459-460 The Exterminating Angel and Simon of the Desert

[psufootball07]

I just saw Simon Of The Desert tonight, and I think it's probably Luis Buñuel's most concise and enjoyable film. The trials and tribulations of the titular Simon are sheer pleasure to watch, and the symbolism is never too obscure. If it weren't for the obnoxious dig-this-crazy-mixed-up-dancing sequence at the end (apparently Buñuel's budget ran out) I wouldn't hesitate to call this a perfect film, but as it stands it's pretty damn good. To be frank, I didn't really "get" the only other Buñuel film I've seen, Discreet Charm...

You say that this is Buñuel's most concise and enjoyable film, yet you state at the end you have only seen 1 other film he made?

I dont quite understand, yes I just finished watching Simon and found that I would rate it up there with Discreet Charm. But if you havent seen Un Chien Andalou, you clearly are missing out on of the most important films in cinematic history. I'd highly recommend you also check out Viridiana before visiting any of the other Criterions, I would label that as his best film.

[Murdoch]

Just watched The Exterminating Angel and have a question about the ending:

Spoiler

Who were the people being killed and who was killing them? Did the churchgoers manage to escape the church and were slaughtered so as to stop the spread of the - I guess you could call it - curse?

[Mr Sausage]

Just watched The Exterminating Angel and have a question about the ending:

Spoiler

Who were the people being killed and who was killing them? Did the churchgoers manage to escape the church and were slaughtered so as to stop the spread of the - I guess you could call it - curse?

Spoiler

Some sort of social unrest is happening outside the church, a protest or demonstration, and the police are violently putting it down. As far as we as viewers know, the people trapped in the church are still trapped there while the violence occurs around them--and probably soon among them.

[jesus the mexican boi]

You can download the "Radioactive Flesh" song from the Simon del Desierto finale (and 19 others) by Mexican rock band Los Sinners here. (The actual title of the song is "Rebelde Radioactivo," here with a studio cut and a live version.

[stiroe]

Where to begin.....finished Simon of the Desert....and I am some what struck in awe as to how it truely fits into a surrealist film. I have studied Un Chien Andalou and think it is by far his best work in the surrealist genre, with the help of Salvador Dali. Now Simon is definitely a hit out at religion (specifically Catholicism) but I struggle to see the surreal besides the obvious. Maybe its a shock of laziness but the devil dressed as a girl not from the same time era, and other themes as cheap surrealism and not true art. I find that the editing effects in Un Chien were so well before their time that it stands out as a genuine Marvel... but Simon is what I see as a tired Bunuel that couldn't get what he wanted so he made due in 46 minutes or less. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the watch but would hardly put this in the same catagory as Un Chien or L'Age d'Or.

[Michael Kerpan]

Stiroe --

Have you seen any of Bunuel's films other than Simon and his first two?

[tojoed]

Where to begin.....finished Simon of the Desert....and I am some what struck in awe as to how it truely fits into a surrealist film.

It doesn't really. The Surrealist movement, of which Bunuel was a member, was in the 1930s.
It's a bit like complaining that "The Golden Coach" has nothing of the Popular Front in it.
Bunuel was beyond that movement by the time of "Simon".

[stiroe]

Bunuel was beyond that movement by the time of "Simon".

That's how I felt but the Criterion release touts it as surrealism and that is where I had the problem. I am not sure whether Bunuel himself found it to be surreal or not and its obviously too late to ask him now. I purchased this thinking I was in for an even better movie than Un Chien with technology as it was at the time of making Simon I guess that is why I felt this way. I see the theme being surreal but the film itself is lacking the effects. I still agree with others that this film was one that was extremely frustrating for him due to contributing factors and he just let it go.

[Mr Sausage]

That's how I felt but the Criterion release touts it as surrealism and that is where I had the problem.

Wouldn't it be more logical to have a problem with Criterion's description than with the movie, in this case?

