I knew we were going to get to this point eventually. We’ve taken our first step into the world of “metaphor and symbolism over straight storytelling” cinema. Well, I’m not sure if metaphorical is exactly the right word, but the events of the film aren’t told in a traditional format, being more like a collection of odd scenes that portray a set of upper-class characters meeting on different occasions. However, the direction these scenes take is most always illogical in a typical sense, but I have to imagine are all meant to say something about what the film is satirizing, and I do have some ideas as to what it means (or some of it, anyway). Whether or not I fully understood the film, I still found it to be a very fascinating experience that gave me enough of a basis to consider what it was getting at while still being different and not so straight-forward. I’ll try to give an idea of what occurs in the film, but since this isn’t a traditional narrative, I’ll just try to describe the scenes as best I can.
So, we start off with three upper-class folks, the Thevenots and their friend Rafael Acosta, going to the house of their mutual friends the Senechals, who have invited them all for dinner. However, upon arriving, they discover that the Senechals weren’t expecting them at all and had planned for the dinner to be for the following day. Thought confused about the situation, the group decide to go have dinner at a local restaurant instead. When they get to the restaurant, they find the front door locked. After knocking several times, the waitress comes out and tells them that they’re full-up tonight. They say that they know the owner, but apparently the restaurant has changed management recently, so that’s not going to work. Eventually, they manage to convince her to let them in, and they are greeted by an entirely empty restaurant (so much for full-up). They hear crying coming from behind a nearby curtain, and the gals of the group go off to see what’s behind it (the guys don’t seem to care much). It turns out that the manager has died, and the crew are holding a wake for him behind the curtain (as he’s right there literally on his death bed). One of the workers explains the situation and still offers to serve the group, but they’re clearly put off by this and leave. The next day, Thevenot and Senechal meet Acosta in his office and talk about an active cocaine trade that is going on, as well as sort out the misunderstanding from last night. During the meeting, Acosta sees a woman on the street close by that’s selling mechanical toy dogs and seems to be glancing in at him. In response, he takes out a sniper rifle he has hidden away and, though the other two try to stop him, shoots one of the toy dogs. The woman rushes off and jumps in a taxi, and Acosta explains that she works for a terrorist group that is aiming to take him out. You see, Acosta is an ambassador from the South American country of Miranda, and clearly seems to be abusing his power for underhanded means, thus he often keeps guns tucked away around his premises. A few days later, the group once again tries to meet up at the Senechals, this time in the afternoon, but the Senechals are out in the front yard having sex and trying hard not to accidentally bump into the group. Their absence causes the group to panic and think that they’ve left because the cops are on their way, due to the group’s involvement in the drug trade. Because of this, the group leaves the house, and happen to pass by a bishop approaching the home, who ends up going inside the Senechals’ garage and changing into a gardener’s outfit they have on hand. When the Senechals come back in the house, they’re confused as to why everyone is gone, but they meet the bishop (who is still dressed as a gardener). They kick him out but let him back in when he comes back dresses in his bishop outfit. He offers to be their gardener; this want apparently spurred by his parents being killed by their gardener when he was a child. The next day, the gals of our bourgeois group go out to a diner, which apparently has run out of every drink. A soldier sits down with them at their table and tells them a chilling story from his childhood. This leads into a rather eerie flashback sequence wherein the soldier tells them of his dead mother coming back as a ghost and telling him to poison his stepfather (who he had thought was his real father and was actually the one who killed his true dad) with a vial in the medicine cabinet. Alright, I’m going to cut off the recap here, as there are plenty more scenes to see after this. Let’s get into my impression of the film.
Alright, so I’ll admit that I’m not a grade-A film analyst or anything of that nature. There are most likely aspects of this film that I won’t pick up on or know the meaning behind and considering that it comes from a different culture than my own, there are probably things only someone who knows or is from that culture would recognize. Plus, it’s a Luis Buñuel movie, he was known for his very “out there” style of film-making. However, I do think I understood some of the general ideas that it was getting across. The film was certainly commenting on the upper-class and their typical manner/behavior. The main group in this film often act like everything is generally going to go fine for them because of their status, and don’t really consider the situations of others less fortunate than them, or even just others in general. They push themselves on a restaurant, that is clearly going through a difficult time right now, because they claim to know the manager, who it turns out isn’t even the manager anymore. Now granted, the waitress wasn’t being straightforward with them about the situation, but sometimes its rather hard to do so when you’re dealing with people that have a higher status than you do and could most likely crush you if they feel like it. Another element of this disregard for the lower class comes in the form of the group’s involvement in drug trafficking. Not only do they think little of the people below them on the social ladder, but they’re also actively harming these same people and making money off it. Plus, Acosta is an ambassador of his country, someone who you’d expect to uphold better values and ethics given his position, but I’m sure we can tell from history that this is not always the case, as sad as that reality is. Just because you’ve made it higher up on the status bar (or were born into it) doesn’t make you a better person than anyone else, and often that position of power ends up being very myopic and corrupting. In a way, the main characters are almost more like jerk-buffoons for the audience to not only see for what they really are, but also kind of chuckle at some of their terrible and self-centered behavior, maybe even slightly pity at times (the key word being “slightly”). There is a later scene in the film that I won’t describe in detail, but seems to say that their lives are little more than a farce or a show at times, most likely due to their need to keep up certain appearances and behaviors that are obviously fake just because of their class. One of them even questions what he’s doing there as he “doesn’t know the words.” Now, to clarify, this film isn’t really a “comedy,” so don’t go into it with that mindset, its just that some of their actions in this film come across as comical or humorously awful (though some are just straight awful, such as Acosta’s treatment of the terrorist woman in one scene). Again, I don’t have all the answers, like, for example, I don’t know if the bishop/gardener is meant to represent anything specific or if he’s just meant to be a side-story, but I do think that the overall ideas of the film are understandable for the most part. To be perfectly honest, I actually didn’t mind not knowing what everything meant, as the film gave me enough to go off of already which encouraged me to consider it more afterwards and maybe even try to look into what it was getting across. Plus, the viewing experience was interesting enough to keep me going throughout, especially with moments like the previously mentioned childhood flashback. That sequence was so odd and eerie that it took me to a different headspace for a moment, and in a good way. The film already has a strange and quiet tone to it, but that sequence took it a step further and definitely left an impression on me. Buñuel did a good job with this film overall, and in comparison, to some of his other work, it’s considerably more accessible, through still certainly not mainstream. If you haven’t seen his work before, this would be a fine film to start with before you hit the Un Chien Andalous and such.
On the whole, I found this to be a well-made film that I enjoyed my time with, but, like other films I’ve talked about, it’s the sort of film that you have to be in the right mindset for. Many of the actions and events in the film won’t seem very logical, or will just come off as odd, but ultimately, they are all a part of the overall picture the film is painting. The film wants you to consider what you’re seeing and what it means in relation to the greater idea. I will admit that it’s a style that can easily come across as pretentious, but in the right hands, I think it can instead make for an interesting viewing experience and create a different way of looking at things. This film accomplishes the latter for the most part, even if I’m not sure if I’d consider it an all-time favorite. It might also be worthwhile to look into some analyses of the film afterward if you so choose, but try to glean from the film first, as I think that’s part of the whole point here. Anyway, have some tea with the bourgeoisie and see just how discreet their charm really is.