Customer Reviews

Bluebeard

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

When a fairy tale resonates enough to be told and retold over several centuries, as many of Charles Perrault's folktale adaptations have, one must presume them to hold a certain quality that transcends the typical story. Bluebeard, for instance, being so dark and laced with such innate fears, would perhaps qualify for a modern spin. Times indeed have changed somewhat since Perrault first set word to page, and though Bluebeard has been adapted many times since, there's always room for a new version, that's part of the beauty of a folk tale isn't it? That spin that's added over time?

Director Catherine Briellat's version achieves only in flattening out the depth in the tale, of leaching the fear from the characters, and washing over the cinematic pallet with cheap Hal loween style costumes and reused sets. Yes, yes, I see that perhaps the `staged' quality of the Bluebeard story within a story (two little girls are actually reading the book in the 50s) may imply that it is `constructed' within the mind - a fiction. And yes, I get that the cheap costumes may serve metaphorically to emphasis that riches are only on the surface, and that this `rags' to `riches' tale is a trap. And finally, yes, I see that perhaps the reusing of the sets may imply that the lead - Bluebeard's young wife - really doesn't get anywhere, her journey is stagnated. Alas, the potential for metaphor is bursting from this over-ripe fruit in place of flavor and emotion.

The two tales, that of Bluebeard in its Renaissance Fair setting, and the sisters reading the story in their treasure trove attic, are oddly disconnected. While the four young girls are charming enough to carry a well directed film, here they seem to just be doing there own thing, just with memorized lines. Only the long still shots work in this film. So much so that as images in a story book, a selection of well staged shots might serve Briellat better. When run together as a film, it's a mess.

With all the negativity aside, I've seen worse films. I do think this film has a few things going for it, though perhaps not intentionally so. I was deeply engaged as I watched, trying to piece together something that ultimately was not there, but anytime a film engages you, it stands to some degree above others that do not. Perhaps others may find more here than I, but I can't recommend.

Catherine Breillat often confounds me in her work, but BLUEBEARD is relatively straightforward, and I felt I was tracking the whole way. It should be said that there are two parallel stories, one set in the 15th century, and the other set in the 1950's. I suppose there could be some controversy over which story is supposed to reflect on the other, or whether we really have to choose at all. Suffice it to say, the two stories alternate, somewhat like the present and past segments in Godard's WEEKEND or Bunuel's MILKY WAY. BLUEBEARD clearly resembles those films in it's complete disregard of verisimilitude. What interests Breillat is not realism, but iconography. It simply doesn't matter that the wardrobe appears as if it was rented from the corner costume shop.

The Bluebeard story is framed by two sisters who are reading the story in the 1950's. The younger of the two, "Catherine," has surpassed her older sister emotionally and academically and enjoys scaring her with her bloody descriptions of the Bluebeard story. It is a dynamic of sibling rivalry whose ending is at least as dire as that of "Bluebeard" itself.

The 15th century story concerns two other sisters who are (hilariously, to my taste) ejected from parochial school when their father dies. Now impoverished, the younger sister, Marie-Catherine, agrees to marry Bluebeard to save her family's fortunes. This portion of the film has more of the old familiar reversals of sexual dynamics that we have come to love and loathe in Breillat's work.

As a whole, the movie has many very funny moments. If you only know Breillat from the likes of FAT GIRL or BRIEF CROSSING, I promise you will be surprised and delighted. Nothing against those films. FAT GIRL made me revere Breillat, and BRIEF CROSSING so infuriated me, I have no choice but to regard it as a total success.

Still, among the ten Breillat films seen stateside since 1988, this is easily the most pleasant and approachable, without abandoning the themes the director has been working at so consistently. Enjoy it.

Catherine Breillat's "Bluebeard" is elegant, but slow and sleek. The movie is 78 minutes long, and the conflict takes a long time to show up. The beginning of the film, while an important part to any story, drags its feet and numbs the audience. Viewers might have a hard time enjoying this otherwise decent film because it takes a while to get started.

There are two stories--one of two little girls who read "Bluebeard" in an attic, and one of two young women who experience it. Both pairs are sisters.

Marilou Lopes-Benites plays the funny and engaging little girl who reads to her squeamish older sister. Their scenes occasionally interrupt the main story. What is storytelling in the attic becomes narration in Bluebeard's world. Lola Créton plays the precocious young woman who eventually marries Bluebeard, an aristocrat who is rumored to have killed all his previous wives.

These two actresses, along with Bluebeard himself (Dominique Thomas) are the ones to watch. Their actions actually contribute to the story. The other two sisters do nothing but oppose and hinder their siblings.

But time goes by very slowly in Bluebeard's world. There are a lot of uneventful scenes. Sometimes the characters are simply feasting, which adds to the dark sensuality of the film, but does nothing for the story itself.

