143 That Obscure Object of Desire

[obloquy]

I watched this movie for the second time last night and enjoyed it much more than the first time. Seeing Discreet Charm was helpful, since my first viewing of Obscure Object was my first Bunuel experience and I was unfamiliar with his sense of humor. I've really appreciated the analysis in this thread, so thanks for the valuable posts. Is the movie not just a cruel game played with Mathieu as a toy, similar to the toys (bourgeoisie) in Discreet Charm?

Oh, and I, too, particularly loved the Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus line, and Mathieu looking through the hole above the door.

[Dylan]

.

[Miguel]

I don't know about the silent version of La Femme et le Pantin, but of course there's also the Von Sternberg/Dietrich version of the Louÿs story, The Devil is a Woman. I haven't seen it, but I'm keen on getting the upcoming French dvd.

[ola t]

I asked about La Femme et le Pantin on a previous incarnation of this forum. No DVD existed then and I haven't heard of a release anywhere since. However, someone who had seen the film (was it Grimfarrow?) said that the clips on the Criterion disc made it look much more interesting than it really is.

[javelin]

I asked about La Femme et le Pantin on a previous incarnation of this forum. No DVD existed then and I haven't heard of a release anywhere since. However, someone who had seen the film (was it Grimfarrow?) said that the clips on the Criterion disc made it look much more interesting than it really is.

Naked dancing women always look more interesting than they really are.

[toiletduck!]

i.e. Orgy of the Dead

Which, to stay on topic, is much much worse than That Obscure Object of Desire.

BAM! Now that's a save!

-Toilet Dcuk

[bunuelian]

In response to Dylan's observation: The play-like style of this film is probably more a function of its small cast, frequent indoor scenes, etc. Bunuel employed spartan methods throughout his career and rarely made stereotypically "surreal" gestures through flashy (or even mundane) film effects. The Surrealist label doesn't sit very well on Bunuel's shoulders, since his artistry only partly overlapped with that movement and indeed most of his films were made after the war in Europe had splintered it. It's unfortunate that his films are universally sold as "Surrealist Masterpieces!" because it can confuse viewers who are approaching him for the first time expecting to be taken on a mind-altering trip.

Certainly some of his films are strongly surrealist (obviously Un Chien Andalou and L'Age d'Or, but also Exterminating Angel, Discreet Charm, Simon of the Desert) but for their surrealistic elements even those films rely on structure and situation rather than fancy camera movements, music and effects. Bunuel's gestures are bold, but they are accomplished with simple technical methods.

I would say this is one of his least overtly Surrealist films. The two Conchitas corresponds nicely with the title and the nature of the character, and like Dylan said feels very stagey. It's closer to his later Mexican commercial films in spirit, especially EL. It exhibits the Surrealist interest in sexual desire and human passions (jealousy), but it dispenses with almost all suggestive imagery - save the final scene. But it is precisely because the film has no overtly surrealist pretenses that the final scene has an impact.

[Michael Kerpan]

I see most of Bunuel's work as more "absurdist" than "surrealist" -- this would include "Angel", "Discreet Charm" and (of course) "Obscure Object". ;~} (More like Becket than Dali)

[bunuelian]

Good point, MK. I think the Surrealist label is a marketing ploy more than anything, since it's a sexy term that will draw audiences. But much of Bunuel's artistic sense has roots in the Surrealist movement, so it would be a mistake to say his work is altogether not Surrealist. Surrealism is present in his particular use of dreams and freudian imagery, for example. But he was also a unique artist with his own vision, operating outside of any one movement for most of his career, so in the end no one label will suit him perfectly. It's part of why he's such a sngularly enjoyable director to explore.

[GringoTex]

This isn't a criticism, just a comment (and this is coming from somebody who believes that Ingmar Bergman's films are among the most cinematic I've laid my eyes on...I guess something about Bunuel's combination here that made it come off as a bit play-like, though I should probably watch it again before marrying that comment to my overall opinion of the film).

Nice, well-thought-out analysis, but I couldn't disagree with you more. I never felt Bergman shook off (or even tried to) his stage roots. He respected the integrity of his sets almost to a fault (self-consciously), and very little exists outside the faces and body language of his actors. I'm an admirer of Bergman's, but his films are highly theatrical.

Bunuel, I believe, is the one of the four or five most "cinematic" directors ever. I think Fuentes described his style best in the liner notes to Discreet Charm:

In Buñuel's films, from Un Chien Andalou to The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, the essential unifying factor is sight. His first image is that of a woman's eye slit by a razor and throughout the body of his work there is this pervading sense of sight menaced, sight lost as virginity is lost; sight as a wound that will not heal, wounded sight as an interstice through which dreams and desires can flow. Catherine Deneuve's absent regard in Belle de jour is calculated. She is constantly looking outside the confines of the screen, enlarging the space of the screen, looking at something beyond that isn't there, that probably connects the two halves of her life.

