Disturbing Dark Dangerous Satire

10/10
Author: mockturtle from New York
28 December 2002

I am not going to go into much specifics except to say that this is one of the darkest and most disturbing films I have seen. I would certainly in that way rank it alongside David Lynch's "Eraserhead," Werner Herzog's "Even Dwarfs Started Small," Terry Gilliam's "Brazil," and more recently Paul Thomas Anderson's "Punch Drunk Love."

Each of these films is funny in a way, some hilariously, all subversively. I also must say, not to the detriment of the film necessarily, that this is one of the most irritating films I've seen. Bunuel truly gets under the skin of what gets under our skin: inane quirks, selfish boors, groupthinkers. The most disturbing imagery in the film suggests christian parallels with many of the guests praying or vowing to do good works if released, a butler that studied with jesuits and a final service in a church, as well as several lambs (often representations, as in Blake, of Jesus).

Possible also are references to Passover's "exterminating" angel of death, as a brick thrown through a window is at first attributed "some passing Jew." I will not presume to interpret these, and I probably could not do so convincingly if I tried, and, much like with Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive, I don't really want them interpreted for me. This is the wonder of Bunuel. "Cinema is anarchistic" is a probable misquote of him, but from the time of his last film no filmmakers except those above have been able to capture the feeling while watching a film that ANYTHING can happen, and very quickly, and how very frightening that is.

The other reason I write is that the VHS of this film is ATROCIOUS. The best part is where one guest babbles on for about 10 seconds, none of which is shown in the subtitles AT ALL. Most of them are difficult to read as they are against a white background, the quality is true crap. "Diary of a Chambermaid" is a fine film but this is the one that truly needs to be seen as it was intended.

The Human Condition
10/10
Author: LeandraZZZ from United Kingdom
12 September 2006

I just saw this for the first time yesterday. Although the movie was made in 1962, it was a very grainy print, and I am assuming that this was deliberate - it looked as though we were looking at something from the 1920s. I liked this; it was all part of it. This was an amazing movie - and amazingly prescient - a metaphor for the human condition (not just the upper classes), our life on this planet, and how fragile it all is (the slightest pressure on resources, the slightest dislocation, and the whole edifice crumbles).

The room they did not want to leave is this planet earth and our life on it. The guests are a metaphor for all of us, and we are very, very attached to life. When we are having a wonderful time, for sure we don't want to leave life and the planet - and even when we have made the most terrible mess of it (because we don't want to leave) and the whole thing has degenerated into fighting, bickering,destruction, hunger, thirst - we STILL don't want to leave.

In the movie, as in the cycle of life, it is not until there is a reprieve when everything suddenly clicks back into how it was (reincarnation?)that they are able to leave. They go back to the Church - but that is no answer either, because the whole same thing happens over again. At the end, the sheep all go to the church - "lambs to the slaughter" (and English phrase - I am English).

It is an interesting parable for today's world: the rich (First World countries?) take for granted food and water -- until they experience the loss of it firsthand themselves (the Third World?), and then all the social castes and 'mores' which they (we) have built up, crumble - they fight each other, they hallucinate, they hunger, they thirst. Later, even once they are free of the room, we see fighting in the streets of the city, with troops firing on the civilian population. The movie was made in 1962: does any of this sound familiar in today's world of 2006 ?

Hilarious, surreal satire of a high society soiree gone terribly wrong...

Author: JohnnyCNote from Jacksonville, FL
2 March 1999

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After an evening at the opera in Mexico City, a group of high society friends meet at the house of their hosts, Nobilé and his wife, to dine and spend the evening indulging in "sophisticated" conversation and whatever else such folks do at their parties. They stay later and later and eventually it's the next day, but no one has left. By that evening, they're all still in the salon, no one has left and no one will leave: they're trapped! All the have to do is walk out the door, but no one wants to be the first to leave.

As time goes on, one gravely ill guest dies, they run out of food, and eventually their genteel façade deteriorates and they become, as the Spanish title suggests, "shipwrecked", in their house on Providence St., losing all track of time. The subtitles typically leave out a lot of the Spanish dialog. Listen for the Voice of Reason, el Doctor, who's always saying "calmanse todos" ("everyone be calm") whenever there's a confrontation. Also listen for the electric shaver at odd times, much to the irritation of one of the guests.

I came across this crazy film in the summer of '86 after having purchased my first VCR. I soon found myself watching it twice daily and read all the books I could find on both the film and its director, Luis Buñuel. I found a lot of good information along with some glaring errors regarding the film, to which I attribute the possibility that the authors probably did not have access to a videotape copy of the movie and were thus unable to view it many times over.

That being said, I've been able to gather that the movie is primarily Buñuel's impression of "high society" parties that seem to go on forever (as he stated himself in several interviews). Much is made of the various repetitions in the film, and he stated that in some cases he'd actually witnessed the same people being introduced to each other several times throughout an evening, as is seen in the film itself.

Beyond that, I get the clear impression that a lot of this film is essential a joke in the sense that Buñuel throws in a lot of stuff just to confound the viewer and make himself laugh. When the women talk of seeing eagles when relieving themselves in large vases in a closet, this is in reality taken from a time in Buñuel's youth when he'd visit relatives in the mountains. Their outhouses extended over cliffs and it was indeed possible to see eagles, etc., flying underneath (poor birds!).

Then there are Buñuel's favorite targets like the upper class and classical music, including condutors and cellos. The dialog is rich in non-sequitors and ironic responses that are all the more hilarious when translated from Spanish. One great example is when Nobilé responds to his wife after she's noticed a guest has removed his coat (gasp!), "let us remove our coats as well, to attenuate the incorrectness".

I've watched a fair amount of Buñuel's films, and this is by far my favorite. There are others that are better in their technical acheivement, e.g. "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeousie", but this, and its contemporary, "Simon of the Desert", are as good as he gets in my book.I've been searching for a copy of the screenplay in Spanish."We don't want answers, we want to get out of here!"