Part I - Character Analysis (Séverine)
Belle de Jour is a film charged with Freudian themes, centering on main character Séverine. It is not altogether that difficult to decode some of the Freudian ideologies at work here.
Dream and Repression. Dreams comprise a major part of the film. These dreams take place in between scenes of reality and serve as a great source for viewers to understand Séverine's behavior in reality. Director Bunuel incorporates a central Freudian interpretation of dreams into the film, where they serve as wish fulfillments. Analysis of these dreams can lead us into Séverine's mind. The film opens with a daydream scene, in which Séverine and her husband (Pierre) travels in a horse-drawn carriage in a 19th-century rural landscape. Pierre complains about her aloofness and she asks for his forgiveness, but he does not accept it and proceeds to let their driver to whip and rape her. She fights back but shows signs of enjoyment at the end. Viewers are then taken back to reality where she and Pierre sleep in separate beds,apparently leading a rather asexual lifestyle. As Pierre makes an attempt to get in her bed, she says “No. Please.” and he immediately retreats back to his own bed. In this way, the dream clearly presents itself as a wish fulfillment. She still behaves the same way in her fantasy, only with Pierre behaving cruelly and aggressively towards her instead. It is apparent that what she wants is not just sex, rather a masochistic version of it where she gets tied up and verbally humiliated while the man forces himself upon her. Another similar dream occurs later on in the film, where she is again tied up, with Pierre and his friend Henri throwing mud on her. The contrasts of these dreams and her dull life with Pierre explain why she seeks out excitement by joining the whorehouse. What is more interesting is some recurring details in these dreams.Most of these fantasies include passing references to cats, (eg “Don't let the cats out!” “Are bulls given name like cats?”) It is not immediately clear what significance they hold, but because of Freud's theory of displacement in dreams, they are worth analyzing. Freud famously excuses his sexual frankness by saying “J'appelle un chat un chat,” which ironically undoes the exact claim he is making. It is quite possible that the “cats” here are also displacements of something more unmentionable. In the “mud” dream, Henri explains that most of the bulls, like cats, are named “Remorse”, while the last one is named “Expiation”. It is quite obvious here that the cats represent some form of misconduct that one feels guilty about. The misconduct can very well be Séverine's desire to be humiliated.The fact that most of them are “Remorse” and the last one is “Expiation” resonates well with the plot. She seeks satisfaction from the whorehouse, which she feels guilty about, and at last, tries to make up for it by taking care of a paralyzed Pierre. However, why does she feel guilty about it and possibly regret doing so? This relates to the next big theme of Freud.
The Id and the Superego. Freud proposes that human beings are constantly under the governance of two psychical forces, the Id on the one hand and the Superego on the other. They often conflict with each other over the control of our ego. This is vividly shown in the constant inner conflicts of Séverine. One remarkable scene shows her wandering in front of the whorehouse that Henri told her about earlier. At first she walks past it, she then returns and lingers in front of the supermarket next to it. After seeing a woman walking in, she then suddenly turns around and walks away from the whorehouse hastily. She is then shown sitting on a bench in a park, before she finally makes the return to the whorehouse and enters with sunglasses on. What viewers see here is how the Id and the Superego fight to govern her physical movements (Ego). The Id,or her desire to be pleased through humiliation, guides her to the whorehouse, and gives her the ultimate impulse to walk in. The Superego, or her view of prostitution as a socially unacceptable form of work, as well as her sense of loyalty to her husband, prevents her from walking straight in when she first arrives, and leads her to walk away and go to the park instead. The Superego at last makes the compromise of letting her walk in but only with sunglasses on. The conflict between these two forces makes a simple action (walking into a building) much more complicated, with all the back and forth movements. This is only one example of her inner conflict between these two forces, which presents itself throughout the film. The burning of her bra and underwear after sex with her first client is another unusual scene that pertains to the theme.While she may have other reasons for getting rid of them, the fact she chooses to burn them clearly means they are not just physically dirty, but they are mentally troubling to her. They vividly remind her of her prostitution experiences, something she is not proud Burning away these physical reminders is almost a therapeutic experience for her as if she could also burn away her memory and sense of guilt. While the Id might have won out by leading her to the whorehouse, the burning is the Superego's revenge on that . In this way, both the Id and the Superego can be pleased and she can regain her clear conscience. In another scene, as she watches another client, “the Professor”, satisfying himself by letting a prostitute walk on him and calling him names , she remarks: “How can someone sink so low?” In this case,the energy from the Id is withdrawn as she is not participatory in the acts, and the Superego takes over and finds such acts of humiliation disgusting. However, she must be aware that she and “the Professor” have a lot in common on that regard . The way they obtain satisfaction through being humiliated is