buygay.com

Amos Lassen wrote on 08/24/2011:

Galoup (Denis Lavant), an ex-Foreign Legion officer, looks back at his life when he led troops in the Gulf of Djibouti. He was happy and he actually enjoyed the regimentation and the strictness that transpired then. When Sentain (Gregoire Colin), a young recruit put jealousy into Galoup’s mind, it was the beginning of the downfall of both men. The film looks at what military life does to human expression.
Director Claire Denis retells “Billy Bud” in this film. The post-colonial Africa parallels post-Revolution Europe but instead of sailors we have the French Foreign Legion. Galoup has an irrational hatred for Sentain (the representative Billy Budd).
The plot is actually quite simple with Galoup having to deal with his jealousy when Sentain becomes a hero in the eyes of his men and this jealousy consumes him. The military and its exercises are everywhere in the movie Galoup feels that discipline is the only form of self-expression in the Legion and this is the reason he so hates Sentain who tries to bring humanity to the legionnaires.
What makes this so interesting is that we do not see any of the humanity so feared by Galoup and only at the end of the film do we see Sentain act counter to Galoup and what we see is that he has done nothing that any soldier would do. Of course we can also see this is as a triangle between Galoup, Sentain and the men of the Legion. We are made well aware that the only thing that Galoup really cares about is showing affection though discipline. With Sentain, Galoup fears losing the main love of his life and he reacts by becoming even stricter.
Another point the movie makes is to show the absurdity and pointlessness of military routines. The film is most definitely anti-military. Interesting also is the linear plot and narrative in a world of non-ending and pointless military expressions. The film begins with a series of what we see is an unconnected and random sequences—soldiers marching over rocks, a nightclub scene, an officer sitting alone, African women dancing at a bar and so on. We soon realize that these scenes represent a duality that is continued throughout the film.

eellddo wrote on 11/17/2005:

First, let us be clear: a film does not exist except in it's seeing. Thus it can be said that we each 'create' the movie we see, according to our habits of how we see movies. In and of itself, no movie/film is either 'fabulous' or 'awful'. Those are our feelings about our experience of a given movie/film.

BEAU TRAVAIL does indeed 'tell' a story. Based loosely on Herman Melville's "BILLY BUDD", it is a version of the story of the emotional, sexual, political repression that all too often rages under the surface of a closed all-male social unit, be it the military, the all-boy's school, the priesthood, etc. The 'story' is 'gay', not because it was directed by a woman (an absurd claim made by another reviewer) but rather because there is, to one degree or another, a sexual componant in all male social bonding. Man to man sexuality drenches this film like the sweltering sun that beats down on the East African desert it is set in, even though it never overtly breaks thru the hard military surface of the small French Foreign Legion troop we are privileged to meet.

There is the 'commandant', a stern but avuncular older man who pretty much leaves the day-to-day running of the troop to his 'sargent', a brooding disturbed loner in his early 40s, who had obviously been the commandant's 'favorite' at one time. And then there are the 'troops' themselves, about 20 or so of some of the most beautiful young men ever assembled in a movie. Not American-type pretty 'bois', but rather MEN of astonishing masculine beauty! But their's is a military unit with no military 'mission'. They have nothing to do but enact the 'rituals' of military 'life'. But this is not military life as known in the American military, but rather as it might have been in the days of ancient Greece. Here rituals are indeed 'rituals'. And as conceived and presented by the director Claire Denis, they are truly wonderous, mysterious and mesmerizing.

Into the sedentary tranquility of this closed little world arrives a new recruit, a marvelously beautiful and truly innocent young man that everyone immediately takes a liking to. This becomes the 'cross' upon which this young man will eventually become 'crucified'. The sargent finds this situation increasingly conflicting (he sees the young man supplanting himself in the Commandant's eyes, and with the rest of the troop). His increasing jelousy is compounded by his own conflicting attraction to the young man. Inevitably this drives him to try and destroy the young man by literally driving him into the desert and dumping him without food or water to die. This act of senseless brutality in turn drives him, not unlike Oedipus from Thebes, from the only 'life' he seems to have ever known.

OK, that's basically the 'story'. But as the one reviewer said, it is not a story told in words. There is vertually no dialogue in the film. Here the story is told in a truly 'cinematic' fashion: it is told thru an ongoing flow of images. And what ravishingly beautiful images they are! One could hardly ask for a more beautiful movie to see. In this respect it is akin to so-called 'nature' films, films about the often stark, even brutal but at the same time beautiful reality of nature. There is is a 'story', but it is simply the story OF Nature. But in BEAU TRAVAIL the 'nature' we are presented with is the stark, brutal, beautiful nature of 'Human' nature. And in this respect, it can be seen as a kind of metaphor for what has been the lot of the 'love that dare not speak its name' in so-called Western society over the past 200 years.

THIS IS NOT a Hollywood style 'intertainment' movie. If ever a film deserved the tag 'art film', this is it. It belongs in the ranks with the best work of such directors as Passolini, Antonioni & our own David Lynch. If you like their films you will likely love this one.

scumboy (tomr@flash.net) wrote on 03/19/2004:

Lots of eye candy, but nothing else. This is a truly boring movie. Still, the scenery (ahem) can hold one's interest for a little while.

MonkeyPaw wrote on 05/13/2003:

I am writing this review because the only review posted does the film no justice. While it is true that the film has no plot to speak of, it barely needs it. It is filmed beautifully, and has a wonderful use of sound. This is an unconvetional film which tries to steer away from a traditional narrative. So, It may not be for everyone. Also, this film has been mislabled as gay because it was directed by a woman. It is true that this film does not follow the traditional male filming style of over-sexing women and avoiding completely showing a man as any type of sensitive character. However, I, as a strait male, was able to enjoy this movie. But if you are looking for a film to appeal to you on a homosexual level, this is not that film.

Scoutz (bill@scoutz.net) wrote on 02/22/2003:

Yes, this movie is homoerotic, moody and exotic in its locale. But, there is no real story. The characters do not interact. I kept waiting for dialog. This is one of the worst movies of any genre that I have ever seen.