Luis Buñuel is widely regarded as one of the most innovative filmmakers of the 20th century. Known for his subversive approach to cinema, Buñuel’s work consistently challenged societal norms, including those of class, religion, and authority. However, one aspect of his filmmaking that is often overlooked is the role of fashion and costume design in his films. Buñuel’s use of fashion transcended mere aesthetic choices; it was a deliberate tool for social commentary. In his films, clothing often became a symbol of power, class struggle, and the moral and cultural decay of bourgeois society.
This article explores Buñuel’s engagement with fashion in his films, examining how he used clothing as a vehicle for critique. Through a careful analysis of his most iconic works—including The Exterminating Angel (1962), The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972), and Belle de Jour (1967)—we will explore how Buñuel’s attention to costume design reflects his broader political and ideological concerns. His nuanced understanding of fashion as a social marker allows for a deeper reading of his films, one that goes beyond traditional discussions of narrative and visual style.
Fashion in Buñuel’s cinema is not merely about surface appearance; it serves as an ideological tool, helping to convey the contradictions inherent in class structures and the dynamics of power. Buñuel, particularly in his later works, uses fashion as a way of both critiquing the bourgeoisie and highlighting the mechanisms of control within capitalist society. Clothing in his films often signifies more than personal style or wealth—it is a marker of the characters’ social positions and an indicator of their moral and political alignment.
In The Exterminating Angel (1962), Buñuel presents a group of upper-class guests at a lavish dinner party who find themselves inexplicably trapped in a room, unable to leave. Throughout the film, their clothing—elegant suits, formal dresses, and tuxedos—stands in stark contrast to the primal behavior they display as they descend into chaos. The fashion choices of these characters become emblematic of their hollow social roles. The suits, often worn to signify status and control, eventually appear absurd, highlighting the fragility of bourgeois propriety when faced with an existential crisis.
In this context, Buñuel underscores the symbolic power of clothing in class structure. For the bourgeoisie, clothing is a shield that upholds social hierarchies and reinforces the illusion of civility. As the characters’ behavior disintegrates into barbarism, their fashionable attire becomes a mockery of the very ideals of discipline, order, and control that it was meant to signify.
In The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972), Buñuel revisits the theme of bourgeois social rituals, particularly through the lens of fashion. The film centers on a group of wealthy individuals whose attempts to sit down for a meal are perpetually thwarted by absurd, surreal events. Throughout the film, their clothing—always impeccable and formal—acts as a symbol of their obsession with appearances, control, and societal norms.
In several key scenes, the characters’ relentless pursuit of a formal dinner, interrupted by bizarre and surreal circumstances, underscores the meaninglessness of their social rituals. Their clothing, representing a rigid adherence to bourgeois values, becomes a symbol of their inability to connect with deeper, more meaningful experiences. Even when they are interrupted, they never question their motives; they remain obsessed with maintaining their image and outward dignity, signifying their detachment from any notion of authenticity.
Fashion, in The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, becomes a visual representation of the bourgeoisie’s desire to preserve appearances, even as their world unravels. Buñuel’s use of fashion here highlights the emptiness of the bourgeois existence, driven by materialism, respectability, and hollow rituals.
In Belle de Jour (1967), Buñuel addresses another aspect of bourgeois society: the commodification of human sexuality. The film centers on Séverine, a bourgeois housewife played by Catherine Deneuve, who secretly works as a prostitute. The juxtaposition of Séverine’s private life—marked by her discontent and unfulfilled desires—and her public persona as the wife of a successful doctor provides an intriguing exploration of class and identity.
Fashion plays a pivotal role in this duality. Séverine’s elegant, conservative wardrobe as a housewife contrasts sharply with the provocative, revealing attire she wears as a sex worker. The contrast between these two personas is not only a reflection of her personal conflict but also a commentary on the ways in which capitalist society commodifies both human beings and human desires. Séverine’s two identities are constructed through her clothing, which reflects the objectification and commodification of women within the bourgeois framework.
In Belle de Jour, clothing does not just mark class distinctions; it serves as a metaphor for the broader social structures that define and confine the individual. Séverine’s transition between her respectable bourgeois identity and her secret life as a prostitute is mediated through fashion. Her clothes are the markers of her status and sexual objectification, creating a stark contrast between her public role and private desires. In this sense, Buñuel critiques how bourgeois society separates the private and public spheres while simultaneously commodifying both.
