The Beautiful Troublemaker

Elitist * i suppose. Acting is mediocre and it's all contrived and silly. Typical French cinema. Italians are warm and smart and this is cold and dumb. An aging artist getting his kicks out of being sullen and uninteresting. The aging artist has a wife who used to pose for him and they almost split up over it. Big deal! They all sit around eating or hanging out when not doing the art naked bit. The conversations are as stilted and boring as anything i've heard. French mumbo jumbo yakking and yakking and yakking about 'nothing of any importance. They have a tone in their voice as if to say their talking is important and it's as trite as can be. There's no substance or plot. I think i could have liked it if it were 90 minutes long. But, even 90 of this is too much. Whether his art is 'good' or 'bad' is irrelevant. Everyone is an 'artist' i some way. Just slow pretentious talking going nowhere. 80% of the film is just scratching paper. I guess were supposed to think this is 'the artists process' which is ridiculous since all artists work different. There is no humor anywhere in the nearly 4 hours. I can't recall one ounce of humor or levity. Artists i know , during posing sessions may carry on a conversation but it's not going to be pretentious short of the mark philosophizing from nowhere going nowhere. There's no point to this bore. The words are put in these folks mouths by writers who have their heads in the clouds. One guy said 'good show if you like watching paint dry'. That sums it up perfectly. I wouldn't watch the rest if i hadn't paid to watch it. I'm writing this while the aging artist and wife are arguing with words that mean nothing. The model is so stilted and dull. I don't think there is even a smile. Everyone is SULLEN and SAD. Dull people doing dull things. Blows my mind people like this. I ain't on that band wagon' This flick is ridiculous.

Okay, I'm confused. How on earth is THIS considered a great movie by so many people? The acting is good enough, and certainly I am not complaining about seeing Emmanuelle Beart in the buff for so much of the film, but this movie is just too long. The basic story is fine, but why so many shots of the canvas? The 2-hour version is slow enough...the 4-hour version is truly painful. Too much of this film is literally watching paint dry, and that just doesn't make for interesting viewing.

Usually when films portray the relationship between artists and models, they transform it into some soap opera where the artist and model are trying decide whether to be romantically involved. This is NOT one of those films. Picon as the artist and the lovely Emmanuelle Beart as his reluctant model are both too busy wrestling with their own souls to wrestle with each other. Picon is a once-great artist who has been stuck in creative limbo for years, trying to create the one perfect painting. When Beart arrives, he hopes she may be the key to finally unlocking his skills, creating that painting, and regaining his self-with as an artist. Emmanuelle Beart is dragged into the situation by her boyfriend volunteering her services. She is angry and disgusted at her boyfriend, the artist, and as is revealed, herself. She bares her body to the artist and the audience but more importantly, as the film progresses, she bares her soul. (By the way, Emmanuelle is * for the majority of her scenes.) Few actresses could pull of the powerfully emotional scenes she does, stripped of clothing and pretense. The film actually works quite well as a play. Most of the film takes place in the artist's studio and only involves the artist and model. Of course, if it were a play, you have difficulty watching the artist work. And that may be where the movie has pacing problems-- the camera is looking over the artist's shoulder as he draws and paints. The movie sometimes switching gears an becomes a straight, voiceless documentation of an artist actually at work. An an artist myself, I found this fascinating. BUT, as an artist myself, I really wish the director had chosen an artist with a more interesting style! I mean, a woman as lovely as Emmanuelle Beart deserves a Renoir and instead we get a Picasso.....

