MovieChat Forums > Le fantôme de la liberté (1974) Discussion > Surrealism and Fantacy

Surrealism and Fantacy

posted 19 years ago by jonnyborrows
12 replies | jump to latest

Hi. For second year film studies i am studyings surrealist cinema and am using Phantom of Liberty as my close study film. I have been given my first essay to write though i am finding is a bit hard as i dont understand the concepts of surrealism very well yet.
My question is - "Surrealist and fantacy cinema has the capacity to transform the ordinary and make us see aspects of our world differently." Using Phantom of Liberty, explore how far you agree with this statement.
If anyone can give me pointers in the right direction or give me any advice it would be much apprechiated
Thanks
Jonny

[–] moosepie 18 years ago

some random thoughts on 'phantom':
transforms the ordinary by juxtaposing images thereby creating surreal impression, as in the dream sequence at the start of the film. challenges conventionl narrative structure because he uses tenuous links between stories and then abandons the previous ones. this confuses the audience and means that our expectations are not fulfilled. uses these images (or symbols) to say something about the society that we live in. mocks the catholic church (monks gamble their religious icons, drink and flirt with the nurse, the young man and his aunt's affair begins in church). this shows the corruptness and hypocrisy of the church. also mocks burgeous society (the man and wife who are virtual strangers to each other, the couple who indulge in s+m in the guesthouse). animal theme throughout could show what we have lost in our society: freedom and natural instinct, rather than rules and social conventions. makes us see that freedom is a phantom as the title suggests because most people are frightened by the idea of it and so have created these social cages for themselves so that they wont have to deal with it.

'some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese'

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Narrator_Jack_dot_com 18 years ago

I would have liked to see this in anything other than the Technicolor look it has. You can't go wrong with black and white with a red filter.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Krustallos 17 years ago

I think gpreed1 misses the point.

Surrealism isn't just a matter of throwing a lot of weird stuff together for effect.

Those juxtapositions are supposed to fracture our cosy view of reality and make us think about things anew. Much of the imagery is also taken from dreams, which the Surrealists, after Freud, regarded as coming directly from the subconscious, and thus bearing truths which the norms of bourgeois society seek to repress.

This is why "Lebowski", though a little unusual, is not really surrealist, whereas David Lynch's work most definitely is.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Krustallos 17 years ago

Sorta.

I think the word "surreal" has actually changed its meaning over the years.

It's now used in popular speech to mean "unreal" or "weird", whereas that was only a small part of the original concept, which had much more to do with dredging things up from the subconscious mind, and also with overthrowing bourgeois society (many of the Surrealists were also communists - hence the title of this very film).

This sets it out pretty well:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealism

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] terror_and_submission 17 years ago

There is surreal in definition and surreal in application. Or maybe surreal in intention and surreal in interpretation. It may have no meaning whatsoever, but you can analyze it forever.

[–] bonsaipuff 16 years ago

I'm not a fan of surreal or allegory films. I recently viewed Louis Malle's film, "Black Moon" and I hated it. I mistakenly rented "Phantom Of Liberty", can someone tell me if these two films are similar in style or which is better?

[–] Kinematico 16 years ago

I am not an expert but I don't think "surrealism" and "fantasy" are the same thing at all.

"Surrealism" as the definition of the word (in french) is a "supra-reality", a reality that dwells in the sub-conscientious. In the other hand the "Fantasy" is un-real, fake, invented.

The movies from Buñuel are not unrealistic (although many could thought that), nor invents a fake reality. Their movies only "exaggerates" or puts in very crude terms, real facts and real situations. (usually "too realistic", so much that we can't accept it might be "real" or they are somehow a true reflection, but distorted at the same time, from our "reality")

That's IMO the difference between "surrealism" (a la Buñuel or Jodorowsky) and Fantasy (a la Tim Burton or Peter Jackson).

[–] shroomn 16 years ago

exactamundo
Coen brothers included.

Though they are amazing.