37°2 le matin (1986) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

This film was also known as Betty Blue in its North American release. Note, however, that Betty Blue and 37°2 might well be considered two separate movies. Betty Blue is 121 minutes long in NTSC format, and 37°2 is 184 minutes in PAL format, which is equivalent to 191 minutes in NTSC or in the theaters, because of the 4% distortion in PAL. The difference between them is, therefore, 70 minutes of film. That difference is pretty much a feature length film of its own.

I have not seen the short version, but I discussed this film with my friend Mick Locke on the phone and mentioned to him that Jean-Hugues Anglade must have set the all-time record for male nudity by a single person in a mainstream film, having done a half dozen lengthy frontal scenes, and having been stark naked on camera, willie to the wind, for a least a half an hour of the film's running time. Mick Locke replied that I was all wet, and that Anglade's French fry had only been seen briefly once in passing.  It turned out, of course, that Mick had seen the North American version, so you know a good chunk of what was in the 70 missing minutes - about 29 minutes of the ol' pocket fisherman, Gallic style. Anglade's duration of full-frontal nudity is matched by his co-star Beatrice Dalle, and she also performs other scenes topless or without pants.

I guess my first observation must be that if you are really interested in screen nudity, you should just skip the short version and wait for the right one to come along, for two reasons:

1. because the 70 missing minutes must include a vast amount of nudity - maybe the whole damned 70 minutes, for all I know

2. because the nudity is extremely beautiful, quite explicit, and magnificently photographed. I'm not one to use the word "magnificent" casually. If you like the type of film with beautiful, highly saturated, painterly hues abetted by lots of colored filters and other lighting gimmicks, this is one of the best I've ever seen. Imagine the look of Amelie, with the skin content of Emmanuelle. If I were forced to name now, off the top of my head, the best photographed film with near-continuous nudity, I would have to say it is this film, or The Lover, or Sirens. In other words, the beautiful nudity beautifully photographed is a major reason to see this film, so do not settle for the short version.

So how is the movie itself?

Flawed, but pretty damned good, actually. It was a commercial hit in France despite its three hour running time, which doesn't so much indicate the quality of the film as the type. It was not intended to be an "empty theater" film for intellectuals, but a popular bit of mass entertainment. Think Amelie, not Andrei Rublyov.

Anglade pays Zork, a drifter who starts the film working as a painter of beach-side bungalows. He never gets too much painting done, because he and Betty can never get enough of each other physically, and they bonk day and night. As time passes, Betty discovers that the putatively unambitious Zork has actually been using all of his spare time to write a novel. Betty insists that the novel is genius, and that he must get it published, so she takes some dramatic steps to get Zork to move to the city and work on his writing career.

The middle third of the film is about the quest for publication and Betty's increasingly irrational reactions to his rejection slips.

For, you see, the "hook" of the film is that Betty is seriously unbalanced. Zork sees her gradually drifting away from him, and doesn't know what to do when her moments of lucidity come less and less frequently.

That's about all there is to the entire three hour film.  Zork's love for Betty forces him to adapt to her mania and depression, until he has to decide to leave her or institutionalize her , or .... what???

As you can probably guess, the film has very little content to fill up three hours, so it relies on atmosphere to carry it - vivid images, wailing saxophones, a somber and evocative piano duet which becomes the recurring thematic music.

Your reaction to the film will probably depend on how much plot you require. If you are satisfied with spectacular images, mood music, and the profound characterization of two people (to the exclusion of other characters - these two are just about always on screen), then you'll love it. There are many people who have commented at IMDb that this is one of the great romantic films, and several people said it is the one film they love best. I think that a lot of other people will find that the three hours pass very slowly indeed, despite the beauty of the images, words,  music, and nudity.

One last point. You should see it if you have ever been in love with a deeply troubled woman. You other guys can also relate to it, because all relationships include some elements of the highs and lows pictured here. When you have been with someone for a very long time, you might well become melancholy thinking about the way it used to be when you first fell in love and couldn't get enough of each other's company, as compared to the comfortable tedium of your life today.

Imagine how intense it must be for those in love with a mentally unstable women. (And I count myself in that group.) Those shifts of attitude can occur not over years, but hours, and for reasons you can't fathom. You just want to scream at her, "remember yesterday, when we were so happy, and had such a great day?". Unfortunately, that never helps. You can't get her to return to sanity by snapping your fingers and saying "OK, insane time is over now. Back to the rational world." So you live with intense emotional highs and lows. If she is a classic manic-depressive type, she gives you the greatest moments of your life, and the worst - sometimes within hours of each other.

That's a big part of what this film is about, and if you can relate to it on a personal level, this film could affect you very deeply.