"A Real Young Girl" is a slice-of-summer-life flick which follows a 17ish school girl's sexual exploration during a summer vacation with her parents on their farm. A brave and visceral character study, this first outing for controversial auteur Catherine Breillat spends 90% of the run examining the fantasies, autoerotic experimentation, and eventual heterosexual encounters of the girl who seems sexually fascinated with all things liquid. Though the film's darkish undercurrents of sexual aberration do portend better things to come from Breillat, it is not particularly interesting as a stand alone piece. Circa 1976 with no apparent remastering, the audio/video quality is poor with color shifts and graininess. Not for those squeamish about graphic sexual content, this film should play best with those interested in psychosexual dramas (B-)
32 Reviews
A young girl's dirty thoughts...and I mean DIRTY!
Boba_Fett113829 May 2010
No, I couldn't hate this movie but on the other hand it also clearly wasn't made for me. It's perhaps a movie some females can still recognize themselves in, till some extend at least. For me it was just hard to identify with the characters and all of her weird, sexual orientated, fantasies.
It's a movie about a young 14 year old girl (played by an 21 year old by the way) who has obviously started to hit puberty and is about to discover her sexuality. She starts experimenting a bit and we get to see all of her fantasies, that are being put very straight-forward to the screen. It means that the movie features plenty of full frontal female and male nudity but also some really disgusting scenes, as the little girl is really having some dirty thoughts and fantasies. Pissing, puking, worms...should I say more? But then again it's not supposed to be a movie obviously that is supposed to turn you on. It's merely a look into the thoughts and fantasies of a girl who is about to discover her sexual identity for the first time. I really don't think this movie could had been made by a male director. It takes a woman to be able to get into a young girls mind and translate and brings to the screen all of the thoughts and feelings she might be having at that certain period in her life. I admire the movie for what it does and attempts to do but as a male, it just wasn't all that appealing or throughout interesting to me.
As you wouldn't had guessed it already, this movie is being an art-house type of movie. Nothing too heavy, although some of the sequences might still be shocking to some people, since it has some explicit nudity and some gross out moments in it. But it's at least not a movie that is full of itself and tries too desperately to be an arty and creative one, by putting in lots of symbolism and sequences that run overlong.
Still you feel that the movie could had done way more with its subject. It could at least had made it a bit more interesting to watch. At times now I was really thinking 'why am I even watching this'. Not that it's boring though, the movie was also too short for that but it's also really a movie I could easily had done without.
If you are female you might still get something out of this movie and recognize yourself in some parts of the movie or its main character, though I still somewhat doubt this. Else females are way more dirty than males if this is the case.
6/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
It's a movie about a young 14 year old girl (played by an 21 year old by the way) who has obviously started to hit puberty and is about to discover her sexuality. She starts experimenting a bit and we get to see all of her fantasies, that are being put very straight-forward to the screen. It means that the movie features plenty of full frontal female and male nudity but also some really disgusting scenes, as the little girl is really having some dirty thoughts and fantasies. Pissing, puking, worms...should I say more? But then again it's not supposed to be a movie obviously that is supposed to turn you on. It's merely a look into the thoughts and fantasies of a girl who is about to discover her sexual identity for the first time. I really don't think this movie could had been made by a male director. It takes a woman to be able to get into a young girls mind and translate and brings to the screen all of the thoughts and feelings she might be having at that certain period in her life. I admire the movie for what it does and attempts to do but as a male, it just wasn't all that appealing or throughout interesting to me.
As you wouldn't had guessed it already, this movie is being an art-house type of movie. Nothing too heavy, although some of the sequences might still be shocking to some people, since it has some explicit nudity and some gross out moments in it. But it's at least not a movie that is full of itself and tries too desperately to be an arty and creative one, by putting in lots of symbolism and sequences that run overlong.
Still you feel that the movie could had done way more with its subject. It could at least had made it a bit more interesting to watch. At times now I was really thinking 'why am I even watching this'. Not that it's boring though, the movie was also too short for that but it's also really a movie I could easily had done without.
If you are female you might still get something out of this movie and recognize yourself in some parts of the movie or its main character, though I still somewhat doubt this. Else females are way more dirty than males if this is the case.
6/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
A Real Dull Film...
EVOL66625 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I have yet to be real impressed with any of Catherine Breillat's works that I've seen at this point. All of them tend to have interesting concepts, but get lost in their own self-indulgence. Breillat is also known for tackling "racy" subject matter - but seems to only be able to do so in the most boring manners possible. The weird thing is - I don't really "hate" any of the three or four films of hers that I've seen - I just can't find much about any of them that I think is all that exceptional either - and A REAL YOUNG GIRL is no exception, and honestly - this one is about the dullest of the bunch.
Alice is a pre-18-year-old that is spending her summer at her family's home on break from the boarding school that she attends. Early on we learn that Alice is both sexually naive and adventurous - teeting in a limbo between youthful innocence and sexual maturity. She finds herself bored most of the time, and uses this free time to explore her cooch in rather odd fashions(with a spoon, with ink, sticking a bottle in herself, etc...) and giving in to strange compulsions (walking through fields with her underwear around her ankles, riding her bike with her skirt hiked up and her ass showin', leaving her underwear on the corpse of a dead dog, fantasizing of a worm being shredded and dropped on her fur-pie etc...), and also with trying to seduce any of the men in her vacinity, often to no avail. There's also an obvious but somewhat understated sexual-tension between Alice and her father that is never really resolved. The film plods along from one "weird" scene to another with a good but of boring sh!t in between - and then finally ends abruptly with no resolution or insight provided for the viewer...
Soooo...here's the good points: The lead lolita is definitely hot and bears all in thefilm - I'll never complain about. There is (what some would consider) some "aberrant" sexual behavior that may be of interest to exploit-style film-fans. The "coming of age" concept from a uniquely female point-of-view is interesting as well. Problem is - the way the film is presented, none of it seems to amount to anything - and therein lies the weaknesses. Though Breillat has always seemed to be a bit of a "shock artist" - she presents things in such a matter-of-fact (and often boring) manner, that the only ones who will be truly "shocked" by the material portrayed are prudes who will never watch her films in the first place. It's also kind of a shame that none of the nude or sexually-driven scenes are in the least bit erotic. I understand that probably isn't the director's intention in the first place, but I personally prefer to have some "sexuality" with my sex. I can also never really find a "point" to any of her films. I've read other reviews of her films that go on and on about "symbolism" and whatnot, but I don't really see it - maybe it's a French thing. To sum up - A REAL YOUNG GIRL is a semi-graphic tale of a girl trying to understand and control her own sexuality - and though effective in some ways, it fails on the level that I would think should be most important in this type of film: to gain some sort of insight or understanding of this girl's confusion and angst. Instead, the whole film feels like a bunch of random and slightly bizarre acts strung together for no real purpose. Not to mention the fact that other than the few "choice" scenes, it's pretty much boring as hell..4/10 (would have been a 2/10 and nearly unwatchable without the nudity and other "juicy" bits)...