Now how more obvious can it be? This movie … 236 minutes … is classic Emperor's new clothes material. (Classic,because there actually are no clothes…) I can't believe people are cowards when they are afraid they might be exposed as idiots when they don't understand something that is actually pretentious horse manure. This movie should have been called Captain Crayon and Lieutenant U-Whora. Just for the fun of it they should have changed roles and she starts drawing his ancient, decrepit body for 3 hours 45 minutes of the 4 hours. Or miss an arm. Or turning out to be a hermaphrodite 2 hours into the movie. Just to annoy the voyeurs. THEN I would believe the "Arts" argument. This is no better than "Showgirls" or that "Striptease". Just something for people too ashamed to buy *. Let's summarize the plot of this - an annoying stuttering, mumbling painter (played by Michel Piccoli, who has seen better days in his acting career) discovers through the help of a young naked lady that he DOES want to draw naked women after being turned off having to use his (obviously jealous) wife for too long. Duh! No: Double-Duh! Bottom Line of this Movie: "Don't paint your wife" (Spoiler alert) – it took them 4 HOURS for that …? Eeuww…what a gross piece of self importance. So this is a movie about "the artistic process"? Gee-whizz that it should include a naked woman. Michel Piccoli - I find him quite nauseating lately - the way he mumbles incomprehensibly when he's stuttering around. What a typical pseudo-artistic french Nincompoopeur, I'm sorry Mitch! Mitch Piccoli – I bet there's a French version of Baywatch about to break on the T.V. scene with him and his grey chest hair wobbling up the French Riviera somewhere. "Protecting French sun-bathers from U.S. literature with paperback French existentialist essential reading. " As for Beart's new look – wasn't she even in some commercial? … just a minute … yes, it was an H&M advert where she runs around lingerie-clad in an apartment seducing an invisible stalker. Great message On the often heard argument on sexiness: "why can't she dress and be sexy if she wants to?" Because you can't have everything. It just doesn't work: A small fraction of women come across sexy AND smart because backing up the "smart part" is oh so difficult. And "sexy" is associated with "*" – that's how it is, and there is a reason for that. Once again: "denial". (#1 illness of today). In fact: A French woman with silicone implants – how decadent is that. Or did she only get her implants after she found a French translation for "Silicone Implants"? I'd bet my Bentley, Ocean Dreamhouse and Silicone Shaped Dream-Wife on that fact. Now if the French women also start shaving their armpits (which Americans will never believe) we might be getting somewhere. (Eternal Damnation and such) Once again: I'm speechless about the chuzpe/irony of a French actress being shallow like a Hollywood bimbo by inflating her body parts and STILL expecting to have some artistic French quality about her Unfortunately it takes some actresses DECADES to bed enough important people to get any decent roles and then they need surgery. Life is so unfair, you know. This movie is a good example for the French's predilection for pouting Lolitas. Pervs One reviewer here professed that he fell asleep. Another said her body wasn't perfect – maybe she read it and got her appointment at the surgeon immediately. Someone said the movie is a "foot-wiggler" – right, either because of boredom or the suppressed sexual thoughts when seeing a woman wriggle around naked – which is absolutely cool & probably the only true quality of this sorry effort.

I really like the * scene in this film, so I thought, why not watching the whole film. Well, I almost did, but ended up shutting off the TV about one and half hours after it started. In the first hour of the movie you see people talk what seem like small talks. In the next 20 minutes you see that artist guy drawing. Then she finally gets undressed, making the movie not any more interesting. Still small talks. Still watching paint dry. Days of Our Lives has faster pace. Most of the people here who gave it a high score did it to look smart. I don't see how enduring 4 hours of watching small talks, paint dry and tasteful nudity (yes, that gets boring as well) makes a person smart. So like the kid who yelled "the king is naked" I'll say "the movie is boring".

