;

L'Age d'Or

1930 [FRENCH]

Action / Comedy / Drama

6
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 89% · 27 reviews
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 81% · 5K ratings
IMDb Rating 7.2/10 10 15332 15.3K

Plot summary

The film consists of a series of tightly interlinked vignettes, the most sustained of which details the story of a man and a woman who are passionately in love. Their attempts to consummate their passion are constantly thwarted, by their families, by the Church and bourgeois society in general.

Director

Top cast

Luis Buñuel as (uncredited)
Jacques B. Brunius as Passer-by in the Street
Gaston Modot as The Man
Jacques Prévert as Passer-by in the Street
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
574.29 MB
848*720
French 2.0
NR
us  
23.976 fps
1 hr 2 min
Seeds ...
1.04 GB
1264*1072
French 2.0
NR
us  
23.976 fps
1 hr 2 min
Seeds 9

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by zetes 7 / 10

Hey, a Buñuel film that I actually like!

Written on August 30th, upon my first viewing: I'm not saying that I love it, though. It's infinitely more watchable than the other two Buñuel "masterpieces" that I've seen, the execrably boring The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeosie and the somewhat lame Belle de Jour. I have been told time and time again to go back to his early stuff, that I'd be much more likely to enjoy those films. And those who pushed me were right. Of course, when I sat down to watch it, I didn't have the highest hopes. Immediately, I began to nitpick. "What is that supposed to mean?!?!" "What the heck is going on!?!?" My favorite three letters became, throughout the first half hour of this film, WT&F. But, as much as its narrative (or anti-narrative) was annoying me, its technical aspects were very much delighting me. The cinematography is quite good, the editing is fabulous and unique, and the use of sound is simply fantastic. Eventually, I just decided that the narrative wasn't supposed to make much sense and that Buñuel's purpose was anything but a storyteller. He was after the absurdist image and the absurdist mood. After that, I had a lot more fun and enjoyed it quite a bit. All good film watchers have to eventually train themselves away from depending on narrative. I'd still not call it a masterpiece, or even a great film, but it was very interesting and quite entertaining. I give it an 8/10. However, I do plan to rewatch it, since it is short and I do have it for another four days. Perhaps, now that I can watch it entirely prepared from the very beginning, I will raise that score.Upon watching it the next day: Nope, sorry. I didn't get anything new the second time 'round. I still liked it as much, which is a huge compliment, but I certainly didn't like it more.
Reviewed by

Reviewed by FilmSnobby 8 / 10

Startling; hilarious; still a minor masterwork.

Hats off, definitely, to Kino Video, for not caring less about the bottom line and releasing *L'Age d'Or* on DVD for the cineaste's consumption. (The picture still looks awful, but I doubt it would've looked much better even if Criterion had bothered with it -- this movie, after all, was nearly destroyed forever in 1930!) The above-mentioned cineastes and other devotees of Luis Bunuel will, of course, snap this DVD up; but what can *L'Age d'Or* offer to the merely curious or to those who are willing to broaden their cultural intake? Hilarity, primarily: the movie, almost incredibly, still generates at least a half-dozen belly laughs by presenting vignettes that are sublimely absurd and bracingly offensive. Bunuel and Salvador Dali take their Surrealist picks and shovels and dig into the audience's nasty, wiping-boogers-on-the-walls subconsciousness in a manner that has hardly been imitated, let alone bettered. (Well, Ken Russell tried it, but his movies are boorish.) *L'Age d'Or* doesn't tell a story so much as it blasts the trendy Fascism in Europe at the time it was made. At the outset, we have to endure Bunuel's obligatory fascination with bugs -- in this particular case, scorpions, which serve as a convenient symbol for human beings yadda yadda yadda. But the movie really gets going when artist Max Ernst leads a derelict platoon of warriors straight out of Sir John Falstaff's army on a mission to wipe out a bunch of bishops. Cinema has rarely shown futility and sheer tiredness in such a funny way.

But, as you'd might expect from a pair of demented Surrealists, the movie veers off toward a whole series of non sequiturs. *L'Age d'Or* eventually decides to be about repressed sexuality: we're introduced to a pair of lust-maddened lovers, writhing and drooling all over each other in the dust during some sort of civic ceremony purporting to open a new "golden age". The police and other good "bourgeoisie" separate the horny pair: the Man (Gaston Modot, who film snobs will recognize as the jealous gamekeeper in Renoir's *Rules of the Game*) gets dragged off to modern-day Rome, but he easily eludes his captors and winds up at a fancy party of a decadent Duke who happens to be the father of the object of his lust. He reunites with the Woman, but not before slapping the hell out of her mother, who has made the unforgivable mistake of accidentally spilling some liqueur on his coat sleeve. . . .

Look -- one can't "summarize the plot" of this madness; one can only mention his or her favorite moments. My personal favorite: when a father blows his own annoying kid away with a hunting rifle. Then, after the kid's obviously dead, he shoots the poor little bugger again, and the force of the bullet shoves the body out of the camera's frame. What can I say -- I find this sort of thing funny. Most will not, undoubtedly. But I think everyone can appreciate the fevered eroticism on display when the Man and the Woman reunite in the Duke's garden. When they're not sucking on each other's fingers (jamming their hands into each other's mouths as if their mouths were jelly jars), they're sucking on the toes of an expressionless marble statue (the Bunuelian obsession with feet was life-long). This is all weird and funny, but it does tie in with Bunuel's original point, which is that we're as driven by appetites as your average scorpion. Fidelity is something we force on ourselves. Bunuel and Dali, playing with symbols, are free to make their characters free of constraint.

Despite the anything-goes ethos of the film, it's still hard for modern audiences to understand why it caused such a stir 75 years ago. The images are startling, discreetly pornographic even, but hardly beyond the pale. But the movie was banned within weeks, and Bunuel was virtually exiled to Mexico in the aftermath. (Dali, a cunning survivor, disavowed the film soon after its release.) Can it be that Bunuel and Dali brought all this trouble on themselves simply by making fun of rich people and bourgeois conventions? The answer is apparently Yes. No doubt, the cretins who run the current government in the United States would've empathized with those long-ago Fascist arbiters of good taste who attempted to destroy this movie forever. After all, who's richer or more bourgeois than the Bush Administration?

Yeah -- as long as religious hypocrites exist, there shall always be a place for Bunuel's *L'Age d'Or*, all right. 8 stars out of 10.

Read more IMDb reviews

2 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment