That Obscure Object of Desire (1977) User Reviews (74)

surrealist masterpiece on self-conceit

[cinemastronaut · 8/10 · 27 June 2005]

I watched this film with my parents, & ended up having an interesting discussion with my mother on it. I'd seen Le Charme discret de la bourgeoisie beforehand, which was probably helpful.

The translation of the title reads, "that obscure object of desire" which is as relevant a title as could be. It's a surrealist film, which is only directly revealed not in the strange dream-sequences Charm employs, but rather in a very simple technical element: the use of two actresses for a single female lead. The two actresses are interchanged with seeming complete subjectivity. The only easy thread to denote is perhaps that one actress plays the more "French" side whereas the other plays the more "Spanish" side -- as though the character is meant to be Spanish, she grew up partially in Paris. I've read some theorizing that the one of the sides was emotive, & the other distracting -- which is also plausible.

However most of what I want to discuss goes to the core of the meaning of a surreal film. My mom, it must be said, does not care much for the surrealists. I must admit, I never was crazy about Salvador Dali. The problem I think both of us have had to varying degrees is our own base level of empiricism that surreality ignores. Obviously, one woman can not be two women in any literal sense. But I think this is where the value of surreality can be appreciated. Surrealism has an ultimate primacy of being able to discriminate completely against "insignificant time" (as I posted on before) & even the ability to flaunt "insignificant time" as "significant time." The film itself I feel must be read as symbolic. Neither characters are particularly sympathetic in the sense that neither is particularly human. The male archetype is presented as Mathieu: older, richer, & wanting sex. The female archetype is presented as Conchita (which is short for the Spanish name Conception): young, beautiful, virginal, but sexually aware. My mom projected literal psychology on both characters as being the opposing parts of a sadomasochistic relationship, with Conchita as the sadist. I don't think it's that simple.

Conchita continually asserts a nearly narcissistic if not wholly so appreciation of her self & independence. Whenever she feels Mathieu could own her she spites him with her assertions she is physically capable of providing for herself. Mathieu, in turn, desires Conchita greatly but does not seem to love her. He makes no overtures of marriage, & in fact seems very resistant to the idea. Conchita is threatened by her "love" of Mathieu, & the loss of independence it would engender, & Mathieu is obsessed with his physical desire for Conchita.

Throughout the film Bunuel seems to throw in irrelevant information about terrorism, which is only made more silly & surreal by its treatment (one of the groups is called Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus, with a pantheon of other silly acronyms under it) & his seemingly repeating this device from Charm. The film, I believe, depicts what obsessive desires about self do to blind us to the obvious reality around us. In this case Conchita's narcissism & Mattieu's lust make the fact that their world is falling apart seem totally unimportant. Bunuel uses this right up till the final scene.

Before I talk about the final scene, however, I want to establish another subtle surrealist thread through the film. Mathieu carries around a bag through several of the scenes. It is very out of place because it is a cheap rucksack (Mathieu is rich) and is never given an obvious purpose. It is just a seemingly random rucksack. We find out at the end that this rucksack is filled with lace & lace nightgowns: some of which are ripped & bloody. Mathieu & Conchita drop this rucksack off at a shop, & Mathieu gestures in amazement how an middle-aged woman stitches up a hole in a beautiful blood-stained lace garment shut, as if it'd never been ripped.

The implication is not difficult to read, especially when we see Conchita's reaction, which is one of utter disgust. Mathieu is carrying around his past sexual experience, & trying to show Conchita that to be deflowered (Conchita's virginity is a topic of much conversation) does not mean one's delicate feminine beauty is ruined forever. Conchita reacts to this comment by running away from Mathieu. He catches up to her and here is where Bunuel reminds of the outside word: they are both blown up in a terrorist bombing. Their explosion is the finale.

Bunuel uses surrealism to give a prescriptive ethical message: if you are concerned only about your needs, you will be destroyed by the outside world, which does not concern itself with you. My mom didn't like the idea that this was about gender types because she said it doesn't really apply to any men or women she knows. I feel this is a bit denying, but I can admit it's not a literally applied dynamic. It is merely a symbolic message: if we took these gender roles to their extremes we would treat each other horribly, & have no consideration for the greater good. I admit this is a somewhat simple, even didactic message. But I disagree that it doesn't have meaning for reality because it does not represent reality.

the last sigh of a master surrealist

[mjneu59 · 9/10 · 7 January 2011]

Few other directors would dare to equate the male libido with international terrorism, but the final feature by master surrealist Luis Buñuel is a dark comic web of sexual obsession (too dark to be truly funny) set against a background of random explosions and political assassinations. The always dapper Fernando Rey stars as a wealthy gentleman who develops an all-consuming infatuation for his young Spanish maid, who by turns tempts him, teases him, refuses him, and finally humiliates him. All Rey wants is to carry his passion to its logical conclusion, but her (deliberately?) unpredictable shifts in mood, from coy temptation to spiteful rejection, leave him in a state of dangerous frustration. Buñuel applies his usual sly wit to the otherwise cynical and pessimistic scenario (one man affectionately refers to women as "sacks of excrement"), going so far as to cast two completely different actresses in the title role and interchanging them at random. The film is at once perverse and disturbing, providing a suitably mordant swan song to a long and distinguished career in movie iconoclasm.

