Home » Articles » Film » Films Reviews »  DVD: Buñuel Bounces Back
Wednesday, February 11,2009

DVD: Buñuel Bounces Back

By Armond White
. . . . . . .
TWO NEWLY RELEASED DVDs of Luis Buñuel’s The Exterminating Angel (1962) and Simon of the Desert (1968) amount to a doublebill revival of Surrealism, the major but forgotten film movement. Buñuel's method of injecting irrational imagery into realistic settings and stories created some of the most powerful and schokingly funny cinematic explorations of modern experience.

Angel critiques the randomness of social custom when an upper-class dinner party turns into a ghastly episode of Survivor. Simon critiques the folly of human piety. Both movies are from Buñuel’s Mexican career (1950-1968), his greatest period.They represent the quintessence of his anarchic temperament, atheistic teasing and profound pity. In Criterion’s DVD versions, both films look better than ever, restoring them to an aesthetic excitement that challenges today’s simplistic F/X and superficial transgress imagery that degrade the Surrealist ideal.


In Angel, Buñuel outdoes Sartre’s No Exit, dismantling bourgeois decorum through a series of faux pas and discontinuities when guests cannot leave a mansion; he strips human behavior to its desperate essence, all under the rubric "Life is amusing and strange." David Lynch starts here but has never surpassed it.

With Simon, Buñuel jokes about religion with a depth beyond today’s knee-jerk atheism. As always, Buñuel’s theme is man’s desperate effort to escape his conscious, anti-social beastliness.This 45-minute parable about an ascetic saint (Claudio Brook) who stands atop a Byzantine column in the desert, resisting temptations by the devil (Silvia Pinal) and his own doubt is Buñuel’s greatest visual conceit. Cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa’s cumulus-and-dust vistas idealize the symbol of Simon’s agonizing, perpendicular aspiration. Buñuel’s art tests his own wily atheism: scenes of a coffin scooting across a desert floor contrast with a disco finale ("Radioactive Flesh—the last dance, the final dance"). It humorously, compassionately demonstrates man’s failure to elevate himself.

We need both these films now to rectify the confusions that greeted a charming spiritual comedy like Nacho Libre and the gullible artsnobbery that greeted a trivial anti-spiritual film like Stellet Licht. Buñuel bounces back into film culture with vigorous intelligence and pertinence. If you don't know Angel and Simon, you don't what makes Buñuel matter—which means you don't know how great movies can be.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Posted at 03/14/2009 
 
Armond often writes about films that I've dismissed, but in his reviews challenges me to appreciate what was once conveniently skimmed over. That's not to say I still don't disagree with him, I do, but it is always a vigorous disagreement. As with his praise of Simon of the Desert - which because of its length has made it impossible to get you hands on until now. It is one of two films (the other is Truffaut's 400 Blows) that completely captivated me in a World Cinema Class I had in college. It threw my pre-conceived notions of what one could expect in a darkened theater and seduced me to spend a decade in quest of a comparable experience at places like Theater 80, The Bleeker St., the Thalia and Film Forum. Simon of the Desert is a Masterpiece - although I'm afraid its' subversiveness which so delighted me in 1976 will somehow feel quaint today. The cruelty often ascribed to Bunuel's most memorable moments are in evidence brilliantly in Simon of the Desert. But I've never agreed with those who argued that Bunuel was callous or cynical. He's at his best when he shows us behavior we've all observed - but seldom exposed to on a screen of any size. See this film - it is magical. Insofar as my energetic exchanges of opinion with Armond - many dating back to that nostalgic period of upper west side cinema - this film is a "uniter, not a divider!"

 

Posted at 02/17/2009 
 
Armond's praise of Bunuel really confuses me. I've never been sold on Bunuel. For me, he is the blueprint to the nihilist films that have become the fad today. Characters are never human for him, only canvases to depict his moral biases. He puts his characters through ridiculous situations, only to find that they act the way they act because of economic/Freudian predispositions. His works are minor art projects that have become popular simply because they are so easy to swallow (that is, if you already subscribe to the same ideology). He doesn't have the capacity for complexity (the competing reasons/ideas that tipify reality) that other Armond gods have: Godard, Altman, de Palma, or Borzage. When Bunuel's characters fail to "to escape [their] conscious, anti-social beastliness," it's not because they fail to comprehend the weight of human experience, but because they failed to conform to Bunuel's moral edict: that we are consciously anti-social beasts. In contemporary terms, Bunuel would be the PT Anderson or Gus Van Sant, whose intellectual lite-ness never matched their arty ambitions. For me, knowing "what makes Bunuel matter" is to be painfully conscious of how much he matters to the morally corrupt and nihilistic pessimists of today.

 

Posted at 02/20/2009 
To all your "who said" questions: Armond White. If you read his reviews and his "Ten Years of Resistance," his paramount concern as a critic is to record films that portray the confounding complexity of human experience and call out films that force human existence into a neat narrative. He praises films that treat characters and their imperfections with dignity (Ritt) and critical of films that see the world solely through the homogenous prism of the filmmaker's point of view (Allen). Armond definitely believes that a filmmaker must be able to display his or her biases (such as Godard's leftist politics), but praises him or her as well for his ability to allow a world outside of his or her biases (Godard's criticism of leftist politics in Le Chinoise). So if you're not confused by the article, maybe you haven't read his articles and reviews enough.

 

Posted at 02/18/2009 
Who said that human characters in film (or, for that matter, in any other art form) must or need be “human”? And who said that an artist (in any art form) cannot or should not express his moral biases? And who said complexity is necessary for a work of art to be deemed worthy of its praise? White doesn’t confuse me – you do.

 

 
 


  • Sun
    22
  • Mon
    23
  • Tue
    24
  • Wed
    25
  • Thu
    26
  • Fri
    27
  • Sat
    28

Search in Events

Sign up for the NYPress
e-newsletter for weekly updates
and exciting event info:





Join us on Facebook Follow Us
on Twitter








 User Profile (click to open)



New_York_300_60.gif

 
 
Close
Close