strikingly identical. Therefore, when she says asks “how can someone sink so low?” she is not only referring to “the Professor”, but to herself as well. The most prominent feature of the Superego is to criticize oneself through a third-person perspective, just the same as how she watches and criticizes “the Professor” by watching through a peephole. Only as she does that, she realizes how disgusting she finds her actions to be.However, she must be aware that she and “the Professor” have a lot in common on that regard. The way they obtain satisfaction through being humiliated is strikingly identical. Therefore, when she says asks “how can someone sink so low?” she is not only referring to “the Professor”, but to herself as well. The most prominent feature of the Superego is to criticize oneself through a third-person perspective, just the same as how she watches and criticizes “the Professor” by watching through a peephole. Only as she does that, she realizes how disgusting she finds her actions to be.However, she must be aware that she and “the Professor” have a lot in common on that regard. The way they obtain satisfaction through being humiliated is strikingly identical. Therefore, when she says asks “how can someone sink so low?” she is not only referring to “the Professor”, but to herself as well. The most prominent feature of the Superego is to criticize oneself through a third-person perspective, just the same as how she watches and criticizes “the Professor” by watching through a peephole. Only as she does that, she realizes how disgusting she finds her actions to be.when she says asks “how can someone sink so low?” she is not only referring to “the Professor”, but to herself as well. The most prominent feature of the Superego is to criticize oneself through a third-person perspective, just the same as how she watches and criticizes “the Professor” by watching through a peephole. Only as she does that, she realizes how disgusting she finds her actions to be.when she says asks “how can someone sink so low?” she is not only referring to “the Professor”, but to herself as well. The most prominent feature of the Superego is to criticize oneself through a third-person perspective, just the same as how she watches and criticizes “the Professor” by watching through a peephole. Only as she does that, she realizes how disgusting she finds her actions to be.
Marcel and Pierre. The last part of the film is dominated by her relationship with Marcel, an impulsive guy with knocked-out teeth and scars. Séverine is irresistibly attracted to him, even offering to have sex with him for free on their first meeting. Yet their relationship is never going to work out as she still claims to be in love with Pierre. After he stalks her into her apartment and asks her to spend the night with him, she refuses, which ultimately leads to the killing. Here, her having to choose between Marcel and Pierre is yet another conflict of the Id and the Superego. Marcel is attached to the Id. He has the rough look and tough manners that she desires. In her confined upper-class life, the presence of the lower -class Marcel is a wild force that drives her crazy. Yet as much as she wants him,she does not want to risk the comfort of her refined lifestyle in pursuit of him. Pierre, on the other hand, is attached to the Superego. He is extremely well-behaved, with a respectable job as a doctor and considerable wealth. Judging from an outsider perspective, her marriage with Pierre is highly desirable, and their affection towards each other seems strong. However, her inner desires cannot be satisfied by Pierre. Disaster strikes when she lets these two forces collide. Even though she is not directly involved in the killing, she does allow room for it to happen, as she struggles with her inner conflicts. What this film shows is the destructive energy that is generated with the unresolved conflict between the Id and the Superego.He is extremely well-behaved, with a respectable job as a doctor and considerable wealth. Judging from an outsider perspective, her marriage with Pierre is highly desirable, and their affection towards each other seems strong. However, her inner desires cannot be satisfied by Pierre. Disaster strikes when she lets these two forces collide. Even though she is not directly involved in the killing, she does allow room for it to happen, as she struggles with her inner conflicts. What this film shows is the destructive energy that is generated with the unresolved conflict between the Id and the Superego.He is extremely well-behaved, with a respectable job as a doctor and considerable wealth. Judging from an outsider perspective, her marriage with Pierre is highly desirable, and their affection towards each other seems strong. However, her inner desires cannot be satisfied by Pierre. Disaster strikes when she lets these two forces collide. Even though she is not directly involved in the killing, she does allow room for it to happen, as she struggles with her inner conflicts. What this film shows is the destructive energy that is generated with the unresolved conflict between the Id and the Superego.her inner desires cannot be satisfied by Pierre. Disaster strikes when she lets these two forces collide. Even though she is not directly involved in the killing, she does allow room for it to happen, as she struggles with her inner conflicts. What this film shows is the destructive energy that is generated with the unresolved conflict between the Id and the Superego.her inner desires cannot be satisfied by Pierre. Disaster strikes when she lets these two forces collide. Even though she is not directly involved in the killing, she does allow room for it to happen, as she struggles with her inner conflicts. What this film shows is the destructive energy that is generated with the unresolved conflict between the Id and the Superego.
