User reviews

In his four hour drama La Belle Noiseuse, French filmmaker Jacques Rivette has painted a haunting portrayal of an artist, a model, and the effects that a work can have on those involved. It is a brave piece of film-making, featuring physical and emotional openness. The film moves very slowly, but is very much worth watching. La Belle Noiseuse allows us to watch the creation of a piece of art and how it can change a person. This is a true accomplishment. The actors are all very much on key and, with no real script, provide real and believable dialogue. Rivette paints these characters in a very human way: it's easy to imagine these people existing. There are no movie tricks. It's a truly naked film in that it offers such an intimate look into the hearts of the main characters. Anytime a film can do this, you know it's something special.

La Belle Noiseuse revolves around two couples. Marianne and Nicolas are a young couple. Nicolas is an artist and has been invited to take a look at the studio of Frenhofer, a once revered and respected painter who has given up his art. While discussing a painting that Frenhofer never finished – the "La Belle Noiseuse" – Nicolas suggests that Frenhofer use Marianne as his model. Frenhofer agrees. However, Marianne is not very happy about this. She arrives at the studio very disheartened. As Frenhofer draws and paints her, the two of them get to know each other. Marianne's resentment falls away and she becomes more open with Frenhofer, doing as he says, asking him questions, posing how he'd like. Frenhofer wants to dig deeper. As a painter, he feels the need to really capture the essence of his model. His wife, Liz, was his last model. As a result of this need to dig deeper, he was forced to either give up painting or give up his wife. The film spends much of its four hour running time in the studio with Marianne and Frenhofer. Otherwise, there are scenes with Frenhofer and Liz, as well as with Liz and Nicolas, and Marianne and Nicolas, who are growing apart by the day.

For those who can endure the extreme running time, La Belle Noiseuse is a fascinating film to watch. The characters, as I said before, are very real. Much of the film features Marianne (played by the lovely Emmanuelle Beart) posing nude. It's a bold performance for the actress, who must bear her soul as well as her body in order for the performance to be effective. She is absolutely wonderful, as is Michel Piccoli as the bitter painter. The only problem I have with the film is not that it's so long, but that much of it focuses on the drawing. There are five and ten minute scenes where the audience watches Frenhofer sketch and paint. It's fascinating at first, but eventually becomes a bit tedious. This should not steer anyone away, though. Anyone who can appreciate slow moving character studies should be fine.

To sum up, I would recommend La Belle Noiseuse. However, a person should probably know what they are getting into prior to watching. The film is not for everyone. It takes patience to enjoy, but for those who can, it is very rewarding. Jacques Rivette is a truly revolutionary director. The other film I've seen from him, Celine and Julie Go Boating, is just as wonderful as La Belle Noiseuse, but is in a completely different universe. He is a very versatile, unique, and underrated director. La Belle Noiseuse shows this. It's a beautiful film.

9/10

Unless you're a New Wavelet devotee or your intellectual capacities are wide, Jacques Rivette is a filmmaker who isn't very close to many average viewers. In many of his films he loses himself amid his intellectual ideas and doesn't mind developing them while neglecting notions of storytelling, progression in narration and time. Consequently, the average length of his works is of about two hours and a half. Many filmmakers left very long films too. But they keep in mind that their films are destined to be understood by the general public and so obey to rules of clarification in their accessible stories.

