Fascinating, powerful, hyper-controlled, super-subtle study of woman slowly coming unglued. Uses its 3 hour+ running time to put you inside the stultifying boredom and ennui of her life, and lets you see the tiny changes in her repetitive days that are powerful and meaningful barometers of the titanic emotions going on behind her blank masque. Not easy or 'fun' to watch. By definition (and intention?) it gets slow to the point of boredom at times. (Indeed NY Times critic Vincent Canby, who loved the film, jokingly warned that watching it 'could be fatal' if one was in the wrong mood.) But everything interconnects in an amazingly thought-out way. Every bit of dialogue (of which there's almost none) leaves a clue, or at least a trace. Fascinating camera-work; almost always static images. with every cut at 90 degree angles. And again, when that rule is broken there are specific thematic and storytelling reasons. A challenging, 'difficult' film, but one not to be missed.
126 Reviews
Not like the others
hotel-419-41739510 July 2012
This movie is deliberately different, all in the service of telling us something we didn't know.
Movies are about movies. The borrow plot, character, lighting, sound editing and camera angles from what went before. Since "Birth of a Nation" introduced close-ups, cross cutting and cutaways in 1915 everyone has adopted that vocabulary for story telling. This movie throws all that out: The camera is fixed and stares at a scene for a very long time. Scenes had to be performed all the way through when they were filmed, because each was done in a single shot.
Movies use telescoping of time to compress the happenings of a long period into two hours. This movie tries to avoid that, depicting mundane tasks in their entirety. We watch Jeanne Dielman prepare a meatloaf, step by step, wash the dishes (her back is to us!), smooth the bed, or go shopping.
Movie use facial expressions to express feelings. Spoiler alert: When we get strong facial expressions from Jeanne Dielman there is a very good reason. And that only happens once in a three-hour, 21 minute film.
Movies use broad strokes to carry the audience along. Spiderman supplements explosions with 3D to keep me occupied. By contrast, this film uses subtle changes. You must watch closely to see what happens.
Most movies come to you. This movie requires you go to it. If there is dullness it is among those viewers who think that because they don't get something it's not there to get. There is plenty here but instead of being served to you it has to be harvested. And it is very fresh.
Movies are about movies. The borrow plot, character, lighting, sound editing and camera angles from what went before. Since "Birth of a Nation" introduced close-ups, cross cutting and cutaways in 1915 everyone has adopted that vocabulary for story telling. This movie throws all that out: The camera is fixed and stares at a scene for a very long time. Scenes had to be performed all the way through when they were filmed, because each was done in a single shot.
Movies use telescoping of time to compress the happenings of a long period into two hours. This movie tries to avoid that, depicting mundane tasks in their entirety. We watch Jeanne Dielman prepare a meatloaf, step by step, wash the dishes (her back is to us!), smooth the bed, or go shopping.
Movie use facial expressions to express feelings. Spoiler alert: When we get strong facial expressions from Jeanne Dielman there is a very good reason. And that only happens once in a three-hour, 21 minute film.
Movies use broad strokes to carry the audience along. Spiderman supplements explosions with 3D to keep me occupied. By contrast, this film uses subtle changes. You must watch closely to see what happens.
Most movies come to you. This movie requires you go to it. If there is dullness it is among those viewers who think that because they don't get something it's not there to get. There is plenty here but instead of being served to you it has to be harvested. And it is very fresh.
Ackerman's feminist milestone tests your patience
WNYer5 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Vivid, uncompromising portrait of three days in the lonely life of a middle aged widow who manages her apartment, takes care of her young son and turns tricks for support.
Experimental film consists of stationary, single take camera shots - some lasting several minutes - giving you a glimpse of the main character's repetitive, mundane existence. Whether its stopping at a café to drink coffee, peeling a batch of potatoes in the kitchen or cleaning each porcelain piece in her living room, viewers sit through each arduous task all the way through. It reminded me of some modern day reality shows where a camera is just parked in a room and viewers watch whatever goes on - only in this case Jeanne is usually the only one there.
Delphine Seyrig performance as Jeanne really shines. She is in every scene of the film and really carries it well. It is even more impressive considering that there is very little dialog and that any other characters that appear are peripheral. Seyrig convincingly conveys Jeanne's character and emotional state by simple actions and subtle expressions. This really comes into play on the third day when things start to go wrong and you feel the character is starting to become unhinged.
The camera work and framing of the scenes are exceptionally well done and sound is used very effectively to convey Jeanne's suffocating world. The constant tapping of her shoes as she walks across a wooden floor, the repeated clicking from turning lights on and off, or the mechanical sounds of the elevator each time she goes in or out of her apartment building, they all emphasize the obsessive orderliness and emotional detachment in her life.
The biggest negative about the film is that it is nearly 4 hours long. Sitting that long watching a person doing menial tasks is a bit taxing. I viewed the film piecemeal over three successive evenings (1 for each day represented) which worked for me. On the positive side, the film does grow on you as you watch it and you feel like a bit of a voyeur peering into someone's life. You feel Jeanne's monotony and growing frustration which lets loose in the final shocking act. It's worth checking out.
Experimental film consists of stationary, single take camera shots - some lasting several minutes - giving you a glimpse of the main character's repetitive, mundane existence. Whether its stopping at a café to drink coffee, peeling a batch of potatoes in the kitchen or cleaning each porcelain piece in her living room, viewers sit through each arduous task all the way through. It reminded me of some modern day reality shows where a camera is just parked in a room and viewers watch whatever goes on - only in this case Jeanne is usually the only one there.
Delphine Seyrig performance as Jeanne really shines. She is in every scene of the film and really carries it well. It is even more impressive considering that there is very little dialog and that any other characters that appear are peripheral. Seyrig convincingly conveys Jeanne's character and emotional state by simple actions and subtle expressions. This really comes into play on the third day when things start to go wrong and you feel the character is starting to become unhinged.
The camera work and framing of the scenes are exceptionally well done and sound is used very effectively to convey Jeanne's suffocating world. The constant tapping of her shoes as she walks across a wooden floor, the repeated clicking from turning lights on and off, or the mechanical sounds of the elevator each time she goes in or out of her apartment building, they all emphasize the obsessive orderliness and emotional detachment in her life.
The biggest negative about the film is that it is nearly 4 hours long. Sitting that long watching a person doing menial tasks is a bit taxing. I viewed the film piecemeal over three successive evenings (1 for each day represented) which worked for me. On the positive side, the film does grow on you as you watch it and you feel like a bit of a voyeur peering into someone's life. You feel Jeanne's monotony and growing frustration which lets loose in the final shocking act. It's worth checking out.
