THE INDISCREET CHARM of DISGUST. the AESTHETICS of EXCESS and PERVERSION in the CINEMA of LUIS BUÑUEL, MARCO FERRERI and PETER GREENAWAY Marie Rebecchi
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE INDISCREET CHARM OF DISGUST. THE AESTHETICS OF EXCESS AND PERVERSION IN THE CINEMA OF LUIS BUÑUEL, MARCO FERRERI AND PETER GREENAWAY Marie Rebecchi To cite this version: Marie Rebecchi. THE INDISCREET CHARM OF DISGUST. THE AESTHETICS OF EXCESS AND PERVERSION IN THE CINEMA OF LUIS BUÑUEL, MARCO FERRERI AND PETER GREENAWAY. Arts & Foods, 2015. hal-03226507 HAL Id: hal-03226507 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03226507 Submitted on 14 May 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 416 417 THE INDISCREET CHARM OF DISGUST. THE AESTHETICS OF EXCESS AND PERVERSION IN THE CINEMA OF LUIS BUÑUEL, MARCO FERRERI AND PETER GREENAWAY 737 L’Âge d’or, by Luis Buñuel, 1930 MARIE REBECCHI 418 MARIE REBECCHI 419 “FOR THE EYE—AS STEVENSON It is in the conflict between repulsion EXQUISITELY PUTS IT, A CANNIBAL and attraction, between incorporation DELICACY—IS, ON OUR PART, and expulsion, and in the very THE OBJECT OF SUCH ANXIETY iteration of these experiences that THAT WE WILL NEVER BITE INTO IT.” we have to trace the conditions for GEORGES BATAILLE, DOCUMENTS, the possibility of disgust. In fact 1929, NO. 4 one of the privileged paths to the aesthetic experience of disgust1 can appear when pleasure and desire are oriented towards disgusting or revolting images or objects. In the aesthetics of the Enlightenment,2 the founding fathers of the discipline did not contemplate the possibility of a “taste for the distasteful,”3 thereby denying the existence of an aesthetic pleasure caused by the ambivalent attraction of the disgusting. But in twentieth-century aesthetics the landscape changed dramatically. It is definitely the cinema, more than any other medium, that has wrestled with this outrageous paradox, seeking to show the indigestible and obscene ambiguity that dwells in the feeling of disgust. In this respect, Julia Peker speaks of the “logical scandal of ambivalence,”4 observing that the attraction of what disgusts us is capable of creating a lacerating contradiction in our feelings, an ambiguity as insoluble as it is recurrent. What happens when we experience desire and disgust for a single “dark object,” either simultaneously or alternately? It is through the “sensuous”5 experience of disgust, excess, and the unspeakable pleasure procured by the forms of aesthetic perversion of taste that the relation between the food and the cinema is manifested in one of its most extreme and cruel forms.6 Directors and authors such as Luis Buñuel, Marco Ferreri and Peter Greenaway have explored this dimension directly, showing that only the overflowing violence of certain cinematic images is capable of giving visibility to the indiscreet fascination of disgust. BUÑUEL: FROM THE “LAND OF DESIRE” TO “LAND WITHOUT BREAD” In Buñuel’s Surrealist cinema of the late 1920s the relation with food and eating is expressed almost exclusively in sublimated ways, in the erotic and perverse dimension of desire. The act of eating is present in the modes of intensive figuration of sex, for example through a series of explicit replacement images.7 This mechanism is employed in some famous sequences of L’Âge d’or (1930), among them the macro-sequence depicting the two lovers in the garden, where the erotic desires of the man and the woman find an outlet in perverse cannibalistic instincts. We see the actress Lya Lys who, after voluptuously sucking her lover’s fingers, bites his hand, mutilating it with sadistic gusto. “Eros is mixed with the ugly and 744 L’Âge d’or, by Luis Buñuel, 1930 mutilation. It seems to imply a kind of esthétique de la laideur that breaks into the film, as had already happened in the sequence of love-making in the mud. Eros is bound up with a disagreeable dimension, represented on a particular plane of ambiguity and polysemy.”8 The other sequence that enables us to observe this replacement mechanism is clearly the one where Lya Lys sucks the big toe of an enormous marble statue: an obvious fetish that Freudian symbolism tends to connect with the phallus.9 The idea of eroticism suggested by this scene, as sacrificial violation and devouring appropriation of the other, is perfectly aligned with some of the ideas underlying Bataille’s theory of eros. In two texts published in 1929 and 1930 in the journal “Documents,” respectively entitled “Le Gros orteil” (The Big Toe)10 and “Bouche” (Mouth),11 one can already find a possible interpretation of the 420 MARIE REBECCHI 421 sequence in question. In particular, the photographs by