Apt title, though it does give the movie away

[Lumpenprole · 9/10 · 24 April 2002]

spoilers

I really wish I hadn't known the title of the movie before seeing it for the first time. The plot is an examination of a walking appetite trying to fulfill itself by subjugating and controlling what it wants. Buñuel brings this to life with Fernando Rey playing an older man who has every need and luxury covered, but cares nothing for it if he can't have an enigmatic young woman named Conchita. Played alternately by an austere beauty, Carole Bouquet, and an impish vixen, Angela Molina, Conchita literally morphs away from him every time Rey's character comes close to having sex with her. Until the very end, she confounds and frustrates him because she is what he can never have.

This is one of those movies that irritate people for several reasons. As a number of other reviews point out, Rey's Mathieu and Conchita are pretty repugnant people. Simply put, the kind of person that expects movies to provide characters who are morally good people to identify with will be as disappointed with Obscure Object as with any Altman or Kubrick film. It isn't that kind of movie. The theme is a dark examination of desire, asking - is it inseparable from a lust for control?

Mathieu spends most of the movie trying to buy Conchita. Initially, he tries to coax her with food like an animal. When he learns she's a virgin, he tries to buy her off her own mother in a weirdly inverted dowry scene. Once he feels he's got exclusive rights to her in his country house, he immediately tries to set her up in his late wife's room - as though she's a new acquisition to replace an old spot left empty. And finally, in the Seville scenes where we see Conchita behind bars several times, he tries to set her up as his private stripper/whore. Conchita feints and rebuffs him at every turn, always stringing him along with a promise to love him on a condition he will never be able to meet. Namely, to respect her freedom as a person.

But she is the `object' in the title and the story is mostly retold by Mathieu himself, so it's almost impossible for Conchita to be a human even to the audience. What anyone can make out by the end is that Conchita is not only coming out ahead in her scam game with Mathieu, but that she is locked into a pattern of sadistic control herself. This quest leads, inevitably, to a kind of consummation where Mathieu beats the snot out of Conchita. Buñuel films the blows carefully and the scene is uncomfortably long. Is this the control that Mathieu bought? As he relates the scene to the people in the train car (a wonderful device for the retelling of an amoral story) he grins ecstatically as he relates how richly she deserved his attack. Then, just like every other time he's felt like he was getting somewhere with Conchita, she turns the tables on him and he finds himself pursuing her. It seems pretty obvious that violence will continue to escalate and the stakes will be higher the next time Conchita winds Mathieu up. But before we have to see this, Buñuel blows them up in a terrorist attack.

Terror and crime exist as background noise during the whole movie. Sometimes seeming to reflect the Mathieu/Conchita plot in news reports and it reinforces the theme of people getting what they desire through violence. A terrorist bomb kills indiscriminately to achieve some desired end (and Buñuel peppers the film with references to ever more absurd terror groups that could have no rational interest in common). A mugger by necessity takes what he wants from strangers. The plot of the movie is almost a literal redistribution of Mathieu's abundant wealth to the squalid Paris suburbs that Conchita lives in and the young drifters she travels with through her elaborate scheme. And the ultimate act of terror is Mathieu finally getting his hands on the protean woman he's been chasing and beating her into submission. Well, that's the penultimate act anyway before they too are consumed in some other person's desire for something that probably had nothing to do with them.

It's a masterpiece. As questionable morally in its intelligent use of stereotypes as Vertigo.

The film of our time

[omarbey · 30 December 1999]

First I would like to clarify the issue of the two actresses playing the same character, Conchita. Bunuel initially worked with Maria Schneider (Last tango in Paris) for the title role. In the course of shooting the film Maria Schneider quit; her reasons were that she could not understand, and therefor portray, the character as was requested by Bunuel. This honesty is to this actress' credit. Then Bunuel took the full logic of the character, Conchita, as a bi-faceted character indeed, sometimes cool and calm and serene (played by the quietly beautiful Carole Bouquet) and on other times sensuous and hot and lustful (played by the fiery beauty Angela Molena).