Hypnotic...
edula8 September 2009
I can safely say that I have never seen cinema like this before! Set out over a three-day period, we see widowed mother, Jeanne Dielman, go through her daily routine, many tasks played out in real time, the camera stubbornly static, and often, moreso earlier in the film, at waist-height looking upwards, so that Jeanne's head and shoulders frequently disappear out of shot. At first, watching these actions performed in full seems a touch unnerving - this is something that many people have carried out hundreds of times, but we have never before been forced to pay attention to the monotony of daily chores in such detail. However, holding these shots for so long draws the viewer in even further, making them concentrate on every action, so that when even the smallest cracks appear in Jeanne's monotonous routine, it appears to be almost earth shattering, just as the effect this has on Jeanne is equally momentous.
The wonderful Delphine Seyrig here plays Jeanne with an astonishing subtlety and restraint, almost emotionless throughout the three hours and twenty minutes of running time, yet it remains one of the most affecting, powerful performances that I have seen in cinema.
The wonderful Delphine Seyrig here plays Jeanne with an astonishing subtlety and restraint, almost emotionless throughout the three hours and twenty minutes of running time, yet it remains one of the most affecting, powerful performances that I have seen in cinema.
minimalist depiction of modern life in general, not only feminist!
icivoripmav21 January 2009
To see during 3 and half hours a middle aged woman silently executing the same household works over and over again is one thing. But to realize that this tired looking single mother is virtually cut out of the rest of society and hardly has an occasion of interacting with her fellow citizen, except routinely visiting teenage son and occasional sexual partners, is completely another thing. Once we notice this obvious fact, every act of repetitive domestic task is suddenly becoming painful to contemplate, strangely too familiar for many of us to dismiss simply as monotonous and insipid. All depends on your sensibility to such an existence. Some might find it to be trivial, pretending every woman is more or less supposed to do so since the Creation. Others might spontaneously feel a deep sympathy for her, a prisoner of one's own occupation unable to cope with a deepening void left by the irreversible passage of time, with a growing sense of non-fulfillment.
Apparently, this cinematographic study of housewife's social condition was first intended to be politically engaging at its release, and rightly so, seeing the socio-cultural contexts of 70s. But categorizing it simply as a pioneer of feminist film making, one would miss more essential values this experimental work may embody. If we feel a lingering melancholy and a vague sorrow toward the secluded existence of the protagonist, her solitary acts of peeling vegetables, boiling water, or mechanically making love with men for living... it is probably not because this is a mere depiction of women's status which one hope to be improved in more egalitarian society. We find here something much more deep seated in the modern men's existence in general, namely the social condition of laborers trapped by a particular mode of occupation, gradually and ineluctably losing any clue of human communication as well as the conviction of one's own destiny, without really knowing why.
Apparently, this cinematographic study of housewife's social condition was first intended to be politically engaging at its release, and rightly so, seeing the socio-cultural contexts of 70s. But categorizing it simply as a pioneer of feminist film making, one would miss more essential values this experimental work may embody. If we feel a lingering melancholy and a vague sorrow toward the secluded existence of the protagonist, her solitary acts of peeling vegetables, boiling water, or mechanically making love with men for living... it is probably not because this is a mere depiction of women's status which one hope to be improved in more egalitarian society. We find here something much more deep seated in the modern men's existence in general, namely the social condition of laborers trapped by a particular mode of occupation, gradually and ineluctably losing any clue of human communication as well as the conviction of one's own destiny, without really knowing why.
A Life of Quiet Desperation
Ligeia313-16 April 2016
I watched this film forty years after it was made, in a theater in downtown New York City that plays only art films. Still, I was impressed by the audience's rapt attention over the 3 and 1/2 hours of the film. I too was sitting fascinated the entire time. We seemed to understand that a part of the experience of watching it was familiarizing ourselves with the details of the dignified Jeanne's existence. Every piece of furniture in her apartment is viewed over and over, and her daily routine is so minutely reviewed that it is imprinted in the mind; so, any tiny deviation jumps out as a sinister departure portending -- what? You wait worriedly to find out what it could mean. Mostly you feel a great sadness for someone who is clearly desperate to make ends meet financially, so she and her child will be okay. You see a perfectionist at work as she proceeds through the day, as though the great care she is taking shining and folding and washing will somehow result in safety for her and the child. There is a spirituality in this, and it begins to take hold of you, and you fervently hope for her survival.
about everyday things, or an action movie
Quinoa198415 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Few films can actually claim originality: some early on may have pioneered techniques or acting styles, but as has been said before and again there are only so few stories to tell. It's the variation that counts, and as a variation on the 'everyday grind' as it were, Jeanne Dielman is one of the most original breakthrough films one could experience. It's three and a half hours of, as one might say, nothing "happening". The story is the woman, what she does, the ritual of her given tasks in silence, loneliness, a widowed mother who cooks, cleans, shops, eats, sleeps, bathes, and wits without a seeming challenging thought to perceive.
You will know within fifteen minutes if you can stick with it. Ideally one wont watch this right before bedtime, but Chantal Akerman makes sure that her audience is tuned in to her experiment (or not, as some have noted). I imagine she would even be fine if some stop watching early on or walk out. She's making a provocation by her method of timing. For those who do stick around, she knows she'll give a true "action" movie. It's the antithesis of Hollywood action fare. For example, the average shot-length for a Hollywood blockbuster is about four or five seconds tops. Here, it's roughly four minutes. Per shot. If you ever wondered, just once, if a filmmaker could put an intense amount of focus and patience on a woman making coffee or washing the dishes, or taking a (very un-erotic) bath, or staring at space, look no further.
But Akerman, in tracking Jeanne (perfectly sedate and blank-faced and mechanical Delphine Seyrig) in her three days of time in the film, is not simply making a decision totally alienate her audience. Every action here, every little chore or quiet dinner or knitting serves a purpose for this narrative. When we experience ritual and seemingly simple tasks of work around the house or chores, in real time, the underlying problem is revealed. There is obsession, a mechanical way about doing the same thing over and over, which also goes over into Jeanne's casual afternoon prostitution gigs.
What it reveals, I think, is a character like Jeanne's ultimate lack of free will and character which, by proxy, Akerman means to say is a problem among many women who have nothing but housework and kid(s). That the camera never, not once, moves by way of a pan or tilt or zoom-in or tracking shot or whatever (or, for that matter, a close- up) adds to the static imprisonment of it all. The final primal act is, in fact, a kind of desperate but real act towards a change, something out of the same grind of the usual.