Having seen "Va Savoir" recently prompted me to rent Jacques Rivette's 1990 "La Belle Noiseuse," a daunting runtime of 240 minutes (though I noticed it was only 3 hr. 48 mins.) It's well worth the time and experience. An experience in painting - * figure drawing to be precise. But it's not a film merely about lessons in * figure modeling from the beautiful Emmanuelle Béart, or meticulous details of an artist's painting process from veteran actor Michel Piccoli, there is a Rivette storyline depicting multiple relationships, himself literally painting us psychological pictures/sketches. He's truly the French filmic master of human predicaments between man and woman. Rivette has such visions, skillful techniques, and superb craft in telling his story with thoughtful details - never misses a beat. The beginning scenes put us in a comfortable rural setting outside of Paris - beautiful open views of the village town, captures of the villa architectural interiors, and tastes of the lovely airy gardens and shady greens exterior. Yes, there are plenty of dialogs, but the inclusion of real-time ambient and environmental sounds made "La Belle Noiseuse" experience whole. It has the most wonderful ordinary sound of the studio door with latch creak opens and closes - it comes so naturally. There's the pen nib scratching against the sketchpad paper, the chalk against the surface of a canvas, even the quick ruffling of sheets when Béart the model swivel-turned in defiance - such detailed little sounds simply add to the flavor and tone of the story. We see two pairs of relationship and then some: between the mature and weathered pair of Edouard Frenhofer the painter and Liz his wife (who used to be his favorite model) portrayed by Michel Piccoli and Jane Birkin; the younger set Marianne and Nicolas, yet to absorb the trials and zest of life, portrayed by Emmanuelle Béart and David Bursztein; then the twists of the mercurial commercial-minded Balthazar Porbus, the unrelenting insistent Nicolas' sister Julienne, with gentle relieving pauses from young Magali, daughter of housekeeper Francoise, not to forget Justine the Cat. Other then an Igor Stravinsky piece used for the beginning/ending credit roll, and Magali's brief morning ballet exercise, there's really no background music used. The occasional church bell rings, sounds of cicada and rustling leaves provided serene accents. Much is said in the unsaid, and the ending portion sure makes one wonder and prompts reflections. Rivette has a flair for unsuspecting ending drama, almost philosophical, or could it be renewed beginnings? The paintings/drawings were from the hands of Bernard Dufour. Cinematography by William Lubtchansky, especially inside the studio, captured the critical chiaroscuro (light and shadows) of drawing/modeling sessions. Michel Piccoli is a regular in Luis Bunuel films; "Belle de Jour" 1967, with Catherine Deneuve is one example. Jane Birkin has such a gentle yet fortified disposition; she's in Bertrand Tavernier's "Daddy Nostalgia" 1990, opposite Dirk Bogarde. I really enjoy Emmanuelle Béart's performance in Claude Sautet's "Nelly et Monsieur Arnaud" 1995, with Michel Serrault, who was equally brilliant.

This is one of those films which remains etched in the memory and can even change a person's life in a subtle way; certainly it can offer an insight into the art of painting unlike any other film I've seen. It is long, in the sense that classics of world literature can be lengthy - in other words, in an epic sense. I simply cannot restrain my enthusiasm for this film, which is ultimately nothing less than a psychological study of the creative process and its effect on human relationships. Every frame of those 4 hours of viewing is in its own way intriguing and inviting, and of course Beart is very beautiful. But the scenery, too, the old estate on which Frenhofer lives, is a character in the film, reflecting the artists own genteel, yet restless seniority perfectly. Shall I say more? Buy a good bottle of French red wine and sip it with relish, while immersing yourself free of preconceptions (about long movies or artistic pretentiousness) in this masterpiece! It is not about showing off, it is about the human condition. Nothing is entirely infallible, of course, so 9 out of 10.

