Thursday, October 2, 2014

Blog Response IV: Luis Buñuel's "That Obscure Object of Desire"


Spanish filmmaker Luis Buñuel began his career collaborating with surrealist painter Salvador Dalí on the 16 minute short film Un Chien Andalou (An Andalusian Dog, 1928) - what Roger Ebert once called "the most famous short film ever made":


Un Chien Andalou established many of the hallmarks of Buñuel's film career. First, there are the influences of surrealism. Using a series of images that mischievously flout the conventions of realistic storytelling, Buñuel created a cinematic equivalent of the surrealist practices of 'automatic writing' and 'automatic drawing', in which one begins writing or drawing without any plan, letting the words or lines simply flow out. One of the aesthetic effects of this practice was what the 19th century writer Comte de Lautréamont once described as "the chance meeting on a dissecting table of a sewing machine and an umbrella", or what painter Max Ernst called "a linking of two realities that by all appearances have nothing to link them, in a setting that by all appearances does not fit them." By juxtaposing things, situations, people, and events in seemingly random ways, the surrealists were able to create a unique combination of horror and hilarious absurdity that they often described on an analogy with the imagery found in dreams.

Using these techniques, Buñuel created some the most well-known images from avant-garde film: e.g. a man slicing a woman's eyeball with a razor; or a man staring in confusion at a hole in his hand from which ants are crawling out.

A moment before the razor slices the eye
He would continue using strange juxtapositions throughout his career - for example, in the follow-up to Un Chien Andalou, the nearly feature-length L'Age D'Or (The Golden Age, 1930):


However, when Buñuel began making feature-length films, he was much more likely to incorporate discrete surrealist gestures in the context of otherwise realistic films. At times, these were passing moments of strangeness and absurdity. Sometimes, however, these surrealist gestures were central to the structure of the film.

For example, in his film El ángel exterminador (The Exterminating Angel, 1962), a group of wealthy men and women have a dinner party in a large, lavish house. After dinner, they convene in the drawing room for drinks. However, as the party winds down, they slowly realize that none of them can leave the room. No barrier or threat stands in their way: they simply can't bring themselves to walk out the open doorway. The film then follows their story in the days and weeks that follow, as they become more and more desperate and hysterical, their bourgeois niceties devolving into cruelty and barbarism. 

Aristocrats transformed into haunting specters in The Exterminating Angel
As you saw, Buñuel uses such a surrealist gesture to structure Cet obscur objet du désir (That Obscure Object of Desire, 1977). The film is an adaptation of a late 19th century novel by Pierre Louÿs: La Femme et le pantin (The Woman and the Puppet). By the time Buñuel tackled the task of adapting the novel, it had already been adapted four times into film. Such adaptations included, most famously, one by the renowned director Josef von Sternberg: The Devil is a Woman (1935). Originally, Buñuel tried to make a much more straightforward adaptation. However, he quarreled bitterly with the original starring actress, and as a result the original production fell apart. One day, while drowning his sorrows in a bar with the producer Serge Silberman, Buñuel drunkenly joked that they should cast two distinct actresses in the role and then try producing the film once more. And this is what they did: they cast two distinct actresses - Carole Bouquet and Ángela Molina - to play the character of Concepción Pérez ("Conchita").

Bouquet and Molina - the two Conchitas
The film tells the story of a tumultuous love affair between Conchita and a wealthy older man, Mathieu Fabert. For the role of Mathieu, Buñuel chose Fernando Rey, who had already acted for Buñuel in Tristana (1970), in which Rey played a similar role - that of a wealthy older man who becomes sexually obsessed with a much younger woman who eventually eludes his grasp.

Buñuel directing Rey and Molina
Buñuel embeds most of That Obscure Object of Desire in a framing device. Mathieu recounts the love affair to some fellow travelers on the train he's taking to Paris, so as to convince them that he is not the lunatic he appears to be after dumping a bucket of water on Conchita's head as she attempted to board the train. Mathieu tells of his first encounter with her - as a new maid working in his house in Paris. He is immediately fascinated by her, unsuccessfully attempts to seduce her, and she swiftly escapes in the night. Months later, he is mugged by three young men in Seville, including (we discover later) the guitar-playing El Morenito. Shortly thereafter, she approaches Mathieu out of the blue to return his money, telling him that they are a travelling act that was cheated out of their money by their manager.

