Reviews of The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie
Displaying all 7 reviews
Sudipto Basu
20Jun11
Luis Bunuel’s ‘The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie’ holds the promise of a “proper” (classical) narrative throughout its length but doggedly fails in keeping it. Here is a film that pretends to head for the centre, all the while running off into tangents. It is almost as if Bunuel is trying his best to control his surreal urges and make a conventional, conformist narrative feature; but yields repeatedly to his playful, naughty side.
Gone is the sort of openly rebellious, distinctly surreal imagery that populated his early work (‘Un Chien Andalou’ or ’L’Age D’Or’). There is an air of naturalism and realism in the proceedings: hints that this film may follow the cause-and-effect logic of classical narrative. We see one of the characters – a high-ranking diplomat – smuggle cocaine in his luggage. A lady promises a priest that she’ll narrate the story of her faith to him. Bunuel throws around these nuggets with exquisite care. He has the diplomat explain in detail how he managed to smuggle the stuff in. But there’s no follow-up. It appears the director has lost interest in the sort of conventional film his handiwork is headed towards, so he turns his attention to another little incident, follows the narrative thread for a while, and diverts his attention yet again.
The running gag of the film is that a group of high-class socialites sit down to dinner several times but never actually finish it. Bunuel’s own little joke is luring his viewers into believing that ‘Discreet Charm’ is a conventional narrative. Like his protagonists, we never get finished with the “story” – our dinner. It eludes us before a normative conclusion can be reached.
‘Discreet Charm’ is as much a critique of complacent, disengaged entertainment (the sort that Hollywood has always readily served up) as it is a hilarious parody of bourgeois manners (with some typical Bunuel targets thrown in for good measure – bureaucratic, military and religious). At a restaurant, the three ladies of this film ask for all sorts of beverages – tea, coffee, water – but the waiter informs them that none is available. Nothing in Bunuel’s film is readymade for easy consumption.
One sequence in the film is shown thrice, being the last as well. It has the motley group of socialites walking endlessly through an empty field. Bunuel’s parting statement is cheerfully nihilistic – coming from nowhere, going nowhere. It is a wonder a film so mischievous and rebellious in its opposition to Hollywood’s values of filmmaking won an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film.
- Currently 5.0/5 Stars.
asuraf
30Jul10
Bunuel takes aim at the upper class as only Bunuel can, by stranding six friends in various social situations, usually involving an aborted meal, and lets them flail and scramble as one bizarre occurrence after another besets them.
Not only a joke on the ridiculous social mannerisms of people in positions of power, but a joke on the audience as well, who become invested in the characters reaching a destination, if only to consume a meal, and routinely has the rug pulled away to reveal a dream sequence or irreverent flashback.
It’s disorienting, but inventive, contemplative, and always darkly comic; a gem.
- Currently 5.0/5 Stars.
Byron Brubaker
29Jun10
Rey stands in for Bunuel as a Hispanic ambassador living amongst the French middle class. There are many occasions to poke fun at the manners and habits of these six upper-middle class friends. A gardener priest comes to work for the Senechals and shows how well he fits with their style of life despite being a servant himself in a way. The servants of a few of the friends demonstrate the class distinction. And a troop of soldiers including a strange Colonel with dreams he must tell people also pop into the lives of the Bourgeoisie. With all the dream segments and dreams within dreams as well as ghosts, crack and bloody faces it is hard to get one’s bearings. That is surrealism for you, but I guess I’m more traditional when it comes to what I like in a narrative.
- Currently 4.0/5 Stars.
hubertguillaud
14Mar10
Que ce film a mal vieilli. Les quelques notes surréalistes paraissent être devenues bien vaines pour nous surprendre encore sur ce film qui accumule les lieux communs pour soit disant en faire une critique sociale. Tout est consternant de naïveté, digne du théâtre de boulevard… et cette volonté de se moquer des attitudes de caste en adoptant soi-même un discours de caste paraît franchement pathétique. Sans grande finesse, Bunuel tente de casser du bourgeois, alors qu’il ne fait que nous casser les pieds.
Là où Resnais faisait des miracles avec le même style de jeu d’acteur et une mise en scène 1000 fois plus audacieuse, Bunuel nous endort et nous ennuie. Nous sommes typiquement ici dans le style de films dit classiques qui n’en sont pas… Nul.
- Currently 1.0/5 Stars.
richmondhill
13Jan10
For me the greatest joy of latter-day Bunuel is the drab and mundane mise-en-scene masking a delicious selection of the satirical, insightful and downright daft. The visuals lead you to expect one thing, but the events take you somewhere else.
Whether for reasons of financial or visual economy, I do not know, but the lack of any obvious signposts or triggers for the absurdities unfolding is a master stroke, shrugging off the inexplicable with a nonchalant shrug.
This is one of the finest with the discreet charms quietly and gleefully rubbished, as our bourgeois protagonists stumble through escalating social faux-pas. No visual fireworks here, but a wicked version of the ‘elephant in the room’. Don’t scratch the surface too deeply and instead be swept along on a gentle tide of wicked intent.
- Currently 4.0/5 Stars.
Christopher Smith
22Nov09
Bunuel has always been hit or miss for me, and even after repeated viewings, this film – though often considered one of his very best – is no exception. There are several memorably inspired absurdist moments – but it’s also plodding and overly genteel, lacking some kind of energy that keeps the whole thing feeling underwhelming. Definitely has its moments, but it falls short of the cinematic masterpiece it’s been made out to be.
- Currently 3.0/5 Stars.