Because of his work with Dali, Bunuel has been labled a surrealist ever since. If this happens not to be true for individual films, should it really be held against them?

I see the theme being surreal but the film itself is lacking the effects.

I don't think the theme is surreal, myself. I think the film is a satire on religious fervour, a very successful one, indeed. For all Simon's lofty intents, he's an asshole without a single good word to say about anyone or anything, his own mother included. He pretends to be above mere physical reality, and yet this is a conceit: he is not any less physical by sitting on a pillar, however much he pretends otherwise. Food and water must still be raised up to him and waste lowered down (the latter making for a rather funny scene). Everyone begs him to perform miracles, but gives him not a second thought once the miracles have finished; and the people are quick to turn on him and reveal their own jealousies when the slightest accusation of devil worship is made against him. Holiness and devilishness look much the same in the eyes of the people, and we find they are more likely to suspect the devil than god when good works are performed since, afterall, why should god favour Simon over them? In the end, the devil transports Simon to the future and we discover that his modern counterpart is just an apathetic, bored, likely pseudo-intellectual, drinking alone in a nightclub and no doubt taking satisfaction in his own ennui. One more type who believes himself above the masses.

I think it's more profitable to approach Bunuel as a satirist than a surrealist. I recommend you watch The Exterminating Angel, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeosie, The Phantom of Liberty, and his masterpiece, That Obscure Object of Desire (provided you can get a hold of them). Magnificent films.

[stiroe]

The first Criterion I purchased was That Obscure Object of Desire. I found it to be very speratic and more toward his earlier work as in its possible randomness at points. I agree with the fact Simon is more of a direct slap in the face when it comes to religion and I felt that almost immediately with the miracle preformed and the guy uses his miracle to hit his kid. The devil I believe was to fit the bill of surrealism as in the different eras approached the school girl from the early 1900's or the ending figuring into the time period of the filming. While I 100% agree that it is a satire I still believe they are correct that it had a bit of surrealism but not in the terms of his earlier work or other films thats fit into the genre.

Wouldn't it be more logical to have a problem with Criterion's description than with the movie, in this case?

Yes your right but who would ever blame them.... So I guess overall it is my folie.

But I will continue to check out his other work. Because of this I truely want to get Viridiana it seems very much along the lines of religious satire. I read about Exterminating Angel and found the overall theme a bit interesting but not enough to make me buy it or even really want to see it.... so maybe this is a chance to sell me on it or not.

[bunuelian]

I recommend Belle de Jour as perhaps Bunuel's most accessible film. It's the one I typically show to friends who aren't otherwise much into film. Reading a book or two about Bunuel can deepen your experience of his films tremendously. Exterminating Angel has a strangeness akin to an uncomfortable dream, which ends when you wake yourself laughing.

A lot of the themes Bunuel returned to time and again were (and still are) at the center of the Surrealist artistic movement: Freudian imagery, repressed sexuality and de Sade, images intended to scandalize conservatives, dreams. I think the problem many people have when they look for the "surreal" in Bunuel is a lack of understanding of what Surrealism as a movement strives to do and takes as its inspiration. It's usually a lot more subtle than merely weird or disorienting images that might be called surreal without having much reference to what Surrealism is. This is made more complicated by the fact that the movement itself is either very narrowly defined as 1930's Paris (to the exclusion of offshoots like, i.e., the Czechs) or defined too broadly to include anyone who takes up the banner or has it applied too hastily to them (David Lynch).

[Jerryvonkramer]

I would have said Exterminating Angel was more absurd than surreal, no? If it was a play, it would belong to the Theatre of the Absurd for sure. I don't know why "surrealism" is always preferred in the language of film. I think it is because of the strong surrealist movement of the 30s (Bunuel's own early films).

