MovieChat Forums > Belle de jour (1968) Discussion > The whole thing a dream?

The whole thing a dream?

posted 15 years ago by Pedrovsky
18 replies | jump to latest

All right, I go ahead type out the obligatory praise for this masterpiece first:
Damn, this is a great movie, surrealism at its finest, Bunuel was a genius, yadda yadda yadda.

Now the theory: was the entire prostitution situation just another vision?
I'm leaning toward yes. Namely because of one line toward the very end which brings it all together for me. It's easy to miss, but it had an impact on me so I'm sure someone else got it too. When Severine is with Pierre in the living room at the end she says after his accident she doesn't dream anymore. ACCIDENT! Not attempted murder, but accident. I went back and listened to the French to make sure it wasn't a subtitle error and she did indeed say accident. This leads me to believe that the core of the film is but a surrealist dreamscape for Severine's repressive desires which are satisfied after her husband is no longer able to act as a man (paralyzed, therefore, no sex).
Think of Marcel. She created someone who is the complete opposite of Pierre: one is a doctor, the other is missing parts of his body; one is a gentleman, the other a criminal; one is compassionate, the other violent and aggressive. And of course as any good fantasy would have it, Marcel is completely infatuated about her and even killed/died for her. In addition to that, all the men wanted her at the whorehouse (much to the others' dismay).
I'm in favor of the implications that she suffered sexual abuse as a child and therefore see her as someone who does not want to be physically intimate with her husband because of her repressed sexuality. Her friend told her about another woman who became a prostitute and this planted the seed in her imagination to grow throughout the film.
She agrees to sleep with her husband once (not make love, just sleep next to him) after a particularly strange episode, but besides that she is frigid and distant. Once he is incapable of being physically intimate, she embraces him as the man she's loved and no longer dreams (as she told him). Now she is satisfied at having the love of her life at her disposal whilst keeping her purity intact. She's actually not a victim if you look at it that way, but quite a self-serving little bitch.

I could be completely wrong, but I think it is an interesting theory. Feel free to tear it apart or to call me a genius.

[–] 42ndStreetMemories 14 years ago

I am surprised that no one has responded to your post.

My take:

Severine is obviously troubled and seeks comfort from Pierre only to be a caring provider and to "stand watch" each evening helping her ease her mind in order to sleep. A sleep that troubles her because of the dreams that she experiences.

The dreams stem from childhood abuse which Bunuel alludes to in flashbacks within her fantasies.

Certain scenes are the realty (the taxi conversation concerning the friend who became a prostitute for needed money) which influences her fantasies and subconsciously her dreams.

When Pierre has an accident, while Severine is blocking out horrific memories with her Belle de jour fantasies, she realizes that she needs and desires this loving man.

Jump cut to him recovering and we hope for their sake a Happy Ever After life together away from Bunuel's surrealistic world.

Technically, Bunuel sets the stage from the very first scene that he's going to play with our heads and shake up reality, fantasy and dreams. Masterfully done.

[–] safalmk86 14 years ago

I watched Belle de Jour just after having watched the Golden Age(L'Age d'Or).I was thinking that this one is nowhere near the the golden age in terms of a surrealism. But a couple of days later I found that I was more confused by this movie than the other one. L'Age d'Or was in your face. It was pure surrealism and meant to flaunt it. Belle de jour on the other hand is subtle and almost made me think that it's not surrealistic. The next time I watched I was in seas. The more I think about the more fresh it has become.

A great work of art.

One other thing that struck me was that there is no background music at all.

In my view, severine was abused as a child, perhaps by a priest also, and was rather frigid. Of the explanations that are possible I would like to go by the philandering friend's word( forgot the name of the character- was it Husson)-that she likes to be humiliated. She does become Belle de Jour n Marcel n everything else happens, Now, after the 'accident' and her stint as belle, she has finally found her husband attractive which is shown in the final sequence.

[–] KrystelClaire 11 years ago

It's such a complex film! Deneuve at her best! Even Severine's cheesy facial expressions when she's being whipped, attacked, etc... add up to the dream-like cadence of the whole film. I think that what is a dream or not is left ambiguous on purpose by Buñuel, so it'll be right regardless of what the audience think. In fact, t hat ambivalence is one of the things I like the most about this film. In my opinion, the director wanted to leave this matter open; he didn't want to give a clear conclusion, so he left it open.

Also, I love that it has aged very well: even nowadays this film is sexually strong. Its characters, the atmosphere, the attitude... is relevant. There is still a lot of sexual repression in some social groups. Throughout the whole ordeal, Severine never becomes unrealistic: she's a frustrated and childless wife, and the core of her frustrations is sex.

[–] vincent_spano 14 years ago

Mr Gepetto, your theory is interesting, but it conveniently puts aside Mr Hussons' character.

The brothel experiment did happen, otherwise why would Mr Husson come around to reveal the truth ?