Thus begins their affair. Mathieu visits Conchita and her mother Encarnación in their humble Paris flat, lavishing them with gifts and money to aid them through their poverty. Conchita, however, quickly establishes clear boundaries to their relationship, telling him that she isn't 'that type of girl' and is a mocita (virgin). Mathieu, who describes himself as interested only in women with whom is madly in love, is all the more entranced by her as a result. Soon after, he offers her mother a large sum of money in exchange for delivering Conchita to his doorstep to live with him in exchange for looking after both her and Encarnación indefinitely. Instead, though, Conchita sends El Morenito with a letter declaring that she is enraged by his attempt to buy her from her mother, and that he will never see her again. After he discovers that she and her mother have suddenly moved from their home, Mathieu despairs.

Two months later, though, he encounters her working in the cloak room of a restaurant, and she welcomes his renewed attentions. She promises that if he takes her to his home in the country, she will be his 'mistress' - a statement that seems, in retrospect, to be carefully ambiguous. When they arrive, the consummation of their relationship is at first delayed by her insistence that she is sick. Mathieu presses the issue, though, and although she continues to resist, after giving clear physical cues that he is willing to take her by force, she appears to relent. But the appearance is a feint: as Mathieu gropes at her under the covers, he discovers that she is wearing a corset that is impossible to take off - in effect, a chastity belt. Quickly, Mathieu's violence melts into tears, and she comforts him with assurances that she will give herself to him little by little.


Mathieu resigns himself to having to conform to her mysterious timetable. One night, though, after rejecting even Mathieu's touch, Conchita stalks to her bedroom. Mathieu quickly discovers that she has snuck El Morenito into her bedroom, claiming that he has been kicked out of his hotel and that their friendship is innocent. In a rage, Mathieu kicks them both out.

In his desperation, Mathieu asks his cousin Edouard, a judge, to find a way to keep him away from Conchita. Edouard arranges for Conchita and her mother to be deported, and Mathieu makes plans to travel to Singapore to escape his obsession. However, he ends up going back to Seville, Conchita's hometown. There, he finds her once again, but discovers that she dances naked for tourists.


In a rage, Mathieu casts out the spectators, and Conchita scolds him once again. Again under her spell, he offers to buy her a house in Seville. But once he does, she invites him over and, from behind the locked gate of the house, tells him that she despises him and is finally free of him. Mathieu can only stand and watch as she and El Morenito appear to begin having sex on the ground just inside the gate. The next morning, Conchita returns to Mathieu once again, telling him that the incident the night before was all an act. Mathieu explodes in violence, beating Conchita as she begs him to take her back.

Finally, we return to the frame narrative. Shortly after Mathieu finishes his story, Conchita appears once again, dumping a bucket of water on his head in revenge. In the final moments of the film, we hear no more dialogue from them. Instead, we see them departing the train station arm in arm; walking through Paris as smiling lovers; entering an arcade and seeing a seamstress mend a hole in a bloody garment; and, inevitably, beginning to bicker once again. In the last shot of the film, they walk off; in the foreground an explosion fills the frame, and we are left without any indication of whether it engulfed them.


These strange final shots are only a few among the surrealist touches that Buñuel intersperses throughout the film. Others are quite subtle: e.g., the moment when a mousetrap is set off while Mathieu is bribing Encarnación; or the addition of freelance professor of psychology who happens also to be a little person; or the many instances of explosive violence that occur throughout the film (including attacks by the absurdly named Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus). Others are bizarre, yet presented without calling undue attention to themselves: e.g., the dirty burlap sack that Mathieu is shown carrying around with him in two shots, and from which the seamstress at the end withdraws the bloody garment on which she labors.

However, the surrealist touch that stands out by far, and is the signature conceit of the film, is the character of Conchita. Bouquet and Molina are both young, beautiful, and brunette. However, they otherwise look very different: Bouquet is lithe, pale, with long straight hair; while Molina is more voluptuous, sultry, and has curly hair. Further, their mannerisms are quite different: Bouquet is detached, sardonic, with movements that are controlled and economical; while Molina is bubbly, exudes childlike sincerity, and has an expressive style of movement embodied especially in her flamenco dancing. Although the bulk of the film is presented as being told from Mathieu's viewpoint, the seemingly random interchangeability of the actresses creates a dramatic irony that at the same time distances us from that viewpoint.

As we watch Mathieu desperately pursue Conchita, Buñuel returns in this, his last film, to an image of masculine desire that was already present in his first film, Un Chien Andalou. About seven minutes into the latter film, the main male character witnesses a scene of death and violence, just as Mathieu does several times. And as with Mathieu, the protagonist of Un Chien Anadalou is filled with uncontrollable lust for a woman. Though she tries to resist his advances, we see him grope her breasts through her dress; and in one of the most memorable surrealist touches of the film, we see her breasts become bare, and then turn into a pair of buttocks as the man's eyes roll back in his head and he drools a strange dark liquid. Indeed, at the beginning, at the end, and throughout, the juxtaposition of violence and uncontrollable male desire directed upon a mercurial woman constituted one of the central concerns of Buñuel's career.

14 comments:

  1. Daisy: It's often presupposed that the 'obscure object of desire' mentioned in the movie's title is Conchita. Suppose, for a moment, that it is in fact Mathieu. Conchita, after all, says that Mathieu has been wrong that he is pursuing her - that, in fact, it is she who has pursued him. What is the nature of Conchita's desire? What does she want from him? And why does she continue to return to him - even after he has beat her to a pulp, and, by her own description, allowed her to be free of him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In every kind of argument or relationship people tend to think or at least present themselves as victims. It is easier to tell others that you are hurt than admit that you did wrong and hurt someone. Obscure Object of Desire is told to us from Mathieu’s point of view, therefore we tend to sympathize with him and antagonize Conchita in a way. Some may see Conchita as a simple gold digger who is trying to seduce an older rich guy with her youth and beauty. However even Mathieu claims it to be false when his friend suggests that she is after his money. I think she proves it really well when she refuses to move in with him because that would mean absolute stability for her and her mother. Conchita seems to be genuinely upset every time they have an argument because she tries to disappear from his life, possibly for her that’s a better way of getting over him. It seems like she is really worried about Mathieu’s intentions towards her. She does not agree to give herself to him, because that might be the end of their relationship as he will move on to the next “conquest”. Another reason why she refuses to consummate their relationship might be because she believes that her virginity is her charm, something that makes her stand out from all the other girls he possibly had or could have. However it makes him mad and leads him to using violence and almost raping her, in this situation she is obviously considered a victim. The reason why she comes back to him after all the violence might be because she does not know any other way for a relationship and she is so attached to him that she is ready to forgive everything. Or Conchita is simply a very dramatic lady that derives emotional pleasure from arguments and fighting.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Christine: Conchita is clearly a variation on the figure of the femme fatale. What are important the differences and similarities between Conchita and the classic film noir? Between her and the variation presented to us by Hitchcock in "Vertigo"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Conchita and the femme fatale are similar in the way that they both are leading the man to their downfall through seduction and mystery. There's something alluring about them that draws the men in, as well as a struggle to make her their woman alone. In both films, Vertigo and That Obscure Object of Desire, you can tell that the main "hero" of the film is struggling to attain happiness yet the more he wants to be with the femme fatal the worse his circumstances and mental health become. The sexual power that the women in these films are similar, although they are expressed in different ways due to different directors and time that they were filmed.
      As far as differences go, there are two that stand out to me. The first is that the classic femme fatal seems to completely engage with the hero, she is willing to have sex with him. While Conchita is set on keeping herself a virgin (whether or not she truthfully is), and will not let Mathieu go further than she wants. She exercised control over him in this way, by keeping him wanting instead of giving him what he wants, and only gives him a "taste" instead. The other difference is that while in Vertigo, as well as Double Indemnity, there is an "outside" force that is seemly keeping the two lovers apart. In both of these films the woman is married, and in Vertigo she is also seemingly possessed. In That Obscure Object of Desire however, Conchita herself is preventing their relationship directly, by leaving and taking herself away from him. While her mother may be around, she benefits from their relationship and is not so much of a barrier. I feel that Conchita is a more direct version of the femme fatal. She is openly nude (though this also may have to do with the time it was filmed), is clearly manipulating him, and controls the relationship herself. I think that the original title of the book, The Woman and the Puppet, describes the type of "femme fatal" that Conchita is.

