I appreciate a good skewering of authoritarian mores as well as the next atheist, but this film is like a high school boy's after-school project. The only reason anyone cares about this film is because it was banned and a theatre burned.
The best thing about it is that for a "feature", it's only an hour long.
You forgot to mention - IMO.
Anyway, all written by you is a perfect statement - not about the movie, but about your Highly Esteemed Self.
Hélas.
Listen to your enemy, for God is talking
No, unfortunately just like all Bunuel, this movie was complete crap. There are 100s of better movies in the 1920's and 1930's.
I don't know, maybe surrealism is just not for me.
///No, unfortunately just like all Bunuel, this movie was complete crap.///
Notions like this would be better to keep for yourself. Even the magic IMO you sadly missed wouldn't work here. Believe me, a bit of reservedness or just modesty will serve you better.
//I don't know, maybe surrealism is just not for me.///
I would say that your perspective is rather limited.
Listen to your enemy, for God is talking
There are 100s of better movies in the 1920's and 1930's.
I was just thinking about watching this film, I'm sort of confused on what Surrealism is, but to me I have no problem with this film trying to make a very good point. It's essentially about two people who are in love and want to consummate their love for each other but due to religious oppression are thwarted from it. What I see is a film that seems to condemn the Catholic Church in particular. I'm very liberal and atheist so maybe for me it's very easy to swallow though. But I find it profound because it's a film so under appreciated and hardly known, and way ahead of it's time, religious indoctrination is a very dangerous thing.
The internet, where religions come to die.
I appreciate Buñuel's and Dali's film work in smaller doses (like Un chien andalou), this was a bit harder to sit through, but to each his own I guess.
shareThis movie could have been shortened to a great 30min film if it started at the party and removed the "120 Days of Sodom" epilogue. The movie may of been "shocking" at the time in Spain, but today alot of the "attacks" go unnoticed, or at least they did by me. Apparently the movie is about a couple, but at what point are they referenced as being a couple? The first time we see the Man and Woman together he seems to be attacking her (she is screaming, it seems for help not joy), like I said, it would of been better if it began at the party and the Man and Woman just found each other attractive and wanted to have sex, yet due to religion and bourgeois society they can't.
While I have yet to see all of Buñuel's films, I'm gonna say that L'Age d'Or is my one of my least favorites from him. Now admittedly, I found most of it to be quite intriguing, but even so I think another watch is required to fully appreciate it. And perhaps even enjoy it.
Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!
It's garbage. And this Aliza can *beep* off, what with his eltist censorship, the irony of which was lost on him here.
Bunuel made some great films later in life; The Discrete Charm of the Bourgeoisie, for example