As we delve further into the world of obscure and arty cinema, we’re going to come across films with unconventional story structures that might not be as easy to grasp as more typical works. Waking Life was sort of our first taste of that, though that one still had a general story that you could understand and a somewhat conventional progression. Valerie, on the other hand, is our first real dive into surrealist or abstract cinema. It’s the sort of film that you’re either going to try to figure out during or after the viewing, or you’re going to just allow the film to take you on the experience and you’ll glean the ideas out of it as you go. Personally, I’m still not sure if I like this film or not, but I did find it interesting, and sometimes that’s all a film needs to be for you. Ultimately, it’s the sort of film that allows its audience to create whatever meaning they want from it, while still conveying ideas of its own, of course. I’ll try to give a sense of the story, though my summary definitely won’t give you the same experience as actually seeing it.
Our main character, Valerie, lives with her grandmother in a large house in an old Czech town. One night, her earrings are stolen by Eaglet, a local boy who works for a “Constable.” However, Eaglet gives the earrings back the very next day, which results in him being tied to the fountain in the town square, though Valerie frees him. Apparently, the earrings were worn by Valerie’s mother before she joined a convent and seem to have a certain significance to both the Constable and her grandmother, Elsa, as is shown throughout the film. At the same time, a parade of missionaries and “actors” strides through the streets, celebrating the wedding of Hedvika, one of the neighbor girls, to an older rich man. The Constable is also in the crowd, and watches Valerie, smiling a bad toothed smile. His visage also seems to shift between his normal pale and creepy look to one of a younger man with hair, a mustache, and a beard. Eaglet informs Valerie, via letter, about the Constable: how he is Eaglet’s uncle, how he killed Eaglet’s parents, and how he wants Valerie’s earrings (and seemingly Valerie herself). He also wants to meet at the church gathering later on, for which he needs to cross-dress, as it’s a sermon for the younger women of the town. It turns out that the Constable is also a priest of some sort and, while sporting dark skin all of a sudden (though not “black-face,” to clarify), he recites a sexual-metaphor laden speech to the congregation while Eaglet tries to blend in with the crowd. After the sermon and Valerie and Eaglet’s meet-up, she ends up running into the Constable outside, though he’s disguised so she doesn’t recognize him. He leads her into a cobweb-filled basement area and has her look through a peephole punched into a stone painting. The other side shows Elsa whipping herself in order to appeal herself to Gracian, another priest who had just come back from missionizing in Africa. Valerie is distraught by this but is saved when Eaglet knocks over the ladder the Constable is standing on. Eaglet gives Valerie a pearl for protection and the two hide from the Constable. At around the same time, Elsa meets the Constable, who is revealed to be Richard, an old lover of hers. Richard offers to make Elsa young again if she signs over her family house. The next day, at a picnic, Gracian talks of his time in Africa and informs Valerie that Eaglet is her brother, which might mean she’s also related to Richard in some way. Afterwards, as Valerie is spending time in her room, Gracian comes in and tries to rape her, but she uses the pearl to get away from him. In doing so, she ends up witnessing Elsa sucking Hedvika’s blood, which ends up restoring Elsa’s youth. So, yes, this is actually a vampire movie….sort of. I’ll leave the plot summary there, since I think you’re going to want to see how this all plays out (and it’s probably not going to go how you think it would).