Now what can one say about this masterpiece of a film? It is the eternal story of man chasing woman, to satisfy his earthly desires, and the woman who is sometimes romantic, sometimes wild, always passionate and self-conscious, driving the man mad, humiliating him and toying with him, then again satisfying his ego and deepest fantasies and even truly loving him. Freud knew it all along. Man and woman are surrounded by inexplicable events, absurd, surreal, strange as life can be. And their game goes on. In the course of the film Bunuel "winks" and reminds us of his eternal dislikes of the "bourgeoisie" -here in the form of an upper class rich and corrupt diplomat- who are genuinely so keen on etiquette and good manners, as evidenced by the rat that appears on the main character's dish ! and also the director's dislike of the church establishment and supposedly "devout" people as evidenced by the hypocrisy of Conchita's mother practically selling her daughter. It's a superb film, summarizing the eternal relationship between man and woman, amid normal extra-ordinary events, with top class actors under the directorship of Bunuel the genius.

Using two actresses for one role not a planned plot device

[seat850 · 10/10 · 22 December 1999]

Contrary to the initial comment on this page, the director Luis Bunuel did not use two different actresses to play the lead role as a plot device to show "One actress for her placid nature and another actress for her tempermental side."

While this is an oft-repeated misconception, it's not remotely true. In Luis Bunuel's autobiography, "My Last Sigh" (A fantastic book, still in print) the director discusses the reason for this unique directorial device, and how funny he finds it that so many "fans" assume that the choices were based on the actresses temperment or his desire to "express" something obscure. In truth, two actresses were used simply because the lead actress quit partway through production after having completed many critical scenes. Luis was beside himself over the wasted time and money in reshooting, so he hired a replacement to shoot only the missing scenes, and edited them irregardless of who was acting in a given scene. It served him well, as the end result was brilliant.

The Obscure Dichotomy of Mind and World

[ilpohirvonen · 10/10 · 21 February 2011]

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.

Magnificent...

[misticnoa · 10/10 · 8 September 2010]

"That Obscure Object Of Desire" is one of the most influential films I have ever seen! I remember liking it very much when I watched it for the first time long ago; but a few days ago I decided to watch it again and found myself completely absorbed in its magnificence and the splendour of suggestive details Bunuel entered into the film. Having two actresses playing the role of Conchita represent two separate moods and even personalities of hers. It is even stressed by the fact that one of them exits the room with one particular hair-style and enters again with her hair made in a different way. The "first Conchita" is French-looking, shy, subtle and demure, always with her head bend down, in an obedient, servant-like manner, whereas the "other Conchita" looks a lot more like a Spaniard, with big beautiful eyes and slightly curly hair, moody and demanding- the dominant side of her personality. There are two more, let's say, surreal details present throughout the film: one of them being the package Mathieu lefts behind at the beginning of the film which appears to be the same as the one out of which the girl in the shop window takes the blood-stained veil, and which supposedly contains a bomb that goes off at the very end; the other detail being the constant terrorist attacks, whether shown directly or by means of radio or newspapers announcements. Apart from the possibility that Conchita herself might belong to a group of terrorists, as her friendship with guys who at one point rob Mathieu suggests, there is also another point of view considering the relationship between Mathieu and Conchita, full of hatred- love/attraction-repulsion tension as some kind of a psychological bomb that would eventually explode. As I was watching this film, I thought it obvious that Conchita doesn't love or even respect Mathieu and that he's been trying, not only to take his money, but also to utterly destroy him, as some kind of a temptress. However, having seen that after gaining the property over the house in Spain as a present from Mathieu, and after ditching him in an abrupt manner, she still seeks him and torments him, I realised that not only he cannot live without her, but she as well possesses some kind of peculiar attachment to him, may it only be to humiliate him or being humiliated or even beaten by him. Therefore, I think there are no grounds upon which the theories that she is only after his money and nothing else might be based. This film conveys the ever-present motif of dualism of human nature, the motif that stretches back to "The Picture Of Dorian Gray" or "Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde", etc. It is also about human obsession with the (possibly) the only thing they cannot possess, representing one's own Holy Grail, in this case, the disputable virginity of the main female character. The film does not tell the viewers all men are swine who only want to physically possess women and nothing else, nor does it tell all women are devils in disguise who trick men into their spider web playing the card of innocence and virginity. It simply tells the story of humanity bound to its needs, fantasies and, above all, frustrations about things beyond their reach. The sick love(?!) story of mutual torment and humiliation, but also of mutual need and dependence upon one another, where the roles of who is the tormentor and who the tormented are not always as clear as they seem.

Bunuel seldom disappoints

[enmussak · 10/10 · 17 December 2002]

Buñuel's "That Obscure Object of Desire" dripped with substance and stunned me throughout the entire film. The masterful working of the two women into the role of Conchita was wonderful. I do not believe Buñuel for a second when he claims that he intended to use one actress, but she quit unexpectedly after shooting several critical scenes. If it is true, it is one of the more miraculous accidents in film right up there with Casablanca and The Third Man. I can be certain that he consciously gave the different Conchita's different personalities and modes of behavior. That comes across as being the focal point of the movie, turning a mediocre "one actress" film into an engaging event. If I had to put my money on something, I'd say that Buñuel is pulling some Andy Kaufman trickery here... the film worked too well with the so-called "change of plans." Or... if you have enough monkeys on typewriters, you'll get the Great American Novel. I don't believe this was chance at all. 10/10.

