User Reviews

To be honest, despite Portuguese director Oliveira's considerable reputation (I was privileged to see the still-sprightly centenarian at the 2004 Venice Film Festival: by the way, this is the first among nine of his efforts I'll be watching to commemorate this rare upcoming occasion), I was skeptical about this sequel to one of Spanish surrealist master Luis Bunuel's greatest works – BELLE DE JOUR (1967); once I had accepted that premise, however, I was still disappointed that the earlier film's protagonist, Catherine Deneuve, had refused to participate which – her understandable reluctance to tamper with her signature role notwithstanding – is even more curious given that she had already worked three times with Oliveira since 1995! Now that I've watched the film for myself – which is remarkably brief, a mere 68 minutes, for this day and age! – I realize that Severine (played now by Bulle Ogier, who had herself been delightful in Bunuel's THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE [1972]) isn't really the main role here, but rather Husson (a returning and still bemused Michel Piccoli, where he seems to have gotten over his perennial feeling of coldness by becoming an alcoholic!); for the record, Piccoli had himself been a regular of Bunuel's (7 films) and, by this time, also of Oliveira's (6 films).

Anyway, though the film (unsurprisingly) omits the seamless blurring of dream and reality that made BELLE DE JOUR so fascinating, it works better than a sequel to an undisputed art-house classic 40 years after the fact has any right to – or I would ever have imagined myself (given my oft-declared admiration for Bunuel's oeuvre). That said, we do find in here some definite nods to his past achievements – which clearly emerge to be among the most pleasing elements in the entire film: not only the retrieval of the famously mysterious buzzing box displayed by the heroine's Japanese client in BELLE DE JOUR itself (though one can't quite fathom how Husson was even aware of it in the first place, this was certainly a nice touch); the sardonic waiters during the 'climactic' meal recall their defecting counterparts in THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962; which has, happily, just been officially announced as a 2-Disc Criterion edition for next February!); Severine's fate can ultimately be seen as a reversal of that experienced by VIRIDIANA (1961), going from lasciviousness to piety rather than the other way around; plus, of course and just as accidentally, the sheer fact that the leading lady of the original has now 'morphed' into a different other recalls the duality of the female protagonist of THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE (1977).

There is plenty of interesting character detail and amusing situations besides: Severine's constant and nervy attempts at avoiding Husson (she still hasn't forgiven him for spilling the beans on the girl's "cathartic" vice to her now-deceased husband); Piccoli's revealing conversations with a young sympathetic barman – played by Oliveira's own grandson and frequent actor Ricardo Trepa – where, in spite of his obviously advancing age, Husson's erudite distinction still catches the eye of two lonely prostitutes, regulars of the spot; Husson's fascination with the gold-tinted statue of a female warrior on horseback in a Parisian square; not to mention, lovely views of Paris (by day and night) which are employed throughout as transitions between scenes. Eventually, the mismatched couple do get to run into each other – though, somewhat perversely, we're kept in the dark as to their actual initial exchanges; they at least make an appointment for a candle-lit dinner, which is consumed in utter silence…but, then, the two gradually open up. Still, Husson's evasiveness – giving a cryptic reply to Severine's query (which has continued to haunt her ever since) about the exact nature of his confession to her husband all those years ago, in order to determine the meaning behind the tears she had noticed on Pierre's cheeks soon after – so infuriates the woman that she storms out in disgust!

But not succeeding anyway. Buñuel was a genius and de Oliveira only a very talented movie director. A parenthesis to say that for you to understand fully this movie you must have seen Buñuel's movie "Belle de Jour" which dates from the sixties of last century. This movie now aspires (as some kind of homage to Buñuel's work) to be some kind of continuation of the latter but a feeble one indeed. Those who have seen Buñuel's movie probably will remember the story: a beautiful woman (Catherine Deneuve then) who loves her husband has however some masochist tendency which pulls her to prostitute herself in a luxury brothel. Buñuel tells this story brilliantly in images and dialogues diving deeply in the arcana of the human soul. De Oliveira's movie profits (or tries to profit) from that story by concocting a supposed not very meaningful end to it (which becomes a poor open end after all). The story of the movie we are reviewing now is based in the encounter many years later of the woman of the first movie (Bulle Ogier now who resembles Catherine Deneuve as much as a screech-owl resembles a dove)and a close friend (Michel Piccoli) of her and her (now already deceased) husband, who tries to convince her to have dinner with him in a private room in a posh restaurant by promising to tell her if he had or not told her husband at the time of the events above mentioned, about her behaviour also above described. This has not much interest in itself as the continuation of Buñuel's story to be given as the climax in de Oliveira's movie. To the movie's credit however we may refer the excellent performance of Michel Piccoli, a few nice images of Paris and some beautiful interiors and visual details and the smooth visual development of the story showing the de Oliveira's real talent in what regards movie's and actor's direction. And that's all.

