Around the World in 24 Frames 09.25.09: The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie
Posted by Len Archibald on 09.25.2009
Part Two of an examination in the mind of Luis Buñuel, as he tricks his own characters (and us in the process) into thinking they will have a chance to eat. Also - Len has the AUDACITY to declare 2009 as the best year for movies this decade! With proof! The AUDACITY!!!
NEW BANNER! Much thanks to Leopold...Who I'm not quite sure is a writer around these parts, but...There's a Canadian flag in there! And it's nice!
It's Friday! It's Friday! It's Friday! Let's get this moving in a clockwise orange.
The Rant
So 411movies decided to ask the readers the poignant question of whether movies are getting better or worse. We got the usual knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) reaction about how movies are getting worse, how Hollywood is running out of ideas, blah blah blah…
I think the question itself is misleading. Maybe the question posed should have been "Are HOLLYWOOD movies getting worse?" – which may have received a more streamlined set of answers (probably a unanimous YES!)
But, no people. Movies are NOT getting worse. In fact, I would be so bold to use 2009 as an example of a GREAT year for film. Some may want to point out at Transformers 2 or the Night at the Museum sequel, point out the box office numbers and cry. That has nothing to do with the movies themselves. That actually says more about the audience. But the actual quality films that have been released this year alone, based on craft, storytelling, acting, visual expertise and basic word-of-mouth has been superb:
12: Russia's interpretation of 12 Angry Men takes the best elements of that great film, expands on the individual jurors and opens up the space to make for a compelling drama directed by Nikita Mikhalkov.
(500) Days of Summer: Marc Webb lovingly directs Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel as a couple who were never destined to last, despite one party's constant denial/insistence. Full of style, but carried by the story that rebels against the stereotypes of what a romantic comedy should be.
Amreeka: Debut film from Dayton, Ohio resident Cherien Dabis, a Jordanian, is a touching comedy about the immigrant experience (one I know all too well.)
Antichrist: The most controversial film of 2009? Possibly. No doubt the most discussed, dissected and polarizing film of the year. Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg play a couple struggling to cope with the accidental death of their infant son in a world where "chaos reigns". Danish filmmaker Lars Von Trier is as disturbed as he is audacious and gives the audience visuals that will linger forever. The opening "prologue" sequence is the best shot-for-shot sequence of the year.
Away We Go: Sam Mendes takes on "no-name" actors (Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski) and directs a great little gem about adults who need to grow up to become mature contributors to society, without flaking out to the obvious cliches.
Departures: The 2009 Oscar winner for best foreign film is a great tale about a classically trained musician who is employed in the Japanese preparation of the dead. Six Feet Under meets Ozu, perhaps? Yojiro Takita shows Ozu's patience of pacing (if not his patience of composition.)
District 9: Neill Blomkamp's short-film-turned-megablockbuster made noise, showed that Peter Jackson has a remarkable eye for talent, showed that audiences are willing to give intelligent and different stories a chance and showed studios that with a little creativity, James Cameron's pocket change can be used to make an effective-looking and gripping film.
Funny People: Judd Apatow is facing some backlash, but it's natural for people to nitpick at a guy who so far is batting 1.000 in three attempts behind the camera. Adam Sandler (again) and Seth Rogen (finally) show that with the right material, they can be serious, credible actors, and not just "funny people" (genius!)
Gomorra: Harder than The Godfather and without the disco lights of Scarface - this story, told from the grungy point of view of the daytime criminals that kill each other for bosses they don't know and unflattering pay is relentless in its lack of moral center.
The Informant!: Matt Damon is having the time of his life in Steven Soderbergh's comedy/thriller (WTF?!) – this may be another Oscar nom for both gentlemen. (Soderberg also released The Girlfriend Experience, a flawed but noble attempt at modernizing Jean Luc-Godard's bleak worldview.)
The Hangover: Of course, while Judd Apatow is moving into more "mature" comedies, Todd Phillips shows that there is still room for the "Rated R Comedy". Basically Memento on a cocaine and acid induced binge, The Hangover is, by far and away, the funniest movie of the year. Zach Galifianakis, Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms have all become superstars.
