User reviews

Director Luis Bunuel is often described as a surrealist, but the word misapplied in reference to his later works, where the the term absurdism is much more appropriate. Such is the case with the Academy Award-winning THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE, which begins with four friends who arrive at their hosts' home only to discover they have arrived on the wrong night--a plausible situation. But before the film has run its course, Bunuel unravels his tale of a meal that never quite happens in the most unexpected ways imaginable.

The film works on several levels, mocking social conventions, the church, and eventually spilling its action into a series of overlapping nightmares in which various attempts to dine are frustrated by everything from the corpse of a restaurant manager in a nearby room to military maneuvers. On one memorable occasion, the friends are invited to dine and are seated around an elegant table--when a curtain suddenly rises behind them and reveals them to be seated on a stage before a hostile audience! The cast (which features Fernando Rey, Delphine Seyrig, Paul Frankeur, Bulle Ogier, Stephane Audran and Jean-Pierre Cassel as the constantly frustrated diners) plays with considerable aplomb, performing the most irrational scenes with a magnificent realism. When combined with Bunuel's absurdist story, the result is a disquieting yet often very funny discourse on frustrated appetites both real and imagined, and with many layers of incidental meaning along the way.

A word of caution to the uninitiated: Bunuel is not for those who seek a tidy plot line with clear-cut meanings. But if you come to it with an open mind, you'll find plenty of food for thought!

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

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.

"The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", a leisurely paced, incisive satire on social mores and class hypocrisy, opens with a group of friends arriving on the wrong day of a dinner engagement. this is only the begining of a succession of unexpected and unusual events to follow. The dinner party is the movie's main setting and it is there that reality and illusion often times blend imperceptibly together. The film is structured as a series of surreal sequences, which prompted esteemed film critic Pauline Kael to opine 'His(Director Louis Bunuel) indifference to dramatic logic is complete.' And how. Bunuel's narrative plays an elaborate game with the viewer through it's subconscious imagery and audacious use of time. His tendency to experiment with technique and form often times led to discovery and innovation. The cinema of Louis Bunuel invariably deals with the discrepancy between appearance and reality; decorum and desire. His world view was subversive and anarchistic. He was a cheerful pessimist, skeptical but not susceptible to Bergmanian despair. His skepticism extended to all of those he found playing too neat a social game. The filmmaker's career was one sustained assault on authoritarianism. Witness an indiscreet character in the film who claims: 'No one system can help the masses acquire refinement.' He believed man was, unconsciously, a slave to custom and aimed to shock viewers out of their unthinking acceptance of established values. "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie"(An Academy Award winner in 1972 for Best Foreign Film) is a boldly inventive picture. Dozens of frames are filled with clever filmic devices: environmental noises increase inordinately during routine conversations; an ambiguous procession is inserted freely within the text. These cinematic ploys add intrigue to the already peculiar goings-on. The walk by the main group of characters along a country roadside is mysterious and compelling. The players are noticeably silent and contemplative. Is this an anxious dream? The afterlife? An insignificant flashback? Whichever, the recurring sequence underscores the obliqueness and cool obscurity of the film. One might not identify closely with the disenchanted Bunuelian sensibility or the unsentimental stance he takes, however one knows immediately and unmistakably that they are in the gifted hands of a film technician like a Godard or Kurosawa. A director in complete control of his medium. A highly personal filmmaker frequently referred as 'a poet of hallucination who follows the caprices of his fantastical imagination.' Someone whose fanciful paths of creation were invariably led by the irrational. "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", with it's arresting mixture of calculation and carelessness, remains a unique and influential movie. The acerbic films of Robert Altman and the perverse mischievousness of the Coen brothers films, to mention but a few, pay a large debt to the strange universe and unconventional perspective of Louis Bunuel. Film lovers uninitiated in surrealist cinema will find "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" an alluring and beguiling crash course.

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.

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 :-)

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")

There are not many artists who could tell the same joke over and over again and get away with it creating the film as brilliant, funny, absurd, witty, and clever as Buñuel's "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", 1972. The story of six friends who try to arrange and have a nice dinner together but cannot complete (or even start) their meal does not sound very exiting but wait until you watch this comedy. I've always known how interesting surrealism is but I never thought how funny it could be. I've seen the film four or five times - it only gets better with each viewing. Highly recommended.

