The Exterminating Angel (1962)

“The Exterminating Angel” must be the simplest allegory film ever made. A group of wealthy individuals attend a dinner party, retire to the drawing room and then cannot bring themselves to leave.

The message? All of us are sheep to the conventions of society. Stripped of those conventions, human dignity slowly deteriorates until we reveal ourselves as nothing but animals.

And yet the concept is so simple that we think there must be more to it. Luis Bunuel tried to teach us with his first film, “Un Chien Andalou,” that we read too deeply into narrative, and yet here we make the same mistake to look for a riddle where there is none. Surely there must be some other force withholding them, but then again these are the conventions of society, this time established by Hollywood, taking over.

Bunuel doesn’t wait long before hinting at surrealism. The large dinner party enters into the foyer of a luxurious mansion, and the host looks around for his butler, strangely not there. Fail to pay attention, and you’ll miss Bunuel virtually repeat the moment.

The group’s conversation is all mildly peculiar, either subtly perverse or mysterious. One couple is madly in love, another is dying of cancer and a third has just recovered and is now infatuated with the doctor.

These details matter to an extent, but typically in one-room movies such as this, some characters are heavily developed while others serve as supporting players. Bunuel’s film uses all of his people as blank slates, individual chess pieces in this elaborate and silly game (watch the movie and you’ll understand that reference).

At first their inability to leave starts as simple social criticisms. Petty judgments about removing a suit jacket are whispered throughout the drawing room, and although everyone is tired, no one wants to betray the hospitality of the host by being the first to leave.

They all remain over night, and the following morning Bunuel has his characters call attention to their predicament. Each has their own perspective as to why they stayed, whether they were too tired or just enjoyed the company too much. But there’s no real answer to explain what halts these people in their tracks, and still no one can bring themselves to do anything about it.

Bunuel’s characters are slaves to their own impulses to be polite and sick at the thought of doing otherwise. They have conviction to act but no follow-through or backbone.

They predictably blame their blue-collar servants, who mysteriously left the mansion before the party began. One goes so far as to suggest that lower income people simply experience less pain. The next reaction is to jump to bizarre conclusions, like no one has come to save them not because they are idiots and hypocrites but because something in the world has gone horribly wrong.

Bunuel drew similar comparisons to the elite class in “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie,” but in that film all the characters do is leave the party, never actually sitting down to eat.

And at the end of the day when characters have withheld food and medicine, hidden away in closets and plotted to murder the host, we realize these are cruel characters in a cruel film, no matter how nice and polite they try to come across.

They’re biting criticisms, and Bunuel uses careful tact and pacing as their actions get stranger and more perverse. He slowly drowns us in madness and never goes for a punch line. In this way, the level of absurdity becomes so great and yet we believe it all to be plausible.

The film’s greatest paradox however is its ease and simplicity. The characters both inside and outside the room seem to echo what the audience may be thinking. “There must be something else going on! It shouldn’t be this easy for us to just leave!”

Consider the rescue squad just outside the mansion. A captain says he sent a team of soldiers to go inside but not one of them could make it. A crowd of curious onlookers storms the mansion demanding to know what’s happening, and even they halt just at the gate’s entrance line. All of these people are perplexed by the obvious simplicity of the situation, and that’s what halts them. Society has dictated there should be complications, and when someone like a child can actually break through the barrier with ease, no one seems to fully understand why.

“The Exterminating Angel” is hardly as surreal as “The Discreet Charm” or “Un Chien Andalou,” but there must be skeptics coming across Bunuel and being infuriated by his clever, almost manipulative scenarios. They feel there must be a puzzle piece he’s not telling us when we see a bear and three sheep wandering the mansion, but we know better.

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972)

“An upper-class sextet (Fernando Rey, Paul Frankeur, Delphine Seyrig, Stéphane Audran, Bulle Ogier and Jean-Pierre Cassel) sits down to dinner but never eats, their attempts repeatedly thwarted by a vaudevillian mixture of events both actual and imagined.”