      Delete
  4. Nancy: Buñuel presents the main story of the film against a backdrop that contains a great deal of violence. Several terrorist attacks are either shown or mentioned, and we see men randomly gunned down and beaten in the streets. Why do you think that Buñuel provides us with this backdrop? Is there any significance of the violence for understanding the relationship between Mathieu and Conchita?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the plot unfolds and the audience is immersed into the love story between Mathieu and Conchita we notice the various “terrorist” like events that occur while characters are busy with their own daily lives. I would believe Buñuel included such events to show how actually, in a sense, hypnotized Mathieu was with Conchita. He would often be seen to hurriedly want to chase after his love and develop a closer relationship though she was unwilling to do some things with him. Despite her rejection to be intimate with Mathieu, he was infatuated by her thus causing such huge occurrences to be invisible to him. He passively avoided them and took no interest as to what and why they were happening.
      For example, as Mathieu was riding in the back seat of his car in Spain, two men hijacked and took his car to an unknown destination. Nevertheless, after this incident happened, Mathieu did not seem to question who the men were or why they took his car. Maybe because he was wealthy and could simply afford another vehicle easily, but still I would think any other person would want to urgently know what happened to their own possession.
      Perhaps Buñuel wanted to portray the way in which love and/or obsession has the power and ability to blind a person from seeing what is happening in reality. How could a normal person not be curious as to why bombs in cars go off, why he suddenly was hijacked, and so many terrorist attacks seemed to be constantly taking place. I am guessing this could be compared to how the ‘love’ between Conchita and Mathieu was developing; as time went on, they ran into more and more problems which are, on the sideline, portrayed with sudden explosions and such.

      Delete
  5. John: As I mentioned in the post, Buñuel adds many small touches of strangeness to the film. For example, there is the random click of the mousetrap. There is the seamstress mending a bloody garment in a shop window. And, as you noticed, there is the burlap sack that appears four times in the film. What is the significance of these images? Especially: what do you think their role is in leading us to the final shots of the film?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the post above mentioned, the director, Luis Buñuel, has a strong influence of surrealism throughout his films. While the influence of surrealism was not central in “That Obscure Object of Desire,” it did have its outlying effects. In the film, these small touches of strangeness stand out as they contrast with the scene or simply are very noticeable. When discussing the small strangeness, we also have to remember that the majority of the film is being told from Mathieu’s narration which would make it impossible for him to remember such minute details. Therefore, I suggest that these “small touches of strangeness” are actually the subconscious of Mathieu. The most noticeable of these touches is the burlap sack that appears in random parts of the movie. This old ragged burlap sack contrasts greatly with Mathieu’s appearance as he is wealthy, powerful, and well-groomed. Yet, it is always present in the scenes where he is also. I believe that this burlap sack represents one of two things: either Mathieu’s own cowardice or Conchinta. It could either represent his true nature, although he is a well-dress high-class man, inside he is weak and dirty or it could represent, as the movie said, women are sacks of excrements. The last scene reveals to the audience that there were bombs in the sacks which support the latter idea as, women might be sacks of excrements but they can destroy a man (in this case Mathieu). The bombs contained in the sack leads directly to the seamstress mending a bloody garment. The mending of the bloody garment may lead to the obvious conclusion that Mathieu believes his relationship with Conchita is fixed while the blood may suggest the sacrifice they may have made but in the following moment the store explodes. This explosion leads to the question “Did they mend their relationship or was it doomed to fail right from the start?”

