Oh i don’t think so; the more of his films i’ve seen my opinion of him has improved. Most of his satires of church and bourgeoisie, along with etiquette, pomposity, fascism.., are still pretty relevant.
Is this a joke. Please tell me this isn’t serious?!!?
As I have felt somewhat detached from the material in a more than a few of Buñuel’s films, I think it might have something to do with the culture one is from. I’m an American, and because of that, I didn’t quite understand the sort of reactionary idea of the lower class to the upper class, and that tendency was what made it a little difficult to understand part of The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (and, in a somewhat related fashion, made it initially hard for me to get into The Rules of the Game ).
However, I do think for the films wehre Buñuel’s subject matter is not culturally determined, there is still a timeless quality about them. For example, Belle du Jour will never go out of style as long as there are still people who are sexually repressed (or understand it). And even the films that do require a cultural tangency will have meaning, because (like any great director), his body of work will implicate something(s) of human nature: the Church will always have corruption (without being totally corrupt), the ruling class will always have arrogance and prejudice over the “lower” classes, etc…
yeah he deals with wide-ranging human characteristics, neuroses, erotic longings, “perversities”, eccentricities, faults and failings like the ones you mention, as well as political, religious and social issues. Have you seen his American (set) film The Young One, Matthias?
another thing about Bunuel is i see him (as early as L’Age d’Or, and of course other episodic films of surreal absurdities) as the father of Monty Python and so on to the Pythonesque humour that’s still popular.
Matthias: It doesn’t seem to me that being an American would make the topic of class distinctions and resentment foreign. True, it isn’t necessarily as deeply ingrained here, but it is definitely relevant here and now.
I don’t know how to approach this question, but part of me feels that great art should never seem dated. If it does, it’s because we are failing to connect with its historic context. The church doesn’t look and operate in exactly the same ways that it did; those black hassocks are not as symbolic as they were. The surrealist Benjamin Peret used to go out disguised as a priest, knowing he could be imprisoned if caught. Today the trappings don’t matter so much, but there are still wickedly grotesque hypocrisies in organized religion and so there’s a connection there. Someone could make a very Bunuelian satire about that Ted Haggard guy, that evangelist, although they might be risking their necks to do it.
I think “The Milky Way” could have been made today, so I would have to say no.
RaySquirrel
I love Bunuel as a filmmaker though sometimes I find it difficult to relate to the things that Bunuel is trying to satirize. Are Bunuel’s film too dependent on the knowledge of the time and place they were made?