Yes, an Andalusian dog.
Regarding an Andalusian dog, I don’t want to over-analyze it. Someone may define every scene in this film like a textbook. To be honest, after watching this film, only a few things left a deep impression on my mind. Just a picture. This film is absolutely important in the history of cinema, and as long as anyone mentions the surreal, an Andalusian dog will never appear less frequently than the well-known surrealist painters and Freud. Before reading this article of mine, which may not make sense, I recommend everyone to take a look. No matter what kind of mentality you have, this film will always leave something in your mind.
the movie itself
I remember that the first time I watched it, no sound was played, which caused a serious problem: without the soundtrack, the promptness of the sequence was weakened a lot. If the picture I saw was illogical, I only thought Can leave a chaotic shallow impression. I can talk about what was going through my mind the first time I watched it.
The first time I saw it, I thought it was a very sad movie, whether it's cutting eyes, quarrels, ants, death, and finally burial on the beach. The first word that came to my mind was tragedy, and I felt that this film was satirizing something called fate through one thing. In fact, when I went to listen to other people's opinions, none of them were able to give an accurate explanation of what the film was about. They eschewed the gist, and instead studied images that seemed to have more possibilities. In fact, the director Luis Buñuel and his collaborator, the surrealist painter Dali, did not give an accurate answer. They used a lot of absurd pictures, saying that to explain the film, it would take a lot of psychology analysis, such as some of Freud's theories. And I think from another point of view, this is in line with the laws of life. Let me explain: people cannot sum up their whole life in one sentence at the end of the day. When we recall the past, we cannot sum it up in one sentence. We usually recall one thing and one person, so that we can see the big from the small. The same is true for this film. It is purely narrative, but it adds a lot of surreal elements. These elements, like the subconscious in our memories, subtly affect our character, and these elements affect the characteristics of this film and What the director likes to express. But at the same time, it also brings the inconvenience of "incomprehensible" to the viewers. No matter from the title or the content, the viewers do not know what the director wants to do, what the film is saying, they are used to a film to express A stream-of-consciousness film with a theme like the righteous overpowering evil made them helpless in these sixteen minutes.
Let's talk about those pictures that fascinate the audience! Personally, I hate to have to take notes on what to watch, paintings and movies. I am not referring to those subjective movie reviews, but the excessive analysis imposed on the movie. No one has made others accept his point of view on a large scale, saying that this lens is right to understand it this way, and it is wrong to understand it this way. We can disagree with each other, but we have to respect each other. And in my mind, the only thing that was right in my mind was what the deep impression they left on my mind was. For example, the above three pictures: ants - armpit and armpit hair - sea urchin, the connection between these three suddenly appeared in my mind and the common point is that there is something black in the middle of the surrounding white. What are the characteristics of ants, what are the characteristics of armpit hair, what are the characteristics of sea urchins, and what do they represent? The ant may be the character's emotion, the character's unstoppable desire, the armpit and armpit hair may be sex, and the sea urchin may be resistance or the embarrassment of seeing people. I think montage is used in another sense in these three shots. The director did not give a clear subjective emotion, that is: what did I use this picture to express. The director just cut three such pictures. After watching it, our consciousness initially decided what the director wanted to express. Otherwise, why didn't he put the stapler and put the sea urchin in it? Then, these three completely objective things confuse us, because they seem to have no connection between them, but they are inextricably linked. The director left a lot of space for the audience. In fact, while we were trying to guess what the director was doing, we found out that we were just talking to ourselves, because we added so much of our own understanding that the director didn't say a word. This elusive relationship has a... more nebulous yet novel use of montage? Maybe we can explain it through Freud, explain it with the surreal, but in any case we just give them a name in the world. When the director can't say why he did it, it's not just a matter of one person, but a void that the entire human race has to fill.
Note that the following is just a screenshot of my impressive footage, not the narration of the entire film. If you want to fully understand it, you need to watch the film.
One of the classic shots, in which the piano becomes the donkey's coffin, and one of the priests is said to be Dali, and the director who cut his eyes at the beginning is the director, the donkey, the beach... Why is there always some Dali in these things shadow? Some people say that Dali contributed more to the film than director Luis Buñuel. There is no clear narrative plot, except for the use of some lens language, the novelty of the picture that depends on Dali's thought may be more important. However, the director should also contribute a lot of elements, which has a profound impact on his future works and style
When I watched it for the second time, I turned on the sound, and with the sound's promptness, I could roughly watch it from a narrative perspective, but words cannot replace the video. Here I briefly mention the narrative prompts of music:
At the beginning, the eyes were cut off, and the music that inspired the male protagonist's emotions after the female detective was killed by a car, and the music in which the male and female protagonists walked on the beach until they died, was a bit of Spanish tango. The rest of the clips are more subdued. And when I first watched it, I thought it would be very sad music. After listening to it, I was amazed. The lively tango at the climax was somewhat sad and ironic. Everything looked like a farce, absurd, ridiculous, and thought-provoking.
The picture shows the book that the heroine reads at the beginning of the film, the weaver girl of the Dutch painter Vermeer. This painting had a great influence on Dali, and this painting took him on the road of painting. When Dalí was 9 years old, he saw this work in his father's office. It also has something to do with his Rhino and later Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris.
The moth, which symbolizes death, and the armpit hair after the moth disappears are spliced on the male protagonist's disappearing mouth.
One of the only snippets I can understand at all.
The two male protagonists seem to show different personalities, or they are like swapping souls. The first personality hero does not move, and the second personality hero gains action. In the end, the book given by the second personality hero to the first personality hero became a gun, and the first personality hero killed the second personality hero and also killed the alter ego, the scene switched , the second personality male protagonist fell on the woman who seemed to be the heroine's back, and finally the woman disappeared and he fell to the ground.
Finally, the woman left the room and came to the beach in another dimension. She walked intimately with the man and saw some relics from the past, which were all abandoned. They walked forward without thinking about anything until they died on the beach. Some people understand that they are not really dying, they have abandoned some of the sincerity and vitality of the past, and eventually become adults in society, but I think it can be understood any way, and I can't think of a better ending than this, as if this ending will make the whole film. The film has been elevated to a philosophical level, and I personally like this picture and the ending very much.
finally
Some people say that the history of film is more important than the film itself, which I think is true. In that era (1929), the audience knew what they liked to watch or what kind of movies were popular at that time. Throwing such a film in that situation is like someone from the future who suddenly goes back to the past. People can't keep up with it, but the fact is that it exists.
However, this is also common sense. After Freud proposed that theory, and when a philosophical thought and various research theories broke out, various conditions proved that such a product would definitely be born, whether the audience accepted it or not.
Looking back now, I remember that some people said that the significance of experiments is to pave the way for future development and research, but I want to say that no matter what, experiments do not serve any kind of result. Everyone cares about the result of something, not the cause of it. Could it be that the director had already told everyone when he made this film that the function of this film was to set an epoch and lead a certain trend? He did not expect and would not expect, this is definitely not a purposeful operation.
Is learning about history to predict the future? What's the use of not being able to predict future history? I hope we all put the role last, first of all, it's beautiful to be there, and everything that happens in the world has meaning no matter what. As the so-called one thing I like I want to do, so I do it, this spontaneity has no purpose, you can understand it as a need, but the only thing I know is that it will happen, no matter what.
View more about Un Chien Andalou reviews