      Delete
  6. Jeongmin: Suppose that the 'obscure object of desire' mentioned in the title of the film is Conchita. In what sense is she obscure? For whom? Why do you think Buñuel chose this as the title of the film (a different title, it's important to note, than that of the novel on which the film is based)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The original title of the novel is "La Femme et le pantin", which means "A Woman and a Puppet". First thing that comes to attention is the point of view of each piece. The title of the novel assumes the voice of an omniscient reader who can see both the female and the male character, while the title of the film suggests it will assume the view of, or at least describe, the the male subject who possesses desire. Furthermore, if we see the title of the novel, it is clear from the start that the female character will be someone similar to typical femme fatale, who uses the male character for one's profit. In other words, the view is structured as omniscient--the reader already knows that the female character will be using and deceiving the male character. However, the viewpoint is significantly different in the film. Although the camera has all the technical capacity to make the audience omniscient, the director does not direct the movie that way. Rather, the movie assumes the viewpoint that is semi-first-person: what is unknown to Mathieu stay unknown to the audience. For example, when Mathieu peeks in through Conchita's room, the scene does not directly depict the affair between El Morenito and Conchita--it is depict only as something suspicious but not explicit, just like how Mathieu perceives at that very moment. Mathieu's ignorance about the actual situation leads to obscuring Conchita, the object of desire. This concept plays an important part in emasculating and frustrating Mathieu, leading to the eruption of violence, while at the same time confusing the audience as well, as Mathieu's ignorance leads to the audience's ignorance as well. On that note, using the two different actors adds on to, and in some ways explains, the obscurity. Although it is one female coherently and continuously plotting and deceiving all along, the actions or words of the female can spontaneously provide some discrepancies to the eye of an ignorant man who "imagines" Conchita just as a virgin who is timid to open herself to intimate relationship. By juxtaposing more than one actress for the role of Conchita, the audience can get the "sensation" of obscurity and confusion even though he or she is not able to see every single moment of their relationship, just seeing what the camera chose to show them.

      Delete
  7. Ye Rim: What is the significance of casting two different actresses in the role of Conchita? And is there anything worth noting about the specific qualities of the actresses chosen, and the specific scenes in which Buñuel uses the one or the other to play Conchita?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In That Obscure Object of Desire (1977), Luis Bunuel employs two different actresses, Carole Bouquet and Angela Morina, to induce subtle yet striking cinematic effects. The dual casting for one anti-heroine, Concepcion Perez, is significant in two regards. First, Bunuel, through abruptly replacing one actress with the other, to dramatize the surreal ambience of the film. To explain, the unique coexistence of two actresses for a single role emphasizes the unrealistic components of the misc-en-scene that otherwise remains (extra-) diegetically ulterior. The scenes in which one "Conchita" momentarily disappears and reappears as another, then, are the most surreal among the all otherworldly tropes in the film. Although other surreal elements, such as a dwarvish psychologist on train, do characterize the plot as not down-to-earth, the altercating casting of Conchita is the most diegetically influential. The ambivalent apparence of the Spanish woman, by escalating the protagonist's emotional instability, singularly marks the misc-en-scene as beyond mundane reality. A specific scene in which this is most evident is the ending scene, in which Conchita (played by Molina) and Mathieu are somehow together again. As the heroine mysteriously approaches Mathieu again, the other elements in the misc-en-scene emerge as more surreal in her presence. With Conchita   dominating Mathieu's psyche again, the bloody, white fabric in a seamstress' room and a sudden news report of a right-wing counterattack on the left-wing insurgency group begins to appears as surreal and somehow inauspicious.     Second, the momentary juxtapositions of Bouquet and Molina induces Matieu's disturbia and  audience's curiosity towards Conchita, to create diegetically and extra-diegetically recurring dramatic tensions ironies. The distinctive, contrary physical and behavoral characteristics of the two Conchitas that dramatizes the uncanny plot. While Bouquet remains plainly dressed, reserved and coy, Molina always appears as flirtatious, demure, and provocative. It is the unpredictable, sudden oscillation between the polar features that causes unexpected twists in the plot, rendering Mathieu desperate and perturbed, and the readers utterly confused. One specific quality that demarcates Bouquet from Molina is sexuality. To explain, Bouquet's Conchita is near-asexual, obstinately refusing any non-platonic advances of Mathieu; while Molina's counterpart is hypersexual, consistently provoking Mathieu's masculine, violent desire that is never achievable. The altercation between such two extremes, then, prevents Mathieu from finally and completely possessing Conchita; when Bouquet's stability is replaced by Molina's taunting remarks; and when Molina's demure attractions are replaced with Bouquet's coyness. Moreover, the juxtaposed polarities create a dramatic irony to make the audience puzzled. Whenever Mathieu greets the changed Conchita without noticing anything, the audience outside the plot becomes nearly frustrated as the protagonist do not realize the two-facedness of his love that perpetually defeats his rationality.