Alice is a pre-18-year-old that is spending her summer at her family's home on break from the boarding school that she attends. Early on we learn that Alice is both sexually naive and adventurous - teeting in a limbo between youthful innocence and sexual maturity. She finds herself bored most of the time, and uses this free time to explore her cooch in rather odd fashions(with a spoon, with ink, sticking a bottle in herself, etc...) and giving in to strange compulsions (walking through fields with her underwear around her ankles, riding her bike with her skirt hiked up and her ass showin', leaving her underwear on the corpse of a dead dog, fantasizing of a worm being shredded and dropped on her fur-pie etc...), and also with trying to seduce any of the men in her vacinity, often to no avail. There's also an obvious but somewhat understated sexual-tension between Alice and her father that is never really resolved. The film plods along from one "weird" scene to another with a good but of boring sh!t in between - and then finally ends abruptly with no resolution or insight provided for the viewer...
Soooo...here's the good points: The lead lolita is definitely hot and bears all in thefilm - I'll never complain about. There is (what some would consider) some "aberrant" sexual behavior that may be of interest to exploit-style film-fans. The "coming of age" concept from a uniquely female point-of-view is interesting as well. Problem is - the way the film is presented, none of it seems to amount to anything - and therein lies the weaknesses. Though Breillat has always seemed to be a bit of a "shock artist" - she presents things in such a matter-of-fact (and often boring) manner, that the only ones who will be truly "shocked" by the material portrayed are prudes who will never watch her films in the first place. It's also kind of a shame that none of the nude or sexually-driven scenes are in the least bit erotic. I understand that probably isn't the director's intention in the first place, but I personally prefer to have some "sexuality" with my sex. I can also never really find a "point" to any of her films. I've read other reviews of her films that go on and on about "symbolism" and whatnot, but I don't really see it - maybe it's a French thing. To sum up - A REAL YOUNG GIRL is a semi-graphic tale of a girl trying to understand and control her own sexuality - and though effective in some ways, it fails on the level that I would think should be most important in this type of film: to gain some sort of insight or understanding of this girl's confusion and angst. Instead, the whole film feels like a bunch of random and slightly bizarre acts strung together for no real purpose. Not to mention the fact that other than the few "choice" scenes, it's pretty much boring as hell..4/10 (would have been a 2/10 and nearly unwatchable without the nudity and other "juicy" bits)...
Not (as most of Breillat) for the faint-hearted...
mireillebelleau26 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILERS and frank, disturbing details from the film...**
This is Breillat's shock value at its extreme. It could honestly be said that with "Une vraie jeune fille" Breillat makes Jon Waters look like Nora Ephron.
But the movie's actual point seems to be to explore, with an adolescent aptly named Alice, the advent of a young girl's sexuality on a boring family summer vacation to an arid farm. With no real men interested in her sexually (aside from, it is implied, her father, and a lecherous man his age she meets while at the fair), she turns to her own body for entertainment, inventing bizarre autoerotic games for herself, such as walking home with her underwear around her ankles or placing it on rotting dog carcasses. It is an unflinching look at a young girl's exploration of the female body - her own - mindless of the regard of the other.
That said, having first stumbled upon "Une vraie jeune fille" on the "arte" channel the other night in my Paris hotel room, the shock of the images took over any thought processes I was having as to why these visuals were even present and what they represented. There is a scene where the girl's mother unflinchingly saws at a live chicken's neck with a dull kitchen knife, which was obviously not fake (the poor chicken!). In another, Alice puts a bottle of vinegar into her own hind quarters. In one (dream) scene, she writhes tied up on the ground as her love interest tears up an earthworm and places it around (and tries to get it in) her vagina. There are lots more where these came from, but I'm describing these scenes as they are in my mind and not in the "coherent" order in which they appeared in the film, which is unfair to Breillat's intentions. Besides, any further description of the movie might pass as obscene and be edited out of my commentary.
The filmmaker herself has been quoted as saying that she wonders if the spectator can make it beyond the shocking images of her works to the emotions and meaning behind them. It is a tough task she asks of us, especially here. While I liked both "Romance" and "36 Fillette" (there is much rapport avec "jeune fille" ) and find Breillat's feminism thought-provoking to say the least, a film like "Une vraie jeune fille" is just too hard for most people to sit through (I haven't brought myself to eat chicken since seeing "jeune fille," and can't get the rest of the images out of my head). Yet through our participation-voyeurism and the heroines' brutal honesty they tell us a certain raw, in-your-face truth about female sexuality. The question is, can we bear to watch long enough to find that truth?
This is Breillat's shock value at its extreme. It could honestly be said that with "Une vraie jeune fille" Breillat makes Jon Waters look like Nora Ephron.
But the movie's actual point seems to be to explore, with an adolescent aptly named Alice, the advent of a young girl's sexuality on a boring family summer vacation to an arid farm. With no real men interested in her sexually (aside from, it is implied, her father, and a lecherous man his age she meets while at the fair), she turns to her own body for entertainment, inventing bizarre autoerotic games for herself, such as walking home with her underwear around her ankles or placing it on rotting dog carcasses. It is an unflinching look at a young girl's exploration of the female body - her own - mindless of the regard of the other.
That said, having first stumbled upon "Une vraie jeune fille" on the "arte" channel the other night in my Paris hotel room, the shock of the images took over any thought processes I was having as to why these visuals were even present and what they represented. There is a scene where the girl's mother unflinchingly saws at a live chicken's neck with a dull kitchen knife, which was obviously not fake (the poor chicken!). In another, Alice puts a bottle of vinegar into her own hind quarters. In one (dream) scene, she writhes tied up on the ground as her love interest tears up an earthworm and places it around (and tries to get it in) her vagina. There are lots more where these came from, but I'm describing these scenes as they are in my mind and not in the "coherent" order in which they appeared in the film, which is unfair to Breillat's intentions. Besides, any further description of the movie might pass as obscene and be edited out of my commentary.
The filmmaker herself has been quoted as saying that she wonders if the spectator can make it beyond the shocking images of her works to the emotions and meaning behind them. It is a tough task she asks of us, especially here. While I liked both "Romance" and "36 Fillette" (there is much rapport avec "jeune fille" ) and find Breillat's feminism thought-provoking to say the least, a film like "Une vraie jeune fille" is just too hard for most people to sit through (I haven't brought myself to eat chicken since seeing "jeune fille," and can't get the rest of the images out of my head). Yet through our participation-voyeurism and the heroines' brutal honesty they tell us a certain raw, in-your-face truth about female sexuality. The question is, can we bear to watch long enough to find that truth?
