|A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Luis Buñuel article.|
|Luis Buñuel has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Mexican or Spanish?
- 3 Bunuel vs. Dali
- 4 Redirection
- 5 Clarification
- 6 Location of Centers of Study/Museums
- 7 Poor Image Choice
- 8 The story of the making of Viridiana
- 9 deathbed conversion - it's a fiction
- 10 Masonic references in cinema
- 11 New Yorker article?
- 12 Uneasy interludes abroad?
- 13 Major re-write underway
- 14 International period or 2nd French period
- 15 Photo used
- 16 "Not entirely approvingly" may not be appropriate for heading--also mention "satire" in heading
- 17 Narrative block badly needed in "Second French period (1963–1977)" section/This section should be called "International Period (1961-1977)"--using chronological order rather than nationality
- 18 Marriage
- 19 Peer Review for featured article
Warisill I changed the running time of Chien on the main page to 16 minutes, because it's 16 minutes not 24 as originally stated. I've also added a summary of La Joven and will continue to add summaries of Bunuel's Mexican period because I own copies of all almost of his films.
Mexican or Spanish?
I was surprised to see that Buñuel is regarded here as a Mexican film-maker. While it is true that he was given Mexican nationality in 1949, it is not less true that he frequently regarded himself as a "Spanish republican". He also lived more time in Spain than in Mexico. Why not label him as "Spanish-Mexican", to be more neutral?
--Ignacio 19:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- The article regards him as a Spanish-born Mexican. So it is both. He moved to Mexico, acquired the citizenship and died there. He chose to be Mexican, his wishes are granted. --Vizcarra 20:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Perhaps we should ask him, if we could ;-) I think that his culture is more Spanish than Mexican, but that's an opinion, of course. Nevertheless, other encyclopaedias consider him Spanish. E.g.: The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1992: "Buñuel, Luis, Spanish director and filmmaker, noted especially for his early Surrealist films and for his work in the Mexican commercial cinema..." Wikipedia in Spanish: "Luis Buñuel Portolés ... fue un director de cine español naturalizado mexicano..." Encarta on-line: "Buñuel, Luis (1900-1983), Spanish motion-picture director, one of the masters of 20th-century cinema... " In order to avoid upsetting my Mexican friends, I suggest calling him Spanish-Mexican. Other opinions? --Ignacio 15:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Althought calling him Mexican can be formaly correct, It appear to me extrange to do so when he arrived at Mexico at the age of 46.
It is fucking wrong to call the guy Mexican. You can mention that he worked in Mexico and even obtained Mexican citizenship but it is ultimately misleading to call him a Spanish born Mexican filmmaker. He was much more international than that and it is probably most correct to call him a Spanish filmmaker. Should Robert De Niro be considered an Italian actor just because he holds Italian citizenship? No. Bunuel worked in Mexico as well as Spain, France, and the USA.
Whoever came up with the idea to call him "Aragonese" instead of Spanish? Introductory statements at the beginning of a bio always name a country, not a city or a town, or a state or a region, etc. Saying Aragonese instead of Spanish is as absurd as changing Clint Eastwood's entry to "a Californian film actor, director,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calastheon (talk • contribs) 04:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Bunuel vs. Dali
"Creative authorship of both films would be claimed by both men throughout their lives, but Dali's claim doesn't hold up against the great surreal film work later produced by Buñuel". - and the later great surrealist work produced by Dali is NOT a proof?! I am really surprised by the reasoning in the cited sentence. If you ever watched L'Age d'Or and know both the work of Dali and Bunuel, you can plainly see huge parts of script created by Dali that are retained in the film. The film increasing anti-clericalism and anti-burgeois emphasis are obviously Bunuel's doing, but it doesn't invalidate Dali's claim in any way. Such opinion was promulgated by the critics biased against Dali (I suppose based on his personal political views). In any case, as I said, go back to the sourse (film that is), and see for yourself. Also, I advise to read Dali's writings prior to the making of the movie, and around the time. Also, look INTO his art of the time and see if there are recurring themes there AND in the film. Bunuel at the time showed very little intellectual or literary abilities to claim that L'Age d'Or (or even Un Chien Andalou) is HIS creations only. He turned out to be a famous director later on in his life, but, to be frank, if it was not for Lorca and Dali "mentoring" him, I doubt it would have happened. Anchorite 06:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
My problem with that statment is that it's stating an opinion... Also, I believe Dali tried to downplay his role in L'Age d'Or once it became controversial. Donwithnoname 21:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding L'Age d'Or, it is a fact (as stated by both Buñuel and Dali in their memories) that they started working together in the script, but this time they didn't get along well, so they broke up and Dali had no participation whatsoever in the shooting of the film. This is why it can be considered a Buñuel piece, differently than Le Chien Andalou, that is really co-authored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvier (talk • contribs) 02:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Surely by searching for 'Buñuel' one should be redirected to Luis' page rather than a one liner about a town in Spain.
