When films are deprived of meanings, can they still be called films? Dadaism says yes. Surrealism says yes. We constantly try to find a narrative, a story, a protagonist in a film, and feel frustrated by the lack thereof. It's not that films without those elements are inherently frustrating or aesthetically unpleasing, but that we are so trained by classic narrative cinema to identify the structure of a film so as to “rationalize what's going on on the silver screen”. If we are able to appreciate the structural or geometrical beauty of a piece of abstract painting without scratching our head trying to understand it, we should also be mentally capable to do so with films. Dulac thinks the future should belong to films that “cannot be told”, and along the same line ,I believe that a good surrealist film is all about evoking surprise and various emotions in the audience. Therefore I reject any attempt to rationalize or interpret Un Chien Andalou, because that would be a blasphemy and total negation of what Bunuel and Dali are trying to do here. An interpretable surrealist film is an oxymoron. Instead of rationalizing, live a little. Experience the crescendo of joy, a smack of sorrow, a blast of confusion. And that's the wisdom of surrealists.a blast of confusion. And that's the wisdom of surrealists.a blast of confusion. And that's the wisdom of surrealists.
View more about Un Chien Andalou reviews