Tiresome Tales of Adolescent Thoughts
rburson17 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film delivers a scattering of sexually disturbing images among the background setting of a schoolgirl's summer musings. The thin and transparent plot consists of three scenes typical of an old half-hour mystery/suspense. What remains is a lengthy set of vignettes replete with images of an oft scantily clad adolescent having bizarre contemplations of her budding sexuality. While some vignettes were mildly interesting, or even cleverly portrayed, the movie is slow, sometimes tediously so. The cinematography is gritty and the sound seemed poor. At the risk of being a spoiler, the girl's final expression is as impassive as the rest of the movie, which reminded me of a sociopath or bad seed. Even if the end is intended to be a revelation or explanation, the previous scenes remain a lengthy exercise of simplistic perspectives.
A visceral pre-figurative work.
narain26 August 2000
The first film from Catherine Breillat, the director of "Romance" ('99), that had, upon it's completion in 1975, caused a ratings scandal in France and, beyond being censored, was banned outright. Tellingly, this year (2000) it finally arrived, with little fanfare, on a screen in Paris as, literally across the street at the MK2 Odeon, another controversial film "Baise-Moi" (2000) was causing riots that led to the film being pulled from cinemas.
"Une Vraie Jeune Fille" showcases all of the obsessions that mark Breillat's work through to "Romance" and in a way it is almost more interesting to see the film in retrospect, in light of the films that she made after it, as the lietmotifs present in all were not only prefigured in the first film, but this first film also comments on them.
A girl returns to her parents house from boarding school for the summer. The situation is stifiling and her father's incestuous desires are more than just suggested, though the girl does little to disuade them. She becomes obsessed with a blue collar employee of her father's and his indifference toward her only increases his presence in her numerous sexual fantasies.
The film is visceral and, while the camera is often highly subjective, it maintains, via a cool facade deliberately imitating that of 70's soft porn, that lends it a level of objectivity often entirely absent in American cinema (This film will, incidentally, never reach American screens).
In the same way that "Romance" operates, this film, while exploring detailed fantasies, uses its objectivity to resist any psychoanalyzation of its protagonist. It presents only the events, real events merge with fantasy to lend the pornographic journey/discovery a somewhat hallucinatory aspect
Breillat has found a niche as a filmmaker her films are cool to the touch without being deconstructive, placing her somwhere between Godard and pornography and as a result her films lack a certain element of humanity that prevent them from transcending this niche.
"Une Vraie Jeune Fille" showcases all of the obsessions that mark Breillat's work through to "Romance" and in a way it is almost more interesting to see the film in retrospect, in light of the films that she made after it, as the lietmotifs present in all were not only prefigured in the first film, but this first film also comments on them.
A girl returns to her parents house from boarding school for the summer. The situation is stifiling and her father's incestuous desires are more than just suggested, though the girl does little to disuade them. She becomes obsessed with a blue collar employee of her father's and his indifference toward her only increases his presence in her numerous sexual fantasies.
The film is visceral and, while the camera is often highly subjective, it maintains, via a cool facade deliberately imitating that of 70's soft porn, that lends it a level of objectivity often entirely absent in American cinema (This film will, incidentally, never reach American screens).
In the same way that "Romance" operates, this film, while exploring detailed fantasies, uses its objectivity to resist any psychoanalyzation of its protagonist. It presents only the events, real events merge with fantasy to lend the pornographic journey/discovery a somewhat hallucinatory aspect
Breillat has found a niche as a filmmaker her films are cool to the touch without being deconstructive, placing her somwhere between Godard and pornography and as a result her films lack a certain element of humanity that prevent them from transcending this niche.
french piecer
navy2252 January 2005
This was the slowest, most horrible foreign film I've seen in awhile. The cinematography was weaker than children's Tylenol. I'm still not sure whether there was an actual plot or not. I realize the 'real young girl' was going through some pubescent issues or confusion, but seriously... if you're going to make a bad film and call it 'psychosexual', you could at least put some good sex scenes in it. Granted, the girl had a great body, but so do half the soft core actresses in Hollywood. If you want a good raunchy sex movie from the 70's, look elsewhere, b/c it's not here. I want those 93 minutes of my life back.
Excellent Breillat
Tristan!-223 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Catherine Breillat is an amazing storyteller and director. This is her directorial debut, and we see many topics that will crop up often in her later films - boarding schools (Bilitis), young underage girls on summer holiday wanting to lose their virginity (A ma soeur), underage sex in general (A ma soeur, 36 fillette) anally inserted objects (Anatomie de l'enfer)...
I am a fan of Breillat's work, because she is groundbreaking. She does not shy away from risqué material, on the contrary, she courts it. And she makes it terribly sexy as well. Whilst not as good as some of her later stuff, this is excellent storytelling and succeeds where "Bilitis" fails dismally. Perhaps because Breillat was not behind the cameras in "Bilitis", the whole film was very unbelievable. "Une vraie jeune fille" on the other hand is completely believable - even her fantasy of 'Jim' ripping up an earthworm and placing the still wriggling pieces onto her vagina is entirely believable. This is partly thanks to outstanding acting by Charlotte Alexandra in the title role, but also thanks to tasteful direction. Only another woman could enter Alice's psyche in such a deep and meaningful manner. Hats off to Breillat, surely one of the greatest living directors of films not in the English language at this moment in time. Merci beaucoup!
I am a fan of Breillat's work, because she is groundbreaking. She does not shy away from risqué material, on the contrary, she courts it. And she makes it terribly sexy as well. Whilst not as good as some of her later stuff, this is excellent storytelling and succeeds where "Bilitis" fails dismally. Perhaps because Breillat was not behind the cameras in "Bilitis", the whole film was very unbelievable. "Une vraie jeune fille" on the other hand is completely believable - even her fantasy of 'Jim' ripping up an earthworm and placing the still wriggling pieces onto her vagina is entirely believable. This is partly thanks to outstanding acting by Charlotte Alexandra in the title role, but also thanks to tasteful direction. Only another woman could enter Alice's psyche in such a deep and meaningful manner. Hats off to Breillat, surely one of the greatest living directors of films not in the English language at this moment in time. Merci beaucoup!
