Director Cathérine Breillat folds two fairy tales into another, one of her own design and the classic narrative theme Barbe Bleue (King Blue-beard). I guess she deliberately renders the performances and sets artificial and hollow. This is for example clearly indicated in the tower stairs scene, where the same part of the spiral stairs is shown over and over again to give the impression of a high tower but there are distinctive parts showing it's always the same. As if this wasn't already clear enough, at one point she needlessly lets the image flip to show its cut. I interpret this as a cryptic reflection of narrative tradition where she blends the image of the girl devouring King Blue beard into a new image of the girl's courage and fearless endeavor. Hence Lola Creton is the only one who seems to be allowed to give a glowing performance and so she does. A difficult film, but worth a watch if anything of the above made sense to you or you know and like Breillat's unconventional work.
Add a Review
-
Gecq16 February 2009
-
oOgiandujaOo_and_Eddy_Merckx21 September 2010Despite 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. -
lastliberal25 June 2010I 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. -
tedg9 October 2011Its a sad thing to see the tragedy unfold, that tragedy of growing weariness of life we have impressed on the story of the lost innocence of a girl.
There are three such stories here.
The least interesting is the 'fairy tale' itself: an innocent younger sister by fate ends up married. Her impression of her husband is stretched in her mind: he is huge, with appetite to match. Urges related to sex, which she has not yet felt, are mapped onto bloody murder. Her wedding night will be a death. The bridal chamber, accessed by a golden key, is a storehouse of dead women, all dripping fresh blood on the floor from under their nightgowns. Fears, fears. Unlike the typical Breillat, the man here is gentle and suffers. But like the rest of her work, it concerns the strangeness of sex as it barrels into young girl's lives.
All of it is highly abstract, absurdly so.
Redhead note: our girl's older and wiser sister is played by an extreme prototype redhead. When they get to the castle of grownups, they encounter an actual sexually active woman, and she is yet more extremely redheaded. There is an initial recognition and embrace.
This tale is wrapped in a second, set in Brellait's childhood era. In this case, two sisters — younger than those in the tale — discover the book of the story. Much is made of the disparately between the two: the younger one is 'more advanced' and she lords it over her sister. When we see these two, peppered throughout, we see how profound is their ignorance of adult ways. As the inner story produces its gruesome end of an undeserved death, so does the outer story.
But there is the third story, the outer wrapper, the story of the filmmaker who we knew as a young woman. She made some films full of energy, richness, sexual imbalance and personal pain. Now she is a mature woman, and all the blood is gone. All we have left is lifeless metaphor.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements. -
signlady8 August 2022Greetings from latetotheshow . . .
I never read a book by this French lady - I've seen 'bluebeard' movies - only the cliche bad-boy pirate-on-a-ship type - so this movie was different . . .
I simply picked this DVD up at a thrift store - no expectations - didn't even read the synopsis - So now that I've seen it - in a word - it was 'interesting' . . .
Intetesting in that - it made me ask a lot of questions . . .
I thought production, costumes, scenes and all were great - of course, the two modern day sisters are adorable - the younger highly precocious one reads the story to the older sister - and, as the story plays out - we realize we are guest viewers into her vivid imagination.
Just as an aside - I didn't think bluebeard was ugly at all - lol - coulda lost 75lbs and been good lookin'! . . . but of course - to young girls - very scary. I found his size humorous too bc if he gets any bigger he wouod not fit down the very narrow hall at the top of the stairs.
The character as the Beard's new young wife was really good. Her face and eyes were so incredibley, expressively confident. - she was the teen embodiment of the little story teller (more on that).
Meanwhile, much of the movie seems to be filmed as simple brief moments with scant dialogue. It's almost like watching a silent movie but rather in the opposite way - we have some talkie-dialogue and rather frozen-brief scenes in place of where a silent-movie would flash written words. A great way to portray a child's imagination. Thats why I call it an art house movie.
There's some humor which I think could have been stepped up - but juxtaposed against the serial-killer theme - the balance - tho precarious, seems to hold steady.