Running just a little over an hour in length, "Belle Toujours" is Portuguese director Manoel de Oliveira's homage to "Belle De Jour," the classic French film from the 1960s, written and directed by Luis Bunuel. The original featured Catherine Deneuve as a beautiful bored housewife with masochistic fantasies who whiles away her afternoons working as a prostitute in a Paris brothel. In the "sequel," Michel Piccoli returns as Henri Husson, the friend who first suggested the brothel to Severine, and who, all these years later, has decided to have a rendezvous with the woman.

Though Piccoli reprises his role from the first movie, Severine is played by a different actress (Bulle Oglier), a casting imbalance that plays havoc with the symmetry of the piece. At least for "A Man and a Woman: Twenty Years Later," yet another misguided attempt at recapturing the magic of an earlier film, both Anouk Aimee and Jean-Louis Trintignant showed up for the reunion - though one can certainly sympathize with Deneuve's reluctance to lend her talents to this film, which is smug, self-indulgent, talky and inert, and does nothing to enhance one's memory of the original work (happily, the utter innocuousness of the film also prevents it from HARMING that memory as well).

Henri basically spends the first two-thirds of the movie vainly trying to "connect" with Severine (they keep just missing one another, like in one of those Feydeau bedroom farces), and the last third dining with her in an opulent private room where they talk at length about the past and she tries to convince him that she's a "different" woman from the one he knew before - which should be perfectly obvious to anyone who remembers Catherine Deneuve. Then it all culminates in a fizzle-out ending, and we're left dumbfounded and openmouthed, wondering what the purpose for any of it could possibly have been.

One thing, however, is certain: "Belle Toujours" is a complete waste of time and film.

I remember reading somewhere that Oliveira's film works as a symbol of the impossible reconciliation between past and present, between cinema (with its passion for manipulation) and reality (with its relentless curiosity for the truth), two dimensions that clash irremediably in modern times.

Personally, I found this to be a excellent comedy, full of delicious winks to symbolic surrealism (the Joan of arc statue, the rooster scene!), a mayor work in Oliveiras impressive catalog and a proper tribute to Buñuel's work. It's a bit sad that it has been terribly underrated by "major" critics around the globe (Cahiers, etc.) *Taken from a comment I made to filmref.com

It's always nice to fallow the evolution of some characters through the years from films to films. You have the impression to see old friends again after a long separation. But there, the separation was really very long, and years go by, everyone got old and tired. All you got at the end of this meeting is the sad feeling that 38 years after having lost contact, it was quite useless to meet again, for you don't have anything to say to this characters anymore.

In 1967, Louis Bunuel filmed a terrible story of a perverse woman beautifully played by Catherine Deneuve. 38 years later, Michel Piccoli, who played in the original movie a friend of Deneuve's husband, assists to a endlessly concert of Dvorak, where he sees the ex-Bunuel character. In old time's sake, he'll want to invite her to diner, but she doesn't really have a nice souvenir of their relationship. And she claims that time changes her a lot : and indeed, Severine, formerly known as Caterine Deneuve, has now become Bulle Augier (but she's quite credible in old-young Deneuve).

It's really sad to see that in this false sequel the trouble, the wit and the intelligence of Bunuel are replaced by a boring feeling and an excessive slow motion impression. Beside a tasteful mute diner scene between the two mythical characters, even the most passionate cinephile will have trouble to find anything consistent in this repetitive style exercise. He'll just be surprised in front of this plain interpretation of "Belle de jour", and be amazed by the incoherences. Henry Husson bought for example Severine the strange box a mysterious Asian character brought when he met her years ago : but how can he know this kind of details, when he was merely an external observer of her life ?

No wonder why Catherine Deneuve run away in front of this inconsistence and quite lazy movie. But man can wonder why the critics praise this movie when "Belle Toujours" is obviously a minor piece in Oliveira's impressive filmography.

This film by Manoel de Oliveira shows his great knowledge of Buñuel's work but also his admiration of the original Belle de Jour which explains why he would want to return to that story so many years later. My first reaction was that someone who had not seen Belle de Jours would probably not enjoy this. It is in the cinema what Wide Sargasso Sea is in literature, a kind of recreation of a known theme. De Oliveira builds up an amazing tension round what is finally going to happen between the two characters and that makes the meal at the end an example of suspense based not on action so typical of the thriller, but rather on the word, which in Oliveira's films acquires the stature of protagonist. A great movie!