A.P. Fischer
7Jul09
Upon arriving to the Senèchals home, the group of friends enter the house to find that no dinner has been prepared and are told by Alice Senèchal that they have come a day early and that the invitation was for the following day. This surprise leads the friends and Alice to dine at a restaurant where they begin to order, but are interrupted upon viewing the mourning of the restaurant owners funeral, which is taking place near their table. The following day the friends join together to dine in the Senèchals home once again but Mr. and Mrs. Senèchal scare away their guests by arousing suspicion in Rafael, who is worried that their lack of appearance is due to a police raid that is possible to happen. Rafael is almost murdered by a female terrorist while in his home but takes her by surprise and explains that she is more fit for love than war. Upon releasing her from his home, Rafael has two of his employees take her away in a car. As the friends sit around the dinner table of the Senèchals and are about to take part in the meal, a crowd of soldiers enters the house hoping to be fed a day earlier than planned, Alice arranges a table with for the soldiers to eat at. However, after a soldier tells a dream that he had, they are all called away to fight in the war and are unable to eat the food set out for them by Alice. The colonel of the army apologizes that they could not stay longer and invites all the friends to a dinner party of his own, which he is having the following night. The friends arrive at the party to discover that the room they believed was the dinner room is actually the set of a play, which they are taking part in. This sequence is a dream had by Henri Senèchal, who upon waking up takes his wife to the actual party of the colonel. At the party, the colonel insults Rafaels and his country, which causes Rafael to shoot the colonel. The events that take place are in fact a dream had by François Thevenot. The bishop, who is the Senèchals gardener, is called to do an absolution to a sick dying man, to which he discovers through the mans confession, is the man who murdered his parents several years ago, upon leaving the man the bishop finds a loaded shotgun and kills the man. As the friends yet again sit down to enjoy a meal at the Senèchals, the police enter the house and arrest everyone, without revealing any of the charges held against them. While in the jail, one of the police officers dreams that the sergeant released all the prisoners. After the police officer awakens he is called by the minister and told to let the prisoners go. After the release from jail the friends begin dine at the Senèchals only to be disrupted by a group of terrorists who kill everyone in the house, except Rafael who awakens from his dream as he is shot. The story ends with the friends walking a vast plain on a sunny day. The point of The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie is interruption. When the friends are seated at a restaurant contemplating their orders, a woman is heard crying, as the friends discover where the crying is coming from, it is revealed that the owner of the restaurant died earlier in the day and is being mourned inside the restaurant. This disruption causes the friends to leave and discontinue their meal. As Alice and Henri Senèchal attempt to make love in their bedroom, they are disturbed by their maid, who tells them their guests are in the living room. This interference causes the two to continue their activities outside as their friends await inside the house and because of their absence, causes suspicion in Rafael who believes that a police raid is to occur, interrupting the plans the friends had for eating together. When the three women get together to have a meal together in a restaurant, they are unable to enjoy a meal together because the restaurant is out of every single beverage, the time that it takes to discover this takes long enough for one of the women to have to leave for an appointment. She visits Rafael, whom she is having an affair with. The two are near to their sexual activity when the doorbell is rung, disrupting them from their affair. When the friends sit down for another meal, the dinner is interrupted by an army, who came a day earlier than Alice and Henri Senèchal expected. These constant interruptions that occur are served as a reminder that life is full of unexpected events. The upper class values both the knowledge and appearance of food. François explains the importance of how a martini is drunk and uses Rafael’s butler as an example of how not to drink. Since the butler is from the lower middle class he is unaware of the way to consume the drink. The butler is at the service of the upper class, yet in actuality has no knowledge of their customs. Drugs are used in the army as a means of relaxation to the French. Marijuana is not viewed as something negative, as with most countries. When the Colonel is speaking with Rafael about Marijuana, Rafael is shocked to hear that the soldiers are permitted to smoke the drug. Guests are treated rudely throughout the film. When the bishop enters the Senèchal’s dressed in gardeners clothing, he is kicked out of the home immediately, without time given for him to explain the situation. It is not until the bishop returns dressed in his appropriate garments that Henri and Alice apologize. When Rafael is at the party of the Colonel, several of the Frenchmen insult the ambassador’s home country, claiming that it has the highest homicide rate in the world and also that several of the police and higher government officials accept bribes regularly. This rudeness is attributed to the fact that the French upper class enjoys appearing superior to those that are foreign. When the friends are eating at the Senèchal’s and are arrested, the police refuse to tell them the reasons why they are being taken to jail. Through this action it is revealed that the government has quite different expectations for alerting the prisoner of the truth behind his or her arrest. This allows the government to conceal the truth and make arrests to those who are in fact innocent. Buñuel blends the real with the surreal in a subtle way through his use of dreams throughout the film. Events occur that in the reality of the film did not take place. An example of this is when Rafael shoots the Colonel at his party because he insulted his country. This scrambles the viewer in the sense that what has taken place has in actuality not. This technique constantly forces the audience to be alert. Foreshadowing is used when the bishop enters two large red barn doors to give an absolution to a sick dying man and upon leaving kills the man with a loaded shotgun he finds in the room. Since the doors are red it is a cue that a dramatic event is to take place. The camera is constantly moving throughout the film. Zoom ins, zoom outs, tracking shots, and pans are used to re construct the framing and composition. To enter Rafaels office, the camera begins to zoom in at a window and cuts to a zoom out of the same window from the interior. This fluid movement supports the directors aesthetic within the film. To transition to the Colonels party a shot of the street name and number are cut to when he tells the friends his house address. This technique condenses time and keeps the viewer directly connected to the film. A leitmotif is used in the film when Rafael is speaking to François and Henri in his office. The sound of an airplane taking off is heard and disconnects the viewer from the action because no dialogue is decipherable. The same sound is used when the police officer is talking with the minister on the phone. Though the police officer is able to understand what the minister has said the audience is not able to experience what has been spoken and therefore is left to make their own conclusions.
- Currently 5.0/5 Stars.