Belle de Jour (1967)

A beautiful young wife (Catherine Deneuve) with a fear of intimacy has bizarre sexual fantasies. She can’t be intimate with her husband but decides to become a prostitute in the afternoons. Worlds eventually collide.

Not sure what I expected. Certainly not this. I mean, what a premise. The film is rife with fantasy sequences (perhaps a trademark of director Luis Buñuel, I don’t know), which adds layers of ambiguity.

So, what does it mean. Because of the fantasy sequences one could argue that some, most, or possibly all of the film is simply Séverine’s fevered dream. The ending in particular is debated, of which Buñuel himself said he didn’t know what it meant. I believe he was being a little disingenuous. He had been making films for almost forty years. He didn’t include a closing scene like that without a reason. And I have my opinions on this point.

But ignoring all that, this is a story of a very desirable woman, married to a good, handsome man who loves her. She can’t be the wife he deserves, the one she wants to be, and he is endlessly patient with her. But when she balks at her first prostitution job, the madam sees that she needs “a firm hand”. The frigid woman needs not patience and understanding, but “the rough stuff”.

Talk me down from this interpretation. Seriously. Because otherwise, Belle de Jour is a fairly charming and well made story. It is lauded for it’s Yves Saint-Laurent high fashion but for plebeians like me where fashion is meaningless, it just looks very 60’s. It’s an engaging film, but if I am right about the message, It is very problematic for me. AMRU 3.