Minty’s Movie Masterclass – Luis Bunuel

   

OK, so my claim back in February that I would produce one of these posts a month may have been slightly optimistic, given that it’s now July. Hmmm. Well, in my defence this post has been hanging around in draft form for a while, and you can look forward to my musings on both Claude Chabrol and Paul Schrader, but for now let’s examine the films of cinema’s premier surrealist – Luis Bunuel.

There can’t be (or shouldn’t be) a film fan out there who hasn’t seen ‘Un Chien Andalou‘ which I caught on a double bill with ‘L’Age d’Or‘ some years ago. Bunuel is fascinated with the hypocrisy of the Church, the corruption of the state (he had to flee Spain because of Franco) and detested the bourgeois chattering classes. Bunuel has always struck me as a subtle director in terms of style – Form is submerged, Bunuel is more interested in content, the elements within the frame – the mise-en-scene rather than camera movements, editing rhythms and technical considerations such as film stock, lenses, projection rates. I’m probably completely wrong, but that’s my impression.

    

 ‘The Exterminating Angel‘ was probably the movie I enjoyed the most out of this exercise, a much more playful and witty movie than the others detailed below. The setting is a conservative dinner party, circa the early 1960’s. Following a recital the myriad guests realize they are physically incapable of leaving the chateau. Slowly but surely, panic and degradation set in as the traditional rules of etiquette and status collapse beneath the human animal’s survival instinct. The reasoning for the inability to leave the house is of course never explained, and the sense of bourgeois disintegration is expressed perfectly – as the man says, civilisation is just three square meals from anarchy. 

 

During the twilight of his career, Bunuel had settled in France and his last half dozen or so films are perhaps his most famous, amongst them ‘Belle De Jour’, ‘The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie’ and ‘That Obscure Object of Desire‘. Fernando Rey (A regular in Bunuel pictures), is an elderly aristocrat who begins an affair and eventual obsession with one of his servants. So far, so simple right? Well, no – without explanation or warning the actress playing the object of desire shifts from Carole Bouquet, who is evidently French and Angela Molina who is Spanish.I quite enjoyed this, but am still left scratching my head at the significance of such an approach. Is Bunuel suggesting the impossibility of ever fully knowing your partner? Is it a misogynistic rant on the impenetrability of women? Did he just figure he’d like two hot chicks on set? Beats me. Todd Solondz lifted this technique wholesale for his last effort ‘Palindromes‘ where he utilised no fewer than three actresses playing the same character. Again, I was  a little perplexed at such a choice – any ideas?

 

‘Viridiana‘ – This was an exceptionally controversial film at the time – Franco had specifically asked Bunuel to return to Spain and make a movie, an offer which hilariously backfired as Bunuel released one of the most damning criticisms of the church ever committed to film. Viridiana is a nun about to take her vows when she’s told by her mother superior that her uncle is gravely ill and that she must go and console him. Viridiana arrives on the estate owned by Don Jaime and sets about making his last days comfortable. Viridiana is the spitting image of Don Jaime’s dead wife and thus he asks her to dress in her aunt’s wedding gown, then proceeds to drug her with the intention of raping her. However, he can’t bring himself to sin, and instead hangs himself. Then, the film gets weird –  Viridina begins to see herself as a saviour, and invites a group of beggars and criminals into the family home with the intention of reforming these wayward souls – suffice to say things do not go to plan….

Tame by today’s standards, nevertheless you can see what he’s getting at – the church is divorced from reality, as a woman who has only ever seen the inside of a nunnery takes it upon herself to right the evils of the world. There is a shot toward the end where Bunuel parodies the last supper which raised a wry smile on my jaded lips, overall a movie worth seeing but just a little to paraodic for my taste.

 
 
Finally, ‘Tristana‘, starring the delectable Catherine Denevue. This is probably the most subtle of the four films described here, as it is more of a straightforward dark romance between Denevue and the ubiquitous Fernando Ray. Similar to ‘That Obscure Object of Desire’, an aged blueblood seduces and marries the distant Tristana, and a taxing and bizarre courtship ensues. Having absorbed some reviews of this movie it appears that the film is an allegory for Spain’s relationship to the world after WWII, or alternatively Ray represents Fascism and Denevue Socialism – in either case these are not themes I picked up on. There is little of the directly surreal in this, unlike the dual characters in ‘Object’ or the mysterious barrier in ‘Angel’ and as such it’s a more straightforward and ultimately for me, less interesting picture.

I’m surprised at how many Bunuel films I’ve seen over the years, albeit mostly pictures made in the early and late periods of his professional life.  I got through a number of his other films such ‘The Great Madcap’, ‘Naravin’ and ‘The Milky Way’, all of which I have to say left me cold. Maybe it’s a Spanish thing – I saw ‘Volver‘ over the weekend and again was singularly unimpressed. I guess it’s just a personnel taste thing really, I can certainly see why and how Bunuel and Almodovar’s films are influential, well crafted and, well, important, still they just don’t appeal to me.  It’s obviously a failing on my part – must try harder. I’ll wrap up with a memorable quote from the man himself which encapsulates Bunuel succulently – ‘Thank god I’m an atheist’…