Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie

In Paris, the ambassador Don Rafael Acosta (Fernando Rey) of the South American country Miranda, who is also an smuggler of cocaine, comes to a dinner part in the house of Henri (Jean-Pierre Cassel) and Alice Sénéchal (Stephane Audran) with their common friends M. Thevenot (Paul Frankeur), his wife Simone Thévenot (Delphine Seyrig) and her sister Florence (Bulle Ogier) but on the day before the scheduled. Henri is not at home and they invite Alice to go with them to a restaurant close to her house, but an incident does not allow them to have meal together in the place. They reschedule another meal together many times, but problems occur in every occasion and they do not succeed in their intent.

"Le Charme Discret de la Bourgeoisie" is one of the funniest movies of the master of the surrealism Luis Buñuel. This intellectual director was a great critic of the values of the Bourgeoisie Class and this movie is a witty joke, blurring the fears this class with reality and nightmare, and open to the most different interpretations. The empty, hypocrite and pointless existence of the Bourgeoisie Class is highlighted by the shallow interest of the characters in meal, sex, etiquette and money and their final journey to nowhere; or the behavior of the disloyal ambassador that betrays his friend having a love affair with his wife; smuggles cocaine using his diplomatic immunity; or shoots the toy of a terrorist in front of the Embassy of Miranda. Further, in 1972, the countries of South America lived under military dictatorship with many exiled people living in Paris, and the arrogant Don Rafael Acosta is hilarious denying the truth about his country. Buñuel does not spare the church in his satire, with the funny Monsignor Dufour trying to interfere in every subject without the appropriate knowledge. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Discreto Charme da Burguesia" ("The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie")

A satire on everyone who's too big for their boots (or secretly wants 2 B), because they will not achieve the aims they pursuit and are ultimately doomed to be separated from their privileges when they wake up to reality. The story may also come across as remote parody on The Last Supper, but from the bourgeois point of view (who never really get their supper), in contrast with 'Viridiana' (1961, Buñuel), where the poor and disabled DO get their Last Supper. But I don't know much about the bible, so I'm probably wrong about that. It proves though that you don't have to be pious to appreciate Buñuel's films; in fact, you'd better NOT be.

The 'adventure' of the protagonists is a proverbial sinking ship, because they seem to know what they want, but never reach their goal, which is quite simple and basic (to eat), because they're so caught up in supposed etiquette. They have all kinds of knowledge about manners and gestures, but they cannot sit down and eat. That is actually a fairly clear message: 'look before you leap' or 'behold the priorities of life'.

What's more indiscrete: drinking a martini the wrong way, or selling cocaine abusing your position as an ambassador and fooling around in the garden while you're having friends over for diner? And are you ultimately discrete simply because nobody discovers your subversive or criminal actions? These guys just can't control their carnal and financial lust, while complaining: 'No system can give the masses the proper social graces. But you know me, I'm not a reactionary.' Blah.

Cinematographer Edmond Richard (Le Procès (1963, Welles), Fantôme de la liberté, Cet obscur objet du désir) exhibits his excellent collaboration with Buñuel's visions. Buñuel tried before to make it easier for audiences to understand the imagery by incorporating it in a dream sequence (e.g. Tristana, 1970), but he returns here (as in Belle de Jour, 1967) to the early days (1930) where the dream sequences were just put forward as if they were reality. You'll never know what is a dream and what is real. As always, there is no music here to guide you, apart from the ringing church bells. Just open up your ears and clean out your eyes and you'll not be disappointed.

One last remark: the cover of the video is definitely one of the most applicable and distinctive covers (Ferracci) ever made, as is the cover of 'Fantôme de la liberté' (an odd-faced statue of liberty with a limp torch) by Jean-Paul Commandeur and the cover of 'Cet obscur objet du désir'. Buñuel didn't worry about the surrealism in his own life. He seemed to live in harmony with all his contradictions and hypocrisy.

10 points out of 10 :-)

Bunuel is arguably the greatest of all filmmakers. With the possible exceptions of Hitchcock and Fassbinder, I can think of no other director who so completely understood the potential of the medium to transcend the traditional conventions of narrative, or exploited this potential with such élan. And he doesn't rely on special effects: we enter the surreal realm so seamlessly that it at times seems banal. This is especially the case in 'Le charme': banal people have banal sub-consciousnesses.

In order to begin to appreciate Bunuel I had to immerse myself in his milieu, so foreign was his sensibility to the usual expectations I had brought with me into a movie theater.

