September 4, 2025

Weekly Response #1

I appreciate Buñuel’s acknowledgement of comedy as a genre to be taken seriously despite the opinion that it might be a lesser art form because it’s not “serious” in thought. In his review of College, he views Buster Keaton as an auteur of his own, deserving of critical praise for its intentional elements. I find it interesting that despite him being part of the “avant-garde” genre, he views comedy as surrealism in its purest form, free from over thinking about how to make something a surreal spectacle. Comedy works best for the avant garde because it’s so ridiculous, how could it actually be happening? Comedy in actuality is very technical and coordinated, though I believe that after a certain point it is purely intuitive and relies on a sort of stream of consciousness, and perhaps this is what Buñuel could have picked up on as well, a childlike approach to an art form free from intellectual thought and for an audience’s enjoyment. I enjoyed how he called people “stupid”, I believe he was trying to express that people overthink too much about art. Comedy strips all the overthinking away, what is happening in front of you is the most important thing, not some greater meaning to the piece. Perhaps Buñuel appreciated the playful essence comedy brings to a medium, it’s much different to watch a comedic film than it is to see it happen live. On film it’s captured forever, to go back to and in many ways we have not escaped this culture of enjoying something so much you can go and watch it again. Maybe Buñuel just liked a good laugh once in a while and being surrounded by intellectual artists can take the joy out of creation.