Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye (2003) User Reviews

This cheesy porno flick has nothing to do with Bataille

[struwwel · 2/10 · 10 January 2006]

I went to see this film with high expectations because of my interest in Bataille, and thought that an 'arthouse-cinema'-adaption would stand a good chance in translating his beautiful and dreamlike semi-surrealistic novel into a full length movie. And what do i get? A dull porno flick 'decorated' with tiresome 'arty' s/m and fetishist settings. Where's the connection to Bataille and "The story of O"? It is nowhere to find; except from the 'kinky sex', which then again has nothing much in common with the original story's erotic content - apart from the occurrence of sex.. You see, this film shows nothing but sex, it has no narrative, no presentation of characters, etc; i.e.: it is just regular porn. You get 3 quite long sex-scenes (boy + boy; girl + girl; girl + girl + boy) and a few scenes of masturbation, all shot in a dreadful 'arty' way with bad lightning and unreasonable editing. Apart from that there's a gratuitous scene of an obstetrical childbirth - which is completely meaningless but, one might assume, presumably seen as 'cool' or 'awsome' by the director - and an overly long scene of a ragged girl walking up a really long staircase. That's it. Yes, after spending 80 minutes with this film, I am a tad disappointed...

This film resembles a slightly kinky porno you'd stumble over on cable-TV late at night, and most likely turn off. I am not the least of a rabid anti-sex-preacher, but: a) this is just a cheesy porno movie; b) cheesy porn is usually really dull to watch; c) to sprinkle it with a bit of 'daring, exciting' s/m won't make me cheer.

I guess Bataille would've seen this porno flick as an insult, or perhaps just yawned a bit and sighed at what people try to pass to the audience. This film is for porn-buffs only. Try to get a copy of 'Valerie and her week of wonders' by Jaromil Jires instead.

The age old parable of the book and movie being completely different

[ifindthisimperative · 1/10 · 7 June 2007]

Having just recently read the novella "Story of the Eye" by Bataille... I wonder what exactly this film was referring to in Bataille's work. I am aware he did a reworking of his novella in the '40s that is different from the '28 original publication (the version I read). Perhaps this film references the later version? This film DOES cover two things that were in the original novella, and nothing more. 1) urine 2) sex

I liked the book. I like pornography. I like films that push the audience to appreciate the work of the filmmaker or dare you to enjoy something "out-of-bounds." This film is a poorly crafted attempt at exploiting Bataille's name as a method of trickery to dupe unwitting cinephiles into suffering an arduous, content-less film. The film is un-arousing, and would shamefully and incorrectly fool viewers into thinking Bataille is a hack. Please remove this film from existence. Sincerely, X

Sexually Arousing But Disappointing

[ImmortalityBlues · 1/10 · 8 October 2006]

Okay, the sex scenes (read: the entire film minus one boring staircase walking scene) were well done (by porn standards), "classy", "artsy", etcetera. Having not read the novel yet I was hoping that there would have simply been more to this film other than pornography. I knew that the novel was supposed to be very erotic and unapologetically so, but is that all there is to it? Does the novel simply narrate a bunch of screwing and blow jobs? Here's how simply this film can be broken down, scene-by-scene, without leaving anything out:

--Stock footage of a woman giving birth while the narrator reads a brief biography about Georges Bataille.

--Two guys have sex.

--Two women have sex.

--Girl stumbles up flight of stairs for like 15 minutes while other women scream from somewhere.

--Girl pisses on the floor/stares out filthy window.

--Two girls and some guy have sex.

--10-15 minutes of black screen and electronic noise.

--The End.

Perhaps if there were at least some interesting narration from the novel during this stuff it would have had more of an impact as a piece of compelling art rather than a slightly artsy porn flick. I guess I just need to read the book.

A Porno movie as art what's next

[fury143 · 1/10 · 25 September 2004]

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.

If you're here because of Bataille, prepare to be disappointed.

