The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie

source: The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie

In Paris, the ambassador Don Rafael Acosta (Fernando Rey) of the South American country Miranda, who is also an smuggler of cocaine, comes to a dinner part in the house of Henri (Jean-Pierre Cassel) and Alice Sénéchal (Stephane Audran) with their common friends M. Thevenot (Paul Frankeur), his wife Simone Thévenot (Delphine Seyrig) and her sister Florence (Bulle Ogier) but on the day before the scheduled. Henri is not at home and they invite Alice to go with them to a restaurant close to her house, but an incident does not allow them to have meal together in the place. They reschedule another meal together many times, but problems occur in every occasion and they do not succeed in their intent. "Le Charme Discret de la Bourgeoisie" is one of the funniest movies of the master of the surrealism Luis Buñuel. This intellectual director was a great critic of the values of the Bourgeoisie Class and this movie is a witty joke, blurring the fears this class with reality and nightmare, and open to the most different interpretations. The empty, hypocrite and pointless existence of the Bourgeoisie Class is highlighted by the shallow interest of the characters in meal, sex, etiquette and money and their final journey to nowhere; or the behavior of the disloyal ambassador that betrays his friend having a love affair with his wife; smuggles cocaine using his diplomatic immunity; or shoots the toy of a terrorist in front of the Embassy of Miranda. Further, in 1972, the countries of South America lived under military dictatorship with many exiled people living in Paris, and the arrogant Don Rafael Acosta is hilarious denying the truth about his country. Buñuel does not spare the church in his satire, with the funny Monsignor Dufour trying to interfere in every subject without the appropriate knowledge. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): "O Discreto Charme da Burguesia" ("The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie")

My Rating : 0/10 A work of art?! It is a pathetic attempt to make an artistic social statement. Obvious statements in ridiculous and absurd scenarios that any second rate film student could have done a better job of. Critics proclaim this film to be great but they are just indulging their egos and their false intellect. The emperor has no clothes. Don't waste your time on this one. A disjointed, badly acted, phony presentation of a group of individuals that are worth nothing yet somehow cunning enough to elevate themselves to positions of importance. I found myself asking 'What is the point of this film?' and the answer kept coming up 'There is no point and the whole production is absurd'. If one derives intellectual meaning from such as this, I feel sorry for them. Only for the mindless.

I am aware many think its a classic but the film is pretentious and actually quite stupid. The symbolism is heavy handed. I know that many think this is a masterpiece but its a confusing mess. There are some parts that are forgotten and never explained. A woman comes on denying Christ but we never find out why. The sets look beautiful and to be fair there is a certain glamor to the film. The cast do what they can and the fault is not with he actors but with the director who seems to have an over blown ego. This was made at a time when some directors were trying to be very arty, esoteric and too clever by half. Today its a shambles. Some of the interior locations look fine but the dream sequences are just ridiculous. This sadly is almost embarrassing to watch today.

In Bunuel's "Discreet Charm" we see a film about life! The desire to "feed" one's self is used through out the film. The dinner party is always broken up and they never get a chance to eat. They never go a chance to feed their desires in life be it food or sex. This is used a symbol to show that people are always starving inside and they are always searching (hence the last shot of the film!) A brilliant film by one of the greatest directors of film! 10 out of 10!!

I am surprised that nobody recognized what the author wanted to say with this movie. The whole movie (except the last few minutes) is a dream of one ordinary man. He probably went to sleep without having dinner, and in his dream he pass through various situations where he and his friends intend to eat. But, they were interrupted every time, and he did not manage to have his meal at all. The reasons are every time stranger and stranger. Finally he woke up, goes to the kitchen and took from his refrigerator everything he find's. In one sentence, this movie is about our lust for eating. Simple, but extraordinary.