But Buñuel's violent aggressions against sight actually force us back to his particular way of seeing. His world is seen first as a grey, hazy, distant jumble of undetermined things; no other director shoots a scene from quite that neutral, passive distance. Then the eye of the camera suddenly picks out an object that has been there all the time, or a revealing gesture, zooms into them, makes them come violently alive before again retiring to the indifferent point of view.

This particular way of seeing, of making the opaque backdrop shine instantly by selecting an object or gesture, assures the freedom and fluid elegance of a Buñuel film. Sight determines montage; what is seen flows into what is unseen. The camera fixes on a woman's ankle or the buzzing box a Korean takes to a brothel; the woman's shoes lead to desire or the Korean's stare to mystery, mystery and desire to dream, dream to a dream within it and the following cut back to everyday normality has already compounded reality with the fabulous; the meanest, most violent or weakest character has achieved a plurality of dimensions that straight realism would never reveal....

So in Buñuel sight determines content or, rather, content is a way of looking, content is sight at all possible levels. And this multitude of levels—social, political, psychological, historical, esthetic, philosophic, is not predetermined, but flows from vision. His constant tension is between obsessive opposites: pilgrimage and confinement, solitude and fraternity, sight and blindness, social rules and personal cravings, rational conduct and oneiric behavior. His intimate legacies, often conflicting, are always there: Spain, Catholicism, surrealism, left anarchism. But, above all, what is always present is the liberating thrust that could only come from such a blend of heritages. Certainly no other filmmaker could have so gracefully and violently humanized and brought into the fold of freedom, rebellion and understanding so many figures, so many passions, so many desires that the conventional code judges as monstrous, criminal and worthy of persecution and, even, extermination. The poor are not forcibly good and the rich are not forcibly evil; Buñuel incriminates all social orders while liberating our awareness of the outcast, the deformed, the maimed, the necrophiles, the lesbians, the homosexuals, the fetishists, the incestuous, the whorish, the cruel children, the madmen, the poets, the forbidden dreamers. He never exploits this marginality, because he makes it central to his vision. He has set the highest standards for true cinematic freedom.

[Dylan]

Langlois,

Thank you very much for your response and for posting that wealthy entry by Fuentes, so effective that I have a new found appreciation for Bunuel's techniques and style (which can be very deceptive in how one preceives what he's doing), though I was already a fan. There's no question that "That Obscure Object of Desire" is a very complex film that will inspire different ideas from its viewers on what Bunuel is doing with it. As simple as it may seem, as effortless as it may seem, it's such a carefully orchestrated film, and now I'm not so sure anybody could've done it better. And though I admit it still strikes me as rather theatrical, we'll see if that impression stays with me after my next viewing, wherein I'll definitely keep this entry in mind.

Meanwhile, some of Ingmar Bergman's films, especially "Fanny and Alexander," feel more theatrical to me than his others ("Persona," "Cries and Whispers," "Shame," etc.), though not to the film's disadvantage. Bergman's films are dominated by a kind of complex discussion and angst not often explored in cinema, and with powerful, theatrical performances from some of the best performers in history, and Bergman himself is obsessed with the stage...and yet, I think Sven Nykvist is the greatest cinematographer who ever lived (and his best work is with Bergman), so no matter how theatrical or purely dialogue-driven Bergman's material may be, everything is so beautifully visual and perfectly framed, and the combination (for me) is so visually and emotionally overwhelming that I ultimately classify him as one of the most cinematic directors. Then again, for me Bergman is the greatest, so I'm a tad biased.

With that said, I look forward to exploring Bunuel much further, as I've seen too little of his work.

Dylan

[edgarnazaretian]

anyone know where i can get the music from the menu of the criterion dvd of obscure object of desire? or if theres any way i can rip it from the dvd?

[Michael Kerpan]

Sounds like you might be ready for a flock of sheep and a bear at a dinner party. (viz. Exterminating Angel)

or two actresses and one character. (viz. That Obscure Object of Desire)

Actually the male lead in Obscure Object is also double cast, albeit in a different manner -- as the body is provided by Fernando Rey and the voice by Michel Piccoli. ;~}

[miless]

Sounds like you might be ready for a flock of sheep and a bear at a dinner party. (viz. Exterminating Angel)

or two actresses and one character. (viz. That Obscure Object of Desire)

Actually the male lead in Obscure Object is also double cast, albeit in a different manner -- as the body is provided by Fernando Rey and the voice by Michel Piccoli. ;~}

well, if we're going to count voices, the female lead in Object was played by three actresses (the two we see, and third dubbed both their voices)

[Michael Kerpan]

well, if we're going to count voices, the female lead in Object was played by three actresses (the two we see, and third dubbed both their voices)

Who did the voice for the actresses?

