MovieChat Forums > 37°2 le matin (1986) Discussion > Why do (American) critics hate this movi...

Why do (American) critics hate this movie so much?

posted 18 years ago by p0ison
55 replies | jump to latest

It made the list of Roger Ebert's most hated films...
(http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19861225/REVIEWS/612250301/1023)

"Reviews have been written debating the movie's view of madness, of feminism, of the travail of the artist. They all miss the point. "Betty Blue" is a movie about Beatrice Dalle's boobs and behind, and everything else is just what happens in between the scenes where she displays them." - Roger Ebert

He can't be serious!

I've yet to see a single positive review from an English speaking crtic, and yet the movie was nominated for an Oscar, is considered a French classic (as far as I know) and the vast majority of reviewers here love it.

Huh! How does that work? What are your thoughts?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tclane 17 years ago

it's about cultural ideas and representations. The french make you think about the process of the filmmaking as you watch the film - look at the colour codes of red, yellow and blue:)
The americans usually want the film to be selfexplanatory. sit back. do not think.

Thus an overseas film is usually seen as too much work. and besides crritics usually do not know film.

[–] AssetsonFire 13 years ago

In other words, you're a simple-minded racist.

[–] Screenwriter_Brandi 13 years ago

Fail.

[–] AssetsonFire 13 years ago

What?

[–] willson_x 15 years ago

Yeah, £i agree with you. Only a man with a lesser soul can say it's all about betty's ass and tits. He can't feel the swing of the hammer in the gut that I felt, and I pity his miserable take on life. I think french culture is actually a PROPER culture, so the films made there are a testament to the attitudes and people of the country. Although, there are some really *beep* french films... but lets not dwell on that, because all over the world there are talentless individuals who are mistakenly representing their country through their films, and I'm glad to say that Betty Blue isn't one of them!

[–] cengelm 18 years ago

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/betty_blue ......... 88% fresh.

Wellknown critic Roger Ebert seems to be quite prudish. He generally doesn't like nudity. BETTY BLUE isn't that far away from the LOVE STORY(1970) showing a love tragedy caused by disease. Ebert gave **** (4/4) !!

[–] instability000-1 17 years ago

It's about taste..

[–] jtf1986 12 years ago

Yeah, the guy that co-wrote three Russ Meyer's movies doesn't like nudity. Why do people make these statement about Ebert without doing any research?

[–] jinx_malone 8 years ago

What that speaks to is why I personally dislike Ebert, and that is his insane hypocrisy. In other words, it was perfectly fine for him to write the incredibly 'exploitive, reductive' BTVD (a film which is a personal favorite of mine, possibly one of my favorite films of all time) which is chock-a-block full of tits and ass, but not okay for anyone else to do it. He dinged so many films for things he himself had done w/r/t film.

Roger Ebert is useless for this reason alone. I prefer Pauline Kael's criticism but in the end they're all hacks with opinions, and anyone who really loves films shouldn't waste time reading critics, but with watching and making up their own minds about what they personally respond to.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

[–] eyvindkinn 17 years ago

Hi pOison. Strange for Roger to be wasting ink and paper like that - no point just being negative and nasty. I was fascinated to see BB with my girlfriend when we both worked in psychiatry. The slow pace and gentle melancholy of it punctuated with the fire of anger and romantic passion. I got the film and book and sound track - why the fairground type gypsy music? Lovely haunting sax theme. And the piano's... The 'director's cut' had more to say. It's a sort of feminist love letter, with various covert bits of symbolism. There are themes of the occult, of madness, of struggling to make love work on the fringes of 'mainstream' society, and to survive the tensions which this creates. I think it's beautiful and powerful and disturbing and it made a profound impact on me. Eyvind

[–] vanityfair_713 17 years ago

Reminded me of some of the reasons I love this movie. Thanks. :)

hasn't anyone ever told you that smoking was bad for you?

no..no one..THANK YOU.

[–] SamanthaWho88 17 years ago

Ignore the critics.

I am British and I think this is one of the greatest films ever made I bought it purely on a whim and I just think it's flawless.

*I saw in your eyes that you hate the world, I hate it too...*

[–] dioro 15 years ago

***SPOILERS***

The only thing I didn't like about the film was when he went in drag and the security boy did not know it was a traveco when it was so obviously so.

[–] pas_si_simple 16 years ago

"Hi pOison. Strange for Roger to be wasting ink and paper like that - no point just being negative and nasty. I was fascinated to see BB with my girlfriend when we both worked in psychiatry. The slow pace and gentle melancholy of it punctuated with the fire of anger and romantic passion. I got the film and book and sound track - why the fairground type gypsy music? Lovely haunting sax theme. And the piano's... The 'director's cut' had more to say. It's a sort of feminist love letter, with various covert bits of symbolism. There are themes of the occult, of madness, of struggling to make love work on the fringes of 'mainstream' society, and to survive the tensions which this creates. I think it's beautiful and powerful and disturbing and it made a profound impact on me. Eyvind"

I apologize: this will be long--

Betty Blue, I felt, didn't even make an attempt to address these issues of institutionalization because Betty was portrayed as someone truly insane (visual and audio hallucination, mania that threatened not only herself but others, etc)...and no reason was ever given explicitly for why she was going insane--so obviously it's biological (but there was a very light and brief inference of child abuse). We don't even know a thing about her that is not defined by men. She's just some chick who gets obsessed with her Man, his love, his pride, his book, his/a child. Blahblahblahblah...everything about her revolves around the man she is with. And then he gets to kill her in the end, when her mental illness can finally be treated, and we're supposed to feel sorry for him? It's very, very clear that this is male dominant, male centered, and anything but realistic--which is why so many ppl here think that Betty couldn't possible exist. She is a made up muse.

