Barbe bleue

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.

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 felt like I was attending a Riannesance Faire with all the costumes and dancing and people eating without utensils. It was a beautiful movie in that regard.

I wonder at the significance of Bluebeard's clothing. He wore a robe at one time that had IHS on the back, and another time, he seemed to be wearing a stole over his clothing like a priest saying Mass. A disparagement at the patriarchal Catholic Church?

But, that aside, the film which is really two stories in one, is a feminist telling of the Bluebeard story. In both stories, we see a highly patriarchal society, where women are an afterthought. The rules of men must be obeyed.

It is left up to the viewer to determine if things resolved themselves satisfactorily. A bow to Salome in one story, and wish fulfillment in sibling rivalry in another.

It is not your usual Catherine Breillat film. A PG rating would probably be stretching it, only for the blood.

If you are familiar with some of director Catherine Breillat's previous works, you might enter this with a certain expectation to see genitalia and penetrative sex. But in her adaptation of the fairy tale of Blue Beard there is thankfully none.

In olden days, when two young sisters are removed from the private school after their father dies they return to live with their mother and circumstances look dire. A local Lord, known as Blue Beard has a reputation for the ladies and rumours abound that his previous wives and lovers, now missing, were murdered by him. After an invite to a gathering at his castle, one of the young sisters befriends the giant Lord and their marriage is arranged. Marie loves to the cold stark castle aware of the reputation her new husband has and demands that due to her age she sleep in a separate room until she is of age to consummate the marriage. Blue Beard travels away on occasion leaving Marie to her own devises. Amongst this we have in more modern times two young sisters play in an attic and the younger taunts her older more sensitive sister by reading her the story of Blue Beard which she finds scary.

This adaptation is at times very clunky to watch. The cast seem very amateurish and some scenes look like it's been made by a student production. Whilst not familiar with the story, it appears to be quite dark and yet there never really is a sense of foreboding in the film and it never really enters in really dark territory which doesn't work in it's favour. Only near the end does the film show a darker element as Marie faces the consequences of her actions and the modern tale of the two sisters takes an unfortunate turn.

The younger cast do quite well, especially the young girls in the modern part. In fact they provide the only real enjoyment throughout the film as the younger tease and taunts her sister and some of their conversations are priceless. Yet at first these scenes when they appear add confusion to the story as it's not immediately apparent what is happening. The castle settings, in fact the whole setting looks overly baron and cold and it looks odd, especially as there is no contrast between Marie's poor family home and the Lord's sumptuous castle.

Overall the film feels a little stagnant that even at 80 minutes running time feels over long. It is a good story, but save for some nice performances and a few laughs from the two modern sisters, this seems like a bad attempt at film making that clearly shows it's low budget.

More of my reviews at iheartfilms.weebly.com

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.