Bouquet and Molina Conchitas each appear topless several times. There is a very brief full-frontal scene of Molina, although seen through a tinted glass.
Some nudity. Bare breasts and buttocks and in one scene pubic hair is shown.
If you have already seen Buñuel’s past film Belle de jour, you already might be used to the note of the sexual content, but this film is more explicit in comparison.

Mathieu prepares to have sex with Conchita. She takes off the top of her robe, revealing her bare breasts.
Mathieu attempts to rape Conchita when she changes her mind, and forcibly caresses different parts of her body while she resists. He then discovers she is wearing a strange cover on her bottom.
Conchita (now played by another actress) is shown fully nude in several scenes.


Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


A bourgeois widower over half a hundred fell in love with his maid, the young and beautiful konchita. Konchita flirted with him and ostensibly accepted the love of the rich man who could be her father at his age, but didn’t let him really get himself. They travel and live together, but so and so always wear a pair of chaste pants, which makes the rich man miserable. Her verbal reason is: “I love you. We hug and sleep together. Isn’t that good? Why do you have to have sex? Once you really get me, you won’t love me anymore.”

Nothing is more direct and less “hazy” than a middle-aged man’s desire for the body of a 17-year-old virgin! So what exactly does Bunuel’s dim desire mean? It may be said that the rich man’s desire is always unsatisfied and always meets an insurmountable wall at the last moment, so there is always a hazy distance from the result of desire. This is the most direct explanation. It has an insight into one of the most important characteristics of desire: desire is always stimulated most strongly through something infinite that is always difficult to reach. In addition, as the object of men’s desire, does kunchita itself have desire? Konchita’s intention in the film is ambiguous. Sometimes she is a female liar who plays with men’s feelings and swindles money. Sometimes she becomes a woman who has her own unique understanding of love. Therefore, she repeatedly tests her men and pursues some kind of pure love. Konchita’s inner psychological authenticity is more ambiguous because the story is told through the mouth of the rich. If she also has a certain desire, it is obvious that this desire is also quite hazy.

Besides, does the film express some desire of its creator Bunuel?

If the definition of kitsch is that the current situation of the world is the inevitable result of some kind of rationality. Bunuel is a master of anti kitsch. His films always try to expose all kinds of illusions of reality and subvert the common security scene to the audience. In the first scene of beauty in the daytime, a carriage carries a young couple slowly along a quiet forest path. The picture is quiet and beautiful, and the scenery is pleasant. This is a typical picture in romantic literature in the 19th century. When the audience followed this idea to establish imaginative identity, suddenly, without any bedding, the husband pulled his wife off the carriage, tied her to a tree on the side of the road, tore off her clothes and began to beat her with a whip. When the audience was shocked by his wife’s crying and wailing, his wife suddenly woke up from bed. It was like a dream. Bunuel is full of tricks to deceive the audience with the alternation of reality and dream, which seems to remind the audience that what you see is only an illusion, and everything is a fraud. The most famous example appears in the prudent charm of the bourgeoisie, in which six bourgeoisie come to a room for dinner. They talked happily and were glad to finally find a place to eat quietly. Suddenly, the curtain on one wall of the room opened and there was a burst of welcome applause. It turned out that they were on the stage in full view.

The dramatic effect is achieved through the “unconventional” Application of convention, which has appeared in early films. In Chaplin’s “immigration”, Charlie is abandoned by his wife due to drinking. He stands at a table with his back to the camera. On the table is a picture of his wife. His shoulders shrugged, and the audience naturally thought he was sobbing sadly, but suddenly he pretended that he was mixing cocktails.

What new ideas have been given to the common expression of this film in Bunuel’s hands?

In dim desire, Bunuel no longer completely dispels the current authenticity through sudden changes, but leaves all kinds of disharmonious stains in the conventional scenes. They are distributed throughout the film. Here are a few examples: after a big quarrel between the rich man and Conchita, he came out of his house angrily and planned to leave here for Paris. Suddenly, a car on the roadside exploded for no reason. For several seconds, the picture was completely filled with explosion flames and smoke – strange events suddenly interrupted the normal sequence of reality. In the study, the rich man was making a deal with konchita’s mother. He wanted to buy konchita with money. The servant pushed the door in and motioned the rich man to pay attention to a place under the table. The audience followed the rich man’s eyes and saw a mouse caught by a mousetrap and struggling desperately; The rich man and his cousin were having dinner in a restaurant, talking about konchita. The rich man stopped talking and called the waiter to complain to him. We saw a big fly in his cocktail glass.

What were the intentions of the mice and flies in that accidental explosion? A metaphor of reality or some random event? Bunuel is a firm atheist. He does not believe that everything in reality is God’s arrangement, or that there is a divine basis behind all kinds of reality. In his later years, he was still cynical and used films to vent his despair and dissatisfaction. (hint of political persecution and terrorist activities in dim desire) in his view, all things taken for granted may contain some logic, but this logic is fragile and unreliable, It can be operated at will simply through accidents (in hazy, when the rich bought a house for konchita and konchita humiliated the rich man, we seem to have completely concluded that konchita is a liar, but after she came to explain to the rich man the next day, the matter contained a certain turnaround. This turnaround was finally realized on the train). Therefore, cloth’s films contain almost imperceptible accidents. They are the stains of reality. In Lacan’s words, they are the remnants of reality that cannot be brought into the symbolic order by the other, which will eventually subvert the normal order of reality.

The unconventional application of convention developed into a unique artistic style under the guidance of a specific philosophical world outlook. This style effectively keeps the art works away from reality, and also prevents the art works from becoming a tool for the audience’s conventional psychological expectation. In Bunuel’s eyes, the world is always hazy because it always contains incomprehensible factors that cannot be brought into the established order. Only art itself is clear. This is Bunuel’s “hazy” desire; Always maintain the ambiguous nature of reality.

In dim desire, we can never understand the real relationship between the rich man and konchita, which is strengthened by the narrative of the film. The plot of the film is mainly told to several other passengers on the train to Paris after a big quarrel between the rich man and Conchita. The reliability of this narrative is highly questionable. First of all, the rich man had just had a big quarrel. How can the narration of emotional impulse be reliable? The audience saw that the rich man poured a bucket of water on the konchita we didn’t know at that time before driving. Like the passengers in the carriage, we had doubts about the rich man’s mental state and character. How much truth can his words contain? In addition, the rich man is talking about his love (desire) for a young and beautiful girl. The sensitivity of the content also makes people suspect that he will deliberately hide some contents unfavorable to him. Such an unreliable narrator has certainly made the truth extremely “hazy”. Finally, we found that konchita also took a bucket of water on the train and took revenge. Then the train stopped and we saw konchita get off the train with the rich man in his arm, as if they were back to their old relationship.

A metaphor appearing before the end of the film appropriately suggests Bunuel’s attitude towards reality: the rich man and konchita come to a window where a middle-aged woman is sitting and sewing a wedding dress. The direct counterpart of the wedding dress is the pure bride who is not owned by others, but it has been broken, and the real world is the same, It was fragmented before it was understood. The rich man and konchita began to quarrel with so and so again, and the newly established harmonious relationship was split again. The endless cycle and struggle of Harmony – division, clarity – ambiguity began again. Suddenly, a huge explosion sounded behind them, and the picture was filled with flame and smoke for several seconds. Perhaps that was certain for Bunuel.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here