Akerman's direction is unrelenting and sparse, and could be considered a pre-Dogme 95 film if not for the (artificial?) lighting from outside into the apartment at night. It's less a slice of life than a scalding hit pie that you watch cool off in real-time on the counter. Some may be deterred by the length, or the arguable disdain for dialog except for a few key scenes (reading the letter and telling a brief back- story on Jeanne's marriage, by the way both done as ritualistic and blank as cleaning dishes). For me, the lack of easy melodrama or conflict actually upped the stakes. I cared about Jeanne, despite her existential trap, that she might break out of the static world of daily action and minutia. It's a staggering piece of work by a young, courageous artist with something to say, in a take-it-or-leave-it approach.
You will know within fifteen minutes if you can stick with it. Ideally one wont watch this right before bedtime, but Chantal Akerman makes sure that her audience is tuned in to her experiment (or not, as some have noted). I imagine she would even be fine if some stop watching early on or walk out. She's making a provocation by her method of timing. For those who do stick around, she knows she'll give a true "action" movie. It's the antithesis of Hollywood action fare. For example, the average shot-length for a Hollywood blockbuster is about four or five seconds tops. Here, it's roughly four minutes. Per shot. If you ever wondered, just once, if a filmmaker could put an intense amount of focus and patience on a woman making coffee or washing the dishes, or taking a (very un-erotic) bath, or staring at space, look no further.
But Akerman, in tracking Jeanne (perfectly sedate and blank-faced and mechanical Delphine Seyrig) in her three days of time in the film, is not simply making a decision totally alienate her audience. Every action here, every little chore or quiet dinner or knitting serves a purpose for this narrative. When we experience ritual and seemingly simple tasks of work around the house or chores, in real time, the underlying problem is revealed. There is obsession, a mechanical way about doing the same thing over and over, which also goes over into Jeanne's casual afternoon prostitution gigs.
What it reveals, I think, is a character like Jeanne's ultimate lack of free will and character which, by proxy, Akerman means to say is a problem among many women who have nothing but housework and kid(s). That the camera never, not once, moves by way of a pan or tilt or zoom-in or tracking shot or whatever (or, for that matter, a close- up) adds to the static imprisonment of it all. The final primal act is, in fact, a kind of desperate but real act towards a change, something out of the same grind of the usual.
Akerman's direction is unrelenting and sparse, and could be considered a pre-Dogme 95 film if not for the (artificial?) lighting from outside into the apartment at night. It's less a slice of life than a scalding hit pie that you watch cool off in real-time on the counter. Some may be deterred by the length, or the arguable disdain for dialog except for a few key scenes (reading the letter and telling a brief back- story on Jeanne's marriage, by the way both done as ritualistic and blank as cleaning dishes). For me, the lack of easy melodrama or conflict actually upped the stakes. I cared about Jeanne, despite her existential trap, that she might break out of the static world of daily action and minutia. It's a staggering piece of work by a young, courageous artist with something to say, in a take-it-or-leave-it approach.
Someone has to provide the admittedly obvious complaints, so I'll do it
zetes26 December 2004
A film that is much more interesting to read about than actually watch. Akerman takes "realism" to a new level, basically setting up a camera and observing a very lifeless, dull person for 200 minutes. That woman, played by Delphine Seyrig, is a prostitute, catering to a client a day in her depressing apartment, as well as a single mother. We study her daily rituals as we occasionally glance down at our watches (or push the call button to see how much time is left). Okay, I get it. The problem is, I got it after the first 10 minutes. I got it, really, from reading descriptions of the film. After that, the remaining 190 minutes aren't especially worth sitting through. Notice that even after 190 minutes of breaking taboos of how not to put the audience to sleep, Akerman forces the (literally) climactic sequence. I think I understand what she was going for here, but it's not especially honest given the rest of the film. It shows that even she had to resort to a cheap narrative trick to end the film. All in all, the film is little more than a gimmick. Though I could have been doing better things with my time, I am glad I finally got to see this. I wasn't really bored out of my mind like Jeanne Dielman, I went through my own daily rituals while glancing up at the screen. Chantal Akerman did make some accurate observations about the human condition after all, even if they are fairly shallow in themselves.
GOAT ! ?
WilliamCKH8 December 2022
I can understand how the Sight & Sound Poll might have ranked this film on the Top of their list. Given the rules, I can see how many critics would have this film in their Top Ten. After all, every list needs an outlier, a film to cleanse the palette amongst the many genre films synonymous with this list, and JD may rise to the top in that category. When the votes are counted, this film may well be included in the majority of the ballots.
It's interesting in that JD is only one of two or three film on the list not categorized as ENTERTAINMENT, in its broadest sense. It is a philosophical piece, an art piece through and through, and it is presented very well, focusing on the external life of a woman, a mother, a widow, a prostitute, through a series of vignettes and makes no attempt to capture the internal life of the main character . In the age of social media, this film is an antidote to the INSTAGRAM/TIKTOK/FACEBOOK mindset of today. After viewing JD, I felt not so bad, in comparison, about my own life, even optimistic. In fact, I felt a sort of kinship with her watching her complete the most mundane tasks of daily living without a need for heightened emotion or personal drama. JD, of course, is not the greatest film ever made, but it may certainly be the best example of why films, like people, should not be ranked as if they were always in competition. This film, and many others like it, stands alone. (if that makes any sense).
It's interesting in that JD is only one of two or three film on the list not categorized as ENTERTAINMENT, in its broadest sense. It is a philosophical piece, an art piece through and through, and it is presented very well, focusing on the external life of a woman, a mother, a widow, a prostitute, through a series of vignettes and makes no attempt to capture the internal life of the main character . In the age of social media, this film is an antidote to the INSTAGRAM/TIKTOK/FACEBOOK mindset of today. After viewing JD, I felt not so bad, in comparison, about my own life, even optimistic. In fact, I felt a sort of kinship with her watching her complete the most mundane tasks of daily living without a need for heightened emotion or personal drama. JD, of course, is not the greatest film ever made, but it may certainly be the best example of why films, like people, should not be ranked as if they were always in competition. This film, and many others like it, stands alone. (if that makes any sense).
Methodical film to match the methodical character
doctab-401663 January 2023
The film is interesting but not necessarily entertaining. Each scene is slow and methodical. The detailed sounds, click off of the lights, walking, and every days sounds make the scenes feel full given what's actually happening. The cinematography approach of fixed camera positions makes for a unique experience when compared to recent films. Using the same spots over as over in a room while partially hiding pieces of the room I found to add to the character's focused nature. The long scenes take away the idea of acting and given the impression you are watching the real life of a woman. I wouldn't recommend this movie unless you truly enjoy films. It's long and would be painful to watch unless you enjoy the fine details of film making.
