Discuss the role of symbolism in Un Chien andalou.

Authors Avatar

PAPER 12/13:          THE POETICS AND POLITICS OF SURREALISM                     ESSAY 5

Discuss the role of symbolism in Un Chien andalou.

Jean Goudal writing in 1925 expressed the view that the cinematic experience (medium, message and location) was the ‘ideal means for the realization of surreality, of the marvellous’ stressing its potential for the recreation of dream:

‘The cinema [….] constitutes a conscious hallucination, and utilizes this fusion of dream and consciousness which Surrealism would like to see realized in the literary domain  [....].  They should lose no time in imbuing their productions with the three essential characteristics of dream; the visual, the illogical, the pervasive.’

It was another four years before Salvador Dalí and Luis Buñuel worked together on Un Chien andalou (1929), a short (seventeen minutes) silent film, that is considered by critics (e.g. Rudolf Kuenzli) to be one of only two or three truly Surrealist films produced (along with L’Age d’or (1930) and possibly Man Ray’s L’etoile de mer (1928) or Antonin Artaud’s and Germaine Dulac’s La Coquille et le clergyman (1928).)  The genesis of the film can be found in Dalí’s writings in the Catalan avant-garde literary review L’Amic de les Arts, specifically La fotografia, pura creació de l’esperit (September 1927) and Film-arte, fil antiartístico (December 1927), the latter dedicated to his student-friend Buñuel.  Dalí emphasized that film could create visual images not available to painting, provoking a new way of seeing (‘to look is to invent’), and offering a medium for the recording and mediation (via the ‘intervention’ of director-producer) of objective reality.  Buñuel was already active in the cinematic field, working as Jean Epstein’s assistant on The Fall of the House of Usher, and sharing Dalí’s admiration for the American cinema, particularly the montage techniques of Buster Keaton.

In the winter of 1928-29, at Cadaqué and Figueras, Dalí and Buñuel collaborated (the extent of their respective contribution is still debated) on the script of Un Chien andalou, before returning to Paris and Le Havre where the film was shot in only six days.  Despite Buñuel’s claim that ‘NOTHING, in the film… SYMBOLIZES ANYTHING’ modern film and media critics have developed a panoply of analytical techniques to ascertain it’s ‘hidden’ meaning.  Buñuel acknowledged that ‘The only method of investigation of the symbols would be perhaps, psycho-analysis’ and this most obvious technique is considered in the latter part of this essay.  Before this two alternative approaches are discussed; the first has its origins in the structural linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and its adaptation to film imagery by Christian Metz as outlined by Linda Willams (an ironic appropriation given Un Chien andalou’s ‘contested collaboration’ and the poststructuralist view on the ‘death of the author’), the second adopts a ‘tongue in cheek’ (literally) approach suggesting that symbolism in this silent film is contained in the ‘gestures, images or indeed entire sequences [that] were created by finding visual forms for verbal expressions’.  The discussion concludes with some brief thoughts on the merits of structural linguistics and verbal expression as constructs for evaluating the symbolism of a ‘silent’ (in speech terms) yet ‘flowing’ (in diegetic terms) visual image.

From its opening scene of a man (played by Buñuel) using a razor to slit open the eye of a girl, to it’s grotesque denouement of eyeless corpses half buried in the sand, Un Chien andalou uses dislocations and disruptions of time and space (achieved by a rapid ‘montaging’ technique) to parody the continuous narrative, and ‘romantic’ style, of contemporary classical Hollywood cinema. Bizarre shifts in presence, perspective and location elicit no surprise from the protagonists, the conventions of montage are used to subvert traditional filmic continuity, and even the screen text is an illusory guide to the narrative’s continuity. This parody, and comic intent, extends to the deliberate use of melodramatic physiognomic expression (e.g. rolling eyes, passionate kisses) and physical action (the ‘sexual’ pursuit around the room echoes the chases so prevalent in Hollywood movies).  In parallel with this revolutionary parodying of bourgeois capitalism and its cinematic manifestation, Dalí and Buñuel were also intent on pursuing a more subtle attack on the passive (‘entrapped’) film audience.  By disorientation, the production of marvellous effects through juxtaposition, montage and distortion, and the disruption of time and place, they hoped to destroy the symbolic order of traditional film and break open the unconscious drives and obsessions of the passive spectator.

Join now!

In this context their use of symbols or ‘figures’ as Linda Williams prefers to call them assumes critical importance.  The combination of literary elements  (a written script, on screen ‘texts’ and overt poetic imagery) and the predetermined narrative ‘flow’, in a more or less contiguous manner, of visual images encourages the application of linguistic theory as an analytical tool.  Appropriating the terminology of the deconstruction of language: figures (of speech), figuration, rhetoric, discourse, metaphor, metonymy, paradigm and syntagm, this approach constructs a theoretical discourse, albeit retrospectively and without the active participation or conscious knowledge of the ‘authors’, for Un ...

This is a preview of the whole essay