Sexy beast (The Beast (DVD))

Name: hogsflesh

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	The Beast (DVD)
Date:	02/08/04 (471 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: I?ll wager that you?ve, never seen anything quite, as bizarre as this

Disadvantages: It?s pornography, and a lot of people will, find it offensive

This is either one of the most offensive films I?ve ever seen, or one of the funniest. Possibly both, although for me the ludicrous humour outweighs the potential offensiveness. Made in 1975, it was banned in the UK until last year, when the BBFC, for reasons that I can?t even begin to fathom, passed it uncut for video and DVD release.

Walerian Borowczyk, the film?s director, started out as a Polish animator in the 50s (I think he was a contemporary of Svankmajer). He moved to the more liberal West, and started making live-action films, the first few of which were reasonably highly acclaimed. Then, apparently with no warning whatsoever, he started making horror/soft-core porn in the early Seventies. Bang went his arthouse credibility, and he was soon ignored by serious critics, eventually ending up directing Emmanuelle sequels. His first soft-core/horror film, Immoral Tales, consists of four short erotic ?vignettes? (I don?t know anything about them, except that one of them has lesbianic shenanigans featuring Picasso?s daughter). There were originally five tales, but Borowczyk liked one of them so much that he built a framing narrative around it, and released it as The Beast. And that?s this film.

The film tells the story of Lucy Broadhurst, an American heiress who?s travelled to a plush French chateau with her aunt. A marriage has been arranged between her and Mathurin, son and heir of the noble family that owns the chateau. Mathurin?s scheming father has set the whole thing up against the advice of his crippled brother, who makes dark allusions to a family curse. However, due to some complicated clauses in an ancestor?s will, the marriage has to be performed by Mathurin?s other uncle, a Cardinal, and he?s having none of it. This is all a bit complicated consider
ing it?s just a framing narrative for a distinctly weird porn sequence, but it is amusing in a farcical kind of way (it sort of reminds me of Father Ted, somehow). It could almost be Buñuellian in its attitude towards the foibles of the aristocracy and priesthood.

Except that, seeing as how this is an exploitation film, Borowczyk does insist on throwing in quite a lot of nudity. The daughter of the house, for instance, is constantly being interrupted while having sex with a muscular black servant. And Lucy has a lengthy (and very explicit) masturbation scene. We even get to see two horses having sex for an awfully long time (nothing left to the imagination there, I can tell you). Lucy?s aunt is suspicious, because Mathurin seems to be an uncommunicative boor, but Lucy is quite enamoured of him. She also learns of the family?s dark legend: that one of their ancestors was ravished by some kind of beast back in the 18th century.

So, that night, as Lucy tries to get some sleep before her wedding, she has a lengthy (about 20-minute) fantasy about a woman in 18th-century dress being ravished by a beast. This, of course, is the short film that Borowczyk had filmed previously, and is the sole point of this film (everyone with me so far? Good). And I defy anyone to sit through the fantasy scene without their jaw dropping. It beggars belief. All filmed in beautiful forest, it?s basically weirdo, almost-hard-core porn in which a man in what looks like a wombat costume has sex with a comely young lass (whose clothes conveniently fall off as she tries to escape). The Beast is spectacularly well-endowed, and, um, on a hair-trigger, so to speak, and soon enough the lady starts to welcome his advances. While this is certainly deeply dubious from a moral standpoint, everyone who ever sees it is reduced to hysterical laughter almost immediately, occasionally p
unctuating their hilarity with expressions such as ?God all f***ing mighty, they can?t show that!" or "What in the name of all that?s holy does the BBFC think it?s playing at?"

The film does have quite a few surprising twists and turns, plot-wise before it reaches its denouement, but it?s really all about the beast. (In case you?re worried about spoilers, I should point out that the DVD packaging really plays up the beast sex sequence, and that it?s all the film is really known for. Basically, if you?re going to see The Beast you probably already know it?s coming, and to be honest, anyone who watches a film like this for the plot is going to come away slightly disappointed.)

I have absolutely no idea why this has turned up uncut. The BBFC is usually very strict about rape scenes in tawdry exploitation movies, frequently cutting them altogether. The fact that this film features a scene in which a woman is raped by a large bipedal wombat and starts to enjoy it should, I would have thought, disqualify it from ever being released in this country. The film does have a curious cult reputation as being an erotic masterpiece by a woefully-neglected director, but that just goes to show that a lot of horror film fans really need to get out more. It seems, though, that someone in the BBFC has decided that this isn?t simply lurid, crazy porn, but has some artistic merit. Even the product description on dooyoo seems to go along with this: ?A film which explores female sexuality in a non-pornographic way.? Well, if you can somehow define ?pornographic? in a way that doesn?t include the beast?s enormous phallus ejaculating all over a woman?s breasts, or a gynaecological close-up of a woman inserting rose petals into herself, then fine. Me, I think it?s porn through and through. I am quite pleased it got release
d, as it is extremely funny, but I think that trying to justify it as art is preposterous.

The acting is adequate enough, I guess, with most of the dialogue sub-titled (none of the cast is familiar to me from anything else). The film is shot very well, and Borowczyk obviously knows how to compose striking images (he?s certainly technically better than most European exploitation directors of the era). The art direction is pretty good, creating a certain sense of claustrophobia about the chateau, which becomes especially relevant as we find out more about the family. The beast sequence is accompanied by a repetitive and fiendishly catchy piece of harpsichord music that somehow makes it even stranger. But this really is dodgy porn all the way, and it seems a bit unnecessary to try and discuss any other aspects of it. It doesn?t work as a horror film, as it?s all a bit too light-hearted. The comedy doesn?t work because of the explicit nature of the sex scenes. And unfortunately it?s not even remotely erotic as it?s just too damned strange.

The DVD has some extras. There?s a photo gallery (which only has 11 pictures - totally pointless, as they seem to be just freeze-framed from the movie anyway). There?s also a Borowczyk filmography (they spell ?filmography? incorrectly in the menu - I get the feeling that not a lot of thought went into this release - perhaps they were worried the BBFC would change its mind at the last minute). The most interesting extra is a short film called La Maree, also directed by Borowczyk. A young man takes his 16-year-old female cousin down to the beach, and persuades her to perform oral sex on him. It?s about 20 minutes long, very slowly paced, and doesn?t have the delirious weirdness that makes The Beast worth seeing, so can be ignored. It does have a few delights, such as the way the guy uses a
lot of ponderous tidal imagery in his attempts to persuade her - his best line is ?When I flood into you, swallow meekly and joyfully.? (Gentleman, take note: this is *not* an effective chat-up line when used on real-life women. You will get slapped. Surprisingly hard.) And the fact that he keeps wittering on about the tide during the act itself somehow brought Alan Partridge to mind. But even though the girl?s cute, it?s a bit dull really.

Anyway, there we are. Obviously I?m not recommending this as such; it?s idiotic and offensive and dangerously close to hard-core porn. However, if you find yourself drawn to the extremely bizarre in your film tastes, then you could perhaps think about getting hold of this. Not a film to show the local vicar, but I?m glad they released it. It?s rubbish, but it?s uniquely unusual rubbish.

(All I will say in my defence is that it belongs to my flatmate, not me.)

Summary: