Review of Un Chien Andalou (1929) by Pale H — 13 Aug 2016

EAPP11_REV2016.

Ado Kyrou : "For the first time in the history of the cinema, a director tries not to please but rather to alienate nearly all potential spectators.".

Although this statement of Ado Kyrou about Un Chien Andalou speaks the truth, the film still possesses an enchanting feeling that draws the viewers despite its rejection. As if a child yearning for the love and attention of a far away parent, it makes you desire. It is haunting despite it having no meaning but maybe the reason it is haunting is that it has no meaning. It is one that attaches itself to you; each clip vivid to your mind even before sleep.

"No idea or image that might lend itself to a rational explanation of any kind would be accepted" This was the anthem used in developing this masterpiece, Un Chien Andalou. It stays true to this anthem to the point where a lot of theories were made applying Freudian,Marxist, and Jungian yet those would only ever be theories. Words are not meant to describe this film. It is simply shocking and surprising shots one after the other yet it is in our instinct that it is more than that; that there are words able to describe such a piece. We desperately interconnect the people and the events that occurred in this film for it is in our nature to link ideas and because of this nature, such theories arose which only made Bunuel laugh. This simply reminds the audience that sometimes, events were never meant to have a purpose or meaning viable to that of our understanding. It was simply made to happen and no such words could describe it. Truly, this film opens the eyes of the viewers in their habit of using words to appreciate beauty rather than simply appreciating what is in front of them. They depend on words and symbols rather than simply using their eyes. We have forgotten that words are limited to humankind, it could never transcend intangible concepts such as beauty. With this said, the audience need not dissect this film with words and explanations, they simply need to watch it and that would be plenty.

Despite all of what has been said; despite its purposelessness and rejection towards society of that time, it continues to exist within the minds of humans living in the present. The present of the directors are now long gone but their legacy through this film is alive. The film was never to please or entertain but modern society has accepted and learned its techniques, studied its aesthetics, and greatly appreciated its beauty. It was the avant-garde of their time, an innovation, yet now it is the norm. This acceptance to the surrealists' techniques and films, as said by Roger Ebert, is proof that the surrealists' revolution succeded and had been built as foundation in modern films. Their purpose which was to convey the dispensable traditional manner in art and that conventional mannerisms are what makes art captivating to the audience and artist.