3 out of 5

Directed by: Peter Strickland

Another exploration of mood by Berberian director Strickland, this time emulating the look and sounds of 70s erotica a la Jess Franco but choosing, for the most part, to keep his commentary to the subtext of the film instead of working within genre confines to find a middleground.  This is a winning move, as Berberian was, for me, essentially a failure in its inability to pursue a point beyond the one Strickland was trying to make; the film stalled and fell back on editing nonsense to create a conclusion that didn’t exist.  Duke of Burgundy is guilty of also not doing much with itself and resorting, once more, to some runtime-bloating artsy maneuvers, but it feels much more in line with the offbeat, darkly humorous nature of things.  Which, on the surface, is a drawn out observation of a dominant / submissive lesbian relationship, with the dom and sub roles subverted in an interesting way.  The introduction to and revelations related to our actresses’ bond is wonderfully handled, in the same way that Strickland’s previous film was eminently watchable as it wove the outlining threads of its themes; Burgundy masterfully plays with our expectations of erotica in what it decides to not show – but not to be overly restrictive in this manner, either – and when it decides to break to seemingly completely unrelated moments, lectures on insects, fluffing the dreamlike flow of the movie.  Again, with Berberian, this ultimately ended up sinking it, as the horror tropes it toyed with allowed an unsettling tone to build which could only peter out; Burgundy, though, lets us make up our own minds what we want it to be, and thus there’s much less pressure on it to be anything at all, allowing it to wander from scene to scene, revealing, slowly but surely, more details about how the relationship we’re watching works.  (Or doesn’t.)

And the movie really had me up until it didn’t; everything felt fully realized and confident, and I trusted Strickland’s direction.  The sudden and subtle comedy had me rolling; the little jabs or showings of affection had me interested; the carefully controlled “gaze” had me constantly considering the impact (the intended one and/or what I was feeling) of what I was seeing.  But when the cycle began to repeat one too many times, I also became all too aware the Strickland was running out of reasons to keep the camera rolling.  Let the editing wankery begin.

I’m sure we’ll continue to get these very tunnel-visioned genre manipulations / tributes from Strickland, and I’m sure, eventually, one will find the perfect balance of exploration and purpose for me.  Whatever your takeaway from this film, though, and however you felt about his previous one, it’s clear that what we’re watching is exactly what the director wants.  I’d just pressure him to have a thesis that maybe takes more than a few words to explain.