9.5/10.

La Charme Discret de la Bourgeoisie is a celebrated film by a well-regarded surrealist auteur. Given that, and given my taste for such things, I went in with high hopes. But I rarely found it more than mildly amusing.

It's undeniably clever. Bunuel's dry humor sparkles, and his gentle social critique hits its marks more often than not. The penultimate shot of Fernando Rey with a slice of ham stuffed in his mouth is one of the funniest and most memorable cinematic images I've encountered in quite a while. And Delphine Seyrig breezes through her scenes with hilariously blithe detachment. But the parts don't quite add up to a greater whole.

The film reaches its peak about halfway through, once a pattern has been established (dinner parties will be attended, but dining will be teasingly withheld) and the central narrative has begun to digress and fragment. As the surreal intrudes upon the quotidian, a delicious sort of suspense sets in. Pity, then, that the last forty-five minutes squander this tension, retreating to tepid farce and a rather obvious critique of upper-crust social mores.

Someone on the film's board once quoted the director as saying, "the bourgeois moral is the immoral thing for me, that which should be combated; the moral founded in our unjust social institutions as the religion, the homeland, the family, the culture, in short, the so-called pillars of the society." Thematically, the film consists of variations on this familiar counter-cultural conceit, and such thinking was certainly voguish in the late 60s and early 70s. It's an interesting and potentially valid argument, but I found the film's handling of the idea superficial, even clichéd.

The same could be said, I suppose, of El Topo or Sweet Movie, but those films transcend glib adherence to fashionable ideologies and period style. I don't think La Charme Discret does that. Of course, it's more an urbane, low-key comedy of manners than a flaming art-bomb thrown through the window of middlebrow complacency, so perhaps the comparison is unfair. As a comedy, it is appealing, in a mild sort of way.

Finally, I was disappointed by the film's look. I understand that the bland stage-set dining rooms are a device, and a successful one. But surreal detours aside, there isn't much to look at. The camera placements and movements are almost ploddingly ordinary, and while they capture the events adequately, they don't do anything interesting with them.

I'm being unkind, of course, and terribly unfair. By stressing these complaints, I'm giving short shrift the wonderful performances and amusingly understated comic dialog. I'm overlooking the fabulously eerie dream sequences and Bunuel's masterful control of tone. I gave La Charme Discret a 7/10 because it IS charming, funny and somewhat intellectually intriguing. But I still came out of the experience feeling a bit let down...

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie is not about something in particular . It doesn't have a plot and doesn't really need one. It is about the constant interruptions that ruin the dinners of some french bourgeoisie friends, interruptions mostly surreal and absurd. The movie is not as shocking and acid as Bunuel's earlier work but it is more chiseled and as weird and witty as those . Also, the dream sequences are made exceptionally.

The film satirizes french bourgeoisie but as I said it is not really an acid satire but a surreal comedy/drama that doesn't really have to make sense. Dream in dream sequences are often used to express the character's unrests and troubles. The movie is somehow similar to The Exterminating Angel where the characters, after they eat cannot leave the room even though there is nothing stopping them. Here, different situations interrupt the characters from eating. These situations are absurd and illogic, just like the ones in The Exterminating Angel.

The situations are absolutely amazing and Bunuel once again makes a statement. The bourgeoisie characters are shown as false and hypocritical as they are funny to the viewers. The movie is complex and unusual and different from anything you've ever seen.

Watch it! It's worth it.

French-Italian-Spanish co-production under the helm of director Luis Buñuel concerning an odd-duck group of upper-class friends and acquaintances in Paris who meet often for meals and conversation, only to rarely savor their cuisine due to a peculiar series of interruptions. Buñuel, who also co-authored the screenplay with Jean-Claude Carrière, at times gently skewers the hungry wealthy; his characters are not decadent nor lazy, perhaps just comically fettered; the filmmaker doesn't score points against their lives as much as he prods the folly of their ways. The lapses of reality into a satirical daisy-chain of dreams is surprising at first but finally monotonous, especially as Buñuel becomes less sly here and more mean-spirited (I could have done without the police interrogation and the piano torture). Still, there are some marvelous visual touches (such as the dinner table on-stage) accompanied by a subtle yet vivid use of color, and the cast is uniformly excellent. Academy Award winner for Best Foreign Film. **1/2 from ****

Bunuel's career was one of the most sensational you could dream of.At least ten of his movies are among my favorites and ten others are not far behind.

