Simon of the Desert (1965)

It is typical of every religion to preach that self-sacrifice is the path to find God. That giving up all the "pleasures" of the world will purify man. Wonder where those teachings came from, but it is quite a common trait, no matter what religion. Embrace asceticism, rid yourself of the so-called "worldly pleasures" or "sins" and achieve your spiritual or religious goals! The ultimate path to salvation is here!

The Catholic teachings are no different, and Luis Bunuel has always been highly critical of organized religion. He has dedicated so many of his films as tools to launch razor sharp, scathing attacks on these beliefs or the Church in general. 

Loosely based on the real life story of the 5th century ascetic Saint Simeon Stylites, who spent 39 years atop a column ,"Simon of the Desert" is no exception. Picture a bearded monk, Simon (Claudio Brook), devoting his life to ascetic ways. He has already spent six years, six weeks and six days atop a pillar in the middle of the desert, praying for spiritual purification. He has gained a good amount of followers; mostly peasants, some priests and other village folk who believe that he has been blessed with special powers. They come to him for help or deliver some food from time to time. He is offered a brand new, taller pillar as a token of their faith and respect for his sacrifice. Simon continues his act of good faith, keeps delivering sermons and can even seemingly perform miracles.....

Sounds like a serious, religious, deeply meaningful, preachy biography of a Saint? Not in the Luis Bunuel universe! Trust Bunuel to turn something that sounds very deep and heavy into a darkly humorous, absurd mock-fest that is unrelenting and uncompromising in its ways so much so as to scandalize half the audiences who could be believers!

So this whole God-fearing stuff takes a dramatic turn as some of the priests and peasants start getting critical of Simon and think it is all in vain. Simon is taken to be an arrogant man by some, and a few others think he is faking it. Simon himself begins to deem his actions futile on several occasions. What's more...the Devil shows up too, and tries to "tempt" Simon in his many ways by appearing in the form of a beautiful woman (Silvia Pinal) in an attempt to seduce Simon out of his saintly ways! Will Simon yield to the temptation? 

Bunuel takes only about 45 minutes to drive his point across and does it with his masterful touch. Accompanied by Gabriel Figueroa's beautiful camerawork, Bunuel makes unpredictable transitions from realism to surrealism to hilarious absurdism all in the miniscule time frame that was available to him. Apparently Gustavo Alatriste, the producer could no longer fund the film for some reasons and that is how Bunuel was forced to abruptly end the film (with a bizarre ending that has been criticized in several write-ups, but do not be misled...it does have its place..and its own charm based on the interpretation), while in reality he wished to add more material to the film. Whatever the reasons, the end result is a highly original, savagely funny and one of the most eccentric works of cinema from the twisted mind of Luis Bunuel. 

Pay especially careful attention to certain scenes in which Simon mutters random religious ramblings on seeing some ordinary creatures like an insect (that has absolutely no idea of what is going on!) and later tries to do the same with an inanimate object but gives up! Or the scene in which Simon performs a miracle and gives a cripple a new pair of hands...and the eventual consequence of it! Or that brutally funny scene in which some of the priests don't seem to know the meaning of a particular Biblical reference. Every scene drips a lot of really clever writing....and there is no question that this is an exemplary work of genius from the great director. 

Bunuel's pick of actors add to the amazing experience with their superb performances, especially Claudio Brook, Silvia Pinal and the midget Jesus Fernandez.

"Simon of the Desert" is the kind of film that leaves you wanting more. Another 45 minutes of running time perhaps?

Check out this masterpiece...do not waste anymore time.

Score: 10/10.

The Phantom of Liberty (1974)

The Granddaddy of surrealist cinema directed his penultimate film at the age of 74. And, my goodness, what creativity at that age! What a grand accomplishment in cinema with one of the most radically unconventional films ever made! It is difficult to outline the greatness of “The Phantom of Liberty” in words but this review makes the most sincere attempt.

In Bunuel’s universe, expect the unexpected. So please throw out all your expectations of finding rational explanations to the events or trying to make sense of them in the logical manner. What Bunuel gives you is the epitome of absurdity. There is absolutely no rationale backing the actions or behavioral traits of the characters here. What we have is characters behaving in the oddest of manners. So a seemingly normal event becomes a reason for raising eyebrows. On the other hand, a seriously eyebrow raising event is met with lack of reaction and is deemed not worth acting upon! This pretty much summarizes the universe of “The Phantom of Liberty”.