Jacques-André Boiffard accompanying Bataille’s two texts (the magnification of two toes and a gaping mouth) to highlight two fundamental aspects that the erotic sequence in the garden in L’Âge d’or evokes explicitly: the irrepressible attraction to one of the most disgusting parts of the human body, or the big toe, and the desire to orally satisfy this drive, by opening the mouth wide, the better to taste and devour the object of this same desire. As Bataille says in his provocative article devoted to the “ignoble big toe,” “arrogant and proud” in its hideously cadaveric guise: “As for the big toe, classic foot fetishism leading to the licking of toes categorically indicates that it is a phenomenon of base seduction, which accounts for the burlesque value that is always more or less attached to the pleasures condemned by pure and superficial men.”12 According to Bataille, the most elementary aspect of appropriation is always presented in the form of oral consumption, considered as communion, participation, identification, incorporation or assimilation.13 In this sense the mouth is described by Bataille as the “prow of animals,”14 downgraded to an organ capable of bestially liberating men’s (and women’s) impulses. In the same way, the eye (the subject of the entry “Œil” in the critical dictionary of Documents by Desnos, Bataille and Griaule15) is definitely not described as the highest and noblest organ of the human body. Through Bataille’s “cannibal” gaze, the eye becomes an edible object, downgraded to a friandise cannibal (a “cannibal delicacy”).16 In Bataille’s article, the eye significantly evokes two cinematic images. The first is the famous sliced eye in the prologue to Buñuel and Dalí’s Un Chien andalou (1929—it was not published in the review but suggested in a note to the article—and the other, published in the body of the text, represents the eyes of Joan 741 Le Fantôme de la liberté, Crawford in a state of ecstasy: i.e. beside herself, bulging out of their sockets … by Luis Buñuel, 1974 Buñuel’s eye becomes a true friandise cannibal, being concretely turned into a boiled egg dissected by the blade of a knife in the film by Roger Barlow, Harry Hay & LeRoy Robbins, Even – As You and I (1937). The sequences parodying Un Chien andalou are set in a broader framework: three authors decide to participate in a contest for amateur movie makers (Liberty – Pete Amateur Movie Contest), but are unable to think up ideas for the screenplay. After browsing the catalog of the exhibition Fantastic Art, Dada and Surrealism, curated by Alfred Barr at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, (in which we catch glimpses of works by Salvador Dalí and Meret Oppenheim), the three decide to write a film in the Surrealist vein, throwing together a variety of motifs inspired by the great European avant-garde auteurs (Hans Richter, René Clair, Abel Gance, Sergei M. Eisenstein, Dziga Vertov, Luis Buñuel). The movie then shows the shooting, editing and screening of this film, which will be called The Afternoon of a Rubberband.17 Even – As You and I retrieves and reproduces some avant-garde motifs, ironically perverting and downgrading them through a series of mocking references to food: the eyeball sadistically dissected by a razor blade in Un Chien andalou is first evoked by a light bulb lying in a frying pan, then by a razor slicing into the white of a hard-boiled egg.18 Shortly after the release of Un Chien anadalou and L’Âge d’or, in the fall of 1930, Buñuel was invited by a representative of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer to stay six months in the United States to “learn some good American technical skills … and … learn how to make a movie.”19 After the American experience, in April 1931 Buñuel decided to return to Madrid and undertook the considerable feat of making the documentary Las Hurdes, Tierra sin pan (1932), about the wretched and desolate land without bread in the Extremadura, only a few hours from the metropolitan life of Madrid.20 With this documentary of denunciation, Buñuel concretely explored excess and scarcity in relation to food. Excess appears in the violence with which he depicted the destitution of the population of Las Hurdes, 422 MARIE REBECCHI 423 while scarcity is directly connected with the hunger and scarcity of food evoked by the title of the documentary. The images of food shortages, starvation, poverty, disease, death, degradation, the deformations of the earth and the inhabitants of Las Hurdes, mercilessly shown through a harrowing visual concert set to the notes of Brahms’s Symphony No. 4, overwhelm the inevitably anguished viewer, exasperated and aware of his own helplessness.