Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye

many people would consider the writing of Georges Bataille pornographic. many people would consider the films of Richard Kern or even of Bertolucci to be pornographic. underground cinema always has pushed the envelope of our sensibilities and i think Story Of The Eye is no different. i think calling something porn has more to do with the way it is made than what exactly is being shown. pornography is cheaply produced for a buck. it is exploitative of its talent and its audience. this film is neither. the filmmaker is no hack, his imagery is subtle, symbolic, and often sublime. granted, subtlety is tossed out the window at times when penetration and bodily fluids take center stage, but those are jolts that intend to shock. i was shocked by this film, and i am so rarely shocked that it was actually refreshing. i've seen enough to not be shocked simply because the film is so explicit, but because it is so gorgeously photographed and interestingly designed AND so explicit. i highly recommend this for anyone interested in checking out a film that really goes there.

The problem with many of the reviews for this film on this site is they aren't approaching the film at its level. This is a very important thing to do. You don't go into an action film with melodrama expectations, for instance.

When you watch an experimental film, that was also presented as an art installation utilizing multiple screens (not all visible from one place) playing simultaneously with their sound audible everywhere, you don't go in expecting a traditional narrative with clear character psychology and an obvious point, like we are trained to read from traditional film. Likewise, we shouldn't be going in expecting it to be a direct adaptation of Bataille's novella. Again, an experimental adaptation is nothing like a traditional adaptation. This film adapts it in transgressive intent, some generalized thematic concerns, etc. etc.

Also, this isn't porn. I know that may be hard for some people to understand, but it's best to really understand what porn is and what it does to understand this. Porno, functionally, reduces to a minimum anything that gets in the way of lust, of sexual passion, of sexual gratification, etc. etc. This film does not do this, it maximizes these obtrusive elements. A fifteenish minute scene of a woman walking up stairs, the Zapruder footage, the general method of transitions between sexual encounters, these aren't building up the sexual appetite but attempting to subvert them. There is too much in way of interruption and motif for this to be a 'pornographic film'.

I would also suggest reading the novella before watching this film. And that doesn't mean skim through it, or pseudo read it, taking care to only grasp the narrative structure and do little to grasp his motifs, themes, concerns, and overarching thesis. Once you understand what the book was doing and saying, or at least have an idea of what you think the book was doing and saying, you may have a better time approaching this film.

The most important thing to keep in mind - it's an experimental art film, you don't approach films like this the same way you would approach blockbusters.

Lastly, would people please stop putting up scene breakdowns? Not only is it reductive to the overall action, but they are also always incorrect and missing parts.

I went into this film not knowing what it was about. We had just finished seeing another independent film, which finished early and was great, so we went to this one since it was the next one playing. The ticket seller did say the movie was sexually explicit. In mind, that meant something like the deleted scene from Angel Heart. However, what we saw was hard core.

It is kind of sad to see what some people think of as art these days. This was a porno movie plain and simple. Just think, I can edit a porno movie and splice it with a dance number and a breech birth and can it an independent film. People just get over your repression and buy a real porno movie at least you'll see a ---shot as well.

This is artcore. leave your preconceived notions of cinema at the door. open yourself to the images. let this film digest you.

The first two scenes really set the mood of this, especially the one that is not often mentioned on these boards about the guy with the joy stick and the women on stage in the top hats. I was quite fond of the music and sound element in this flick, especially during the male/male scene. I like bondage porn and I like pretentiously artsy stuff, so this one was kind of in the bag for me, but I can see where it wouldn't cater to too huge an audience. I've never read the book, but it certainly made me want to. After reading it I expect to find that it was more budget limitations that kept this one so cut down from the amount and quality of content that the original author had in mind.

I do like how well it balanced an arousing pornographic element with art-house style experimental film. The lighting work and some of the camera angles did throw back to some of Kenneth Anger's work, also the somber classical piano in the male/male scene. The progression of the sex was not unlike most porn with the exception of the obligatory climax which I think is overrated, even in gay porn. Honestly, the scenes could have been like 3-5 minutes shorter each and I don't think we would have missed the erotic element (unless it takes you a while to get off) and had room for another scene, but again I would imagine that that is directly related to funds.

All in all, if you call it porn, it is by far the best porn flick I've ever seen. If you call it experimental or an art film, it wasn't as compelling as Anger or even as abstract or pretentious as "The Pig --cking Movie", but I still put it up in a class of one of the more interesting movies I've seen in some time.

93, --DH