When even pompous and pretentious movie critics such as the food-lover Roger Ebert says that this movie isn't about anything, then we REALLY know it's about nothing. (As if we need the likes of him telling us that, of course.) Naturally, that didn't prevent him from liking it (or at least he claims he does), because, after all, the GREAT WIZARD OF European CINEMA Bunuel HIMSELF made this glorious masterpiece. How can it not be terrific??? Or is that "a master piece of crap"?... TDCOTB is a self-indulgent collection of scenes, which bored me to the most part. Bunuel's left-wing anti-Americanism/anti-Capitalism was pathetic, as was the very bland and ugly look of the movie. (No doubt some pro-Bunuelists would say now that this was done on purpose because the main characters are so bland and ugly as well, or some such unconvincing malarkey…) Bunuel hates Nazis, but adores mass-killers like Mao. He portrays terrorists as young, good-looking idealists, and not the psychopathic degenerates that they really are. Bunuel's contempt for the "Bourgeoisie" i.e. his tender love and caring for the "proletariat" is truly touching, I had so many handkerchiefs ready so as not to drown in my own pool of tears. The greatest irony, of course, is that this "proletariat" COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT HIS MOVIES. They are not the ones who watch his movies, but UPPER AND MIDDLE-CLASS ART STUDENTS. Isn't that a wonderful irony, almost like poetic justice, so fitting for this senile old hypocrite. Anyone who condones large-scale Marxist violence i.e. mass-murder in gulags, while passionately advocating revolution against fascist regimes (or what he considers to be such) lacks any kind of moral foundation to preach to ANYONE – let alone me. But let's forget the blatant and embarrassingly naïve left-wing politics that lurk in every other scene of this mediocre non-feast. The movie is mostly dull. The soldier's dream, for example: what was the point of that? If I ever had such a dull dream I wouldn't even tell it to my most bored friends – let alone put it in a movie for millions to watch! Or how about that lieutenant's story? Why did he approach the three women? Just to tell them about how he poisoned his step-father? That sequence doesn't fit into the movie at all; Bunuel seems to have literally SHOVED IT into the plot, by sheer force. "Let's see, I have this nice little pointless childhood revenge-poison story that I wrote in 3 minutes… Where shall I put it? Oh well, nevermind, I can put it anywhere. After all, the film will have no flow, so who cares where I stick it?" The endless series of "it-was-just-a-dream" twists get rather tiresome after a while – not to mention predictable. The movie is repetitious. What about that supposedly very clever "they-never-get-to-eat" theme/running-gag? I would laugh at it if only I didn't know beforehand what real humour was. If I want to watch absurdist humour on a high level I'll put in a Monty Python disk. Bunuel's movies aren't funny. And often they aren't even clever. The only scene that was both original and interesting was when the 6 characters find themselves eating on a stage. (Or TRYING TO EAT – ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. So so very funny, them not getting to eat because they keep getting interrupted… Hilarious… Oh, I nearly wet myself…) No wonder this movie won the Best Foreign Picture Oscar!