Theories of Childhood Sexuality. This is perhaps one of the most debatable areas of the film — What is the origin of Séverine's inner conflict? Bunuel again applies Freudian theories to this issue, but only in a rather obscure manner. Freud reckons that one's sexuality is powerfully shaped by the events in one's childhood. For example, he argues that when babies are breastfed, they experience one of those rare moments of pure pleasure that they always want to reacquire in later life, mostly in forms of sexual activities. Bunuel includes two very brief flashback scenes of Séverine's childhood memories, one in which she is molested by an unidentified man at her home, most likely a family member, the other in which she refuses to receive the Blessed Sacrament from a church ceremony. These flashbacks provide us with clues of her inner conflict.In the first flashback, she does not decry her molestation, but looks rather puzzled and closes her eyes as the man kisses her. As this man is most likely a family member, she, as a little girl, certainly is not in the best position to fight back. Through this brief flashback, it does appear that she possibly enjoys this unexperienced sensation of being kissed. In the second flashback, by refusing the Blessed Sacrament, a symbol of sinlessness, she admits to the fact that she is sinful, most likely due to the encounter of the first flashback. This is a logical explanation of the origin of her conflict, in which her religious upbringing is completely defied by a family member's molestation of her. Despite her sense of pleasure, she constantly suppresses this feeling as it is sinful.Yet these events still provide her with a strong psychical force to rediscover this pleasure she experienced as a child. The conflict between her suppression and desire eventually forms her core struggle in the film, where she wants to experience the thrill brought by the humiliation of prostitution while maintaining her role as a virtuous upper-class housewife.
Part II - Where the Film Deviates from Freud
While this film does an excellent job incorporating central Freudian themes onto the character of Séverine, its interpretation of Freud is not without flaws. These flaws especially manifest themselves in areas of dream interpretations and theories of sexuality.
Dreams or Non-Dreams? While most of the brilliance of the film comes from its inclusion of dream scenes in between reality scenes, this is also where Bunuel and Freud differ the most. What Bunuel calls dreams in this film are not actually dreams. They are merely fantasies. He makes it clear that most of these fantasies do not occur during sleep, but rather when Séverine is awake and fully conscious. Therefore, these “dreams”, unlike real dreams, actually follow a clear logic and the characters are clearly defined. He does, however, also apply Freud's interpretation of dreams on these fantasies, revealing her wishes. This is where the problem lies. Daydreams certainly can still be wish fulfillments, but they are conscious wish fulfillments. That means Séverine already acknowledges the existence of these wishes.Freud's theory on dream analysis does not apply on these types of wishes, as they are readily accessible to our consciousness. For Freud, his concern is mainly unconscious wishes, since those are the ones that, by remaining in the unconscious, lead to other psychological issues. These “dreams” do not do the Freudian “dream-work” either. For Freud, the wishes manifested in dreams are usually not always transparent. This is due to the unconscious applying various methods to disguise the dream-wish, such as condensation and displacement. These methods are not quite present in Bunuel's “dreams”, which directly depict Séverine's humiliations, because they are conscious wishes not in need of a disguise.since those are the ones that, by remaining in the unconscious, lead to other psychological issues. These “dreams” do not do the Freudian “dream-work” either. For Freud, the wishes manifested in dreams are usually not always transparent. This is due to the unconscious applying various methods to disguise the dream-wish, such as condensation and displacement. These methods are not quite present in Bunuel's “dreams”, which directly depict Séverine's humiliations, because they are conscious wishes not in need of a disguise .since those are the ones that, by remaining in the unconscious, lead to other psychological issues. These “dreams” do not do the Freudian “dream-work” either. For Freud, the wishes manifested in dreams are usually not always transparent. This is due to the unconscious applying various methods to disguise the dream-wish, such as condensation and displacement. These methods are not quite present in Bunuel's “dreams”, which directly depict Séverine's humiliations, because they are conscious wishes not in need of a disguise .such as condensation and displacement. These methods are not quite present in Bunuel's “dreams”, which directly depict Séverine's humiliations, because they are conscious wishes not in need of a disguise.such as condensation and displacement. These methods are not quite present in Bunuel's “dreams”, which directly depict Séverine's humiliations, because they are conscious wishes not in need of a disguise.