"La Belle Noiseuse" is one of his most palatable pieces of work in spite of its challenging length. It clocks in at 4 hours but don't panic, time won't seem long to you for Rivette keeps a decent linearity from the first reunion with the main characters of the film to the surprising final denouement to the agreement of Marianne (Emmanuelle Béart) to serve as a model for the painter Frenhofer (Michel Piccoli). Along their adventure, some details will witness the progression of the story: Marianne sleeps in Frenhofer's mansion while the latter falls asleep in his studio. An aesthetic refinement freely sourced from Honoré De Balzac's novel "the Unknown Masterpiece" and perhaps the son of "le Mystère Picasso" (1956) by Henri-Georges Clouzot, Rivette's piece of work is a dive in the twists and turns of artistic creation and all that it can comprise with its times of hopes, doubts, fears. Frenhofer naturally starts with a series of sketches and continues with numerous paintings attempts and countless, testing poses for Marianne. The two characters are engaged in a creative process that is highly likely to leave them exhausted to say the least. The filmmaker deftly taps the scenery of the mansion and notably the studio where he locks for the major part of the film, Marianne and Frenhofer for better and for worse. A painstaking care is given to sound with the squeaking of charcoal and brush. To better capture the sense of spontaneous creation, Rivette fell back on methods worthy of the New Wavelet and notably Godard's: he shot his film without a script near him and perhaps that's why many moments seem extemporaneous. But unlike Godard's smug works, Rivette's one remains quite understandable as a whole.

A dark legend surrounds this film about its success, one of the few Rivette enjoyed all along his career. Was it due to Emmanuelle Béart's nudity? "La Religieuse" (1966) was banned because it was deemed as shocking for a major part of the population according to the censors. This banning contributed to the popularity of the film. So, it would seem that Rivette has to put elements likely to be scabrous to make himself accepted by general public.

Having seen "Va Savoir" recently prompted me to rent Jacques Rivette's 1990 "La Belle Noiseuse," a daunting runtime of 240 minutes (though I noticed it was only 3 hr. 48 mins.) It's well worth the time and experience. An experience in painting - nude figure drawing to be precise. But it's not a film merely about lessons in nude figure modeling from the beautiful Emmanuelle Béart, or meticulous details of an artist's painting process from veteran actor Michel Piccoli, there is a Rivette storyline depicting multiple relationships, himself literally painting us psychological pictures/sketches. He's truly the French filmic master of human predicaments between man and woman. Rivette has such visions, skillful techniques, and superb craft in telling his story with thoughtful details - never misses a beat.

The beginning scenes put us in a comfortable rural setting outside of Paris - beautiful open views of the village town, captures of the villa architectural interiors, and tastes of the lovely airy gardens and shady greens exterior. Yes, there are plenty of dialogs, but the inclusion of real-time ambient and environmental sounds made "La Belle Noiseuse" experience whole. It has the most wonderful ordinary sound of the studio door with latch creak opens and closes - it comes so naturally. There's the pen nib scratching against the sketchpad paper, the chalk against the surface of a canvas, even the quick ruffling of sheets when Béart the model swivel-turned in defiance - such detailed little sounds simply add to the flavor and tone of the story. We see two pairs of relationship and then some: between the mature and weathered pair of Edouard Frenhofer the painter and Liz his wife (who used to be his favorite model) portrayed by Michel Piccoli and Jane Birkin; the younger set Marianne and Nicolas, yet to absorb the trials and zest of life, portrayed by Emmanuelle Béart and David Bursztein; then the twists of the mercurial commercial-minded Balthazar Porbus, the unrelenting insistent Nicolas' sister Julienne, with gentle relieving pauses from young Magali, daughter of housekeeper Francoise, not to forget Justine the Cat.

Other then an Igor Stravinsky piece used for the beginning/ending credit roll, and Magali's brief morning ballet exercise, there's really no background music used. The occasional church bell rings, sounds of cicada and rustling leaves provided serene accents. Much is said in the unsaid, and the ending portion sure makes one wonder and prompts reflections. Rivette has a flair for unsuspecting ending drama, almost philosophical, or could it be renewed beginnings?

The paintings/drawings were from the hands of Bernard Dufour. Cinematography by William Lubtchansky, especially inside the studio, captured the critical chiaroscuro (light and shadows) of drawing/modeling sessions. Michel Piccoli is a regular in Luis Bunuel films; "Belle de Jour" 1967, with Catherine Deneuve is one example. Jane Birkin has such a gentle yet fortified disposition; she's in Bertrand Tavernier's "Daddy Nostalgia" 1990, opposite Dirk Bogarde. I really enjoy Emmanuelle Béart's performance in Claude Sautet's "Nelly et Monsieur Arnaud" 1995, with Michel Serrault, who was equally brilliant.