The Hurt Locker: If this doesn't wind up on every major critic's "Best of…" lists and walk away with a TON of Oscar nominations come February, there may be no justice. Kathryn Bigelow has found her masterpiece, a heart-stopping drama starring Jeremy Renner as a bomb-diffuser in Iraq whose motives are not what they seem to be. I'll say it again: If war is indeed a drug, this movie is the fix. Everyone should have seen this yesterday.
Inglorious Basterds: Quentin Tarantino. That's all you need to know. Want to know more? Brad Pitt AGAIN shows he's the most underrated actor in the world (hated because of his looks?) that can play anyone he's asked to. But the real stars are Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurent who take Tarantino's most mature script (and best since Pulp Fiction, IMO) and make human beings out of what could be caricatures.
Julia: Tilda Swinton gives an Oscar-caliber performance as an alcoholic…uh…lets say she has no sexual inhibitions that helps a mother kidnap her own son. She's also a habitual liar which complicates things. Erick Zonca directs a hell of a hellish ride into the underworld.
The Merry Gentlemen: Michael Keaton's directorial debut shows that he is a force to be reckoned with behind the lens and may have added/saved at least 10 more years in his career. Keaton himself plays a suicidal hitman in a crime film that isn't as into the criminal element as one may think. This is a hell of a debut for the guy best known as "Batman" and "Mr. Mom."
Moon: Our generation's response to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Solaris. Sam Rockwell plays a man at the tail end of a three year mission on an isolated outpost on the "dark side of the moon". Duncan Jones directs. Remember that name, you'll hear a lot more as time goes by.
My One And Only: Renee Zellweger and Kevin Bacon shine bright as a headstrong woman and her scumbag of a husband as she and her sons set off on a road trip in 1950's America.
Nothing but the Truth: Rod Lurie wrote and directed this film – inspired by the Valerie Plame case and is a powerhouse. Stars a who's who of impressive names, all giving great, even unexpectedly poignant performances. Stars Kate Beckinsale(!), Vera Farmiga, Matt Dillon, Alan Alda, Angela Basset and David Schwimmer(!?!) Hell of an ending, too.
Orphan: Who'da thunk it? A horror movie that actually scares and caters to the fears of adults rather than the teenybopper blood-lust of today. Isabelle Fuhrman's portrayal of the "evil orphan" is scary…More than it has any right to be. Pleasant surprise of the year.
Passing Strange: Spike Lee has always fared with material he is deeply compassionate about (Do the Right Thing, Malcolm X, Four Little Girls) and shows it again as he films the celebrated musical about the rebellious nature of a young black musician in the 1970's.
Ponyo: Hayao Miyazaki's newest masterpiece – a story about a literal fish out of water that has as much magic, mystery and poetry than anything Walt Disney could have created during his golden age of animation in the 30's and 40's. I will still never forgive Western audiences for sleeping on this film. Look at the voice cast: Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett, Liam Neeson and Tina Fey!
Public Enemies: Even though it is disappointing in how deep into the people and events that shape the film, Michael Mann's docudrama of John Dillinger is a lot better than people give it credit for. Johnny Depp does no wrong. Probably misjudged because expectations were SKY HIGH for this film. Mann and Depp at their worst is still better than 90% of what is marketed as "mainstream" film today.
Taken: If there was anyone who could have been a more unlikely box office superstar, it is the man who played Oskar Schindler, Qui-Gon Jinn and Michael Collins. We follow Liam Neeson as a former government agent who is on the hunt for the bastards who kidnapped his daughter. They picked the wrong guy to mess with. One of the best action movies of the decade.
Tyson: James Toback took on the daunting task of humanizing someone who's been a villain for over a decade – Mike Tyson, and succeeds triumphantly in this "shoot" interview/documentary. This and his cameo appearance in The Hangover may have given Tyson new life among the American public.
Up: Pixar shines again. More emotional than any "cartoon" has any right to be, we see through the eyes of a crotchety old man the life that was, should have been, currently is, and will be in the future. A montage that is both tribute and comparable to Citizen Kane's famous "dinner table" scene highlights this great animated film.
Watchmen: Forget the fanboy's disputes; Watchmen, from opening to closing frame is the most visually stunning film of the year. Zach Snyder does what was impossible and brought the "unfilmable" acclaimed graphic novel to life. Jackie Earl Haley and James Dean Morgan are outstanding as Rorschach and The Comedian. See the "Director's Cut", which adds more detail.