[umbrellas2 · 1/10 · 7 April 2022]

There are a couple of mildly interesting ideas here but basically it just comes over as a string of tediously extended hardcore sex scenes performed by art students. Associating it with Bataille is ridiculous - the only link is the openness about sex. But in terms of aesthetic interest there's no comparison at all. In short: don't bother.

How to Not Approach SofE

[supernewman11 · 8/10 · 6 June 2012]

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.

An assault upon the senses

[christopher-underwood · 7/10 · 11 January 2007]

What can I say?! An assault upon the senses, certainly and I feel I should have read the book first. Or maybe not. Artily shot and still erotic, although the continuous walking up the stairs in the deserted building, towards the end stretches one's endurance, as does the 15 minutes or so of static at the end. Thank goodness for fast forward on the remote. Still at least I was pressing forward and not stop. Before everything seems to slip into a nightmare scenario there are, for the record, a surprisingly erotic gay sex scene and a similarly effective lesbian one. The turn for heterosexuals comes in the deserted building and is a tawdry affair with coughing and pissing. Also the examination of what I assume to be caesarean scars remind one of the hard to watch forceps assisted birth at the start. The casual violence with a snip here and a wrench there perhaps foreshadowing what is to come. Narrative may be the scourge of the middle class but total lack of any certainly makes life a little difficult. Mind you being the son of a mad, blind and violent father I don't suppose life was a bowl of cherries for Mr Bataille.

why can't porn be art?

[PrometheusUnderground · 8/10 · 10 March 2006]

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.

Well *I* liked it a lot.

[ludicroussmiles · 7/10 · 22 May 2009]

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

Audacious, provocative, abnormally beautiful and uncomfortable. Bataille would have dug this mucho!!!

[justinrkirk · 8/10 · 21 November 2003]

George Bataille's Story of the Eye is a nearly silent film with just music, drones and noise (the only dialogue is some voiceover at the beginning and the name `Jackie O' which one of the women mutters as a phrase three times about half way though the film), its shot on DV as if in Dario Argento Technicolor, the sound design rivals Eraserhead and, most unusually the film features hard-core sex acts (gay, straight and bi) which serves to illustrate the physiology of the film's characters.

The actors are all incredibly beautiful (the tap dancing girls are HOT!) and brave (no one seems to be faking anything) and the fluid camera studies them like a Victorian naturalist lost in an overheated, imagined Punked-Out Congo. It's dream-like and narcotic it its personality but also rather witty and dry and `English.' My girlfriend was really into the scene with the Sailor and the Black Leather Man but her best friend found it `really too weird and smutty' and left the room about 20 minutes into the film. I think it helps to know George Bataille's essays on sex, sensuality, spirituality and death or really like films like `Salo,' `The Pillow Book,' `Eyes Wide Shut' or `Romance.'

I've never seen a flick like this; a friend of mine lent me an advance video screener which might have been missing the final 10 minutes because the screen goes black and there is just chaotic sound then color bars.

I close my eyes and pictures from this movie flood my mind so clearly -- I can't wait to see this on the big screen. It's a big turn on for both the mind and body.

Bataille movie

[mauriceschuhmann · 10/10 · 21 July 2020]

Georges Bataille's History of the Eye is one of the most interesting french erotic / pornographic novels of the 20th century. At the same time, it's really distressing in the context of Batailles own biography. This base is not easy for an adaption and should not be interpreted word by word to the medium movie. Andrew McElhinney made an art-porn movie inspired from Bataille as well as from Querelle (Fassbinder). Bataille is giving a framework for this masterpiece.

brilliant transgressive artcore

[jungleary · 10/10 · 24 December 2019]

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

Like falling into a k-hole

[tommolz96 · 10/10 · 2 August 2019]

A good trip or a bad trip depending on your sense of self and sense of humor. I think it worked better as an installation than a movie. Watching it on one screen you're not quite inside it in the same way.