Can watching paint dry be riveting, interesting, and compelling? Can looking at a beautiful woman who is naked for almost three of four hours long movie be not erotic? Is it possible to watch the movie where an Artist creates sketch after sketch of his model in preparation for a painting and many scenes run in real time and not become bored but instead be totally absorbed by the painter on the screen and how he was progressing with his work? Jacques Rivette's "Le Belle Noiseuse" is certainly not for every taste but I found it immensely rewarding. It is one of very few films where creative process with all its tension, uncertainty, selfishness and self-centering of an artist who once he began working is nearly oblivious not only to his model's discomfort but to the feelings of the ones close to him have been shown on the screen with such truthful passion, technical excellence, and tremendous acting. Michel Piccoli as an aging painter Edouard Frenhofer, once famous and productive, Jane Birkin (Liz)- his much younger wife and a former favorite model, and Emmanuelle Béart as Marianne, the young, bright, and intensely intelligent woman whose presence awakened Frenhofer from semi-lethargy and made him want to paint again were unforgettable.

The film also explores a vital for any artist subject – what is more important, the process of creating a work of art or the result?

A young artist and his girlfriend run into an aging master who has not painted for many years. It emerges that he stopped in the middle of a painting of his wife which threatened to destroy his marriage. Why this should be so is not at first clear. Over time, however, as the young artist's girlfriend poses for the older artist so that he can finish the painting, it becomes apparent quite how emotionally demanding the artistic process is.

Many people seem to find this film boring or pretentious. It's a matter of taste I guess. I found the long sections of the artist sketching his model extremely compelling. Even if you can't imagine this, give the film a try. I have a friend who hates arty films, particularly if they're in a foreign language. His favourite film is the Rock, yet he started watching this (with the sole aim of seeing Emmanuelle Beart in the buff, which she is for most of the movie) and ended up sitting through the whole four hours. It has a genuinely hypnotic quality.

Aside from the debate about the art sections of the film, its content is superb. The characters are real, interesting and beautifully played. The Beart character in particular is a wonderful depiction of someone who is deeply scarred, but erects a powerful veneer of independence to protect herself. As the artist sketches her from every angle, he gradually gets under her defences, until her entire personality is exposed on canvas. I know this sounds really pretentious, but this film effectively argues that what marks out a masterpiece is that someone's soul - either the artist's or the model's - is put on canvas, and in the process, they and the people close to them are affected irrevocably. Ultimately, the only real flaw in this film is, I'm informed, that the sketches themselves aren't actually that good. If you're like me and have a limited sensitivity to such things, this shouldn't bother you. If not, try not to let it spoil a beautiful, rewarding and profoundly satisfying movie.

Until last night, I have shied away from this film due to its daunting 4-hour length. But watching Jacques Rivette's "La Belle Noiseuse" was not nearly as difficult as I feared it might be. In fact, it actually feels liberating to watch a film that doesn't limit itself to a predetermined time constraint. With most films that rely heavily on an advancing plot, any possible lulls may wear on the viewer. "La Belle Noiseuse" boldly eschews the artifice of plot and standard pacing, and deeply focuses on its story of an artist, Frenhofer (played by Michel Piccoli), finding inspiration in a young model (played by Emmanuelle Beart) to paint again after a 10-year hiatus.

The drawing scenes alone really held my interest. Presented with little dialogue, they really made me feel as if I were witnessing art unfold, which is nothing less than exhilarating. It was also fascinating to see this in combination with the subtle development and changes that take place within Beart's character, Marianne, as she transforms from a fidgety, resentful subject to an impassioned muse who sheds away all corporeal pretense and lends her bare soul to the canvas. Giving support to the complex and nuanced performances of the two leads, the waiflike Jane Birkin is also a standout in the role of Liz, the artist's wife, especially in the later scenes in which she expresses conflict with her husband's art.

