L'Ange exterminateur

'L'enfer c'est les autres' (Hell is other people), wrote the French existentialist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, in his play, 'No Exit' (sometimes referred to - and has been performed - as 'In Camera'), that surmised the narrative of three deceased individuals locked in a room, one that they eventually realise they will be spending eternity together in. Luis Bunuel used this simple meta-narrative concept of people trapped, to create one of his finest satires, and his first explicitly surrealist film since L'Age D'Or (1930). After Bunuel's previous film, Viridiana (1961), was condemned by the Vatican and banned in his native country of Spain (and where it was made), he moved back to Mexico where he had been making films throughout the 1940's and 50's, and produced a scabrous attack on General Francisco Franco's Spanish fascist dictatorship, and the institutions, and bourgeois facets of the country that were founded on the destruction of the poor and the proletariat, during the civil war that ended in 1939.

Whilst the film works as political allegory, on a base narrative level, it functions as an irrational comedy; or farce. The guests arrive for a lavish dinner, but as they arrive, the maids leave, and progressively all the hired help leave them. Once dinner is complete, the guests congregate in the living room, but they all begin to realise that they are unable to leave the room at all. When this is discovered we observe that they attempt to go, but are either distracted or simply stop or break down at the boundary of the room. This continues through days, possibly months - the characters concept of time completely obliterated. The group falls into decay, primitive urges overwhelm them, and as this representation of Western Civilisation breaks down, the group become brutally savage, turning on the host of the dinner, demanding sacrifice. The group slaughter the lambs that were originally to be used in a dinner prank.

At first the guests seem to simply ignore what is happening to them, and continue with inane chat. Exterior to the "party", the grounds are surrounded, but not even the police are able to enter, given the same mysterious barrier that prevents entry. It's almost a perfect parable, illustrating the ignorance of the Spanish bourgeoisie, as they strip the rights and dignity of the proletariat (here the maids leave on their arrival), whilst divorcing their minds from the violence and corruption of a dictatorship. But with this, it also shows how even the "civilised" sections of society, once they are stripped of their social status, their inherited manners of "education", and their ability to use wealth, the fall into absolute decay, probably falling apart greater than the lower classes, with their lessened moral outlook, and an almost infantile inability to deal with regular obstacles.

Winner of the 1962 Palme d'Or at the Cannes film festival, this was to begin what become (rather belatedly for the 62 year old) his most productive, celebrated and interesting period of his career, based in Paris, beginning with Belle de Jour (1967) and ending with That Obscure Object of Desire (1977). This is the period that he developed and expanded his own style, and his unique vision on film. The Exterminating Angel has also given inspiration for others. It is a clear influence on Jean-Luc Godard's wonderfully bleak and satiric depiction of the bourgeoisie and the end of Western Civilisation, Week End (1967). The idea was also utilised in one sketch from Monty Python's Meaning of Life (1983), that saw the guests leaving as ghosts. This is by far, one of his greatest achievements, beautifully realised, with comic touches, and moments of surrealism that both bemuse and amuse.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

That was what Luis Bunuel used to answer when asked about the meaning of one of his least accessible works.Much less linear than "Viridiana" -featuring the same actress Silvia Pinal-which precedes it,"El Angel exterminador" can be looked upon as an allegory.We find a lot of permanent features of the Bunuel canon in it though.

The fact that the guests cannot leave the luxury house will find an equivalent in "le charme discret de la bourgeoisie"(1972) when the five characters cannot have a good meal at the restaurant;the guests turning like lions in a cage echo to this strange picture of the five heroes of "charme discret" walking on an endless road.

This is the kind of movie that will have as many interpretations as there are users writing about it.And Bunuel would probably be the first to say that anyone is allowed to see his movie as he feels it in his soul -which is a word he would not certainly approve of though.

Another put-down of the bourgeoisie ,probably;As Charlie Chaplin would not have let an ice-cream fall on a poor woman's dress,Bunuel's wholesale massacre concerns the rich,the well-to-do.The house may be a metaphor for their world which they want to keep exactly as it is.But Bunuel soon scratches the varnish and after long hours,his powerful bourgeois are just men and rather hateful selfish cowards -the scene when they rush to get a glass of water.And as they cannot rely on themselves and on their pals,the only assistance can only come from above:so they promise God they will chant Te Deums, they will go to Lourdes and buy a washable rubber Virgin (sic).Surrealist pictures,which had been absent since "cela s'appelle l'aurore" (1955) come back for a while during one night,and they mainly deal with religion and heaven.The mystery of the night hours will come back in "le fantôme de la liberté" (1974)

The last pictures bring the missing link :the army ,shooting people (talking about a revolution?) ,as the bourgeois keep on singing(?) and praying(?)in the cathedral.