The film Catherine Breillat has been revisiting ever since she first made it
dbborroughs5 May 2008
Catherine Breillat's first film, is in retrospect, a trip into what will be familiar territory (it reminded me of Fat Girl in mood look and plot). Here a well developed 14 year old comes home and begins to explore herself and her moods. She keeps a diary about her feelings and explorations. Its a dark and disturbing film that doesn't seem to be about anything other than showing that little girls are not just sweet and light; and disturbing the audience in such away that its not really disturbing because you know she's going for effect and little more (I understand its to get us to think, but must it always be about the same thing?). Its not bad as such but having seen Breillat's other work I had the feeling I had been here before (or is that would go here again?), so her revelations are less than spectacular. And while I should say that I am not a fan of her work I still don't didn't see the point.
Who can figure girls out!
jordondave-280859 May 2023
(1975) A Real Young Girl/ Une Vraie Jeune Fille
(In French with English subtitles)
ADULT DRAMA/ AUTO-BIOGRAPHY
A no- plot adaption from her own novel of the same name, directed by controversial director Catherine Breillat, starring Charlotte Alexandra as Alice Bonnard who's just coming home to visit her parents for the week from her studies who's just turned the age of 17. She then spends the rest of the movie dwelling on finding her sexual identity or finding puberty, since she loves touching her private parts with inanimate objects such as spoons and bicycle seats. And loves teasing model-like guys who work for her extramarital dad. What more is there to say except that the director's female characters teases the men in the movie as much as the director loves to tease it's viewers. Although, I couldn't understand what to make of it, I had to semantically come to the conclusion that because it's adapted from Catherine Breillat own personal novel, that it can also be defined as an autobiography as well, since the actress is performing abnormal acts average people would not even try such as urinating without the seat down, or on the ground so that the guy she likes can see it too- this is not normal stuff, but can be expressed through into her films. Whereas, she refuses any advances made from any of the young men too. Making the assumption that the director Catherine Breillat is expressing her peculiar and rather odd acts through the actresses who star in her movies as much of her controversial films have no plot nor do they tell us anything we don't already know, for it may be another side we don't quite know about Catherine Breillat herself.
A no- plot adaption from her own novel of the same name, directed by controversial director Catherine Breillat, starring Charlotte Alexandra as Alice Bonnard who's just coming home to visit her parents for the week from her studies who's just turned the age of 17. She then spends the rest of the movie dwelling on finding her sexual identity or finding puberty, since she loves touching her private parts with inanimate objects such as spoons and bicycle seats. And loves teasing model-like guys who work for her extramarital dad. What more is there to say except that the director's female characters teases the men in the movie as much as the director loves to tease it's viewers. Although, I couldn't understand what to make of it, I had to semantically come to the conclusion that because it's adapted from Catherine Breillat own personal novel, that it can also be defined as an autobiography as well, since the actress is performing abnormal acts average people would not even try such as urinating without the seat down, or on the ground so that the guy she likes can see it too- this is not normal stuff, but can be expressed through into her films. Whereas, she refuses any advances made from any of the young men too. Making the assumption that the director Catherine Breillat is expressing her peculiar and rather odd acts through the actresses who star in her movies as much of her controversial films have no plot nor do they tell us anything we don't already know, for it may be another side we don't quite know about Catherine Breillat herself.
Alireza.Akhlaghi.Official
alireza-akhlaghi8424 November 2018
After watching this film, you only find that France of the seventies has no level and desire but unrestrained, and the direction of it follows a kind of action from pure ignorance along with the struggle for having sex without purpose.
Addressing this issue in this way justifies a story in the making of this film. Trying to get the box.
It's not our question whether this film has been successful at the box office.
Undisturbed understanding of this kind is not far from conceivable.
It can be conceptually free from our reception, but the film is not merely a geography of its own and can be seen in the world and, of course, judgment.
The desire of a girl who returned to her family during the summer vacation and was not interested in this issue, justifiably justifies her desire to inquire about her own world, which, in order to understand the new experiences, saves her understanding of the experience of her inner rebellion in various forms.
Her illusion and fantasy can be understood, in part, by the perceiving personality of each member of his family, but his appearance in this way reflects the ugliness of the scriptwriter's thinking, regardless of his psychological discovery.
The film actually does not have the story, and only makes the audience fantasy instead of thinking. Do not watch the movie.
One has to trust the auteur, this is extremely valid art
mikenuell8 March 2002
Warning: Spoilers
The auteur took a risk on this one and got screwed for it. But to invalidate it as art, especially in the light of compelling but questionable films such as "Baise Moi," is wrong.
This film is beautiful, well made, very artistic, has great thematic depth and makes a statement. What more are we looking for when we define something as art?
The first clue should be in the title: "A Real Young Girl.' Our culture (male dominant still,) is fascinated with sexualizing what are in our cultural context, inappropriately young females, that is, pubescent, underaged, or more gracefully put "blossoming." This is a complex issue not for discussion here, but the point is, artistic treatments of this subject have been predominantly male. So a "Real Young Girl" may be a statement indicating that the director is going to show you early adolescent female sexuality as it truly is, from someone who has experienced it first hand, and not as it is eroticized by male artists.
I think a big point of this film is that it is not pleasant and not easy, not fun or romantic, but painful, confusing, and filled with difficult feelings and disgust.
While the film is beautiful and leaves one with a not unpleasant feeling (it's a good film, the ending is abrupt and funny, but no more so than other great avant-garde or new-wave filmmakers.)
The eroticism can in no way be seen as pornography, though. Despite the explicitness of its photography (of the vagina especially,) there is no actual sex, and these explicit scenes are mixed with other aspects that open them to complex interpretation.
For instance, the main character undresses and experiments by putting red ink on her erogenous zones, but during the whole scene, a fly is very persistently buzzing around the room. I'm not going to go into detail interpreting, but you get my point.
Another very explicit scene, the character in her fantasy, bound with barbed-wire, spread eagled naked on the ground. We see very explicit close-up of her vagina, but this is concurrent with her fantasy lover dangling a live worm over it, and eventually pulling the worm apart and dropping the still squirming bits on her pubis.
Or a scene where walking on the beach to another fantasy, she drops her panties on the decaying corpse of a dog.
Again, interpret for yourself, but you'll see not only a depth of symbol, but a unity of theme in the natural world and decay as related to this young girl's perception of her vagina: something akin to stinky, swampy pit- far from the ripe, juicy peach of male imagination.
It gives what seems to my male mind, a convincing portrayal of early adolescent female sexuality from the perspective of a woman.
The director clearly loves the female form but the film is no more explicit, and certainly less shocking, than say Pasolini's "Salo." (In fact, if Pier had been attracted to women, I suspect he would have given us similarly graphic views instead of tending to orient on penises of extraordinary size.) It's hard to find this film exploitative in comparison to such celebrated films as "Last Tango in Paris."
I could go on and on but the point is, this is not a gray area somewhere near pornography, but a valid, necessary, and probably important (though only history will tell,) work.
This film is beautiful, well made, very artistic, has great thematic depth and makes a statement. What more are we looking for when we define something as art?
