Didn't get it


Too much historical and cultural subtleties and a lot of surrealism that didn't connect to anything. I have nothing against surrealism, but it did not hold together here, it seemed only to exist for the sake of existing, without deepening the plot or heightening the viewer's experience. I understood the last little bit was out of de Sade's 120 days of Sodom, but other then that I found myself lost in a whole lot of plot devices that seemingly require the viewer to have an understanding of pre-war France.

Last film seen: L'age d'Or 7/10

reply

[deleted]

According to wikipedia, whether you find it reliable or not, it has been suggested that the scenes of violent expression earlier in the film as the lovestruck protagonist is manhandled along by two enforcers, and the ending may suggest that the film's message is that sexual repression, whether propagated by civil bourgeois society or by the church, breeds violence.

reply

Interesting what you write. I think I have quite some understanding of pre-war France, and didn't need it. Not that I wanted to pretend to understand everything, but the majority of items that Buñuel shows, are very generic human traits. They had to be set somewhere, and so he selected - I think - a rather arbitrary setting; never mind if France, Spain or Italy (here: Rome).

reply

Too much historical and cultural subtleties and a lot of surrealism that didn't connect to anything.



why it should connect? for what reason?
to me, it seems you take stuff too seriously, too organized?
OCD, like me?

guy was in his thirties when he filmed it. he showed a woman sucking a toe, something that films after sexual revolution didn't show. now that is impressive, progressive! i don't expect to get it, he done it, it will never be repeated again. if they film today a feet fetish, it will be just another crazy movie, but this was 1930, some countries didn't allow women to vote for crying out loud!

it's magnificant brave film
10/10

reply