Belle
Toujours (***)
review by Jon
Waterman
While in Paris, Henri thinks he spots a long lost acquaintance.
He used to be good friends with her husband, but still 39 years
have passed since he has laid eyes on Séverine. He doesn’t
want to let her get away and so he follows her back to where
she’s staying. Surprisingly enough, she’s not all
that excited to see him. Henri is bringing back demons from
the past that may be better left forgotten, which is something
neither of them is capable of. Eventually she agrees to meet
with him, because he is the only person who can give her the
answer to a question that’s been burning for nearly forty
years. Well, Henri may not be overly anxious to start talking
about that right away.
The film certainly isn’t in any hurry either. Director/writer
Manoel de Oliveira (“Magic Mirror,” “Aniki
Bóbó,”) presents this sequel to the 1967
classic “Belle
de jour” in slow, meticulous fashion.
The film feels very, very short, because it clocks in at a
mere 68 minutes. However, it still could (and maybe should)
be much shorter. The first line of dialogue comes about ten
minutes in, after the film opens with a full song performed
by an orchestra in one long take. The beautiful aerial landscapes
used as transitions and time references linger for quite a
while as well. If you combine all the actual scenes, you’d
probably end up with a film that lasts about 30 minutes or
maybe less. Even so, I never felt like the extra time was simply
padding to make the film feature length. It’s an interesting
test of filmmaking that shows film lovers our there that there’s
a different approach to moviemaking that still works.
The editing is minimal as the shots are allowed to play out
as long as possible. It may not be as extreme as “Songs
From the Second Floor,” but a couple of the sequences
are drawn out quite a bit. Aside from the examples I’ve
already mentioned, there’s also a scene where we watch
the candles go out one by one on the dinner table, which was
a great subtle touch. Camera movement is extremely rare here
as well. Instead the focus is placed on the characterization
and storyline.
Now, I saw this before seeing its predecessor (which I now
have). Even at that time I wondered if this movie was necessary.
It turns out that it really isn’t. If it does anything
for the feature, it’ll make you want to watch it again.
If this was made under the assumption that it was a totally
new film not connected to any sort of iconic work from a few
decades ago, it would have been better. I would consider the
ending good in that case, instead of frustrating. The visual
style is so drastically different and so is the overall feel.
The only thing that’s really the same is the actor playing
Henri. It’s an interesting movie. I’d even easily
say it’s quite good. But as a sequel it fails miserably
and offers absolutely nothing new or worthwhile.
respond to jon@filmbrats.com
|