The first clue should be in the title: "A Real Young Girl.' Our culture (male dominant still,) is fascinated with sexualizing what are in our cultural context, inappropriately young females, that is, pubescent, underaged, or more gracefully put "blossoming." This is a complex issue not for discussion here, but the point is, artistic treatments of this subject have been predominantly male. So a "Real Young Girl" may be a statement indicating that the director is going to show you early adolescent female sexuality as it truly is, from someone who has experienced it first hand, and not as it is eroticized by male artists.
I think a big point of this film is that it is not pleasant and not easy, not fun or romantic, but painful, confusing, and filled with difficult feelings and disgust.
While the film is beautiful and leaves one with a not unpleasant feeling (it's a good film, the ending is abrupt and funny, but no more so than other great avant-garde or new-wave filmmakers.)
The eroticism can in no way be seen as pornography, though. Despite the explicitness of its photography (of the vagina especially,) there is no actual sex, and these explicit scenes are mixed with other aspects that open them to complex interpretation.
For instance, the main character undresses and experiments by putting red ink on her erogenous zones, but during the whole scene, a fly is very persistently buzzing around the room. I'm not going to go into detail interpreting, but you get my point.
Another very explicit scene, the character in her fantasy, bound with barbed-wire, spread eagled naked on the ground. We see very explicit close-up of her vagina, but this is concurrent with her fantasy lover dangling a live worm over it, and eventually pulling the worm apart and dropping the still squirming bits on her pubis.
Or a scene where walking on the beach to another fantasy, she drops her panties on the decaying corpse of a dog.
Again, interpret for yourself, but you'll see not only a depth of symbol, but a unity of theme in the natural world and decay as related to this young girl's perception of her vagina: something akin to stinky, swampy pit- far from the ripe, juicy peach of male imagination.
It gives what seems to my male mind, a convincing portrayal of early adolescent female sexuality from the perspective of a woman.
The director clearly loves the female form but the film is no more explicit, and certainly less shocking, than say Pasolini's "Salo." (In fact, if Pier had been attracted to women, I suspect he would have given us similarly graphic views instead of tending to orient on penises of extraordinary size.) It's hard to find this film exploitative in comparison to such celebrated films as "Last Tango in Paris."
I could go on and on but the point is, this is not a gray area somewhere near pornography, but a valid, necessary, and probably important (though only history will tell,) work.
Don't toy with me like you do your...
StevePulaski8 January 2014
If the sexual awakening of a teenage girl wasn't already a heavily-subversive, abstract concept, then Catherine Breillat's A Real Young Girl can be viewed as one of the damnedest depictions of one of the most damning subjects in cinema history. Catherine Breillat's, who later became renowned her focus on the sexuality of a teenage girl, first film can be viewed as an unabashed masterpiece or a choppy piece of transgressive cinema depending on how you view it. The film possesses some very strong sequences, features a lead actress who is given so much to do and yet so little, and its approach is only odder and more convoluted the more you watch it.
There's a certain mysticism to A Real Young Girl, thanks to the way it approaches its subject which has been identified by some online reviewers as "surrealism." If I employ the term "surrealism," I stutter when trying to define what I mean. Surrealist cinema is one of the many undefined terms in cinema, right up there with mise-en-scene, and the only thing I can manage to conjure up for my interpretation is the use of shocking or ambiguous imagery mixed with a dreamlike effect. According to my own personal definition, A Real Young Girl fits right in under surrealist cinema, concerning Alice Bonnard (Charlotte Alexandra), a fourteen-year-old girl who returns home from a boarding school in France on summer break. She discovers her father has hired a young handyman named Jim (Hiram Keller), who Alice immediately takes a liking to. She begins having graphic sexual fantasies involving Jim, one of which has power to shock you raw and should not be spoiled here. Alice continues with these elaborate yet simultaneously choppy dream sequences, where she seems to hunger for the most explicit sex. Certain flashbacks even involve her masturbating in her younger years, with one scene in particular showing her utilizing a spoon for aid in masturbation.
Breillat is absolutely fearless here, constructing several fantasies in order to achieve a combination of shock and insight into the psyche of a teenage girl. It is this precise approach that has kept her a reputable French director even in modern times. Charlotte Alexandra only elevates this material, often utilizing blanks stares and fits of pleasure for added effect. Her character, however, is pretty vapid, not connecting with many other individuals and only living in this world of dizzying flashbacks and uncertain explicitness. One wonders how young Alice behaves at school and if these sexual tendencies continue in the crowded dormitories back there.
The biggest issue with A Real Young Girl is its greatest strength, which is its abstract depiction of the life of this young girl. The film is a handful, often incoherent, sometimes maddening, and occasionally boring as its artfully tries to obscure what exactly is happening on screen and sometimes leaving Alice behind in a film that directly focuses on her. Breillat has always been a director that leaves a great deal of contemplation on the viewer. Consider her later film Fat Girl and how its graphic, tragic ending could be interpreted in several different ways.
Now imagine that as the entire basis for A Real Young Girl; a film where every scene can be interpreted a handful of different ways. There's nothing wrong with ambiguity in a film, but when a film is predicated so much so off of the ability to deceive and play with the viewer, then its core idea and takeaway points become a muddle. The only thing I can think of is that this film is a showcase for the sexual awakening of a teenage girl in in explicit and heavily graphic form, but Breillat didn't go through all this trouble to make a simple showcase. There needs to be something more and the answer can only be found with either a second or third viewing or the exploration of several different analyses.
Starring: Charlotte Alexandria. Directed by: Catherine Breillat.
There's a certain mysticism to A Real Young Girl, thanks to the way it approaches its subject which has been identified by some online reviewers as "surrealism." If I employ the term "surrealism," I stutter when trying to define what I mean. Surrealist cinema is one of the many undefined terms in cinema, right up there with mise-en-scene, and the only thing I can manage to conjure up for my interpretation is the use of shocking or ambiguous imagery mixed with a dreamlike effect. According to my own personal definition, A Real Young Girl fits right in under surrealist cinema, concerning Alice Bonnard (Charlotte Alexandra), a fourteen-year-old girl who returns home from a boarding school in France on summer break. She discovers her father has hired a young handyman named Jim (Hiram Keller), who Alice immediately takes a liking to. She begins having graphic sexual fantasies involving Jim, one of which has power to shock you raw and should not be spoiled here. Alice continues with these elaborate yet simultaneously choppy dream sequences, where she seems to hunger for the most explicit sex. Certain flashbacks even involve her masturbating in her younger years, with one scene in particular showing her utilizing a spoon for aid in masturbation.
