Luis Buñuel: The Progression Of Classical Cinema

Classical cinema is defined by what we all know and love about the contemporary films produced by Hollywood today. It is conversant with audiences because they are able to identify and expect its traits. The narrative form influences every part of filmic representation; its linear nature must propel its action through “psychologically defined, goal orientated characters” that undergo a “chain of events in a cause-effect relationship occurring in time and space.” (Bordwell, 2008)

The foundation of the system of creating these classical structures relies on a passive audience who can be easily manipulated into the narrative, through the identification of its main characters, and their perils, which they are ultimately familiar with, and are

Buñuel diverted from this typical ‘pleasurable’ progression of classical cinema throughout his entire career. The Spanish director “was a singular figure in world cinema, and a consecrated auteur from the start.”(Russell, 2005) His narrative experimentation was consistently ahead of its time with his films resonating with audiences due to their provocative nature and rebellion against the stylistic and narrative conventions of classical cinema, which were cemented into the normality of society. Born into the foundation of cinema itself; “his work moves from surrealist experimentation in the 1920s, through commercial comedies and melodrama in the 1950s, to postmodernist cine d’art in the 1960s and ’70s.” (Russell,

It was described as "the most famous short film ever made" by critic Roger Ebert. (Ebert, 2000) The films purpose was not merely to explore the visions of two artistic individuals, but moreover, it was a comment based on social and historical context, which it aimed to sabotage through mockery and subversion. Buñuel himself stated that “our only rule was very simple: no idea or image that might lend itself to a rational explanation of any kind would be accepted.” (Buñuel,