Bilitis

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.

It's a little sad to read the reviews by people who've only watched a portion of this film. Yes, Bilitis starts out like the dopiest male horndog's perspective of the world: an all girl's school where every student is a model-tier beauty, and they all caress each other, giggle as they undress and go skinny-dipping as a class. But there's a lot more going on here. It's all gorgeously shot, with David Hamilton's signature, gauzy diffused style, and Francis Lai's soundtrack is sweet. The director is able to elicit natural, conversational performances from most of the cast (sorry, Gilles Kohler). Still, content-wise, I can't deny that it all plays out like empty-headed softcore porn.

For a while, anyway. You'll be rewarded for sticking around. Maybe a third of the way through, they virtually dispense with the sex and nudity... the story's still all about hooking up, and there's plenty of kissing and suggestive embracing. But the R-rated stuff nearly disappears, and whatever's left is no longer gratuitous.

Instead, the film practically turns into an Eric Rohmer film: a charming story of a young girl who goes around town trying to find a suitable match for an older woman, only to get her heart broken in the process. It has a very gentle humor to it (it gets funnier and funnier every time Nikias's two friends wander back into shot), and that combined with the pictorial settings and languid lifestyles depicted - the titular Bilitis is even staying with an older couple while on holiday from school, and getting caught up in the bad examples they set - calls to mind Pauline At the Beach and Claire's Knee. The characters blossom from their centerfold origins into intriguing, sympathetic humans, a development I credit to screenwriter Catherine Breillat. I'm sure the 19th century source material has something to do with it, too; but there are echoes of her work throughout this movie, and in all the best moments. The critical study of males' attritional style of seduction, for example, feels like a direct precursor to her masterclass on the subject in A ma soeur. But just generally having a strong female voice guiding what is ostensibly meant to be a very personal, first person experience of a female character discovering her womanhood is something usually sorely absent in Hamilton's films (which is felt doubly now, given what came out later in his life, casting a dark shadow over everything he's ever done) or other "erotic" films of this era.

I put "erotic" in quotes there, because Breillat has said in interview that she doesn't see the film as erotic and didn't intend it to be. There's definitely some push-pull here, and the final film probably falls more safely into the category of Erotica than the script she delivered. But while that tension results in the aforementioned male gaze-y flaws of the first act (I'd add an extra star or two if they'd just given the first act a quick rewrite), it's also an asset: a Hamilton film with more depth and truth than he usually finds, and a softer, less combative work than we're used to from Breillat. Bilitis isn't likely to be anybody's favorite film, but it's more than the technically adept bit of titillation you probably bought the ticket for. The characters can be surprising, and you wind up caring about them, worrying for how they'll end up to a greater degree than most straight-forward Hollywood dramas are able to manage.

I've seen other negative reactions - again, quite understandable after 2016 - often describing this film as being for Hamilton fans only. And certainly if you're a die-hard devotee, sure, you need this in your collection just by virtue of his name being on it. And it does have all his signature traits. It looks like his photographs come alive. But I'd actually say almost the opposite: this isn't for Hamilton fans. I think a lot of the disappointment comes from guys looking for a little naughty entertainment (just look at the reviews complaining about the soft focus nudity, brevity of the sex scenes or the actresses' bust sizes) and instead stumbling on what is, at least at points, an indictment of men imposing their sexual desires onto young girls... which is - whoops! Hamilton, his fans and almost everyone else in this market.

I think I'd say instead that this is a film for Breillat fans only. And even then, it's not exactly her greatest literary achievement. But it's probably the only one with a warm and inviting quality. Hamilton's elegant style coupled with her singular understanding of human relationships is at least worth staying to the end for.

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

Sometimes my quest to see every notorious European sex film from the 70's leads me very far afield--and sometimes it just leads to a lot of boredom. I saw this film back-to-back with Catherine Breillat's directorial debut "Un Vrai Jeune Fille" (Breillat was co-writer of this film as well). Both are very pretentious, but while "Jeune Fille" is genuinely disturbing yet also realistic in a strange way, this film is simply dull and rarely rises above the most generic level of male fantasy. The director David Hamilton, depending on who you ask, is either a brilliant photographer or an incorrigible pervert. His main subject of interest was capturing adolescent and post-adolescent females at their most nubile. He's definitely in hog heaven at the beginning of this film which is set at a French girls' school the protagonist is attending. This apparently is a VERY liberal school where the students freely skinny-dip, openly engage in lesbian frolics, and even put on Greek plays for their families wearing nearly diaphanous togas that barely cover their lissome bodies. Naturally, ALL these girls are model beautiful. It's probably best not to wonder how old some of them were at the time, but the lead, American actress Patty D'Arbanville, was actually in her mid-20's, although she looks younger.

As questionable as the first half hour may be though, it certainly achieves it effect (it's surpassed only by the "Barthory" section of Walerian Borowzyx's "Immoral Tales" in its sheer gratuitous display of nubile skin). It's really the second hour that's the problem. D'Arbanville's character "Bilitis" goes to stay with her ridiculously young female "guardian" (Mona Christensen) and the latter's unfaithful, brutish husband. "Bilitis" falls in love with the (slightly)older woman and they have a long lesbian sex scene. The guardian spurns her afterwards, but "Bilitis", taking it like a trooper, decides to try to personally "find a man" for her after her husband walks out. "Bilitis" also has a would-be beau herself, a young photographer (just like the director, hmmm). Respected actor Mathieu Carriere also shows up as one would-be suitor for the "older" woman, but I THINK he's supposed to be gay. The film ends with EVERYONE left pretty unhappy, which is really the only place the downbeat influence of Breillat shows through the soft-focus schmaltz of Hamilton.

Although he is the polar opposites in his taste in women (Hamilton's actresses rarely have enough fat on their young bodies to make for more than a B-cup), David Hamilton is a lot like "bosomaniac" American director Russ Meyer in a way. No heterosexual male can honestly say he is turned off by bountiful breasts OR nubile 18-year-old bodies, but if you don't happen to share either of these director's obsessive personal fetishes, their work gets kind of tedious after awhile. This movie would have been vastly improved , for instance, if the guardian had been played by a voluptuous older woman instead of another young nymph like Christensen. (It's not that I really advocate inter-generational lesbian sex, but if you're gonna do it, do it right).

I'd definitely recommend this for David Hamilton fans, but otherwise, ehhhhh.

This 1977 colored version is the same film made in France in 1959. The original is long out of print & is not listed. I can remember vividly seeing this movie at 16 Y.O. & enjoying it immensely. The music is wonderful, the plot is ok but nothing fabulous. The French actresses are very sexy & I rate this movie as to being very sensual.