I thought the repeated scenes of going up the spiral staircase were hilarious. It was the same location being repeated over & over - but remember - it was the child telling the story - we are in her imagination - so it was really cute. And also, the guys beard is eventually actually blue - not even all the time, just some times, so again, this reveals the fluid imagination of the story teller.
I don't know much about the French - at least nothing contemporary - but I like a lot of their thinking & creativity in all things renaissance; writing, art, movies, & furniture.
As for questions: More than sexual tension - which I didn't think was very tense at all - bc of realizing it thru a child's eyes - the overall movie seemed more like a deeper exploration of sisters - rivalry, competition, loving devotion, jealousy, betrayal, and all the many dynamics involved between sisters . . . Including, we see - light banter, eye-rolling arguing & 'deep' discussions on love & marriage thru totally innocent eyes between the two modern sisters.
But - big question - I still did not understand at all why the older (modern day) sister is accidently killed at the end . . . ??? The ending seems really strange.
I was also interested in why the step mom (in the imagined story) seemed much closer & more affectionate to the older sister than to the younger . . . ? Then, the bride gives a clue - the older sister is spoiled . . .
Is this the answer to the big question? The younger modern sister, regardless of her advanced intelligence, was jealous of affection given to her older sister?
Was the fall from the attic an accident, or planned????
Although the movie is titled Blue beard - it's not really about him. We do not go into his psychology - I suppose this is because we are seeing him thru the story tellers imagination - we see he is sad, isolated, & tortured as even a child would know he is. At first we think it might be that he's really a gentle guy who's been mis-read. But what a vivid way to actually portray his psychology when we see he is a serial killer who is driven to sate his need again.
The movie also seems to portray how a young child overcomes fears in that as the story teller- she creates a way for the bride to be saved from this villian, and he is given no sympathy - the bride strokes his severed, plattered head and her facial expression is not sadness - it seems to imply great pride and a knowing, victorious, avenged glow. This poor guy was no match for the likes of her, as prophetically described by Bluebeard, She is 'innocent as a dove, proud as an eagle'.
Now, our adorable story teller? She also infuses her young heroine with all her own traits; an open, objective mind, eager to learn, very non-judgemental, and yet crafty & very wise, highly confident, all while pure & innocent, and as imagination would allow, her heroine-self is treated special & patiently by her groom. So this is interesting to realize, given the ending. Does the story teller feel she is, or actually is she is not treated special & spoiled by her parents?
The bride comments that her sister was spoiled bc she was the older one.
Is that French culture? It's opposite in American culture - typically the youngest is the most spoiled. But the younger modern sister - being so intelligent & cute - is she trying to be noticed and spoiled too?
I might go back and give this 8 or 9 stars now that I've pondered out all these subtley art house-portrayed psychological ideas . . . : )
A keeper I will def watch at least one more time . . . -
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. -
absentpresence16 April 2010I 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.
-
howard.schumann4 October 2009Infused with a sumptuous elegance, Catherine Breillat's eerie retelling of the Charles Perrault fairytale Bluebeard is very sensual and highly stylized while adhering to an almost literary interpretation of the story. Shown at the Vancouver Film Festival, the film operates on parallel levels, both involving two sisters. In the first story, two young sisters play in the attic of their home in France in the present time. Catherine, who according to Breillat's autobiographical material, represents the director, plays power games with her older but more withdrawn sister Marie-Anne by tormenting her with readings of the classic horror story "Bluebeard".
While young Catherine is reading the story, the drama plays out on the screen in a setting that looks like the 16th century. Another pair of sisters Anne (Daphne Baiwir) and Marie-Catherine (Lola Créton) (note the similarity in names) receive sad news at a convent from a coldly unfeeling Mother Superior that their father was killed while trying to save a little girl. Without means to continue at their private school, the girls are unceremoniously thrown out. On the way home, they pass Bluebeard's Castle and comment on the local aristocrat who, rumor has it, married many wives who strangely disappeared.
It is not long until the corpulent Bluebeard (Dominique Thomas) begins to court the young and attractive Marie-Catherine. Without money for a dowry, Marie-Catherine, undaunted by the whispers, agrees to marry the wealthy Bluebeard. The film then moves back and forth between the two stories, with the younger girls' reading and commenting on the fairytale providing comic relief for the heavy drama of male power and female sexual awareness unfolding at the castle. Marie-Catherine seems to have charmed Bluebeard who appears loving but whose intimidating frame towers over the slender virgin.