Once he said :" when I was young and I was watching the sky and saying :"it's beautiful up there and there's nothing;now,I simply say :"it's beautiful"Atheism had turned into agnosticism.Perhaps so,but Bunuel's favorite targets are still here.The bishop and the army are here to stay;they already were in "l'âge d'or" (1930)

"DIscreet charm" is a comprehensive work :it includes almost everything that made Bunuel the genius every cine buff loves ;his permanent features are all included: these bourgeois walking on an endless road are the same who were locked up in the house in "el angel exterminador";Rabal trying to catch one more peace of meat is like the men who were fighting for water in "el angel" .THe selfishness of the bourgeoisie is given a stunning treatment:the impossibility to get a good meal .Bunuel explodes certitudes and he explodes different genres.One of them is the light comedy with its adulteries,its mistaken identities and its contretemps.and if the message is not clear enough,one of the scenes shows the characters on a stage!Another one is the horror and fantasy film : the young boy's mother asking him to kill his father (who is actually not his parent);and most of all the soldier's dream which could provide the substance for at least a whole movie.

Dreamlike sequences are Bunuel's forte .He has sometimes been equaled (André Delvaux:"un soir un train" ) but never surpassed: just think of Pablo's dream in "los olvidados" ;the Christ on the electric wires in "cela s'appelle l'aurore" ;Séverine's fantasies in "Belle de Jour" ;Rey's head as a bell clapper in "Tristana".But in "discreet charm" Bunuel seems to connect all the links of the chain and his film becomes a tapestry of Bayeux where dreams and reality follow naturally. "I dreamed ,Thevenot says,that Senechal dreamed that he was on a stage and ..." It' s "Jacob's ladder" twenty years before that later movie appears.

It's also a political movie,but not a work for highbrows .What he did not fully achieved with the spotty "la fièvre monte à El Pao" ,and the more interesting "death in the garden" ,Bunuel pulls it off with gusto here.The republic (sic) of Miranda whose ambassador is none other than Rey is ,even if we never see it , depicted in minute lavish detail .Unlike highbrows like Godard who deals out his lecture on Mao in "la chinoise" ,Luis Bunuel remains accessible to everybody:we laugh and we laugh a lot when we discover the harsh realities of Miranda Land which has no pyramids ,but has Nazis and poverty.Actually it's not that much funny.

A word about the cast;it's perfect:Rey is wonderful as a drug trafficker ambassador who is always afraid to be slain ;Stephane Audran and Jean-Pierre Cassel had teamed up two years before in another attack against bourgeoisie ,Chabrol's "la rupture" ;Bulle Ogier,for once,forgets her usual parts who give the non-intellectual terrible headaches and manages to stay very natural;Claude Piéplu and his inimitable voice (make sure you hear his voice:nobody can dub him successfully) portrays a colorful colonel who tells the ambassador home truth and literally invades Audran's house with his staff and has lunch with the guests (a meal where the bourgeois,the Church and the Army eat together is something to watch).But for me the stand-out is feminist Delphine Seyrig,with her beaming face,her preciosity and her sweet stupidity.

To say that "discreet charm" is a masterpiece is to state the obvious.Maybe Bunuel's tour de force lies in the fact that even in reality,strange things happen and the characters do not seem to be surprised and shocked.... as long as their privileges are not called into question.If you should only see one Bunuel film,you had to choose this one.But if you like it,treasures are waiting for you.

I chanced upon this film when I was reading about Dinner with Andre. Like most of my mistakes, I jumped into this one without doing a background check. A wet sock of a story gets flung around for an hour and a half, long after our brains have switched off. To be honest, this film does seem like a whale of an influence to future filmmakers. However, it is definitely not something regular film-goers can enjoy. I will say that critics, film students, and completionists will enjoy this.

Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie is an absurdist, surrealist film, which is almost a film school experiment. It is a series of events that befalls a group of families as they try to have dinner together. I am not kidding - they sit to have dinner and something unexpected interrupts them. There are some really bizarre incidents that happen throughout, which will leave you confounded till you realize that none of them are meant to be taken seriously. Some of the mini-stories will make a wry smile cross your face, and frankly, some of the movie is actually enjoyable. It's only that such tricks have almost no repeat value. Fool me once shame on me, fool me seven times and you are really pushing your luck, buddy! The surrealist elements of the film don't crop up till quite some time. It is not immediately apparent that many of the situations are stand-ins, either satires or surrealist fantasies. The film begins as a weak attempt at mocking the shallow lives of socialites. Their posturing, assumed statures, and adherence to arbitrary customs are easy targets that the film tries to satire. Somewhere down the line it takes a turn into the bizarre with meandering story lines, inconsequential characters, and unexpected U-turns. Some of it did bowl me over as I really didn't expect anything like it. But after a time when no pattern or method was discernible, I could do no better than appreciate the creators for their ideas without enjoying any of it.

Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie is a highly experimental film that needs to be applauded for its audacity, especially considering the time when it was made. I am sure it has had massive impact on a lot of filmmakers. Influences for the pointless conversations of Pulp Fiction and the red herrings of David Lynch films can be clearly seen here. However, that doesn't make the 100 minutes of the movie sitting any less excruciating.

The beginning sort of plods along unless you're already aware of the joke Bunuel is playing on his characters. Then as you pass the halfway point the absurdity gets ramped up increasingly and the movie becomes a parody of it's own macabre pathology. Not a movie to be sat down and leisurely enjoyed as much as a movie to be thought about against the context of other movies and other forms of art.

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.

In Bunuel's "Discreet Charm" we see a film about life! The desire to "feed" one's self is used through out the film. The dinner party is always broken up and they never get a chance to eat. They never go a chance to feed their desires in life be it food or sex. This is used a symbol to show that people are always starving inside and they are always searching (hence the last shot of the film!) A brilliant film by one of the greatest directors of film! 10 out of 10!!

The absurdity of this film is hilarious. It caricatures the hell out of its bourgeois characters cultivating their ultimately meaningless rituals, catering to their hedonism and maintaining their social status. Buñuel at his best!

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie is an obligatory film in all aspects. And this is because the concept of the "bourgeoisie" has been changing through the ages. However, whatever the occasion, some features, all of them very clear in the film, will prevail: hypocrisy, narcissism, selfishness, and a certain amount of stupidity.

As described by the Brazilian singer Cazuza after stating that "the bourgeoisie stinks," Buñuel makes clear with his characters that the bourgeoisie wants to be rich. They are people who stand above the hungry crowd but well below the elite: advisors to politicians, bishops, colonels, diplomats. Today we would all be the ones who posted photos on Facebook showing our barbecues and a boat tour at San Antonio.

At this point, the most striking feature of the film appears: although characters are ALWAYS at dinners, where the recurring subject is food itself, they can NEVER eat, either because they miss the date or because the chef is being veiled in a coffin next to the kitchen or even interrupted by military maneuvers (great!).

It is as if, through cynical humor, the director condemned the bourgeoisie to never participate in the great capitalist banquet. In this context, the concept of bourgeoisie ceases to appear in political or economic significations. Here the bourgeoisie is a pure fetish, as, indeed, disseminated in social media today.

Fetish is another trademark of the director. In this work, it appears in multiple tones: the couple who decide to have sex in the garden at the same time that the guests arrive for dinner, the bishop who becomes excited when dressing as a gardener (and ends up expelled from the house, until returning with his clerical dress and have his ring kissed), and in a scene worthy of Marx (the brothers), Don Rafael Acosta, ambassador of a fictitious Latin country, escapes from a firing that hits all the guests hiding under the table, but ends up betrayed when trying to get a piece of ham

Bourgeoisie, in 1972, were the others. Today, maybe we are all of us.

Years after directing the surrealist movie "Un chien andalou", Luis Buñuel made "Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie" about a group of upper-class people whose attempts to have a nice dinner get repeatedly interrupted. The movie is simultaneously a bizarre comedy and a mockery of the bourgeoisie's materialistic attitude towards life, and a really good one at that. To crown everything, the characters accept the events, no matter how weird things get! Fernando Rey, hot off playing one of the villains in "The French Connection", plays a diplomat from the fictional Latin American country of Miranda*. People address him about the gap between rich and poor, and about his government's use of excessive force against protesters, and meanwhile a terrorist (revolutionary?) follows him everywhere. He comes across as a slimy guy, but you can't help but admire him.

