Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 1:14:16 GMT
I really like this film, but an obvious question is WHY can't they leave the room? Apart from a couple of brief scenes, they don't even really try to. They just all sort of lie down on the floor and have a kip. Even when the situation becomes desperate, they're not shown trying anything they can to leave. They break the wall to get to the water pipe, but they don't think of breaking through the wall further to escape, for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Aug 14, 2018 2:14:42 GMT
I really like this film, but an obvious question is WHY can't they leave the room? Apart from a couple of brief scenes, they don't even really try to. They just all sort of lie down on the floor and have a kip. Even when the situation becomes desperate, they're not shown trying anything they can to leave. They break the wall to get to the water pipe, but they don't think of breaking through the wall further to escape, for example. I have not seen the movie, but having some idea about Luis Buñuel, they may not leave because they won't leave or could think it proper to leave. Think about the idea of the Theater of the Absurd. Why do people do absurd things? Life is not always rational...it can be absurd. This is a bit like asking why an atheist who suffering from a painful fatal disease will do anything to live rather than die--even kill himself. They chose to live because it it proper..not because it is rational. Often they chose some irrational "reason" to keep on living. It might also be thought of as social inertia---it is easier to suffer than try and, perhaps, fail. This 1962 masterpiece from Luis Buñuel stands to this day as the paragon for surrealist cinema. In Mexico City, a group of bourgeois people meet in a mansion to have dinner.
After the evening is done, they all very politely say their goodbyes and decide to part; except, when they try to leave of the dining room, they are inexplicably frozen in place, unable to go past the room’s threshold.
The film criticizes the hypocrisy and the double-standard morals underlying in the upper-class mentality, and that today can be found in the middle classes as well. After they all come to accept their unexpectedly reclusive lives established inside the room, they try to maintain their dignity and status, though eventually their social facades fade away, revealing their raw animal nature.
The negation of our instincts is exposed; sex, survival, and territory become the main concerns of the attendants of the dinner as time passes and the situation becomes desperate due to the lack of logical answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Aug 14, 2018 2:22:32 GMT
Here is a thought (not mine, although this sounds good).
|
|
