The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie - 1972 (dir. Louis Bunuel)

Ads says...
I'd only ever seen one Louis Bunuel film before - his first one, which he co-wrote with Salvador Dali - Un Chien Andalou (the one where the woman gets her eyeball sliced open by a razor), which was made in 1928. 1928! And the dude was still making films in the seventies! What a trooper. So, I guess Un Chien Andalou did actually prepare me somewhat for this film. I didn't realise it, but surrealism is a structural element of all of Bunuel's films, or so I've read.

This film was OK. I didn't love it, but there were some pretty interesting situations and some quite arresting images. Once I was familiar with it I was able to fall into the dreamlike quality of the film, where you never know what to expect and scenes just kind of flow into one another when something random or slightly odd happens. It starts with two couples arriving at the home of another couple for a dinner party, only they've arrived on the wrong night and have to leave and go to a nearby restaurant. The restaurant's closed, but they go in anyway, start perusing the menu and loudly discussing what they're going to drink when they realise that the reason the place is closed is because the owner has died and his widow is mourning his corpse in the next room. I think this was the point where I realised that this film didn't adhere to standard narrative conventions and we weren't expected to be looking for meaning in the film in the same way we would ordinarily. Although over the course of the film there are all kinds of narrative digressions - unrelated stories played out, dreams related by peripheral characters, numerous sequences that just kind of laspe in and out of common sense, the whole thing is played pretty straight.

As for the film's comment on the bourgeoisie and their priveliged place within society, I didn't find it quite as scathing as I was expecting to - I guess their overly self-concerned actions, and the fact that they just kind of float through the film with all these completely random things happening to them without really getting particularly emotionally involved, was comment enough. I didn't feel as though Bunuel was roasting them, but they probably didn't need it. They almost felt like these ghosts that things happen around. I guess the fact that they're never able to actually sit down to a meal and eat is kind of a logical metaphor for their transparence.

The one thing that annoyed me about the film, and I guess it's possibly a symptom of surrealist filmmaking in general, is the fact that it kept relying on sequences being dreams as a narrative device. Once a situation had been pushed to its logical extreme, like a character dying or something completely climactic happening, another character would suddenly wake up, and it would be revelaed that what had happened in the previous sequence was a dream. Although it's arguably a necessary device for such a film, I found it a bit too convenient - "It was all a dream!"... Hmmm, yeah - OK, whatevs... Still, I found this film rewarding without being totally engaged in it.

Micky says...
I would agree that this film is a comedy, because it doesn't really fit under any other genre, but it's more absurdist humour rather than laugh-out-loud jokes. Then again I guess it depends on your sense of humour! Well I wasn't laughing out loud anyhow, but I still found this film engaging and I'm glad that I've seen it. It is a nice looking film though there is some unusual cinematography - such as a fade into a next scene by going out of focus and then coming back into focus for a new scene, and a zoom-in to someone's eyes that are kind of not doing anything. But the house where most of the action takes place, and all of the women's costumes, are just gorgeous.

Ads says I'm not allowed to talk about sleeping in this film but I really have to, because in a lot of ways this film is like a dream - random people pop into scenes (there is a real military presence in this film too, so most of these random people are soldiers), there is a repetitive image that doesn't actually get picked up as part of the narrative, and the characters themselves have dreams so there are several 'it was just a dream' moments.

I know this film is loaded with commentary on the middle class, but I can't quite put my finger on what Bunuel is trying to say - it's not immediately apparent to me. But perhaps what it is about is the lack of depth in the lives of the bourgeoisie, how important appearances are to them, how while they are continually focusing on something as petty as dinner, there is so much more going on in the world that isn't touching them. So instead of them discovering those important things for themselves, the important things come to them - interrupting their potential meals and forcing them to address something besides what's on the menu.