[GringoTex]

well, if we're going to count voices, the female lead in Object was played by three actresses (the two we see, and third dubbed both their voices)

Really? I would have never guessed. Spanish Conchita definitely has a raspier voice.

[miless]

Who did the voice for the actresses?

I'm trying to find that now... I'm going through all of my Buñuel books... I could have sworn it was something Buñuel said (something to baffle interviewers, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was lying)

I also might have heard it from a friend of mine named Roberto, who was friends with the late great director. If I discover it, I'll post it.

[Michael Kerpan]

A few extra brain cells having been activated --- I thought Bouquet said somewhere that she did all of Conchita's dialog in the finished film.

[dudlyarse]

...but as this is my first viewing of Bunuel's movies, I was very entertained and delighted by this movie. That's not because of what happens to the characters, necessarily, but because of the way the material was presented. I think there are different conclusions that can be drawn about the characters' actions.

Does Conchita really care about Rey?

How far will Rey go before he has Conchita for his loins, if ever?

Is the old man's level of involvement with Conchita perhaps a delusion on his part, since it is exclusively his account that the movie portrays?

We can draw our own conclusions because Bunuel, I don't think, drew a conclusion to the film himself, except with the blast at the end.

I personally think Conchita played Rey like a harp, just because she knew she could and wanted to see how far she could take it. And my impression that she was seeing how far she could take it with him made the movie so...damn...funny.

[Jack Phillips]

I personally think Conchita played Rey like a harp, just because she knew she could and wanted to see how far she could take it. And my impression that she was seeing how far she could take it with him made the movie so...damn...funny.

Precisely. The characters are equally matched: the ultimate coquette meets the goatiest of old goats. You think this is funny now, wait another 30 years.

[dadaistnun]

Errol Morris talks about a little about the film in his current NYT blog: "Perhaps Buñuel sees love as a series of continuity errors? People assume there are no continuity errors in reality."

[dad1153]

Saw "TOOoD" for the first time over the weekend on the Sundance Channel. Buñuel probably knew this was his last movie (he was up there in age) because his kitchen-sink of issues and every filmmaking trick he learned are either on display here or their absence shows his mastery of the art of film (like Kurosawa in "Ran" but on a more intimate scale). Only a director at the top of his game would use the loss of his lead actress while filming as an excuse to double-up, literally. The debate about whether Buñuel belongs to the Surrealist movement is moot in face of the two-actress stunt casting he uses in "TOOoD." Whether trying to call attention to the artificiality of the medium, winking at us or trying to tell us (or giving us an excuse) how to interpret an open-ended meaning the movie is by its very use of this construct a surreal experience. That Buñuel prefers to do this with 'theatrical' and non-flashy visual devices is just his prerogative as a filmmaker (or a compromise given his perpetual budget constraints), the preferred "color palette" (as in tone/style of the movie) he as a director chooses to employ.

Besides the already-discussed issues involving the principals (nice to see Carol Bouquet in something other than a Bond movie =P~) what struck me on first viewing is how both dated and grounded in contemporary reality by the use of terrorism as the backdrop (ignored by the main protagonists) the movie is. Mathieu's months-long courtship of Conchita unfolds with one helluva body count in the background, sometimes even taking center stage (the car bombing that delays Mathieu's arrival to the train). For all the depth and/or psychological complexity it attempts or pretends to represent (are the two actresses meant to convey Conchita's duplicitous nature or the way Mathieu perceives her?) to me Buñuel set out to deliver a laugh-out loud comedy of manners. Taken at face value (the acronyms for the terrorist groups, the passengers on the train, Mathieu's clumsy attempt to bond with his male butler, etc.) this is an acute farce in which the 'bourgeois' elite and its poor-but-clever prey engage in their own petty mind/sex games until reality comes crashing into their thoroughly-wasted lives. Both figuratively and for real it's nice to see Buñuel end his career and go out with a bang...

[Michael Kerpan]

And Matthieu was, in a sense, also doubled -- body by Fernando R, voice by Michel P. Has anyone ever heard a reason given for this?

[Mr Sausage]

The great thing about the two actresses is so many people never even noticed it - I will confess I definitely didn't when I saw this on first release in the seventies and I was already very familiar with Don Luis.

Not so surprising after you see this.

[Feego]

I watched this last night as a double feature with Josef von Sternberg's The Devil Is a Woman, and I found it to be quite an interesting experience. It was my first time seeing the Sternberg film, and it holds up surprisingly well along side Bunuel's film. Most intriguing was the fact that in the Sternberg version, Marlene Dietrich's Concha actually has several men masochistically suffering under her allure, not just one. The earlier film is also quite cynical in its own way, especially the ending (which, as I understand, the censors initially objected to).

Has anyone else seen The Devil Is a Woman? I recommend watching the films together.