20 Comments »

1. Flickhead says; September 29, 2007 @ 4:08 am

   An excellent post, Kimberly.

   “Don’t bring any bugs around me!” cries Mrs. Flickhead.

   That woman never did have a sense of adventure…

   Your references are inspiring me to do some further reading.

   In that the characters of Belle de jour exist in varying states of pain (or painful denial), I’ve always been intrigued by Deneuve’s position on the bed after her orgasm, believing she’s found her bliss through sodomy.

2. Flickhead says; September 29, 2007 @ 4:09 am

   PS — Thanks for joining the blogathon!!

3. Ferdy says; September 29, 2007 @ 7:38 am

   Great post! Very informative. I would not have looked further because of my distaste for Sade, so I thank you for looking for me.

4. cinebeats says; September 29, 2007 @ 8:45 am

   Flickhead - My own bug phobia would get in the way of any insects finding their way into my own bedroom! Deneuve’s position on the bed is interesting and was mentioned by Julie Jones on the DVD commentary. I thinks it’s also important to consider that the man tells her not to bother taking off her bra. It’s as if there won’t be time or a need for foreplay with what he has planned, or maybe just the site of bare breasts turns him off? Lots to consider there!

   Fredy - I’m happy to do the dirty work! ;)
   Considering all the reviews I’ve read of Belle de Jour, I don’t think many film critics have bothered reading de Sade’s work, which seems odd to me. I can’t imagine fully understanding a lot of Bunuel’s films without some knowledge of writers like de Sade, Octave Mirbeau and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch.

5. Flickhead says; September 29, 2007 @ 10:43 am

   Kimberly, have you seen Manoel de Oliveira’s sequel, Belle toujours (2006)? Set thirty-eight years after the Buñuel picture, it stars Bulle Ogier as Séverine and Michel Piccoli reprising his role as Henri. I haven’t seen it, but it could be interesting.

   Oliveira wrote: “Belle toujours occurred to me unexpectedly and, as I had the will to pay my tribute to Luis Buñuel and Jean-Claude Carrière, I was happy to have found a way to do so, perhaps the best, and I started working. What is it about? Taking two of the strange characters from the film Belle de Jour, and make them relive, thirty eight years later, in the strangeness of a secret which was only in the possession of the masculine character and a knowledge that had become crucial to the female character. Thus, passed this time, they meet again. She tries to avoid him by all means. But he stalks her and eventually manages to gain her attention with the intention of revealing the secret that he alone can unfold. They set a meeting, a dinner, where she expects that all will be revealed. During dinner, she, now a widow, awaits the expected revelation: what he had told her husband while he was mute and paralytic because of a gunshot wound fired by a lover of hers. The situation is tense and she ends up in despair without being able to find out what in truth happened. He is satisfied in his sadism and in his particular revenge from the ways of that woman, who deep down desired him but whose haughty ways never allowed him to possess her.”

6. Ed Hardy, Jr. says; September 29, 2007 @ 11:54 am

   Fascinating stuff, Kimberly. Have you considered a career in investigative journalism?

7. Jonathan Lapper says; September 29, 2007 @ 1:07 pm

   Well in my pants it’s “Members Only” - no bugs allowed. Excellent post Kimberly! Concentrating on the buzzing box was a great idea for the Bunuel-a-thon. I think what you say hits the nail on the head, no pun intended. It’s exactly the type of thing Bunuel would think of in reference to the box and I’m glad you made the connection. I had never really thought about in those terms before.

   I confess when I first saw the movie years ago I saw it less as a cinephile and more as a person obsessed with dominance and submission. I love when Severine quickly “shapes up” when her Madame speaks to her sternly as well as the scenes of humiliation that she fantasizes about. Personally I think it’s all much more erotic than any “vanilla” sexual encounter in most movies. I think that’s why the scene in Dressed to Kill in the museum works so well, because again it’s all about control. Of course, if I were making the movies the situation would be reversed and it would be the man under the control of the woman, like The Blue Angel but Severine does ends up in control by the end, if by involuntary means.

   It’s a great movie and years ahead of its time in dealing with such subject matter so honestly, not as a freakish sideshow or as an earnest clinical study. Thanks again.

8. Gautam says; September 29, 2007 @ 2:04 pm

   Great post Kimberly- as I’ve admitted before, Bunuel really flies miles over my head. It is incredible with the Bunuelathon, I didn’t realize there were so many Bunuelologists out there. Perhaps I should consider trying some more of bunuel’s work to get aclimatized with his style.

