MovieChat Forums > Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie (1972) Discussion > Nonsensical gibberish

Nonsensical gibberish

posted 12 years ago by rfmovie
12 replies | jump to latest

severely founded in a specific time and place and not even a good representation of that period, nor entertaining, nor even interesting.

I was so strongly disappointed, I doubt I will see much more of Bunuel's work (I have seen most of the work of Fellini, Antonioni, Hitchcock, Jodorowsky, Kubrick, etc etc)

My few moments of enjoyment in this film were early on, when the director was making fun of middle class pieties and bugaboos, but then the film became a big farce, ala Mel Brooks, with all manner of over the top pseudo political jibber jabber. It seemed like it was meant to reflect French political tensions in the 1970s, stuff that today seems mighty dated, similar to what Antonioni ended up doing by showing campus riots in Zabriskie Point.

Kubrick did this sort of thing much better, much more universally, as in Dr. Strangelove.

Overall, I am glad I saw this, but only so I can save my future time not watching the rest of this director's nonsense.

I LOVE Italian films, but so far, early French films, prior to the 1990s, excepting Jules Et Jim and a few others, leave me COLD.

Halt Allergies & Chronic Illness by Avoiding Man-Made Toxins. http://maverickallergy.com

[–] jj-patton 11 years ago

Kubrick? Don't make me laugh. Don't blame me if you can't take this film as anything other than a straight polemical satire.

Look, this film is about dreaming, and it is great. Watch the master at work. Nobody dreams in Kubrick preciseness, Bunuel is the stuff dreams are made of.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"Nobody dreams in Kubrick preciseness".

Far as I recall, nobody dreams in any Kubrick film, period.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] jj-patton 11 years ago

Interesting point. Perhaps, perhaps not. Eyes Wide Shut is a Bunuelian exercise if I ever saw one.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

In how it`s something of a cinematic autopsy performed on the society, on a broad canvas, using a somewhat off-beat, unreal approach? However, EWS is no satire, nor is it as relatively obvious as Bunuel`s similar probings - and mood wise, it`s completely different as well.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] jj-patton 11 years ago

as relatively obvious as Bunuel's similar probings

Not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you think of Discreet Charm as a simple political tract, perhaps it is, but to me obvious is not a word I connect wth Bunuel, indeed books could be written about his attitude toward death alone. And what are all those insects about?

Now I agree DCOTB is not especially like EWS in tone or scope but have you ever seen El? It is similar in many ways, albeit a Mexican/Spanish way with a smaller budget, but similar themes of desire, guilt, and resolution are presented. A lot of Hitchcock's Vertigo, another similar film, was taken from El as well.

Kubrick is in many ways very Bunuelian, in other ways not because he isn't really a surrealist. But he does embrace some surrealism, and when he does he has that same desire to slice the eyeball, both literally and abstractly, that lies at the heart of Bunuel's work. EWS, with it's hundreds of naked females all with identical B-cup breasts and nymphomatical shopkeeper's daughters, is decidedly surreal to make a point, and that point revolves around fetishism and the un-normalness of desire, major Bunuelian themes, with marriage hypocrisy in place of where Bunuel would reference Catholic hypocrisy. Not a whole lot different, it you ask me.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"Perhaps you think of Discreet Charm as a simple political tract".

Don`t know about "simple", necessarily, but Bunuel certainly had a strong tendency towards sociopolitical/religious polemic and it`s well in evidence in Discreet Charm, too. Some of it indeed rather on-the-nose (like the escapades of the priest, for instance).

"But to me obvious is not a word I connect with Bunuel".

I was thinking of the basic thrust of his symbolism and allegories. L`Ag d`Or particularly suffers from being blatantly obvious throughout. Or think of what`s on offer in El Angel Exterminador - a bunch of idle bourgeois gets trapped in a luxurious mansion even though there`s no physical obstacle, and as the servants leave, everything turns into a filthy mess. Then, as they finally escape, they just go on ahead and get trapped in a church instead (along with a herd of sheep, no less). I mean, the film is still to the point, and constantly, delightfully bizarrely amusing, too, but it doesn`t exactly take an analytical genius to figure out what the director`s saying there. More or less the same story with the religious symbolism in Viridiana (which also manages to be powerful despite being fairly in-your-face a lot of the time). I`m not saying these things are all there is to Bunuel, but they`re definitely there as sort of defining features.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] jj-patton 11 years ago

First of all, I'm not going to defend L'Age d'Or, it's a silly thing. The whole "wow" thing I have with Bunuel comes from his grown up, post-Hollywood work, the tolerance he had fathoming the Mexican studio system, the freedom he found later in Europe. Pre-war, those are just baby pictures - interesting to history and anathema to the modern scope.

I was thinking of the basic thrust of his symbolism and allegories

And so was I. Yes, Bunuel's films often center around polemics, isn't it damn hard to make films otherwise? Good ones anyways. Aren't all Kubrick's films polemics about control and authority? I suppose that's an easy answer. But it is easy to confuse thrust with starting point, and this is surrealism we're talking about, it ain't just going to fit in that simple thematic box. Bunuel is certainly couched in religious/political presentations but we are also invited, quite vigorously, into the subversion of all we can "know" cinematically - or socially, or culturally. That's what surrealism is.

Like in Discreet Charm, where dream state is enveloped into dream state with a somewhat logic that assuredly spirals out of all recognition. Sure the religion and politics thrust themselves forward in a "look at me" fashion, but what are we to make of pot smoking soldiers existing in one character's dream about what another character is dreaming? As a political spear that is quite ephemeral, at that point good and evil cease being the point, so what is it, exactly? What do you "know" from a dream of a dream of a dream of someone who skipped dinner?

Likewise Exterminating Angel, sure it's a polemic on class structure and societal roles. It's also a polemic on the cinematic role of audience, these people part of the experience but not on the screen who herd themselves to rooms they don't escape until released. Then watch it again as a battle-of-the-sexes theater like a dozen mini-Frederick March movies and compare it to the unknowing, circumstantial surrealism inherent in the screwball comedy and similar cinematic motifs. The comedy of role reversal. Now what was religious/political is cultural. Shall we stop there?

[–] kino66 9 years ago

First of all, I'm not going to defend L'Age d'Or, it's a silly thing.

Big man!  Betcha wouldn't say that to Salvador Dalí!
That "silly thing" has remained relevant, enigmatic & adored (by some) for 85 years. What have you achieved?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kino66 9 years ago

What I glean from some of this discussion is a lot of left brained analysis and too much over thinking, which I find ironic (and absurd; Touché, Bunuel!).
This film is surreal and therefore (I believe) should mostly register with the viewer on a whimsical, gut, subconscious level, something like Fellini's Juliet of the Spirits.
IMO, analysis is fine, but ultimately, this is a surrealistic view of upper middle class life. Also, IMO, the underlying historical time period in France is not particularly relevant, as there are often on going wars & political events in almost every society.

Kubrick did this sort of thing much better, much more universally, as in Dr. Strangelove.

Wha???? "this sort of thing"??? IMO, Dr. Strangelove (which I love) & The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie are apples n' oranges. And yes, I'm still worried about the bomb.

[–] kino66 9 years ago

I LOVE Italian films, but so far, early French films, prior to the 1990s, excepting Jules Et Jim and a few others, leave me COLD.

Wow.
Can't find a likable/enjoyable French film done prior to 1990, other than Jules & Jim & a few others.
Mon Dieu. Dommage. C'est incroyable. Imbécile? (sorry, couldn't resist)
Fin

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

the absurdity of this movie aside, it has a certain charm

so many movies, so little time