It’s a daunting task to do any remake, but especially when the original was wildly successful and the novel on which that original was based is much beloved. There have been so many versions of The Story of O, that almost everyone has an opinion on what any new “O” should be. I first came to The Story of O: Untold Pleasures as a writer. There was a script by Ron Norman, and though the producers were moving ahead with production plans based on that script, they charged me with defining the characters in a more specific way, thereby drawing this inherently dramatic tale from the characters -rather than imposing the story upon them (as the script seemed to be doing).
This was going to be a modern-day, English-language remake set in Los Angeles, and though I felt the need to watch Just Jaeckin’s 1975 original, the producers wanted a reinterpretation of the novel, not a remake of Jaeckin’s film. Perhaps because I know the book is so important to so many people, and is still in use by therapists around the globe, it was important to me to be true to the spirit of the novel, while also understanding why “O” takes this journey, and why so many people from diverse walks of life are attracted to the lifestyle depicted in the world Pauline Reage created.
It was after becoming satisfied with my rewrites of the project, and becoming impressed with the production values and casting of my previous film, The Party Crashers, that the producers offered me the opportunity to direct The Story of O: Untold Pleasures. Although I was not going to receive much prep time, and although I knew that directing the picture would be a constant walk along a tightrope (as it was my desire to make a psychologically complex, exciting, disturbing film that no one would be able to dismiss as “soft-core pornography”), there was no hesitation in my acceptance.
When a project has a built-in international following, like The Story of O, the filmmakers have the luxury of working with unknown (or “lesser known”) actors. After all, in the 1975 film, Corinne Clery was making only her second screen appearance, yet “O” catapulted her to worldwide fame (and a long, successful career). The producers of the new “O” hoped to repeat history and “discover” a new star. Their choice of Danielle Ciardi was an interesting and adventurous one, a choice that serves to boldly proclaim their desire that this film be “modern”, while dealing with timeless themes. Whether Ms. Ciardi is “O” will be subject to much debate, I’m sure, and that determination will be based on personal taste. What definitely comes through on screen, in addition to her staggering beauty, is a compelling combination of “street-wise” toughness and profound emotional vulnerability.
Because both of our female leads (Ms. Ciardi and the delightful Michelle Ruben) were relative newcomers, it was important to me that we cast reliable and veteran professionals in the leading male roles of “Rene” and “Sir Stephen”. Max Parrish and Neil Dickson fit the bill perfectly. Mr. Parrish is someone I had worked with before, and I knew he had the innate charm required to portray Rene’s likable duplicity. Mr. Dickson, a graduate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, brought his twenty-five years of professional experience, his intensity and his commanding presence to the role of “Sir Stephen”. He was a constant reminder during shooting that the most important thing a director can do to get a good performance out of an actor is to cast the right person in the first place. Mr. Dickson was perfectly suited to the role.
Perhaps the major element that attracted me to the project from a directorial standpoint was the rich visual possibilities the film’s fertile thematic terrain would afford. The powerful emotions of the characters could be reflected through color, with each character symbolized by a specific color. That way, in a film about domination and submission, one could have visual clues as to who has the upper hand in any given moment, by what color dominates that scene. In addition, for this tale to truly capture the journey “O” takes into her own fantasies and creativity, we needed to go “through the looking glass”, to create a “fever dream” where what is real and what is imagined is open for interpretation. Finally, the world in “O” is one where the observer often has the power. To express this, I felt it necessary to make a film that was, to a great degree, about voyeurism. After all, in The Story of O: Untold Pleasures, O’s art is photography. Therefore, the film’s audience will often find themselves peering around corners and sharing the point of view of those who are spying on the activities of others.
The Story of O: Untold Pleasures was my introduction to the world of international co-productions and navigating my way through the varied opinions of what the film should be and should contain was the biggest creative challenge I faced. Ultimately, what I am most pleased by when I watch the finished film is that it has, in abundance, the “fever dream” quality I sought and that it should leave viewers debating what is real and what is imagined. No matter what relationship audiences form with the film, one thing is certain – as long as people feel the need to fantasize and to explore themselves and their own sexuality, The Story of O will have resonance.
In other words, as long as there are human beings, there will be The Story of O.