When reading the reviews and critic commentaries about Un Chien Andalou, I found it very interesting that many viewers found that Buñuel’s films simultaneously invite interpretation and actively resist it. It was a very succinct description of the way that I felt after watching the film and it resonated with me even more so after the viewing of L’age D’or. Both these films are filled with vivid imagery and puzzling set pieces, for me the most interesting were the pianos laden with the carcasses of donkeys, and the final sequence with the holy men in the second film. Both of these sequences evoke the symbols of Catholicism. In the first, two friars weigh a man down, holding him back from engaging in his most evil desires. In the second, the cloth is used like sheep’s wool to protect the image of the holy men while they engage in depravity far from the watchful eye of God. These are my interpretations and what is so puzzling about Buñuel’s work is that even despite coming to these conclusions, I still have doubt as to whether I’m reading the movie correctly. Though maybe Buñuel’s work exists to counter exactly that. There is no true interpretation, the characters act in unexplainable ways, say things that seem to undermine their characterization, and do things that are even more bizarre than what comes out their mouths. The best example of this is the man in L’age D’or who claims to be an upstanding member of a society dedicated to good will, all while he pushes a blind man into oncoming traffic.