Hell, me and my wife just came back from watching the cleanest, clearest print of The Wizard of Oz for its 70th anniversary on the big screen in Fort Wayne, Indiana just this past Wednesday. Got the tip from Jeremy Thomas. Thanks, Jeremy!
I haven't even included the following films:
Big Man Japan, Che, Cheri, Cold Souls, Coraline, Food, Inc., Goodbye Solo, The Great Buck Howard, Humpday, Hunger, I Love You, Man, Just Another Love Story, Katyń, Knowing (yeah, I thought it was a good movie), Lorna's Silence, Medicine for Melancholy, Munyurangabo, My Sister's Keeper, Notorious, Of Time and the City, O'Horten, Revanche, The Secrets, Silent Light, Sita Sings the Blues, Still Walking, Taking Woodstock, Tokyo Sonata, Tulpan, Two Lovers, and You the Living.
…And these highly anticipated films haven't even been released yet:
An Education, Amelia, Avatar, Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, The Boat that Rocked, THE F'N BOONDOCK SAINTS II, The Box, Broken Embraces, Chloe, Couples Retreat, Creation, The Damned United, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Fourth Kind, Get Low, I Am Love, The Invention of Lying, Leaves of Grass, The Lovely Bones, Mao's Last Dancer, Me and Orson Welles, The Men Who Stare at Goats, More Than a Game, Mother and Child, New York, I Love You, Nine, Precious, Red Cliff, The Road, A Simple Man, The Tree of Life, Up in the Air, Where the Wild Things Are, Whip It!, The White Ribbon and Zombieland.
What will your excuses be? "I've never heard of most of these!" - You have now. "Some of these sound foreign!" - You're right, they are. Get over your ignorance. "Some of these sound like pretentious bores!" - Some of them probably are. You won't know until you watch them first. "They don't play in my city!" - Get OnDemand. Get Netflix. Watch IFC. Call your theater. Drive. Bug your video store. If you're reading this, you're surfing the internet. Start there and Google away.
Are movies getting worse? No, sir. If you want to see great movies, you have to LOOK FOR THEM. Don't judge the art of film with the business of movies. Maybe YOU think movies are getting worse, but that's something YOU will have to deal with. Me, on the other hand – feels that 2009 may be – if I may be so bold, the single greatest year of film this decade.[/end rant]
********************
I love movies. They represent escapism, art, intellect and spirituality. Some are nothing more than popcorn flicks, designed to ease the burden of "real-life" for a couple of hours. Some bring important issues to the forefront that challenges how we perceive our surroundings. The most important thing for me – if one is a serious film-goer – is to constantly expand and discover new movies. This includes experiencing stories told outside of North America.
Yes, I know: "I don't like to read while I watch movies". Well, neither do I, but I won't use that to prevent me from finding a great story within the screen. It is important, as human beings to discover other cultures and expand our perceptions of those different from us and how they see the world. There are reasons that Bergman, Kurosawa, Fellini, Ozu and Truffaut are important in the movie world – They are just great at what they do.
I intend to highlight a new film every week that is considered "foreign-language"; now that definition is simple, yet broad and complex. For example, if you need subtitles to understand the events of the plot, I will discuss it. If it is a film from a primarily English-speaking nation, but is *NOT* in English (i.e. Leolo or Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner from Canada), I will discuss. If it is a film from outside the U.S. and it *is* in English, I will not discuss (sorry, Brits & Aussies) – for now. My goal is to shed light on some of these gems, and help quell the insatiable appetites for those who can't live without seeing a new movie. Enjoy!
Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie: The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972)
France/Italy/Spain
Dir. Luis Buñuel
Runtime: 102 min.
I'm a hypocrite. I tend to catch myself doing things I preach against. Every human being does so – I think it is human nature to be hypocritical. Some approach this universal character flaw with cynicism and doubt. Luis Buñuel approaches hypocrisy with glee, and I even sometimes wonder, with tenderness.
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, Buñuel's 30th film (29th feature overall) may be his most inspired work. He made the film at 72, showing all the skills and restraints of a master filmmaker. This is a movie that I feel every film school and serious film program in the world should spend a good time studying at some point. It's an excellent example of pacing, wit, satire and the ability of toying with the audience.