Three Days of Quiet Desperation in What Feels Like Real Time
EUyeshima5 December 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Every ten years, Sight & Sound announces the list of the greatest films ever made, and this little-known 1975 film just usurped "Citizen Kane" and "Vertigo" in the #1 position. The Criterion Channel is showing it, so naturally I felt a desire to see this purported masterpiece. Directed by Belgian filmmaker Chantal Akerman, it runs a marathon 3 hours and 21 minutes and focuses on the mundane existence of a middle-aged single mother's daily routine over the course of three days. The wrinkle is that she is a prostitute in the afternoons while her teenaged son is at school. Delphine Seyrig plays the disaffected woman in a minimalist fashion until she starts to unravel in very subtle moments during the second half of the film. Yes, I watched the whole movie, and perhaps because I'm not an arthouse cineaste, I found it excruciating to watch the minutiae of this woman's carefully coordinated life and probably couldn't appreciate the quiet desperation she is undergoing. How this film came out of nowhere to top the S&S list will be fodder for debate among pretentious cinema snobs for the next decade. Personally I don't get it.
The structure of bourgeois emptiness
hasosch1 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The title-character Jeanne Dielman is a widow in her early forties, played by the unforgettable and very untimely passed Delphine Seyrig, with an almost grown-up sun. Her life follows that structure of time which people impose in order to cover their emptiness. The days of one specific week follow exactly the same pattern as every week. She basically gets up, prepares breakfast, cleans the shoes of her son, spends a bit time before preparing her own frugal midday-bread, looks for knitting utensils in the afternoon, before she starts her big cooking of the day, again for her son. Then they listen radio, make a short walk, come home again and go to bed. This son seems not think that it is necessary to say good-day, to ask his mother how she is doing, to tell her if he likes what she cooks. Even this one time, when she discloses him that she used less water for the sauce of the ragout, he just stays quiet. But he, too, seems to follow the same pattern: His mother asks him every single time not to read while he is eating - he just does it again during the next dinner. She does not even raise her voice: Although every day is a perfect mirror image of the last and of the next, she seems to conceive it every time as new. She has to, since she is completely isolated from society, even from her own son.
In the afternoons, however, she earns her money by selling her sexuality to regular customers who seem to visit her once a week. The earned money she puts into a big porcelain pot on a table. The time seems to have stopped in her apartment: Although the house looks like from about 1900, the apartment shows all typical style characteristics of the 50ies, and so does her way of clothing. She obviously became once a part of her apartment. Since the movie does not tell us if Mrs. Dielman gets a widow-rent from her deceased husband, we must assume that selling her body is her way of making a living. She does not enjoy her sexuality, she does it with exactly the same mechanical accuracy as she opens every morning a little closet underneath the sink, previously stocked with old newspapers, grasps a few sheets, puts them precisely in the middle of the little kitchen-table, waxes the shoes, etc. Not only the time has stood still 20 years before the time of the movie, also the structures have been frozen, the sense is gone. Repetition kills the emergency of innovation and abolishes the rest of sense in mechanical processes. However, a human deprived from his senses can possibly better stand a life that also has stopped long ago.
In the afternoons, however, she earns her money by selling her sexuality to regular customers who seem to visit her once a week. The earned money she puts into a big porcelain pot on a table. The time seems to have stopped in her apartment: Although the house looks like from about 1900, the apartment shows all typical style characteristics of the 50ies, and so does her way of clothing. She obviously became once a part of her apartment. Since the movie does not tell us if Mrs. Dielman gets a widow-rent from her deceased husband, we must assume that selling her body is her way of making a living. She does not enjoy her sexuality, she does it with exactly the same mechanical accuracy as she opens every morning a little closet underneath the sink, previously stocked with old newspapers, grasps a few sheets, puts them precisely in the middle of the little kitchen-table, waxes the shoes, etc. Not only the time has stood still 20 years before the time of the movie, also the structures have been frozen, the sense is gone. Repetition kills the emergency of innovation and abolishes the rest of sense in mechanical processes. However, a human deprived from his senses can possibly better stand a life that also has stopped long ago.
An awfully long film of which boredom is an essential element
frankde-jong29 June 2020
"Jeanne Dielman ..." is a curious film. It's playing time is nearly 3,5 hours and all the action takes place in the last 10 minutes. This sounds awfully boring, but in the first place it's not that bad and in the second place the boredom is an essential element of the film.
Jeanne Dielman is a widow who lives in Brussels with her teenage son. Her days glide by in an endless routine. Even her remarks to her son at the dinner table ("don't read during the meal") are the same every day. Hitchcock once said: "film is just like daily life with the boring moments cut out of it". I am inclined to say that "Jaenne Dielman ... " is just like daily life with the exciting moments cut out of it, apart from the fact that there are no excting moments in the life of Jeanne Dielman. To make ends meet Jeanne receives men every day, but even this is part of her daily routine.
The film shows three days in the life of Jeanne Dielman. During the first day we get to know her daily routine. During the second day her client stays just a bit too long, so the potatoes are spoiled. Jeanne is visibly affected by this deviation from her daily routine. On the third day the storm finally breaks out.
Before I saw the film I thought "Jeanne Dielman ..." was above all a film about feminism, and there are feminist elements for sure. The boring life of a housewife, trading sex for money and last but not least the teenage son who treats his mother more or less as a servant (and Jeanne just lets it go).
After I saw the film I wonder if it is not also or even more about autism. Jeanne getting upset by something so trivial as potatoes cooking dry on the second day (which contains, in my opinion, the best acting of the whole film). Jeanne loses her temper even more during the visit of the third client on the third day. It is not 100% clear why, but a possible interpretation is that she was enjoying the sex that day and felt quilty about it.
Jeanne Dielman is a widow who lives in Brussels with her teenage son. Her days glide by in an endless routine. Even her remarks to her son at the dinner table ("don't read during the meal") are the same every day. Hitchcock once said: "film is just like daily life with the boring moments cut out of it". I am inclined to say that "Jaenne Dielman ... " is just like daily life with the exciting moments cut out of it, apart from the fact that there are no excting moments in the life of Jeanne Dielman. To make ends meet Jeanne receives men every day, but even this is part of her daily routine.
The film shows three days in the life of Jeanne Dielman. During the first day we get to know her daily routine. During the second day her client stays just a bit too long, so the potatoes are spoiled. Jeanne is visibly affected by this deviation from her daily routine. On the third day the storm finally breaks out.
Before I saw the film I thought "Jeanne Dielman ..." was above all a film about feminism, and there are feminist elements for sure. The boring life of a housewife, trading sex for money and last but not least the teenage son who treats his mother more or less as a servant (and Jeanne just lets it go).
After I saw the film I wonder if it is not also or even more about autism. Jeanne getting upset by something so trivial as potatoes cooking dry on the second day (which contains, in my opinion, the best acting of the whole film). Jeanne loses her temper even more during the visit of the third client on the third day. It is not 100% clear why, but a possible interpretation is that she was enjoying the sex that day and felt quilty about it.