In Buñuel’s final film, That Obscure Object of Desire (1977), fashion again serves as a central motif in the exploration of class, power, and the commodification of desire. The film tells the story of a wealthy man’s obsessive pursuit of a young woman, Conchita, who remains elusive and unpredictable. The film features two actresses portraying Conchita, underscoring her shifting nature and the way she eludes the protagonist’s desires.
The way Conchita dresses reflects her control over her own sexual and social power. She dons both elegant, sophisticated clothing and more casual, sexually provocative attire, constantly shifting between different identities. The protagonist, in contrast, is consistently well-dressed in formal suits, his clothing a symbol of his social status and his desire to possess Conchita. His clothing, like that of the bourgeoisie in Buñuel’s earlier films, becomes a symbol of his alienation and the emptiness of his pursuit.
Buñuel critiques the commodification of sexual relationships by showing how the protagonist’s obsession with Conchita is rooted in a desire to possess her, as one would possess an object. Fashion, in this case, serves as a visual metaphor for the transactional nature of desire in a capitalist society, where relationships are reduced to mere exchanges of power and control.
Buñuel’s personal fashion choices were also notable. As an intellectual and filmmaker, Buñuel often dressed in a way that reflected his disdain for bourgeois pretension while also maintaining an air of cultivated elegance. His signature look—neatly tailored suits, sharp shirts, and round glasses—conveyed a certain intellectual rigor without falling into the trap of bourgeois vanity. His fashion choices mirrored the way he viewed cinema: as a vehicle for challenging societal conventions without becoming overly concerned with surface-level appearances.
In his films, Buñuel often uses fashion to strip away the artifice of social identity. By using fashion as a subversive tool, he critiques how clothing can be used to enforce social and class distinctions. The outward elegance of the bourgeoisie in his films contrasts with the moral decay and existential emptiness that lie beneath the surface, revealing the way that fashion serves as a mask for deeper social and political contradictions.
In the films of Luis Buñuel, fashion plays a critical role in expressing his critiques of capitalism, bourgeois society, and the commodification of identity. Through his use of clothing, Buñuel exposes the absurdity of bourgeois values, the repression inherent in capitalist structures, and the ways in which fashion can become a tool of both power and control. Whether through the decadent suits of the characters in The Exterminating Angel, the ritualistic costumes in The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, or the provocative attire of Séverine in Belle de Jour, Buñuel’s attention to fashion underscores his broader political and social critique.
Fashion in Buñuel’s films is far from superficial; it is a tool for revealing the hidden ideologies that govern social relationships, class identity, and the commodification of desire. Through his complex engagement with clothing, Buñuel continues to challenge audiences to question the surface-level structures of society and uncover the contradictions that lie beneath.
Luis Buñuel’s left-wing beliefs were integral to his approach to filmmaking and his broader critique of society. He used his films as a tool to expose the absurdities of capitalism, the hypocrisy of religious institutions, and the moral decay of bourgeois society. His use of surrealism allowed him to disrupt conventional narratives and expose the contradictions that underpinned the social, economic, and political systems of his time. Through his work, Buñuel challenged audiences to think critically about the world around them and the power structures that shape their lives.
Luis Buñuel is one of the most subversive filmmakers of the 20th century, blending surrealism with political critique to expose the contradictions of capitalist and bourgeois society. His films relentlessly attack religious hypocrisy, materialism, and the moral emptiness of the ruling classes. Although not a strict Marxist, Buñuel’s work aligns with left-wing critiques of ideology, power, and economic inequality.In this analysis, I explore Buñuel’s ideological framework, examining his major films—including The Exterminating Angel (1962), The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972), and L’Age d’Or (1930)—as incisive critiques of capitalist structures. I also consider his engagement with surrealism, anarchism, and anti-clericalism to understand his unique position in political cinema.
Luis Buñuel was not an overt political propagandist but an artist who used cinema to expose the absurdities and injustices of modern society. Raised in a Catholic and aristocratic Spanish family, Buñuel became disillusioned with the bourgeois values of his upbringing. Influenced by surrealism and radical political thought, he rejected conventional morality and authority, using cinema as a weapon against institutional oppression.