   Thanks for the post.

9. robertmonell says; September 29, 2007 @ 2:47 pm

   Another fascinating post, Kimberly. I posted my review of Bunuel’s WUTHERING HEIGHTS earlier as my contribution. One of the main characters obsessively collects insects and there are numerous closeups of him at work on the creatures. I didn’t realize the insect connection via Sade, though. I’ve always thought that all of Bunuel’s films could be considered entomological documentaries of sorts. Thanks, Robert Monell

   www.robertmonell.blogspot.com/

10. cinebeats says; September 29, 2007 @ 3:35 pm

    Flickhead - I have not seen Belle toujours , but I’m kind of curious about it. I have mixed reactions to those kind of sequels which come out long after the original film made by other directors. I probably should give it a look though since I’m curious about how the director deals with “the box.”

    Ed - As a matter of fact I have. You don’t ever want to watch a mystery film with me because within the first 20-30min. I end up shouting out who’s done the crime and annoying everyone in the room.

    Jonathan - I completely agree with you about the eroticism in the film. It’s a really well-crafted movie, but it’s also incredibly erotic. You barely see any skin, but what you do see is very sexy. Bunuel does an amazing job of exploring the complexity of masochism in Belle de Jour.

    Gautam - I hope you’ll give more Bunuel films I look. I’m sure you’ll come across a Bunuel film that will appeal to you. I’ve only seen a handful of his films myself (all the ones I listed above, as well as That Obscure Object of Desire which is also very good) and Belle de Jour is my favorite.

    Robert - I look forward to reading your post Robert as well as the other contributions. I haven’t seen Bunuel’s Wuthering Heights myself, but I’m sure I’ll find your post interesting.

11. Keith says; September 29, 2007 @ 3:37 pm

    Hello Kimberly. Great blog. I love the observations you make concerning insects, de Sade, and Venus in Furs. What a post. It gave me a lot to think about. I had never really seen insects as being erotic before. I haven’t watched Belle de Jour in a few years now. I love it. It’s the movie I fell in love with the goddess Catherine Deneuve during. I enjoyed all the pics you posted. Good job here. It was quite insightful.

12. cinebeats says; September 29, 2007 @ 3:40 pm

    Thanks Keith! I think David Cronenberg does an interesting job of exploring the erotic elements associated with insects in his own films, but Bunuel is clearly obsessed with insects as well. I’m glad you can enjoy all the pics of Catherine Deneuve that I posted. She’s stunning!

13. Brian says; October 3, 2007 @ 1:12 am

    A terrific trio of posts on one of two or three contenders for the title of “Brian’s favorite Buñuel film”. I momentarily considered writing a post about Buñuel’s use of arthropods in his films (more for the list: the diagram of a mosquito in Las Hurdes, the preserved tarantula in the Phantom of Liberty, the martini fly in That Obscure Object of Desire), but ultimately decided against it. Good thing, too, as I would have surely missed this instance. I must confess I’ve never read anything by Sade, Mirbeau, or Sacher-Masoch (I have read some Anaïs Nin though). Luckily I don’t consider myself a film critic.

14. cinebeats says; October 3, 2007 @ 11:48 am

    Thanks Brian! I’m glad you enjoyed my Belle de Jour posts. It’s amazing how insects feature into so many of his films… if not all in some small or big way.

    It’s always astonished me how authoritative critics like to sound when reviewing a lot films that they clearly don’t know a hell of a lot about. As someone who considers herself a “zinester” and has always been interested in smashing a lot of the walls put up by academia and critics around cinema, I find myself at odds with 75% of the film criticism I read.

    I really think anyone who seriously wants to study and understand Bunuel would have to make time to read de Sade, Mirbeau, or Sacher-Masoch because like a lot of the surrealists, he bases many of his own ideas, etc. on their work. A casual viewer on the other hand like yourself and myself, should just read them for fun. Mirbeau is my favorite writer of the bunch and I really recommend The Torture Garden, Calvaire and Diary of a Chambermaid. Like Bunuel himself, all these authors enjoy exploring the decadent and cruel nature of the “bourgeoisie” in very transgressive and erotic ways.

15. Tim Lucas says; October 4, 2007 @ 10:29 am

    Terrific essay, Kimberly! What you write reminds me that my first tape copy of BELLE DE JOUR originated from a Japanese release — in French with Japanese subtitles! — and it was actually lacking the scene of the Japanese client with the mysterious insect box! So the scene and its implications must have pushed some very transgressive buttons in that culture.

