Eraserhead, no one has mentioned that...When I think of surrealistic films, that's the one I think of first.
What counts as a surrealist movie?
Oh okay, I thought it was so far fetched it was surreal, but I guess one cannot build into the other?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
But I thought only some of her sex fantasies were in her own head. Wasn't most of the story real?
Oh okay, what suggests that it was all dreams though? What about what happened to her husband in the end, did that really happen then?
Well yeah the perfect health was a dream but here is what I don't understand. Her husband was paralyzed from a series of events that were caused by her working at the brothel. But if you say that her working there was just her dream, then how was he paralyzed if the series of events resulted from something that was just her dream?
Well yeah the perfect health was a dream but here is what I don't understand. Her husband was paralyzed from a series of events that were caused by her working at the brothel. But if you say that her working there was just her dream, then how was he paralyzed if the series of events resulted from something that was just her dream?
Un Chien Andalou by Buńuel is an example of surrealism.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
Oh okay, I thought it was so far fetched it was surreal, but I guess one cannot build into the other?
X
Favorite Movies
I think it s suspension of disbelief
Is midnight in Paris surrealist?
X
Favorite Movies
Surrealism isn't a subjective label. It's kind of disheartening to see this thread flooded with replies saying that, though I'm hoping that people are just confusing the generic word "surreal" with the more particular movement known as Surrealism (the latter of which Surrealist films fall under).
Like most other art/lit movements developed in the late-19th and 20th centuries, Surrealism has no immediate "checklist" — most major Surrealists have their own discernible aesthetic brand — but a slightly abstracted definition doesn't mean the term is subjective. Much like Modernism (or even more grounded, earlier movements like Romanticism), Surrealism started with a limited number of formal suggestions and grew from there. Those suggestions are still the markers of the movement and allows us to discern between what qualifies.
Another issue is the tendency for people to approach artistic movements with an "all or nothing" perspective — where a work is judged only in its entirety to decide if it belongs to a movement. The reality is that fragmentation over many decades has allowed artists to apply Surrealist ideas in small portions or moments of a work that's otherwise devoid of them. We're no longer in the movement's early years where Surrealism regularly saturates entire films, paintings, and writings (e.g., the immediate images people think of when they hear the names like "Dali" or "de Chirico").
A perfect example of the movement's fragmentation is the between Bunuel's early films (e.g., "L'Age d'Or" and "Un Chien Andalou"), the steady addition of satire and absurdism that came in works afterwords, and then films like Belle de Jour.
His early stuff — like most in the movement's first stages — is comprised of nothing other than Surrealism's unconscious imagery and suspension of logical threads. He then started making social/political satire films complimented with varied measurements of absurdist and Surrealist ideas. But then there's Belle de Jour — a more modern, metaphysical drama film for the bulk of it's runtime, with brief, but impactful Surrealist flourishes (the finale being one of the more blatant).
As I mentioned before, this kind of progression where the works of a particular artistic movement transform from being generally concentrated to generally fragmented overtime can be observed in most movements of the early 20th century. The pace at which it happens varies too — look no further than the rapid changes in Modernist literature over just 2 or 3 decades, from the likes of Woolf, Joyce, and Eliot; to the stuff by filks like Beckett and Dos Passos. (It's also no coincidence that this also serves as a literal example of fragmentation that you can physical observe in the structure and form of their writing.) Though that also doesn't mean that there aren't still filmmakers/artists who create work that primarily or totally consists of Surrealist ideas — they're just in the minority now.
But, again, the way movements like Surrealism start with grounded ideas and change into what basically amounts to stylistic tools for artists outside of the movement to use as they see fit, does not make Surrealism a subjective idea to be determined at the whim of the viewer. A concept being abstracted isn't the same as it being subjective. There's been dozens of different off-shoots, iterations, and applications of Marxism over the past 100+ years — but if Mike Bloomberg suddenly started proclaiming he's a Marxist because he subjectively sees himself as such, doesn't magically make it true.
Like most other art/lit movements developed in the late-19th and 20th centuries, Surrealism has no immediate "checklist" — most major Surrealists have their own discernible aesthetic brand — but a slightly abstracted definition doesn't mean the term is subjective. Much like Modernism (or even more grounded, earlier movements like Romanticism), Surrealism started with a limited number of formal suggestions and grew from there. Those suggestions are still the markers of the movement and allows us to discern between what qualifies.
Another issue is the tendency for people to approach artistic movements with an "all or nothing" perspective — where a work is judged only in its entirety to decide if it belongs to a movement. The reality is that fragmentation over many decades has allowed artists to apply Surrealist ideas in small portions or moments of a work that's otherwise devoid of them. We're no longer in the movement's early years where Surrealism regularly saturates entire films, paintings, and writings (e.g., the immediate images people think of when they hear the names like "Dali" or "de Chirico").