His films often depict the bourgeoisie as a decadent, trapped class, unable to escape its own contradictions. Through surrealist techniques—disruptive narrative structures, dream sequences, and absurdist humor—Buñuel deconstructs the illusions of capitalism and social hierarchy. This article examines his work through a political lens, exploring how his films function as a critique of bourgeois complacency, religious authority, and consumerist alienation.
One of Buñuel’s most explicit critiques of bourgeois society, The Exterminating Angel depicts a group of upper-class guests who, after a lavish dinner, find themselves inexplicably unable to leave the room. As their confinement stretches into days, their civilized façades disintegrate, revealing their true selfishness, desperation, and moral decay.
The film presents the bourgeoisie as fundamentally incapable of adapting to crisis. Even as they suffer, they remain bound by arbitrary social conventions—refusing to question their imprisonment or seek genuine solutions. The inexplicable force keeping them trapped serves as a metaphor for capitalist ideology: an invisible, self-imposed system that constrains thought and action.
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie portrays a group of wealthy individuals constantly attempting to have dinner, only to be interrupted by absurd or surreal events. Their endless pursuit of a simple meal mirrors the empty rituals of capitalist life—obsessively maintaining social status while ignoring the world’s injustices.
Buñuel dismantles the illusion of bourgeois stability by exposing the meaninglessness of their existence. The characters engage in trivial conversations, detached from the economic realities that sustain their privilege. As the film progresses, their repetitive, dreamlike wanderings underscore the stagnation of the ruling class, trapped in an endless cycle of consumption and performance.
Buñuel’s final film, That Obscure Object of Desire, critiques capitalism’s commodification of human relationships. The protagonist, a wealthy businessman, obsessively pursues a young woman, Conchita, who continuously eludes his grasp. Each time he believes he has obtained her, she denies him, forcing him to chase her anew.
This dynamic reflects capitalist alienation: the illusion that happiness and fulfillment can be purchased or possessed. Conchita, played alternately by two actresses, symbolizes desire as an unattainable, shifting construct—just as capitalism perpetually generates new, unreachable desires to sustain consumption. And the two actress refer to juxtaposition in surrealism.
In Belle de Jour, a bourgeois housewife, Séverine, secretly becomes a sex worker, despite her seemingly perfect marriage. Her double life reveals the contradictions of bourgeois existence: public virtue coexists with hidden desires, and social respectability is built on repression.
The film critiques how capitalism commodifies human bodies and relationships. Séverine’s clients include powerful men from various social backgrounds, underscoring the universalization of transactional relationships under capitalism. Her descent into prostitution is not an escape from the bourgeois world but an extension of its logic—turning even intimacy into a commodity.
Buñuel’s early surrealist masterpiece L’Age d’Or attacks religious authority as a tool of bourgeois control. The film presents the Catholic Church as an institution that represses desire and enforces social hierarchy.
In one scene, bishops are found as skeletons on a mountaintop, signifying the stagnation and death of religious morality. The final sequence alludes to the Marquis de Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom, linking religious repression to aristocratic decadence. This radical critique positioned Buñuel as a lifelong enemy of institutionalized religion.
In The Milky Way, Buñuel takes a more satirical approach, following two beggars on a surreal pilgrimage filled with bizarre religious encounters. The film critiques theological debates as absurd and detached from material reality, exposing the ways in which religious doctrine serves capitalist and bourgeois interests by diverting attention from class struggle.
Buñuel’s use of surrealist techniques—disruptive editing, dream sequences, and irrational juxtapositions—undermines the logic of capitalist realism. By defying narrative coherence, his films challenge the illusion that capitalist society is natural or inevitable.
Capitalism relies on a structured, linear perception of time—work, production, consumption, retirement. Buñuel disrupts this through fragmented storytelling, as seen in The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, where events repeat without resolution. This challenges the viewer’s assumptions about order and meaning in capitalist society.
Buñuel’s films remain some of the most potent critiques of capitalism and bourgeois society in cinematic history. His work exposes the emptiness of material wealth, the self-imposed blindness of the elite, and the ideological mechanisms that sustain power. While he rejected rigid political dogma, his commitment to dismantling oppressive systems aligns with leftist traditions of cultural and ideological critique.
His legacy endures in contemporary filmmakers who continue to challenge capitalist ideology—such as Bong Joon-ho , Ruben Östlund , and Yorgos Lanthimos. Buñuel’s ability to blend humor, horror, and surrealism ensures that his films remain relevant, forcing audiences to question the structures that shape their world.