It took me several viewings to get the 'jokes' if 'Le charme'. The Ambassador from some obscure Latin American country ('Miranda', or 'wonder', a nod to Shakespeare), supports this little microcosm of comfortable Parisian bourgeois respectability with cocaine smuggled in diplomatic pouches. Guests arrive for a dinner party on the wrong evening, and interrupt the hosts having sex. A wake is being held in the back room of the restaurant they are planning to dine at. Ice cubes for martinis must be 'exactly zero degrees'. Elegant ladies sit down for a fashionable afternoon tea, only to be told by their waiter that the restaurant has run out of water (?!!). A soldier then comes to their table and relates his parricidal dream, while the polite ladies listen to him unfazed. One of the ladies discreetly slips away for an assignation with another one's husband. Only Bunuel!

Doubtless the inspiration for this film comes from the Latin Bunuel's lifetime of experience observing the French in situ. Much of its fun comes from simply watching the French be so . . . French. And there is no bourgeois like a French bourgeois!

Much of 'Le Charme' takes place in the nightmares of its characters: you are sitting down for a dinner being hosted by a general, only to realize that you are on stage (with a prompter giving a cue from Don Juan: 'Invite the commander's ghost for dinner!'); your elegant dinner party is broken up by a gang of thugs looking to kill you. However, you are so wedded to the ceremony of the dinner party that you get caught stealing a piece of meat from the table under which you are hiding (and end up dying like a dog!)

I could see this movie a hundred times and always find something new. I would never be bored by it.

Bunuel is very funny, but he is also dense and difficult. One doesn't realize the true complexity of his films because they all seem so effortless. Nothing great comes easily. He's like great Bordeaux: you can't quaff it -- it demands to be sipped.

Bunuel is famous for having the lowest shoot to take ratio of any filmmaker, less than 2:1. Second takes were rare (compare with the reams that end up on the cutting room floor for the typical Spielberg film.) He knew exactly what he wanted to see before he shot. Hitchcock, a director who resembles Bunuel in many ways, famously referred to actors as 'cattle'. For Bunuel, they were probably more like toy soldiers. This isn't to say that he didn't get brilliant performances out of them, especially from his screen alter-ego, the wonderful Fernando Rey.

Henry Miller dubbed his good friend Luis Bunuel "The Last Heretic". I can't think of a higher compliment. Bunuel's memoirs, 'My Last Sigh', are a must read for anyone who wants to have an appreciation of Paris in the 20s, the of art in the last century, and martinis, made as they should be, with gin.

The systematic analysis of this film would be in my opinion a gigantic task, since there are so many topics, stories and references intermingled in the chaotic way the surrealists are so fond of. I think the two main topics -sometimes in surrealism there is not even one- are dreams and transgression of social norms and traditions. The film is articulated on linked-up situations: five gatherings of a group of bourgeois friends and four stories, four dreams which are dreamt by different characters. The suppers are more common in the first part of the film, and the dreams on a second part, but they alternate with each other and with other episodes, like that of the terrorist girl. At the beginning things seem not to turn out good: right the first thing we see is the perplexity of the guests to M. Senechal house when they are told the supper was planned for the next day. 'But that is impossible', says Acosta, 'I couldn't have accepted, tomorrow I'm busy'. Contradiction with no explanation, right the same way as things happens in a dream, where we accept the reality of what we dream without explanations, even if it is impossible or contradictory with something else -dreams are the core of surrealism and of this film. This baffling beginning really impressed me. There is contradiction and kind of a difficulty to do things in every single detail in the next sequence: Mme and M Senechal are invited to dine out, but she has to change. The restaurant 'n'a pas l'air gai', and the door is locked. They knock and they are invited in. The owners have changed. There is no people and the prices are cheap. Everything is suspicious. And then the first punch of the story: the manager died that afternoon and the wake has been set in the dining room since the undertaker has not yet arrived. Of course, the bourgeois leave. This is the first reference to death, a constant theme either in surrealism, in dreams and in this film. It seems as if the whole film was a dream. Within the context things are logical and normal -or seem logical and normal- to the characters, and their reactions are 'contextually' logical too, but from the outside the stories in the film are as odd as any dream we can have. E.g., when Acosta shoots the terrorist girl from his window, or when the army appeared at M. Senechal's house, or even when the bishop tells M Senechal that he wants to be the family gardener. They are baffled, but they accept the things that happen, as we are baffled by or dreams but accept their logic when we are dreaming. Social transgression is based on a subtle but scorning parody of the bourgeois class and their customs and beliefs. The bourgeois are classy, and conceited: they show off their vain culinary knowledge every time they host a supper. M. Thevenot boasts that 'discreet charm' of the bourgeois when he subtly makes fun of the chauffeur: he does not know how to drink a Martini. Later on, Acosta cheats on Thevenot when he tells him that he has to show his wife the 'sursiks'. Thevenot does not know what that is, but he is an hypocrite not to say it. The bourgeois are also extremely fond of the lowest vices and they enjoy them gaily -I do not think, on the other side, that Buñuel is condemning them, but the hypocritical attitude of the bourgeoisie. Drug trafficking and consumption, lust, alcohol. The commentaries about the younger girl vomiting and dirty nails and her ignorance (the complex of Euclides, she says at some point) point out -and laugh at- the hypocrisy in the values of the middle-high classes. Also the Church and the Army are criticized. The Bishop, a main head of the Church, is humble -a extremely acid irony- but will mercilessly kill a poor man that will die anyway -that adds to the cruelty. The Bishop is also ignorant: he does not know where the Republic of Miranda is. The soldiers and officers smoke marihuana and praise it, they even are connoisseurs! -'Mexico or Congo?', the general asks, referring to the origins of the product.. The dreams come over mainly in the second part of the film. Both the two first of them are dreamt by soldiers. I really enjoyed them. In the first one I see a little bit of a reference of the life in Spain on the times when Buñuel was a kid -I do not know Buñuel's early life in Spain, but I presume there could be some autobiography. The looks of the parents of the young soldier, their clothes and the strict, militarist attitude of the father made me think of the Spanish family life in the turn of the century XIX to XX. I also liked the second dream. The dark and blurry street and house and the background noise make a great dreamy scene. In this dream, the soldier meets a dead friend. Then another friend comes over, and makes him realize that it is impossible. Sometimes in real dreams this happens too. Something happens and then, with no explanation, we realize that is impossible. It also should be pointed out that these two dreams share two primal human topics: motherly feelings and fear to death. The topic of death is present in some other dreams: the general's, in which Acosta shoots him dead; or the dream about the ghost of the sergeant. Another primal fear is dealt with in Senechal's dream: shame. They are caught in a theater stage while they are having dinner -this is a recurrent dream that sometimes takes other forms: being naked in the middle of the street or lying on your bed wearing you pajamas in your classroom. I also found humor all over the film: funny situations such as the bishop offering himself as a gardener, or the straws in M. and Mme. Senechal hair. Acosta playing tricks on Thevenot, or the soldiers happily smoking joints and listening to a 'sympa' dream. But I do not know if Buñuel is trying to be funny or only to transgress. And that transgression is hilarious because it reveals the hypocrisy of society.

