daphnexulu Bunuel delivers a beautiful story through symbolism, dream sequences and complex character narrative. Belle de Jour- on the surface -could be viewed as an "easy watch", yet digging deeper it hints at the surrealistic values of the director. Although this is regarded as one of Bunuel''s most popular films, I feel it lacks the depth and value that his earlier films boast. Though it is a classic, I don't think it's a masterpiece. This film is a great watch for both those studying film or seeking entertainment.

Barbouzes Belle De Jour is simply amazing in its content and its form, and amazingly, it has also aged very well: the tale of Severine is told in such subtle layers that it is watchable by anyone, it has not lost its bite after all these years, and anyone can still make what they want of it. That's a masterpiece! I will make one remark, though, about the DVD version I am viewing in 2017 via rental: it is a Miramax edition curated by Martin Scorsese, so you would think this latest DVD incarnation is improved in all ways from the original 1967. But I regret to say the translation (i.e. the subtitles) from French to English is often inaccurate, if not downright misleading. Pardon my hauteur, but I am French-born and 100% bilingual, darnit. I wonder if that sloppy translation was actually deliberately "softened"(i.e as a form of censorship), because it often results in a "softening" of the situation seen on screen . One example: the necrophiliac character addresses his "dear departed" in the coffin as "ma fille"in French. It is translated as "my girl" in the DVD version. Yes, "ma fille" in French can be "my girl", but it is also far more frequently "my daughter". And here, it is far more likely "my daughter", considering Bunuel's social comment and intent in this film. If you view the scene I am referring to, you will know that whether this man calls this dead woman "my girl" or " my daughter" makes a great deal of difference in the meaning of the scene.

CallEmLike ICem Catherine Deneuve has a handsome doctor husband who loves her and likes whisking her away to nice spots for romantic getaways. He wants children with her. She responds with frigidness and, usually, turn-downs to his physical overtures.Then she decides the thing to do is start working as a prostitute at a whorehouse. While he's away working to make the money to support her idle luxury, she flops down on a mattress to sell to a series of fat, sweaty strangers the sexual favors she usually won't share with hubby at home.For his sake, it's unfortunate she neglects to mention this. He also could stand to know the name of a good lawyer. With a friend like her, he won't need many enemies.We see she was molested as a child by some elderly pervert. As an adult she fantasizes about being tied up, whipped, raped, and having animal dung flung into her face until half her person is covered in it. And you wondered why they never show this at women's self-esteem conferences.We do tend to guess she has issues, a side of her sexuality she hasn't come to grips with. Her prostituting herself, we speculate, is some exploration of it.Director Luis Bunuel seems mostly interested in manipulating the characters like marionettes to reach his pre-planned political agenda, showing them as empty-headed bourgeoisie marching to certain doom.Doom comes, not to her but to him. He pays a vicious price for her duplicitous back-stabbing. Unable to face what she's wrought, she descends into a world of fantasy, dreaming of him as he was, conveniently forgetting how much it bored her.While I did care about the characters and was drawn in by the tragedy, it also seemed an all-too-easy excuse to make it all about some dark sexual matter. For all her exploring, Denevue doesn't seem to gain much insight. I didn't either, except that movies like this tend to draw attention.Bunuel seems to hold his characters and society in contempt, while also not suggesting any better alternatives. Sexuality is almost always depicted as something either perverse or for sale in half-hour increments. The one character who seems to feel it's healthy - Sorel - winds up an invalid in a wheelchair. This anti-human strain was off-putting.Bunuel's hatred of the middle class seems endless, and is uninterrupted by the fact that he is one himself. He even appears in a cameo, drinking coffee in a cafe. Better he'd been the waiter, so audiences could have sent this all back to the kitchen and ordered up a little less misanthropy, a little more care about the characters.

avik-basu1889 Luis Bunuel is a very common name that gets uttered and mentioned in film schools and cinematic discussions in critical circles all around the world even today. His brand of surrealistic filmmaking is not only unique, but it is also thought provoking. Most of his films put more importance on what the viewer might get out of the watching experience instead of the basic facts of the screenplay. Belle de Jour is probably his most well known film and its reputation as one of his best has persisted ever since its release.On the face of it Belle de Jour is a strange film about a married woman's love life, her marriage and her sexual desires. But Bunuel ornaments this potentially simple script with masterful dream sequences, subtle flashbacks and a surreal style of storytelling to make the film extremely rich thematically and quite complex. The film starts off with a scene that is both beautiful to look at and also extremely meaningful and gives a great opening to the character of Séverine. Bunuel throughout the film plays with the viewer by blurring the distinctions between dreams and actual occurrences. There are very subtle and beautifully placed flashback sequences that also shed a lot of light on Séverine's past and provides a possible reason behind her behaviour. The dream sequences are abstract and open to infinite analysis. As a matter of fact, the whole film is made in a way which leaves the door wide open for endless interpretations. a whole chunk of the screenplay can be interpreted to be dreams and a number of characters in the film can be interpreted to be Séverine's creations. I have my own interpretation, but one has to respect a filmmaker for respecting film for what it is which is a subjective art form. Many have suggested that the film is a commentary on feminism and feminist ideas. I don't really agree with that, but that just underlines why this film will lead to conversations. I think Belle de Jour is a character study on Séverine, whose traumatic past makes it impossible for her to accept sex as means of making love and getting close to your loved one, rather to her, sexuality is something that is only supposed to be used to quench your wild desires in the most clandestine and secretive way. The cinematography is beautiful with richly bright interior scenes and the dream sequences have a beautiful visual psychedelic quality about them. I watched the Criterion Blu Ray version and the film looks as good as ever. The camera moves in a very effortless and nonchalant way to perpetuate the surrealism of the script. Bunuel puts very little importance on the nitty-gritty details of the script and puts more effort on symbolism, metaphors and the contextual allegorical content. The film epitomises the artistic style of Bunuel and is a treat to watch.Last but by no means least, I have got to talk about Catherine Deneuve. She is flawless as Séverine. She expertly portrays all the traits essential to the character which are naivety, vulnerability, shyness, an implicit sex appeal,etc.The film ends on a very unforced, subtle yet beautiful little scene which I think makes for a happy ending for a film which is so not conventional.