Too often when we set out to make a film, or any piece of art for that matter, we are influenced too heavily by the conventions of the medium. We accept that a story must be linear and logical. It must be believable, which is often true. But what about surrealism or the absurd, or satire? These are areas which flout traditional narrative devices in favor of upheaval. One of the masters of this approach is Spanish surrealist Luis Bunuel, who flouted conventions for more than 50 years in making films his way.
The Phantom of Liberty was actually the second to last film that he directed, and is part of his successful run of French language films that he made after years of working in Mexico. This film was made just after The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, which won the Oscar in 1972 for best foreign language film. It was largely due to the success of that film that allowed Bunuel to make The Phantom of Liberty. Bunuel had been known for years for his use of surrealist imagery and a liberal interpretation of narrative structure, but Phantom takes this approach to new levels. The film consists of a series of episodes, each of which is loosely related, though there is never an effort to draw out those connections. As co-writer Jean-Claude Carriere points out in an introduction to the film, he and Bunuel set out to make a film that purposely disregards the conventional rules of storytelling. He states that the objective with each episode was to build the story to the point where it began to get interesting, and then would move on to something else, seemingly less interesting.
Despite this, the film is somehow engaging throughout, perhaps because of its looseness with narrative structure and its clever satirizing of modern culture. In one scene, a group is invited over for what appears to be a dinner party, only instead of sitting around a table to eat, they sit on toilets discussing the amount of human waste that is created day after day, and how much will continue to be created as the population grows. When a little girl seated at the table says to her mother that she's hungry, her mother scolds her not to discuss such things at the table. One of the guests then retires to a small room where he folds down a table and eats in private.
Another scene involves a parent looking for their "missing" child. When they go to her school to look for her, she gets up from her seat to let them know she is there, but they try to get her to quiet down while they speak with the school's headmistress about finding her. They bring the child to the police department where an officer takes down a report, looking the child over as he writes down her description in the report. "It's good that you brought her with you," he says. He adds that having her there will help in being able to find her.
The concepts are simple and yet extremely effective in illustrating Bunuel's point of view. There is so much absurdity in life and in the conventions that we accept as normal. It is only when these conventions are turned on their heads that we see that absurdity. This technique borders on satire, but it goes further than that by taking the reality of the situations completely out of context. I found that the intrigue that results helps to compensate for the lack of narrative cohesiveness.
Next up I'll be viewing the precursor to this film, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie. Since that film is generally better known and more celebrated, as well as the earlier of the two, it will be interesting to see how the two compare.
No comments:
Post a Comment