tomgillespie2002 In 1929, the art world and movie-going audiences were shocked to the core when Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali teamed-up to make the short surrealistic masterpiece Un Chien Andalou. Scenes of eye-slitting and ants crawling out of open palms caused revulsion and awe in equal measures. A year later, Bunuel and Dali planned another surreal satire, but the two had a fall-out, leading to Bunuel taking the solo reigns and using his film-making know-how to make a slightly more accessible and narrative-driven piece, and this time feature-length (well, 63 minutes). The result caused chaotic scenes of rioting, violence and destruction upon its premiere. Bunuel must have been laughing his ass off.The film is basically a collection of small vignettes that revolve around a couple, the Man (Gaston Madot) and the Young Girl (Lya Lys) who are passionately in love. Yet their frequent attempts at expressing their love are repeatedly thwarted by various groups and people. There is also a short documentary about scorpions, a bourgeois party where a small boy is shot with a shotgun and a serving woman gets blown out of the kitchen by a fire, and an epilogue detailing an 120-day orgy (a reference to the Marquis de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom) which leads to the death and scalping of the participating women.I have to admit that whilst viewing this mind-f*****g masterpiece, I was dumbfounded as to what was going on or what the film was trying to get across. Yet like all great art, it stayed with me, and the more I thought about it, the clearer it became. The message seems to be how society and religion can suppress natural sexual urges and expression to the point that it can cause violence within humanity. The film is full of sexual imagery - most memorably in the scene where the Young Girl, seemingly nymphomaniacal in her lust for the Man, performs fellatio on the toe of a statue. The camera then amusingly cuts to the statues face, as if we are expecting a reaction from it.It is relentless in its mockery of religion and the upper classes. In the most shocking scene (even by today's standards), we are shown an idealistic portrayal of a father-and-son. The father sits holding an object (I think he is rolling a cigarette) in the scenic garden of their home, while their son playfully hops about him. His son then knocks the object out of his hand and runs off, causing the father to fume. The father then picks up his shotgun and shoots the boy dead. And then shoots his limp body again. The son seems to represent free-spirit and the father society, and it seems the message here is that if you refuse to conform to society's wishes, then society will crush you. A relatively simple point sledge-hammered home. It wouldn't be too far- fetched to call this one of the most important films ever made, as it pushed the boundaries of what was possible at the time and remains just as shocking and as ground-breaking as it was 82 years ago.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

amrit_bharat In order to understand this film one should know something about the history first.One should be aware of the miseries inflicted by man on another man due to reasons which I dare not mention here. It is not just cinema it is a STATEMENT,& GREAT BUNUEL was one of the very few who could make it. No other director in the profound history of cinema can ever touch a subject in this intricate yet absurd way.well, surrealism is often included in most of his films but i think the way he portrayed it has no parallel.I mean ,Bunuel never cared about awards or anything ,as to me the whole community of people who organize or are in the jury of any prestigious awards never meant much to him. He did what he always wanted to &that makes him to me as Hitchcock aptly said THE GREATEST FILMMAKER OF ALL TIME.

Alex da Silva The Man (Gaston Modot) and the Young Girl (Lya Lys) go through the film consumed by passion for each other. They long to be together but their moments together are constantly interrupted. The film is strewn together with imagery and comes to a halt after an hour.........do the lovers find happiness....?..The film starts interestingly with footage of scorpions but you soon realize that its all a pretentious piece of nonsense. It's made as a silent film with occasional dialogue and it has a non-stop soundtrack playing that at one point is so irritating that you will turn the sound down and want to watch it as a silent film. The continuous drum rolls must have driven cinema audiences mad. There are some genuinely funny moments, eg, when the Man kicks a dog and when he knocks over a blind man. Unfortunately, this humour is carried out in the name of art so its just pseudo nonsense. The film is crap.

Boba_Fett1138 Well, first of all I really liked the earlier surrealistic movie "Un chien andalou" by Luis Buñuel but I guess this movie just sort of went too far for me.Story-wise, this is just an extreme odd piece to watch. Halve of the time you really don't understand what is going on and what some of the intentions are. But I guess that's also part of the charm of this movie and a reason why you can watch it over and over again, exploring and understanding more of its themes and surrealistic elements every time you watch it.It's a movie that is also obviously criticizing some themes such as against the bourgeois and religion as well as some social critiques. On that level I liked this movie, since it was also effective with it as well.Perhaps you also shouldn't view this film as an actual film but more as a piece of art, you can watch from different perspective and unleash your own interpretations on it.As a movie this one is just too lacking, since its an at times almost impossible movie to watch and follow. The dialog and some of the sequences just seem to pop out of nowhere, without making an obvious connection to the movie as a whole. And as strange as it might sound after criticizing its story, this movie just has too much of a story. "Un chien andalou" was a great dream-like surreal movie, without a story in it. This movie follows a main plot-line with characters in it and does feature dialog. Perhaps I would had liked this film more if it was made as an entirely silent movie instead. It would had most likely strengthened its surrealistic elements. The movie is now instead not surrealistic enough for my liking.Probably one of the most bizarre movies you'll ever see, without understanding it.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/