I am glad that I have finally seen this movie, and I definitely encourage anyone with a curiosity about this movie to see it too. All it requires is four hours of your time and an open mind. "La Belle Noiseuse" is an extremely long film, but never boring. Watching this film is like slowly immersing your body into a hot bath. Your enjoyment of it all depends on how willing you are to adapt yourself to its pacing. But like a hot bath, it takes a little adjustment.

An absorbing four-hour masterpiece from Jacques Rivette. I cannot recall the last time I was so overwhelmed by a film.

"La Belle noiseuse" is a brilliant character study buoyed by two astonishing performances from the always-wonderful Michel Piccoli and the stunning Emmanuelle Béart. She's uncommonly gorgeous, has the most piercing eyes of any actress in recent memory and the way she bares her character's soul is completely entrancing.

This is a film for cineastes who enjoy complex, vividly-drawn characters and the slow unfolding of a story. Rivette takes his time telling us this story. We see the artist Eduoard get his studio ready - collecting his pencils and brushes, finding the sketchbook, filling glasses with water, rearranging the furniture, moving aside paintings.

And then there are those moments in this beautiful film where neither Eduoard nor Marianne speaks. All we see is the artist's hand scribbling in his notebook, maybe the nude model's pose and her glare. The only sound is that of the artist's nib scratching paper as Rivette shows us the preliminary sketches the artist draws before he gets to the canvas.

This goes on for several minutes, yet it's far from dull. On the contrary, it's absolutely riveting. We can't peel our eyes away from the artist's hand. We're captivated as the human form takes shape on the paper and canvas. It's brilliant stuff.

This was the film that made Béart a star. Rightly so, too. Her transformation from the loving wife to the reluctant model to ultimately the provocateur is utterly believable. Her performance doesn't have a false moment. It's as intelligent as it is provocative, one that could easily have been overwrought, but is played to perfection.

The scenes between Piccoli and Béart are fascinating because their relationship grows so unconventionally. Rivette turns their relationship into an engrossing battle of wits. Initially, Eduoard manhandles Marianne, moving her arms and legs about as if she were a mannequin. She is shy, uncomfortable with being nude. But as the hours progress into days, her comfort level grows. Soon, as the artist grows weary, it's the model who spurs him on.

True, four hours is a heckuva long time to spend at a film. But there are hugely popular and well-made thrillers that don't come close to being as mesmerizing as this exquisite work of art.

I liked this film. I really don't know why. I'm not sure that I understood what it was all about. Maybe you had to be a painter or French to fully appreciate it. But I am sure that it's not a film that you want to watch in one sitting. It takes awhile to get through it. I feel sorry for anyone who tried to watch this in a theater. I think the acting was good...maybe better than good. I don't know why, but I really enjoy French films. Maybe that's why I liked this one. If it had been an American or English film, I probably wouldn't have lasted more than an hour. I think what I liked best was to watch Frenhofer at work. I was utterly fascinated to watch him create such beautiful sketches of the human body on a blank canvas. I don't think I ever took my eyes away from the film as he was drawing Marianne. Creating a form from just lines and varying shades of gray is amazing to me. I also enjoyed watching him ready his studio and gather all his supplies as he prepared to sketch. To me, this film more a lesson in art than it was entertainment. I would think that anyone with the slightest interest in art would enjoy this film immensely.

This is one of those films which remains etched in the memory and can even change a person's life in a subtle way; certainly it can offer an insight into the art of painting unlike any other film I've seen. It is long, in the sense that classics of world literature can be lengthy - in other words, in an epic sense. I simply cannot restrain my enthusiasm for this film, which is ultimately nothing less than a psychological study of the creative process and its effect on human relationships. Every frame of those 4 hours of viewing is in its own way intriguing and inviting, and of course Beart is very beautiful. But the scenery, too, the old estate on which Frenhofer lives, is a character in the film, reflecting the artists own genteel, yet restless seniority perfectly. Shall I say more? Buy a good bottle of French red wine and sip it with relish, while immersing yourself free of preconceptions (about long movies or artistic pretentiousness) in this masterpiece! It is not about showing off, it is about the human condition. Nothing is entirely infallible, of course, so 9 out of 10.

