The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (2022)

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

A lot of fun.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This movie forms a trilogy with the earlier "Exterminating Angel" and the later "Phantom of Liberty". They are all concerned with that stereotypically "modern man" termed the "bourgeoisie". How does Bunuel characterize this social phenomenon in this movie? Surprisingly, not as harshly as he does in the other two movies of the trilogy.The Discreet Charm does not have a prologue {as in the other two in this trilogy} but opens up with the two couples arriving in a chauffeur driven limousine. The VIP whose vehicle it is , is the ambassador for the fictional Latin American state of "Miranda" {in Spanish this name denotes "admirable" and here Bunuel's cynicism is clear}. The ambassador is corrupt, and like many Colombian diplomats of the time, was using his supposed "diplomatic immunity" to smuggle cocaine into France. The other two French citizens are his accomplices. They do not use the drug themselves but instead liberally dose themselves with the legally acceptable bourgeois drug "alcohol"In a series of humorous and teasingly droll sketches, Bunuel illustrates how these corrupt men and their colluding female partners act out their empty lives of hypocrisy and deceit.. There class snobbery is clearly demonstrated,when the Bishop dressed as a gardener is evicted from the house, but on reentering in his official clerical costume, he is immediately embraced. The bourgeois, always insecure about their own position in society, are always making presumptuous judgments about the social positions of other people, making their lack of substance obvious. Throughout the movie, the continual lack of social concern in their relationships, as emotionally connected human beings, is made clear. The metaphor of "breaking bread together", one of the most intimate of human experiences, is continually subverted by rampant egotism and selfish desires.The scene when Bunuel has the dining table become a stage with a prompter giving them their lines, {as in Shakespeare's As You Like It "All the worlds a stage, and all the men and women merely players'}, is a brilliant confirmation of the emptiness of the bourgeois existence - simply stunning in its honesty {and so opposed to their inherent dishonesty}.Other facets of the devious nature, of the bourgeois personality, pursued by Bunuel in this movie, are the paranoid dream and thought constructions, used to resolve problems {a pernicious form of dishonesty} and the recurrent theme of the six bourgeois characters walking on the open road - "The Road to Nowhere".Bunuel devoted three whole movies to unmasking this scourge of human greed and existential poverty. The Surrealist program saw a revolution in human society as a prerequisite of a better world for all. Bunuel remained true to this creed throughout his artistic life. This movie is funny and entertaining. I can think of no greater compliment to give it.

I am aware many think its a classic but the film is pretentious and actually quite stupid. The symbolism is heavy handed. I know that many think this is a masterpiece but its a confusing mess. There are some parts that are forgotten and never explained. A woman comes on denying Christ but we never find out why. The sets look beautiful and to be fair there is a certain glamor to the film. The cast do what they can and the fault is not with he actors but with the director who seems to have an over blown ego. This was made at a time when some directors were trying to be very arty, esoteric and too clever by half. Today its a shambles. Some of the interior locations look fine but the dream sequences are just ridiculous. This sadly is almost embarrassing to watch today.

I'm just experiencing Bunuel for the first time. I am captivated. Having seen the darker Exterminating Angel first, I had a sense of what he is about. This is another surreal effort that puts upper class people in a situation where they seem to have free will, yet are at the whim of some outside force. Of course, there is always the possibility that the problems lie in their minds. Is it Freudian or Jungian or what? In this a group of wealthy people attempt to eat several meals and are cut off at the pass by several forces, not allowing a conclusion. They are also interesting characters. The women are snobbish and sensual, cold and calculating; one is a drunk. The men are involved in illegal activities and seem to pay a great price. Or do they? That's the issue. They seem to be saddled with guilt. Every so often, a non-sequitir comes along, stops whatever plot has developed, and another dinner is served. A young lieutenant tells the tale of a double murder of his parents and his vengeance. Soldiers appear at dinner. Police arrest them. They are unscathed. I can not tell you any more about what this means because I'm not even sure Bunuel can. It is a striking piece of work, full of humor, disease, and class warfare. Interesting.

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...