Marie has, however, cannily set things up in her favor. She has chosen for herself a room so small that the hefty Bluebeard cannot enter but she can tiptoe down the hall and peek into the room where he is getting undressed. When he goes away on an unspecified trip, Marie-Catherine invites her sister Anne to the house and they have much fun but Marie is sad until her new husband returns home one month later. Before leaving on his second trip, however, he gives his wife a key to a mysterious room in the cellar with the impossible instruction not to open the door. Frightened of disobeying her husband but tantalized by the secret, Marie-Catherine unlocks the mystery chamber only to be confronted by her worst fears and the story plays out in Breillat's provocative and unpredictable fashion.
Bluebeard's setting immerses the audience in a world that is far removed from today's realities, yet teenage newcomer Lola Créton gives Marie-Catherine a playful confidence and pride to go along with her natural purity and innocence in a way that speaks to today's feminist sensibilities. Going backwards and forwards in time also highlights the universal qualities inherent in the Gothic fairy tales that, even when they are decidedly dark as in this case, have a lot to teach us about confronting our fears, lessons often hidden by the pandering of Walt Disney animation. Resonant with wit and sexual tension, Catherine Breillat has, in Bluebeard reestablished the reality of the world of children both full of terror and untold beauty and, in the process, has created a minor masterpiece. -
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. -
declanmccrary23 January 2018Generally sound movie with a ton of upsides to it, still no idea why this top level comedy is listed as a thriller however.
-
When I think of Catherine Breillat, I think of Fat Girl, Romance and Anatomy of Hell. Films that delve deep into the complex issues surrounding gender with an unabashedly confident auteur at the helm. Films that had an almost bland style but contained strong performances and incendiary ideas.
Barbe Bleue is a decent film, has some nice visuals (coupled with some really sloppy cinematography) and is pretty good for a made-for-TV movie. Viewers familiar with Breillat's other work, however, will definitely be disappointed.
Long story short, don't see this film. If you're looking for a French period piece, see Queen Margot or Cyrano de Bergerac. If you're a Breillat fan hoping this will be a return to form, you will unfortunately be quite disappointed. -
Michael_Elliott17 September 2012Blue 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. -
martys-721 August 2010Charles Perraux's 17th century folktale has terrified generations of children with the story of a psycho killer nobleman murdering his wives while teaching a lesson about the horrors that await those who are disobedient (specially girls) doing what has been forbidden. Apparently based on a real serial killer nobleman, the story certainly contains psycho-sexual elements that in proper hands could become a heady thrilling film.
Considering Catherine Breillat's previous films (Romance among others), one would expect a tour of the dark and tortured aspects of human sexuality involving power, violence, and other themes she has explored in the past. Instead we are presented with two movies both equally bland and meandering: in one, two little girls sneak into an attic that is off-limit to them and read to each other the book Bluebeard; in the second one, the story comes to life as imagined by the girls. The result is neither fish nor fowl: a movie that is too complicated for children but boring and pointless for adults.
The two girls interrupt their reading to talk about scattered subjects, get scared by the story, and argue as siblings do. The heroine as imagined by the girls is a colorless young woman who does not convey the fear or anxiety the girl in the original story has. The villain, fat and morose, is not threatening or mysterious enough to create an impending sense of doom. The movie, despite some rich scenes of a fairytale France, goes nowhere. It is a sad day when a self indulgent job such as this one passes for art. -
declanmccrary23 January 2018One of my new favorite films, it may appear unassuming but by the end you will not regret the time spent watching it. Only question is why this top level comedy is described as a thriller.
