Bilitis

Those of you familiar with David Hamilton as a photographer will (at least) make sense of his visual treatment in Bilitis. Very lush and sensual, with a voyeuristic appeal: we are drawn in to great visuals of the young Ms. D'Arbanville getting undressed, washing, getting cozy with another female friend in bed, and becoming a voyeur herself! But Hamilton should have gone a bit further with the love scenes and erotic visuals; we are only treated to a nibble of his talent. If you are turned-on by girl-girl and lolita themes, then you will probably enjoy Bilitis. Otherwise, just watch it for the few visual delights... the story is a snoozer.

This is the debut of David Hamilton, a well known photographer from the seventies. Contrary to the other commentator I found this a marvelous film, but you have to look at it from a certain perspective. If you are looking for a good script, for profundity of conversation, for strong acting, this film will not appeal to you. But if you approach it like a Monnet painting, Debussy music or a Marcel Proust novel, you might just love it. It's the kind of movie that pays off to those who love lingering about in a small French village over summer without too much hassle. Appreciate it like the best of impressionist art, just to enjoy its simple and straight forward beauty, and you will be drawn into a wonderful world, longing to live amidst flowers, fresh life, warm summers in the countryside, swimming in the sea, having your first love etc...

Bilitis (Patti d'Arbanville) attends an all-girl school that is about to break for summer... Once on vacation, Bilitis comes to hold with her developing sexuality and strikes up a romantic liaison with a local boy… A secondary romance concerns Bilitis' female guardian and her new husband…

The treatment of sensuality is soft and beautiful, which is in keeping with Hamilton's style of photography… At the beginning of the film, we see the sweet, sensual bodies of the schoolgirls exuberantly bathing in a mountain lake…

When Bilitis is finally seduced, it is exaggerated romance, heavily diffused, implying rather than showing their coupling… The lovemaking between the married couple is equally stylized, but more steamy

One must understand this film in the light of its background. In the 1970s the success of the sexual revolution in Europe had made things possible in mainstream film that perhaps would be frowned at today. David Hamilton was a photographer that made a name for himself with hyper-romantic images of mostly young teens. He developed a technique that involved copious amounts of vaseline on the lens to create a unique blurred effect. Out of this success the desire was born to translate his trademark style to film.

As basis for the film an older story about an innocent young girl discovering and exploring her sexuality was used, but the storyline is largely inconsequential since it merely serves as a framework for Hamilton's soft focus tableaux. The result is that the film feels a bit like pink cotton candy: overly sweet and insubstantial. That it still remains palatable is due to just the pretty images and the excellent musical score by Francis Lai.

When it was released this film caused a sensation. I watched it and was thrilled. Beautiful, usually young, naked women filmed in the classy style we knew so well from director Hamiltons photography. His photographs never become porn and the same is true for this movie. Today I saw it again and was bitterly disappointed. The soft core in extremely slow paced scenes, all filmed with some Vaseline on the lenses, actually is all there is. There is no real story, the characters remain beautiful and beautifully filmed bodies, but they are not real creatures with a soul. Actually nothing happens. It is like Hamilton is photographing using moving pictures rather than stills. And this gets so boring after a while. I even didn't watch the whole thing the second time, for I fell vast asleep. That is all that remains of this masterpiece: it is a very good sleeping pill. And you will never become addicted to it!

Back then 7 out of 10, now 3 out of 10