L’Age d’Or
I was never really able to get behind Bunuel’s movies. First I saw “Belle de Jour” which I thought was infuriating because the main character made no sense whatsoever, then I saw “Un chien andalou” but really the film is just as confusing as its most famous scene is shocking. I don’t really get Bunuel, but I’ve been telling myself to find out what is so immensely great about his films. He is amongst the most accomplished directors according to They Shoot Pictures and at least “Viridiana” and “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie” sound intriguing.
My impression of the film can be summarized in one sentence: Thank goodness it is short. For most of the time, I was interested in what was going to happen next, only to realize that the happenings in the film don’t really connect well. Even as a surreal film there is a little bit too much suspension of disbelief. At the same time, some of those absurd scenes were precisely what actually made the film interesting. If you accept that the film seems nonsensical at times, it is those silly scenes which make the film strangely funny and enjoyable, like this guy randomly kicking a little dog (poor thing, but you can’t help but laugh!) or another guy destroying his violin on the streets, or that guy who threw out the bishop out the window! Without knowing anything about the film, it becomes quite obvious that the film criticizes Catholic morals (ugh, this Sade novel character who looks like Jesus?) and high-class bourgeois life, but if it doesn’t quite make sense, what else is there besides some provocative imagery?
Right after “L’Age d’Or” we watched this year’s Downton Abbey Christmas special. I am sorry, Bunuel, but that one was so much more memorable and interesting. It must be sad to lose against a lame soap opera. I am glad to have finally seen what this film is about, but it won’t really stick with me nor become a source of inspiration like some other Dali works have been.
i did not see the greatness in him as a filmmaker, until i saw films like “The Young One”, or “Viridiana” or “Los Olvidados”. his output is big, people tend to watch those films that others have not, and vice versa. it leaves you with much to explore, and i still have the majority of his work to look forward to :) i actually love “Belle de Jour” – much of it is silly trifle, but it is lovely and enjoyable nonetheless, while i found “Phantom of Liberty” kind of tiring to sit through (others love it etc.). delve in, you’ll get the occasional dud and find personal favorites in return! he is one of the great masters, no doubt.
Oh wow, so much Bunuel love! I am quite surprised that you like him so much, but since I only saw those 3 films of his, I am not surprised. I think I was just too put off by the “silly trifles” in Belle de Jour, and I thought that was unfortunate because the premise is kind of cool and some of Severine’s surreal dreams are quite awesome. When the story makes me go “Ugh why~~~” it can totally ruin my experience of the film. :(
I will definitely give Bunuel another chance – after all, I did that with Resnais and totally love Melo and Marienbad!