I'll tell you the truth, the first time I saw The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, I was intimidated. Look at the title – it sounds overly sophisticated. I also think it's misleading because it's simpler than you think. My problem was I focused on the word "Bourgeoisie", when I should have figured the film really is about the word "Discreet". I may not understand the European middle-class, but I understand (as does everyone else) that I may have secrets or vices that I don't want anyone else knowing about – and that is essentially the purpose of this film: to place the characters in situations where they are found guilty; not of having vices, but for hiding them.
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie follows the exploits of six friends (acquaintances may be the better word) as they meet up in different, episodic situations to eat. They never do. Interruptions, happy coincidences, dreams, dreams within dreams, macabre stories and lack of service all hinder these well-to-do lives at the chance to indulge in basic nourishment.
Ah, but it's much more than that. Luis Buñuel held a strong dislike for institution. The army, the church, politicians and especially the European middle class were all guilty of hypocrisy and blindness to the needs of the lower class. Here, Buñuel offers the audience a universal vice – eating – and uses it to expose other vices. The first dinner party is a sly dig at the ribs: A bourgeois couple, the Thévenots (Paul Frankeur and Delphine Seyrig), accompany M. Thévenot's colleague Rafael Acosta (the great Fernando Rey) and Mme. Thévenot's sister Florence (Bulle Ogier), to the house of Henri and Alice Sénéchal (Jean-Pierre Cassel and Stéphane Audran) , for a lavish dinner party. Once they arrive, Alice (in expensive pajamas) is surprised to see them. According to her, the party was expected for the next evening so no dinner was prepared.
The guests invite Mme Sénéchal to join them for dinner at a nearby inn (she is told that she looks fine as she is.) Once they arrive, the party finds the doors locked. After some knocking and complaints of service, they are invited in, despite the waitress' reluctance and ominous mention of "new management". Inside, there are no dinners being served (but the prices are cheap.) The sound of wailing voices from another room can be heard. The guests realize that the manager died a few hours earlier and his former employees are holding vigil over his corpse, awaiting the coroner. In disgust, the group leaves. They don't leave because of the dead body, but because of the "inconvenience" of the body halting service for them.
All attempted gatherings to sit and eat are interrupted in similar fashion, with each instance revealing something about the humanity of the bourgeois that they are trying desperately (and foolishly) to hide beneath their constructed manners and way of speaking. Lust, greed, addictions and hunger are vices assumed to the "common man" but never of themselves – at least to each other in public. A lunch is postponed because Henri and Alice decide to have sex in the bushes outside of their house, rather than be heard doing it in their own home (Alice "makes too much noise", according to Henri.) A dream shows the dinner guests on stage, being mocked by the audience – complete with Henri unable to remember his "lines"; showing that his speech pattern and words are carefully constructed to give an impression of culture, taste and decadence. This group wields their political influence and power to smuggle drugs into the country, but will sip their martinis and belittle drug addicts as being disgusting creatures.
During several moments throughout The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, the main story is interrupted to show the six characters simply walking down an empty road in the middle of an open plain, fully dressed – slightly in a rush, but never looking truly concerned. We are never told where they are going, nor when the film ends is it ever explained. I didn't get this at all when I first watched the film. After several more encounters (this is why movies – the great ones - are made to be observed more than once) I understood what Luis Buñuel was displaying on screen: They are in purgatory. The characters are forever stuck in an empty, meaningless life, where no one communicates and the outside world shuns them. Luis Buñuel damned his own characters.
Compare the events of Discreet Charm with another one of Buñuel's great accomplishments, The Exterminating Angel (1962); the guests in this film arrive for dinner, eat, but somehow are compelled to spend weeks in the house of the host. They can't leave. Their civilized demeanor crumbles amongst each other as the police and media lurk on the outside. Buñuel had already played with this concept, and I actually consider The Discreet Charm… to be a companion piece, almost a parenthesis to The Exterminating Angel as the two films are the same coin, just on opposite sides.
Buñuel's intent with the two films was to make fun of the rich and privileged. He also made it his business to mock the church. Buñuel was an atheist – proudly - and never hesitated to make fun of organized religion – mainly the Catholic Church. Julien Bertheau gives, in my opinion, the best performance and has the best overall story as Monsignor Dufor. He arrives at the Sénéchal household at the same time the couple are frolicking in the bushes. Earlier, the dinner guests arrived, but once they realized their hosts were nowhere to be found, panic ensued. Fearful of a possible police raid that would expose Rafael Acosta of his drug-smuggling, they flee. The maid (Milena Vukotic) is unable to explain where her employers have disappeared to.
Dufor makes his intentions known: he has heard that the Sénéchal's have fired their gardener and is interested in filling the position. He makes his way down to the gardeners shed, disrobes and puts on the gardeners uniform. He takes great pleasure in the tools and the straw hat, strangely – in the same manner one would find leather and whips attractive when indulging in an S&M fetish. When Alice and Henri emerge from their sexual romp, Dufor meets them, dressed as the gardener. The maid explains the situation, but the couple rebukes him, not convinced he is who he claims to be. Later, when Dufor arrives in his priestly garbs, they suddenly conform and appease him. It's funny, because he could have just as easily found a bishop's costume and be a phony. Like they say, the clothes make the man.
Dufor is just as guilty himself, as he willingly decides to befriend and fall victim to the Sénéchal's empty views of society. He is completely clueless when he is called to perform Last Rites on a dying man. He listens, but easily dismisses the peasants with empty cliches. He isn't even aware when it is mentioned that the sick man recently lost his job as a gardener. When Dufor arrives to comfort this gardener, it is then that his true persona is revealed – and displays another facet of hypocrisy Buñuel intended to uncover.
I don't know why, but every time I think of some of the situations of Buñuel's characters in this film I can't help but be reminded of Woody Allen's brilliant yet flawed Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex…But Are Too Afraid to Ask, especially the one episode about the man who dresses in his wife's outfit during a dinner party, only to be caught after he makes a mad-dash out of the window and onto the street when he hears someone coming to the bedroom. It is a hilarious piece that deals with fetishism, something straight out of Luis Buñuel's playbook. Characters in The Discreet Charm… must deal with their own fetishes, affairs and addictions, all the while putting up the façade that they have none.
But whether it is the urge to switch seats in a café because a character can't stand the sight of a cello because she "can't stand" the instrument, or having a military unit storm in only to debate the positives and negatives of marijuana use in society, or the complete misdirection into a ghost story about a young boy's lust for revenge towards the man who murdered his mother and father, Buñuel provides just enough story (and backstory for some) to toy the audience with. One of the great things that makes The Discreet Charm…, well…charming, is how he is able to stray away from the main narrative many times – since the main narrative are self-contained episodes of the same story arc. This allows Buñuel to show his main sextet in situations that they would not normally find themselves in and peels away at their hidden desires and agendas. Soldiers open fire during an attempted dinner, for example, and one of the guests could go unscathed – except for the fact that he betrays himself by reaching under the table for a piece of meat. They are all in it for themselves.
Luis Buñuel and Alfred Hitchcock.
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie was Buñuel's most successful film, bringing in more box office than any of his other masterpieces. It was named the best film of 1972 by the National society of Film Critics and won the Oscar as best foreign film. The Vietnam War was at its apex and there was social upheaval. This was a welcome film for those who scoffed at the upper class. Its relevance is still powerful today as we live in a generation where, again, the rich are vilified.
Human hypocrisy can be dealt from two points of view; the cynical, which focuses on the evils and extremes of those who are willing participants – and use their hypocrisy to gain power or control society, which is ultimately a story that focuses on the victims, or from the satirical – where hypocrisy is shown as a way of life, and perhaps even survival. I've always been a strong advocate of satire. It is the form of comedy that perhaps best illuminate serious issues about human nature without being too heavy handed or preachy. Network is one of my top ten essential films that I re-visit every year, for example. Buñuel, perhaps with Billy Wilder – was the quintessential master of this genre. I don't think he hated people, as many critics have claimed. I do believe he was a cynic. But I think instead of beating the "doomsday drum" and complaining how much of a tragedy life is, Buñuel instead decided to admit and embrace human faults and fetishes (he had a foot fetish himself) to show that we're not the Bourgeoisie robots that he liked to toy with on camera. We are first and foremost, human beings. We should celebrate that; every part. Even the ones we try to hide from everyone else.
Trailer for The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie
{Film Passport Stamped]
Coming Attractions: Part three of Buñuel's films – a movie that teaches us to beware of charity...Or at least beware of those who accept it with nothing positive to offer.
Questions or comments? Email me at aa24frames@aol.com!!!
