So much average

A different way of telling a story

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

This film starts off in a very unusual manner. While the credits are done by Saul Bass in color, the film itself is black & white. I am not sure if any other films have this distinction, but it certainly is unusual. Then, throughout the film, it switched from color to black & white--a daring move that may or may not distract the viewer.As another reviewer pointed out, the film has very strong Oedipal overtones. The film centers on the life of two rather free-thinking people--a father and daughter (David Niven and Jean Seberg) who seem amazingly chummy--more so than is typical. They hug and kiss so often and have very vague personal boundaries that the viewer most likely will feel a bit creeped out by them. And, the father and daughter talks about the father's love life with the young bombshell Mylène Demongeot--his latest conquest. Unusual to say the least! Because there is this seething undercurrent, things turn out very bad when a domineering woman (Deborah Kerr) comes back into their lives and threatens the relationship between father and daughter. Unlike Dad's other women, Kerr seems less willing to share him with Seberg--Mylène (who was quite young) acted more like a goofy sister or friend to Seberg instead of an adult. Kerr is definitely NOT goofy or much fun for the daughter. In fact, Kerr begins acting like she is Seberg's mother soon after her arrival .Now this brings me to a major problem with "Oedipus II", I mean "Bonjour Tristesse". Niven is a bit of a bohemian...yet he suddenly gives up his fun-loving life for the wet blanket, Kerr. She is neither young nor sexy and seems as much fun as a missionary at a sex workers' convention! So what, exactly, motivated Niven?! I have no idea. While I am a pretty conservative type guy, I thought Kerr was dull and anti-fun--so why would Niven, then, be drawn to her?! Now I could understand Seberg disliking this new arrangement--that, at least, made sense. After all, Kerr is rather awful and Seberg just wants to have fun.Now I actually think the Oedipal angle, while creepy, was pretty interesting. While they never could have gotten away with this in the 1950s, it would have really been interesting if Niven and Seberg's relationship had been much more intimate--or at least more strongly implied. Then, the creepy love triangle might have been a lot more explosive and interesting. But, while I am thinking about it, Kerr's character needed to become less unlikable. This is because she was too easy to hate and too one-dimensional. As I said above, it made no sense that Niven could want to marry this awful person. So, toning down Kerr and increasing the father-daughter sexual tension might have made the film a lot more interesting--and completely blown away audiences of the day--so much so, that this might not have made it past the censors.So, as it is, is the film worth seeing even if it is a tad sanitized for 50s tastes? Well, the idea of Seberg plotting to destroy Kerr is awfully intriguing. Plus, to a degree, you must agree with Seberg--though not her methods. After all, I felt like rapping Kerr's character in the mouth myself and wanted to see something bad happen. Because of this and good acting, the film really is interesting and hard to stop watching--like a high quality but sleazy soaper such as "Peyton Place". Beware that it is a bit slow at the beginning--bear with it, it does get better--and it ends quite well. In fact, the ending is quite haunting--and lingers even after the final credits have rolled.

Pretty teen-aged Jean Seberg (as Cecile) recalls an idyllic summer spent, on the French Rivera, with playboy father David Niven (as Raymond), and their lovers. While Mr. Niven bags younger "hot lobster" Mylène Demongeot (as Elsa), Ms. Seberg hooks up with handsome young Geoffrey Horne (as Philippe). Their lives are interrupted when older, still attractive Niven-ex Deborah Kerr (as Anne) arrives on the scene. Aware of Ms. Kerr's prim ways, Niven moves out on his mistress. As soon as Ms. Demongeot is dispensed with, Niven announces he is engaged to Kerr, with whom he's been having less vulgar fun, anyway. Seberg is happy, until Kerr decides to play step-mother, and advises Seberg to shed boyfriend Horne and concentrate on more educational pursuits.Otto Preminger's "Bonjour Tristesse" is lacking in character development. Both Seberg and Kerr needed to inject more friction in their increasingly adverse relationship; and, Niven needed to show his character and lifestyle were worth the struggle - most lacking is Seberg, the real star of the film. Instead of holding your interest, you think they're wasting your time. A mutual incestuous interest, between father Niven and daughter Seberg, may be discerned in the way they kiss, and speak to each other - but, it's difficult to determine with certainty, given cultural norms. The film's main strength is its lovely alternating black-and-white to color photography, by Georges Périnal.***** Bonjour Tristesse (3/17/58) Otto Preminger ~ Jean Seberg, David Niven, Deborah Kerr

Reviews of this film are more interesting and thought provoking than most. A number of them convey critical insights that certainly deepened my appreciation. Yes, the film is flawed, but it also resonates beyond standard soap opera mainly because of its tragic central premise. That the movie doesn't fully realize its aim, I'm sorry to say, is largely because of limitations in Seberg's performance. I agree, she's a lively and compelling screen presence with a freshness that's genuinely appealing. However, the role of Cecile calls upon more emotional depth than Seberg manages to convey, especially with the absence of troubled emotions. Thus the sense of tragic outcome stems from sources other than Seberg's performance. Now, there are several ways of looking at Cecile's emotional make-up and maturity, but there's one I believe that most strongly recommends itself and also puts Seberg's performance in the best light.On this view, Seberg has Cecile's character just right during the sunny Technicolor phase. Cecile is simply too immature to realize the potential consequences of her scheming actions. Thus, Cecile (Seberg) attaches no more gravity to breaking up her father's relationship than she does to skipping her studies. She's all spoiled selfishness wrapped in a winsome smile. And it's not until the car crash that she realizes the consequences of her selfish act, and experiences an emotional depth for the first time. Her scheme thus results not from making a wrongful choice but from not even realizing that a choice is being made. This view would vindicate nine-tenths of Seberg's unconflicted Technicolor performance, but not the black- and-white phase where Seberg fails to convey the conflict required. This view would also explain the added features of narration, color change and Saul Bass graphics once Preminger realizes that Seberg's performance is not enough to convey the necessary sense of tragedy.Despite this central flaw, the movie remains oddly haunting. Maybe it's because of a sun- washed paradise so carelessly lost, or of a summer of such promise turned into a lifetime of regret. I really like the observation that father and daughter behave as though actions have no consequences. As a result, their humanity is only realized once the importance of this lesson is tragically driven home. Only by then, it's too late. In my view, the movie remains regrettably underrated.

Seems I didn't miss all that much - if indeed anything at all - by failing to catch up with this oven-ready turkey until now. As a director Preminger was uneven at best and often relied on controversy - The Moon Is Blue, The Man With The Golden Arm - in lieu of genuine talent; whilst it's true he had at least one Laura in him that was outweighed by one too many Hurry Sundowns. Having 'discovered' Jean Seberg and miscast her monumentally in St. Joan the previous year he attempted to prove his judgment right on the money by using her again in this adaptation of a novel by a seventeen year old French girl, proving only how far off the money he was. This is best described as a Soap with Classical pretensions. Living a quasi incestuous Riviera lifestyle with swinger pop David Niven, Seberg is miffed when Deborah Kerr looms up as prospective wife/stepmom material and plots her downfall. That's all, folks. Students or irony may or may not relish the fact that this movie was released just as the new wavelet was approaching the shore of real Cinema and Seberg, unable to register there, went on to star in Godard's Brainless and help give that new wavelet its brief moment in the sun before Real Talents reclaimed the cinema. Nice one, Otto.