Bunuel's career was one of the most sensational you could dream of.At least ten of his movies are among my favorites and ten others are not far behind. Once he said :" when I was young and I was watching the sky and saying :"it's beautiful up there and there's nothing;now,I simply say :"it's beautiful"Atheism had turned into agnosticism.Perhaps so,but Bunuel's favorite targets are still here.The bishop and the army are here to stay;they already were in "l'âge d'or" (1930) "DIscreet charm" is a comprehensive work :it includes almost everything that made Bunuel the genius every cine buff loves ;his permanent features are all included: these bourgeois walking on an endless road are the same who were locked up in the house in "el angel exterminador";Rabal trying to catch one more peace of meat is like the men who were fighting for water in "el angel" .THe selfishness of the bourgeoisie is given a stunning treatment:the impossibility to get a good meal .Bunuel explodes certitudes and he explodes different genres.One of them is the light comedy with its adulteries,its mistaken identities and its contretemps.and if the message is not clear enough,one of the scenes shows the characters on a stage!Another one is the horror and fantasy film : the young boy's mother asking him to kill his father (who is actually not his parent);and most of all the soldier's dream which could provide the substance for at least a whole movie. Dreamlike sequences are Bunuel's forte .He has sometimes been equaled (André Delvaux:"un soir un train" ) but never surpassed: just think of Pablo's dream in "los olvidados" ;the Christ on the electric wires in "cela s'appelle l'aurore" ;Séverine's fantasies in "Belle de Jour" ;Rey's head as a bell clapper in "Tristana".But in "discreet charm" Bunuel seems to connect all the links of the chain and his film becomes a tapestry of Bayeux where dreams and reality follow naturally. "I dreamed ,Thevenot says,that Senechal dreamed that he was on a stage and ..." It' s "Jacob's ladder" twenty years before that later movie appears. It's also a political movie,but not a work for highbrows .What he did not fully achieved with the spotty "la fièvre monte à El Pao" ,and the more interesting "death in the garden" ,Bunuel pulls it off with gusto here.The republic (sic) of Miranda whose ambassador is none other than Rey is ,even if we never see it , depicted in minute lavish detail .Unlike highbrows like Godard who deals out his lecture on Mao in "la chinoise" ,Luis Bunuel remains accessible to everybody:we laugh and we laugh a lot when we discover the harsh realities of Miranda Land which has no pyramids ,but has Nazis and poverty.Actually it's not that much funny. A word about the cast;it's perfect:Rey is wonderful as a drug trafficker ambassador who is always afraid to be slain ;Stephane Audran and Jean-Pierre Cassel had teamed up two years before in another attack against bourgeoisie ,Chabrol's "la rupture" ;Bulle Ogier,for once,forgets her usual parts who give the non-intellectual terrible headaches and manages to stay very natural;Claude Piéplu and his inimitable voice (make sure you hear his voice:nobody can dub him successfully) portrays a colorful colonel who tells the ambassador home truth and literally invades Audran's house with his staff and has lunch with the guests (a meal where the bourgeois,the Church and the Army eat together is something to watch).But for me the stand-out is feminist Delphine Seyrig,with her beaming face,her preciosity and her sweet stupidity. To say that "discreet charm" is a masterpiece is to state the obvious.Maybe Bunuel's tour de force lies in the fact that even in reality,strange things happen and the characters do not seem to be surprised and shocked.... as long as their privileges are not called into question.If you should only see one Bunuel film,you had to choose this one.But if you like it,treasures are waiting for you.

BEGIN RANT I'm writing this as the movie nears its end. Nothing is happening. Obviously nothing will happen. There have been 2-3 laughs and 1-2 scenes resembling a plot. And the 3 dull bourgeois chicks are bangable. I have literally nothing else to write after seeing this. Maybe this could be a precursor to Monty Python... but Python existed for a few years before this! Jesus the film still hasn't finished. I will soooo forget it, that in 10 years I will probably try to see it again, remembering half way that I already did. It could have been called "Dull people are dull", or "When do we eat?". Or "Boring people try to eat together". But it could be turned into a decent * movie... END RANT Thank God, the end credits started rolling. I guess that watching any other film by Bunuel (haven't seen any other yet) could have been more interesting. Sorry for the rant :)

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie is not about something in particular . It doesn't have a plot and doesn't really need one. It is about the constant interruptions that ruin the dinners of some french bourgeoisie friends, interruptions mostly surreal and absurd. The movie is not as shocking and acid as Bunuel's earlier work but it is more chiseled and as weird and witty as those . Also, the dream sequences are made exceptionally. The film satirizes french bourgeoisie but as I said it is not really an acid satire but a surreal comedy/drama that doesn't really have to make sense. Dream in dream sequences are often used to express the character's unrests and troubles. The movie is somehow similar to The Exterminating Angel where the characters, after they eat cannot leave the room even though there is nothing stopping them. Here, different situations interrupt the characters from eating. These situations are absurd and illogic, just like the ones in The Exterminating Angel. The situations are absolutely amazing and Bunuel once again makes a statement. The bourgeoisie characters are shown as false and hypocritical as they are funny to the viewers. The movie is complex and unusual and different from anything you've ever seen. Watch it! It's worth it.