"Bluebeard" is also sleek because it isn't weighed down by a lot of extraneous plotlines. Once Bluebeard gets married again, the film focuses on the married couple and how they interact. Nor is the screen cluttered; every mise en scène is very minimalist.

Bluebeard's environment is also nice to look at. The food looks appetizing, and the eaters seem to enjoy themselves. There are also statues, jewels, and rich dresses.

It's a wonder Brellait managed to make the film as long as she did; fairy tales usually don't take that long to tell. But she excels at two things: painting a visually exquisite picture of a simple story, and making it dark and scary enough that adults will want to watch it without their kids.

Bluebeard is a very suspicious person, and the nonchalant way he talks with his newest bride might put audiences on high alert, which can be both thrilling and nerve-wracking.

But the director dedicates the majority of the film to the first half of the plot, rather than the second. By dwelling on the wrong half of the story, Brellait makes "Bluebeard" less engaging than it could've been.

I liked cinematography but I felt there could have been more depth to the story and the characters. The story runs really slow and the suddenly jumps to a random scene. I am going to read the book for comparison.

I first noticed this on Amazon video stream and at once I was obsessed with seeing it. When I finally got it, my expectations were incredibly high, so I suppose initially I was a teensy bit disappointed only because--as others have said--the movie's overall progression is slow paced. Many others say this film should be a short rather than a full feature. I disagree! Take into consideration that the original fairytale by Charles Perrault would only take a moment to read aloud, which mean the director Catherine Breillat would have a large amount of filler to add in to beef up the story and define the characters with. I'm rather impressed. I really did like this film, though I would not give it a full 5 stars but do not think it was a flop or deserving of less than 3.

I thought that the parallelism between the narrator and her sister (Catherine and Marie-Anne) while telling the story of the two sisters in the story (Marie-Catherine and Anne) was an interesting take on how to execute this film. Plus I adored Catherine! She was a silly little thing and she will make you laugh. I admired both Catherine and Marie-Catherine very much and they make fitting protagonists. Though...I both disliked the actress who played Marie-Catherine's sister Anne and the character Anne herself. She was too melodramatic and angsty while crying through her nose. It was somewhat distracting to me.
The relationship between Bluebeard and his new wife Marie-Catherine is particularly exceptional. Their relationship is innocent, simple, and delicate. Because of this director, I was expecting (actually dreading) that this movie (since unrated) would turn out to be highly sexual but it was not. If curious, I would rate this movie myself at about PG or PG-13 (because of how dark the nature of the movie is).

Suspense is created by foreshadowing of Bluebeard's fate such as in the beginning where there is the statue of decapitated bodies and a figure standing above the rest while the sisters are still at a nunnery, at Bluebeard's party where a maid cuts of the head of a duck and a mesmerized Marie-Catherine stands to watch. There are hundreds of little things that are displayed and acted out to become symbolic, like how Marie-Catherine eats quail eggs while Bluebeard eats an ostrich egg to differentiate standing, physical status, nature etc. I enjoyed the dialogue in itself because not a line was wasteful and pertained to a greater meaning.

If you pay attention to the Easter eggs that are planted throughout the film, then you should have no problem with Bluebeard, but if you are waiting for that giant heart-racing conflict to happen halfway through you will be sorely disappointed because this film isn't the sprinter. It's dark and reflective, needing to be savored rather than gulped down. I would say give it a chance; it's really a beautiful retelling of a classic tale.

This movie is beautiful and atmospheric but doesn't move as quickly as many may expect, in part due to it being based on a short fairy tale (which the filmmakers were careful not to ruin by including too much that may have compromised the arc of the original story) as well as the director's style which is perfectly suited to this pace. That being said, if you enjoy gothic, elegant and deliberately slow paced movies you will probably like Bluebeard. I would like to have seen more melodrama at certain points which would have lent a lively kicker to a few spots but I found no significant weak elements worth mentioning. The best way to view this movie is to NOT read the short story first so that you will discover it as the movie plays out and will enjoy the suspense even more. Overall a fine movie for those who have the patience to see it through.

I read the other reviews. I saw nothing hillarious or edgy about this really dull film that could easily have been made a short, rather than a feature.

It's two stories in one. On one hand are two young sisters, one reading to the other the 'horror' story of Bluebeard. The other story is that tale acted out.

Two other sisters are kicked out of a convent-school because their father has died. Impoverished one marries Bluebeard the local lord who has a reputation of killing all his wives a year after the marriage.

Of course one would marry him! That's one of the dumb story elements. The other is that Bluebeard leaves his young bride, gives her keys to all the rooms in the castle, including one room he forbids her to go into.

She goes in, and there's the bodies of his previous wives. He returns and has to kill her. And here's the next dumb plot - it's very wordy French film at its worse as she accepts that she'll die, but asks for time to prepare - really to go to the tower and just happens to be able to signal passers-by. He goes to kill her but she asks to be killed in her wedding dress. He allows this. And so on. Other pleas for another delay.

It just got so tedious. Nothing really happens the whole film