Posted 31 August 2005 - 09:25 AM
i think it's interesting to talk about Bunuel in this kind of "forum".
what i think about his movie and style are:
- he often attacks the Christian belief especially the church people, i want to see what r your opinions about this thing.
- his surreal style is different with Fellini,Fellini is about visualization, but Bunuel is about the character's habit, their manners, or what they do on the screen.
- I love his movie's pace, his movies are not as slow as other acclaimed directors like Ozu or Fellini.
- And it seems his movies are well observed even they don't deal with common themes, I agree with what Ebert said about Belle De Jour "That's because it understands eroticism from the inside-out--understands how it exists not in sweat and skin, but in the imagination."
your comments pls
PS:this is coming from a guy coming from a non-english languaged country and am not a christian, so forgive if there are any incorrect words or incorrect thoughts, thx
Posted 31 August 2005 - 09:46 AM
Posted 31 August 2005 - 10:41 AM
Posted 31 August 2005 - 02:35 PM
I have seen :
Un Chien Andalou
Belle de jour
The Discreet Charm of the Boureoisie
The Obscure Object of Desire
The Phantom of Liberty
Un Chien Andalou is tied in with Salvidore Dali and surrealism.
Perhaps so is L'Age d'or and I loved it. (So much so that I bought a little book on the film!)
But my favorite was The Phantom of Liberty. Funny - surreal - satirical - beautifully edited so that one scene flows into the next with only a thread in common with the last scene.
You have to see the "dining room/ bathroom" scene to believe it!
It is late Bunuel - I think one of his last 3 films.
Get it and enjoy. Don't try to make a lot of sense out of it. Just sit back and enjoy and laugh.
(A few months ago Turner Classic Movies showed Los olvidados, Nazarin, Viridiana, El angel exterminador, Simon del desierto. I taped them all!!!!! But have not yet had time to see them.)
I know some would not call Bunuel's films "spiritually significant." But in some deep spot in my psyche, he touches me.
Posted 01 September 2005 - 10:59 AM
seen it once, and love it very much but pity on my small tv
Posted 03 September 2005 - 12:56 AM
If the films of Buńuel are credited with putting the reigns squarely in the director's hands, I don't honestly know how we can call them "non-Christian." I would hope that one of the causes of Christ is that of Freedom, and I would hope that artistic freedom of any creative kind, whether credited to God or not, is still on loan from Creation itself.
Is he attacking the Christian belief, or the religion that carries the Christian belief? If he is attacking the Christian belief then I am probably guilty of the same thing -- I have done this on a daily basis for years. But the word "attack" is the problem. Maybe instead we should use words like "Seeking a dialogue."
Does he desire something better from the church? From the ending frames of L'Age d'or our assumption is that Yes, he does. And I do too. So maybe where I meet him is in the similarities we share -- that we each long for something better, the difference being that Buńuel would probably concentrate heavier on finding imagery that portrays what is wrong, and I would rather look to correct the wrong than dwell on it.
But The Lynchian imagery is unstoppable no matter how you cut the philosophy. The shorter Un Chien Andalou, with the shocking opening and the grim finale in the sands of time, is such a hardcore film that begs for attention. It's like the bad little boy who yells, "Look at me! Look at me!" and when he forces your attention, he does something absolutely bizarre.
L'Age d'or felt a bit too long for me in this style, but I'm glad I stuck with it so that I could see into Buńuel's need to creep out the more religiously inclined.
I like his earlier films, and I'm certainly interested in seeing more.
Edited by stef, 03 September 2005 - 01:02 AM.
Posted 27 December 2007 - 09:50 PM
Portugal, 2006, 70 Minute Running Time
Additional Countries: France
Language: French English Sub-Titles
DIRECTOR: Manoel de Oliveira
Thirty-eight years after Buńuel’s Belle du jour, Henri and Séverine meet again by chance in an elegant concert hall in Paris. The two have obviously changed, yet Henri seems content to dwell in their perverse past. De Olveira’s elegant style and cunning narrative manages to create a tense, melancholic, mysterious and malicious work of art.
Posted 03 March 2012 - 12:05 PM
This morning I was completely blown away by Death in the Garden (1956), which begins as a "stranger comes to town and leads the people in a rebellion against authorities" type before changing, 30 minutes in, into a "rag-tag group fighting for survival in nature" movie. Especially after reading his wonderful memoir, My Last Sigh, I've put Bunuel into my personal pantheon of religious filmmakers, in that he's deeply, obsessively concerned with man's place in the world. Having grown up in Spain with a typical (if slightly unorthodox) Catholic education, he knows the Bible and takes it at its word, even if, as an atheist, he doesn't put much stock in its transcendent power.
Death in the Garden is a 90-minute, action-packed, carnal, and dire study of guilt and innocence. It's all suffused with Bunuel's cynicism and sense of the absurd, but it's also deeply serious about wanting to understand one bedrock of Christian faith: that we're all fallen and that "the rain falls on the good and the bad." At first, I thought Bunuel was setting up Michel Piccoli's young missionary as a punching bag, but, ultimately, he (the missionary) acts in good faith, and Bunuel forces us to wrestle with the consequences of his actions, which reveal him to be either naive or a Christ-like servant.
Anyway, that's a round-about way of saying that I highly recommend this film.
Posted 03 March 2012 - 01:40 PM
I once said of Alan Ball that I thought the modus operandi of his films was to paint someone or something as ridiculous until the audience sneered and then scold it for being so intolerant, followed by painting something else as good or decent or admirable until the audience cheered, then mock it for being so gullible and naive. Perhaps that is a root cause of my ambivalence about BuĂ±uelâ€™s: I canâ€™t figure out how to get myself to an appropriate response, because I canâ€™t exactly fathom what an appropriate response would be. Should I like Viridiana, Nazarin, and Simon and feel contempt for the world around them that needs to cut them down and destroy them? Or should I celebrate their demises, physical and spiritual, as the defeat of one more imperfect person that had the chutzpah to try to be good? Should I think there is nothing to choose between them?
I guess (no I donâ€™t guess, I know) there is technical skill at play in the precision and force (to borrow Sarrisâ€™s word) in the way BuĂ±uel can twist the knife like nobody else. Iâ€™ve just never finished a screening of one of his films happier to be alive than when I started.