The scene where everyone walks towards an unspecified location seems to reflect the lives that this bunch of people leads in general. Their wealth deprives them of any purpose in life, and so they are left wandering, metaphorically speaking.

All in all, I definitely recommend this one. Also starring Paul Frankeur, Delphine Seyrig, Bulle Ogier, Stéphane Audran and Jean-Pierre Cassel.

*While there is no country called Miranda, there is a Mirandese language spoken in northeast Portugal. Just a side note.

A surreal, virtually plot less series of dreams centered around six middle-class people and their consistently interrupted attempts to have a meal together.

The analysis of this film seems to be about drawing parallels to Sartre's "No Exit" and the Greek myth of Tantalus. I see the latter, while the former sounds like a stretch. The most obvious analysis appears to me to be what the film is on the face of it: a scathing look at the rich.

Buñuel later said that he was disappointed with the analysis that most film critics made of the film. He also disliked the film's promotional poster, depicting a pair of lips with legs and a derby hat. Which analyses he disliked I do not know, and what message we all missed is unclear.

My biggest disappointment was how strange the film was not, especially after such classic works like "Un Chien Andalou". While essentially plot less, this film is still quite linear and sensical in its own way. I could have used more oddity.

Plenty of (intended) non sequiturs and arrivals at nothing, with some good French sauce. Sure, it is surreal, but don't think clever-clever bakerlite phone with a lobster handset, more amusing sketches which taken singly are absorbing vignettes.

There is plenty of cinema that is terrified of being understood too easily and resorts to weirdness as a proxy for intellectualising, but this does not do that. It leads you somewhere articulately and clearly, it's just that that place is in the middle of nowhere.

If you want to claim it's a masterpiece or a comment on our time, do so if you must, but it's a fun watch without any of that.

The second dream scene, against that backdrop of that empty city: you meet old acquaintances, your mother, a moment later you are looking for them, but they are gone, untraceable, like dreams sometimes are. Horrifyingly real...

An elusive and fascinating film, nothing compares. Don't know how many times I've seen it. And then there's Stéphane Audran...

Trying to explain all this doesn't make much sense in my opinion: either you like it or you don't (and I can imagine that you don't). I also wonder sometimes if Buñuel meant it all as deeply as the titles suggest; and if it's not more of a game... no idea.

Strange and fantastic picture being compellingly directed by the Spanish maestro of surrealism . A drug-trafficking ambassador operates with a group of French bourgeoises. They're planning a dinner , but the food never gets a chance to arrive at the table . Every time they want to meet for dinner, an unforeseen circumstance prevents their project. Dreams and reality , actual or contrived , prevent their feast . One of Bunuel's most rare and amazing , ¨Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie¨ in similar style to ¨The Exterminating Angel¨ is packed with surreal moments , criticism , absurd situations and astonishing nightmares . This is one Buñuel's best , including characteristically scatological satire , fierce as well as surreal nightmares and surprising events . Comedy/drama film about strange relationships among various members of middle class at a restaurant or a mansion mansion wherein some dinner guests find they cannot for any definable reason leave the dining room .

Buñuel in top form on a weird story about a group of burgeoise class , a drama with comical elements , surrealism and sour portrait upon social stratum , catholicism , with plenty of dream imaginary and many other things .Being stunningly realized by the Spanish maestro of surrealism , the great Luis Buñuel and Oscar for Best Foreign Film. A Buñuel joke on his audience using a silly excuse for series od surrealist and disconcerting incidentes . This is a typical Buñuel film , as there are a lot of symbolism , social critique , including mockery or wholesale review upon bourgeoisie , terrorism and religion , especially Catholicism . Luis Buñuel was given a strict Jesuit education which sowed the seeds of his obsession with both subversive behavior and religion , issues well shown in a lot of films and that would preoccupy Buñuel for the rest of his career . Illusion and reality soon blur into one , with delicious hilarious results . Interesting and thought-provoking screenplay from director Luis Buñuel himself and Jean-Claude Carrière , Buñuel's usual screenwriter. Here Buñuel gives a perverse studio about wealthy people , desire and tension when a misfit bunch wanting to dinner , but every time the guests or hosts attempt to start the meal, some outside problem rises . These six roles are forever sitting down to dinner , yet never eat are well-played by all-French-star cast , such as : Paul Frankeur , Delphine Seyrig , Bulle Ogier , Stéphane Audran , Jean-Pierre Cassel , Julien Bertheau , Milena Vukotic , Michel Piccoli , and , of course , Spanish Fernando Rey , Buñuel's regular. The film relies heavily on the relationship between them ; along the way , love-hatred conflicts and bizarre set pieces are developed . Furthermore , Buñuel satirizes and he carries out outright critical to bourgeoisie and attack upon religion . It displays an atmospheric as well as evocative cinematography by cameraman Edmond Richard .