The film puts out a series of very interesting and twisted narratives chained together in a very unique manner. A minor character of one narrative takes the film forward by becoming the main character of the next narrative.  This is how focus shifts from character to character, like in a relay race where a baton is passed on. Now that is truly amazing storytelling if nothing else! Bunuel also admits that the episodes are derived from his own personal experiences. It is almost as if Bunuel and Jean-Claude Carriere (co-scriptwriter) had vivid dreams based on their personal experiences, each dream weirder than the other and they penned down each dream and turned it into one feature-length script! Let it be noted though that Bunuel’s world isn’t derived from fantasy; everything is based in the real world, only the occurrences don’t follow the norms of the real world.

The events in the film take wackiness to another level; yet they range from inherently comic  to highly disturbing. The ‘disturbing’ quotient mostly comes from the display of some aberrant sexuality surrounding at least three of the major characters in a couple of episodes. There is plenty of material here to keep you glued to your seats and ensure that you have a mighty good time, sometimes cringing and sometimes smiling with glee!

Despite the insane nature of the script, Bunuel certainly had a motive to write these scenes the way he wrote them. There are multiple themes in this film, as Bunuel himself declares in his autobiography. Most notably, the importance of chance occurrences or coincidence and the essential mystery of all things, including the ambiguous nature of truth. There is a lot to be taken home from “The Phantom of Liberty”. One may also argue that Bunuel’s eccentric, exaggerated vision is a vehicle to depict how certain things happening in this world around us are simply wrong! Like a dreaded killer who should be hanged sometimes ends up being a media-created celebrity! The inherent difficulty faced by human beings to accept the truth when they finally come face to face with it is depicted through at least two episodes in the film in a hyperbolic manner. Like in his earlier film “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie” there is also a fleeting satire on the hypocrisy of the upper middle class.

The actors all play their parts with conviction, and prominent French actors Michel Piccoli and Michael Lonsdale briefly appear in small but extremely memorable scenes. Bunuel, noted for his economic film-making uses minimal sets and almost no special/makeup effects; uses mostly indoor locations to shoot his scenes. There is also a prominent lack of a background score and certain apparently big events are shown off-screen and conveyed only through sound. But this is the narrative device that succeeds most. When events are off-screen and left to the viewer’s imagination, it enhances the impact. There are a number of such instances in “The Phantom of Liberty”.

Bunuel gives you quality cinema near the end of his highly prolific career. “The Phantom of Liberty” is an unforgettable film experience. Cherish this film and its maker; they are a rarity.

Score: 10/10

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972)

The master of surrealism, Luis Bunuel was about 72 when he made this fantastic film, “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie”. It is literally a wet “dream” come true for all those film buffs who like their movies full of oneiric imagery with random occurrences that, although set in a real world, do not make much sense!

It must be clear enough now, that there is no single plot to make this film a whole. Rather it is a collection of confounding events in the life of six central characters of the bourgeois class, including two married couples, who happen to be friends. Most events revolve around their repeatedly thwarted attempts to sit down to have a leisurely meal together! The world in Bunuel’s film, although real, isn’t very logical either. Several seemingly bizarre events are accepted as “normal” with a rather straight face by the characters, which adds to the many qualities of Bunuel’s surreal vision.

Relating some of the strangest and best events in the film in this review will do disservice to the first time viewer, but assuming that a mention of a couple of other events will only entice the reader to watch the film, instead of spoiling the fun, I think I can safely mention them. The group of the aforementioned six people are walking down a long stretch of an open road on a sunny day. This scene is repeated throughout the film and randomly interspersed with other events in the film. Then in one scene, the three ladies of the group sit down in a restaurant to have some tea. The waiter later comes and tells them that it is unavailable. The cycle continues, as later, no matter what they order, the waiter comes back after a few minutes and informs them that they are “out of it”. In the midst of this, a complete stranger, a sad-looking Lieutenant in a uniform, comes to their table, relates a ghostly tale from his childhood and walks away. The ladies don’t seem to be express much disbelief upon hearing the odd tale either!