And why can't she be treated for her obvious mental illness? Does this Man even really love Betty? Is love for him just indulging her insanity and wanting to keep her free even if she is capable of harming others and definitely herself? Who does he actually love? The woman herself or the effect that she has on him... as his pygmalion?

SO, my question is:
Does the main character, author, or director actually want Betty Blue to be happy and healthy independently of them the people who use her as their muse? I doubt it. What this film then exhibits isn't love, romantic love, just the dangers and warped minds of men and their unrealistic expectations/views of women--even the ones they supposedly can love.

Betty Blue is a male's wet dream. There is nothing feminist about this film.

[–] willson_x 16 years ago

No, remember Zorg kept saying in the film that she really was too good for this world "it's not a big enough world", "shes like a wild horse that has cut it's tendons trying to junp over a wall" etc, etc. I think it was quite a fitting ending . I cried so hard, but I also realised that this film is for the benefit of the audience, so that everyone can choose how to live their life.
To me, this movie is even more powerful than schindlers list.
such a sad and hauntingly beautiful film.
so inspirational.

[–] gsoropos 16 years ago

Er, this isn't actually an educational film for health professionals. Jeezus krist, why are some people so anally retentive? It is art, you know... art? This is an awe inspiring film and had the biggest effect on me emotionaly of any film I have ever seen. You are obviously completely out of touch with your emotions and probably need some mental health treatment of your own...

[–] hyeyoung86 16 years ago

Yours was an interesting point of view.
I just finished watching BB director's cut and went straight to this board. Although I enjoyed the movie very much and it made me go out and buy a bottle of Soju(Korean alcohol),I also thought that Betty in the movie was just made by men's illusion. That kinda girl doesn't exist. She was a kind of girl all men can dream of as an escape or fantasy and plus if the guy really loved her he shoulnd't have killed her. He killed her just to remember Betty as a lively but crazy muse. Simply put, Betty is all guys want to dream of as their dream.

However, I enjoyed the movie very much as i said. Its photography and color are beautiful. Even though there was nothing realistic about Betty it was just amazing watching her and it also made me realise how the director of the movie admires women's beauty. That's all I felt.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HuGoL1101 12 years ago

God and I knows that this kind of girl DOES exist.
Believe me. I met one and she had done in front of me everything betty have done except the 'eye popping' ... And a bit worst sometime.
I think she as more kind of popping my eye out then her.

[–] beadier 17 years ago

Wow, just another reason why to dislike Ebert :)

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tronquito 17 years ago

Who knows. I don't always agree with Roger Ebert. But in general
I think of him as an intelligent man, however even an intelligent man
can miss the forest for the tree. This is a beautiful love story.
Love as it should be: unconditional. Betty can do no wrong.
Wouldn't we all like to be loved that way.
HAS

[–] craptured_away 17 years ago

I'll just say that while i don't generally disagree so vehemently with Ebert, i do find it funny that someone who authored an exploitative trash-classic screenplay like "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" could be so prudish sometimes but not at others, i remember he trashed Lynch's "Blue Velvet" but more recently gave a fairly upbeat review to the notoriously explicit "Shortbus"

I generally find Ebert to be less pretensious than a lot of other critics can be, but i don't think he always makes a lot of sense.

[–] THESTARCHILD_90 17 years ago

This is a brilliant movie.
I usually agree with Ebert and am also impressed with his views. But what he said about Betty Blue is ridiculous. This is one of the most symbolic, beautiful and emotionally powerful films that I've ever seen.
Honestly, this movie is a lovely work.

[–] instability000-1 17 years ago

Ebert is a prude.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mercycroft 17 years ago

I had heard about this film from friends for two decades--finally saw it this weekend. Totally mesmerizing and gorgeous--one of those films you just keep thinking about.

Ebert is a very mediocre critic, I mean, he hated Harold and Maude, too. Maybe he doesn't get artistic films, or perhaps his conditioning in American culture makes him believe what every screenplay teacher I've ever had (back when I wanted to be a director) told me about formula and change and all that rubbish. Basically, if you submitted a script like this in a class, the instructor would rip it to shreds. The point? Be original, like what you like, and pay no mind to pop culture and critics. I loved this film--and Diva as well.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dioro 17 years ago

I'm convinced that Ebert is a short fat little pervert who when he gets aroused by something that he feels that he shouldn't, he lashes out against it.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dioro 17 years ago

Yeah, if it affects his judgement. He panned Fast Times at Ridgemont High for the same reason.