      Delete
  8. In That Obscure Object of Desire (1977), Luis Bunuel employs two different actresses, Carole Bouquet and Angela Morina, to induce subtle yet striking cinematic effects. The dual casting for one anti-heroine, Concepcion Perez, is significant in two regards. First, Bunuel, through abruptly replacing one actress with the other, to dramatize the surreal ambience of the film. To explain, the unique coexistence of two actresses for a single role emphasizes the unrealistic components of the misc-en-scene that otherwise remains (extra-) diegetically ulterior. The scenes in which one "Conchita" momentarily disappears and reappears as another, then, are the most surreal among the all otherworldly tropes in the film. Although other surreal elements, such as a dwarvish psychologist on train, do characterize the plot as not down-to-earth, the altercating casting of Conchita is the most diegetically influential. The ambivalent apparence of the Spanish woman, by escalating the protagonist's emotional instability, singularly marks the misc-en-scene as beyond mundane reality. A specific scene in which this is most evident is the ending scene, in which Conchita (played by Molina) and Mathieu are somehow together again. As the heroine mysteriously approaches Mathieu again, the other elements in the misc-en-scene emerge as more surreal in her presence. With Conchita   dominating Mathieu's psyche again, the bloody, white fabric in a seamstress' room and a sudden news report of a right-wing counterattack on the left-wing insurgency group begins to appears as surreal and somehow inauspicious.     Second, the momentary juxtapositions of Bouquet and Molina induces Matieu's disturbia and  audience's curiosity towards Conchita, to create diegetically and extra-diegetically recurring dramatic tensions ironies. The distinctive, contrary physical and behavoral characteristics of the two Conchitas that dramatizes the uncanny plot. While Bouquet remains plainly dressed, reserved and coy, Molina always appears as flirtatious, demure, and provocative. It is the unpredictable, sudden oscillation between the polar features that causes unexpected twists in the plot, rendering Mathieu desperate and perturbed, and the readers utterly confused. One specific quality that demarcates Bouquet from Molina is sexuality. To explain, Bouquet's Conchita is near-asexual, obstinately refusing any non-platonic advances of Mathieu; while Molina's counterpart is hypersexual, consistently provoking Mathieu's masculine, violent desire that is never achievable. The altercation between such two extremes, then, prevents Mathieu from finally and completely possessing Conchita; when Bouquet's stability is replaced by Molina's taunting remarks; and when Molina's demure attractions are replaced with Bouquet's coyness. Moreover, the juxtaposed polarities create a dramatic irony to make the audience puzzled. Whenever Mathieu greets the changed Conchita without noticing anything, the audience outside the plot becomes nearly frustrated as the protagonist do not realize the two-facedness of his love that perpetually defeats his rationality.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.