One of Luis Bunuel's most free-form and purely Surrealist films, consisting of a series of only vaguely related episodes - most famously, the dinner party scene where people sit on lavatories round a dinner table on, occasionally retiring to a little room to eat.Luis Bunuel said, "Chance governs all things; necessity, which is far from having the same purity, comes only later. If I have a soft spot for any one of my movies, it would be for The Phantom of Liberty, because it tries to work out just this theme." I know I am in the minority, but I do not quite see the appeal of Bunuel's later films. I love his early work, such as "Age d'Or" and "un Chien Andalou", but the later more political films... I do not necessary appreciate them. This one and its partner, "Discreet Charm", I just cannot identify with... maybe a second viewing?

This movie had me deeply questioning society and what we believe to be our social norms. Luis Buñuel did a fantastic job of asking very controversial questions. Why do we do the things that we do? What in our culture makes us believe that one thing is right and normal, while the other is barbaric? And in a completely different culture it could be just the opposite. We formulate opinions and judge circumstances based on where we grew up, our race, our family values, our education-but what made those judgments and opinions right or justifiable? Who decided one day that this is the way it's going to be? For example why is it considered heinous to discuss normal bodily functions? Why in our society today do we believe that a woman having more than one partner makes her promiscuous, but a man having more than partner is completely normal? The moment our conscious mind becomes aware, our brains our completely bombarded with the ideas, opinions, and thoughts of the society we are surrounded with. We begin to form our moral guidelines based on what is believed to be our 'social norms', when really these norms are just a perception of human reality. There is actually no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong'. We make up what we believe to be right or wrong based on how we where raised and what affected us through out our lives. And every culture has completely different views on what is considered socially acceptable or not, which proves that it's all perception of the mind. These thoughts and ideas where implemented many years ago and carried on throughout history, changing with time and new generations but still having remnants of the past. Buñuel captured this concept incredibly in this film, weaving through each story and shocking his audience into asking themselves these very questions. He wanted to show us that society is what we created it to be, the rules the norms, all of it is just what we perceive to be acceptable or not. My favorite example of this in the movie was the Dinner Scene. They are all upper class, civilized and seemingly respectable members of society, casually enjoying reliving themselves all together. When the daughter asks to eat food, and the mother hushes her saying she shouldn't speak like that at the table, it made me really think. Buñuel makes a strong point with this scene. What if it had been the other way around? What if we thought eating should be done in private, and reliving ourselves should be the social event. It's all what we make of it, and that's why I truly enjoyed this movie. It made me question what we recognize to be civil and barbaric, and why we believe it to be so.

The tableaux of the serial killing poet is incredibly disturbing, especially in the times that we live in today where mass shootings have become a bi-weekly ordeal. The serial killer has absolute power to use his sniper rifle and shoot whoever he pleases in the unsuspecting community below. Bunuel seems to be using him as a metaphor for questioning the inevitability of human nature. Yes, we all want freedom. However, too much freedom might lead us to the same path of corruption, power struggle and oppression. Without some sort of set of rules, morals, and ethics, what kind of human being would emerge? Are we sure that we are inherently good? Where would 'absolute freedom' lead us to, as an individual and a society? These questions reveal a terrifying answer for me. I thought about what the world would be like if there were no consequences. That is what we mean by absolute freedom, right? We are free to do as we please with no restrictions from another individual or group. There are no laws or institutions telling me what is legal and illegal, what will be shown on my credit report, or what I have to inform my prospective employer. If there were no consequences, what would my actions be? Are my actions because in result of social conventions and legalities or because of my own inherent ethical and moral code? If I were absolutely free, would I be the dutiful citizen briskly crossing the street inside the lines of a crosswalk to get to work on time or would I be the rebellious poet taking advantage of my freedom and doing as I please? Am I compliant out of fear of consequence (legally and socially) or are my choices organic and thus meaning I am inherently good? The answer is impossible to know. I cannot imagine a world without social conventions, rules, expectations, consequences, and morality. I would like to think of myself as a good person, but I also know there have been plenty of times when I have wanted to cheat the system, and would do so if I wouldn't get caught (getting out of jury duty for example). The latter is troublesome for me. If the inclination is there, what makes me think it is not possible for me to end up just like the serial killer if there was such a world of 'Absolute Freedom'? In several tableaux, I found judgment and/or objectivity to be a common theme. I often watch a film with too many pretenses or form opinions before I ever know the context. It is a quality I am not proud of and am working on improving. However, with 'Phantom of Liberty', Bunuel refuses the viewer the opportunity to judge. He forces you to have an open mind and thus accept the world he has created.He does this in many ways. For one, the way he tells the story is, at first, very jarring, perplexing, and borderline frustrating. We are accustomed to following a protagonist and/or an antagonist with whom we as an audience are allotted an entire hour and a half to critique, over-analyze, and connect or disconnect with. Yet Bunuel gives us exactly the opposite. Each tableaux brings a fresh new group of characters and setting in which we have no previous relationship with. We are not allowed to create relationships with these characters - there is no time to! Thus, we are forced to watch objectively and with this objectivity we can interpret Bunuel's message.The surrealistic elements he ads to scenes seemed to be another effort to force me to open my eyes and see outside the box. For example, the husband who we assume is dreaming about an ostrich in his room, only later to realize it is real. In the hotel, the monks playing poker, the Spanish couple dancing, and the businessman in ass-less chaps. Once I accepted these plausibilities, I was free to explore what Bunuel was trying to say.Bunuel even dedicates an entire tableaux to the idea of judgment with the scene of the dinner party in which the family defecates at the table and eats in the bathroom. Had Bunuel not already established in the previous stories that he was taking me for a ride and I have to think outside of what I am used to, I would have missed the entire point. I would have assumed this scene at face value was simply a parody. Luckily, Bunuel had well-equipped me for this scene (I was already watching objectively) and I was ready to accept it and find its deeper meaning.

Imagine a world where all the rules of social conduct were flip flopped and then thrown out the window. A world in which murderers are hailed as celebrities. A world where age is nothing but a number and 'aunt' is nothing but a title. One in which it's perceivable to be woken up by an ostrich and to have your mailman deliver your mail straight to your bed. A world in which monks drink alcohol and police officers behave like school children. A world in which parents act as if their children are invisible and people sit around a table to talk about defecation. Is this starting to sound familiar? Luis Bunuel gives us a peek at what absolute freedom looks like and it is incredibly too similar to our own world. Killers become household names and movies are made about their lives while their innocent victims remain nameless and faceless. Hugh Hefner is an idol to men all over the world because he is constantly surrounded by women young enough to be his great grandchildren. Incest is all too common in many countries around the world, something the professor at the police academy tried to explain. Sexual taboos are so prevalent that there are entire websites and organizations dedicated to them. Religious figures breaking boundaries are not something unheard of, neither is the concept of police officers acting childish and petty. Also, parents have been ignoring their children since the beginning of time. A phantom of liberty provides a little window for all to look through and see what absolute freedom looks like and its repercussions. It explores taboos and subjects that people are generally uncomfortable about. It addresses concepts and actions that one culture may praise while another may call barbaric. Because of Bunuel's background and what was going on in Spain at the time, he became obsessed with the concept of freedom. That's why freedom is such a prevalent theme in this movie. This movie really makes you take a good look at the world around you. It's a visual form of satire.