Dieses obskure Objekt der Begierde

Buñuel's "That Obscure Object of Desire" dripped with substance and stunned me throughout the entire film. The masterful working of the two women into the role of Conchita was wonderful. I do not believe Buñuel for a second when he claims that he intended to use one actress, but she quit unexpectedly after shooting several critical scenes. If it is true, it is one of the more miraculous accidents in film right up there with Casablanca and The Third Man. I can be certain that he consciously gave the different Conchita's different personalities and modes of behavior. That comes across as being the focal point of the movie, turning a mediocre "one actress" film into an engaging event. If I had to put my money on something, I'd say that Buñuel is pulling some Andy Kaufman trickery here... the film worked too well with the so-called "change of plans." Or... if you have enough monkeys on typewriters, you'll get the Great American Novel. I don't believe this was chance at all. 10/10.

First I would like to clarify the issue of the two actresses playing the same character, Conchita. Bunuel initially worked with Maria Schneider (Last tango in Paris) for the title role. In the course of shooting the film Maria Schneider quit; her reasons were that she could not understand, and therefor portray, the character as was requested by Bunuel. This honesty is to this actress' credit. Then Bunuel took the full logic of the character, Conchita, as a bi-faceted character indeed, sometimes cool and calm and serene (played by the quietly beautiful Carole Bouquet) and on other times sensuous and hot and lustful (played by the fiery beauty Angela Molena).

Now what can one say about this masterpiece of a film? It is the eternal story of man chasing woman, to satisfy his earthly desires, and the woman who is sometimes romantic, sometimes wild, always passionate and self-conscious, driving the man mad, humiliating him and toying with him, then again satisfying his ego and deepest fantasies and even truly loving him. Freud knew it all along. Man and woman are surrounded by inexplicable events, absurd, surreal, strange as life can be. And their game goes on. In the course of the film Bunuel "winks" and reminds us of his eternal dislikes of the "bourgeoisie" -here in the form of an upper class rich and corrupt diplomat- who are genuinely so keen on etiquette and good manners, as evidenced by the rat that appears on the main character's dish ! and also the director's dislike of the church establishment and supposedly "devout" people as evidenced by the hypocrisy of Conchita's mother practically selling her daughter. It's a superb film, summarizing the eternal relationship between man and woman, amid normal extra-ordinary events, with top class actors under the directorship of Bunuel the genius.

I would like to begin by saying that this is one of the most bizarre films that I have ever experienced in my career as a movie buff. I have seen some twist endings, some passionately bad French films, and even some stalker films, but nothing compares to the cinematic genius that I just witnessed. Being a Bunuel 'virgin', I didn't know what to expect coming into this film.

I was ready for anything, but interestingly enough nothing will prepare you for this film. Deeply rooted in cinematic symbolism, we watch as two very interesting devises that are used to bring forth the overall theme of this film. Two devises that I have never seen used in a movie, until now.

The first is the obvious. Bunuel successfully uses two different actresses to play the same role of Conchita. At first I thought perhaps it was going to be one of those 'twin' double-cross films where these two girls used this older wealthy man for all his money. I was wrong. Similar to the title of this film, this is a film about passions and desires. It divulges in the emotion of obsession, and the reaction a man can have on someone that he desperately and sexually desires. Mathieu is our possible victim in this story. While both are not the most interesting characters (both have flaws and troubles), they do provide some structured characters. Mathieu is willing to give up everything for this woman that he hardly knows, but is physically attracted to her. It is hard to say that he loves her, but he does lust for her. The dual role of Conchita in this film is used for two purposes. The first is as a distraction, while the second is emotion. Both Conchitas are different in their own way and are used to push forward the story. Whenever Bunuel needed to convey a different emotion, he would bring in the actress that best represented that emotion. At first it was confusing, but as the film progressed you began to see less and less separate actresses, but instead as one character. It is impressive how Bunuel created this illusion.

As I mentioned above, there were two devises that I have never seen in a movie before. I explained above about the use of two women for one female role, but the second is a bit subtler. I briefly mentioned it above about how these two women (one character) were used to distract. If you pay attention to the film terrorism is a big part of the universe surrounding Mathieu. While he pines continually for Conchita, the world around him is falling apart. Bombings and deaths are at an all time high, yet he doesn't really seem to notice this. He is so caught up in Conchita that it seems like nothing else exists. He is oblivious to his surroundings. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we are also oblivious to the surroundings. Bunuel does this job of keeping our eye focused on the interchanging women that we sometimes forget or miss the actions surrounding this film. I believe that Bunuel is trying to prove the point that obsession does obscure your vision. It blurs your eyes and forces you to miss crucial elements of your surroundings. It isn't until the end when we are reminded violently of the truth surrounding our characters. I felt that Bunuel was slapping me in the face with that final scene. I had nearly forgotten myself of the terrorism outside, but easily he reminded me.

This was a spectacular film that really opened my eyes to a completely new way of film-making. It reminded me of some of the early works of another favorite director of mine Francois Ozon. Both of these talented artists have their own way of creating a world and an emotion, and both do it with some of the most beautiful strokes of their mechanical brush. I would recommend this film to anyone that is willing to experience radical, yet provocative film-making at its best. You will be impressed.

I cannot wait to include this film in my collection to watch over and over again. Thanks to Criterion, they have provided a beautiful packaging to this obscure film.

Grade: ***** out of *****

Pierre Louys 's novel had already transferred thrice to the screen:by Jacques de Baroncelli in 1928,Von Sternberg in 1935 ( "Devil is a woman" starring Marlene Dietrich) and finally Julien Duvivier (1958,starring Brigitte Bardot).

When Bunuel takes a book ,he always makes it his very own :see for instance what he did with "Robinson Crusoe" !So his permanent features are present here even if personally ,I think that "cet obscur..." is the weakest of his latter days works.But even when Bunuel is not at his best,he's better than most of the rest .

Like the bourgeois in "discreet charm of the bourgeoisie" are searching for a good meal which ,in spite of their dough,they can never get,Rey is on fire:he covets a woman ,he wants to have sex with her but something happens every time he is about to assuage his passion.Besides,in order to puzzle his pitiful hero,Bunuel uses two different actresses:Carole Bouquet's character belongs to the perverse young girls with a Madonna face ,recalling Deneuve's Tristana or Severine ("Belle de jour" )whereas Angela Molina is the sensuous bitchy woman (Djin (Simone Signoret)in "la mort en ce jardin" ;Pedro's mother in "los olvidados").

Religion had always been Bunuel's bête noire :here he works ,so to speak,on a large scale(the terrorists kill in the name of the Jesus baby !) and on a smaller one (Conchita's mother ,a military man's(!) widow, goes to church every day but she is not afraid of making a prostitute of her daughter .)

The strange gathering on the train recalls that scene in "phantom of liberty "where the guests at the inn meet in a room in the middle of the night to chat,which Milena Vukotic's presence reinforces (she's featured in the two movies).

And ,last by not least,Bunuel's final opus includes a tribute to Lumière's "l'arroseur arrosé" (1895).Quoting the pioneers of cinema,what a wonderful way to say goodbye!

Depending on your point of view, this film is either a biting, insightful, timeless illumination of human dignity and indignity or a woeful commentary on how painfully slowly we evolve. The main story, humorous and poignant by turns, is punctuated by subplot bits that come right out of this week's news. Not bad for a film shot a quarter of a century ago.

Fernando Rey is simply wonderful, and Conchita are fabulous! Bunuel, as always, is once again a delight.