Recommended?Everything Bunuel did is crying to be watched.

a satire. a bitter portrait of a too old reality. a parable. or only a story by Bunuel. like each of his films, a challenge. or more than one of challenges. because it represents more than a social critic. the motif - it is the story of contemporary realities more than one of the "60's. the isolation. the captivity, the need to return to old formulas for become, again, part of normal are traits of a film with virtue of warning. and this could be the cause for it remains, long time after you see, present in memory. as a dark picture of a world defined by fear and instinct.

I am not going to go into much specifics except to say that this is one of the darkest and most disturbing films I have seen. I would certainly in that way rank it alongside David Lynch's "Eraserhead," Werner Herzog's "Even Dwarfs Started Small," Terry Gilliam's "Brazil," and more recently Paul Thomas Anderson's "Punch Drunk Love." Each of these films is funny in a way, some hilariously, all subversively. I also must say, not to the detriment of the film necessarily, that this is one of the most irritating films I've seen. Bunuel truly gets under the skin of what gets under our skin: inane quirks, selfish boors, groupthinkers. The most disturbing imagery in the film suggests christian parallels with many of the guests praying or vowing to do good works if released, a butler that studied with jesuits and a final service in a church, as well as several lambs (often representations, as in Blake, of Jesus). Possible also are references to Passover's "exterminating" angel of death, as a brick thrown through a window is at first attributed "some passing Jew." I will not presume to interpret these, and I probably could not do so convincingly if I tried, and, much like with Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive, I don't really want them interpreted for me. This is the wonder of Bunuel. "Cinema is anarchistic" is a probable misquote of him, but from the time of his last film no filmmakers except those above have been able to capture the feeling while watching a film that ANYTHING can happen, and very quickly, and how very frightening that is. The other reason I write is that the VHS of this film is ATROCIOUS. The best part is where one guest babbles on for about 10 seconds, none of which is shown in the subtitles AT ALL. Most of them are difficult to read as they are against a white background, the quality is true crap. "Diary of a Chambermaid" is a fine film but this is the one that truly needs to be seen as it was intended. >

Señor Edmundo Nóbile, a wealthy aristocrat, is hosting a formal dinner party for his friends at his luxurious mansion. At the end of the party Nóbile, his wife, their guests and his butler (the other servants have already left) find themselves unable to leave the dining-room, so settle down to sleep on couches and the floor. The following morning they are still in the same inexplicable predicament. The doors are not locked but they are still unable to leave, as if some mysterious force field or psychological barrier were preventing them from doing so. They remain in the house in this state for several days, even though they run out of food and can only obtain water by breaking open a wall to get access to a water pipe. Even when one guest is taken ill, and later dies, they still cannot break out. The police and a crowd of people gather outside the house, but they are no more able to enter than those inside are to get out.

Luis Buñuel was one of the founders of cinematic surrealism, dating back to "Un Chien Andalou", his early collaboration with Salvador Dali, and "The Exterminating Angel" is often described as "surrealist". The surrealism starts with the title, which has nothing to do with anything we see on screen. Buñuel, who acted as both writer and director, explains the strange plight of the guests, either in rational or in supernatural terms. Nor does he provide us with any interpretation of the film's symbolism, leaving such matters for his viewers to interpret for themselves.

That, of course, has not prevented the critics coming up with their own interpretations, and there would not be room to deal with all of them in this review, although Buñuel clearly intended an element of satire at the expense of the upper classes. (It is no accident that the host of the party has the surname "Nóbile"). A popular interpretation put forward by, among others, Roger Ebert is that the film is an allegory of the Spanish Civil War and of the Francoist regime to which it led. (Buñuel himself was, of course, an opponent of Francoism and produced this film in exile in Mexico). Many of Spain's aristocracy and wealthy classes initially supported Franco, and many of them may well have hosted parties like the one we see here to celebrate his victory, but by the early sixties his brutal dictatorship had lasted for a quarter of a century and many Spaniards, even among those who had once supported him, were starting to feel trapped. A flock of sheep plays a part in the story, and these may represent those ordinary Spaniards who supported the Nationalist side in the Civil War, "sheep" being a commonplace metaphor for people who are stupid and easily led. They end up being eaten by the trapped aristocrats.

"The Exterminating Angel" is a film which tends to divide opinion, with some hailing it as a masterpiece and others finding it incomprehensible. I myself tend towards the second position, although Buñuel would probably have said that he never intended it to be "comprehensible" in the sense of having a simple, easily understandable meaning. He probably intended it to be just what it is, an elegant but ultimately insoluble puzzle with no more "meaning" than a Dali painting. 6/10