Luis Buñuel's last movie inspired by the book "La Femme Et Le Pantin" by Pierre Louys , which has been adapted for several other films

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 17 June 2016]

This is a typical Buñuel film , as there is a lot of symbolism and surrealism , including mockery or wholesale review upon sexual behaviors and jealousy of higher classes represented by the great Fernando Rey . Recounted in flashback , it deals with the romantic perils of Mathieu (Fernando Rey was actually dubbed by Michel Piccoli) , a wealthy Spanish old man who obtains a gorgeous 19-year-old girlfriend called Conchita (changing physical identities : Angela Molina and Carole Bouquet , but Maria Schneider walked off the picture in protest at the amount of nude scenes) , daughter of a poor woman (Maria Asquerino) . But Conchita refuses to sleep with him .

Buñuel's masterpiece filled with drama , surrealism , romance , terrorism , and colorful as well as absurd images . Surrealism and sour portrait upon higher classes , an extreme sexual obsession of an elderly man on a very young woman and their subsequent sexual rites by the Spanish maestro of surrealism , the great Luis Buñuel . "That Obscure Object of Desire" also titled ¨Cet Obscur object Du Désir¨ or ¨Ese Oscuro Objeto Del Deseo¨ is available with subtitles or dubbed and contains a lot of surrealist images , such as the sack scenes , when a gypsy carries a hog , baby-alike , and when it appears a woman mending a bloody nightgown , in fact , this was the last scene Luis Bunuel shot as a filmmaker . Luis Buñuel was given a strict Jesuit education which sowed the seeds of his obsession with both subversive behavior and religion , and that would preoccupy Buñuel for the rest of his career . Interesting and thought-provoking screenplay from the same Luis Buñuel and Jean Claude Carriere , Buñuel's usual screenwriter , and based on the novel "La Femme Et Le Pantin" , which has been used as the premise for several other movies , including : ¨The Woman and the Puppet¨ (1920) by Reginald Baker with Geraldine Farrar , "La Femme Et le Pantin" (1929) by Jacques Baroncelli with Conchita Montenegro , ¨The Devil Is a Woman¨ (1935) by Josef Von Stenberg with Marlene Dietrich , Lionel Atwill , Cesar Romero , and ¨La Femme et Le Pantin¨ (1959) by Julien Duvivier with Brigitte Bardot and Antonio Vilar .

Very good performance by Fernando Rey as a middle-aged French sophisticate person who falls for his former chambermaid . Acceptable acting from two young beautiful actresses : Angela Mólina and Carole Bouquet , the decision to use two players to play Conchita saved the movie from dropping out . Maria Schneider was dismissed from the film , the true reason was her heavy drug use , which caused her to give a "lackluster" interpretation and caused tremendous friction between her and Buñuel . Pretty good support cast gives fine acting ; it is mostly formed by nice French actors , such as Julien Bertheau , Milena Vukotic , André Weber and Spanish ones , such as Maria Asquerino and David Rocha . In addition , Luis Buñuel cameo : as in 'Belle De Jour' and 'Phantom of Liberty' Buñuel does another walk-on in streets , immediately after Fernando Rey's first scene , as Luis and his chauffeur are blown to bits on their way to the bank , victims of an unexplained terrorist attack .

Thid wry and enjoyable motion picture was well photographed by Edmond Richard and being compellingly directed by Luis Buñuel who was voted the 14th Greatest Director of all time . This Buñuel's strange film belongs to his French second period ; in fact , it's plenty of known French actors . As Buñuel subsequently emigrated from Mexico to France where filmed other excellent movies . After moving to Paris , at the beginning Buñuel did a variety of film-related odd jobs , including working as an assistant to director Jean Epstein . With financial help from his mother and creative assistance from Dalí, he made his first film , this 17-minute "Un Chien Andalou" (1929), and immediately catapulted himself into film history thanks to its disturbing images and surrealist plot . The following year , sponsored by wealthy art patrons, he made his first picture , the scabrous witty and violent "Age of Gold" (1930), which mercilessly attacked the church and the middle classes, themes that would preoccupy Buñuel for the rest of his career . That career, though, seemed almost over by the mid-1930s, as he found work increasingly hard to come by and after the Spanish Civil War , where he made ¨Las Hurdes¨ , as Luis emigrated to the US where he worked for the Museum of Modern Art and as a film dubber for Warner Bros . He subsequently went on his Mexican period he teamed up with producer Óscar Dancigers and after a couple of unmemorable efforts shot back to international attention with the lacerating study of Mexican street urchins in ¨Los Olvidados¨ (1950), winning him the Best Director award at the Cannes Film Festival. But despite this new-found acclaim, Buñuel spent much of the next decade working on a variety of ultra-low-budget films, few of which made much impact outside Spanish-speaking countries , though many of them are well worth seeking out . As he went on filming "The Great Madcap" , ¨El¨(1952) , ¨The brute¨ (1952) , "Wuthering Heights", "The Criminal Life of Archibaldo De la Cruz" (1955) , ¨Death in the garden¨(1956) , ¨Nazarin¨(1958) , ¨Robinson Crusoe¨ , ¨Fever mounts El Paso¨(59) , ¨The exterminator Angel¨(62) , ¨Simon of desert¨(1966) and many others . And finally his French-Spanish period in collaboration with producer Serge Silberman and writer Jean-Claude Carrière with notorious as well as polemic films , such as ¨Viridiana¨ , ¨Diary of a chambermaid¨ (64) , ¨the milky way¨(1968) , ¨Tristana¨ (70) , ¨Belle De Jour¨, ¨The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" (1977) , and this his last picture , "That Obscure Object of Desire" .

