The last film of a great master, his "swan song" was based on the novel "La femme et le pantin" written by Pierre Louÿs. The novel has been adapted to the screen eight times, and among the films are Josef Von Sternberg's "The Devil Is a Woman" with Marlene Dietrich, Julien Duvivier's "La Femme et le Pantin" with Brigitte Bardot, and The Woman and the Puppet (1920) directed by Reginald Barker with Geraldine Farrar, American opera star from the Metropolitan Opera (1906-1922),one of the great beauties of her day, as well as one of the great voices of all time. It is not surprising that Luis Bunuel chose for his film the story of obsession, desire and all kinds of obstacles, including social, religious, and sexual that make it impossible to fulfill. All his films are explorations of the same theme, starting with the early "L'Âge d'or". "That obscure object of desire" is a story of Mathieu, a middle age businessman (Fernando Rey who had given great performances in four Bunuel's films),and a young woman named Conchita — played by two different actresses (French serene beauty Carole Bouquet and Spanish sensual Ángela Molina) — who alternately captivates and torments him. The director described his film as a "story of impossibility to own a woman's body". Luis Buñuel claims that there were neither a reason nor an explanation for using two actresses for the same role, he just felt that it would be right: "I don't know why it should be two. It was automatic" (from the DVD interview). When asked, what the obscure object of desire is, Buunuel answered: "I don't know." I think it is the best answer. How could the obscure object of desire be described or defined? Bunuel was able to recreate in the movie the atmosphere of danger, uncertainly and insecurity. Wherever the main character goes in search of his object of desire, there are always bombings, shootings, and theft.

Cet obscur objet du désir or That Obscure Object of Desire marked the final film by Luis Bunuel. It is his cinematographic legacy and can be seen as a reflection of his production. It was totally an unexpected film by Bunuel. He had just made, according to himself, a trilogy (The Milky Way, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, The Phantom of Liberty) of films episodic in structure and with no direct plot. That Obscure Object of Desire was much more linear in structure but just as ambiguous and challenging.

That Obscure Object of Desire is an astonishing piece of work and could easily be seen as Bunuel's finest film. Like most films by Bunuel, this film has a lot to offer and is open for several different interpretations. The film is multidimensional and has got many layers; social, political and erotic levels. This idea is reinforced by the parallel worlds Bunuel had placed in the film. The new world is the world of Conchita - the world of terrorism; Luis Bunuel saw terrorism as the biggest issue of our time, and was contemplating questions whether it was justified to kill innocent people to achieve justice. He was thinking about these issues seriously, and this contemplating has clearly reflected on That Obscure Object of Desire.

Then there's the old world which Don Mathieu represents - the world which is disappearing. Don Mathieu tries to get in touch with the new world but can't and finds himself taking more and more distance to it. I shall depict this a little through an example. The scene where Conchita is having sex (actually faking) with his 'lover' and, let's Don Mathieu watch through the gate. First he stays there, then he leaves, but after a while comes back. He takes distance to the new world but can't let go of the object of his desire. This idea of two parallel worlds and Mathieu in between of the transition is reinforced by the fact that this film takes place in two different countries - worlds; Spain and France. This separation to two worlds is shown to the viewer in multiple images but one quite illustrating one is the picture where first, the camera films high skyscrapers - close to heaven, but then slowly lands down and reveals cranky shacks on the ground.

This theme of dichotomy repeats in the character of Conchita who is played by two actresses. The two different actresses reinforce the emotional charge and elusiveness of Conchita. Carole Bouquet represents the cold, frigid side of Conchita and Ángela Molina the warm, sympathetic side. They represent two contrasts of the character and this highlights the theme of dichotomy. It was common to use one actor to play multiple roles, for instance Jean Marais is Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast, but to use two actors to play one role was groundbreaking in the history of cinema and it worked, incredibly well. This elusive character also represents a very masculine perspective of women; volatile and treacherous. But to my mind it has nothing to do with Bunuel's own attitude, it just builds up the character, and Don Mathieu's Obscure Desire for Conchita; obscure because of the elusiveness of the character.

The film portrays an artificial world, which Bunuel loved to portray as the world of the bourgeoisie. This theme was culminated in one of the most famous scenes in The Discreet Charm of The Bourgeoisie; where the characters realize that their life is just an act, performed at a stage - their life's fake, show, only display. That Obscure Object of Desire is told through Mathieu's, at times interrupted, monologue; and at one point one of the fellow passengers takes a clear contact to the camera as he takes a look at us. This contact proves that there is a camera - fiction knows that it is fiction, film admits only being a film. The life of the characters is just a movie - just an act.

The ending of That Obscure Object of Desire is quite fascinating and left open for interpretation. The film is Bunuel's cinematographic legacy where the circle of his production comes to an end - the music by Wagner in the ending is a reference to Bunuel's first film, An Andalusian Dog. There is certain realism in the aesthetics of Bunuel, not in the perversions, bruises or honest portrayal of violence but in the behavior of the characters, and the wounds done by the actions of them. In the films by Bunuel, there are many wounds torn but the characters always try to heal them by sewing (Belle de Jour, Diary of a Chambermaid). In the final scene of That Obscure Object of Desire Don Mathieu and Conchita see a woman sewing a bloody sheet. The woman is sewing the wound of the society, healing the wounds done by the characters, but also the wound of cinema - torn by Bunuel.

After this, Don Mathieu and Conchita walk away from the woman and, suddenly the entire place explodes. Luis Bunuel adored Fritz Lang's Destiny (1921) and it was one of his very favorite films. It's a film about Death who is tired of misery and agony - Bunuel was incredibly fascinated by this presence of Death and the communication with him. For Bunuel man could only live freely if he let's his life in the hands of coincidence, blind chance. But there is one inevitable destiny that awaits us all - death, in our bedroom or in the streets dominated by terrorism. The title of the film is obscure, elusive and indefinite itself and fits perfectly for this story with no end.

While I thought this was a fairly good movie, I keep asking myself WHY so many films by Luis Buñuel are so highly praised? Maybe it's just that his films don't appeal to everyone and I am just one of the ones who "doesn't get it". This is possible. All I know is that I've seen most of his most famous films and didn't love any of them. In general, they were decent, but that's really about it.

This film has some excellent aspects, though. I like the general kinky story line--a seemingly innocent woman about to be seduced by a dirty old man--and, then, the tables are turned and you find out that the "innocent woman" is one sick woman--and, then, you see that the man is actually a good match for her because they are BOTH sick puppies! Their sado-masochistic relationship is certainly entertaining. I also liked the style of the film as the older man (Rey) recounts his tale to enthralled train riders. I even liked the bizarre touch of having two rather different looking women DELIBERATELY play the same woman interchangeably throughout the movie--some real weird but fun stuff here.

However, the odd touches and constant references to terrorist groups was stupid. I know this was a reference to the director's political leanings but it just seemed irrelevant. Either he should have, in my opinion, followed up and hashed this out more or it should have been excised from the movie. As it is, it just didn't fit but wasn't really weird enough to make the movie surrealistic.

Oh, and by the way, this movie is a lot like his other film THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISE, as in that case people always were looking for dinner but never got fed--in this case, Rey was looking to score but somehow, despite coming VERY close, he never actually did!

PS--to the parents, this movie features a lot of explicit nudity and implied sado-masochism, so it would be appropriate for younger audiences.