The Image

Excellent Treatment of Believable Submission 2005-09-02 `The Story of O' directed by Just Jaeckin and `The Image' directed by Radley Metzger are both based on famous and critically well received French erotic novels written, I believe, in the 1960s by Pauline Reage (a pseudonym) and Jean de Berg respectively. In turn, the two movies are both considered masterpieces of erotic moviemaking. Yet the latter is clearly better than the former, in spite of the fact that the two books are, to my mind, roughly equal in quality. I may even believe that `The Story of O' is superior as a novel to de Berg's fiction.

While both are of a very high quality, they approach roughly the same subject in very different ways. In `The Story of O', everything is seen and told through the eyes of the submissive, `O'. In `The Image', everything is seen through the eyes of the bystander become dominant, Jean. That does not mean that `O' can tell us nothing of the dominant psychology or `Image' tell us nothing of the submissive psychology. In fact, it is one of the strengths of `The Image' that it probably tells us more about true psychological submissiveness than the movie, `O'.

The primary problem with `The Story of O' film is that while its source is certainly a very well constructed fantasy, the director does not hide this fact and play it as reality. This may be comparable to our not taking the confrontation between Gandalf and the Balrog at the bridge in the mines of Moria (in `Lord of the Rings') because we know this is all a fantasy. The power of great fantasies is that they allow us to totally suspend disbelief for the course of the experience. In Jaeckin's commentary, he states over and over that this is all a fantasy and was intended as such by author, Reage. But, one of Reage's great skills was to minimize the improbable aspects of the story to sustain the sense that this plot is actually being played out by real people.

The second problem for me with `The Story of O' is the fact that it did not improve on my imagination while I was reading the book. Going back to that other fantasy, `Lord of the Rings', one of its great successes is the fact that at every turn, it improved on the constructs of my imagination. The black riders, the Uruk-hai, and Shelob were all far scarier than what I read, and the reading was pretty scary. At but one scene does the film outdo my imagination.

The third problem, which the movie shares with the book, is the improbability of a woman's so easily moving her affection from one dominant to the next. The book's original ending makes great use of the chasm this reliance on a master opens at the submissive's feet. The movie squanders the great original ending in a muddle of alternatives.

`The Image' easily sidesteps the last problem by being a very simple `menage a trois'. And, while the submissive is asked to perform with outsider, Jean, she is always devoted primarily to dominant Claire. As far as improving on my imagination, I will only say that from what you think you are seeing on the screen, director Metzger is pulling no punches and Mary Mendum playing the submissive is about as convincing as I can imagine in her role, in comparison to `O''s actress, Corinne Clery, who sometimes seems to be simply working through the boredom in some scenes.

Part of the reality of `The Image' is based on the immediacy of all the settings. Like some films by Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese, where New York City is almost as much a character in the movie as the actors on the screen, several locations in Paris are important contributors to the lush, overripe feel of the film. In contrast, `The Story of O' could have as easily been filmed in Quebec or Sidney, and no one would have noticed the difference.

On the other hand, while the two films are of roughly the same lengths, `The Image' spends a lot more time conveying the relationship by showing its fruits rather than by talking about it.

Both movies are easily 1000% better than any other movie on these subjects, but `The Image' is clearly the better of the two in a very small field.

- Amazon