Breillat is absolutely fearless here, constructing several fantasies in order to achieve a combination of shock and insight into the psyche of a teenage girl. It is this precise approach that has kept her a reputable French director even in modern times. Charlotte Alexandra only elevates this material, often utilizing blanks stares and fits of pleasure for added effect. Her character, however, is pretty vapid, not connecting with many other individuals and only living in this world of dizzying flashbacks and uncertain explicitness. One wonders how young Alice behaves at school and if these sexual tendencies continue in the crowded dormitories back there.
The biggest issue with A Real Young Girl is its greatest strength, which is its abstract depiction of the life of this young girl. The film is a handful, often incoherent, sometimes maddening, and occasionally boring as its artfully tries to obscure what exactly is happening on screen and sometimes leaving Alice behind in a film that directly focuses on her. Breillat has always been a director that leaves a great deal of contemplation on the viewer. Consider her later film Fat Girl and how its graphic, tragic ending could be interpreted in several different ways.
Now imagine that as the entire basis for A Real Young Girl; a film where every scene can be interpreted a handful of different ways. There's nothing wrong with ambiguity in a film, but when a film is predicated so much so off of the ability to deceive and play with the viewer, then its core idea and takeaway points become a muddle. The only thing I can think of is that this film is a showcase for the sexual awakening of a teenage girl in in explicit and heavily graphic form, but Breillat didn't go through all this trouble to make a simple showcase. There needs to be something more and the answer can only be found with either a second or third viewing or the exploration of several different analyses.
Starring: Charlotte Alexandria. Directed by: Catherine Breillat.
Hard to understand....
namashi_13 January 2011
A Film like 'A Real Young Girl' is Hard to Understand. You fail to grasp it's genre. Is this Porno or a actual movie, is the question I asked myself? And even after replaying the entire film, I failed to come up with a satisfactory answer to my question.
'A Real Young Girl' tells the story of a 14-year-old girl's sexual awakening. This child, you see, goes very horny. She wants Sex and her character comes out as a girl struggling to get-done with lust.
Catherine Breillat's direction is alright. She uses her central character, to the optimum. Only question, I want to know and repeat is, that. Was her intention to make a porno, or a actual movie? Charlotte Alexandra does a good job as a 14-year old horny little girl. And the rest of the cast also do well.
Final Word - Give me the proper genre of this film, but even then, my verdict for this flick would be strictly average!
'A Real Young Girl' tells the story of a 14-year-old girl's sexual awakening. This child, you see, goes very horny. She wants Sex and her character comes out as a girl struggling to get-done with lust.
Catherine Breillat's direction is alright. She uses her central character, to the optimum. Only question, I want to know and repeat is, that. Was her intention to make a porno, or a actual movie? Charlotte Alexandra does a good job as a 14-year old horny little girl. And the rest of the cast also do well.
Final Word - Give me the proper genre of this film, but even then, my verdict for this flick would be strictly average!
A strange mixture of morbidity and eroticism
lazarillo21 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This the first film by notorious French director Catherine Breillat. It was frequently banned back in its day, but I actually found it a lot less disturbing than some of the same director's subsequent efforts (i.e. "36 Fillete", "To My Sister"). The film focuses on an adolescent girl who comes home from boarding school to her parents' isolated country home. There she entertains herself by mercilessly teasing the local male rustics (and even trying to get a rise out of her own father), narcissistically examining her nude body in the mirror, putting silverware down the front of her knickers, and at one point even "buggering" herself with a spray bottle. She eventually becomes obsessed with a young, married employee of her father's, and after a series of increasing bizarre fantasies, sets about trying to ham-handedly seduce him. But this is definitely NOT your average "coming-of-age" story.
Both the French and English titles suggests that this is a story about a REAL (as opposed to "really") young girl. And although her behavior and fantasies are pretty bizarre and often surreal, the movie does capture some of perverse, morbid nature of adolescence that many "coming of age" movies avoid. There is an obsession with odors. The girl is fascinated with the smell of her own sex and at one point takes off her panties and puts them on the face of a dead and rotting dog (which she perhaps associates with the same smell of decay). There are also bizarre fantasies involving such unusual, but certainly perverse and morbid, sexual props as earthworms and feathers. The sound of buzzing flies is constantly heard on the soundtrack lending to an oppressive morbid atmosphere of death and decay. Obviously, this movie in many ways is not particularly erotic.
In her typical fashion though Breillat has cast a beautiful twenty-something softcore porn actress (Charlotte Alexandra, who also appeared in "Immoral Tales" and "Goodbye, Emanuelle")as the "teenager". This does add some eroticism, but obviously takes away from the realism. It's hard to believe a girl that looks like Alexandra would have difficulty seducing ANYBODY, and she would certainly be surrounded by both male admirers and female friends even in the most godforsaken part of France. Alexandra is surprisingly good in the role, however, and she is fairly convincing as a teenager (at least with her clothes on). At any rate, I'm certainly not going to complain that THIS part wasn't played by an actual fourteen-year-old girl or a less physically attractive actress. It would have made it more "real" I guess, but it also would have been pretty damn hard to watch. As it is, it's a pretty interesting film--a strange mixture of lyrical eroticism and morbid fascination with death and decay.
Both the French and English titles suggests that this is a story about a REAL (as opposed to "really") young girl. And although her behavior and fantasies are pretty bizarre and often surreal, the movie does capture some of perverse, morbid nature of adolescence that many "coming of age" movies avoid. There is an obsession with odors. The girl is fascinated with the smell of her own sex and at one point takes off her panties and puts them on the face of a dead and rotting dog (which she perhaps associates with the same smell of decay). There are also bizarre fantasies involving such unusual, but certainly perverse and morbid, sexual props as earthworms and feathers. The sound of buzzing flies is constantly heard on the soundtrack lending to an oppressive morbid atmosphere of death and decay. Obviously, this movie in many ways is not particularly erotic.
In her typical fashion though Breillat has cast a beautiful twenty-something softcore porn actress (Charlotte Alexandra, who also appeared in "Immoral Tales" and "Goodbye, Emanuelle")as the "teenager". This does add some eroticism, but obviously takes away from the realism. It's hard to believe a girl that looks like Alexandra would have difficulty seducing ANYBODY, and she would certainly be surrounded by both male admirers and female friends even in the most godforsaken part of France. Alexandra is surprisingly good in the role, however, and she is fairly convincing as a teenager (at least with her clothes on). At any rate, I'm certainly not going to complain that THIS part wasn't played by an actual fourteen-year-old girl or a less physically attractive actress. It would have made it more "real" I guess, but it also would have been pretty damn hard to watch. As it is, it's a pretty interesting film--a strange mixture of lyrical eroticism and morbid fascination with death and decay.
