Donkey Skin (1970)

For some reason when I was little, my mom put this on for me to watch all the time. I don't know why. This movie is terrible. The story basically goes like this - a princess's mother dies, then the king decides to marry her (even though they're father and daughter). A fairy godmother comes to the princess, tells her that you can't marry your father, then grants her a couple of wishes. The princess falls in love with a prince and he with her because the other is pretty. After a series of dumb and convoluted events (including what I'm assuming is a dream sequence they both experience - its not very clear what that montage was) they live happily ever after? I'm assuming. After the initial events this story gets a little muddy. I'm pretty sure there's a scene with a helicopter (or maybe it was some kind of magical transporter thing - I'm not rewatching this thing to check) despite most of this movie taking place in what looks to be medieval times. If you are a fan of movies, logic, entertainment, or if you're just sane, then I'm sure you can see why this movie's "story" is terrible. Ignoring that, the sets and costumes are barely serviceable, the acting is bad, and the sound design is atrocious. Do not watch this movie, except maybe out of curiosity.

Ridiculous, sub-Cocteau French fairy tale with songs has Catherine Deneuve playing a runaway princess. Her father, the widower King, has made a deathbed promise to the dying Queen that he will only remarry should he find a woman lovelier than she. After rejecting all the single ladies in the land, the only lass able to meet his demand for a beautiful wife is his own daughter (the King asks the local soothsayer, "Is this a sinful love?", to which the soothsayer says, "If I had a daughter, I'd marry her."). Director Jacques Demy, who also adapted the children's story by Charles Perrault, was possibly filled with whimsy (or perhaps was suffering from a bout with childlike prankishness). His work is heavy-handed with a tale already steeped in the grotesque. Delphine Seyrig as the Lilac Fairy gives her early scenes a bit of real color (as opposed to the artificial sparkle hanging over the rest of the film), but Deneuve is wasted. She's a beauty, but the movie is beastly. *1/2 from ****

Catherine Deneuve never looked more beautiful than she does in this film that hardly anyone has ever heard of, although she seems a little mature to be playing a naïve princess. The costumes and set designs are a feast for the eyes; unlike today's penchant for confining the viewer to little rooms, there are big, sweeping camera movements of castle interiors, gardens, reception halls, and an entire village. This is one expensive-looking film, even looking at the line of women stretching out the castle, all in elaborate costume, is impressive. A cat-shaped throne, red and blue horses and matching coaches, and blue-faced guards are a neat twist. Two things mar the film, however: 1) The songs are neither memorable nor catchy. Maybe the director should have hired an Italian musician.2) The film tries and fails to be a fractured fairy tale with purposely outlandish themes, the most prominent of which is a man's desire to marry his own daughter. Even as a commentary about incest among the nobility the joke falls flat.All in all, one walks away from the film wishing that it had been more than the sum of its parts. If the director had focused on satirizing fairy tales or drawing broad social commentary, the film could have been brilliant. As it is, having been released in 1970, it feels more like the denouement of 1960s film experimentation. And the English version of the film's title could have used better planning.

Apart from the costumes and the set design, I honestly can't understand the appeal of this film. I realize it's a film most likely made for 6-year-old girls, and what struck me was that it could very well be a launch for a deluxe Mattel Barbie doll set, (lilac Fairy Godmother, chest of gowns, and helicopter sold separately...)An incestuous King for a father, this princess with her blue skinned servants has nothing better to do than sing the same refrains of a love song on the Castle lawn...And that hapless little donkey, poor creature that excretes gold and silver coins at the pumping of its tail... This magical animal is slaughtered, its bloody skin, head and even its upper teeth intact, carried by a doting King to his princess/daughter/future bride's bedchamber on her capricious demand. That nobody seemed to find this disturbing puzzles me. My god, the skin was red on the inside and she wears it like a fur coat??? Well, I suppose that's fitting. What vampires these aristocrats are! If this is intended for children, then what are the values being promoted here? The prince she falls in love with - spoiled, indolent, over privileged... Who could care less about this airhead couple? The princess puts a ring in the cake she bakes for him. What a cliché, that the prince practically chokes on it provides one bit of comic relief at least – that and the parrot who echoes that sickening, "amour amour..." song that goes on and on through the film in that thin, brittle soprano.I expected a lot, especially upon reading someone raving about the soundtrack. A good score is important to me. But this music was more grating than any musical I'd ever heard. Such saccharine songs so sickeningly cycled throughout the film must have driven the crew batty by the time the editing was done. But then again, this probably was intended for very young children, so I shouldn't be so harsh. Then what of the 4 French "talking heads" segment in special features - (2 psychoanalysts, a professor of literature, and a film maker)who make so much of the film and take themselves far too seriously? Is it also intended for adults, then? As an ardent fan of French New Wave cinema, and the films of Jacques Demy's wife, Agnes Varda, and of all the films of Jean Cocteau, I expected the work of art that everyone touted the film as being – an homage to Cocteau as promised. All I could see that was savagely reminiscent of Cocteau were the blue skinned servants...slaves... what-have-you... Was the joke that this was a clever sequel to the Emperors new clothes?Despite the beauty of the sets, the camera work was largely stationary and not very imaginative. The lighting didn't have much mood or variation either. The light outside was pallid and lacking shadow. If there were any artistic merit to this, I'd give all the credit to the costume and set designers.