While the story of this film is tricky to get a bead on, I was certainly able to notice some recurring concepts. A big one seems to be youth versus age, as well as the on-set of womanhood. Richard and Elsa both want to reclaim the youth they once had through any means necessary, including giving into dark arts and becoming some form of vampiric beings. It’s interesting to note that, for most of the film, Richard is depicted as a pale-faced creeper in a black robe with a hideous smile, but we see glimpses of him with a younger man’s face here and there, and there are times where people comment on his youth even though he’s in the creeper form. I have to wonder if his youthful look is merely an illusion that he’s able to create, or if he does actually look young and we are just seeing behind the “mask,” maybe even seeing things from Valerie’s perspective on that front. This would make sense, as a later scene in the film has Valerie try to save him from his monstrous state, which results in him appearing in his younger man form to her, only for him to quickly revert as soon as it’s revealed that he’s still evil. Either way, there’s clearly an idea of “maintaining the veneer of youth” going on here. Also, I realized, when the vampire element was introduced, that Richard bears a resemblance to Count Orlok from Nosferatu, except with weird hair strands on his ears instead of points. This choice could be meant as parody on some level, but I think it was also an intentional visual callback meant to show the negatives of his dark transformation: he is effectively immortal and can appear young, but truly he is little more than a nasty parasitic goblin. Interestingly, he is often referred to as “The Polecat” throughout the film. Polecats are small furry animals that are related to weasels & minks and are actually of the same grouping as our own ferrets. They often go about killing their prey by biting them on the neck, not unlike a certain nocturnal undead folk-being (though without the blood-sucking, of course). We even see a polecat at several points throughout the film killing chickens in a bloody display. The comparison between Richard and the polecat might have two meanings: that they both attack via neck and that Richard is rather “weaselly” and underhanded. Actually, on the note of chickens, there’s a good amount of “birdage” in this film, mostly comprising of chickens and pigeons/doves. The polecat often kills chickens, one of the places Valerie and Eaglet hide is a chicken coop of sorts, there are often many doves and/or pigeons near the fountain, and of course there’s Eaglet’s name. The doves could just be there to signify the “European town” feel or they could be a metaphor of some kind, it’s hard to say. The chickens could be of a similar nature, though I would note that there’s one scene where a group of women are playing around and splashing water on each other while a brawny man comes onto them, and during this, a rooster is right in the middle of this getting “wet” from the proceedings. So, it could be that the roosters and hens represent men and women in different situations, with the polecat being a vicious predator that feeds on all of them. However, more interesting than this, I feel, is Eaglet’s name. An eaglet, as you could probably guess, is a term for a baby eagle, essentially an undeveloped predator. We often see baby animals as being cute and in need of protection, but it doesn’t change the fact that they can or could very easily become a predator as they grow up. In Eaglet’s case, while he is nicer than many of the other characters in the film and clearly has a rapport with Valerie, there are moments where he clearly comes on to her. In a way, he’s not all that much better than Richard or Gracian who want to possess and/or use Valerie for their own purposes. He even has a slightly pale complexion and, at one point, smiles similarly to Richard. This ties back into the youth versus age concept, as it seems as though most of the older folks in the film have a paler look to them, almost like that of a corpse, and what’s farther away from youth than a dead body? This is illustrated in Hedvika, as when she is bitten by Elsa, she loses most of the color in her skin, and it doesn’t return until Valerie “restores her youth.” Valerie, herself, remains full of color and life throughout the movie, fending off those that would take it from her, though of course, she will still have to face aging as it comes. Throughout the film, we often see images of flowers with blood on them, the symbolism of which is rather obvious (for those that don’t know, “flower” often refers to the vagina, most likely tying into the idea of “blooming into womanhood” and such, and blood in that area often comes with the transition, in multiple ways). Tied in with this idea is Valerie’s ties with religion and the loss of freedom associated with it, which is illustrated with her earrings, which, as stated, used to be her mother’s before she went into a convent. In addition, throughout the film, we see the female helpers of the house, who are often frolicking and free, playing in semi-sexual ways, which would no doubt be seen as “pagan wickedness” to Christian eyes. So, there definitely is a fight going on between the freeness of youth and a want to retain that against aging and responsibility put on you by those that don’t have your best interests in mind in the first place. Oh, and incest, plenty of incest. Anyway, I could keep going, as there’s plenty more that could be looked into, but I don’t want to drag on too long. As I said, this is really the sort of film you should see for yourself and think about afterwards. The plot will probably be off-putting to those not used to loose or zig-zagging structures, since the story takes a lot of turns over the runtime, but go into it with an open mind and I think you’ll find an experience that’s worth going on and will stick with you afterwards.
Personally, while I’m still not sure whether or not I necessarily “like” this film, I did find it rather interesting in the end. As you can tell from my review, I had plenty to talk about with it, almost too much, really. That’s just the sort of film that it is, honestly. I must admit that I was lucky enough to see this film through the Criterion release, which came with discussions of the film and what it was going for. They helped me get a better understanding of the intent, though I was almost hesitant to watch them, as I didn’t want it to override my own perception too much, especially to the point where I was ripping them off. However, in the end, I brought my own thoughts that I had had while watching, so I think I gave a unique perspective of my own. Hopefully my review has convinced you to give this film a shot, though if it hasn’t, I understand either way. Overall, I do recommend you go with Valerie on her Week of Wonders, it’s sure to be an unforgettable time (just remember to stay away from any polecats you come across, they look cute, but they’re no innocents).