I am fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to view both this film, and the film "Belle Du Jour" upon which it is a sequel, for the very first time in 1 sitting. I was impressed beyond expectation with the first film "Belle Du Jour" directed by Luis Bunuel, only the second film I have seen of his after the very well done "the young one" and am convinced of how great a director he was. That being said, despite the fact that I was very intrigued by the premise of this movie, "Belle Toujours", where 39 years later a sequel was made in which the same characters and one of the original actors meet after so many years to relive their experiences, this movie proved to be everything I feared it would be; a stagey contrived mess filled with pseudo intellectual dribble contained within unrealistic overly dramatized situations, and at best, having no real purpose or unique value of its own.

The movie begins with lengthy excerpts in a concert hall which last roughly 8 minutes at which point Henry Husson notices Severine in the audience. You cannot go wrong in opening a film with classical music in this way, though it has been done countless times before. It could have even been very poignant if the two main characters had met outside of the theatre. There are at least three 30 second scenes of shots of Paris with classical music playing, which MIGHT have been poignant if they had first met at the theatre, but which transparently comes across as filler in order for the director to reach an hours length for this waste of film, which only runs 65 minutes long.

Instead, Husson did not find Severine outside the theatre, and after wandering the streets aimlessly, he just happened to spot her leaving a bar into a cab, where she just happened to leave the barman with the address of where she was staying. "lucky" as Husson describes it... I would describe it as stagey and poorly conceived, though even here if the director were to spare us from more "luck" the film may have been bearable. Afterwards, Husson goes to the hotel where Severine is staying and just as he enters the elevator she exits the adjacent one, after which he comes down again much too quickly only to see her leave. The hotel clerk then tells him she is leaving the city. Finally, later as he is walking along the street he just happens to bump into her again, where he is talking to her and she walks back and forth, clearly imitating some of the behaviour of Severine Played By Catherine Deneuve in the original film, though to a nauseatingly exaggerated degree. So in the end these 2 re-unite.. after FOUR chance encounters. A Single, might have been poignant. 2 pushy, but 4, utterly ridiculous. This scene which is all shot outside in sky view ends with Husson entering the boutique and emerging 30 seconds later. We later find out that he therein purchased the box with the perverted sex toy held by the oriental client in the first film.... right where he bumps into her for the 4th time; Convenient to a writer and director unable to create a realistic and coherent plot, bust most importantly his character in the first film did not know anything about her encounter with the Asian client.

That essentially is the entire plot, not aided at all by the ridiculous fact that in all 3 times the male lead enters the bar where he was able to obtain Severines address, each time there are 2 sex workers there who observe him and interest in his story as if they are fixtures there with no real lives, and nowhere else to be. Almost a third of the movie takes place here, and the worst aspect is that it in no way gives the viewer anticipation for when Husson and Severine finally will speak to each other. Instead it is a reflective and unengaging speculation upon the first movie, which anyone who has seen the first movie could reflect upon as good or better on their own.

Finally when the 2 leads meet at a dining room, where they had arranged, after some simple words of exchange, they eat and say nothing to each other for almost 5 minutes. Anyone who finds a single shred of meaning out of this, and doesn't see it as the mindless filler that it is, is the kind of person who would find meaning in a single line drawn on a blank piece of paper. They have a short discussion about the past as the candles on the table 1 by 1 extinguish, a very obvious and somewhat contrived bit of symbolism, until finally they part and the movie is ended by this very empty climax.

This entire film is I believe the biggest disgrace upon another movie I have seen. If the plot was at the very least put together in an intelligent and plausible manner, it would at least be acceptable, though still even that disregarded, this film seems like it was put together by a 10 year old with nothing original or new to offer, and literally no plot, based purely on a script contemplating the events in the original movie which could have been written in a couple of hours, and much better done at that. I do not know why Catherine Deneuve did not reprise her role from the first film, but thankfully for her she does not have to associate her name with this absolute disgrace. Michel Picolli should be ashamed of himself for taking part in this pile of film stock. This movie is not even a film of its own. At best it is a meandering reflection upon a true film, and has no purpose to it whatsoever.

every minute of this film felt like an hour. I liked two things about the film - those were the shots of Paris, including some of the pretentious ones. Every scene was very dull and the actors really could not do their job (the barman was very bad, quickly followed by our protagonist). Admittedly I haven't yet seen 'belle de jour' so perhaps I didn't understand all the references. In any case I believe a film should be a film that can stand alone even if it's a sequel. To all those who haven't already dedicated the 100 minutes to see the original I implore you to beware of giving up the painful 68 minutes needed to see this one...