Sight and Sound goes blind and deaf.
st-shot17 December 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Respected long time cinema bible Sight and Sound simply imploded recently with this arduous bore picked as the greatest film of all time. A nearly three and a half hour endurance test about a stay at home prostitute and the monotonous, thankless existence she leads, it reeks of experimental tedium as we are asked to ruminate on banal scenes and imagery in one long extended take after the next of a woman slowly deconstructing within the tidy but dull confines of her apartment. Move over Fellini, Bunuel, Welles, Hitch, ladies first.
Delphine Seyrig plays the unhappy hooker with a glum resignation, her tricks cold, well mannered pervs (as well as care for an ingrate son) to serve director Chantal Ackerman's subtle but unbridled misandry. It is for this reason this film becomes more rant than real given Ms. Dielman's morose mood around the johns expecting a good time. With that tude she would soon be out of business.
I'm not surprised in this day of narcissistic virtue signaling this would be selected as the finest film of all time with this tepid clunker and its feminist "message" as a litmus test marathon for the true cinephile of this day and age to endure. To weather its length and gush would earn a PC merit badge alone.
After Ackerman gets her last man hating cheap shot in and paints herself into a corner she goes Peckinpaugh, and blood lets to tie matters up as disconsolate Jeanne opens up her wrists like many in the audience might wish after an unnecessary 2 hours of subterfuge. It is a pitiful admission. An off message epiphany for Ackerman who realizes all too late that if it bleeds it leads. Simply, a grossly overlong and pretentious walk on the lugubrious side, its present day pre-eminence more than likely based upon tokenism.
Delphine Seyrig plays the unhappy hooker with a glum resignation, her tricks cold, well mannered pervs (as well as care for an ingrate son) to serve director Chantal Ackerman's subtle but unbridled misandry. It is for this reason this film becomes more rant than real given Ms. Dielman's morose mood around the johns expecting a good time. With that tude she would soon be out of business.
I'm not surprised in this day of narcissistic virtue signaling this would be selected as the finest film of all time with this tepid clunker and its feminist "message" as a litmus test marathon for the true cinephile of this day and age to endure. To weather its length and gush would earn a PC merit badge alone.
After Ackerman gets her last man hating cheap shot in and paints herself into a corner she goes Peckinpaugh, and blood lets to tie matters up as disconsolate Jeanne opens up her wrists like many in the audience might wish after an unnecessary 2 hours of subterfuge. It is a pitiful admission. An off message epiphany for Ackerman who realizes all too late that if it bleeds it leads. Simply, a grossly overlong and pretentious walk on the lugubrious side, its present day pre-eminence more than likely based upon tokenism.
Minimalist masterpiece
Ethan_Ford14 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It sounds a very forbidding film:over three hours of watching a woman do the repetitive household chores which are the norm for housewives in every part of the world. Of course in no Hollywood film would we ever see the lead character run a bath,peel potatoes or lay a table in real time:these are all actions which a commercial director would ruthlessly elide in favour of a powerful narrative,and yet this is never a boring film. Once the viewer becomes accustomed to the different pace and rhythm,there is something hypnotic and fascinating about the daily routines which Jeanne Dielman performs every day.
Narrative,however,has not been entirely banished from this film. There is something strange and unspoken in Jeanne's relationship with her son who comes home every day from college,eats the evening meal,studies, and then pulls out his bed from the wall. Jeanne's life too is shrouded in mystery. Her afternoon encounters with a series of mostly elderly male clients is presented in a straightforward manner totally at odds with the sexual titillation provided by,for example,"Belle de jour" where the camera followed closely Sévérine's sexual encounters. In this film the camera waits discreetly at the bedroom's door until the client takes his leave.
While it is a "feminist" film,a film which was directed by a woman,starring a woman and which had all female crew,it nevertheless has a meaning for men as well. And if you find this film boring,as some viewers do,then you must also find life boring.
Narrative,however,has not been entirely banished from this film. There is something strange and unspoken in Jeanne's relationship with her son who comes home every day from college,eats the evening meal,studies, and then pulls out his bed from the wall. Jeanne's life too is shrouded in mystery. Her afternoon encounters with a series of mostly elderly male clients is presented in a straightforward manner totally at odds with the sexual titillation provided by,for example,"Belle de jour" where the camera followed closely Sévérine's sexual encounters. In this film the camera waits discreetly at the bedroom's door until the client takes his leave.
While it is a "feminist" film,a film which was directed by a woman,starring a woman and which had all female crew,it nevertheless has a meaning for men as well. And if you find this film boring,as some viewers do,then you must also find life boring.
A seminal work of modern art.
Rigor8 May 1999
This is one of the few films that I would absolutely defend as a key work of contemporary art. This means that the narrative strategies, formal devices and content of this film place it as a major influence in literature, theory, theater and the visual arts. Quite simply this was a major breakthrough for feminist filmmaking (A major breakthrough for filmmaking period). The great Delphine Seyrig plays a woman (mostly silently) going about her daily tasks. And through penetrating observation we begin to realize the utter frustration and oppression of her life. The film is a thrilling, painful, existential document that really gives validation and agency to the struggle of women against the visible and invisible hands of patriarchy
The Arc of Jeanne...
Xstal11 January 2023
You've formed some habits over years of being alone, transactions that take you, towards the gloam, characteristic of your standing, excepting afternoon transplanting, it's as rigid and as set, as a millstone. A subtle change seems to upset the fine-tuned balance, it's got you searching inwardly, looking askance, the equilibrium disturbed, there are things need to be curbed, it's got you wandering around, locked in a trance.
After 30 minutes of uncomfortable fidget I started to become tuned into the monotony of Jeanne's existence and only subsequently struggled with the final half hour, although the ending perked me up. If nothing else this film has the power to get you thinking of your insignificance and, possibly, the chance of you doing something about it.
After 30 minutes of uncomfortable fidget I started to become tuned into the monotony of Jeanne's existence and only subsequently struggled with the final half hour, although the ending perked me up. If nothing else this film has the power to get you thinking of your insignificance and, possibly, the chance of you doing something about it.
The horror and emptiness of life
azeemnavarro20 July 2019
This is a very special film for me. I see myself depicted in the character of Jeanne Dielman: someone that has to repeat the same tasks everyday, with no conection to the real world, with no connection to anyone, not even her family. When I saw this movie, it was a real strike for me, it made me feel so many emotions, to sadness to anger, it made me rethink my life. Even as the young 16 years old guy that I am, i'm not really a happy person. And I see this feeling in the main character, perfectly represented, that i'm sure that i'm not the only one that sees this in this movie.
