Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye

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.

The problem with many of the reviews for this film on this site is they aren't approaching the film at its level. This is a very important thing to do. You don't go into an action film with melodrama expectations, for instance.

When you watch an experimental film, that was also presented as an art installation utilizing multiple screens (not all visible from one place) playing simultaneously with their sound audible everywhere, you don't go in expecting a traditional narrative with clear character psychology and an obvious point, like we are trained to read from traditional film. Likewise, we shouldn't be going in expecting it to be a direct adaptation of Bataille's novella. Again, an experimental adaptation is nothing like a traditional adaptation. This film adapts it in transgressive intent, some generalized thematic concerns, etc. etc.

Also, this isn't porn. I know that may be hard for some people to understand, but it's best to really understand what porn is and what it does to understand this. Porno, functionally, reduces to a minimum anything that gets in the way of lust, of sexual passion, of sexual gratification, etc. etc. This film does not do this, it maximizes these obtrusive elements. A fifteenish minute scene of a woman walking up stairs, the Zapruder footage, the general method of transitions between sexual encounters, these aren't building up the sexual appetite but attempting to subvert them. There is too much in way of interruption and motif for this to be a 'pornographic film'.

I would also suggest reading the novella before watching this film. And that doesn't mean skim through it, or pseudo read it, taking care to only grasp the narrative structure and do little to grasp his motifs, themes, concerns, and overarching thesis. Once you understand what the book was doing and saying, or at least have an idea of what you think the book was doing and saying, you may have a better time approaching this film.

The most important thing to keep in mind - it's an experimental art film, you don't approach films like this the same way you would approach blockbusters.

Lastly, would people please stop putting up scene breakdowns? Not only is it reductive to the overall action, but they are also always incorrect and missing parts.

I went into this film not knowing what it was about. We had just finished seeing another independent film, which finished early and was great, so we went to this one since it was the next one playing. The ticket seller did say the movie was sexually explicit. In mind, that meant something like the deleted scene from Angel Heart. However, what we saw was hard core.

It is kind of sad to see what some people think of as art these days. This was a porno movie plain and simple. Just think, I can edit a porno movie and splice it with a dance number and a breech birth and can it an independent film. People just get over your repression and buy a real porno movie at least you'll see a ---shot as well.