MovieChat Forums > Un chien andalou (1929) Discussion > Lost...

Lost...

posted 16 years ago by c_ritchieo
10 replies | jump to latest

I have to study this film as part of a European Culture class, which I was put into by default of doing Spanish! By my own admission I do not understand nor appreciate "art". I can look at a painting of a physical place and say "Oh yeah, that's a good painting", etc. But all of this "surrealism" stuff is totally lost on me.

I have researched the background to surrealism; intent to shock, lack of continuity, imagination over reality, etc and I saw most of the key features appearing in the film, but it's still pretty much lost on me.

I've seen other people replying to posts similar to this with comments such as "if that's the way you think, you were the intended audience". Perhaps so, but I saw the surrealist features in the film, I just don't see what point they have?!

To me, art is something you either enjoy, understand and appreciate, or you don't. Unfortunatly I just don't. I have no problem with those who do, I just enjoy & appreciate other things. Is there anyone who can interpret this film in any way so that I could perhaps watch it again with a view to "understanding" it more? (I put typed "understanding" as such as I know it's not a film you sit down to understand and enjoy but those who know the answer to my question will know what I mean...I hope?!)

[–] cell_evo 16 years ago

Roger Ebert's review is a good place to start. He does a nice job of placing it in context:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000416/REVIEWS08/401010369/1023

[–] Brysonashultz 16 years ago

This film was not meant to be understood. Bunuel himself said that there was no symbolism or anything of the sort in Un Chien Andalou. His and Dali's intents were to create a dreamlike narrative that could not possibly symbolize anything.

"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the alps!" - The Big Lebowski, edited for TV

[–] c_ritchieo 16 years ago

Like I said, I know it's not a film you can disect, understand and talk about. I have found the quotes by Bunel saying there is no meaning, but I highly doubt that "This film is not meant to be understood" will answer 3 pages of questions!

cell_evo: Nice link, thanks!

[–] ernapo 16 years ago

it actually does...when Dali and Buñuel made the film they just had one rule, nothign planned, everything had to be made up in the spot...both the eye slicing and the ants images are from Buñuel's and Dali's dream.
It does not have any deepful meaning or any hidden symbolism, it is what it is, it's supposed to create sensations and reactions on the audience, they just wanted to shock people, and the fact that most towns prohibited the movie is a proof that it achieved this.
Take the freezes that are so popular today, what's the point of thousands of people frozen in the middle of a train station or famous square, nothing really, it's all about reaction, to create an effect on people and something that looks completely out of context in a place where you expect to find order.

[–] ishbelbeeson 16 years ago

I disagree that their is no symbolism or meaning in the film - I know that they did want a sequence of almost unexplainable events but if you relate the film to Freudian theories (a big influence on all of Bunuel's films) the symbolism becomes clearer.

Alot of the film is about sexual violence and desires. After the eyeball (intended to shock the audience into the right state of mind to view the film differently) you see a man on a bicycle, his appearance makes him look immature and then he falls from his bike, this is a symbol for sexual anxiety. The woman who sees him from the window then rushes down the stairs, a symbol of sexual desire in Freudian terms.
The hand with the ants is symbolic of sexual mutilation and the imminent sexual awakening of the young man. It has also been said to literally show the french proverb of 'itching to kill' or something like that. The woman who is prodding the hand on the street with a stick represents progressive sexual arousal, apparantly, the hand is his lifeless penis which she prods to reawake his sexuality (note she is dressed in a masculine way which demonstrates the role reversal of the genders).

I know all of that sounds a little farfetched. I don't think when it was made Bunuel or Dali did think that deeply into what they were representing but all of this is in The Discreet Art of Luis Bunuel by Gwynne Edwards. It analyses all of the film and makes alot more sense.

[–] skopofiil 15 years ago

I think you have a point there. I read somewhere, that Bunuel himself said, that nothing in Un Chien Andalou means anything, therefore it cannot be subjected to any psychological analysis, except maybe psychoanalytical... So the man himself gave us a clue.

This of course means, that none of the symbols are inserted consciously, but DESPITE the conscious decision to avoid the possibility of any rational explanation of what goes on on the screen.

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

In a certain free-associative way, it does seem to make some kind of a sense after all. I think. And one should never take the things directors SAY too seriously.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] deepblue501 16 years ago

fully agree. In his autobiography Bunuel explains that he absolutely loaths that everybody always wants to understand everything. This movie was meant to shock and create visuals serving this purpose. I think Dali and Bunuel had a good laugh when they worked on the scenario for one week. The film was shot in a few days by the way.

[–] hamxxd 15 years ago

it's a piece of surreal art, you can have your own interpretation -- i read somewhere that Luis Buñuel said that if you are finding meaning in this film you must be insane. Some critics have simplified the whole film as an experiment in cinematography as Shock the Audience technique. In my opinion, it summarizes the whole film very well when you see it from the surrealist point of view.

_________
Thank God I'm an atheist -Luis Buñuel

[–] it-breathes-on-its-own 15 years ago

IMHO, I think the best way is to approach the film as a dream, an attempt to film the unconscious. If you read Freud's essay on the Uncanny, there are a lot of things in there that are pretty blatantly used here: destruction of eyes as a symbolic castration, use of doubles, etc.