Could someone use a more clear term than "non-diegetic" in the last paragraph of the Technique section? Reading the linked article offers no clear explanation as it does not refer to filmmaking.
Location of Centers of Study/Museums
Would it be perhaps a good idea to provide a section which catalogs the centers of study for bunuel's work? I've located one in his hometown, which doesn't appear if you do google searches for obvious things like, "Bunuel museum".
Thanks goes to the Spanish tourism bureau in Miami for locating this one:
CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS LUIS BUÑUEL ADDRESS: PLAZA MANUEL MINDÁN MANERO, 3. CALANDA, TERUEL, 44570, SPAIN TELF. (978) 846-905 WEB PAGE: www.cbcvirtual.com
Located in a XVII century Palace (Palacio de Fortón-Cascajares). Objects: artifacts, films, publications, and many objects belong to Buñuel.
Poor Image Choice
A personal picture should not qualify as the main image for a historical figure. I don't know the exact rules for this type of matter, but I would suspect that an original computer drawing might be considered a poor choice for the primary image. I am not particularly invested in this page, but, perhaps, someone who is can find a suitable, portrait-like photograph and apply it to this page. ask123 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that someone has completed this task. Thanks! ask123 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The story of the making of Viridiana
>>> In 1960, for political propaganda reasons, Franco instructed his minister of culture to invite the country's most famous filmmaker to return to Spain to direct a film of his choice. Buñuel accepted and proceeded to make Viridiana
This, and almost all the whole info on this subject in the article, is just childish fantasizing; the real story has been several times told by the people involved:
Viridiana was a coproduction between Spanish Uninci (a leftist production company -actually a cultural cover-up of the Spanish Communist Party, as admited years later by all people involved- tolerated by Spanish government) and Mexican Gustavo Alastriste. The initial conversations to shoot it in Spain took place in Mexico in 1958-59 during the shooting there of Uninci-produced Juan Antonio Bardem-directed Sonatas (Bardem was himself a well-known member of the SCP, again tolerated [Bardem, not the SCP] to some extent by the Spanish Government). And everybody agreed quickly: Alatriste wanted a lead role for Silvia Pinal, by then his wife, Uninci wanted the same for Fernando Rey, one of its shareholders and a player in Sonatas, and Buñuel was more than willing to go to Spain and shoot the screenplay he had written with Julio Alejandro.
Uninci got, without any major problem, the Spanish government permission for the shooting and the censorship approval for the script, and Viridiana was made. It was then sent, representing Spain, to the Cannes festival, again with the Spanish government permission; to the point that the person who took the stand to receive the Palme d'Or award was the General Director of Cinematography of the Spanish Government. So, everybody (from the Spanish Communist Party to the Spanish Governement) was happy ... until the following day L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, solemny declared Viridiana as blasphemous. Immediately the Spanish Governement backed down and banned the film.
Three additional precissions:
1. It is ridiculous to say that Franco cared, or even knew, about Buñuel. It shows a total ignorance of what and how both Franco and Spain under Franco were.
2. Luis Buñuel loved to go to Spain, loved the shooting of Viridiana, and loved to stay in Madrid, to the point that from then on he spent more time of his life in Madrid that in Mexico.
3. The ambiguous financial and legal status of Viridiana after the Spanish Government banning (the film was not only prohibited to be shown in Spain but was too declared as non-existing as a Spanish production) led to a bitter and long litigation between the Mexican (who unilaterally exploited the film all around the world) and the Spanish producers. This litigation eventually caused Uninci to go into receivership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
deathbed conversion - it's a fiction
deleted from Trivia:
- Although he was famously a lifelong atheist, he reportedly experienced a religious conversion at the end of his life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustter (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Buñuel conceived of his own deathbed conversion as a joke. From his autobiography:
As I drift toward my last sigh I often imagine a final joke. I convoke around my deathbed my friends who are confirmed atheists, as I am. Then a priest, whom I have summoned, arrives; and to the horror of my friends I make my confession, ask for absolution for my sins, and receive extreme unction. After which I turn over on my side and exire.
But will I have the strengh to joke at that moment?
I doubt very much that reality followed Buñuel's fiction.
Masonic references in cinema
I found this page explaining that some of Bunuel's works are cited as Masonic references in cinema. In that case, it would be a good idea to mention it in the page. ADM (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
New Yorker article?
"repudiate this statement in a 1977 article in The New Yorker"
- December 5th, 1977, p. 54 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Uneasy interludes abroad?
