This is a French film made in the 1970s, when the director was 72 years old. Luis Buñuel's film style is interesting, such as the film's surrealism and a certain painterly abstraction, which can be said to be the perfect surface for expressing capitalism. Anyway, I didn't find any flaws.
The film tells the story of three men and three women's partners who planned a dinner party five times, all of which failed. In fact, eating multiple times actually expresses the bourgeoisie who is always distributing benefits. Do you think that in reality, the distribution of benefits also accompanies the dining table? This movie is all made up of dinner parties, appearances of supporting characters, stories and dreams. It is not only unique, but also beautiful, leaving the country for 50 years. The arrangement of the movie's scenes, the way the actors perform, and the expression skills used in the movie all have a surreal and dreamy temperament, which is especially beautiful! In a word, the scene language is very mature and the scenes are beautiful, the film has a very profound ideological core, and the expression method is so clever that it takes off. To put it vulgarly, another advantage of this film is that it presents the bourgeois body, topics, and character. These points are very real, and can be regarded as a textbook for integrating into the big bourgeoisie. It is especially suitable for me who is currently A beautiful girl who needs to integrate into society. How about calling it surreal?
After watching this film, the audience who can understand it will be able to fully and objectively understand the bourgeoisie. This is really a good report. I feel that it is okay to be a staff officer for any country with the director's eyesight. If you don't understand, I'm sorry you have a problem with your IQ.
In the movie, the three men, three women and six people rely on supporting roles. It can be said that each supporting role has a specific class, and their relationship with the bourgeoisie is displayed or metaphorized by stories and dreams in the process of getting along. The accuracy and expressiveness of this storytelling is simply unbelievable. The audience is dizzy, and the director hasn't dizzy yet. What a great logical ability.
On behalf of Jiugui are the priest who wants to be a gardener and the sad little lieutenant who has appeared many times. You see, although they chat with the protagonists as if they don’t know what to say, they all convey their own The fact of the old bourgeoisie! What's the meaning? That is, to be friends with rich people you must be rich, or have been rich. The class of priests is probably similar to that of lawyers and doctors. It is a state of yearning for the bourgeoisie. Although they can be friends, they are still a little weaker. The tension, as well as the deliberate and awkwardness with which the priest wanted to be part of the conversation during the meal when the soldiers were guests, was all because of their desire for the bourgeoisie and their weakness. And the bourgeoisie eats with priests and lieutenants, showing that this class can get a share of the bourgeoisie's interests.
As for the soldiers who came out, they represented a kind of military power and another class. When the masters were eating, they came like robbers, and before the benefits entered their mouths, they quickly left. The attitude of the bourgeoisie to them is very enthusiastic, and the protagonist sits at the dining table exhausted after they leave, in contrast to the unease of the bourgeoisie is displayed. The hostess has always hinted that there is not enough food, which is a deliberate arrangement of the plot. The director wants to express more than that. The dream of the little lieutenant is very interesting. The dreams and stories in this movie are all metaphors, right? The little lieutenant dreamed of a dead person. His mother and his friends were all dead. It turned out that the most prosperous places were full of corpses. They use the dead to profit from the bourgeoisie. At the end of this scene, the army boss turned back and sent an invitation to a dinner party. Is that an invitation to distribute benefits? Or is it the irony of the army boss who is equally eager to enter the bourgeoisie?
Then there was a dream within a dream. The dreamscape of the table show is a mockery of bourgeois social performances that seem to carry their own bourgeois longing for these false escapes. The second dream is more interesting. In the dream, the bourgeoisie tried to wear Napoleon's hat one by one, and one of them also stroked the sword in the painting, which revealed the ambition of the bourgeoisie. The contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the powerful class or the ruling class or a certain class is actually irreconcilable. The dream ends with them fighting the army and killing people.
If the movie is divided into four parts, the beginning, the development, the climax and the end, the appearance of the army and the police must be the climax of the movie. Because the director's discussion of the bourgeoisie at this time has reached the height of the social pyramid. When the police representing the defenders of social rules appeared and took the six protagonists away, the director proved to the audience that the bourgeoisie was guilty and justice was upheld in that instant. Moments later, it was the bloody policeman who opened the prison door and acquitted the bourgeoisie—all the way the police came on stage with the actors acting stupid, weak and inept.
The presence of the cops once again overturns the film from the beginning of the lower class to the middle class to the upper class and back to the lower class, because the police proves the bourgeoisie to be guilty. Where is the root of their sin? A poor old woman who is looking for a priest appears. The priest, who was not respected by the protagonist when she was a gardener, promised to help the old woman to confess to the dying person. But in fact, the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the poor is irreconcilable. After the priest learned that the person to die was an enemy, he shot the poor old gardener to death. As the old woman said: I have never loved God.
The maids and restaurant staff who appeared at the beginning have also been showing their irreconcilable contradictions, but the beginning and development are more of a direct depiction of the bourgeoisie. Such as the selfishness of the six people at the beginning when they go to a restaurant to eat, and the interesting metaphor of the restaurant owner who died yesterday and the bourgeoisie who dine today and tomorrow. The later development of the three men's collusion between the assets and the government to sell drugs illustrates the real relationship between the bourgeoisie. Next, he expressed the difference between classes through hypocritical but very realistic drinking, and for the first time expressed the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie. Subsequent bourgeois field battles, cheating, and couples sleeping in separate beds are still very realistic. It is indeed surrealism, and it shows hypocrisy again. There is also Ambassador Miranda's performance in two major disasters and his understanding of this concept, which is another irony to the harmonious superficial relationship in the whole film, and proves the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie once again. The way Ambassador Miranda, who has both the government and the bourgeoisie, deals with female terrorists once again proves the hypocrisy of this class. Although the characters of each of the six people have their own characteristics, and there are even rebels among them, but under their gorgeous and elegant appearance, everyone is walking on the bourgeoisie rolling forward. The wheel of history rolls forward, and each of them walks like a fly. Three times there are scenes of six people walking on the road, the second time someone falls behind, someone ties their shoelaces, and it's only when they rush into a row of bourgeoisie that they play side by side happily again.
Apart from road walking, there are many such interesting hints in the movie. For example, the never-changing whisky, the non-existent Miranda country and Napoleon Road, as well as the noise in complex sentences, all reveal the director's ingenuity. Through delicate and unique expression, the director shows the comprehensive purpose of the bourgeoisie very thoroughly.
The third side-by-side walk is already the last scene of the movie, before it was a dream. This dream is still to eat. It is about the Last Supper being interrupted by an unidentified gunman who directly kills the bourgeoisie. Ambassador Miranda, who represents the government himself, can escape, but the director said that this bourgeoisie is greedy, and the ambassador kept secretly stuffing the meat on the table into his mouth. He was so greedy that he died. .
After that, the dreamer woke up, and there was the last scene of six people walking side by side on the Kangzhuang Avenue again.
The wheel of history is rolling forward, the bourgeoisie will one day be shot by a class, and there will always be a new group of people hurriedly walking side by side on this glorious avenue.
View more about The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie reviews