This is Netflix’s plot description of Luis Bunuel’s surrealist masterpiece “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie,” which I didn’t even read ahead of time. The film is deliciously bizarre and mind-blowingly obtuse without any real sense of a plot. I wondered if Netflix could fill in the holes for me in a cohesive way I could not, although at the end of the day the concept is so wonderfully simple that I would have had no trouble telling you precisely what Netflix had said.

Think about Bunuel’s film for a second: If you have watched it but didn’t really get it, was there any moment on screen where you really didn’t know what you were looking at? Every bizarre joke Bunuel plays on these upper class twits is plainly coherent, and his game with the audience is making us wonder if it has any meaning beyond the literal.

One of the film’s best moments comes when the group goes to dinner at an army colonel’s house only to find the food is fake and the table rests on a stage in front of an audience. One character is stunned motionless, and he wakes realizing this was only a dream. “I was on a stage, but I didn’t know the lines,” he says. Neither do we, even though we know exactly where we are.

The bourgeoisie are Bunuel’s targets throughout every surrealist set piece, each of them mindlessly wandering through their lives with an entitled sense of direction and with nowhere to go. Bunuel literally calls attention to this by showing us all six of them doing just that down an empty road in the country.

And yet Bunuel’s talents as a filmmaker come in blurring the line between reality and fiction. At a certain point when the nightmares haunting these characters are quite literally dreams within dreams (“Inception,” anyone?), we begin to question everything we’ve seen until that point. Every time you can begin to grasp a sense of a running plot or a character motivation, something comes out of left field to disrupt that train of thought.

Don Raphael Acosta (Fernando Rey) is the ambassador to a fake European country, and we learn he’s having an affair with one of his friends’ wives. The moment is interrupted by the husband himself, who is even then blindly unaware, and the story diverts to another theme of a sexy, hippie protestor aiming to assassinate the ambassador. When her voice is blared out by a pair of plane engines, we realize lower class people have no voice in the proletariat. But even that hardly fits when in just the next scene an entire platoon practicing war games invades the bourgeoisie dinner party with stories and pot smoking.

Bunuel relishes in stringing us along, and it is this ambition more so than adding punchlines to his screwball scenarios that he’s interested in. Each set piece is so wild and yet addressed so dryly, and we watch with almost perverse fascination more than gleeful irreverence.

“The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie” was Bunuel’s most successful film. In 1972 it won an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film, earned a screenplay nomination and was also a box office hit, or at least as much as a foreign surrealist film can be a hit. And yet the film is not too far away from his infamous short film he made at the very start of his career with Salvador Dali, 1928’s “Un Chien Andalou.” That short film too is a string of insane set pieces that are not visually nonsensical but play with our minds in ways we cannot process. In both films’ collections of all of these horrific dreams, some are sadistic, some are serene and some are surreal, but all of them display a level of remarkable imagination that is still unmatched.

Rapid Response: L’Age d’Or

“L’Age d’Or” is a film so weird, depraved, bizarre and perverse that in 1934 it was withdrawn from circulation and not seen again for 65 years. When it was made, it had to be pitched as a madman’s dream to even get a screening, and that screening did not end well. Throughout its 63 minute run, audience members hurled purple paint at the screen and slashed paintings in the theater lobby by Salvador Dali, Joan Miro and other surrealists.

It was made by Luis Bunuel, the father of all surrealist cinema. He was making avant garde films before that was even a genre. His first film, arguably one of the most famous shorts of all time, “Un Chien Andalou,” was just a taste of a mischievous mind at work. In that film that he made with Salvador Dali, he showed a woman’s eye sliced open with a razor blade, a man with ants crawling out of his hand and more. People have analyzed that film for decades to no avail, because the film has no meaning. It’s only significance is that Bunuel imagined it and had the capacity to imagine more. Continue reading “Rapid Response: L’Age d’Or”