Au Bonheur des Dames
1930
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 4.9 out of 10
You are here:
Find another title
Type to search for movies. Use arrow keys to navigate suggestions, Enter to select, Escape to close.
He
1932
Director
Dominique Bernard-Deschamps
Runtime
66 minutes
Average Rating
No ratings yetSynopsis
In her village, Ms. Husson seeks to put a price under a rosiere but finding no worthy young pretty girl, hands it has Isidore, the village idiot, who becomes rosier
Where to Watch
Diversity & Representation
Overall Score
3.3/10
Limited
Category Breakdown
LGBTQ+ Representation
The film contains no evidence of non-heteronormative identities or queer narratives. The story focuses on the transactional relationship between Ms. Husson and Isidore.
Gender Representation
Ms. Husson serves as a female protagonist with significant agency and authority. She dictates social value within her village, departing from more passive female archetypes.
Racial & Ethnic Diversity
The narrative appears to center on a homogeneous social group within a rural French setting. There is no evidence of racial blending or diverse casting.
Religious & Cultural Diversity
The film deconstructs social status by elevating a marginalized individual to symbolic importance. This disrupts conventional expectations of meritocracy and social standing.
Disability Representation
Isidore is presented through the lens of intellectual disability. While he is a central figure, it remains unclear if he possesses true agency or relies on tropes.
Strengths
- Ms. Husson provides a rare example of a female character wielding authority and social agency.
- The narrative centers a marginalized individual, Isidore, within its central metaphor.
- The story challenges traditional social hierarchies and conventional ideas of meritocracy.
Areas for Improvement
- The portrayal of intellectual disability relies on dated 'village idiot' tropes.
- The film lacks racial and ethnic diversity within its rural setting.
- There is no representation of LGBTQ+ identities or queer narratives.
AI Analysis
The film functions as a localized character study that uses a central metaphor to reframe the identity of a marginalized individual. It challenges social hierarchies by centering a character typically relegated to the periphery of village life. However, the work is heavily constrained by its 1932 historical context. The setting appears homogeneous, and the portrayal of disability relies on period-typical tropes that may lack modern nuance. Ultimately, the film's strength lies in its subversion of traditional beauty and social standards, even if it remains limited by the era's social perspectives.
Similar Movies
You Are So Beautiful
2005
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 4.1 out of 10
Vaclav
2007
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 4.4 out of 10
Cowhide
2001
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.3 out of 10
Happiness
1935
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 5.1 out of 10
The Virtuous Bigamist
1956
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.9 out of 10
The Magnificent Tramp
1959
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.6 out of 10
Jofroi
1934
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 1.9 out of 10
The Baker's Wife
1938
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 2.7 out of 10
As the Moon
1977
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 4.7 out of 10
The Farmer's Wife
1928
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 2.4 out of 10
Le Majordome
1965
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 2.8 out of 10
Rate this Movie
Reviews
No reviews yet. Be the first to share your thoughts on this movie!
Use the rating form above to leave a star rating and optional review.