Surrealist Director - LUIS BUNUEL
el...@concentric.net
> While I like "Un Chien Andalou" I wonder about how much of the imagery
was
> consciously constructed.
>
> To more spacific, the image of the severed hand juxtaposed with the
> androgyne is an obvious reference to castration with the hand
representing
> the penis and the androgyne the sexless mother.
While this interpretation is surely valid in view of the Freudian basis
of (then) contemporary surrealist theory, this image must also be seen
in relationship to Bunuel's critique of cinematic style.
The severed hand can also be seen as an abstraction of the close up
shot. An extreme close up of a hand can be seeen as a severed hand. In
fact, Bunuel generally subverts standard film techniques in "Un Chien
Andalou".
Another example is a sequence of dissolves as the girl opens a door.
Dissolves, are a convention indicating tiome passing or a transition
from place to place. Using them instead of straight cuts during an
action like opening a door creates a disconcerting tension between space
and time... or between the expected and the unexpected.
Ultimately Bunuel's technique in "Un Chien Andalou" does an excellent
job of using famialiar forms in an unconventional way to expand the
scope of the Cinrema, and of our imaginations.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
el...@concentric.net
> From all I know about the film, it is very conscious constructed
itself
> (automatism in film is difficult unless one is shooting an entirely
> abstracted "scenario" pointing the camera randomly, editing blinding,
> etc), and the images were also pre-considered, although it is
difficult
> to judge how instantaneously these images came to their creator at the
> moment of creation.
Bunuel at least claimed that the majority of the images/vignettes
occurred to he and Dali on a "subconcious" level. The film was then put
together for the most part following a scenario which was created
"automatically". This can best be likened to editing an "automatic"
text.
I think Dali had a lot to say about this
particular
> film; the "dead ass in a piano" scene is pure Dali, as are the ants on
> the hand and the very ending. Dali's imagistic sense is all over the
> nitrate. Even the title is a Dalian reference to Lorca.
The simplest way to analyze the images is to assign the Dali-esque
images to Dali and most of the rest to Bunuel. As with any
collaboration the seperation between two collaborating artists work is
often not razor sharp. As to the title, let us not forget that Lorca
was one of Bunuel's best pals as well.
elag
elag
Cinema, and
of our imaginations.
Dale Houstman
elag wrote:
>
>
> Bunuel at least claimed that the majority of the images/vignettes
> occurred to he and
> Dali on a "subconcious" level. The film was then put together for the
> most part
> following a scenario which was created "automatically". This can best
> be likened to
> editing an "automatic" text.
Precisely how I think about it. I have no problem with this editing.
>
>
> The simplest way to analyze the images is to assign the Dali-esque
> images to Dali
> and most of the rest to Bunuel. As with any
> collaboration the seperation between two collaborating artists work is
> often not
> razor sharp.
Of course not.
> As to the title, let us not forget that Lorca was one of
> Bunuel's best pals as well.
This is also true, but the slightly insulting tone is (I think) Dali's
left-handed way of honoring Lorca, and (I believe) Dali used a similar
phrase in reference to Lorca in a private letter. Maybe Bunuel
appropriated it?
But I think it is still a marvelous film, although in some ways all too
self-consciously "surreal" in a brash way. I prefer to come across the
surreal where one least expects it and in images growing out of the
mundane. Thus I happen to adore productions of Hollywood from the 20's
to the 40's; cheap and/or glossy black and white dreamscapes quite apart
from the sometimes utilitarian precepts of the creators, and (in many
films) a startling "proletarian" stance (a celebration or a idealization
of criminality and eccentricity) which has been reduced (in most modern
film) by an ecstasy of consumerism and an indealization of power.
Dali (and not Bunuel as it turns out) was dedicated to fronting
examples of his floridity in what I assume is an egoistic display of
sensationalism. Still, the film is quite enjoyable.
DMH