First: slow down. Second: turn of the phone. Third: relax. Now you're ready for a treat. Manoel de Oliveira's Belle Toujours (2006) is a sequel in homage to Belle de Jour (1967), the classic film from Luis Buñuel and Jean-Claude Carrière. Certainly Belle Toujours is diverting and can stand alone; but, when it follows on the heels of Belle de Jour, so that the two films are taken together, then it finds its full stride. Something magical happens. Michel Piccoli returns as "Mr. Husson" (un drôle de type), as Bulle Ogier replaces - who else could? - the otherwise irreplaceable Catherine Deneuve as "Séverine" (la putain-penitent, forty years on). It works very well. Alone, Oliveira's little gem comes in around 60 minutes. If watched immediately after Buñuel's film, the two taken together require 2 hours and 40 minutes. Enjoy. 8/10 plays it safe.

Our film festival in Vancouver keeps bringing his films (which I have sat through a few and never been impressed), so he must be a critic's darling, but this is terribly dull.

I agree completely with Moustache review. Someone else suggested Elegant, but Decadent might be closer to the mark. What does an old man make a film about? An old man, of course! Not that an old man can't be interesting of course, but he seems to have nothing to say that I can decipher. There's certainly no fire in the belly, candles burning out would be closer! The female lead is completely successful, but I can certainly see why Catherine Deneuve would have given this a pass! Edward Dardis Van BC

Luis Bunuel's Belle de Jour is a classic of 1960s dark comedy, with the touches of surrealism that made the director such a house-hold name (for art-film households anyway) and had a seductive, sometimes cold but never less than interesting performance from Catherine Deneuve as Severine, who spends her days as a hooker in a brothel while her husband doesn't know. You may or may not recall Michel Piccoli was in the film as well, and had a pivotal moment - following being the one who originally gave Severine directions to the brothel - who may or may not have told her husband. Bunuel was smart and clever and right enough to not show us this conversation, only Severine seeing a single tear running down his cheek. We can read into it whatever we wish, which was the sly gift from the mater.

The (now late) director Manoel de Oliveira decided in 2006, at the age of 100, to make a sort of "homage" to Bunuel and his collaborator Jean-Claude Carriere by making what is in all actuality a sequel to that film, where Piccoli's character Husson sees Severine at a classical music concert, tries to follow/track her down, and then when he does has dinner with her to talk about things. Will he finally tell her what she said? In truth, does it matter either way, one might ask? Certainly de Oliveira doesn't care.

Despite an opening sequence at this concert hall that is simple and magnetic and wonderful to sit through - maybe in large part due to the music itself from Dvorak being so powerful - and a final dinner scene that has a couple of nice visual touches, this is just not that interesting. It doesn't work that Deneuve isn't back as Severine; I'm sure the director would argue this is a further homage to Bunuel (two actresses were used in That Obscure Object of Desire), but it just feels off seeing another actress there, who doesn't have the same looks (Deneuve, at her age today, is still astonishing looking by the way). The film is a scant 70 minutes long - 65 not counting credits - and it still feels padded out with scenes of watching characters eat their dinner, the waiters cleaning up, and lots of walking around.

Belle toujours wasn't a bad idea, per-say. Revisiting such memorable characters years later and giving a new perspective could be captivating or enlightening, and as a stand-alone short film it could have worked (imagine, for example, if Husson and Severine meet right after the concert hall and grab a bite and talk, you cut out ALL of the mid-section and don't really miss much at all, other characters here are inconsequential really). At the same time, it was hard for me to also grasp what the "homage" was ultimately. There are two Bunuelian moments of surrealism, one involving a golden horse statue outside in Paris that may have real eyes (this works because there's build-up as Piccoli is staring at it), and another with a chicken that is just weird but weird for weird's sake, if that makes sense.

The performances aren't terrible, and some of the camera-work is fine, but the film has not much reason to justify its existence. And the mystery and fun of Belle de Jour was that it was kept in its own, satirical 1960's Parisian world. Maybe there's something to be said about the nature of remembering things and how time changes people, but that feels weak here too. Again, as a short, this might be worthwhile. At 70 minutes, somehow, it feels too long. Not to mention, perhaps a nitpick but something I caught on to as this WAS a 100 year old director, all of the sound is turned up really high on things that don't matter.

If you've been waiting to hear Michel Piccoli gulp his whiskey and chew his food, this is the movie for you I guess.