With these differences in mind, some of Séverine's actions seem less sensible. This is especially apparent in her relationship with Henri Husson. Henri is a recurrent figure in her fantasies. Besides throwing mud at her, there is also one where he breaks a wine bottle and uses it to have fun with Séverine under a restaurant table. As these fantasies are conscious ones, she must be aware of her feelings towards Henri. However, from the very beginning, she remarks how she “does not like his stares.” And whenever he tries to make an advance at her, she always retaliates vigorously. In the scene where he visits the whorehouse, she even yells that if he comes any closer she will scream and “jump out the window.” And then immediately after he leaves , she proceeds to have a fantasy in which Henri and Pierre are involved in a duel to win her over.Her actions would be perfectly reasonable if these fantasies were unconscious wishes. Since unconscious wishes are so vehemently repressed by the mind that any advance on their part always meets with utmost retaliations. However, since she is conscious of these fantasies and allows herself to form them in her mind, it makes less sense that she feels so threatened by him. Her strong physical resistance on the advance of Henri contradicts with her complete lack of mental resistance towards Henri. It seems that Bunuel attempts to apply the same mechanism of Freudian dream repression onto Séverine's fantasies. But it does not work because while dreams are products of repressions, Séverine's fantasies are formed by her own conscious will. This is not to say, of course, that fantasies and reality should match. However,the reason they do not match is supposedly a circumstantial one, not a cognitive one.
The portrayal of Séverine's relationship with Henri is only one example of how Bunuel insists on treating her fantasies as dreams. After the first fantasy in the beginning of the film, she is shown lying awake on her bed. When Pierre asks her what she is thinking about, she replies that she had a dream where the two “were out for a ride in a carriage.” She either deliberately chooses not to mention the rest of the dream, or she has already forgotten about them. Both explanations are not quite satisfactory . If she does not want Pierre to find out about her kinks, then why would she mention the carriages to him? It would be more sensible if she simply refrained from discussing her fantasies with him at all. On the other hand,how could she forget about something that she was thinking about lying in her bed just a few moments ago? These contradictions arise due to Bunuel's treatment of her fantasies as dreams. If the opening scene were indeed her dream, then it would make sense that through the repression mechanism, she may have already forgotten about the most crucial part of the dream when she wakes up. This is just simply not the case because she is clearly shown fully awake in her bed. Another important scene towards the end of the film shows her taking care of her now paralyzed husband. As she prepares him for his drops, she remarks that ever since his accident, her dreams have stopped. This remark would, again, only make sense if she did not have any control over her dreams.If the opening scene were indeed her dream, then it would make sense that through the repression mechanism, she may have already forgotten about the most crucial part of the dream when she wakes up. This is just simply not the case because she is clearly shown fully awake in her bed. Another important scene towards the end of the film shows her taking care of her now paralyzed husband. As she prepares him for his drops, she remarks that ever since his accident, her dreams have stopped. This remark would, again, only make sense if she did not have any control over her dreams.If the opening scene were indeed her dream, then it would make sense that through the repression mechanism, she may have already forgotten about the most crucial part of the dream when she wakes up. This is just simply not the case because she is clearly shown fully awake in her bed. Another important scene towards the end of the film shows her taking care of her now paralyzed husband. As she prepares him for his drops, she remarks that ever since his accident, her dreams have stopped. This remark would, again, only make sense if she did not have any control over her dreams.Another important scene towards the end of the film shows her taking care of her now paralyzed husband. As she prepares him for his drops, she remarks that ever since his accident, her dreams have stopped. This remark would, again, only make sense if she did not have any control over her dreams.Another important scene towards the end of the film shows her taking care of her now paralyzed husband. As she prepares him for his drops, she remarks that ever since his accident, her dreams have stopped. This remark would, again, only make sense if she did not have any control over her dreams.
