Barbe bleue

I did not think well of Catherine Breillat's 2010 follow-up 'La belle endormie' with its baffling "interpretation," and on that basis I had poor expectations of this. Why not give her a second chance, though? Everyone deserves one, right? Frankly, to watch 'Barbe bleue,' I'm all the more mystified at the choices Breillat would make for the subsequent feature, for this is at least one thing its successor is not: good. It's still distinctly flawed, mind you, but among this film's discernible faults it at least is internally consistent, with a sensible, solidly written narrative. This may not be a total must-see, but it's modestly enjoyable and fairly worthwhile.

The tale on hand is a simple one, but duly engaging, and made easier with the charm and restrained nuance of chief star Lola Créton. All the while the picture is crafted with tremendous care, with lovely filming locations, and superb production design and art direction to dress them up. The costume design and hair and makeup, not to mention props, are all splendid, helping to cement the period setting. Breillat's direction is excellent in terms of orchestrating shots and scenes - tight and focused, accentuating the small world and limited scope of the fairy tale - and I admire Vilko Fila's mindful cinematography. Though I wish something more were done with it, I rather love the low-key pensiveness of the final shot, what I believe to be a strong finish.

I did say 'Barbe bleue' is flawed, though, and I surely mean it. It struggles with pacing; it feels like stretching this out to 82 minutes was excessive. This is pointedly emphasized by those cutaways to the two children reading a storybook; while possibly worth exploring on their own, here they provide framing that intermittently breaks the flow of the plot instead of meaningfully adding to the movie. The subdued tone I can easily forgive as a matter of stylistic choice, though I can understand how it would be one that's off-putting to other viewers. On the other hand, just as would be seen much more discretely in 'La belle endormie,' some scenes suffer from a weakness of execution (presumably direction) that make them come off as halfhearted, as though the take were only a rehearsal. For that matter, the acting across the board is muted to the point of too often feeling hollow, even from Créton. For as long as Breillat has been making films, such moments are perplexing.

Passably entertaining as this title is, there's nothing remarkable or special about it. Earnest adaptations of other fairy tales have been made that were far richer and more grabbing. This isn't to inherently disparage this rendition, but the disparity is notable, and for lack of any quality that's especially striking it's not something likely to stand as being particularly memorable. I nonetheless appreciate all the work that went into 'Barbe bleue,' and it's suitably satisfying as something to watch on a quiet day. Don't go out of your way for it, but if you're looking for a light feature that doesn't require any form of major investment, this is a decent way to spend 82 minutes.

I was curious about a new adaptation of this classic story. After all, there is nothing like a good old story to sustain a movie. As i watched, i was more and more surprised. I kept wondering how can a film maker do such a bad job and let it out for the public to see... I tried to give it a chance, hoping that it will improve, but i was too optimistic. I wouldn't want to criticize something to the point of convincing others to avoid it, but in this case it felt like a civic duty. To put it briefly, bad scenario, awful dialogues, unremarkable camera work, unbelievably bad cinema; a pittiful adaptation. I'm sorry to say such bad stuff about other people's work. I'm sure they didn't want to do a bad job, but sometimes that's how things go. Wish them better luck next time. OK now. Time to forget this disappointment. Don't waste time on this one.

Blue Beard (2009)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Incredibly disappointing adaptation of Charles Perrault's fairy tale has sisters Marie-Catherine (Lola Creton) and Anne (Daphne Baiwir) being taken out of a rich school after the death of their family. Moving back with their mother, the three are now desperately poor and this is when they're invited to the castle of Lord Bluebeard (Dominique Thomas) and soon after Marie-Cathrine agrees to marry him. This story has been told countless times before but I had high hopes going into this one because I'm always impressed with the work of director Catherine Breillat. I'm sure some might be able to say this film spoke to them or that it was deep in some fashion but to me it was just a complete mess from start to finish and the worst thing is that it's totally lifeless. I'm really not sure what the director was trying to do here but no matter what the goal was it certainly didn't succeed. I was rather shocked to see how lifeless the picture was as it doesn't contain a bit of energy and after a while the viewer just grows tired of the slow pacing. Even worse is that this thing clocks in at 78-minutes, which feels twice as long. It was impossible to care about either of the sisters and all the flashbacks to a couple girls playing in an attic just doesn't work or add anything to the picture. The one thing I did like about the film were the performances. I thought Creton was very effective in the role of the strong sister who will stop at nothing to get what she wants. I also thought Thomas was extremely good as the ogre Bluebeard. He brought a certain sympathetic nature to the role that I thought worked very well. With that said, the film is a major letdown and it's a real shame because it should have been much, much better.

Despite possibly the most charming child performance in a movie ever (no I have not watched all movies ever) by Marilou Lopes-Benites, I didn't allow myself to fall for Bluebeard, though this little girl narrator is so winsome that on occasion her charm has the audience gasping.

The way that Bluebeard is shot is very casual, almost matter-of-fact and Rohmerian, strangely for what is potentially such an atmospheric story. The level of graft going on is very low, more befitting a conversational type film a la Rohmer. I also took badly to a scene of animal slaughter that seemed inhumane.

I think comparisons with Tarsem Singh's wonderful movie The Fall are beneficial. In both movies there have two timelines, the first, the timeline of narration is set in the early Twentieth Century, the second is a period fantasy being narrated. In both movies there is a charming child actress, in The Fall it's Catinca Untaru. Where The Fall succeeds in my view is that the fantastical narrative really feels like a product of the narrators' minds. In Bluebeard, even though the girls are reading from a book, the resultant fantasy doesn't feel like a product of their minds, but distinctly a product of Catherine Breillat's mind, too knowing and sophisticated. Quite clearly for example the children would not have been imagining the squirming of a dying animal. Even though the narration is less ostentatious, and takes up less screen time, as with The Fall you really can make a case for it being the most moving part.

I think Breillat did manage to access the essence of the Bluebeard story which is that if you are a big ugly sensitive oaf, you are condemned to not participate in life, one of my fondest quotes, from Le Quai Des Brumes / Port of Shadows (in French it's more eloquent) is "It's horrible to love like Romeo when you look like Bluebeard!". I think that's what worse is that women often don't acknowledge that it's possible that such a man could have the feelings of Romeo, as if only pretty and graceful men could feel like that. Something that should never be forgotten is that passion is something everyone feels.

Brief summary of the plot is that Bluebeard is a rich man rumoured to have murdered previous wives. He takes new wives without dowry, and persuades Marie-Catherine, a child bride, to marry him. There are some funny post marital scenes, like when Bluebeard is sat eating an ostrich egg, and Marie-Catherine is sat eating a quail egg side by side.

I really am fond of the movie, but I would have liked to see more mise-en-scene, the movie as I say, is far too casual. There is a feeling of great boredom that arises from the last scene of the fantasy strand, in a scene that should perhaps be incredibly stirring.

The tale of blue beard told with beautiful visuals. But sadly the story and the film is marred by two unforgivable things. Mainly, the acting is so wooden you think the actors might catch fire from the open fires. It is impossible to discern any emotion at all from the actors. And secondly, the story is drawn out by being read by two young girls in a more contemporary setting, it does not add much but extra time to an already too long film. I watched the film anyway, hoping for a new twist, for some emotion from the actors, for some clue as to the relationship between Bluebeard and his new wife, but ultimately I was only disappointed. This is not a film for watching, this is a film for lying down and avoiding.

I also noted a jarring anachronism, everything in the story has the look of a medieval setting, but in this setting there are 17th century musketeers. Guess the filmmakers took any prop they could get their hands on.