My take on La Belle Noiseuse is that the movie is about art and its ultimate meaning.

The question is, what is the meaning of doing art, or art? Virtually every character in the film is involved in this quest for ultimate meaning. It is in my view the meaning of life, when you connect to that pure awareness and are able to utilize it.

The agent wants the art to sell. This seems very low level in the quest. Note that he is brain damaged. Frenhofer states that he wants to cut everything away from her and let it happen, emerge. At first he is attached to his work, manipulating both it and the girl. Then it becomes more free. And yet there is no satisfaction. The characters remain opaquely.

I felt that what he actually is doing on film is somewhat mediocre though interesting. Perhaps that doesn't matter in regards to the story. The point is that he has spent his entire life doing this process. That he almost "got there" but didn't. And then there is this mysterious element of "don't let him do your face" and putting the cross on the back of the completed piece which made me think of Faust, that he sold out to the devil to do this thing. And yet there is never satisfaction.

No one has mentioned that Frenhofer's wife does taxidermy, which in a way is another level of doing a parody of art, when you just try to keep or reproduce some actual thing. This is an interesting aspect of the story. Also the model is a writer who tried to throw herself in front of a train before her husband met her. And her husband a photographer.

I think the exploration involved in the film is about the process. There can be no result, either you find that invisible center which directs and connects you to the ultimate which does shine through great masterpieces, or you don't. But that all this, writing, painting etc. can be a dead end if you get caught up in it too materially. (This is my own view, not part of what I saw) To me the movie faltered when he walled up the painting and also when she saw it and we the viewers did not. I think there has to have been a bit more exposition there to make it either satisfying or comprehensible as to the reasons for this. Perhaps walling up the painting is what he's done with that part of himself his entire life.

Overall, this is an interesting film. But only to watch on video in two sittings. It is waaaaay too long.

Because of all the things that I thought about, and the other interesting and insightful comments people have made, I think this is a thoughtful, beautiful film well worth watching.

A retired painter picks up his brush after meeting a woman that he wants as his model for an elusive masterpiece. This film is literally like watching paint dry, as the viewer is subjected to watching a number of portraits being drawn or painted from start to finish. It's interesting to watch the creative process the first couple of times, but becomes somewhat tiresome after a while. There isn't enough material to sustain the extensive length, but the filmmakers deserve credit though for keeping it mostly interesting despite the three-hour running time, although the ending is unsatisfying. There are good performances from Piccoli and Beart.

I liked how this film immerses us into the artistic process, and via many (very) long takes, makes us feel the struggle to find truth and expression. The setting, an old French chateau, is beautiful, as is of course Emmanuelle Béart, who plays a young woman who poses nude for an aging artist trying to complete a painting he abandoned long ago. He moves her body around as if she were a mannequin at times, and there is something pretty cool about seeing her form through his eyes as he sketches away.

Despite its interesting setup, however, the film never really turned the corner for me, and grew tedious over its 4 hour run time. The conversations about art didn't have much depth, and the work the artist produced never inspired me. The relationship issues both artist and model have with their partners were melodramatic and didn't add anything either. To his credit, Jacques Rivette didn't have the story play out in an artificial or cliché way, but I just wish I had felt something deeper in the characters, their conversations, or the art itself. As it was, it felt self-indulgent and gratuitous with Béart's body.

All I love about Rivette is in this film, and lots of it.

(1) The actors create 'souls', personalities and stratagems for their characters in collaboration with Laurent, Bonitzer and Rivette, instead of reciting cut and dried parts. Piccoli, Béart, Birkin and the others work little miracles all the time: their interactions feel shrewd, humane, intense, both mysterious where some background is yet missing to the viewer and utterly believable once it is revealed, without trace of the usual high-strung film acting centered on the single significant moment and rammed down the public's throat in so many contemporary movies.