In his four hour drama La Belle Noiseuse, French filmmaker Jacques Rivette has painted a haunting portrayal of an artist, a model, and the effects that a work can have on those involved. It is a brave piece of film-making, featuring physical and emotional openness. The film moves very slowly, but is very much worth watching. La Belle Noiseuse allows us to watch the creation of a piece of art and how it can change a person. This is a true accomplishment. The actors are all very much on key and, with no real script, provide real and believable dialogue. Rivette paints these characters in a very human way: it's easy to imagine these people existing. There are no movie tricks. It's a truly naked film in that it offers such an intimate look into the hearts of the main characters. Anytime a film can do this, you know it's something special. La Belle Noiseuse revolves around two couples. Marianne and Nicolas are a young couple. Nicolas is an artist and has been invited to take a look at the studio of Frenhofer, a once revered and respected painter who has given up his art. While discussing a painting that Frenhofer never finished – the "La Belle Noiseuse" – Nicolas suggests that Frenhofer use Marianne as his model. Frenhofer agrees. However, Marianne is not very happy about this. She arrives at the studio very disheartened. As Frenhofer draws and paints her, the two of them get to know each other. Marianne's resentment falls away and she becomes more open with Frenhofer, doing as he says, asking him questions, posing how he'd like. Frenhofer wants to dig deeper. As a painter, he feels the need to really capture the essence of his model. His wife, Liz, was his last model. As a result of this need to dig deeper, he was forced to either give up painting or give up his wife. The film spends much of its four hour running time in the studio with Marianne and Frenhofer. Otherwise, there are scenes with Frenhofer and Liz, as well as with Liz and Nicolas, and Marianne and Nicolas, who are growing apart by the day. For those who can endure the extreme running time, La Belle Noiseuse is a fascinating film to watch. The characters, as I said before, are very real. Much of the film features Marianne (played by the lovely Emmanuelle Beart) posing *. It's a bold performance for the actress, who must bear her soul as well as her body in order for the performance to be effective. She is absolutely wonderful, as is Michel Piccoli as the bitter painter. The only problem I have with the film is not that it's so long, but that much of it focuses on the drawing. There are five and ten minute scenes where the audience watches Frenhofer sketch and paint. It's fascinating at first, but eventually becomes a bit tedious. This should not steer anyone away, though. Anyone who can appreciate slow moving character studies should be fine. To sum up, I would recommend La Belle Noiseuse. However, a person should probably know what they are getting into prior to watching. The film is not for everyone. It takes patience to enjoy, but for those who can, it is very rewarding. Jacques Rivette is a truly revolutionary director. The other film I've seen from him, Celine and Julie Go Boating, is just as wonderful as La Belle Noiseuse, but is in a completely different universe. He is a very versatile, unique, and underrated director. La Belle Noiseuse shows this. It's a beautiful film. 9/10

Unless you're a New Wavelet devotee or your intellectual capacities are wide, Jacques Rivette is a filmmaker who isn't very close to many average viewers. In many of his films he loses himself amid his intellectual ideas and doesn't mind developing them while neglecting notions of storytelling, progression in narration and time. Consequently, the average length of his works is of about two hours and a half. Many filmmakers left very long films too. But they keep in mind that their films are destined to be understood by the general public and so obey to rules of clarification in their accessible stories. "La Belle Noiseuse" is one of his most palatable pieces of work in spite of its challenging length. It clocks in at 4 hours but don't panic, time won't seem long to you for Rivette keeps a decent linearity from the first reunion with the main characters of the film to the surprising final denouement to the agreement of Marianne (Emmanuelle Béart) to serve as a model for the painter Frenhofer (Michel Piccoli). Along their adventure, some details will witness the progression of the story: Marianne sleeps in Frenhofer's mansion while the latter falls asleep in his studio. An aesthetic refinement freely sourced from Honoré De Balzac's novel "the Unknown Masterpiece" and perhaps the son of "le Mystère Picasso" (1956) by Henri-Georges Clouzot, Rivette's piece of work is a dive in the twists and turns of artistic creation and all that it can comprise with its times of hopes, doubts, fears. Frenhofer naturally starts with a series of sketches and continues with numerous paintings attempts and countless, testing poses for Marianne. The two characters are engaged in a creative process that is highly likely to leave them exhausted to say the least. The filmmaker deftly taps the scenery of the mansion and notably the studio where he locks for the major part of the film, Marianne and Frenhofer for better and for worse. A painstaking care is given to sound with the squeaking of charcoal and brush. To better capture the sense of spontaneous creation, Rivette fell back on methods worthy of the New Wavelet and notably Godard's: he shot his film without a script near him and perhaps that's why many moments seem extemporaneous. But unlike Godard's smug works, Rivette's one remains quite understandable as a whole. A dark legend surrounds this film about its success, one of the few Rivette enjoyed all along his career. Was it due to Emmanuelle Béart's nudity? "La Religieuse" (1966) was banned because it was deemed as shocking for a major part of the population according to the censors. This banning contributed to the popularity of the film. So, it would seem that Rivette has to put elements likely to be scabrous to make himself accepted by general public.