American Graffiti - 1973 (dir. George Lucas)

Ads says...
A supposed American classic that I had never seen, I'd kind of avoided American Graffiti in the past because I don't really enjoy period films all that much, and there just kind of seemed to be something self-satisfied about the nostalgia that films like this offer up. Although this is arguably the first film to do it, I never really appreciated the "trip down memory lane," to the pre-Vietnam, pre-Woodstock era that films like this try to offer, almost trying to convince the audience that it was a purer, sweeter, more innocent time. "Oh, we were so naieve back then - good days, good days..." It bores me. And I guess I was also wary of the fact that Ron Howard is in this film, almost playing a precursor to the Ritchie Cunningham character he played in Happy Days. With Happy Days, and other films like Porkys, Stand By Me (somewhat different but still a period nostalgia film) and a bunch of others I felt as though I'd already seen American Graffiti, and that I knew what to expect.

I was half right. Although it didn't necessarily surprise me in its tone or its plot, I did find this film entertaining in terms of the story arcs that each of its characters undertake over the course of one night. I'm also pretty fond of the late night soujourn film too, so I enjoyed the individual sub-stories of each of the characters in this film, and the random way that they all seemed to spill about, bumping into each other at times, and then detatching and going off for more of their own adventures. In a way this film reminded me structurally of a film of which I'm particularly keen, Richard Linklater's underrated (in my opinion) Suburbia, in that it's about the boredom that youths feel when they know they're on the cusp of finding themselves in the adult world, and yet they're pretty sure they don't really like what that adult world represents to them. They're simultaneously loathe of the small town that they're in, but they're also frightened to leave.

Richard Dreyfus was great in this - he's such a great actor, but I've only ever seen him play greying middle-aged men (perhaps apart from in Jaws), but here he's almost like what those greying middle-aged men are like before they get grey. I also really enjoyed Candy Clark as a party girl who sees the sweetness in the geeky guy, and Mackenzie Phillips as the adolescent girl that John Milner has to drive around with all night. Oh, and speaking of driving, watching this in an environmentally conscious era you're constantly reminded of how, once upon a time, massive gas guzzling road beasts were a sign of progress and man's domination over nature, science and industry. I imagine to younguns watching this film, it would no doubt represent a completely foreign world.

I think the element that I enjoyed most about this was its ensemble nature, the fact that although it had major characters and minor characters, everyone was kind of just there, and they all had something to do. And while I'm pretty over Hollywood's nostalgia for "an earlier, more innocent time", the film did manage, regardless of its setting, to tap into the emotional truth of youth and the desire for something new, something different, something else.

Micky says...

You are getting sleepy...very sleepy...
Well I certainly got sleepy in this film, and again not because it was boring or anything, but because I just find it a bit hard to keep my eyes open while watching a movie on a weeknight, it seems. And thus it seems I am turing into a nanna. Anyhow this is a good movie to get sleepy in because there are like five or six stories and they are not too hard to follow.

So as Ads mentions above this is a film format that we're very familiar with these days, the 'one night before we have to leave this all behind forever' scenario. The stories are interesting though, and often involve gorgeous cars and the drive-in diner. How cool is this diner! I reckon we should get one in Perth and it will be totally packed out all the time - rockabilly waiters on rollerskates could ride up to your old Holden, it'd be fab. But then again rolling up to one of those joints in your Excel or your Getz is just not quite as alluring....which is maybe why we don't have them anymore (plus it'd be quite an OH & S issue with those rollerskates). In general cars are really glamourised in this film and a lot of the plot centres around experiences in cars.

One cheesy thing about this film is at the end it explains to you what happended to each of the characters, and what happens to them is all pretty cliched. Perhaps this film started this convention (I have no idea could be totally wrong!), but it really made me notice that we don't have this in films much anymore, if at all. Basically now when the film ends, it ends. Scriptwriters don't feel the need anymore to tell you what the characters will be doing for the next twenty years of their lives. They (and we) are happy for the film to be a suspended chunk of the characters' lives.

So this film was not at all what I expected as it really is one of those coming of age stories, a teen flick really. I expected swing dancing to rock-around-the-clock, and though there was dancing, it wasn't this. They must have really tapped into the zeitgeist with this because I believe it is still in the top ten profit-making films of al time. And it was good to see it because you could really identify how this film has been a huge influence on filmmaking/scriptwriting trends ever since.

Shadows - 1959 (dir. John Cassavetes)

Micky says...

A bit of info about what we are doing. We are going to try and watch as many of the movies in this book (1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) as we can. Of course we have already seen a few of them, so we figure we'll revisit them if we actually see like 900 or something. There is no order to what we are watching, so we're just starting with what we're both interested in, and what we can rent from the video stores! And we're gonna write about it as we go.

