Buñuel is no doubt a visionary who did anything he could to translate his visions to the big screen. Though he approached his 1932 film Land Without Bread through the lens of a documentarian, there are aspects of it which were strategically captured or placed which makes it interesting to further dissect and analyze. The question of intervention comes into play as the illusion is that he, as the filmmaker and the camera, stand solely as the “spectator”. Is there any way that he as the filmmaker does not influence the events of the film or even the overall narrative? He blurs the line between reality and fiction/fabrication which creates a sort of spectacle around what he has chosen to capture. The aspects he chooses to include in the film contributes to the sense of surrealism he tends to stay true to throughout his works. He sees it as a movement that is poetic, and revolutionary. A way to make a statement that means something and can capture the attention of the audiences that consume these works. He includes shocking visuals such as the animal falling from the cliff and the animal being stung and essentially consumed by bees.

The lack of intervention is also interesting to think about in relation to this film and others similar. There are a lot of moments where what he is capturing is horrific and we as the audience know that all he did was film it (ignoring possible manipulations/dramatizations). Are we to expect intervention from him? The lack of intervention also seems to attribute to the fact that he is exploiting the situation of these people. The starvation, the sickness, and the other issues that they face on a daily basis.