Surrealism: A League of its Own

Surrealist Film essentially imitates the production of dreams; based on my theory that dreams are a form of art that is limited to an audience of one, surrealist films create waking-dreams with an amplified audience. However, these films may not be accessible to all people because a dream is intended only for the creator; thus, people must take a different approach to these films. Because they are similar to dreams, they should be viewed like dreams. Just like dreams, some people just watch them because they are interesting, but others see them as deeper. For me personally, I believe that these films allow people to create their own meaning through the context of the film. They are too complex to have one meaning like most movies (though these movies might have many different interpretations, people usually have relatively similar interpretations on the meaning); therefore, people should ultilize watching these films as a time to fully express themselves through the art. The personal interpretations of surrealist films may not be logical to others because every person as there own unique line of logic and sense of emotion. From experience with my peers reactions to Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot, which contains comparable elements to surrealist cinematography, a number of people simply assert that the work is meaningless because they cannot conclude any clear meaning. Having read different interpretations on the work, I came across both Christian and atheist interpretations among others that represent opposite beliefs; they make at least some sense to me, therefore one must assume that they are both valid. This phobia, which many people possess of developing their own interpretation that is not completely accepted by the masses, is centered around many people's beliefs that there are one answer to problems.

Getting back to cinetography, one of the most popular surrealist films is Un Chien Andalou (1929) by Luis Buñuel which does not have a conventional sequence of plot. It is from the time period of the Surrealistic Movement during the 1920s and 1930s. One might argue that the short film does not have any intended meaning; however, simply because the director did not have an intended meaning (which may or may not be true), does not mean that the film does not take a meaning of its own. My interpretation of the short was that of the nature of men and women. Men seems to be portrayed as evil and abusive characters and the sole woman seems to be the victim of the men's brutality. The famous opening scene (if you haven't seen it, see below for the link) illustrates this. Another scene where a man is clothed in the garb of a nun reveals to me that some men desire to possess the qualities of women, but quickly crashes on his bike, then stripped of the nun outfit by another man, symbolizes the social pressures of manhood and showing how men are, in general, naturally different from women. However, there is a lot of parts of the film that do not seem to fit perfectly with this analysis. Well if you have not seen this short (it is only 16 minutes long), you may want to view it and develop your own opinion of it, though this is not required, you may just ignore what I just said and watch it simply for the aesthetics of it or as a study of the feelings of the people of the time period. I would be interested to hear what people have to think about the piece, especially to see who has the craziest interpretation, but I do not desire to hear the interpretation that it is worthless because that simply goes nowhere though it is a valid one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR9HLI88wVY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJnRU2imZi4&feature=related