Letting the emotions aside, this is one of the most beautifully made films I haved the fortune to see, the minimalistic approach is totally understandable for what the film tries to comunicate (at least in my eyes): the emptiness and boredom of the common person life. I know this is considered a feminist classic, but I think anyone, even back in the day, can relate to Jeanne.
When I see her in the screen, I really don't see an actress playing a role, I see a real woman, and that, has to be some of the best acting of all time. Some people may say this movie is boring or stupid, I would say is because of two things: they see themselves onscreen and the feel terrified because of that, or the just don't get the point. The almost four hours runtime and the repetitiveness of the story is totally justified, the movie needs to be that long, for you to connect with her character, for you to feel what she feels.
Months have passed since I watched it for the first time, and everyday I think about it. The experience of watching it was inspiring, it made me want to develop my ideas. I had started writing my first script, and that is thanks for this movie. This is truly a mustwatch for everyone, it may change your life, at least it changed mine.
Furious Chantal Akerman
nakithn-251521 February 2019
The cinematography and the editing are great and stylish
It's overlong. 150 minutes would be enough for that content
Delphine is great but the character she plays isn't likeable or relatable at all
She acts like a mentally ill person and her behavior is not convincing and we don't know why she is a prostitute. Belgium is a very good place in terms of women's rights after all even in the 70's better than most countries
The ending wasn't realistic at all
Her son was spoiled and annoying. He couldn't even clean up his own shoes
If you want to watch a better Feminist film then watch Utopia (1980) by underrated persian director Sohrab Shahid Sales which is way more realistic but has similar settings
It's overlong. 150 minutes would be enough for that content
Delphine is great but the character she plays isn't likeable or relatable at all
She acts like a mentally ill person and her behavior is not convincing and we don't know why she is a prostitute. Belgium is a very good place in terms of women's rights after all even in the 70's better than most countries
The ending wasn't realistic at all
Her son was spoiled and annoying. He couldn't even clean up his own shoes
If you want to watch a better Feminist film then watch Utopia (1980) by underrated persian director Sohrab Shahid Sales which is way more realistic but has similar settings
some instead lulls you into a claustrophobic snooze-fest, but its repercussions can mark forever in your head
lasttimeisaw9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
A tribute to the late cinema avant-gardist Chantal Akerman, who committed suicide one month earlier at the age of 65, which stroke as a big shock for auteurist cineastes, despite of the fact that her works have never been acknowledged as festival darlings, or enticed into mainstream filmmaking. JEANNE DIELMAN is her most well-known achievement, a minimalist masterpiece came out 40-years ago, made by her at a young age of 25, Akerman is such a staunch and pioneering saboteur to subvert audience's customary viewing experience and triumphs, which only makes us more regret about her untimely departure.
The title refers to the address of Jeanne (Seyrig)'s one-bedroom only apartment, she is a comely widow living with her son Sylvain (Decorte), now a high-schooler, who sleeps on the sofa bed in the living room. The picture runs over 3 hours, spans across 3 days, more precisely, a little longer than 2 entire days, and notably installs long static shots (through various angles) to observe Jeanne doing her daily chores in a mechanically arranged order. From day 1, in the afternoon, 3 minutes into the film, Akerman cunningly stimulates audience with curiosity through the introduction of Jeanne's profession (conveniently she works at home), then, indefatigably details her routines, preparing her 2-course dinner, eating dinner with Sylvain, helping him with homework, reading to him the letter from her sister in Canada, then both take a mysterious night-walk outside before sleeping. Day 2, she wakes up, prepares breakfast, cleans Sylvain's shoes, after he goes to school, she goes out to the post office, grocery, enjoys her coffee break in the bar, takes care of her neighbour's infant, then again prepare food, welcomes a new client, it is a circle meticulously presented and purposefully defies any empathy, thanks to the retiring nature of the mother-and-son pair.
Things goes slightly different in the second circle, firstly the overcooked potato (alleged because her customer has overstayed his time) causes their dinner delayed a bit, but they stick to the routine of night-walk, and a terse before bedtime convo with Sylvain stirs Jeanne (sexual activity and pain, an awkward topic between mother and her son), then day 3, the routine goes on, but Jeanne seems to unnoticeably disquieted, being clumsy in the kitchen, maybe because she wonders why the gift from her sister still hasn't arrived, but the coffee suddenly tastes bad, and she cannot find the right button for Sylvain's coat, even in the bar, her usual spot is taken and is served by a new waitress, also neighbour's baby cannot stop crying when she fondly holds her (the only time Jeanne reveals some evident emotion), there is an understated disintegration in the making. Finally, her sister's gift arrives, but also arrives is another client, she barely have time to try the present, and a scissor is left in the boudoir. The long-awaited twist breaks out abruptly, completely terminates the experimental patience-test which meanders near 3 hours, moreover, it intrigues immensely about the rationalism behind Jeanne's behaviour, feminist stance is an easy explanation, but, too literal, a pattern-disruption angle could be more felicitous, Jeanne is an animal of habitual routines, so is the approach towards her means of livelihood, when this pattern is steadily breached in day 3, she simply cannot take it anymore. The origin of the impulse (apart from Jeanne's taciturn nature) can be traced back to the intangible suppression of the society unleashes on woman, especially a single-mother, Akerman scarcely shows any interactions between Jeanne and the outer world, understandably she is protective of her privacy, but the entire atmosphere is not healthy.
Some film offers a 2-hour roller-coaster ride then after that it vanishes completely, some instead lulls you into a claustrophobic snooze-fest, but if you can survive it, its repercussions can mark forever in one's head, this film is a paradigm of the latter, bravo for Chantal Akerman! One final comment, Delphine Seyrig is such an mysteriously elegant actress, although most of time she has to act like a cipher in an installation, she can hold viewers spellbound, whether she is peeling potatoes, washing dishes or taking the elevator ups-and-downs.
The title refers to the address of Jeanne (Seyrig)'s one-bedroom only apartment, she is a comely widow living with her son Sylvain (Decorte), now a high-schooler, who sleeps on the sofa bed in the living room. The picture runs over 3 hours, spans across 3 days, more precisely, a little longer than 2 entire days, and notably installs long static shots (through various angles) to observe Jeanne doing her daily chores in a mechanically arranged order. From day 1, in the afternoon, 3 minutes into the film, Akerman cunningly stimulates audience with curiosity through the introduction of Jeanne's profession (conveniently she works at home), then, indefatigably details her routines, preparing her 2-course dinner, eating dinner with Sylvain, helping him with homework, reading to him the letter from her sister in Canada, then both take a mysterious night-walk outside before sleeping. Day 2, she wakes up, prepares breakfast, cleans Sylvain's shoes, after he goes to school, she goes out to the post office, grocery, enjoys her coffee break in the bar, takes care of her neighbour's infant, then again prepare food, welcomes a new client, it is a circle meticulously presented and purposefully defies any empathy, thanks to the retiring nature of the mother-and-son pair.