Another one of those European "girl coming to age and feeling sexually curious" movies, done as only the Euros can.
eminkl3 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Another one of those European "girl coming to age and feeling sexually curious" movies, done as only the Euros can. Now, if made in America, this movie EASILY gets an NC-17, if not an X. There are several, very explicit scenes involving various forms of masturbation - with worms, with flowers, with a bottle and with a bike seat. It's as if this girl just woke up one morning and said, "Damn. I'm kinda horny." If I was teaching a Sex in Cinema class, this would be one film that I'd screen. Cut out all the standing in front of the mirror and groping her breasts, and the masturbation scenes, and the fantasys of banging the stud at the wood mill, you have about a 30 minute movie. And that's just the girl. Then you've got the husband/father who has this creepy psuedosexual relationship with his daughter. And when he unzips on the ferris wheel at a carnival and shows a girl his dick, you know the MPAA would've had a fun time trying to distinguish between NC-17 and X. As it is, the current version is shown as unrated. On a side note, the main theme is so damn catchy.
Interesting. Not sexy.
Tom-Duhamel26 May 2007
Those are the things that happen to me all the time. Just a few days ago, I discovered this movie from a movie list and, after reading all the reviews and comments, I was curious and decided I wanted to see it. Well, as I was browsing the TV guide for something to watch, I found it was playing tonight on some Quebec french specialized channel.
I am just a guy, so I can't tell if that's really how teenage girls learn about their sexuality, but from the perspective of an adult male viewer, it's... well... unattractive.
It's a weird, slow pace movie, way different from what I have ever seen before, and probably different than any other possible movie.
Worth seeing, if you don't mind viewing genitals, both female and male.
Do not watch if you expect action, or if you expect a porno. Or if you dislike 30-year-old movies.
I am just a guy, so I can't tell if that's really how teenage girls learn about their sexuality, but from the perspective of an adult male viewer, it's... well... unattractive.
It's a weird, slow pace movie, way different from what I have ever seen before, and probably different than any other possible movie.
Worth seeing, if you don't mind viewing genitals, both female and male.
Do not watch if you expect action, or if you expect a porno. Or if you dislike 30-year-old movies.
"A surreal voyage into adolescent sexuality"
Bored_Dragon27 June 2019
"A Real Young Girl" is the directing debut of French writer, screenwriter and director Catherine Breillat, known for her controversial erotic films that border with pornography, in which she signs the source novel and the script and directing. The film is extremely slow, but it is necessary for building the desired atmosphere. In the beginning, you will probably be bored, but I think the author does it deliberately, so that we can identify with how the protagonist of the story feels, a teenage girl who returns from the boarding school to a parental home for a summer break. Charlotte Alexandra plays a girl in the age when hormones drive her nuts and she has no idea what to do with herself. We've all been through this stage of growing up, but this movie stretches it to extremes. Teenagers often have strange fantasies, and a healthy dose of perversion is nothing new, but this movie is sick dirty. I have the impression that many scenes have been inserted only to disgust and shock the audience without, in any way, contributing to the story or the artistic value of the film. Or the author simply used this to work out her own morbid perversions that she could not achieve in reality. On the one hand, I was impressed by the performance and appearance of the young Charlotte, as well as the excellent characterization of her character, while on the other hand, the story is quite boring and at times repulsive. A movie like this could have been made only in the seventies.
6/10
6/10
I hate people. They complicate me.
lastliberal15 April 2009
This is Catherine Breillat's directorial debut. She also wrote the screenplay from her novel published the year before.
One may be initially confused about the fact that it was made in 1976, but not released until over 20 years later. No, it is not a video nasty, but it was banned in France and only when films like Salo or Boise Moi got released, were we able to see this film.
Breillat is not for everybody. The sex in her films is in-your-face. You have to look at them with an open mind. They have an artistic value and should be seen for that.
The film, about a 14-year-old's self discovery stars voluptuous Charlotte Alexandra, who would later appear in Emmanuelle 3. She explores her body with the boredom and recklessness of a teen, and wonders about the studs that she comes into contact with. She fantasizes at times, even about her own father. It was just too frank for the censors at the time.
This is not for the trench-coat crowd, as there is no sex, although her father (Bruno Balp) sure acts as if he would be willing. His smiles and touches are most unfatherly.
The ending was both funny and sad.
One may be initially confused about the fact that it was made in 1976, but not released until over 20 years later. No, it is not a video nasty, but it was banned in France and only when films like Salo or Boise Moi got released, were we able to see this film.
Breillat is not for everybody. The sex in her films is in-your-face. You have to look at them with an open mind. They have an artistic value and should be seen for that.
The film, about a 14-year-old's self discovery stars voluptuous Charlotte Alexandra, who would later appear in Emmanuelle 3. She explores her body with the boredom and recklessness of a teen, and wonders about the studs that she comes into contact with. She fantasizes at times, even about her own father. It was just too frank for the censors at the time.
This is not for the trench-coat crowd, as there is no sex, although her father (Bruno Balp) sure acts as if he would be willing. His smiles and touches are most unfatherly.
The ending was both funny and sad.
The development of a busty French lass...
The_Void28 December 2006
This film is rather difficult to review because it doesn't really have a plot to speak of, and it's clear that director Catherine Breillat was more keen on focusing on the art elements and detailing the sexual developments of a young girl than telling a story. This is the first film I've seen from Catherine Breillat, but given what I've read about her; it would seem that she enjoys directing films that focus on sexuality, and that would seem to be the case if this film is anything to go by. A Real Young Girl focuses on Alice Bonnard, a 'well developed' teenager who attends a boarding school and is spending the summer at her parents' house. She enjoys experimenting, and has a particular fascination with fluids, as she experiments with all sorts including urine and ear wax, as well as egg yolk and tanning cream. She becomes fixated on a man employed by her father, as well as a couple of other local men and her father, and the film basically follows her summer as things happen to her parents and she develops sexually.
Unlike most exploitation films, this one takes place from the woman's point of view, although the idea that all men are sex-obsessed perverts certainly shines through, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Catherine Breillat is a devout feminist, as there isn't one single decent male character in the whole film. The film rests a lot on its star Charlotte Alexandra, and she doesn't disappoint. Her performance is thoroughly realistic, and she also looks rather tasty, which is sure to delight the male viewers. I have to admit that I was expecting to be shocked going into the film, and while A Real Young Girl is liable to offend less well versed viewers; it would seem I've seen too much of this stuff as nothing in the film seemed too over the top to me. Catherine Breillat clearly isn't afraid to shock the viewers, however, as the film features plenty of nudity and other perverse scenes. The film features no suspense and the plot really just plods along, but it's well paced and while you know that the ending isn't going to provide much intrigue, it doesn't matter as anyone looking for a sexually charged film is likely to be satisfied.