Suffice to say, that this is one of Luis Bunuel’s best films in which he puts together such amazing episodes that will make you smile in disbelief! The episodes are sometimes disturbing, yet most of the times they are comic. But the comedy comes from the general irrationality of it all; the events are not “funny” in the conventional sense. The stranger it gets, the better it gets, and there is literally no end, as Bunuel subjects the audience to one great scene after other, some laced with wry humour, and some others revealing the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie. Fine performances come from almost all of the cast, in which their behavior reflects the eccentricity of the event at hand! They don’t really act normal or rational! Some scenes are ultimately revealed to be dreams, but there are yet others which are still off-the-wall yet not revealed to be either dream or reality. If nothing else this film will reveal Bunuel’s wide range of imagination where the surrealism doesn’t go wild all the way into another world (like in some Terry Gilliam films). Bunuel shows that twisting some reality in the real world can be just as weird and an even better experience than the outlandish, unrealistic universe in which some other filmmakers set their films.

Luis Bunuel accomplished at 72 what most other young filmmakers still struggle to do. He made a perfect film for us hungry viewers who seek uncoventional cinema! And yet at the same time, Bunuel seems to be having fun himself by subjecting us audiences to his spectacular imagination and having a good laugh at our perplexity. The Academy Award was well-deserved. The jury must have had a ball and handed over the trophy without further thought.

Go for it! Super fun and a good mind-fuck is guaranteed!

Score: 10/10

Belle De Jour (1967)

Luis Bunuel's "Belle De Jour" is an enigmatic film..much like the mystical beauty at the heart of it.

Ravishingly beautiful, but a woman of a few words and seemingly aloof, Severine (Catherine Deneuve) is what you would call the typical "bored housewife", but not for any fault of her husband's mind you. Pierre (John Sorel) is a handsome, loving husband and together they lead a luxurious life, yet Severine is somehow averse to the idea of sleeping with her husband. Hence, although they share the same bedroom, they don't share the same bed, much to Pierre's dismay, but he chooses to hang in there hoping Severine would come around and overcome her discomfort.
Their family friend Henri (Michel Piccoli) openly flirts with Severine and she keeps rejecting his advances and asks him to keep his compliments to himself!

So aloof is Severine, that sometimes her mind wanders off (and the audience has to watch carefully to find out "when"), and she has vividly erotic fantasies of masochistic nature. Given her quiet nature, some of these fantasies manage to shock....for instance, when she imagines herself being tied and stripped and whipped and molested by two carriage drivers in the middle of the woods!

A chance information about an acquaintance entices her to explore something new...she decides to spend her afternoons in a high class brothel working as a prostitute!

"Belle De Jour" is a complex film. This doesn't refer to its plot..that part is fairly simple. What is complex, then, is Severine's troubled psychology. Only through various images and Severine's mood and expressions, Bunuel tries to convey to us what exactly brews in her head. It is with great dexterity that Bunuel directs the scenes in the brothel. Just like her, we are in for a surprise, every time a new client comes in. Her interactions with the several clients with bizarre fetishes of varying proportions are showcased in some of the film's best scenes.

Bunuel cleverly intersperses the narrative with fleeting shots depicting her (possibly traumatic) past...which give subtle clues about her behavioral traits. Some aspects of her psyche are revealed in some surreal sequences (some of the best I've seen in film).


For the most part, Bunuel directs like a true master and builds the film beautifully as it takes the form of a potent psycho-sexual drama which works to mesmerizing effect. But he does not rely on gratuitous sex and nudity to accomplish his goal. In fact there is not a single scene with explicit nudity in "Belle De Jour". Bunuel instead relies on shocking images including the situations in the brothel, Severine's outlandish fantasies, the overall tension between some characters (including a lesbian subtext) and of course, the fine performances. Suffice to say, "Belle De Jour" is one of the boldest films I've seen, especially for its time.

However, the episode involving a particularly violent client of Severine, Marcel (Pierre Clémenti) in the final act seems a bit forced and has the trappings of a pedestrian thriller, which could've been done away with or handled differently. The film would be just as effective, or even more, without this particular plot development. Nonetheless, it doesn't render this otherwise flawless film any less watchable.

At the center of this spellbinding experience, is the woman herself, Catherine Deneuve, the breathtaking beauty, who enchants us with her arresting performance as Severine. In spite of not being in agreement with her about some of the decisions she makes, one can't help but root for her. On some level, her character in "Belle De Jour" reminded me of her character in Roman Polanski's classic psychological thriller "Repulsion"..although both films as such are entirely different.

It wouldn't be wrong to say that although there are plenty of films depicting a married woman and her repressed sexuality out there, only a handful few, like Luis Bunuel's "Belle De Jour" actually stand out, the reasons for which you'll find out when you are done watching it! 

Score: 10/10