Stealing Beauty

I think I saw this film at a film festival when it was newly released (or prior to release) and seem to recall a scene that was missing when I watched it again recently.

Remember when they all go over to that grand villa for the evenings party and the artist guy stays home to carve away at his tree stump with the chainsaw. I remember him sanding more and creating this lovely (and suggestive!) hole in it that later when his wife returns home and finds him caressing the hole suggestively and the two of them then make love. This time when I watch the film it just cuts to the place where she leans against the wall and hikes up her dress above the knee (what the hell is that all about?). The original was one of my favorite parts because of how that scene was enhanced with the music soundtrack... but now it's gone! So my question is: Am I right or dreaming? Anybody else remember this?

When this filmed first came on the scene, there was a lot of critics that downed the intensity of this film... of course their favorite words were pseudoartistic crap. America is not ready for this film. Look at what we embrace in our films: blood, sex, nudity, shock value. America is not ready for a film that sees the attraction towards a 19 year-old as a natural thing. American normalcy sees this as wrong, deceitful, and impure. Bertolucci did not make a film, he reflected humanity through a camera. This film dives into our own psyche seeking the desires to be pure and innocent. Only America would see this as a piece of psycho sexual fantasy into our own pedophiliac desires. Watch it people, there's a substance that you're not used to seeing in everyday flicks.

A question especially uneasy to answer in this case. The plot, of course, is very simple and even trivial: young girl loses her virginity and discovers her father's identity, gaining love and surrendering death (the never understood death of her mother), while her older admirer (Jeremy Irons) who only felt in love once - with her mother - gains love again but death at the same time. This pretty kitschy plot, together with the lack of movement in great part of the film, could make it unbearable. But it results much more ambivalent... First note that you wouldn't think at all you're dealing with a movie from 1996. Actually, when I saw it I had no idea from when it was and I estimated it to be from the late 1970's or early 80's. That has to do, above all, with the ethereal landscape-cinematography, this really magnific beauty of every movement the camera (and Liv Tyler!) make, but with the music, too. When there appears Mozart's clarinette concert, for the first time, while you see the field and the house sleeping "siesta", it can make you cry because of pure beauty you conceive... And there are many moments in this film, where music (timeless and time-switching) and picture make you feel so unsure about the era this film is telling about. "Beauty hurts the heart" says Jean Marais' character once. And actually, it does. The eroticism of this movie, for my taste, was sometimes almost painfully sad and joyful at once. Difficult to describe. Between, there are many occasions where you can find the vulgarity of the story just repelling, but then comes such a vigorous sequence again... It reminds me of some of the last Rohmer movies, in some respect, although it is much warmer and not that boring. (Rohmer's coolness, nevertheless, prevails him for falling in kitsch, something that Bertolucci doesn't avoid.) The movie, in some precious moments, does exactly do what its title promises: it steals pieces of beauty from this incredible world - but it has few awareness of it. Its explicitly "deep" parts are too immature and presumptious, but its superficiality contents a profoundness that convinced me. As a piece of art, I have to consider this movie too superficial, as a piece of " just feeling" (a word that I normally hate), I cannot let to like it. 6 of 10.

The poetic tale of a girl trapped in her past which keeps her unavailable and sexually closed, and a study of the increasing urges and temptations that she feels pressuring her. Or: the story of who will have sex with a beautiful virgin first. It's a guessing game for the viewer: which one of the many male characters will deflower the Tyler girl? I'm sure Bertolucci sees this in a different light but then again he is a pretentious European director who would summarize the plot in a far more philosophical manner, looking at it from angles that don't exist. This is, after all, the same "genius" who made the ridiculously long, extreme-left-wing "1900", in an attempt to create movie history. (I suppose Depardieu and De Niro getting simultaneously masturbated by a prostitute is what everyone always wanted to see. Real art.) The camera-work, though it captures Tyler's good looks well, makes me suspect that either Bertolucci or the cameraman had lusted after her during the filming; sometimes the camera is so close to her it almost touches her. Rather plot less, but watchable. The dialogues strive for something powerful and meaningful and something... oh, je ne sais pas quoi I should call it - when in fact the dialogue is actually quite unremarkable and sometimes bordering on total malarkey. Anyone who takes this film too seriously is just as hopelessly naïve as Bertolucci hopes the viewer to be.

The first twenty minutes of this movie had me riveted. The Italian landscape was incredible and upon meeting all the diverse characters, one would think this was the perfect stage for a fine film.

But it wasn't.

Lucy's search for her father is first pushed on the back burner then brought miraculously to life near the end of the movie. Meanwhile the plot involves the entire house buzzing like old maids about the poor girl's virginity, as if the topic were front page news. But then again Jeremy Irons character said it best: "Up here on this hill, the only thing we have to talk about is each other". Hm, maybe so, but the idea quickly becomes dull.

Instead of becoming interested in Lucy, the only scenes I found enjoyable involved Miranda and her dim-witted "boyfriend". Richard made me laugh so much that I nearly forgave the pointless plot. And I would've been very disappointed were it not for Jeremy Irons and his wonderful character of Alex. Alex's musing, thoughts and expressions made me smile and made me think. (" 'The incredible frivolity of the dying' You have to allow me a little frivolity")

As far as what Lucy sees in Nicholo or what made her take the plunge with someone she barely knew, baffles me. Take the beautiful cinemetography, interesting characters and mold them in an entirely different way and you've got yourself a much better movie than what was presented. Such potential..wasted *sigh*