Major re-write underway
I'm working on a thorough re-write, building on the excellent material that had already been assembled. So far, I've updated "early life", and the first part of "career", the years covering Un Chien and L'Age d'Or. Also updated some of the section on "technique" relating to use of music.
I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions, complaints, guidance, collaboration, etc. My goal is to get the article to GA or (can I dream?) FA status. Any advice or help on how to get there would be wonderful. Jburlinson (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is great news! Bunuel was/is a great director and such an important figure in film. I look forward to seeing him have a full article. --Lobo (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- May I add, I think the aspect most in desperate need of attention is the lead. It is pathetic right now! Will you be expanding it soon? Even if just a few more lines, for now, to mention his style, major films, and to actually make clear how important he was. --Lobo (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- I had figured I'd save the first for last. I'll take a crack at the lead on your advice. I agree that what's there now is minimal -- to say the least! I've got the article in my sandbox now and am up to the Mexican period. It's a lot of stop and start for me, so keeping a sense of continuity is quite a challenge. I'm also trying to get good images that are either public domain or have copyright holder's permission. Jburlinson (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I added a paragraph to the lead. I'd appreciate feedback as to how well it hits the mark, if at all. I'll likely add another paragraph to summarize LB's career when that part of the article is updated fully. Thanks.Jburlinson (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I looked at the lead. It looks like a good start. But I don't think you should mention the 2002 Sight & Sound list since a new one just came out and I can't find a Buñuel film anywhere in the Top 50. I also wouldn't mention WikiProject Films Core List since it looks like the source for that list is They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?. Maybe it would be better to mention that he was ranked 14 on their Top 250 Directors list (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm). I also don't like the line about "masterpieces" since it doesn't say who is calling them "masterpieces".
- OK. Good suggestions. I made all the changes you suggested, but kept the reference to the 2002 S&S poll. They should update the "top 100" next week sometime, and I'm hoping to see some of Bunuel's pictures listed. Their not being included in the top 50 is nothing short of absurd. Thanks for your message.Jburlinson (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just added some revisions to the sections "Spain" and "United States" in the treatment of his career. Plus, I've tweaked a few lines in the preceding sections as well. I've also changed some of the images, trying to de-emphasize use of non-free files and substituting them with cc licensed images or images with permission to use on WP. Also, I've added a section on "Characterizations", just ahead of "Awards", and I added a couple of items to the "Tributes" section as well. Feedback is definitely welcomed.
International period or 2nd French period
I'm thinking of changing the section now called "2nd French period" to "International period". Many of the films of this period are co-productions filmed and/or funded in the USA, France, Spain, Italy and Mexico, with the finished products released in French, Spanish and/or English. Thoughts? Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you 100%. My vote is definitely in favor of changing the name to "International period" as you have suggested. I think I made a similar point in a thread down below--sorry, I had not noticed that you had already brought up the matter in this thread. But, thank you for doing so. You make a great point here. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- For some reason, I would prefer to see a picture (at the top) of Bunuel later in life, and I think most people would argree with me on this. That would be the image of Bunuel that first comes to mind, perhaps because he reached his popular and artistic peak during the later years and would be the look that is most readily identifiable: preferably a photo of him in his later period pictured with a viewfinder around his neck. That would perfectly capture the essence--the quintessential and eternal image of Bunuel that I think most people have. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
"Not entirely approvingly" may not be appropriate for heading--also mention "satire" in heading
The term "...not entierely approvingly..." (regarding Bergman's opinion of Bunuel) may not be an appropriate thing to put in the heading of the article, particularly in light of the level of regard this director is held by followers of cinema wordwide
It may not accurately or fully describe Ingamr Bergaman's opinion of Luis Bunuel, because he made various comments about Bunuel at different times, and this allusion is only based on one comment. In the statement that the heading is obviously referring to, Bergamn is saying that he is not able to "appreciate" Bunuel, which is not the same thing as dissapproval.
- A French critic cleverly wrote that "with Autumn Sonata Bergman does Bergman." It is witty but unfortunate. For me, that is. I think it is only too true that Bergman (Ingmar, that is) did a Bergman.... I love and admire the filmmaker Tarkovsky and believe him to be one of the greatest of all time. My admiration for Fellini is limitless. But I also feel that Tarkovsky began to make Tarkovsky films and that Fellini began to make Fellini films. Yet Kurosawa has never made a Kurosawa film. I have never been able to appreciate Buñuel. He discovered at an early stage that it is possible to fabricate ingenious tricks, which he elevated to a special kind of genius, particular to Buñuel, and then he repeated and varied his tricks. He always received applause. Buñuel nearly always made Buñuel films. 
