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.
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.