Why Luis Buñuel’s bourgeois satires are perfect… | Little White Lies

In Praise Of

Why Luis Buñuel’s bour­geois satires are per­fect pan­dem­ic viewing

24 Mar 2020

Words by Jake Cole

Three women with distinctive hairstyles and facial expressions, wearing neutral-coloured outfits, posing indoors.
Three women with distinctive hairstyles and facial expressions, wearing neutral-coloured outfits, posing indoors.
The Span­ish master’s back cat­a­logue is filled with per­ti­nent mes­sages, includ­ing a par­o­dy of social distancing.

As peo­ple all around the world self-iso­late in response to the coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic, there has nat­u­ral­ly been a spike in view­ing for plague films like Out­break and Con­ta­gion. Yet one of the most reveal­ing aspects of the pan­dem­ic has been how swift­ly it has revealed mod­ern, late cap­i­tal­ism to be a house of cards capa­ble of being exposed as a hol­low sham in only a few weeks worth of mas­sive upheaval.

As such, there could be no film­mak­er whose work is bet­ter suit­ed for the cur­rent cri­sis than Luis Buñuel, the Span­ish sur­re­al­ist mas­ter who satirised the bour­geoisie and its frag­ile val­ues through­out his career. With 14 of his films avail­able on the Cri­te­ri­on Chan­nel in the US, one can see how his attacks evolved but the tar­gets remained constant.

Like many of the Buñuel’s ear­ly films, 1930’s L’Age d’Or lam­poons the flim­sy hypocrisies and self-denial uphold­ing soci­ety by fore­ground­ing preva­lent taboos around sex, pit­ting an unnamed cou­ple attempt­ing to con­sum­mate their love against the com­bined social forces of respectable soci­ety and the Church.

Using warped, satir­i­cal per­ver­sions of reli­gious imagery that would become a call­ing card, Buñuel iron­i­cal­ly casts his cen­tral cou­ple as Adam and Eve-esque naïfs who, denied the free­dom to express their love nat­u­ral­ly, become repressed and act out in strange ways, most notably with the woman suck­ing on a statue’s toe for grat­i­fi­ca­tion. Their sex­u­al­i­ty offers a reminder of the base impuls­es beneath our veneer of deco­rum, and how that sup­pos­ed­ly refined behav­iour does not over­come such instincts but rather caus­es them to explode in errat­ic, ruinous ways.

The sple­net­ic inten­si­ty of such ear­ly work grad­u­al­ly gives way to more con­sid­ered attacks on social mores and the atti­tudes of the idle rich. The Dis­creet Charm of the Bour­geoisie, from 1972, presents the upper mid­dle class as a state of con­stant prepa­ra­tion for a par­ty that nev­er starts, a con­sumerist void in which the cathar­tic pay­off of arrang­ing one’s life in just the right man­ner to impress oth­ers nev­er tru­ly arrives. Even­tu­al­ly, the char­ac­ters become com­plete­ly unmoored from their var­i­ous, thwart­ed social engage­ments, roam­ing the coun­try­side as the farce of their lives con­sumes them.

Black and white image of a woman in a pensive pose, sitting on the floor with her arms resting on her knees.

The flip­side to a film about a par­ty that nev­er starts is, nat­u­ral­ly, one about a gath­er­ing that nev­er ends. In 1962’s The Exter­mi­nat­ing Angel, a par­ty of socialites gath­ers for a cel­e­bra­tion filled with aris­to­crat­ic hedo­nism that turns bar­bar­ic when the guests dis­cov­er that some invis­i­ble force pre­vents any­one from leav­ing. The man­sion where the film is set, look­ing at first glit­tery and vast, becomes dark and claus­tro­pho­bic as the guests turn to increas­ing­ly sav­age means of escape, tear­ing at the walls and even offer­ing blood sac­ri­fices to an unseen, angry god.

The film’s great joke is that these peo­ple, who spend their lives clois­tered from the riffraff of the world, go insane the moment that they must remain in those seclud­ed zones, when their delib­er­ate iso­la­tion becomes invol­un­tary. Near­ly 60 years old, it stands as per­haps the defin­i­tive COVID-19 film.

Eeri­ly, Buñuel even has a per­fect par­o­dy of social dis­tanc­ing, 1965’s Simon of the Desert, in which a reli­gious ascetic iso­lates him­self from soci­ety, only to attract hun­dreds of gawk­ers who look to him for guid­ance but also dis­miss the fan­tas­tic mir­a­cles he per­forms. As images of British pun­ters fill­ing pubs and Amer­i­can under­grad­u­ates flood­ing Spring Break beach­es flood air­waves, the sight of a man’s wil­ful seclu­sion becom­ing a tourist hotspot is but anoth­er argu­ment that a film­mak­er who has been dead since 1983 has nev­er been more relevant.

You might like