A few nights ago, in the grip of a delirious film and oppressed by dark yet pleasant solitude, I was fired in rapid succession, "The Discreet Charm of the bourgeoisie" and "Rosemary's Baby."
To the first I could not even know what to say. Film immense in its elegant simplicity. Film that deserves and needs definitely more of a vision. Certainly at first glance, you are amazed by the individual scenes, rather than by 'together. And by the visionary and visual Bunuel. It certainly has the ironic contrast between the ever-present pedantic manners of these gentlemen right-thinking people, and their trafficking cocaine, their betrayals, their sexuality ill. Sure
Bunuel speaks of a middle class that now has almost disappeared. In a world where almost everyone is middle class, almost no one is more in that direction. Let's say we also lost the good manners and veiled hypocrisy of that class, often remains unchanged vices. As if to say, no one would say more "Well, you just should not be seen as drinking a Dry Martini" ... but maybe we are all a bit 'more peasants. It 's strange that my reading is exactly the' opposite of that of Bunuel, but he has not had time to see the bourgeoisie to come.
strange juxtaposition, after "The charm ..." that of "Rosemary's baby", but maybe not so much. The film may have two interpretations. In fact, we do three. The first is that of 'great horror-thriller, almost investigation, I think. In addition to that of 'very good film as a cinematic technique and acting (Mia Farrow and John Cassavetes, mica Boldi & De Sica!). The second is certainly that of 'investigation into motherhood. Rosemary desperately wants her baby (who is uncertain about sex com, call "Sarah-or-Andy"), is ready to run away even from her husband who believes in cahoots with the congregation to rescue him. But in fact her child did not want to hurt the contrary, they want to worship with his son is the devil. And when she discovers the 'bitter truth will be her maternal instinct to prevail, rather than his Catholic upbringing ("I'm not asking to share our faith, but to be the mother of your child," says the head of the congregation).
C 'is then the third interpretation. The film of '68. And I asked myself: but with everything that happened in '68, Polanski, had no history of racconatare this? Perhaps a kind of refuge from the great social reality so tense at that time? Then I noticed that in the film, the congregation is composed of elderly gentlemen, distinguished, middle-class. Who do nothing but make the sock, the table as they should, offer sweets and tea. No freaks, no youths: a band of elderly respectable with the 'devil's hobby. So, I think, here it is the most hidden message of the film: Roman Polanski wanted to indicate how it was really bad, then, and who he really was.
Certainly it is ironic to note that he then had to find, especially at the expense of its poor Sharon Tate, sometimes the evil has also 'look like a freak with long hair and wild eyes. But that's another story ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment