I realize the plot doesn’t really make any sense: the Baron has already successfully frozen and transplanted a brain, proving Brandt’s theory; why does he still need to retrieve a “formula” for doing so? (Maybe I missed something. If I did, let me know in the comments.) Regardless, this is one of the best films of Hammer’s Frankensteins, and evidence that Cushing and Fisher were performing some fascinating experiments in the series. Hammer tried to “reboot” the franchise after this with Jimmy Sangster’s horror-comedy Horror of Frankenstein (1970) starring Ralph Bates, but Cushing and Fisher would reunite for a worthy closing chapter, Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell (1974). Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed was released last month on Blu-Ray as part of Warner’s Horror Classics Volume One, alongside The Mummy (1959), Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968), and Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970). It looks exceptional in high definition, although, as with all the titles, there are no extras except a trailer.

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed poster

Posted in Theater Caligari | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969)

Belle de Jour (1967)

Belle de Jour

This post is a proud part of the Criterion Blogathon sponsored by Criterion Blues, Speakeasy, and Silver Screenings. Check out the full list of participating blogs. Also – my thoughts are with Parisians today in solidarity and support (#Parisisaboutlife).

Catherine Deneuve is well covered – she’s wearing a bright red coat, as fashionable and colorful as something she might sport in one of her Jacques Demy roles – but she’s lying on her back in a Parisian brothel, a young man who is not her husband lying on top of her and stroking her face. The weasel-faced, golden-toothed young gangster, Marcel (Pierre Clémenti, The Conformist), has fallen in love with Deneuve’s Séverine, and he’s prodding her for more information on her husband. “You love the other guy?” he asks. She nods. “Then why are you here?”

“I don’t know,” she says. “They’re two different things.”

Those two different things are not so much at war as transposed, like two colors that shouldn’t, logically, produce a more pleasing third. But it’s so, and Séverine is content. She is a well-off housewife attached to a handsome hospital worker, Pierre (Jean Sorel, Short Night of Glass Dolls), but they sleep in separate beds, and she refuses him when he tries to bridge that divide – with a gentle “Forgive me.” Something mysterious draws her to the brothel of Madame Anaïs (Geneviève Page, Grand Prix), located in a nondescript building in the middle of Paris, but once her particular desires – which happen to be strongly masochistic – are untangled and let loose, she is happy. Happy in a more genuine way than what she expresses to Pierre at the film’s opening. If it were up to her, she would spend every afternoon at the brothel, and every evening with her husband, serene and wholly satisfied. Director Luis Buñuel has no issue with the contradiction. For a surrealist, contradiction is the color of life. In one of the film’s most disorienting shots, he overlays the vivid world of Séverine’s dreams with that of her everyday world, panning up and down simultaneously, holding the shot as long as he can as though trying to test the limits before something the film breaks. Your eyes don’t know where to settle; you’re pulled in two. But this is Séverine’s existence, and it’s also, like everything in Belle de Jour (1967), a convincing argument of the surrealistic nature of human desire.

Pierre (Jean Sorel) and Séverine (Catherine Deneuve).

Pierre (Jean Sorel) and Séverine (Catherine Deneuve).

The opening of the film is startling: Séverine and Pierre gliding through a forest on a carriage, bells jingling on the soundtrack as the drivers urge their horses on, and suddenly they come to a halt; Pierre has the drivers gag her and haul her off into the trees, where they expose her back and brutally whip her. She cries, apropos of nothing, “Pierre, please don’t let the cats out!” And for a flash we see a look of ecstasy on her face. It is one of the film’s many dreams, which are treated in the Buñuelian style – without any overt cues to signal that we are entering or exiting the unreal; no dissolves, no fog machines. But reality itself occasionally slips toward the fantastic, like that mysterious buzzing box, presented by one of Séverine’s clients. Buñuel disagreed with his co-screenwriter, Jean-Claude Carrière (Diary of a Chambermaid), as to whether one particular sequence was real or a dream, the escapade in which Séverine is asked to climb into a coffin and pose as a duke’s dead daughter, with all its overtones of incest and necrophilia. Carrière believed it to be a dream; Buñuel insisted it was real. (Certainly it fits right in with similar “real” moments elsewhere in Buñuel’s filmography, such as 1961’s Viridiana.) Yet throughout the film Buñuel asks you to treat every moment as equal to every other. Séverine has a maid at the brothel and a maid in her home. She plays tennis, she goes to lunch with her friends, she dreams of being tied to a tree with the sound of waves on the soundtrack, like Odysseus tempting himself with the Sirens. Are some of these (a molestation; her refusal to take the host at Mass) really flashbacks to Séverine’s childhood, or imagined? Does it matter? They exist in her mind, and they’re part of her. Does she really walk up those steps to the brothel, or is the entire film an elaborate fantasy? Does it matter? It’s all Séverine.