(2) The setting, the Chateau d'Assas, is completely integrated into and driving the story, and is cleverly employed and fully respected in the mise èn scéne: it is not a quarry for illustrative backdrops and environments, but a real space conditioning the story just like the personalities involved.

(3) The mise èn scéne and cadrage always leave the necessary breathing space and time for story and personality development and interaction. Nothing is ever forced or abbreviated - and yes, this makes movies longer.

The 'plot' is typical for Rivette, as it contains a subtle fantastic element: here the idea, that a painter could find, sum up, condense and make visible the complete essence of a person in a painting. This fantasy lends urgency to the old dichotomies of life and art, of love and creativity. It is otherwise a mere pretext to set the story in motion and expose the characters. (In Balzac's 'Chef d-oeuvre inconnu', the attempt of Frenhofer to capture his model completely only led to a completely unreadable painting.)

The scenes where Marianne models for Frenhofer are to my knowledge unique in cinema. They represent transparently both the very subtle interaction between painter and model, and the genesis of the resulting sketch.

To show spontaneous sketching of highest quality, the hand of Bertrand Dufour was filmed while drawing/painting the posing Béart. Then Piccoli incorporated the gestures of the hand of Dufour into the scenes of Frenhofer and Marianne. Given the complexity and freedom in their interaction, the tension and homogeneity of the assembled scenes is quite a miracle.

No numerical vote, of course: one must never allow the quality of a piece of art to be in any way a subject to voting.

Usually when films portray the relationship between artists and models, they transform it into some soap opera where the artist and model are trying decide whether to be romantically involved. This is NOT one of those films. Picon as the artist and the lovely Emmanuelle Beart as his reluctant model are both too busy wrestling with their own souls to wrestle with each other. Picon is a once-great artist who has been stuck in creative limbo for years, trying to create the one perfect painting. When Beart arrives, he hopes she may be the key to finally unlocking his skills, creating that painting, and regaining his self-with as an artist.

Emmanuelle Beart is dragged into the situation by her boyfriend volunteering her services. She is angry and disgusted at her boyfriend, the artist, and as is revealed, herself. She bares her body to the artist and the audience but more importantly, as the film progresses, she bares her soul. (By the way, Emmanuelle is nude for the majority of her scenes.) Few actresses could pull of the powerfully emotional scenes she does, stripped of clothing and pretense.

The film actually works quite well as a play. Most of the film takes place in the artist's studio and only involves the artist and model. Of course, if it were a play, you have difficulty watching the artist work. And that may be where the movie has pacing problems-- the camera is looking over the artist's shoulder as he draws and paints. The movie sometimes switching gears an becomes a straight, voiceless documentation of an artist actually at work. An an artist myself, I found this fascinating. BUT, as an artist myself, I really wish the director had chosen an artist with a more interesting style! I mean, a woman as lovely as Emmanuelle Beart deserves a Renoir and instead we get a Picasso.....

Famed painter Edouard Frenhofer (Michel Piccoli) has been living in quiet secluded retirement with his model wife Liz (Jane Birkin) on a large country estate. They are visited by Marianne (Emmanuelle Béart), her artist boyfriend Nicolas, and an art dealer. Frenhofer is taken with the beautiful Marianne. She inspires him to restart his abandoned La Belle Noiseuse painting with the young nude model in long sessions.

The plot is simple. The characterization is compelling but the movie is slow and it is extremely long. It is four freaking hours. This is more about the act of creating. Despite the extended scenes, the drawing process is quite riveting even when Béart isn't naked. There is a hypnotic feel watching him create something on the blank page. The movie is too long for most audiences. Painting may be fascinating but it's not worth sitting for four hours straight.

One of the many beautiful movies that have come from France. But this is not a film for all. The acting is great, and so is the story, but many may think it's to long, with a running time of 4 hours, but for me it never gets boring. Over half of the movie is about the painting process, and it shows how painful creating can be, both for the artist and the model, the scenes between Michel Piccoli and Emmanuelle Bèart are magnificent.

