AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
7,2/10
15 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Em uma narrativa surrealista, um homem e uma mulher apaixonados um pelo outro têm suas tentativas de consumar sexualmente a relação frustradas pelos valores morais da igreja e da sociedade b... Ler tudoEm uma narrativa surrealista, um homem e uma mulher apaixonados um pelo outro têm suas tentativas de consumar sexualmente a relação frustradas pelos valores morais da igreja e da sociedade burguesa.Em uma narrativa surrealista, um homem e uma mulher apaixonados um pelo outro têm suas tentativas de consumar sexualmente a relação frustradas pelos valores morais da igreja e da sociedade burguesa.
Germaine Noizet
- Marquise of X
- (as Mme Noizet)
Bonaventura Ibáñez
- Marquis of X
- (as Ibanez)
Jean Aurenche
- Bandit
- (não creditado)
Jacques B. Brunius
- Passer-by in the Street
- (não creditado)
Jean Castanier
- Guest at the Marquis of X's Concert
- (não creditado)
Juan Castañe
- Bandit
- (não creditado)
Pancho Cossío
- Lame Bandit
- (não creditado)
Simone Cottance
- Guest at the Marquis of X's Concert
- (não creditado)
Marie Berthe Ernst
- Guest at the Marquis of X's Concert
- (não creditado)
Juan Esplandiu
- Bandit
- (não creditado)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Luis Buñuel
- Salvador Dalí
- Marquis de Sade(não creditado)
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Enredo
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesLuis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí had effectively fallen out by the time the film went into production to the extent that Dali refused to have anything to do with the actual making of the film. On the first day of shooting, Buñuel chased Dalí off the set with a hammer.
- Citações
Young Girl: I have waited for a long time. What joy to have our children murdered!
- Versões alternativasThis film was published in Italy in an DVD anthology entitled "Un Chien Andalou", distributed by DNA Srl. The film has been re-edited with the contribution of the film history scholar Riccardo Cusin . This version is also available in streaming on some platforms.
- ConexõesEdited into Buñuel en el laberinto de las tortugas (2018)
- Trilhas sonorasAve Verum Corpus K. 618
Written by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Avaliação em destaque
A Dead Branch
Some movies you'll watch because they touch your soul or challenge you in ways that grow.
Some you'll watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience; these won't directly feed you, but they'll help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. And after all, the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept.
And then there are movies that do neither of these things, that you will watch out of obligation, or because you have a need for historical context. These are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life.
The problem is of course that often you don't know which of the three a film will be, going in. You might get some indication from people you trust, but because a life in film is so personal, you really won't know until you go on the blind date.
For me, this was pretty worthless. Yes, yes, I know for many Bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. And you should know (if you don't) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films, very strange indeed.
It isn't that this isn't cinematic, or symbolically deep, or apolitically/politically friendly to the way I think. Its how it gets there that is off base. Its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me.
Part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art, which means that it is successful commercial art. Which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. Surely all this is true.
When the term "surreal" is used, generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. But when it is used correctly, meaning according to consensus theory, it always revolves around Bunuel, and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with Dali. So because they invented surreal cinema, they define and control the term. That by itself chafes me, and I have my own alternative definition that doesn't come from their philosophy.
Its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. It isn't a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy, an anti-order. Its packaged anarchy, carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them.
So okay: against linearity, against narrative, against history, against religion (an easy one), against deliberate love. But for an illinear linear narrative, for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors; what else can they do?); for a sort of transcendent "accidental" love.
It is its own enemy. If there were a Bunuel alive today as he sold his image, the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal.
My regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic, I cleave to the Spanish and avoid the French. But in the matter of the surreal, I'd like to you consider the reverse: get your surrealism from Alfred Jarry, not Bunuel.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
Some you'll watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience; these won't directly feed you, but they'll help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. And after all, the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept.
And then there are movies that do neither of these things, that you will watch out of obligation, or because you have a need for historical context. These are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life.
The problem is of course that often you don't know which of the three a film will be, going in. You might get some indication from people you trust, but because a life in film is so personal, you really won't know until you go on the blind date.
For me, this was pretty worthless. Yes, yes, I know for many Bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. And you should know (if you don't) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films, very strange indeed.
It isn't that this isn't cinematic, or symbolically deep, or apolitically/politically friendly to the way I think. Its how it gets there that is off base. Its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me.
Part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art, which means that it is successful commercial art. Which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. Surely all this is true.
When the term "surreal" is used, generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. But when it is used correctly, meaning according to consensus theory, it always revolves around Bunuel, and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with Dali. So because they invented surreal cinema, they define and control the term. That by itself chafes me, and I have my own alternative definition that doesn't come from their philosophy.
Its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. It isn't a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy, an anti-order. Its packaged anarchy, carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them.
So okay: against linearity, against narrative, against history, against religion (an easy one), against deliberate love. But for an illinear linear narrative, for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors; what else can they do?); for a sort of transcendent "accidental" love.
It is its own enemy. If there were a Bunuel alive today as he sold his image, the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal.
My regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic, I cleave to the Spanish and avoid the French. But in the matter of the surreal, I'd like to you consider the reverse: get your surrealism from Alfred Jarry, not Bunuel.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
útil•1512
- tedg
- 5 de fev. de 2007
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is The Golden Age?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- L'Age d'Or
- Locações de filme
- Cabo de Creus, Girona, Catalonia, Espanha(opening sequence - landscape)
- Empresa de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 32.712
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 7.940
- 1 de fev. de 2004
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 32.712
- Tempo de duração1 hora
- Cor
- Proporção
- 1.20 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente
Principal brecha
By what name was A Idade do Ouro (1930) officially released in India in English?
Responda