It is unquestionable this film brilliantly merges fantasy and reality together, yet it does not quite conform to Freudian theories. Since these fantasies are so consciously constructed by Séverine, with perfectly sensible plots, defined characters and undisguised fulfillments, they do not appear to be repressed in the same manner Freudian dreams are. Therefore, Séverine's reaction to her fantasies, whether it is resistance or forgetfulness, is not entirely justified by Freudian theories.
Cats and Bells. Viewers may notice some of the recurring motifs in this film, most prominently cats and bells. I have analyzed the motif of cats in a Freudian manner in the first part and conclude they can be symbols of repressed desires. But these undercurrents are never explicitly explained in the film. The most practical reason to include these motifs are cinematic devices to divide between fantasy and reality scenes. It is clear that in most fantasy scenes, there are sounds of bells, either from horse carriages and bulls, and references to cats. However, these motifs are also featured in a few supposedly reality scenes, which involve the bell of the Japanese client and the cats of the nymphomaniac client. It is not of my interest here to discuss whether these scenes are actually fantasies or reality,but I wish to highlight how the inclusion of these motifs are not in line with Freudian theories.
According to Freud, one important process of the dream-work is the work of displacement. In this process, objects of high importance in the unconscious are replaced by seemingly insignificant references in actual dream content, while objects of little interest may take up the majority This is a form of repression the mind inserts to make sure the unconscious remains in its place. This befits accurately with the role of cats and bells in this film. Despite their recurring appearances, they never seem to be significant components of the fantasies, usually only appearing as passing references and background noises. Viewers' attention is ultimately directed towards the acts of humiliation in these fantasies, as they are both visually striking and narratively indispensable. If Freudian theories were to apply to these fantasies,then the cats and bells should be the elements of the greatest interest to us. Yet in the film, these motifs remain unexplained, while the acts of humiliation, which is central in fantasies, remain central in reality. Interestingly, when Séverine says towards the end that she stops having those dreams after the accident, she goes on to have another one as the controversial ending of the film. In this final fantasy, we hear loud meowing of cats and sound of bells, but without an actual humiliation act taking place . One cannot help but wonder if her conflict, all along, has not been one in which she struggles to fit her kink into her social reality, but one that involves cats and bells. Because even after she satisfies herself greatly with prostitution, while maintaining her relationship with Pierre, these fantasies do not seem to go away.It is a shame that the film does not offer a better explanation on these motifs, as Freud would like, but it also leaves viewers with plenty of room for imagination.
Sexuality Theories. This film, for better or worse, maintains a neutral tone of narration throughout. Séverine is portrayed as a bored housewife who seeks special kinks through prostitution during the day. Even as disaster strikes at the end, this film does not end on a tragic note. It ends rather on a bizarrely hopeful one, with Pierre walking again and Séverine seeing the empty carriage reminiscent of the opening scene. Freud would also likely have no objections to most of the things Séverine does, except he would say she ultimately has a problem because she is stuck on her masochistic inclinations. Throughout the film, it is clear that Séverine only shows her signature smile when she is humiliated in one way or another. Without humiliation,she cannot achieve any form of sexual satisfaction with Pierre and thus declines to have sex with him at all. While the film's nonjudgemental tone is an era-defying classic, it does appear that Bunuel overlooks Freud's objection to transfixed sexuality. The character of Séverine can be a liberating figure some of us can relate or aspire to, but that does not mean her sexuality is completely healthy. Even if she could balance her kink with her life with Pierre, she would not be happy because Pierre could not please her the way she wants to be pleased.but that does not mean her sexuality is completely healthy. Even if she could balance her kink with her life with Pierre, she would not be happy because Pierre could not please her the way she wants to be pleased.but that does not mean her sexuality is completely healthy. Even if she could balance her kink with her life with Pierre, she would not be happy because Pierre could not please her the way she wants to be pleased.
Source Cited:
Belle De Jour. Dir. Luis Buñuel. Carlotta Films, 1967.
View more about Belle de Jour reviews