The Devil Is a Woman

[Galina_movie_fan · 9/10 · 23 February 2008]

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.

decent, not great

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 25 January 2006]

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.

Could have been made last week

[editorbob · 9/10 · 26 January 2003]

Depending on your point of view, this film is either a biting, insightful, timeless illumination of human dignity and indignity or a woeful commentary on how painfully slowly we evolve. The main story, humorous and poignant by turns, is punctuated by subplot bits that come right out of this week's news. Not bad for a film shot a quarter of a century ago.

Fernando Rey is simply wonderful, and Conchita are fabulous! Bunuel, as always, is once again a delight.

Profound relationship entertainment

[oneloveall · 7/10 · 18 May 2008]

Buñuel weaves his tale of a jilted (attempted) lover quite effectively until the conclusion which was a little far-fetched despite complimenting the theme.

What starts of fairly slow and uninteresting soon naturally evolves into a suspenseful and psychologically taxing study into the obsessiveness behind relationships and how that plays out between the two sexes.

Much has been made out of Buñuel's use of two different females to interchange with the lead character, although anyone who has researched the film knows that this was unintentional and has no greater meaning then necessity despite wild fan theories.

A mix of early silent comedy, 70's soft porn and daytime soap - but not in a good way.

[vwild · 1/10 · 18 May 2014]

What a queer film this is. It appears to be about the hypocrisy and apathy of the middle classes, particularly their sexual hypocrisy, as expressed through the infatuation of a rich business man (of a certain age) with a young and beautiful Spanish dancer.The hero, Mathieu, spends the film time trying to get Conchita into bed and more specifically trying to achieve penetration. Sometimes she seems up for this, sometimes she doesn't. In any case there is always a problem when they get down to it, much to Mathieu's frustration. This obsesses him to such a degree that he is almost oblivious to the acts of terrorism that are happening all around him. It's not just in the paper, on the radio and on the PA in the shopping centre. He's mugged in a park, there's a shooting on his doorstep, he's held at gunpoint and his car stolen.To Mathieu this matters little compared with his ongoing bedroom antics with Conchita. Conchita is an unpredictable woman. Is she deliberately torturing Mathieu? In the end Mathieu thinks so and things turn violent. Even then, they remain somehow bound together.

How did this film come to be so critically lauded? Is it simply due to the crude gimmick of having Conchita played by two actresses who switch between and within scenes? Oddly this quirk loses its strangeness as the film progresses and really adds nothing. The two actresses don't portray different sides of the same person (there are no fully realised characters in this film) as has been suggested. Conchita is as changeable and contradictory regardless of who she is played by. The film in general feels thrown together.It looks and plays like a mix of early silent comedy, 70's soft porn and daytime soap - but not in a good way.

This is the broadest satire and not particularly insightful or funny. It has surreal touches. Is Bunuel messing with us?

My Conchita...

[film-critic · 4 October 2004]

I would like to begin by saying that this is one of the most bizarre films that I have ever experienced in my career as a movie buff. I have seen some twist endings, some passionately bad French films, and even some stalker films, but nothing compares to the cinematic genius that I just witnessed. Being a Bunuel 'virgin', I didn't know what to expect coming into this film.

I was ready for anything, but interestingly enough nothing will prepare you for this film. Deeply rooted in cinematic symbolism, we watch as two very interesting devises that are used to bring forth the overall theme of this film. Two devises that I have never seen used in a movie, until now.