Unlike most exploitation films, this one takes place from the woman's point of view, although the idea that all men are sex-obsessed perverts certainly shines through, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Catherine Breillat is a devout feminist, as there isn't one single decent male character in the whole film. The film rests a lot on its star Charlotte Alexandra, and she doesn't disappoint. Her performance is thoroughly realistic, and she also looks rather tasty, which is sure to delight the male viewers. I have to admit that I was expecting to be shocked going into the film, and while A Real Young Girl is liable to offend less well versed viewers; it would seem I've seen too much of this stuff as nothing in the film seemed too over the top to me. Catherine Breillat clearly isn't afraid to shock the viewers, however, as the film features plenty of nudity and other perverse scenes. The film features no suspense and the plot really just plods along, but it's well paced and while you know that the ending isn't going to provide much intrigue, it doesn't matter as anyone looking for a sexually charged film is likely to be satisfied.
Another Sexual Alice
tedg14 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers herein.
Although blunt and clumsy, this film transports one -- especially a male -- to a place never visited. That's in part because of the unflinching honesty of the narrative stance; never wavering from the girl's perspective. It it were more familiar territory, like Jane Campion's, it would be a failure -- or if it wavered into observation (like "Claire's Knee") rather than experience.
The tone and structure is taken from "Alice in Wonderland:" the episodic shifts into fantasy, the Red Queen, the effete King, the "Jack" (here a lumberjack) the ink, the worm and flies, the tarts, the "tunnel," the focus on song. Alice is a remarkably common metaphoric structure for such visual explorations of sexual angst. I was very impressed with another sexual Alice: "Sex and Lucia" which engaged with the folding of perspectives and realities rather than as here the nearfamiliar strangeness.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
Although blunt and clumsy, this film transports one -- especially a male -- to a place never visited. That's in part because of the unflinching honesty of the narrative stance; never wavering from the girl's perspective. It it were more familiar territory, like Jane Campion's, it would be a failure -- or if it wavered into observation (like "Claire's Knee") rather than experience.
The tone and structure is taken from "Alice in Wonderland:" the episodic shifts into fantasy, the Red Queen, the effete King, the "Jack" (here a lumberjack) the ink, the worm and flies, the tarts, the "tunnel," the focus on song. Alice is a remarkably common metaphoric structure for such visual explorations of sexual angst. I was very impressed with another sexual Alice: "Sex and Lucia" which engaged with the folding of perspectives and realities rather than as here the nearfamiliar strangeness.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
Crazy; worth seeing
poorspider27 July 2002
The film is very unusual at times and its sheer sexuality often gets too heavy. However it is certainly worth seeing, simply for its madness. And for the smoking hot Charlotte Alexandra. She alone is worth the price of admission. Shocking that the film's release was held up until 2000 (25 years later!) due to budgetary problems.
Alice, sweet Alice
tsf-196222 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This may well be the definitive teen angst film of all time. I was in love with Alice (Charlotte Alexandra, who bears a striking resemblance to Alicia Silverstone in "The Crush") the moment she began her voice-over narration: "My name is Alice. I hate people. They oppress me." This future existentialist, who in a few years will either be studying phenomonology at the Sorbonne or joining a radical Maoist splinter cell, has every reason to feel oppressed. She is returning home from a truly ghastly summer vacation with her philandering dad and her nagging mom and is well on her way to becoming the next Sylvia Plath. A child trapped in a woman's body, she's obsessed with her vagina and with bodily fluids but understandably shy among men and terrified of real sex. Some of her fantasies and daydreams are quite odd, but hey, this is France, and we're talking about a fourteen-year old, okay? She scandalizes the neighborhood by riding around in her bicycle without any panties and begins a torrid fling with the stud who works at her dad's sawmill (Hyram Keller), which ends in tragedy when he's killed by her father's wild boar trap. The final shot of Alice is chilling. This film goes on to show once again that adolescence is hell, that sex is not all it's cracked out to be, that the French countryside is full of mean, narrow-minded people, and parents don't understand. Those looking for a good porno flick will be understandably disappointed, but those looking for an insightful analysis of modern man (or woman)'s existential ennui will be richly rewarded. This is the film "American Beauty" aspired to be.
A Real Young Girl
Michael_Elliott11 March 2008
A Real Young Girl (1976)
*** (out of 4)
Fourteen year old Alice (Charlotte Alexandra) is on summer vacation when she starts to experiment with her sexuality. Most of this has her doing things to herself but soon she starts to lust after an older guy. This was made in 1975 but the producer's were so shocked that they kept it on the shelf until 2001, after director Catherine Breillat's Fat Girl became such a hit. I enjoyed Fat Girl a lot more but this film here was pretty good, although the strong sexual content and nudity will certainly make most shy away from it. The way the director explores women's sexuality is brave to say the least.
*** (out of 4)
Fourteen year old Alice (Charlotte Alexandra) is on summer vacation when she starts to experiment with her sexuality. Most of this has her doing things to herself but soon she starts to lust after an older guy. This was made in 1975 but the producer's were so shocked that they kept it on the shelf until 2001, after director Catherine Breillat's Fat Girl became such a hit. I enjoyed Fat Girl a lot more but this film here was pretty good, although the strong sexual content and nudity will certainly make most shy away from it. The way the director explores women's sexuality is brave to say the least.
14 or 20, does it make a difference
acbeattie8 April 2021
All the reviews, including mine, sorry are by men, and I am not sure any of us should be reviewing a film so distinctly made by women for women.
Coming fresh to the Director I did not know what to expect, but now that I have watched it with my wife, we both believe it was fairly representative of a girl who has wild sexual dreams and fantasies, This is not your 'normal' young person, but who knows what goes on in their brains while they try to come to terms with their sexuality, and general growing pains.
Added to this its Rural France, where old fashioned habits die hard, and many are hard up, and live in what some would consider filth.
Also all the professional reviewers appear to be American, and again sorry, but how much do they know about rural France, next to nothing we suggest.
Our biggest complaint however is that a 20 year old can never be a 14 year old. If the girl had been 15/16, this would be much more likely a story, and therefore more believable.
Coming fresh to the Director I did not know what to expect, but now that I have watched it with my wife, we both believe it was fairly representative of a girl who has wild sexual dreams and fantasies, This is not your 'normal' young person, but who knows what goes on in their brains while they try to come to terms with their sexuality, and general growing pains.
Added to this its Rural France, where old fashioned habits die hard, and many are hard up, and live in what some would consider filth.
Also all the professional reviewers appear to be American, and again sorry, but how much do they know about rural France, next to nothing we suggest.
Our biggest complaint however is that a 20 year old can never be a 14 year old. If the girl had been 15/16, this would be much more likely a story, and therefore more believable.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