This thoughtful and serious/comic motion picture satirizing modern society was well produced by Serge Silberman and compellingly directed by Luis Buñuel who was voted the 14th Greatest Director of all time . This Buñuel's strange film belongs to his French period ; in fact , it's plenty of known French actors . Born in Calanda , Aragon (1900) , Buñuel subsequently moved to Madrid to study at the university there, where his close friends included Salvador Dalí and Federico García Lorca. After moving to Paris , at the beginning Buñuel did a variety of film-related odd jobs , including working as an assistant to director Jean Epstein . With financial help from his mother and creative assistance from Dalí, he made his first film , this 17-minute "Un Chien Andalou" (1929), and immediately catapulted himself into film history thanks to its disturbing images and surrealist plot . The following year , sponsored by wealthy art patrons, he made his first picture , the scabrous witty and violent "Age of Gold" (1930), which mercilessly attacked the church and the middle classes, themes that would preoccupy Buñuel for the rest of his career . That career, though, seemed almost over by the mid-1930s, as he found work increasingly hard to come by and after the Spanish Civil War , where he made ¨Las Hurdes¨ , as Luis emigrated to the US where he worked for the Museum of Modern Art and as a film dubber for Warner Bros . He subsequently went on his Mexican period he teamed up with producer Óscar Dancigers and after a couple of unmemorable efforts shot back to international attention with the lacerating study of Mexican street urchins in ¨Los Olvidados¨ (1950), winning him the Best Director award at the Cannes Film Festival. But despite this new-found acclaim, Buñuel spent much of the next decade working on a variety of ultra-low-budget films, few of which made much impact outside Spanish-speaking countries , though many of them are well worth seeking out . As he went on filming "The Great Madcap" , ¨The brute¨, "Wuthering Heights", ¨El¨ , "The Criminal Life of Archibaldo De la Cruz" , ¨Robinson Crusoe¨ , ¨Death in the garden¨ and many others . After returning his native country, Spain, by making ¨Viridiana¨ this film was prohibited on the grounds of blasphemy as well as ¨The milky way¨ or "Via Lactea , both of them were strongly prohibited by Spanish censorship . Most Buñuel's films were surreal black comedies , parables that satirized moral hypocrisy , social moral , artistic pretension, and , of course , the Catholic Church . In French-Spanish final period the collaboration with producer Serge Silberman and writer Jean-Claude Carrière gave notorious as well as polemic films such as ¨Viridiana¨ , and ¨Belle De Jour¨. His last one was the notorious ¨That obscure object of desire¨ (1977). Rating ¨The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" : 6/10. Typically Buñuel, typically French and typically hilarious movie.

This is an odd little film about some people who never do get to sit down to the meal they plan on having. A lot of weird and unexpected stuff intervenes--during which you learn a little more about the characters (particularly how unlikeable some of them are). The problem I had with the movie is this--it just wasn't very interesting and I repeatedly felt like turning it off because I found it more boring than compelling. Now this is not because of the surreal nature of the film--I have a relatively high tolerance for the strange and unconventional (just look at my glowing review for the VERY surreal Happiness of Katakuris). It's just that strange as it was, it just wasn't too interesting nor was it weird enough to make that great an impression. I know it puts me in a very small minority, but most of the Luis Buñuel films I have seen were not that compelling--odd yes, but not particularly interesting. About the only one I really liked was the sad film "Tristan".

UPDATE: I've seen most of the director's films since I wrote this review. I did find several (other than "Tristan") that I really did like. However, I still think he had about as many hits as misses and feel he was a bit overrated. But, films like "Robinson Crusoe" and "The Young One" are indeed exceptional films.