The first is the obvious. Bunuel successfully uses two different actresses to play the same role of Conchita. At first I thought perhaps it was going to be one of those 'twin' double-cross films where these two girls used this older wealthy man for all his money. I was wrong. Similar to the title of this film, this is a film about passions and desires. It divulges in the emotion of obsession, and the reaction a man can have on someone that he desperately and sexually desires. Mathieu is our possible victim in this story. While both are not the most interesting characters (both have flaws and troubles), they do provide some structured characters. Mathieu is willing to give up everything for this woman that he hardly knows, but is physically attracted to her. It is hard to say that he loves her, but he does lust for her. The dual role of Conchita in this film is used for two purposes. The first is as a distraction, while the second is emotion. Both Conchitas are different in their own way and are used to push forward the story. Whenever Bunuel needed to convey a different emotion, he would bring in the actress that best represented that emotion. At first it was confusing, but as the film progressed you began to see less and less separate actresses, but instead as one character. It is impressive how Bunuel created this illusion.

As I mentioned above, there were two devises that I have never seen in a movie before. I explained above about the use of two women for one female role, but the second is a bit subtler. I briefly mentioned it above about how these two women (one character) were used to distract. If you pay attention to the film terrorism is a big part of the universe surrounding Mathieu. While he pines continually for Conchita, the world around him is falling apart. Bombings and deaths are at an all time high, yet he doesn't really seem to notice this. He is so caught up in Conchita that it seems like nothing else exists. He is oblivious to his surroundings. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we are also oblivious to the surroundings. Bunuel does this job of keeping our eye focused on the interchanging women that we sometimes forget or miss the actions surrounding this film. I believe that Bunuel is trying to prove the point that obsession does obscure your vision. It blurs your eyes and forces you to miss crucial elements of your surroundings. It isn't until the end when we are reminded violently of the truth surrounding our characters. I felt that Bunuel was slapping me in the face with that final scene. I had nearly forgotten myself of the terrorism outside, but easily he reminded me.

This was a spectacular film that really opened my eyes to a completely new way of film-making. It reminded me of some of the early works of another favorite director of mine Francois Ozon. Both of these talented artists have their own way of creating a world and an emotion, and both do it with some of the most beautiful strokes of their mechanical brush. I would recommend this film to anyone that is willing to experience radical, yet provocative film-making at its best. You will be impressed.

I cannot wait to include this film in my collection to watch over and over again. Thanks to Criterion, they have provided a beautiful packaging to this obscure film.

Grade: ***** out of *****

What is truly great about THIS symbolic film is that it

[badtothebono · 10/10 · 27 August 2006]

makes you REALLY want to know what was intended. Many symbolic films are so twisted that they became pointless to anyone not still trying to earn that "A" in Filmology 101. Not this. Eventhe fact that none of the characters are likable isn't a turn-off, because they are so obviously just symbols. Nobody is supposed to feel sorry for any of them or see themselves or their neighbors in them.

so, what was intended? I CERTAINLY don't know. The film is too well done for that. Here are guesses from other people; The George Dubya view of Brunel: The "War between the sexes" is not just a game. It is just as much a war as the "War on terrorism", and to come out ahead on either requires waging full-scale war. Sitting back trying to pretend either can be played with kid's gloves leads to annihilation. Hard to believe that is the point, but that fits as well, or better, with the film than some of these other views.

The Andrea Dworkin view of Brunel: Given that Brunel dwells on chastity and sexual morality ... Is sex rape? Is stealing virginity, stealing? Interesting how horrible news is recited while the torn, bloody nightgowns are being exhibited, but just as the women begins to mend the holes, the radio switches to pleasant music. Are we to take it that man's dominance of women, even the act of sex, equates with terrorism? Again, hard to believe that is the point, but that fits as well, or better, with the film than some of these other views.

The bigjack2 view of Brunel: bigjack2's comment on IMDb is the best review and the most plausible view. Read it. Vote for it. Get it to the top. It isn't far removed from the Bush view, in that focus on the analogy between terrorism/anarchy and the war between the sexes. I didn't know Brunel, but if big jack2 is right that Brunel held Trotskyesque views, this is probably the best analysis.

Speaking of views at the top; how did people find the one form the film buff from Ohio or wherever helpful? He calls this "one of the most bizarre films"? Are you kidding me? I don't watch that many films. OK, I do watch a high ratio of obscure or artsy films, but this film doesn't even make it into my top 30 for most bizarre films I've seen. Mr. Film-buff says "Bombings and deaths are at an all time high, yet he (Mathieu) doesn't really seem to notice this. He is oblivious to his surroundings." Are you kidding me? Mathieu is shown reacting to these events with disgust innumerable times. What? He doesn't leave his career and move form Paris to Timbuktu? Is that what makes him oblivious? Mathieu went on with his life in the face of terrorism, just as people do today. Mr. Film-buff says "I would go so far as to say that we are also oblivious to the surroundings ... we sometimes forget or miss the actions surrounding this film." Well, I think it is obvious you were oblivious, since you didn't seem to notice the innumerable times he is shown reacting to these events, but please learn to speak for yourself.

