Un Chien Andalou - An Argument In 3 Sittings

Since it first came out in 1929 in Parisian theatres, Un chien andalou has baffled and set minds thinking as to what the film is about. Bunuel came out saying that the film has no meaning at all but concedes that some Freudian analysis might be useful in deciphering what the film is about. But as we see during the 16 minute film is a set up of standard storytelling devices in film and the wilfull, almost carefree, abandoning of these devices to create something that is wholly disorientating and perplexing.

As an audience, we see the film through our eyes and as the film begins we see a man sharpening a blade, as he goes out onto the landing and watch the moon being split in half by a cloud. By then, we cut to another scene in the film where a woman is sat down on a chair and which her eye is cut by the very same blade with which the man was sharpening. This scene not only shocks the viewer, but provides questions about our sight that we may find difficult in explaining a coherent answer. As such, we have to see this film through a different perspective and not by any conventional standards with which we condition ourselves when watching any film. What really confuses the viewer on first viewing and perhaps several repeated viewings is the soundtrack. Centred around Richard Wagner's Tristan and Isolde along with a traditional tango called Ole Guapa, we hear a very jaunty, almost happy sounding soundtrack which contrasts violently with what we see developing as the film continues. Soundtracks are meant to condition the viewer into a particular mood for a particular scene. However, with the use of Wagner's score of Tristan and Isolde, the viewer is thrown off guard and disorientated further from what they are seeing and to what they are hearing. The film thrives on this disconnection between the two throughout and renders it a disconcerting experience. The inter-title cards only help confuse matters more in the set up of the film. As we see the young man and his doppelganger fight it out and as books turn to guns, one can almost think that they are saying that words are as deadly as guns if this were meant to achieve any sort of traditional meaning, there is a brief pause to introduce the inter-title that says "16 years earlier" and resumes the scene as it was before.

Even after countless rewatchings it still confuses, amuses and bemuses. As the credits roll you know get yourself ready. The inter-title cards come up and certain intervals that guide you along somewhat haphazardly from this 16 minute film. What comes next still has the power to baffle and contain almost no rational logic which can be explained in a manner that will entice any sort of discussion. Bunuel was against all rational thinking and has said as much with the way he wanted to film this. No two scenes could be shot where there could be a hint of a logical interpretation between them.

Psychoanalysis has been used to interpret a meaning for this film but one can't help but feel that such a tactic is ultimately futile. It was a film that set to defy meaning, to defy logic yet, as is always the case, we intrinsically set out to give something meaning, using logic, psychoanalysis and/or whatever means possible in a bid to better understand something, be it a film, everyday life, the world in general etc. We cannot live without meaning. If we were to accept that something has no meaning, everything would collapse into pointlessness. If something is not easy to define, it becomes a challenge and challenges are often seen as something healthy.

But at what point should we sit back and say to ourselves that this is getting us nowhere. Sure it gives us something to do. You listen to the commentary on the DVD and as the commentator dismisses the talk of dream logic as being "ultimately reducive," one can't help but feel this is just the thoughts of one person alone. While the commentator proceeds to think of this in terms of male sexuality and the "baggage" ( with regards to the scene where he carries two pianos, dead calves and the monks ) that that brings, you cannot help but feel that that analysis, while valid, somewhat destroys the whole concept of the film. You could be forgiven for thinking that the commentator on the DVD had only one thing on his mind.

Ultimately this comes down to the viewer and what we want from a film. And do we sit back and let the images wash over us without rhyme or reason or do we actively investigate everything that is within the frame? How do we for example interpret a scene where a man's mouth disappears only to be replaced by the woman's armpit hair? What significance does this scene have? What sort of context should we put this under? In the next scene she goes out to the seaside whereas they were living in a big city apartment. If we are to bring psychoanalysis into this, what would those two scenes tell us? We could read something into it but there are little things in this film that just don't add up. But that's the point. This film is not supposed to make sense.

What gives the film the ultimate twist is that the end comes rather suddenly. We've been led through these myriad of images that baffle and disturb in equal measure and yet as the woman goes out the door into the seaside to be with a man she's in love with, they stroll along the beach and then the inter-titles come up "Au printemps" or "In Springtime" and up pops an idyllic postcard painting of the two people almost as if they were young, carefree lovers. And that's it! That wraps the film up without any real warning and as such caps off a memorably bizarre 16 minutes which teases and disturbs the viewer in equal measure.

Its influence is widespread in the context of cinema as it has provided a different outlet for potential filmmakers because it shows that images that are portrayed on the silver screen do not have to make any particular sense, they don't have to worry about any kind of linear coherence with regards to storyline and plot development. Therefore it is essential to understanding the concepts of cinema but nevertheless, it is not something with which we gain any meaning other than to say that films do not have to make linear sense. First and foremost, films are there not to explain things to us but to dazzle us and leave us spellbound. If we seek explanations then what this film and many films have done is to spark a debate.

Bunuel has been quoted as saying "All my life I've been harassed by questions: Why is something this way and not another? How do you account for that? This rage to understand, to fill in the blanks, only makes life more banal." In a sense that neatly sums up the viewing experience that is Un Chien Andalou. We are constantly questioning the scenes that make up this film and are frustrated that it never yields any answers with which we can be satisfied with. We always attempt to deconstruct what we cannot understand into something we can understand in so doing, destroying any elements of mystery. If we are frustrated that we cannot get an answer with which everything would make perfect sense, equally for Bunuel, to be asked these questions is just as frustrating.

Un chien andalou is a film that will always provoke people into searching for a meaning, even if such trivialities itself are banal to Bunuel himself. To the director, this constant quest for meaning and understanding every single detail does more harm than good as if we were to accept the seemingly random events in life as in Un chien andalou itself then we "might be closer to the sort of happiness that comes with innocence." Whether this can be achieved while watching Un chien andalou is questionable as Bunuel himself has described the film as an "open passionate plea to murder," so it pays to take what Bunuel says with a pinch of salt. That said for all the constructions the film makes with the inter-titles and the soundtrack, the film wilfully destroys any notion of this and so renders any logical reading of this film purely an interpretive experience. All that is left for the viewer is to sit through the film and watch. We may not fully understand what goes on but to enjoy the spectacle. That's all there is to watching a film that will continually baffle it's viewers for years to come and has done so for the last 80 years.