16. cinebeats says; October 4, 2007 @ 12:26 pm

    Thanks a lot Tim!

    Your story about the Japanese video tape is fascinating. It’s funny, but I asked my husband who understands just a little Japanese if he could figure out anything the guy was saying and he couldn’t. He thought it was a Chinese man playing a Japanese man, so the language became jumbled and it was nearly impossible to understand. The actor’s name was Iska Khan which seems to indicate that he might be Chinese so my husband could be right in his assumption. I’m surprised that a full translation seems to have never been done, but maybe that’s because the language is so jumbled that no one can understand it completely?

17. Yukiko Miura says; October 7, 2007 @ 7:22 am

    Hello, Kimberly!
    I truely enjoyed reading your posts about Belle de Jour, as it’s one of my favorite French movies.

    I have its DVD released from Japan but it does have the scene of the mysterious small box. I suppose the scene was cut because Japanese people in the 60’s thought that it was somewhat insulting. Japanese at the time were very serious about how they were portrayed in Western movies. Now we don’t care as much as they did. I found it interesting that he has a card named Geisha club card.

    Well, the language he speaks is neither Japanese nor Chinese nor Korean. Your husband’s thought must be right,
    but for me the language and the actor’s name sound like Central Asian, for instance Mongolian and Kazakhstan.

18. cinebeats says; October 7, 2007 @ 12:26 pm

    Thanks so much for taking the time to share your thoughts Yukiko!

    Your comments about the language he uses are really fascinating. I guess it really is just jibberish inspired by various combined Asian languages. Obviously this must have been a choice Bunuel made to really confuse audiences.

    I thought the story about the Geisha Club card was interesting. From what I gather on the DVD commentary there was a brothel in Mexico that the director used to frequent called the Geisha Club so that card belonged to Bunuel himself.

19. james says; October 23, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

    I stumbled upon your explanation of the box scene trying to find out more about it, and was quite satisfied with your intriguing idea regarding the boxs content, until I looked up the allusion you make to Sade in Philosophy in The Boudoir. Not entirely satisfying, to my great disappointment.
    I have found only one section that refers to the Florida women, and it goes like this:
    “The women of Florida cause their husband’s member to swell and they deposit little insects upon the glans, which produces very horrible agonies; they league together to perform the operation, several of them attacking one man in order to be more sure of the thing. When the Spaniards came, they themselves held their husbands while those European barbarians assassinated them.”
    This is mentioned in an array of murderous women killing men for pleasure. But certainly not for the pleasure the victims bodies may give them. If I interpret it correctly, the women of Florida let their husbands members swell in a more conventional manner before inserting the insect, and this leads to the mens death, but not any significant furthering of sexual capacity.
    Then again, the quote I find differs in great parts from what you write. Vespucci is not mentioned. Also, I wouldnt think the addition of sexual detail was a Freudian lapsus on your part. Do I have an altered edition of Sade?
    Where does your quote come from, exactly?
    Anyways, albeit being a bit dissatisfied, I have even greater respect for Bunuel now. I believe that the enormous sexual quality of the box scene lies in its mystery; a mystery that probably is impossible to solve. After all, I recall reading in Bunuels autobiography that the box and its content are a hoax to that effect; a symbol for the ultimate pleasure we all seek, but that is, in reality, inexistant and impossible to attain. So Bunuel, Im sure, didnt even know himself what the box contained. That to me is the great power of the scene.

20. Kimberly Lindbergs says; October 23, 2009 @ 7:05 pm

    James - In an effort to be polite I’ll try and make mysef a bit more clear. First of all, my ideas are merely that. My ideas. I make no claims. Only suggestions. As for the tale itself, I did not repeat what De Sade wrote. If you take the time to read what I wrote again you’ll see that I clearly mentioned that De Sade “referenced a tale told by the 15th century Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci” which is what I quote above. I offered up a list of the books I used to compile my post and suggest you read them all. In particular Iwan Bloch’s book, which contains Amerigo Vespucci’s original story and is what I quoted from.

    Last but not least. To assume that my exact quote “a Freudian lapsus” is absurd and rather rude. It suggests to me that you lack understanding of De Sade’s writing and therefore, probably have a bit of trouble understanding Bunuel’s work as well. My write-up was created in an effort to share my ideas and discuss Bunuel’s work outside the ongoing premise that the box was just a mystery without meaning or context, which critic after critic has repeated ad nauseam.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>