Since "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" is told by Freud's theory, it is clear that the film does not have the same causal logic as the narrative tradition of mainstream cinema. Even if there is, its causal logic is not tenable: because of interruptions from all sides, the six people have never been able to have a dinner together. However, in each of the eight gatherings, the cause was different, and the effect was the same. And there is no logical relationship between these eight causes. They are all developed from Freud's theory, as if the creators made it in order to achieve their own interpretation of Freud's theory. . This repetition makes the plot extremely absurd and formal. Each scene of the dinner can be separated and watched separately, and the audience's understanding of the film will not be affected by the increase or decrease of one of the scenes. All the renditions seem very blunt. And because the film is inherently naturalistic, in the traditional narrative, the creator will not let everything happen suddenly and bluntly for no reason, which further highlights the strong voice of the creator in the prudent charm of the bourgeoisie. According to Ken Dancyger and Jeff Rush's point of view in 'Alternative Scriptwriting': Let events happen naturally, controlled by causal logic, the creator is just a passive recorder, that is, the 'dramatic voice' and the author speak through the character's tone With the 'narrative voice' that speaks directly to the audience, it is not difficult to see that "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" belongs to the latter, that is, Luis Buñuel directly expounds his understanding of Freud's theory to the audience. This is also hinted at in the play: he tells the female spy sent to kill him that Mao misunderstood Floyd. Plato made a distinction between "the poet speaks through his character's mouth" and "the poet speaks through his own mouth". The former means that the poet is invisible, he just reproduces what has happened; the latter means that the poet stands between the event and the audience, consciously explaining the meaning of the event for us. The former's story is clear, and the theme is revealed by the event; the latter's story is generated by the poet's interpretation and the occurrence of the event. Sometimes the event hardly exists, and the story is full of the poet's interpretation and point of view. The difference between the two is the presence or absence of an intermediary. He was developed in literature by Henry James and is called reflector character. This character provides information to the audience on behalf of the creator, but also lives in the story, and the audience can participate in his thoughts and actions. In traditional narration, the creator usually only allows the narrator to enter the heart of a character, and this character will go through the process of making mistakes - cognition - redemption. This approach enables the audience to fully perceive the heart of the person, resulting in a huge sense of substitution and redemption. Resonate with joy, anger and sadness, bringing the audience closer to the characters. No matter in "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" or "An Andalusian Dog", Luis Buñuel plays the role of voice of god. He fully shows his understanding and assertiveness in the play, while weakening the reflector The role of character, directly face to face with the audience. The audience follows his ideas. The characters in the play are just props to show his ideas. The audience has no sense of substitution at all, nor can they approach the inner world of the characters.
And there is structure behind the mirror character that influences the narrative. In the traditional three-act structure, the creator hides behind the characters in the play, he becomes an invisible man, and the characters hide behind the unobtrusive three-act play structure, allowing the structure to act as a narrative It secretly manipulates the interest of the audience, secretly makes the event meaningful, makes the story seem like it happened naturally, and tries to let the story tell itself so that the characters seem to really be in control of their own destiny. The dominant tradition in mainstream cinema comes from the well-made play of the French playwright Eugene Scribe in the 1820s, focusing on a sense of continuity over time. The characteristic of this form of drama is that it has a clear and logical ending, where all disturbances return to calm and society regains order, "without leaving any unresolved questions to haunt the audience". (Tom F. Driver: Romantic quest and Modern Query, A History of the Modern Theatre, New York: Delacorte Press, 1970, first edition, page 48) In a three-act play structure, the first act is intended for setup and the second act In the confrontation, the third act is aimed at resolution, and the plot point plays a role in advancing the story, while the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie completely ignores this structure, and the six bourgeois people are always unable to eat decently due to interruptions from all directions. meal, which has become a given, from start to finish. It does not reach a point of crisis or standpoint in each act, as in a three-act drama structure, and "clinch the dramatic action and turn the story in a different direction." (Syd Field, Screenplay: The Foundation of Screenwriting, New York: Dell, 1982, page 9. ) The creators do not intend to turn the story to other places, on the contrary, each scene of the dinner is a juxtaposition (because there is no causal logic between them), rather than a layer-by-layer progression. The prudent charm of the bourgeoisie belongs to the hybrid structure, and it does not shy away from the lack of causal logic, the rambling laws of narrative, and it follows the characters as if they are completely out of control. In mainstream movies, narrative and storyline are two sides of the same coin. The end of the film represents the completion of the narrative law and the completeness of the storyline, which also gives the audience a sense of satisfaction. But in the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie, the director allows the film to end arbitrarily, with neither the fullness of the narrative nor the fullness of the plot. We see six bourgeois people walking down the avenue, looking back and forth - the movie comes to an abrupt end.
The restorative three-act structure of storytelling wants the audience to forget the existence of the narrator: the narrator speaks in the voice of the character, the character is hidden under the structure, and the narrator is like an invisible man hiding in the character and the structure And in the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie, the narrator wants to try to say what he has to say about Freud's theory of instinct: the life instinct, the death instinct, and the personality theory: the id, the ego, the superego, and civilization and the instinct To understand theoretically, we have to put the narrative voice in the foreground, weaken the sense of substitution of the characters for the audience, and reduce the primacy of the structure, such as Luis Buñuel talking directly to us.
View more about The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie reviews
