1930 surrealist dickeryRating: 17/20
Plot: Scorpions defend themselves, deteriorating bishops are located, Rome is founded, men fall in love and then leer lustfully at the toes of statues, a son is shot, and they must get the cow out of bed as soon as possible. And what's Jesus doing in there of all places?
I'm not really positive there was a midget in this. The violinist was awfully short. Awfully short! However, even if there's not a midget in this, it's got the right spirit. Midget spirit! Follow-up to An Andalusian Dog is a bit more linear (there's a love story sort of weaving itself in and out of the nonsense) and probably more provocative. Bunuel's obsessions are here--attacks on the bourgeoisie, religion, and government. Alternately funny and disturbing, Age of Gold still works today and I can't imagine how revolutionary it would have seemed at the end of the 1920's. There's enough here to offend the whole family!
2 comments:
I was alternately amused and irritated at this movie. There were a lot of very funny moments (the cow, slapping the girl's mom, his violence towards anything that annoyed him), but there were also many things that were so obtuse (the cripples at the beginning, for one) that I really wanted an explanation.
Like "Peeping Tom", a lot of my interest was generated by thinking about people's reaction upon first release. It sounds like the reaction to this was even more extreme and violent.
The end was especially offensive since I initially thought it might be a legitimate political statement against some real event. When I found out it was fiction from the Marquis de Sade, it reinforced the fact the Bunuel's main goal in this seems to be to really piss people off. That's OK, but it doesn't make it a better film.
My favorite moment was when I listened to commentary. I was hoping for an explanation of the "throwing things out the window" scene (burning tree, clergyman, a giraffe). Instead what I got was silence. I imagined some producer's hand going around in circles trying to get the expert to explain, and the expert just shrugging with his palms upward because he hasn't a clue what in the hell Bunuel is saying. A 13 now with a 1930 upward adjustment of 2 making it a 15.
I'm with you for the most part...a lot of the fun is imagining this in a 1930 context. It's probably a little hypocritical of me to say that I like something like this but really hate contemporary shock artists. It's the difference between this de Sade movie and 'Salo' from 1975 which I shouldn't have even bothered finishing. Or this and 'Freddy Got Fingered' which you've once again reminded me I need to see again. I thought, by the way, that this was more an "inspired by" than "based on" de Sade, but I could definitely be wrong.
This is supposedly a purely surrealist movie which means you're breaking some surrealist law by searching for deeper meaning or symbols. Still, there's obviously some commentary on society so it's impossible not to look for things. Who did the commentary? Was there a lot of speculation or did they really have some insight on what was going on?
I don't remember a giraffe being thrown out the window. A burning tree could be a religious symbol though.
I also bumped this up a couple points because of the release date. I think a lot of Bunuel's later surreal movies are better and more entertaining, but I really doubt you'd like them any more than you liked this one.
Post a Comment