-
writers_reign16 July 2010One of the most refreshing things about the large number of female directors working in France is that 96 or 97 per cent of them are making mainstream films with not so much as a nod to feminist issues. Then, of course, we have Catherine Breillat who appears to be single-handedly attempting to redress the balance. Abandoning her usual in-yer-face quasi pornography she offers a more or less straightforward version of the classic fairy tale but elects to frame it with a modern day pair of sisters actually reading the story whilst in another time-frame, possibly the 16th or 17th century, another pair of siblings act it out with the younger actually opting to be the newest bride of the notorious barbe bleu. There's a nice and well deserved knock to the Catholic church in the shape of a heartless Mother Superior who observes coldly having just informed the siblings of the death of their father that she is running a private school and not a charity before turfing them into the street in practically the next breath. Very soon afterwards there is a very effective 'art house' shot as the coach in which they are travelling moves through a mist-shrouded forest in autumn and that's about it. If you thought the likes of Richard Todd, Lawrence Harvey et al were wooden wait til you get a load of this cast who came not so much from Central Casting as from the whittling knife of Pinnochio's old man. Well worth missing.
-
pennyblack-269157 February 2021I plan to buy copies for all my friends' children. Conjures the exact feeling of reading the unvarnished fairytales when young.
-
Aristides-218 August 2010The movie maintained my interest until the director chose to show the actual death agonies of a beheaded animal. She cheaply and insensitively crossed the boundary between storytelling and brutality. Fictional movies of all kinds of quality rely on the aesthetics that are displayed by how creative a mind the writer and/or the director has. Cross the line to Breillat's coarseness in the scene mentioned above and this viewer bails out. As Charlotte Chandler reported in her Alfred Hitchcock biography, he said on several occasions, "It's only a movie," as evidence of Hitchcock's refusal to take anything (or anybody) too seriously. Breillat obviously considers herself beyond that kind of thought process.
-
adi-cat26 June 2010I can't tell you how disappointed and bored I was while watching this movie.
I kept hoping with all my heart that it will pick up its feet at some point and start delivering some feeling, magic, action or whatever. But alas, that was all in vain.
It keeps the same slooooooow pace from start to end, the actors keep showing the same inexpressive faces and delivering the same emotionless dialogs.
That is when they bother to speak. In the rest of the time they keep staring in some more or less distant point for quite long periods (I suppose it's meant to show us how deep they feel or think).
I don't know how the book ends... but the end of the movie looked pretty fuzzy and stupid to me.
You're never told why Blue Beard did all those horrible things or how did the little girl managed to escape.
The only good things in this movie were the costumes and locations, I guess.
All in all, if you expect some bit of fairy-tale, of magic, of fantasy or anything at all which would glue you to the chair in front of the screen, I think you'll be pretty disappointed. -
sara-marmai2 February 2014I like reading what other people thinks about the movies I watch, so I felt kind of surprised by noticing how much appreciation this very film has obtained, since I've found it ridiculous. Even though I'm pretty sure that people is really trying too hard to justify it - apparently every single detail MUST conceal a hidden meaning - I honestly can't rule out the possibility that I am simply too dumb to understand it. Anyway, this movie really disappointed me, and I'm going to explain you why.
I am a big fan of Perrault's fairy tale, which I find delightfully disturbing, plenty as it is with darkness, morbidity and untold secrets. Bluebeard himself is a major character in his evilness - ferocious, deceitful, violent. I expected to feel at least part of such upsetting atmosphere, but I felt nothing (but boredom). Do you remember the scene when Bluebeard discovers the blood on the key? It was absolutely unbelievable. We've reached the dramatic climax but the characters look embalmed in their blank expressions - not to mention that they WHISPER, as if they were in a Dior commercial... So I thought, "Ok, maybe the director wanted to shift to a more psychological dimension. Maybe she was not interested in blood and slaughter after all" (despite the image of the poster, I mean). That would be fine, but I couldn't understand at all what was her point. Was it humanizing Bluebeard? I guess she tried to show him as a tormented poor pal, but didn't succeed it. He just looks spineless and absurd in his final resolution to kill his wife. Was it examining the relationship between the two sisters? Well, then why choosing a fairy tale like Bluebeard? Bluebeard deals with the relationship between husband and wife, not between sisters. Many other stories would have fit better.