[–] stevenvh 14 years ago

I guess that would also be part of the dream/fantasy.
Anyway, OP's theory would explain how Pierre suddenly stands up from the wheelchair. (Was there really a wheelchair?)

--
I never make mistakes. Once I thought I did, but I was wrong.

[–] udippel 9 years ago

While I would not want to allude 'is everything a dream?', your post is valid and so is the question. Yes, it is a wheelchair, and incidentally similar or the same that we saw empty in front of the hospital earlier.
Were we in a collage course on this film, we could argue forth and back if and which was real. First stream would be that it had been real when visible in front of the hospital, and what we see towards the end is surrealist. An argument could be the real ending, in the forest, once again. Or just the other way round: a wheelchair incidentally seen in front of the hospital pops up in a dream later on.

I wouldn't dare to judge on right or wrong, and Buñuel would not want to discuss this neither. If you follow his work, you'll notice that he usually doesn't care about the level of *realism the plot actually works.

[–] Kubrick058 13 years ago

I think Mr Husson is referring to the truth about the kind of person she is. He often alludes to her in certain positive ways throughout the film. In this way, the prostitute scenes can continue to be fantasy. This is further evidenced when he declines her when she is a prostitute because he feels she has lost what he was attracted to in her.

[–] nandacesn 14 years ago

i think you are right OP. Her husband is indeed a paralyzed man. That scene in which he spots a wheelchair was so random! and it makes sense when you realize it was just one Séverine dreams and that he is a paralyzed person in real life.

[–] ccscd212 14 years ago

Yes, "accident" because to everyone else there was no connection between the shooter and Pierre. It was just a "mad man" shooting a random bystander, or whatever that one doctor's theory was.

[–] omfgitsrohit 13 years ago

Seriously, what a brilliant post. I'm very impressed. Genius.

[–] FortySecondStreetFreak 13 years ago

Excellent post.

I think I agree with your theory.

And Husson'a visit could be just another part of the fantasy.
He comes to tell all to the Husband and with this knowledge he is 'released' (as Husson mentioned him being trapped by thinking she is pure) and now they can truly be together as he forgives, understands and is a whole man again.

In reality though he is still an invalid and Husson's non-visit was just herself letting her fantasy life as a hooker come to an end as she finally decides to stay in her Bourgeois 'prison' at the expanse of her sexual 'freedom' away from it.
her Husband's 'release' and 'cure' is actually her finally deciding that he is not a burden to her anymore, or a weight around her sexual neck, and that she can live with him without seeing him as the cripple that cripples her own desires and wants.

The fact the final scene (instant cure, carriage, countryside, client related sounds) is obviously filled with fantasy elements seems to show this.
This fantasy at the end represents her own acceptance of her Bourgeois life and role as wife and carer...her sexual desire fantasies (the brothel itself for example) now sated, explored and ultimately rejected.

My only thought is...Could he also have been an invalid all along.
Her 'frigid' fantasy self is really just the fact he can't satisfy her/she can't be satisfied by him (due to the invalidity) taking form. A form that does not blame him...but puts the frigidity at her doorstep.
A compassionate act and one that at the same time punishes herself for her (understandable) selfishness?

Seeing as Husson is the one that 'leads' her to the imaginary brothel, and that we meet him during a supposed vacation with her physically able Husband, can't he be (and thus all the scenes with him actually in them and all the scenes that happen BECAUSE of him as well) just part of her fantasy?

He was after all (IF we say the brothel was a fantasy) the stepping stone to her fantasy life as a prostitute.

??

www.beardyfreak.com

[–] Bree_33 11 years ago

Was Severine abused by an older man when she was a child? At the brothel, her clients are older unattractive men. The film plays with the idea of her prostitution and is always giving an impression that it is a dream. The fusion of fantasy and reality remain obscure throughout.

Could he also have been an invalid all along

Probably. Was her husband an unfortunate victim of a skiing accident?

As in Repulsion, there are flashbacks to possible childhood trauma in Belle de jour. In one, a man appears to touch a young Séverine inappropriately; in another, she stubbornly refuses the Blessed Sacrament. But unlike in Repulsion, whose final, prolonged shot of a menacing family photo is offered as the root of Carole’s pathology, these scenes in Buñuel’s film are almost non sequiturs, presented not as psychological explanation but as blips in a baroque sexual surrealism.

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/2121-belle-de-jour-tough-love/

------- __@
----- _`\<,_
---- (*)/ (*)------- ----__@
--------------------- _`\<,_
---- -----------------(*)/ (*)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nec spe,nec metu :*•.. ¤°.¸¸.•´¯`»

[–] mats_ep 12 years ago

This theory came to mind with me also. What made me think about it, and I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned here, was the fat chinese man ringing the bell.
That was deliciously absurd. She used to hear the bells in her dreams, did she not?

[–] Timberlandet 12 years ago

Great post Pedrovsky, but what about the flashbacks? Would she have flashbacks to her childhood in her dream as well as multiple other fantasi dreams in her main dream? And what about the horse carriage in the beginning and end? This movie puzzles me