Bluebeard (Barbe Bleue)

Bluebeard doesn't resolve these narrative crossings into any sort of thematic bow. Instead, it opens up another set of questions.

Bluebeard (Barbe Bleue)

Director: Catherine Breillat
Cast: Dominique Thomas, Lola Créton, Lola Giovannetti, Daphné Baiwir, Marilou Lopes-Benites
Rated: NR
Studio: Strand Releasing
Year: 2009
US date: 2010-03-026 (Limited release)
UK date: 2010-01-06 (General release)

Meat. It makes for a particular cinematic experience when Marie-Catherine (Lola Créton) sits down to eat some with her betrothed, an aristocrat known as Bluebeard (Dominique Thomas). Focused resolutely on their dinners -- meat on bones -- they gnaw and chew and roll their eyes, each glancing occasionally at the other as if to confirm that their pleasure, so very sincere, is also mutual.

Versions of this scene appear more than once in Catherine Breillat's Bluebeard (Barbe Bleue), which rethinks the fable of a man who killed his wives. If the meat here stands in for the couple's carnal delights (if they do engage in sexual activity, the film doesn’t show it), it also suggests their matching energies and desires. Marie-Catherine, a child bride in various ways, is certainly naïve, but she is also fierce and shrewd, never quite bending to the will of her monstrous husband even as she appears to do just that.

At first, it appears that Marie-Catherine is a captive within her own story. She and her sister Anne (Daphné Baïwir) learn that their father has died in an accident. "He threw himself under a carriage to save a child," reports their Mother Superior (Farida Khelfa), just before she kicks them out of school because of their "changed condition" ("We're a private college," she adds, "Not a charity, alas"). The girls are thus multiply mortified, sent back home to their mother (Isabelle Lapouge) and suddenly in need of livelihoods or benefactors (options being limited for girls of their not-exactly-wealthy background). They respond very differently. Anne is horrified by dad's abject action, blaming him for choosing what amounted to suicide over his family obligations. And Marie-Catherine is utterly forgiving, seeing his act as selfless and even ennobling, a sign of her father's broad humanity and generous spirit.

The scene where the sisters debate their father's motives -- set in the room where his corpse lies between them, pale and ghastly -- is not a little macabre. They are at once too familiar with death (it is, after all, the 17th century, and no one lives very long) and completely mystified by it. Their own relationship is equally complex, intimate and competitive, entangled and separate (when Anne leaves the room, Marie-Catherine leans in to whisper into her dead father's ear: "She's a fool who talks nonsense"). The sisters appear quite used to such messiness, able to laugh and cry together at the same time, resent and forgive one another in any given moment. Even as they appear weary of their mother's noisy and unhelpful complaints ("How will I marry you off? Your father left us nothing, only debts!"), they also realize that something must be done.

That something is framed again by another story, one involving two other sisters, Catherine (Marilou Lopes-Benites) and Marie-Anne (Lola Giovannetti). Set in the 1950s of Breillat's own childhood, these girls are introduced as they enter an attic full of dust, dolls, and books. Thrilled by the treasures, they soon begin to read to one another. When one sister laments that the chosen tome -- Bluebeard -- is "sad when he wants to kill her," the other notes, "The Little Mermaid makes me cry too, but the ending's different."

Those different endings are indeed each upsetting in their own ways -- Bluebeard's wife is murdered, and the mermaid gives up her former life to marry a prince. And both are typical of the fairy tales written and collected by Charles Perrault, in particular The Tales of Mother Goose (1697), assembled from folktales. One of these stories, "Contes de ma mère l’Oye," provides grist for Breillat's wily revision here, as Marie-Catherine deciphers not only how to support her family, but also how to survive her own coming of age, while the other sisters, the readers, face their own catastrophe, with slightly less poise.

Once Marie-Catherine marries her large, ugly, and apparently literally blue-bearded man and moves into his dark castle, she misses her sister (the girls early on agree, "There are always invasions, barbarism is everywhere"). When she's around Bluebeard, Marie-Catherine is doting and obedient, except when she's not. She insists on having her own bedroom (in a closet, as this small space is most familiar to her), listens sympathetically to his grousing (apparently, he feels misunderstood: "I'm a monster. Everybody sees me as a monster. I'm aware of it, so I became a monster"), and pursues her own interests.

These last represent the fairy tale's cautions: when Bluebeard tells her not to investigate the castle when he's away on business trips, Marie-Catherine is unable to keep herself from doing exactly that, discovering his dark secret in the process. As she confronts something like grisly "truths" in the form of wives' bodies, the storytelling frame breaks into pieces: Marie-Catherine is not the figure in the bloody basement, but instead, it is little Anne, her pink-checked dress stained gruesome red.

The film doesn’t resolve these narrative crossings into any sort of thematic bow. Instead, it opens up another set of questions. Are adult interactions by definition hurtful and even violent? Are children condemned to enter into this realm, where rules are made and broken in the same breath, where power is must be wielded like a knife, where throats are inevitably cut or necks inevitably broken? Moreover, how do boys and girls become men and women, aware of their histories of violence, shaped by mutual expectations, and roped into unavoidable plotlines?

As always, Breillat's versions of these questions can be hard to watch as well as absolutely compelling (see also: Romance and especially Fat Girl). If meat is a useful metaphor and image, it is also material, grotesque and also sustenance. Here again, the pursuits and definitions of pleasure are thematic concerns, whether Marie-Catherine works out her sexual and narrative curiosities or Anne seeks the delights of reading and listening to stories she's heard before. This is the trick, that stories can be repetitive as well as startling, well known and baffling.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.