Some would have us believe that Deneuve's expressionless face is right for the role. Or perhaps she can't act? In her other movies she is similarly "detached", i.e. unable to act. I guess this kind of underacting, or "non-acting" was suitable here, but that's not to say she's brilliant as some people think.
The movie is again about kinkiness, Bunuel's favourite theme. Sex and sexual perversion, the hallmarks of European cinema. Bunuel was just a dirty old man, living out his own fantasies on screen, and yet film critics would have us believe that it's a "master at work". Well, even if he were a master – which he's not (he is merely a solid director) – the fact remains that he's a dirty old man. Isn't this obvious? Or is this ARTIST above such "low" human qualities
Film students and movie critics ought to stop regarding some film-makers as gods, i.e. stop worshipping them blindly and regard them as the mere humans that they are. Some of the dialogue in the early parts of the movie is absurd, and I don't mean weird, but unrealistic and just badly written. I have a distinct impression Bunuel wrote his scripts within days, hours maybe even; there is also very little perfectionism in the way he sets up scenes.
The movie is okay, nothing more. It isn't dull, and it keeps one's attention: but why shouldn't it? Anything that goes on in a brothel is easy to watch without getting bored. Does one need to be a "master of cinema" to create an interest in watching the daily goings-on in a brothel?
Watching some of Bunuel's sex-themed films, I am often reminded of Germany's "Der Schulmaedchenreport" films, which is a cheap soft-porn movie series filled with humorous and sometimes perverse anecdotes. Why are those films considered junk compared to Bunuel's "masterpieces"? Let's face it, his movies are solid, but were he not a left-winger he would not have had nearly this much admiration from the film world which is so infested by Marxists.
Roger Ebert, that genius, is particularly mesmerized by the scene with the Chinaman. This happens to be the most badly acted scene in the movie - but to Ebert the mystery surrounding what's in the Chinaman's box seems to be of prime importance. "What's in the box?" writes Roger in his pretentious review. WHO CARES?! That guy probably had some metal balls in there which he wanted Deneuve to insert you-know-where. Big deal! What was Ebert expecting to be in the box? Litte green men? Diamonds shaped like elephants? Letters he wrote to his first girlfriend? Amazing...
Denueve is sexually not attracted to her "dull" fiancée. What she really craves is excitement, beatings, sexual perversion, submission and what-not. So what? Is this supposed to be "deep"? Believe me, I understood this movie - what's there not to understand? However, I do not see what's supposed to be so brilliant about this overrated little movie about sexual fantasies.
The movie is again about kinkiness, Bunuel's favourite theme. Sex and sexual perversion, the hallmarks of European cinema. Bunuel was just a dirty old man, living out his own fantasies on screen, and yet film critics would have us believe that it's a "master at work". Well, even if he were a master – which he's not (he is merely a solid director) – the fact remains that he's a dirty old man. Isn't this obvious? Or is this ARTIST above such "low" human qualities
Film students and movie critics ought to stop regarding some film-makers as gods, i.e. stop worshipping them blindly and regard them as the mere humans that they are. Some of the dialogue in the early parts of the movie is absurd, and I don't mean weird, but unrealistic and just badly written. I have a distinct impression Bunuel wrote his scripts within days, hours maybe even; there is also very little perfectionism in the way he sets up scenes.
The movie is okay, nothing more. It isn't dull, and it keeps one's attention: but why shouldn't it? Anything that goes on in a brothel is easy to watch without getting bored. Does one need to be a "master of cinema" to create an interest in watching the daily goings-on in a brothel?
Watching some of Bunuel's sex-themed films, I am often reminded of Germany's "Der Schulmaedchenreport" films, which is a cheap soft-porn movie series filled with humorous and sometimes perverse anecdotes. Why are those films considered junk compared to Bunuel's "masterpieces"? Let's face it, his movies are solid, but were he not a left-winger he would not have had nearly this much admiration from the film world which is so infested by Marxists.
Roger Ebert, that genius, is particularly mesmerized by the scene with the Chinaman. This happens to be the most badly acted scene in the movie - but to Ebert the mystery surrounding what's in the Chinaman's box seems to be of prime importance. "What's in the box?" writes Roger in his pretentious review. WHO CARES?! That guy probably had some metal balls in there which he wanted Deneuve to insert you-know-where. Big deal! What was Ebert expecting to be in the box? Litte green men? Diamonds shaped like elephants? Letters he wrote to his first girlfriend? Amazing...
Denueve is sexually not attracted to her "dull" fiancée. What she really craves is excitement, beatings, sexual perversion, submission and what-not. So what? Is this supposed to be "deep"? Believe me, I understood this movie - what's there not to understand? However, I do not see what's supposed to be so brilliant about this overrated little movie about sexual fantasies.