"The Phantom of Liberty " by Luis Buñuel 1974

I ordered Luis Buñuel’s, “The Phantom of Liberty,” seven months ago. Somehow, Amazon lost my order. I welcomed the inconvenience and told myself, “when I check the film out, it will be the perfect time.” Mother Earth is so self-correcting. (dry humor)

Two days ago, while bopping through the library, guess what DVD I saw resting in plain sight?

And yes. The film was right on time. “The Phantom of Liberty,” explores different social norms that inhibit freedom. The film its self even challenges conventional filmmaking, breaking the rules of traditional storytelling.

The plot is held together by a series of episodes. Each story and character is joined by coincidence. And each character is confronted by the irrational.

It all appears to be nonsensical. But, for me, the events are much like the precarious nature of life. In the second episode, a stranger gives two little girls a hand full of pictures. And the viewer can only expect the worse.

With each story Buñuel explores every institution and norm that limits our liberties. From the church, court system, the school system and the business of hospitals, Buñuel displays the irrationality that affects us all.

And what’s interesting, the nonsensical events, such as the sadomasochism and incest in Buñuel’s film, may seem farfetched and unlikely—at first. However, how can one flee from the absurdity in our world today?

In an era where so many people are fighting for their liberties “The Phantom of Liberty,” would provide a humorous outer body experience. The wacky events in America would be commonplace in Buñuel’s imagination. Anthony Weiner’s case being a prime example.

The military men using a tank to hunt a fox in Buñuel film can parallel the U.S hunt for weapons of mass destruction. This list can go on for while.

Humorously, before watching the film, I engaged in a Facebook debate over the hot button issue of gay marriages. Like many discussions, this one got off topic. It eventually ended on legalizing drugs.

However, the interesting question that came about, “How can people become angry over gay marriages, but turn their backs to divorces, adultery, babies born out a wedlock and many other actions condemned in any holy book?

Personally, I often wonder how our institutions, Judeo-Christian beliefs, control and affect our lives based in the first place.

Our institutions strike again! But on a serious note, when will people learn? Norms change with time. The people who challenge norms, or showcase the absurdity in our lives will live, propagate their ideas, and die. However, with every spirit that does so, a society slowly builds an immunity to fear and ignorance.

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972)

The classic structure of exposition, climax and resolution is staple for storytelling; though when challenged with the abandonment of logic and reasoning, the viewer is in for interesting film. And "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie," is with out doubt no exception to this rule; it opens the door for the arbitrary, the contradictory, the outrageously offensive, and the controversial—everything that makes great satire. This satiric story teases the viewer, as if telling a joke and hording the punch line. With obvious exaggerations in the story, it's apparent the Director, Luis Bunuel, is providing a riddle that's almost impossible to crack.

Bunuel, a Spanish director,creates a world that has roots to surrealism: dialogue, is mysteriously shadowed by harsh sounds, and dream sequences begin with out warning—the events all bizarre and impossible in our reality make perfect sense to bourgeoisie in the film; their precarious life style of drug trafficking, sex, expensive cuisine and rubbing elbows with politicians is apart of being high class; a life style opening the door for contradiction.

The story follows a group of bourgeoisie and the their acquaintance Don Rafael Acosta, ambassador of the fictional country Miranda—which the story alludes is some where in South America. Rafael is a drug trafficker with a pesky assassin from Miranda on his tail. His coterie of high class makes the attempt to sit down for dinner, lunch and tea, yet their plans are foiled every time. And with every spoiled meeting, they seem become more acceptant of these odd disturbances.

Hilariously, this group of individuals, schooled in propriety, is anything but genuine and refined: the hostess for the gatherings decides to keep her guest waiting in order to have sex. Because of the long wait, her guests leave in fear of being raided by the police.

Being from a middle class background, I watched the ambiguity with a smile. Old clichés, over used yet rarely incorporated in daily life, come to mind: There’s two sides to every story, and everything that glitters isn't gold. The Bourgeoisie were very rich and very flawed. Oddly, every where on Earth, practices of the lower class are written off as inferior: sipping a martini as opposed to gulping it down takes precedence over tolerance and acceptance. And if viewed carefully, I feel Bunuel’s stretches his themes towards the U.S.

Rafael, an ambassador, candidly mentioning the arrest of a U.S Ambassador for drug trafficking was a red flag. A Cadillac, a tank in the streets of Paris, for me was another. I’ve watched this film twice, and I’m sure it will take a few more sittings to absorb as much from this film as I can. I honestly feel the bizarre elements in this form of expression are not to be wholly understood. And many other elements are strictly for the filmmaker’s personal satisfaction. I see this film as an invitation into some one’s worldview. Fortunately for Bunuel he was free from constraint, free from the usual shape and aesthetic viewers become accustomed to,ultimately,in the end,carving his imagination as he saw fit.