Things goes slightly different in the second circle, firstly the overcooked potato (alleged because her customer has overstayed his time) causes their dinner delayed a bit, but they stick to the routine of night-walk, and a terse before bedtime convo with Sylvain stirs Jeanne (sexual activity and pain, an awkward topic between mother and her son), then day 3, the routine goes on, but Jeanne seems to unnoticeably disquieted, being clumsy in the kitchen, maybe because she wonders why the gift from her sister still hasn't arrived, but the coffee suddenly tastes bad, and she cannot find the right button for Sylvain's coat, even in the bar, her usual spot is taken and is served by a new waitress, also neighbour's baby cannot stop crying when she fondly holds her (the only time Jeanne reveals some evident emotion), there is an understated disintegration in the making. Finally, her sister's gift arrives, but also arrives is another client, she barely have time to try the present, and a scissor is left in the boudoir. The long-awaited twist breaks out abruptly, completely terminates the experimental patience-test which meanders near 3 hours, moreover, it intrigues immensely about the rationalism behind Jeanne's behaviour, feminist stance is an easy explanation, but, too literal, a pattern-disruption angle could be more felicitous, Jeanne is an animal of habitual routines, so is the approach towards her means of livelihood, when this pattern is steadily breached in day 3, she simply cannot take it anymore. The origin of the impulse (apart from Jeanne's taciturn nature) can be traced back to the intangible suppression of the society unleashes on woman, especially a single-mother, Akerman scarcely shows any interactions between Jeanne and the outer world, understandably she is protective of her privacy, but the entire atmosphere is not healthy.
Some film offers a 2-hour roller-coaster ride then after that it vanishes completely, some instead lulls you into a claustrophobic snooze-fest, but if you can survive it, its repercussions can mark forever in one's head, this film is a paradigm of the latter, bravo for Chantal Akerman! One final comment, Delphine Seyrig is such an mysteriously elegant actress, although most of time she has to act like a cipher in an installation, she can hold viewers spellbound, whether she is peeling potatoes, washing dishes or taking the elevator ups-and-downs.
Well, at Least I Finished It...
derek-duerden20 April 2024
... which is more than I can say for my attempts at "Citizen Kane", which this has recently replaced as the "greatest film of all time" in the latest Sight & Sound 10-year poll.
At one level, I can see why it's rated by so many critics and directors, and the voyeur-level intensity of focus on some of Jeanne's mundane daily tasks does get to a mood that might otherwise be out of reach. It did verge on the boring at times though.
Another (contemporary?) issue I had with it was the attitude of the son. Whilst not explicitly "ungrateful", he does seem basically useless round the house and not really to be contributing anything. Maybe because he looked about 30, rather than the 17-ish I guess he's supposed to be, I found this a bit of a problem. Was this deliberately overplayed as a contributing factor to the denouement? Or not? I'm not sure.
Sort-of glad I've now seen it - but I won't be recommending it to anyone.
At one level, I can see why it's rated by so many critics and directors, and the voyeur-level intensity of focus on some of Jeanne's mundane daily tasks does get to a mood that might otherwise be out of reach. It did verge on the boring at times though.
Another (contemporary?) issue I had with it was the attitude of the son. Whilst not explicitly "ungrateful", he does seem basically useless round the house and not really to be contributing anything. Maybe because he looked about 30, rather than the 17-ish I guess he's supposed to be, I found this a bit of a problem. Was this deliberately overplayed as a contributing factor to the denouement? Or not? I'm not sure.
Sort-of glad I've now seen it - but I won't be recommending it to anyone.
The Most Boring And Uninteresting Thing Someone Can Watch
Rodrigo_Amaro7 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
After sitting for three and a half hours watching "Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles" I concluded a lot of ideas and criticism about this thing and none of them are positive enough. You sit there and watch over and over and over and over again the routine of one of the most boring housewives ever presented on the big screen so that a pretentious filmmaker and brainwashed viewers can look at this and see that something relevant was said about what being a housewife really is.
Director Chantal Akerman more than calmly introduce us Jeanne Dielman (Delphine Seyrig) a methodical/lonely/bored widow, living for the things in her house, cooking, cleaning, knitting and doing what a housewife does except for being a prostitute, receiving clients in her house, and using the money to help her in raising a teenage son (Jan Decorte) that most of the time is out of house and when he's there there's not enough conversation between both except for "Sleep tight" or "Don't eat and read"; they're monosyllabic to the extreme of making you angry at them. In 200 minute of its running time, the movie presents us three long, dull, boring, endless days of her life, in a constant silence, imprisoned by the daily domestic routine of leaving a perfect house to live but not interesting enough to stay. Sometimes she goes out, goes to shop things here and there and that's it. Looking at the technical aspect of the film, the director leaves the camera rolling, static, with no close-ups, no cuts, the scenes go on for like forever. But on the third day, something breaks her peace when she has an orgasm with one of the clients, something she never had and....she kills the guy (?).
Films can be a giant force of communication, providing informations, reflections and expressing opinions, new points of view, presenting cultures and also a nice form of entertainment. At last use it's a wonderful way to escape the boredom of our lives or the stress of everything. It can be an experience that moves us, sometimes to aspire for better things. None of the above was "Jeanne Dielman". I sat there and all I could think of was the problems of my life, fantasying about everything and everyone, always waiting for the next dialog to come (and this thing is more silent than a silent movie). And I paused, stopped the film, tried to put me in the situation and I couldn't. The movie never gave me the chance to look at those characters and care for them, her routine was painfully displayed on screen. It never explains anything and not even gives us questions of why such things happen. Here's some questions one might ask: How did she became a prostitute? What these clients see in a middle-aged widow with no sexual attractiveness at all? That's how we must think Belgians are, obsessive compulsives for cleaning and for putting the right measure of water in the food?
This film offended without the intention of doing it. Not only offends the viewers for dragging everything for so long, something that has no place to go and no statement to say, but it offends one of the most sacred functions of every people's lives: the housewife, the mother. Here, the movie says this without saying a word, just images: they wake up, prepare everything, their daily preparatives are long, it is a hard work, we don't have time for not even listening to the radio or watching a TV but we might have some time to have sex with strangers and get paid for this (by the way, the movie isn't fair with this, in cinematic terms since we cannot see what's she doing with the customers, except with the third unfortunate guy. The other times the camera didn't followed her in the bed with them). OK, husbands might look at this film and think about positive aspects of their wives when they see how hard it is to make things in a house but this whole premise goes to waste if they rationalize about what their wives could be doing when they're not at home. It might be an overreact of my part but that's the way I translated what was shown to me.