Apart from this, I really don't like when directors act mysterious just like this. You're a director, not the Sphinx: if you want to say something with a movie, just say it - or, at least, let your clues be clear and unequivocal. See for example the long-lasting scene with Marie- Catherine caressing Bluebeard's head: what is that supposed to mean? Is he sad? Is he satisfied? Is she shocked? Is she depressed? All of the above? And... what the heck is the role of the two young siblings in the attic?? Apart from speaking nonsenses, of course. What's the point in making one of them fall down in the end? I don't know, and I don't think anyone could answer once and for all. I personally find it annoying. If you're not able to let me get what you meant, you're not brilliant, you're only a bad communicator. -
martinpersson979 September 2023This incredible film is truly yet another testament of the capabilities of a great filmmaker.
The writing is very unique, very beautiful and one that very much should be experienced. All of this of course accompined by some great acting from some true legends.
It is very unique and wonderful to look at in terms of cinematography, cutting and editing. Very beautifully put together overall.
All around, it is a very nicely written, unique and all around incredible well made work of an auteur. I can't recommend it enough for any lover of film. It is very much deserving of all the praise it has gotten, give it a watch! -
ihrtfilms14 February 2011If 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 -
planktonrules20 September 2011You would think that a film called "Barbe Bleue" ("Bluebeard") would be an exciting and high energy film. Yet, somehow, the filmmakers have managed to make a story bereft of energy and lifeless--and you are left wondering why they made the film in the first place. There's a funny contrast, however. Although the film is 'lifeless', the dead father (seen early in the film) can be seen breathing as he lies there on the bed! The film has a very odd non-linear style. Although the film seems to be set around 1500 (judging by the clothing), some things (such as the carriage) are from a later period--making it hard to place the film. What makes it harder is that the films keeps cutting to a much, much later time where two young girls talk about the story of Bluebeard. These more modern moments seem pretty irrelevant to the film and are confusing. At first, I thought the very young girls who were the sisters living around the 16th century--but they apparently were not. Why this was done, I have no idea and it really detracted from the film.
"Barbe Bleue" begins with two sisters in a convent school. The head mistress is a cold fish and announces, completely dispassionately, that their father just died and they are no longer welcome in the school, as it's 'not a charity' and they can no longer afford the tuition. The two return home to their mother and they are impoverished. Soon a way out arrives--the notorious 'Bluebeard' invites a group of girls to his château in order to pick a new wife. Now considering he's married several times before and his wives all disappeared soon after the wedding, he's not exactly a prime candidate for a new husband. But, the youngest daughter isn't afraid of him and his reputation and soon marries him. She appears about age 12 and rather small. He's at least 40 and rather huge--a strange match indeed.
Now if you know the story, you know that sooner or later the new wife will discover Bluebeard's room filled with dead wives hanging from hooks. But before this, Bluebeard treats his new wife sort of like a student--and teachers her about nature and astronomy. Eventually, like the original story, the new wife finds the bodies and he discovers that she's learned this secret because traces of blood (from all the corpses) is on the key he left her. Now I know that this is a very old story (recorded by Charles Perrault), but why would a crazy serial killer leave his new wife all the keys to the château--including the one for the room of bodies?! Well, I can't blame the film makers for this--but the original tale doesn't make a lot of sense. But, like in the old story, rescuers come and same the wife--and destroy the dreaded Bluebeard. All that happens in the movie has almost zero energy--and it's hard to imagine so much could transpire with only a few tears but nothing more.
There were a few other mistakes and problems in the film and I want to mention a couple. First, note when Bluebeard and his wife are walking up the staircase, each time they round the corner, they walk up the exact same set of stairs. They try to make it look as if the characters are walking up a long winding set of stairs--but it is the same small number of steps filmed again and again. Sloppy. Just plain sloppy. Also, in a case of obvious foreshadowing, you get to see a duck beheaded. It's graphic and unnecessary--and seems to be a bit of a recent trend, as I've seen quite a few recent European films showing animals being killed. Considering they are killing the animal just for the film, it seems pretty cruel (it's not like it's being used for food--just for a gratuitous scene). I am sure more sensitive viewers will NOT enjoy this portion of the film. It occurs soon after the folks arrive at the dance--about half an hour into the movie.
Because the movie is so dull, lifeless and has many dumb mistakes, I cannot at all recommend it. The bottom line is that the story is a hard one to make into a film, but surely they should have done a lot better than this!