Watch The Phantom of Liberty For Free

Too much of everything

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

I suppose this film falls under what is called a "comedy of absurd". Absurd it certainly is, but not a bit funny. Something like Monty Python, but terribly bad. This is one of the most pretentious, stupidest and most boring things I had the misfortune to see and I admire myself that I endured to the end. And to prevent the comments that I did not understand it - yes, I did understand it very well, but I still think that this film is overrated garbage.2/10

Unless you're already a Bunuel fan, it's pretty much guaranteed that you have never seen a film like this before. A series of vignettes loosely connected by re-appearing characters, The Phantom of Liberty upends your expectations – or confirms your most cynical fears – in a constantly evolving, surprising way. This isn't a serious movie, exactly, but it addresses serious issues: taboos about sex and proper social behavior; individual freedom and the needs of the community; corruption and authority.It is tempting to describe some of my favorite scenes, but The Phantom of Liberty is best seen without expectations. Suffice to say that Bunuel is a master filmmaker, very much at home in the Surrealist genre, and if you choose to pop this film into your DVD player you will have a very interesting evening. Won the Top Foreign Film award from the National Board of Review in 1974; no doubt it was far too peculiar for Oscar consideration.

The tableaux of the serial killing poet is incredibly disturbing, especially in the times that we live in today where mass shootings have become a bi-weekly ordeal. The serial killer has absolute power to use his sniper rifle and shoot whoever he pleases in the unsuspecting community below. Bunuel seems to be using him as a metaphor for questioning the inevitability of human nature. Yes, we all want freedom. However, too much freedom might lead us to the same path of corruption, power struggle and oppression. Without some sort of set of rules, morals, and ethics, what kind of human being would emerge? Are we sure that we are inherently good? Where would 'absolute freedom' lead us to, as an individual and a society? These questions reveal a terrifying answer for me. I thought about what the world would be like if there were no consequences. That is what we mean by absolute freedom, right? We are free to do as we please with no restrictions from another individual or group. There are no laws or institutions telling me what is legal and illegal, what will be shown on my credit report, or what I have to inform my prospective employer. If there were no consequences, what would my actions be? Are my actions because in result of social conventions and legalities or because of my own inherent ethical and moral code? If I were absolutely free, would I be the dutiful citizen briskly crossing the street inside the lines of a crosswalk to get to work on time or would I be the rebellious poet taking advantage of my freedom and doing as I please? Am I compliant out of fear of consequence (legally and socially) or are my choices organic and thus meaning I am inherently good? The answer is impossible to know. I cannot imagine a world without social conventions, rules, expectations, consequences, and morality. I would like to think of myself as a good person, but I also know there have been plenty of times when I have wanted to cheat the system, and would do so if I wouldn't get caught (getting out of jury duty for example). The latter is troublesome for me. If the inclination is there, what makes me think it is not possible for me to end up just like the serial killer if there was such a world of 'Absolute Freedom'? In several tableaux, I found judgment and/or objectivity to be a common theme. I often watch a film with too many pretenses or form opinions before I ever know the context. It is a quality I am not proud of and am working on improving. However, with 'Phantom of Liberty', Bunuel refuses the viewer the opportunity to judge. He forces you to have an open mind and thus accept the world he has created.He does this in many ways. For one, the way he tells the story is, at first, very jarring, perplexing, and borderline frustrating. We are accustomed to following a protagonist and/or an antagonist with whom we as an audience are allotted an entire hour and a half to critique, over-analyze, and connect or disconnect with. Yet Bunuel gives us exactly the opposite. Each tableaux brings a fresh new group of characters and setting in which we have no previous relationship with. We are not allowed to create relationships with these characters - there is no time to! Thus, we are forced to watch objectively and with this objectivity we can interpret Bunuel's message.The surrealistic elements he ads to scenes seemed to be another effort to force me to open my eyes and see outside the box. For example, the husband who we assume is dreaming about an ostrich in his room, only later to realize it is real. In the hotel, the monks playing poker, the Spanish couple dancing, and the businessman in ass-less chaps. Once I accepted these plausibilities, I was free to explore what Bunuel was trying to say.Bunuel even dedicates an entire tableaux to the idea of judgment with the scene of the dinner party in which the family defecates at the table and eats in the bathroom. Had Bunuel not already established in the previous stories that he was taking me for a ride and I have to think outside of what I am used to, I would have missed the entire point. I would have assumed this scene at face value was simply a parody. Luckily, Bunuel had well-equipped me for this scene (I was already watching objectively) and I was ready to accept it and find its deeper meaning.

The Phantom of Liberty is one of the most "different" movies I have ever seen in a while. It is definitely not one of those movies that are linear and have one main story line. There are more than ten different stories going on, some relating to each other, in which I found each have some kind of quality that would express the opposite of what we would be social norms or normal at all. An example would be a scene in which a family is sitting together at the dining room table, each of them sitting on a toilet seat. Instead of eating at the dinner table, the social norm seems to be to release your bowels and to excuse yourself to the restroom when you are hungry. I feel that Luis Buñuel was trying to question social norms and make the point that what is the difference really between eating and releasing your bowels when they are both just a process of your body getting energy through food. The movie seems to continue to question social norms with a fascinating twist to each story that is told in the movie.