The Duke of Burgundy (2014)

This movie tries to be so many things, and fails at all, the one thing it excels at is being a complete waste of time.

The people writing good reviews for this film are either somehow affiliated with it, or truly have no idea what a decent movie is.

The entire movie is based on little scripts the two women rehearse, and there is maybe three of them, and then it's a simple matter of 'rinse and repeat'.

I have NO IDEA why the director thought that a woman peeing into another woman's mouth would be in any way appealing to anyone, apart of course for those out there that are extremely kinky, of course you don't see this, thank god for that, but you do hear it.

As I mentioned the movie just repeats itself over and over again until it ends, it's just utter crap, and there are moments in the film where there is insanely annoying sounds with obscure images in the background, it's like the director/editors had completely run out of ideas and put these bits in to simply make the movie longer, of course they would have been doing us all a favor had they simply left them out, or better still, never made the movie in the first place.

ABSOLUTE GARBAGE!.

Fmovies: The technical characteristics of the film were wonderful. In the beginning of the movie, I was immediately captured by the beautiful cinematography and soundscape.

However, what I expected from this movie was an exploration of intermittent reinforcement in relationships.

I could have enjoyed this movie a lot more if it had a deeper insight into the sexuality of the two women, instead of playing out as the beginning of a BDSM porn movie.

One good quote of the movie is capable to sum up one of the characters' psyche completely: "Oh, if we could all just say 'Pinastri' to end our torments."

(Pinastri being their safe word)

This is a profound and engrossing film. Peter Strickland is clearly less a fan of cinema than a fanatic for film and there is a difference. He believes that film does not depict reality but is a reproduction of reality and therein lies his fascination. He is excited by this process and through his films similarly excites us. In this film, ostensibly about a couple of ladies living out a BDSM relationship in a rambling old mansion, his filmic inspiration is Stan Brakhage. Brakhage, who died only a few years back. experimented with film all his life, and was introduced to me many, many years ago as I sat in a mattress strewn room, four floors up in an otherwise derelict building in Camden. One of Brakhage's early films was Mothlight (1963) and was made without the use of a camera, by pressing the wings of moths into the negative that was then projected giving and unworldly effect that was not unlike staring at a light surrounded by fluttering moths. Strickland replicates this wonderfully in a sensational dream sequence in his film and is the reason for the insects featuring so prominently. As in his previous films, Strickland is as fascinated with sound as much as picture and here the soundtrack is punctuated with the scratchings and flutterings of butterflies and moths, the purring of the cat and a madam snoring. With so many visual and aural treats we sometimes tend to lose focus on the two ladies but are soon brought back by another twist in the tale. On the face of it this tale of a dom and a sub should be simple enough to tell but the director takes his time to establish the exact tone he wants so we can accept as 'true' what we see before us, even as it changes before our very eyes. As you may have gathered from my rambling, this is no ordinary film and the expected, bare flesh and lashings do not appear but plenty more does, more or less on screen, including the 'human toilet' and a fantastic masturbatory sequence with verbal instructions. So, to conclude, for me Strickland has done it again, a wonderful film, almost out of nothing as he allows his love of 'this unexplored corner of cinema that is still seen as disreputable' (principally, giallo and sexploitation) to colour his vision (and sound) for our delight.

The Duke of Burgundy fmovies. A rather simple "story" or rather vignette about the tensions in a relationship - the two lovers are lesbians (Evelyn and Cynthia) and are playing out a dominance and submission scenario - but basically the problems the couple faces are the same as with most relationships: Boredom by routine, a little jealousy, and Cynthia is having trouble with Evelyn's more and more demanding whims.

What makes this film stand out for me is the all-embracing vision: Acting, costumes, set design, props, music, rhythm - everything works together perfectly to form a total work of art. Usually such a clear and uncompromising concept is restricted to short films; here it's drawn out to 100 lush minutes. I felt positively reminded of Peter Greenaway! There are also some fun visual jokes or references like the mannequins in the audience but they don't take away from the focus.

Now, while that's some praise, there's also drawbacks that come with this single-mindedness: The plot is just a "plot", coming from and leading to nowhere; we never learn much about the characters; the whole thing begins to feel drawn-out. Basically you could have told the thing in 30 minutes without losing much impact. While I can wholeheartedly recommend this beautiful production, I doubt if I'll rewatch it anytime soon in its full length.

This isn't a d/s film really as some say (more routinely known as bdsm but I shorten it to essentials). To my mind, that would be about someone who sheds control and truly gives herself over to another person. What we have instead is someone controlling a fantasy around her. This doesn't preclude it from being good of course but it's worth making the distinction between fetish as piece of theater and vital baring of soul.

But this reveals what the film is actually about and only disguised with erotica. It's about obsessive self, the self that tries to control life, shown as the real barrier that stands in the way of knowing intimacy, reducing life to theater. A petulant ego, as we go on to see, that only expects to be pleased and smothers the other, and the rituals, games, fictions it weaves that keep it from being there for the genuine exchange with another person that sex and love are both ways to manifest. In this way she explores neither herself nor her partner.

And I would go a step further. The big question in both loving intimacy with another person and making a film about it, or really any film that wants to probe the deepest recesses of self, is by what degrees to know and maintain distance, the distance as ambiguity that you honor by refusing to reduce. By what degrees to anticipate and remain open to spontaneity, lead or allow yourself to be led. You can trust that everyone from Tarkovsky to Lynch has mulled over this long and hard, how much to make known even to themselves.

Here there are two reversals of control (over the viewing experience). One in who controls the exchange, and a second about the fictional nature of the exchange. Their effect however is that they leave me with a rather thin reality of petulant abuser and her exasperated enabler. What I have revealed of this world makes me feel that it's not worth staying for.

But knowing his previous work, this is a filmmaker who wants to see with an eye that delves into space to know the feel and cares primarily for what creates visual fabrics. I have him on a short list of talent with the potential to be commanding our attention in the near future.

A very remarkable flow here delves between the woman's thighs, delves through her sex to the box that contains the skeletal remains of what used to be love, and through it to a forlorn walk in the woods that culminates with another box that is the girl swallowing her with suffocating desire.

So he has good intuitions, an eye that reminds me of Europe in the 70s. I hope he grows and takes the leap from being a Juraj Herz or more intelligent Franco into transcendent dreamworlds (as opposed to symbolic). But if he rests here, part of me will be happy all the same, the part of me that favors ethereal wandering. We don't get much of it anymore.

Forget 9 1/2 Weeks, forget Last Tango in Paris, forget Secretary and most definitely forget 50 Shades, this is THE definitive cinematic essay on a dom/sub relationship.

The idea is a fascinating and brave one: to create an homage to artistic elements of the "disreputable" sexploitation movies of the 1970s and make it beautiful and profound. It's another movie that full of references to other movies and to the movie-making process. I recognised only little hints of Just Jaekin, being unfamiliar with the other influences. I did spot the marker tape on the carpet that serve two purposes, practical and metaphorical. Er.. three, there are two metaphors going on, I think, one plot-related and one post- modern commentary.

Talking of plot, it is so slight that it could be explained in three sentences. I won't, obviously, but honestly it wouldn't matter if I did. What matters is the manner of the telling.

The story inhabits a strange dream-like space where everyone in the town is a fetishistic female entomologist! (If anyone can explain the significance of the entomology, please do, I'm all ears!) But within the unreal external world, the two heroines inhabit an emotional world that is utterly believable.

In sumptuous but slightly muted autumn colours, the film looks gorgeous. I found it sensual, very erotic (despite there being no more than a few seconds of anything you could call "sex" and no nudity at all), emotionally engaging, warm, sad, funny and REAL.

Although the story deals exclusively with dominance and submission (no trace of S&M despite what it says in all the publicity, including in interviews with the director) it is a universal story about conflicting desires, fantasies, trust and compromise. In some way, it is a story for every relationship.

I absolutely loved this film.