Once and again, Mr. Schneider and hypist film buffs got very very wrong in praising this picture that has nothing to say, nothing to show but it can waste our precious time for hours and hours with the most dazzling and crystalline pretentious boredom ever filmed. Try to avoid if you can. 2/10
Director Chantal Akerman more than calmly introduce us Jeanne Dielman (Delphine Seyrig) a methodical/lonely/bored widow, living for the things in her house, cooking, cleaning, knitting and doing what a housewife does except for being a prostitute, receiving clients in her house, and using the money to help her in raising a teenage son (Jan Decorte) that most of the time is out of house and when he's there there's not enough conversation between both except for "Sleep tight" or "Don't eat and read"; they're monosyllabic to the extreme of making you angry at them. In 200 minute of its running time, the movie presents us three long, dull, boring, endless days of her life, in a constant silence, imprisoned by the daily domestic routine of leaving a perfect house to live but not interesting enough to stay. Sometimes she goes out, goes to shop things here and there and that's it. Looking at the technical aspect of the film, the director leaves the camera rolling, static, with no close-ups, no cuts, the scenes go on for like forever. But on the third day, something breaks her peace when she has an orgasm with one of the clients, something she never had and....she kills the guy (?).
Films can be a giant force of communication, providing informations, reflections and expressing opinions, new points of view, presenting cultures and also a nice form of entertainment. At last use it's a wonderful way to escape the boredom of our lives or the stress of everything. It can be an experience that moves us, sometimes to aspire for better things. None of the above was "Jeanne Dielman". I sat there and all I could think of was the problems of my life, fantasying about everything and everyone, always waiting for the next dialog to come (and this thing is more silent than a silent movie). And I paused, stopped the film, tried to put me in the situation and I couldn't. The movie never gave me the chance to look at those characters and care for them, her routine was painfully displayed on screen. It never explains anything and not even gives us questions of why such things happen. Here's some questions one might ask: How did she became a prostitute? What these clients see in a middle-aged widow with no sexual attractiveness at all? That's how we must think Belgians are, obsessive compulsives for cleaning and for putting the right measure of water in the food?
This film offended without the intention of doing it. Not only offends the viewers for dragging everything for so long, something that has no place to go and no statement to say, but it offends one of the most sacred functions of every people's lives: the housewife, the mother. Here, the movie says this without saying a word, just images: they wake up, prepare everything, their daily preparatives are long, it is a hard work, we don't have time for not even listening to the radio or watching a TV but we might have some time to have sex with strangers and get paid for this (by the way, the movie isn't fair with this, in cinematic terms since we cannot see what's she doing with the customers, except with the third unfortunate guy. The other times the camera didn't followed her in the bed with them). OK, husbands might look at this film and think about positive aspects of their wives when they see how hard it is to make things in a house but this whole premise goes to waste if they rationalize about what their wives could be doing when they're not at home. It might be an overreact of my part but that's the way I translated what was shown to me.
Once and again, Mr. Schneider and hypist film buffs got very very wrong in praising this picture that has nothing to say, nothing to show but it can waste our precious time for hours and hours with the most dazzling and crystalline pretentious boredom ever filmed. Try to avoid if you can. 2/10
Jeanne Dielman, 23 Commerce Quay, 1080 Brussels
jboothmillard9 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I knew that this was one of the longest films in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, at over 3 hours long, I read more about this French film, I thought it was going to be either really boring or really intriguing, I hoped critics giving it five stars out of five would be deserved. Basically Jeanne Dielman (Delphine Seyrig) lives in 23 Commerce Quay, a one-bedroom inner city Brussels flat, she has been widowed for six years, she never really loved her husband and has no intention of remarrying, she wants to concentrate on caring for her teenage son Sylvain (Jan Decorte) and her apartment. The film takes place over three days, with Jeanne spending most of her time doing the household chores, bring particular and meticulous, including preparing and cooking dinner for herself and her son washing up, cleaning surfaces and having a bath. Jeanne occasionally gets out the house to do shopping and to pick something up or drop something off, she also often looks after her neighbour's infant son while the mother runs her errands for the day. But also in her daily routine, which Jeanna sees merely as just another chore, is working as a prostitute, allowing gentlemen clients to come to the apartment, to provide them with whatever sexual pleasure they seek, and when they leave she sticks the money in a savings dish. A few small changes to Jeanne's routine over a thirty-six hour period culminates with an experience she has never had with a client, which affects her psyche, when the man is rested she grabs a pair of scissors, stabbing him to death, following the murder she sits for a long amount of time still and silent. Also starring Henri Storck as the 1st Caller, Jacques Doniol-Valcroze as the 2nd Caller and Yves Bical as the 3rd Caller. Seyrig gives a studied performance as the ordinary woman with an ordinary life, the film is made up of a series of long takes, mostly of the dispassionate normalness of the title character, whether its peeling potatoes or eating without talking, there is nothing exciting, and not much dialogue. The violent climax is worth the wait, I think actually it is the lack of action that makes it much more interesting, the rhythmic repetition of everyday occurrences, an insight into the life of a working mother, and an audacious exploration of bourgeois feminism, a long but most worthwhile art-house drama. Very good!
Homemakers
gautam-moharil25 October 2018
The most boring film I've ever seen
DavidYZ2 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This pretentious art-house film is well over three hours long and has very little entertaining content and not much dialogue. It shows three days in the life of a very boring widowed forty-something prostitute who has obsessive- compulsive personality disorder and lives with her son in Brussels. The film shows her mundane routine in detail, in which she prepares and cooks food and the film ends with her murdering one of her clients with a pair of scissors after she has an orgasm.
It's very difficult to believe that a woman who is this dull would become a prostitute and that she would be able to gain and keep clients. She's far too dull for the viewer to feel anything for her. Killing her client makes no sense, and we don't see what happens afterwards. Presumably she is either sent to prison for a long time and/or commits suicide - either or which would result in her son growing up without either parent.
I heard about this film when I heard of the director's death and heard it described as a masterpiece. I watched it soon after and was bitterly disappointed. This film is so boring that I had to watch it over a period of several days.
This is often described as a great feminist film. I fail to see how this has anything to do with feminism.
It's very difficult to believe that a woman who is this dull would become a prostitute and that she would be able to gain and keep clients. She's far too dull for the viewer to feel anything for her. Killing her client makes no sense, and we don't see what happens afterwards. Presumably she is either sent to prison for a long time and/or commits suicide - either or which would result in her son growing up without either parent.
I heard about this film when I heard of the director's death and heard it described as a masterpiece. I watched it soon after and was bitterly disappointed. This film is so boring that I had to watch it over a period of several days.
This is often described as a great feminist film. I fail to see how this has anything to do with feminism.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