A perfect example of the movement's fragmentation is the between Bunuel's early films (e.g., "L'Age d'Or" and "Un Chien Andalou"), the steady addition of satire and absurdism that came in works afterwords, and then films like Belle de Jour.
His early stuff — like most in the movement's first stages — is comprised of nothing other than Surrealism's unconscious imagery and suspension of logical threads. He then started making social/political satire films complimented with varied measurements of absurdist and Surrealist ideas. But then there's Belle de Jour — a more modern, metaphysical drama film for the bulk of it's runtime, with brief, but impactful Surrealist flourishes (the finale being one of the more blatant).
As I mentioned before, this kind of progression where the works of a particular artistic movement transform from being generally concentrated to generally fragmented overtime can be observed in most movements of the early 20th century. The pace at which it happens varies too — look no further than the rapid changes in Modernist literature over just 2 or 3 decades, from the likes of Woolf, Joyce, and Eliot; to the stuff by filks like Beckett and Dos Passos. (It's also no coincidence that this also serves as a literal example of fragmentation that you can physical observe in the structure and form of their writing.) Though that also doesn't mean that there aren't still filmmakers/artists who create work that primarily or totally consists of Surrealist ideas — they're just in the minority now.
But, again, the way movements like Surrealism start with grounded ideas and change into what basically amounts to stylistic tools for artists outside of the movement to use as they see fit, does not make Surrealism a subjective idea to be determined at the whim of the viewer. A concept being abstracted isn't the same as it being subjective. There's been dozens of different off-shoots, iterations, and applications of Marxism over the past 100+ years — but if Mike Bloomberg suddenly started proclaiming he's a Marxist because he subjectively sees himself as such, doesn't magically make it true.
Well yeah the perfect health was a dream but here is what I don't understand. Her husband was paralyzed from a series of events that were caused by her working at the brothel. But if you say that her working there was just her dream, then how was he paralyzed if the series of events resulted from something that was just her dream?
Moreover, if it were indeed so neatly divided that way, then the film's Surrealist merit would be voided because it draws an undisputed logical thread through the film.
Last edited by modelshop; 03-20-20 at 04:24 PM.
Surrealism isn't a subjective label. It's kind of disheartening to see this thread flooded with replies saying that ...
I mean, he said "disheartening," he didn't insult anyone (or single anyone out), so I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Can you think of a much subtler, more polite way to disagree with something?
That said, I think there's a meaningful discussion to be had about what "subjective" means about things that are sufficiently abstracted, and whether "functional subjectivity" is a thing, since what exists in the abstract and what we can meaningfully codify aren't quite the same thing. Obviously we have to apply a subjective interpretation to even a firm definition, let alone an abstracted one, so it's tricky.
I'll agree, preemptively, and just to head off any misunderstanding, that it's not really helpful when people say something is "subjective" as a blanket term that actually means "so nobody's really right or wrong about this." But there's a more thoughtful application of the word that still allows statements to be correct or incorrect, without downplaying how unempirical or unclear this stuff can be.
That said, I think there's a meaningful discussion to be had about what "subjective" means about things that are sufficiently abstracted, and whether "functional subjectivity" is a thing, since what exists in the abstract and what we can meaningfully codify aren't quite the same thing. Obviously we have to apply a subjective interpretation to even a firm definition, let alone an abstracted one, so it's tricky.
I'll agree, preemptively, and just to head off any misunderstanding, that it's not really helpful when people say something is "subjective" as a blanket term that actually means "so nobody's really right or wrong about this." But there's a more thoughtful application of the word that still allows statements to be correct or incorrect, without downplaying how unempirical or unclear this stuff can be.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
...to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time.
Yeah, it's tricky.
Edit: cuz you edited it!! Now it doesn't work!! Or did I just not scroll far enough first?
Yeah, it's tricky.
Edit: cuz you edited it!! Now it doesn't work!! Or did I just not scroll far enough first?
X
Favorite Movies
But if the brothel was all in her head and didn't happen, that means that her husband was shot and paralyzed by someone who only existed in her head. So how can a man be shot by someone who isn't real then? Isn't that stretching the suspension of disbelief quite thin?
I mean, he said "disheartening," he didn't insult anyone (or single anyone out), so I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Can you think of a much subtler, more polite way to disagree with something?
British sardonic sense of humor.
One of the posters on the forum told me to “FO” last week (even though swearing is not allowed according to the Rules), but you didn’t tell him to be polite.
I’m done with this thread.
Oof, where did I say he insulted anyone?
British sardonic sense of humor.
One of the posters on the forum told me to “FO” last week (even though swearing is not allowed according to the Rules), but you didn’t tell him to be polite.
That said, I didn't remove your post, or imply you couldn't post it. It's well within the rules! I simply replied with my own personal opinion that there was nothing rude about what this person said. They found a polite, non-specific way to disagree with an idea. That's what I'm usually asking people to do!
X
Favorite Movies
X