So we watched 'Shadows' last night, well, attempted to. Of course I had trouble keeping my eyes open, so apart from the first 20 minutes and the 10 minutes after Adam said in a surprised tone: "was that the shadow of the camera?", I think for most of the film I was half asleep. I need to make a second attempt! When? is the question. It's due back at Planet on Sunday.

When I went to Planet to hire the DVD (Adam was preparing to DJ at the Velvet Lounge) I saw an old friend there who explained that his girlfriend worked there and he was waiting for her shift to end. He used to have a massive gelled-up-mountain of hair, like Astroboy but even higher. It would have been hard to maintain. I remember people often asked to touch his hair. He went by the nickname 'Turtle' back then, though I can't remember (or perhaps never knew in the first place) where this name came from. When I found 'Shadows' I took it up to the counter and was served by his girlfriend (I assumed) who had Rockabilly black plaits tied with red bows. They would make a cute couple.

For dinner Ads cooked (veggie) spaghetti bolognese and made a salad to go with it, and we also had a bit of Lindt milk chocolate. Yum.

Ads says...
I'd never seen any of John Cassavetes' films. He seemed like a filmmaker I should be across - the godfather of independent American cinema and all - so I must admit I was a little ashamed never to have dipped into his work. When we came up with the idea for this blog and were deciding where (in the 100+ years of cinema) to start, Cassaevetes came to me as someone who's work I'd always been interested in but had yet to encounter, which is kind of the point of this project.


I loved this film. It's kind of compared to and contemporised with the French New Wave, and in many ways what Cassavetes was attempting here - a frank depiction of young people, their lives and their relationships - is very much in line with what the French filmmakers of the time were doing as well. The editing is quickfire and haphazard, which makes for some completely stylised moments, whilst others are more naturalistic and have a verite realism to them. Of course its all about the performances, and (for the most part) they're so naturalistic that it's breathtaking. There are so many genuine and tender moments in this film that depict the indescribable nature of friendship and the close bond that siblings have. The three main characters Hugh, Ben and Lelia are all depicted in fantastic performances - Hugh is the older, more responsible one who has established himself and sees himself as protector of his younger siblings, Ben is a reckless, moody young guy, always at the whim of his emotions and his mates, and Lelia is on the outside a sophisticated and elegant (and extraordinarily beautiful) young woman who, underneath is really just a scared little girl. The way their individual foibles play out against the push and pull of dialogue is gorgeous, and the way race is treated not as a central plot point, but as an element of their lives with which they just have to deal is great - it doesn't push any heavy-handed themes in your face, it just shows you how these three cool cats live.


Which brings me to another point - this is just such a cool film. I mean, it's set in New York during the beat period - the constant jazz score is a vivid reminder of this setting, and although the dialogue is dated, it offers a great snapshot of the era, of just how cool hanging out in jazz bars in New York in the 50s must have been. This is a beautiful film, both for its vivid and natural enactment of its setting and for its impeccably intimate performances.

Micky says...

Yaaaayyy! So I managed to watch the whole film without falling asleep (the sleepiness isn't because of the film BTW, just me, sitting down for a while, under a cosy, warm...blanket....zzzzz...), and yes it is a very nice film. It is also 'cool' as Adam says, like when one of the brothers refer to having some 'cats' around, or the other ambles down the street in his black leather jacket and shades. The apartment and diner featured throughout is also cool. This film is a snapshot into the lives of these three siblings, and one thing Ads and I both enjoyed was the fact that the film doesn't feel the need to explain everything. I had lots of questions about this family but I also don't mind the fact that they weren't answered for me. I was free to dream away about how they can afford such a beautiful and interesting apartment when it seems that only one brother works (as a fairly unsuccessful singer), I wonder what did their parents do for a living, and where are they?

The character of Lelia is beautiful, but also a bit cheeky and rude! She is an engaging character nonetheless, and probably the most interesting of the three siblings (for me), even though her dialogue sometimes feels a bit 'rehearsed' (definitely not improvised as a note at the end of the film tries to suggest).

So I had to watch this film in three sittings - but definitely glad that I did!