The film has so many great scenes. Why has nobody mentioned the scene where Mom asks Mathieu "So, you want to marry her"? and at that very moment, a mouse gets his neck snapped in a mouse trap in the corner of the room. Great stuff. Along that line, what was the point of the fly in Mathieu's drink? And why did the owner of the club refuse to serve Conchita just after she quit, but then the next time, he practically prostrated himself for her. What change was supposed to have occurred? Was it the point that she was now known to be living with a rich man, so she had to be respected?

The other under-discussed method is the makeup of the strangers on the train. A dwarf, a judge, a mother, and her YOUNG daughter. Firstly, why does Mathieu tell this story in front of the young girl? Before she is shooed out of the cabin, Mathieu has already dived deep into the war-of-the-sexes aspect. And why a dwarf? A dwarf playing a psychology professor who "gives private lessons"? Huh? This has to be a slur on psychology professors, because this professor interrupts repeatedly to make blatantly obvious points, and acting smug while doing so. Is the point that most professors are mental midgets? I don't know. And why is the judge the least judgmental of the bunch?

Another question; what is "obscure"? Certainly not Mathieu's desire to pound some poontang or steal some snatch. Does "obscure" refer to virginity? to something Conchita or the terrorist's want? I'd bet on the virginity angle, but who knows? I wish I had the time to watch this film about 10x. I'm sure I'd see something new each time.

Play it again ...

[kosmasp · 9/10 · 4 August 2008]

... Bunuel (not Sam, in this case). This movie is again about human obsession! The trick using 2 different actresses for one role as stated by another user, is not unique per se, but heightens the surrealism of the movie. And it does work perfectly as to other films that couldn't handle that same weight. Or couldn't convey it to the viewing audience at least!

While it has a slow pace, the movie feeds from it, especially because you have to get a grip of the story- and time-line you have to handle. It is not difficult to follow, but you might need to watch it a second time to really appreciate it :o)

great film that stands test of time

[paul22-5 · 10/10 · 17 December 2004]

even though it was made many years ago, it stands up as a great film, wonderfully acted and directed. The previous reviewer says everything so I will just add that if you can find the uncut version, there is a scene with Conchita (Angela Molina) dancing flamenco in the nude that lasts a good few minutes and is not cut like in the Criterion DVD... this full scene adds weight and more strength to the film and brings home the main character's jealousy more. It is the turning point of the film and it is a shame that it was cut, not even keeping the uncut version for adults to see.

This is the only scene that was cut from the film and when you consider what is in other films it is difficult to understand why, I think the main reason was to obtain a younger certificate for the film. If you are a fan of Angela Molina then check out 'The Eyes The Mouth' to see more of her. It was also good to see Carole Bouquet in 'That Obscure..' in her pre James Bond days. All three main characters are superb actors. Oh how I wish I could find the uncut version!..lol If you know where I can obtain a copy of the uncut (107 min duration) please email me at [e-mail] ..enjoy!

Duplicity

[Polaris_DiB · 8/10 · 25 June 2009]

Well, Bunuel certainly made a strong exit, here. This is probably one of his most beguiling movies, one that is foundationally built on characters that are contradictions of themselves.

Mathieu is sleezy and exploitative... and yet he really does love, or thinks he loves, Conchita, and makes an exuberant fool out of himself doing so. Conchita is likewise attracted to Mathieu... except it's not clear if she's just using him and leading him along, or if she honestly just wants assurance that his feelings are pure. In other words, Mathieu is the loving abuser and Conchita is literally the emphasis on the prude/slut dichotomy. AAAnd so you get to watch them, for two hours, nearly destroy each other in basically one of the best dysfunctional relationships ever put on screen.

Lots has been said about the two actresses playing Conchita. It gets to become pretty obvious after a while, but at first it is wonderfully surreal, the sort of subtle gesture that Bunuel is an expert at doing. However, I think it was more daring having only one person, then, play Mathieu--and especially narrate it. Mathieu's duplicitous nature is such that he is the token untrustworthy narrator, and yet it's quite clear throughout the movie that he's talking nothing but the absolute truth. This adds another layer of questions to the proceedings: is it possible that objectivity and subjectivity have finally merged? Is Conchita's double-nature only what he sees in her, or does she actually change face? And then, of course, there's the sack. It's always nice when something is pointed out on-screen that leads to mystery, but that mystery is never stated. It seems, in the end, that the sack is really the only object that gives meaning to the narrative.

--PolarisDiB

Interest portrait of male obsession of women, but marred by violence and sexism

[Lebech · 7/10 · 29 July 2001]

A movie about the fundamental theme of male sexual obsession with a woman. The wealthy old bachelor Mathieu is intrigued by beautiful young Conchita, who lives in poor conditions with her mother. He becomes more and more sexually obsessed with her as she keeps turning down all his attempts to have sex with her and varies between feelings of love, indifference and hate towards him. He keeps following her around Europe and is increasingly obsessed and violent.

Buñuel lets two women play the same character, symbolizing the conflictual sides of her personality. This is a brilliantly outrageous idea, no matter whether Buñuel intended it or not, as the other commenters have discussed at length.