Summary of a 4-hour movie: a sex-starved old bald artist gets to watch a beautiful naked woman for hours every day. If you want to see the height of French (or European) cinematic pretentiousness, go ahead and watch this dull piece of celluloid nonsense. However, if you want REAL entertainment, no need to watch a different movie: I suggest you take a peak at many of the favorable reviews of LBN. However, if you're a fan of drivel like this, you'll most likely enjoy them and mark this with a "NO" (and then phone up all your friends to mark it with more "NO"s). Just make sure you don't break your keyboard when you smash a "NO" vote... Piccoli plays an old artist, who has stopped painting/drawing i.e. scribbling crap-on-a-canvas, due to some tortured artist reasons. More likely, he stopped because he lives in the South of France and he'd rather just have fun in the sun and have sex a bit, occasionally wining and dining with friends. It's understandable. In the movie, however, the reason for this becomes apparent later: he tried painting his wife, and that pretty much ruined the fun in art forever for him. After all, would YOU want to spend hours and days painting your wife? Especially when she looks like Jane Birkin. No wonder Piccoli is tortured, suffering and all that: with a wife like Birkin it's a miracle he didn't end up killing himself like all those young tortured poets. But... Voila! Ms.Beart enters the picture, his life. She is young, has a pretty face, and likes to be naked in front of old men. What man, old or young, could resist that? Suddenly, and veeeeery mysteriously, Piccoli is interested in painting again! Of course, officially his reasons are artistic, not sexual. How dare I even suggest that an artist might think with his genitals first, and his divine artistic soul/mind second?? No, no, no: Piccoli is NOT sexually attracted to the beautiful Beart; he just wants to paint her because she has that certain... aaahh... je-ne-sais-quoi. What follows in this monstrously long movie are scenes of Beart undressing, dressing, posing, changing poses, getting bored, and Piccoli trying to calm himself down, i.e. Piccoli hiding his pitched tent while trying to focus on his "art". It is a pervert's dream. A movie the pervert doesn't have to hide from his visiting friends, but actually boast about. Two flies with one swat: watching breasts AND being able to pretend you're a clever art-movie lover. Or loveur. Occasionally, there is some rather dull dialog that serves more as relief for male viewers who are struggling with their sexual feelings towards the naked Beart. In the end, we get to see a large collection of drawings, all based on the body of one called Beart. Needless to say, the drawings are all horrible. All that effort, and for nothing! The reason they are so bad is two-fold: 1) nowadays bad art sells better, and 2) it is very difficult to concentrate on your artistic outpourings of inspiration when sexual feelings hang over you like an albatross. I understand Piccoli's character fully. Oh, and those breasts are fake. This is Beart in her post-silicon, pre-enlarged-lips-like-a-duck phase. I am not a fan of implants at all, but I guess art lovers will not be bothered by the only bit of fakeness in an otherwise impressive feast of utter genuineness. The movie stinks of authenticity. It reeks. I'm impressed. I wonder what the shooting of this movie was like? Did Piccoli have sex with Beart every morning, before the shooting commenced, so he can focus more easily on his lines? No, that can't be it. I just remembered: he barely has any lines. He just sits there and draws. I once watched a chimp with a brush, a canvas, and some paint. There's much more to be learned from that...