I need to go back and find the reference, but when I was reading Berman's autobiogrpahy, The Magic Lantern, a few years ago (a book Bergamn wrote late in life), he gave heartfelt praise to Bunuel in one passage. So let's not typcast his opinion of Bunuel in the heading.
Also, the heading makes no mention of Bunuel as a satirist: i.e. it makes no mention of satire in the litany of genres he has been associated with, which is a glaring omission. But, aside form these criticisms, I think that this is, otherwise, an outstanding and informative article and is a few small steps away from becoming one of the best Wiki articles ever done about a film director. The breadth, scope, and quality of writing here is amazing and a joy to read. Though I am not fluent in Spanish, this article appears to be superior to the one on Spanish Wikipeia, and that is quite an amazing feat. Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I've removed the speculation about Bergman's intentions and added satire to the litany. Much appreciated. Jburlinson (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Narrative block badly needed in "Second French period (1963–1977)" section/This section should be called "International Period (1961-1977)"--using chronological order rather than nationality
- This otherwise wonderful article badly needs to have a narrative block (written in paragraphs) for the "Second French period (1963-1977)" section. Merely listing the movies from these years (many of which are now considered classics) is woefully deficient. We need to give a full explanation about these critical and important years, which many regard as the pinnacle of his career. These were the years when Bunuel reached his greatest level of success, both popularly and critically. Belle de Jour was a big hit and won the Golden Lion award at the Venice film festival in 1967. The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie was even more popular and won the Academy award for best foreign film in 1972.
- While creating a narrative block, we could rename this section "Late period (1961-1977)" (i.e. note the change in years, which is generally thought of as the time span comprising his late period). Not all of his films were made in France during the time covered in the present "Second French period" section. For instance, Simon of the Desert (1965) was made in Mexico, between Diary of a Chambermaid (1964) and Belle de Jour, (1967). Tristana (1970) was made in Spain between The Milky Way (1969) and Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972). So, rather than presenting things according to nationality, we could narrate this section in chronological order. This will be necessary in order to create a cogent narrative block. We could roll back the time period of this section to start in 1961, beginning with Viridiana, which is generally regarded as the actual tuning point into his late career. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- This sounds eminently reasonable. The cursory list coverage of Bunuel's career peak is a bizarre lacuna in an otherwise good article. Although coverage of the works of that period may be "obvious" to experts, we need to write for the interested layman who wants to learn more about Bunuel. Breaking the classification by nationality is fine, because Bunuel worked in more that one country during that period. Reify-tech (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- In his thread above Jburlinson advocates (like us) moving away from the sole focus on France in this section. He proposed to re-name the section "International period," which I think is a great name (even better than "Late period" in fact). I just changed the name of this thread to include the title he proposed. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- From my understanding, his late (international) period is usually seen as beginning in circa 1961 with Viridana, not in 1963 with Diary of a Chambermaid. Bunuel, in his Autobiography, My Last Sigh, considers the making Viriadia to be the beginning of his late period. The chapter devoted to covering that period is Chapter 19 and is tiled: "From Spain to Mexico to France (1960-1977)." He begins it by discussing his return to Spain and the making of Viridiana and ends it by discussing That Obscure Object of Desire. The earlier chapter covering his Mexican Period is tiled "Mexico 1946-1961." The last film he discusses in that chapter is Nazarin (1959), though he did make two other films in the time between that and Viridiana. There is an overlap of the two years 1960 and 1961. We could probably settle on 1961 to begin the late period, because that was the year Viridiana was finished and released to the public.
- So, therefore, the new section should be called "International Period 1960-1977," and would cover (in a narrative block in paragraphs) the mature masterworks he made during those years. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm forging ahead with some new text. I changed the section heading to cover the dates 1954-1977), because Bunuel's first true "international co-production" was the Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, and there were several others prior to Viridiana. Dates only tell part of the story, though, since Viridiana definitely represents a major moment in Bunuel's career, after which he didn't make another "film for hire", so to speak, only films that he conceived from the ground up. Please feel free to edit as you see fit and let me know if there are any questions or you would like to discuss further.--Jburlinson (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Peer Review for featured article
I've requested a peer review of this article in preparation for nominating it for Featured Article status. Please share any thoughts, comments, suggestions, advice, etc. on the peer review page -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Luis_Bu%C3%B1uel/archive1 Thanks.--Jburlinson (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Bunuel, Luis. My Last Sigh. Alfred Knopf. New York. 1983 pg. 232-250
- Bunuel, Luis. My Last Sigh. Alfred Knopf. New York. 1983
- Bunuel, Luis. My Last Sigh. Alfred Knopf. New York. 1983