Séverine is whipped in the fantasy which opens the film.

Séverine is whipped in the fantasy which opens the film.

And Belle de Jour is, more than anything else, a bemused character portrait. Based on a scandalous 1928 novel by Joseph Kessel, the story is expanded and enriched in its transformation into a Buñuel film. Buñuel’s key contribution was entrenching the perspective in Séverine’s psyche, introducing her elaborate fantasies in substitution of explicit sex under the sheets. Perhaps producers Raymond and Robert Hakim, who had a reputation for seeking out salacious material, were disappointed that the brothel scenes, filmed with the surrealist’s eye, are less focused on female flesh than the peculiarities of various kinks. Buñuel, mischievous as ever, made the producers unwitting participants in the film’s robbery scene, as John Baxter notes in his biography Buñuel (1994): “Luis needled them by having Marcel and Hippolyte steal the payroll from 79 Champs-Elysées, the Hakims’ own office.” Belle de Jour endures not because of its sexual content, but because of its refusal to condemn the sexual indiscretions of its very complicated female protagonist. Instead, the film watches with great empathy as Deneuve, with all her frosty beauty, commits herself to her new secret life. Her moment of crucial decision ranks among the most Hitchcockian scenes of the director’s career, as Buñuel studies her feet as they climb the stairs, twist briefly on a landing – a moment of hesitation – and then confidently climb on. (In another life, Buñuel might have rivaled Hitchcock in channeling his fetishes and neuroses into obsessive thrillers. For more evidence, check out Buñuel’s 1955 black comedy The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz.) Once Séverine is inside the door, her transformation is not an easy one. She refuses the rough advances of her first client, the wealthy candy manufacturer Monsieur Adolphe (Francis Blanche), until Madame Anaïs, turning off the charm, demands that she do her job. With fascination Séverine spies through a peephole at a professor (Marcel Charvey) who wants to be dominated and abused. By the time she is matched with an Asian businessman (Iska Khan) who speaks no English and urges her to look into the little box he carries around – and we hear only a strange buzzing noise – she is a more confident woman, taking pleasure in her work. Afterwards, she is stretched out on the bed. The maid, Pallas (played by Muni, a Buñuel regular after Diary of a Chambermaid), comes upon her and glimpses bloodstains on a towel. A sign of violence, it’s also as though she’s lost her virginity a second time. “That man frightens me,” Pallas says. “It must be hard sometimes.” Deneuve’s mussed hair shifts as she turns her head, and suddenly we see that she’s smiling with contentment: “What do you know about it, Pallas?” The signature moment became the film’s poster, adorns the StudioCanal Luis Buñuel Collection box set and, rendered by fashion illustrator David Downton, Criterion’s Blu-Ray cover art. Séverine has been violated in unspeakable ways (and unknowable ways – not even the director knew what the hell was in that box) – and she loved every minute of it. Less so Deneuve, who, by all accounts, was a bit baffled, if not troubled, by the production; yet she came to embrace Belle de Jour as one of her best films.

Séverine, the businessman (Iska Khan), and his little box.

Séverine, the businessman (Iska Khan), and his little box.

On the Criterion disc, scholar Linda Williams and author Susie Bright explain why the film has been such a fixture of feminist studies since its release, digging into its portrait of a woman who finds sexual release through pain and degradation. As they point out, the contradictory notes of female masochism (in particular the complications of taking pleasure in a submissive role, when women are traditionally expected to be submissive) are well suited to surrealism, in which contradictions are the key ingredient. And Carrière, interviewed on the same disc, insists the fantasy sequences were largely provided by the women with whom he and Buñuel spoke while writing the screenplay – their subjects included prostitutes and psychoanalysts. This open-minded approach is vital to both the artistic and commercial success of Belle de Jour (it was one of the director’s biggest hits). For decades Buñuel had been expressing (and mocking) his own sexual fantasies, but with Belle de Jour he allows Séverine to tell her own story and doesn’t pass judgment. He replaces the reportedly melodramatic climax of the original novel with an ambiguous alternative that embraces all the contradictions of its main character, as cold reality and escapist fantasy merge both visually and aurally, with the carriage bells jingling on the soundtrack. In the collision, she exists in a state of the real and the unreal, like a Buñuelian take on Schrödinger’s cat. (“Should I let the cats in?” says a butler at one point, a dream callback in one moment that’s supposed to not be a dream, the director insisted. Off in the distant prologue, Deneuve still shouts, “Please don’t let the cats out!”) Belle de Jour reminds us that we are all made of oppositions. But Buñuel is indifferent, and only watches as we chase our dangerous dreams.

Belle de Jour

Criterion Banner

Posted in Theater Fantastique | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments