l'Histoire d'O (Story of O) and how the film should be

The bad films about Story of O (l'Histoire d'O)

Why are the two films made after the Story of O (l'Histoire d'O) that I know so bad? Perhaps I should modify my ‘bad’ and say ‘mediocre, meaningless, superficial’ etc instead. I am referring to the famous Just Jaeckin (JJ) version of 1975 and a more recent American version (‘Story of O – Untold Pleasures.’) I will ignore the latter for now. The JJ version was groundbreaking, perhaps, it has its visually appealing moments, Corinne Cléry is a pretty girl, but the essence of the film has little to do with the intentions and mood of the book, which, as some of you know, I adore. The film is soft-porn, 'Emmanuelle goes slavegirl.' Cléry walks through the adventure sufficiently naively, girlishly perhaps, perhaps like O accepting all that is done to her, not resisting. Yet the mood is all too easy to my mind. I see no evidence of how hard O finds it - the embarrassment, the pain, the dedication to Sir S; the book expresses this so well. Nor indeed does the film express the deep joy she feels once she has submitted to Sir S. The frivolous love interest between Pierre and O in the film is simply ridiculous. An example of an easy opportunity that the film chose to miss is the final scene in the book, where O is set down at the party of the Commander, in the corner of the courtyard. The actions and talk between the young couple that visit O, without involving her of course, typify all that O is in a nutshell: an object that can be ignored (or used), but that still provides fear and attraction and is a model for how that couple's relationship could be. The Story of O is about the relationship between woman and man, simply reduced to an extreme form, perhaps not viable or desirable in reality, but all the more recognisable at the end of the day. Not so in the film. The film is not about the depths, but about the surface. I call that superficial, shallow. It does not satisfy me. I call it bad, because the book deserves better. (16-11-06)

Did the Story of O film have to be so bad?

Now why would Just Jaeckin’s (JJ) film be that way, aesthetically pleasing, but superficial, shallow --- bad? Did it have to be , AD 1975? JJ was a photographer and interested in beautiful images. He does succeed there, but I have tried to argue that he misses the point of the book. The book is grittier, earthier, not soft, no matter how compliant O's character is. It is certainly about a mental journey that O follows from René’s vanilla lover, to his submissive to that of Sir Stephen. Assuming JJ had wanted to do the book full justice, and that he would have been capable of doing so, could he have succeeded? I believe he could have, if he had been a different man and cunning, perhaps by being restrained on the showing and let O speak more, literally or figuratively. I grant that a mainstream film would not easily have succeeded. The JJ version as it is was banned in the UK and US, I think, no matter how innocent. There is the nudity to deal with, the whipping etc., and the humiliation, of a woman as a woman... Political correctness? Would that have been in the way? Feminists disagree on the quality or the morality of the book. But Pasolini made Salo around the same time, a quite extreme statement. True, he dealt with scores of young women and men, instead of concentrating on a single woman. Salo caused uproar, but it was shown and still is. Not that I would have recommended Pasolini to do the O film. He is not straight enough. The example of Salo merely demonstrates to me that my ideal O film could have been made at the time. My favourite would have been Stanley Kubrick, who could have done it at the time, had he wanted. (17-11-06)

Could a good film on the Story of O be made today?

Could a worthy film on the Story of O succeed now? I am certain. I have tried to argue it could have back then, in Just Jaeckin’s 70s. It can certainly succeed now. And closer to the mainstream. (Not by Just Jaeckin, not then, not now.) Nudity is less of an issue now than it was in the 70s. BDSM is all but acceptable now. There is no soul in the Western world below 60 years of age that has not played with S&M or or at least considered it. The feminist aspect and/ or the political correctness? Above all I think it is the extreme apparent one-sidedness of the relationship between O and her men that is the issue, not so much the nudity and whipping. On that count, I don’t believe the film could be made in Hollywood. Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut has been made on the edge of the Hollywood system and goes fairly far on the mental level. That level is the one that counts, be sure! Still, better examples are Patrice Chereau's Intimacy and its depiction of ruthless, loveless physical action, Catherine Breillat’s Romance X and its showing a woman that wants love, but also rough sex, which her man does not supply and she has get elsewhere, Michael Haneke’s The Pianist, about a surpressed woman, who engages a young man to dominate her - all 'European Cinema.' On the count of nudity and above all given the extreme form the relationships in these films take, loveless, obsessive, it is without doubt that the Story of O can be done justice. Perhaps the physical torture must be suggested or shown with restraint, but that should not compromise the essence. Go Chereau Breillat, or Haneke! (23/11/06)

 

Outline of a good film about the Story of O

After we established that no good film after “l’Histore d’O” currently exists, that is: good enough, and that a good one could have been made, certainly today, I want to be constructive and bring forward a specific idea for the film. I was talking to my friend James about the subject and the following idea has been jointly initiated.

The bulk of the film is a set of interviews with O by a series of interviewers, men and women, in differing styles and different settings, studio chat show, private conversation, outside, with and without audience. The interviews would cover the entire story, as we know it. Some interviewers would be hard and judgemental, some soft and understanding, others sensationalist or aloof, feminist or male chauvinist. O meanwhile would be unmoved and consistent. She would answer each question, no matter how it was stated, no matter how crude, in the most natural of ways, with steady gaze. She would use coarse language, but never a coarse tone. She may show the whip or branding iron, a particular article of clothing or a marking disc. She would be candid, explicit, shameless, but never provocative, rather modest, girlish. Visually, the film would present the various interviewers with their great variety of facial expressions and body language, uneasy, shocked, interested, fascinated, incredulous, condemning, understanding, wanting to intervene or convert etc. We would see extremely brief, 1 second, flashes of action cut in visually, the sound of the interview proceeding uninterrupted. Between the interviews we would see played out key sections of the story, of 5-7 minutes each, such as the one I mentioned above, with the young couple visiting O at the Commander's party, and the one where she first arrives at Roissy, that where she sorts out her clothes in her apartment under orders from René, the scene in the little dungeon at the end of her first stay at Roissy, that where she is being used by Sir Stephen when Nora suddenly enters, a scene at Anne-Marie's, where she is first inspected by a fellow-woman, her branding, where she whips another woman and a number of other key scenes.

Afterwards I had to think of a film by Marguerite Duras I once saw, which I just remember as a man (Depardieu) and woman (Duras) narrating a story, with some minimalist supporting images. Fascinating, but for a very ‘elite’ audience. I am not stating that our idea goes to extremes in maximising the appeal. It will be a film for the somewhat educated mind. I am convinced meanwhile that our film has the potential to move any woman or man who appreciates the book (28-11-06).