[mikkelmark]

I disagree. Theater of the Absurd from Camus which is more or less existentialism, except that Camus rejected that label (maybe because of his feud with Sartre). Camus always stays on a realistic plane, even in "The Plague", he uses good time on justifying how it is realistic for the plague to strike again (even if only a image of French resistance during Nazi occupation). In the "Exterminating Angel", what adds the surreal is that there's this invisible force keeping them in the house. You could say it's absurd in that they can't leave the house, but I don't think it's absurd in the Camus sense of the word. When I saw the movie, I didn't think of it a existential, but more a more a Bunuel riding one of his old horses, which is attacking the Bourgeois, in particular showing that even in their fine suits, they're still not far from savages.

[Jerryvonkramer]

I disagree. Theater of the Absurd from Camus which is more or less existentialism, except that Camus rejected that label (maybe because of his feud with Sartre). Camus always stays on a realistic plane, even in "The Plague", he uses good time on justifying how it is realistic for the plague to strike again (even if only a image of French resistance during Nazi occupation). In the "Exterminating Angel", what adds the surreal is that there's this invisible force keeping them in the house. You could say it's absurd in that they can't leave the house, but I don't think it's absurd in the Camus sense of the word. When I saw the movie, I didn't think of it a existential, but more a more a Bunuel riding one of his old horses, which is attacking the Bourgeois, in particular showing that even in their fine suits, they're still not far from savages.

Camus was simply a formative influence of the Theatre of the Absurd rather than the thing itself. I'm talking about the plays of Eugene Ionesco, N.F. Simpson, and to some extent Samuel Beckett.

Exterminating Angel bears a particularly close resemblance to the plays of Ioensco and Simpson, in particular Ioenesco's The Bald Primadonna and Simpson's One Way Pendulum and The Resounding Tinkle. These are works that are centred on middle class people in as you say 'realistic' settings but often with an absurd premise. They are social satires picking apart bourgeois hypocrisies and values, similar to those of Bunuel's later career. This is really what I had in mind in my use of the term 'absurd'.

I'd use 'surreal' to describe something like Eraserhead.

[mikkelmark]

Then you could be right, I must admit I know only of Camus, and not really anything of the others of the Theatre of the Absurd that you mention. I know Camus and read a wiki page, that probably made me jump to conclusions, I knew that Camus loved the theatre and wrote plays, so I thought Theatre of the Absurd was just Camus mind set in the theatre.

Also it's funny, if I wanted to label Eraserhead, the first thought I have is Avant garde, but I can see that wiki puts it as a surreal movie.

[swo17]

Exterminating Angel upgrade Dec 6

[Finch]

^ Awesome! That announcement alone makes my day.

[FrauBlucher]

Beaver is The Exterminating Angel

[Minkin]

Exterminating Svet

[Orlac]

Savant

[Mr Sausage]

DISCUSSION ENDS MONDAY, JANUARY 29th.

Members have a two week period in which to discuss the film before it's moved to its dedicated thread in The Criterion Collection subforum. Please read the Rules and Procedures.

This thread is not spoiler free. This is a discussion thread; you should expect plot points of the individual films under discussion to be discussed openly. See: spoiler rules.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

I encourage members to submit questions, either those designed to elicit discussion and point out interesting things to keep an eye on, or just something you want answered. This will be extremely helpful in getting discussion started. Starting is always the hardest part, all the more so if it's unguided. Questions can be submitted to me via PM.

[Mr Sausage]

This week's film is the winner of the winner of our last Auteur List project. Many thanks to domino for putting that together.

[ando]

This is my favorite Buñuel film yet I find it hard to critique because he doesn't give you an easy way in - and an even harder way out. Ha. First of all, I think you need to have a measure of compassion for these excessively self-involved, entitled people to maintain interest in their plight. It's really not enough to say, Ok, let's see how Luis pokes fun at this latest pack of bougois bores. You have to put yourself in the party of guests. Now, would you leave with the servants (the smart ones smell something foul early on) or take up the invitation? If the question is irrelevant to an audience I believe Buñuel has already lost them. If however, a properly intrigued audience stays for the duration there's an exploration of the human spirit that goes quite beyond what, say, Hitchcock might do with a similar set-up. The crowd is similar to one Hitch would explore but the mcguffin would be absolutely central and completely beside the point of the gathering. But the play of characters is hinged upon the external situation. With Buñuel you get all the anxiety without a mcguffin so there's no external recourse or even reference from which to act and (to echo Sartre) no clear exit.