The story is great, as it follows three relationships, one between the painter and his model, the second between the painter and his former model/now wife (and her jealousy towards the new model), and the third between the model and her boyfriend.

The basic story is, a young couple meets and elderly painter, that for years have had a painting block, but finds new inspiration from the young woman, this upsetts his wife, who has been his only model for years.

A true masterpiece. 10/10

The former famous painter Frenhofer (Michel Piccoli) revisits an abandoned project using the girlfriend (Emmanuelle Béart) of a young visiting artist. Questions about truth, life, and artistic limits are explored.

The film is loosely adapted from the short story "The Unknown Masterpiece" by Honoré de Balzac and also includes elements from "The Liar", "The Figure in the Carpet", and "The Aspern Papers" by Henry James. One does not need to have read any of these works to appreciate the film, however.

Some critics say the film is like watching paint dry, because very little happens and it has a running time of over four hours! But, at the same time ,this is sort of its charm. It just goes slow, unfolding, and getting the job done. Is the story of the artist or the model? Do they grow together, or grow apart?

This is a long movie, and there is not much of what many would call action. Anyone who has an interest in art and about what it can depict, is not likely to regard this as a problem.

I learnt a few things while watching this movie. It had always intrigued me as to why there were so many studies of the female nude and almost none of the male. The classical and renaissance painters were only to happy to paint nudes, male as well as female, but they didn't do any studies. Da Vinci's studies, such as they were, are écorche like.

This has been a question that had intrigued me since childhood: the male body can be more physically perfect than the female one, so why not prefer the male nude? Unlike other higher animals, the male human form differs very significantly from the female one. The idealised human form with its sinews and muscles perfectly formed, is more male than female---just think of Michelangelo's brawny women.

Later on I began to realise that what makes the female form interesting is precisely this imperfection, inasmuch as it can be called imperfect. This movie has convinced me that this is indeed the true explanation.

Ms Béart is a beautiful woman, but her body is not perfect.

Watching her move and pose in the film demonstrates the complexities of the female form. There is a whole world of expression which is absent in men.

The film also raises an interesting question. An artist is committed to truth. He must present things as he sees them. In the beginning, Marianne agrees to pose primarily out of curiosity. After a while she begins to sense the importance of the work, and for a while is perhaps more committed to the work than Frenhofer himself. One learns that any work with a human subject is really a duet between the artist and the model: they must both struggle to find the truth. Sometimes the truth is painful. The painting may reveal something about the model that is devastating, hence Liz's admonitions to Marianne that Frenhofer values his work above everything else, and that he won't protect her. This is the central question in this movie. Must the artist reveal his work, even if it means damaging the person permanently? It seems that the compassion that an artist must necessarily possess should prevent him from doing so. So is it sufficient to wait till the model, and perhaps the artist too, are dead? Or must the work be forever hidden from view? A creation which reveals the truth, no matter how hurting to someone must be revealed to the public. Art is not art otherwise. Neither can one cannot accept the destruction of a work of art. The film leaves this issue unresolved, though the dénouement is rather pleasing.

If one likes art than one will find this film revealing and insightful.

This is a great movie. One that makes you think a lot about yourself and human relationships in general. Most important : This is not a case of "STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE", it's not vague nor clouded. Messages are crystal clear as long as you pay attention, you don't have to be a philosopher or an intellectual to understand what this is about. This is Art for the people not for a specific audience.

However, i can't rate it higher because this second hour exhausted me. It's a four hour movie and the flow was very good, regarding its running time. But the second hour is too tiring. Viewer watches Michel Piccoli drawing and it's like forever. I admit i fast forward a lot. I realise that maybe all of this was necessary in order to show the whole process. Viewer should watch it because it is important to understand Piccoli's thoughts, inner conflicts and his creative process. I get it. But it was still unbearable to watch.

