Bunuel's stain: Proof that even the most creative filmmaker in history can falter

The master of surrealism, Don Luis Bunuel, proves here that in a filmography packed with masterpieces, there is bound to be a stain or two. Let me start by saying that Bunuel is my favorite director and his works really do make up the majority of my personal film collection. His motion pictures are the very definition of cinematic art, and Don Luis had perfected the methods of surrealism almost as soon as his college fraternity (the Toledo Knights) plunged into the Spanish surrealism scene back in the 1920s. Zoom 40-some years later and I find my beloved filmmaker making THE glitch of his long and fruitful career, "Belle de Jour." Of course, almost every Bunuel piece before and after this embarrassing dab in mainstream cinema is infinitely better, and infinitely more artistic.

"Belle de Jour" (based on a novel by Joseph Kessel) is a story about an innocent young wife named Severine (French mega-star Catherine Deneuve) who cannot seem to have a sexual relationship with her husband. The reason is that Severine views sex as being a violent physical act and emotional love is a big sexual turnoff for her. So goes life until she hears about the mystique of prostitution from a couple of friends. Fascinated with the idea of sex with no emotion, Severine finds herself getting a job as a daytime hooker in an alleyway prostitution house. Because of her dual-life as a housewife and hooker, Severine can only prostitute herself until 5:00 PM before she needs to return to her hubby (hence the title, also her hooker personality's name "Belle de Jour"). So goes the movie as Severine/Belle de jour goes on several sexual adventures and explores her innermost fantasy of sex without strings.

The story is certainly NOT where my dislike for the film lies, because (quite frankly) plotlines are of no concern to me when regarding Bunuel's films. In fact, I kind of like the plot of "Belle de Jour," it's fresh. My beef with it is that aside from a few watered-down dream sequences, Bunuel's artistic medium of surrealism is completely abandoned. What good is an artist's piece if it is barren of the very thing that makes him an artist? What good would a Beatles' album be if it was a jazz piece? What good would a Van Gogh work be if it was a copy of the statue David? How about if Miles Davis quits playing trumpet and decides to pick up the accordion for an album? What about if Jimi Hendrix dropped guitar in order to play classical cello? Get my point...

What it all comes down to, is the fact that "Belle de Jour" is indistinguishable from the mainstream cinema of the late 60's. This is not a Bunuel piece, but rather a way of him saying, "look at me Hollywood - I can make a movie devoid of style too!" Fortunately for his fans, Luis Bunuel dropped this mainstream approach soon after "Belle de Jour" was finished and got back to making art.

For what its worth, "Belle de Jour" does have an interesting theme for a mainstream movie - sexual adventure, love as the opposite of sexuality, and the psychology of masochism. Also, the storyline is smooth and it sits quite well with the casual flick fan, leaving nothing for the audience to think about (mindlessness is, by definition, the opposite of Bunuel art). Catherine Deneuve is a talented actress and she does quite well for the character of Severine, even though "Tristana" is the better of the Deneuve/Bunuel films. Finally, despite "Belle de Jour" being rated R for its themes, there is no nudity or sex whatsoever - in fact, this could very well be a PG-13. However good they may be, these four positives cannot make up for the absence of surrealism in a Bunuel feature. Inexcusable for die hard fans.

Because of this movie's populist mainstream approach, Miramax decided to rerelease "Belle de Jour" in 1994. Funny how they rerelease Bunuel's most unimaginative film in USA theaters, while his real masterpieces are left untouched by the digital age (only 1 Bunuel film can be found on DVD "Discreet Charm," and only one more is on the way, 5/22/01). Oh lord, how these things amaze me!

If you want to see a Luis Bunuel film, PLEASE watch anything else (there are at least 32 of them floating around the marketplace on VHS format). If your sole Bunuel experience is with "Belle de Jour," then you are still a virgin to his films. This isn't Bunuel, this isn't even a taste of his value as an artist. A glitch, a blemish...

In comparison to other Bunuel films, this movie would receive a single star from me. But since it IS a mainstream film that is meant to appeal to everybody, I rate it with 3 stars as an average mainstream flick.

Fellow Bunuel fans, steer clear of this one if you haven't seen it yet - you will be so disappointed that you'll cry. A perfect example of what happens when an artist temporarily abandons his art.

I am coming down hard on this film, considering that Bunuel is my favorite filmmaker. My angst probably seems strange to some of you, considering that in most cases, change is good. But you have to realize that in Luis Bunuel's unique case, change is NOT good - why step down from perfection?