Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye

Okay, the sex scenes (read: the entire film minus one boring staircase walking scene) were well done (by porn standards), "classy", "artsy", etcetera. Having not read the novel yet I was hoping that there would have simply been more to this film other than pornography. I knew that the novel was supposed to be very erotic and unapologetically so, but is that all there is to it? Does the novel simply narrate a bunch of screwing and blow jobs? Here's how simply this film can be broken down, scene-by-scene, without leaving anything out:

--Stock footage of a woman giving birth while the narrator reads a brief biography about Georges Bataille.

--Two guys have sex.

--Two women have sex.

--Girl stumbles up flight of stairs for like 15 minutes while other women scream from somewhere.

--Girl pisses on the floor/stares out filthy window.

--Two girls and some guy have sex.

--10-15 minutes of black screen and electronic noise.

--The End.

Perhaps if there were at least some interesting narration from the novel during this stuff it would have had more of an impact as a piece of compelling art rather than a slightly artsy porn flick. I guess I just need to read the book.

There are a couple of mildly interesting ideas here but basically it just comes over as a string of tediously extended hardcore sex scenes performed by art students. Associating it with Bataille is ridiculous - the only link is the openness about sex. But in terms of aesthetic interest there's no comparison at all. In short: don't bother.

Georges Bataille's History of the Eye is one of the most interesting french erotic / pornographic novels of the 20th century. At the same time, it's really distressing in the context of Batailles own biography. This base is not easy for an adaption and should not be interpreted word by word to the medium movie. Andrew McElhinney made an art-porn movie inspired from Bataille as well as from Querelle (Fassbinder). Bataille is giving a framework for this masterpiece.

George Bataille's Story of the Eye is a nearly silent film with just music, drones and noise (the only dialogue is some voiceover at the beginning and the name `Jackie O' which one of the women mutters as a phrase three times about half way though the film), its shot on DV as if in Dario Argento Technicolor, the sound design rivals Eraserhead and, most unusually the film features hard-core sex acts (gay, straight and bi) which serves to illustrate the physiology of the film's characters.

The actors are all incredibly beautiful (the tap dancing girls are HOT!) and brave (no one seems to be faking anything) and the fluid camera studies them like a Victorian naturalist lost in an overheated, imagined Punked-Out Congo. It's dream-like and narcotic it its personality but also rather witty and dry and `English.' My girlfriend was really into the scene with the Sailor and the Black Leather Man but her best friend found it `really too weird and smutty' and left the room about 20 minutes into the film. I think it helps to know George Bataille's essays on sex, sensuality, spirituality and death or really like films like `Salo,' `The Pillow Book,' `Eyes Wide Shut' or `Romance.'

I've never seen a flick like this; a friend of mine lent me an advance video screener which might have been missing the final 10 minutes because the screen goes black and there is just chaotic sound then color bars.

I close my eyes and pictures from this movie flood my mind so clearly -- I can't wait to see this on the big screen. It's a big turn on for both the mind and body.

many people would consider the writing of Georges Bataille pornographic. many people would consider the films of Richard Kern or even of Bertolucci to be pornographic. underground cinema always has pushed the envelope of our sensibilities and i think Story Of The Eye is no different. i think calling something porn has more to do with the way it is made than what exactly is being shown. pornography is cheaply produced for a buck. it is exploitative of its talent and its audience. this film is neither. the filmmaker is no hack, his imagery is subtle, symbolic, and often sublime. granted, subtlety is tossed out the window at times when penetration and bodily fluids take center stage, but those are jolts that intend to shock. i was shocked by this film, and i am so rarely shocked that it was actually refreshing. i've seen enough to not be shocked simply because the film is so explicit, but because it is so gorgeously photographed and interestingly designed AND so explicit. i highly recommend this for anyone interested in checking out a film that really goes there.