[zedz]

One of the things I most appreciate about the film is that its satire is simultaneously obvious and elusive. Bunuel couldn't make his central metaphor clearer (bourgeois life as a trap), but at the granular level the details are left mysterious. So the film remains lively and surprising where it could have been schematic, with every incident and instance of behaviour tied neatly down to a satirical or allegorical or political point (as you get in the clearest Hitchcock analogue, Lifeboat).

Thinking about that comparison a little, I think one of the strengths of Bunuel's film in comparison to Hitchcock's is the lack of individualization in The Exterminating Angel. In Lifeboat, we're presented with a bunch of clearly delineated types, intended to represent society; in Exterminating Angel, we're simply presented with (a strata of) society itself, and it's much easier for us to insert ourselves into that relatively amorphous dinner party than into that crowded lifeboat.

[ando]

One of the things I most appreciate about the film is that its satire is simultaneously obvious and elusive. Bunuel couldn't make his central metaphor clearer (bourgeois life as a trap), but at the granular level the details are left mysterious. So the film remains lively and surprising where it could have been schematic, with every incident and instance of behaviour tied neatly down to a satirical or allegorical or political point (as you get in the clearest Hitchcock analogue, Lifeboat).

Thinking about that comparison a little, I think one of the strengths of Bunuel's film in comparison to Hitchcock's is the lack of individualization in The Exterminating Angel. In Lifeboat, we're presented with a bunch of clearly delineated types, intended to represent society; in Exterminating Angel, we're simply presented with (a strata of) society itself, and it's much easier for us to insert ourselves into that relatively amorphous dinner party than into that crowded lifeboat.

Interesting Hitch comp. Lifeboat certainly has an obvious source of anxiety for the characters in their particular situation which allows Hitch to focus on minutiae in the environment but I'd say that there are equally defined types among the guests in Angel as Lifeboat, especially for Mexicans, though particulars are indeed elided in order to emphasize their existential dilemma. Otherwise, the dinner party gathering might have resembled a psych ward.

The Hitch comp that I initially had in mind was Rope; because of the similar physical setting and the type of bougois gathering. Hitchcock's Mcguffin (the murdered young man just beneath the dinner table) enables him to make fun of the disturbing obsession of murder among these "respectable"/superior types who fail to recognize real murderers among them or worse; real human life becomes irrelevant to their preoccupations. But they can escape their immediate physical situation because they're not forced to face themselves - the two young murderers' ruse is almost wholly successful. Buñuel prevents his guests from leaving so they must consider their physical and psychological condition and shows the audience that they're actually the same. The characters themselves remain oblivious to their own psychic dilemma but it provides the ground upon which Buñuel can play. Hitch's characters leave the apartment believing in their individual agency. Buñuel strips them of it utterly. It's how he's able to make a severed hand (symbol of human agency) scampering across the room as threatening (and humourous) as a hungry tarantula. The hand, with no class or clear racial associations, is able to come and go but the guests can't.

What's never been clear to me is the role of Sylvia Pinal's character in extricating the group from their situation. And it's obviously on what the film's resolution depends! What I'm guessing is that Pinal's character embodies the figure of the Virgin Mary in that community - meaning, broadly, the middle classes of the Spanish diaspora. It's admittedly a big statement but, I also believe a personal one for Buñuel and a specific one in terms of his attempt at a filmic resolution.

You know, I don't have a high opinion of Christ, but I think the world of Mary.