NOTES. As they say, so I’ll say it, “I’ve been thinking” about (The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie in my case, among other things)
Artistically, the film is regarded as surreal, but I question this.
For one, the so-called dream sequences, which have the effect of waking up from a dream, are more realistic than surreal. In reality one knows what waking up from a dream is like. The art of it is to alert us to the feeling of waking up from a dream. Of course, this is extremely well done, but isn’t surreal as they have called it.
Now, the situations the rich are in you would expect there to be a certain amount of absurdity to alert us to the fact that the bourgeoisie are indeed buffoons. But the rich here behave in similar ways to everyday folk you’d find in everyday swanky groups and the plot they’re in all quite believable rather than absurd if one has seen a bit of life in action.
The people in the film are interested in their surroundings and even more than interested, immersed in their surroundings. They are focused on immediate things. The so-called satire of the rich is rather a reality of ordinary people in life-like situations. The exception to this profile is the setting where the rich are sharply contrasted with the peasantry poor which is just a way of beating up the rich.
Writer and director Bunuel is honing his dagger for the capitalists, and the church for that matter, in unguarded moments where it is apparent that his subjects are hypocrites and buffoons. Bunuel here kicks himself in the foot by the size of his dagger and the look is rather sharp and unfair if one considers the wider reality.
Besides, the rich in this film are all rather quite likeable, apart from their sexual and other liaisons, and get the best lines. Likeability is something I don’t think Bunuel was aiming for-but thanks to some nice performances and witty dialogue reflective of the actors saying it.
(I have decided to post a full review combining both posts in another post, under a new category, “critiques” (only critiques).)