This brings me to the fatal flaw of the movie. I was disturbed by the sexism, violence, and repulsiveness of the main character because the movie never makes it completely clear where it stands towards him. The movie puts us on the side of the man trying to understand him as he becomes more and more obsessed with her, tries to buy her from her mother, has her deported, tries to rape her, and brutally beats her. His obsession never drives him to the tragedy that would be morally logical outcome, but the movie ends symbolically without conclusion.

Choice of actress

[PAL · 10/10 · 21 August 2007]

Sorry to disappoint all those who were trying to find some deep, intentional meaning in the choice of two actresses for the same role, but if Fernando Rey is to be believed, here's what he told me when I bumped into him at a party in the early 90's: he said that he and Buñuel liked both actresses for the part, couldn't decide which one to use, so they used them both.

Now, perhaps there was something working on the unconscious level about the dual nature of Conchita, but Rey maintained there was no grand decision they made regarding the specific scenes assigned to one or the other.

Of course, artistic choices can be obscure, especially even to the artist, but Rey insisted it was just a whimsical idea, one which I thought worked brilliantly.

Notable Only for Casting Gimmick

[kenjha · 6/10 · 26 December 2012]

A middle-aged man is obsessed with a young woman who remains elusive. In his final film, Bunuel keeps the narrative more straight-forward than in many of his earlier examples of surrealism. The only notable aspect to the story is that the title character, a woman who is by turns icy and flirtatious, is played by two actresses. No explanation is offered for this odd casting and the switch between hot Molina and cold Bouquet occurs without any rhyme or reason. Naturally, the critics and Bunuel worshippers declare the dual casting gimmick a stroke of genius. There's a clumsy subplot involving terrorists that leads to a predictable conclusion.

A study of a man's yearning for a woman

[Afracious · 8/10 · 13 April 2000]

The story is told by Mathieu (played by the excellent Fernando Rey) to a group of strange people in a train carriage compartment. He is a wealthy man who meets a beautiful young woman named Conchita. They begin to see each other often, and Mathieu's desire for her grows stronger. Conchita is poor and lives with her mother in a small flat. Mathieu gives them a lot of money, but mistakenly tries to buy Conchita away from her mother. Conchita is played by two beautiful actresses, but strange as it may seem, this doesn't effect the film negatively. Sometimes when one version of Conchita walks through a door the other figure enters the next room. But this unique style does work.

Conchita teases Mathieu throughout the film and comes across as a manipulative vixen. Also, there is a group of terrorists bombing buildings and cars throughout the film. A strange sack is carried around and seen several times, too. These are the mysterious things Buñuel likes to add to his films. You also get the feeling that Buñuel knew this was going to be his last film with the ending, which is perfectly abrupt.

Bunuel was still going strong late in life

[giantpanther · 7/10 · 21 July 2009]

I am not a huge Bunuel fan, and this isn't his best work. Nevertheless though this is great stuff, for some inexplicable reason we have two different actresses playing the lead role of Conchita. Why is that exactly? My theory is that Bunuel sat down and thought I wonder what would happen if I did this, so he did it.

I won't go too thoroughly into the plot, but a man is basically tormented in different ways by a woman with shifting personalities (thus the two actresses).

I liked this movie because it was so strange, the seventies were an interesting period.

Terrorism to the Rescue

[disinterested_spectator · 5/10 · 6 January 2015]

I always knew I was not good with faces, but I didn't realize just how bad I was until I watched this movie. It was only after I finished watching the movie and read a review on it that I found out that Conchita was played by two different actresses in regularly alternating scenes. Once I read that, I could immediately remember the difference, though I had not noticed it at the time. In fact, there was even a scene in which a third woman, who happened to be a brunette, made an appearance, and I thought she was Conchita too. Apparently the purpose was to have one actress play Conchita when she wants to have sex and the other actress when she does not.

Anyway, we see some terrorism. Then, Mathieu, a middle-aged man, tries to seduce Conchita, his maid, on her first day on the job, which is creepy (today we would call it sexual harassment). She quits as a result, but he keeps pursuing her (today we would call it stalking).

And then we see some more terrorism. Our disgust for him as a lecher soon turns to pity, because she keeps egging him on, promising, enticing, getting naked, rubbing her body on him, but he must not have sex with her, because she is virgin and she is saving herself for him and that ought to be enough for him and besides, what kind of girl does he think she is anyway?

More terrorism. The movie proves there is no fool like an old fool, because he buys her a house to win her love, but she locks him out and has sex with her lover while he watches from outside.

You guessed it, some more terrorism. He finally gets fed up and says he knows God will never forgive her. But then he forgives her, and they get back together. But wait! They start arguing again. Suddenly a bomb goes off in the marketplace blowing them to bits.

Thank goodness for terrorism.