I also must admit that i didn't like Birkin's acting. I am not saying it was bad acting, maybe it's her character i disliked, i am not sure. But her presence seemed fake and unnatural to me. I couldn't stand her mannerism.

In any case, the second half of this movie was great. A patient viewer will be rewarded as long as he won't give up during the second hour. It is not a masterpiece neither a mind blowing movie. 4 hours is a big investment for a movie that is not a masterpiece. Still, i am glad i watched it. For me, it was worth it. This movie could play in a cliche way. It didn't. Piccoli and Beart relationship was too original, this doesn't go into places you may expect. At its core, there is a lot of sadness and cynicism. But this plays too brilliant to be miserable and overdramatic.

Relationship rich, this story revolves around a young couple who's man, Nicolas, agrees to let his woman, Marianne, be the nude model for a friend's hopeless and hapless attempt to make his long sought masterpiece he was unable to finish 10 years ago. Nicolas' relationships with the painter, the painter's wife (Liz), Marianne and later his sister are affected and deteriorate. Meanwhile the painter and his subject become entranced in an artistic and metaphysical dance.

Relationship with the painter and his wife slowly unravels until it explodes. Will it stabilize or severe their bond? Also the interplay between the painter's wife and Nicolas, the painter's wife and Marianne, Marianne and her sister-in-law, etc. are all exquisitely explored with tense writing, intimate and beautiful cinematography as well as daring directing.

At almost 4 hours and divided into two parts, the first part focuses on process of painting (and can be painful for limited attention-span people) while the second part reveals the fleeting purpose and puts people, art and life in context. The images and words are hard not to remain with you after viewing and sense of increase sensitivities to living. The screenplay is sublime with sparks of genius, genuine life glimpses and poetic prowess. Transfixion, transformation, transgression...

Jacques Rivette has made his masterpiece regardless if his protagonist did or not. The subtext and unanswered questions add to the mystery.

Life naked, complex, like the model or actress. Beautiful. Art is born.

That was my first thought. By the third hour, I wished it was all just four actual hours of the painting process in complete silence because the ensuing drama was the most decrepit spectacle conceivable.

One-dimensional portrayal of jealousy expressed by supposed adults with a mental capacity of kindergarten inhabitants, whose entire years-long relationships ostensibly crumble at a foundation in a span of hours because, my dears, art is a window into the soul, and to capture that window we need sacrifices. So let's throw vapid melodramatic tantrums about how the artist is in love only with his art, and the deep symbolism of you painting over my unfinished 'Noiseuse' posing means you really don't love me. The audible groan when I noticed that the blocking prevents you from seeing the canvas anymore must have woken up the neighbors, because that's where you realize if one thing from Balzac is going to carry over, it's going to be the concealment of the final version. The overly exaggerated Beart's hysteria about him capturing the "real her" that you will never actually see since virtually nothing on canvas would ever support this strained farce was just a cherry on top.

The narrative really should have been just the bickering of Beart and Piccoli. Model being unable to hold the pose and help him "get it right" and him being frustrated that he might have lost it. Not these, and I'm actually going to use this word, pretentious ruminations of how three days of posing/painting something made me realize such incredibly deep things about myself, like I was reborn and my life has a new spark.

If you enjoy the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard have I found the movie for you. For over 3 hours that what you hear. The rest of the time is monotonous dialog. Here's the summation of 4 hours of this movie. Old artist believes he has one masterpiece still in him. Beautiful model suffers through being physically manipulated like she is a contortionist whose bones and muscles can be twisted like silly putty. Artist doesn't care. Someone else will have to tell you if the painting ever happened or if the model ended up in traction. At 2x scan speed still couldn't get through movie. By the way, the model is nude through most of the movie. So it is possible to have a naked sexy woman in a 4 hour movie and make you so bored and depressed that you feel like someone put salt-peter in your cappuccino. Nothing can stay awake in this pretentious movie about nothing important for an hour let alone 4 hours.. If you want to watch 4 hours about nothing, go watch a Seinfeld marathon instead, you'll enjoy it more.