I'll be honest, I mostly like my movies to be conventional which simply means to me that they should have a beginning, middle and ending, plus a credible plot and believable characters. I've never cottoned on to the cinema of the surreal or the absurd and have always thought you can keep all that Coen Brothers or Pedro Almodovar stuff away from my door.

But, I live in Spain now and I have a learned Spanish neighbour who has encouraged me to watch some Spanish cinema particularly the films of Bunuel and so a few months ago I made a point of watching his earlier work "Viridiana" which I very much enjoyed and deciding to dip into his repertoire again, selected this particular movie, even if it was produced in France, as it seems to be his best known and perhaps most celebrated work. So glad I did.

Did I perceive every nuance of the director's intentions? Probably not. Did I understand the bigger arguments he was making, which to be fair is pretty much all there in the title? I think so though I can't be sure. Was I kept watching all the way through down to the delicious combination of intrigue, amusement and curiosity? Absolutely!

The narrative is simple. Three male-female couples want to sit down to dinner in modern-day France. The males are all in some way connected to the governance of an imaginary French protectorate in South America called Miranda with the most prominent among them being Fernando Rey as the country's ambassador, but all six are of the distinctly upper class set.

But don't be fooled into thinking that these suited and booted individuals are pillars of society. Far from it. As well as apparently having designs on each other's wives we also see that the three men are involved in the illegal trafficking of heroin.

It seems that every time they sit down to eat, an ever more bizarre outside intervention takes place before they can put the food to their lips. Much later Bunuel interjects into the narrative the dreams of a young French army officer who just happens along and then the daydreams of the lead characters themselves some of which in fact overlap the dreams of the others. Some of these are eerie, while others are comical.

If pushed, yes I can see the film attacking the governing elite, here shown as corrupt and without morals, but it's more the individual scenes that stay in the memory such as the shocking sequence when the local bishop, who joins the group, oddly enough as a gardener, later cold-bloodedly shoots dead an already dying man after he learns that years ago the man was the never-caught killer of his own parents or when the six are slaughtered Romanov-style by presumably Miranda freedom-fighters near the end.

But I also love the comic touches like when the group discover themselves playing themselves on stage in front of a baying audience, or when an important telephone conversation is drowned out by the sound of aircraft flying overhead in an almost Woody Allen-type moment. The funniest of many in the film for me was the sight of Ray's character giving himself away to the Miranda assassins by reaching up to the table under which he is concealed for a piece of duck he's waited all movie-long to taste.

Listen, don't ask me to write an essay on this film. All I know is that I found it very original, entertaining and funny in equal measure. A moveable feast in fact.