The Exterminating Angel (1962)

This interpretation and dissection of The Exterminating Angel was written about an hour after completing the film and rewatching its final 20-ish minutes during the summer between my sophomore and junior years of college. My overall rating for the film was 4 stars out of a possible 4. It was the 225th feature-length film to receive my highest rating distinction.

Here is how I see this film. I should probably clarify that I mean, “Here is my interpretation of this film.” I want to forewarn that I have not yet read anyone else’s opinion of this film and/or their interpretation, apart from the first paragraph of the film essay “Exterminating Civilization” by Marsha Kinder, which accompanies the film in its Criterion Collection packaging. I plan on looking up others’ interpretations, as well as finishing Ms. Kinder’s work once I finish writing this.

I do think that The Exterminating Angel is a brilliant “under-the-microscope” look at the upper class and the insanity that exists within how they operate. However, I must also agree with the thesis from the opening paragraph of “Exterminating Civilization”: we as the audience are also victims of this “under-the-microscope” look. More specifically, it invites an introspective look by the common filmgoer of the lower classes and the insanity that exists within how we operate.

For us, the unfortunate part is that no one wants to admit to this, just as none of our party guests was willing to admit to it during the film. It took me a second viewing of the final 16 minutes to have the stunning realization -- an epiphany if you will -- about the meaning of the film. The film, in its most basic form, is a look at etiquette and morals within the upper class. If you look back and think, it is these two things that prevent our party guests from leaving at first. They keep making excuses to avoid being the first to leave, but not just out of politeness; pride has a bigger role here than any other force. It is each individuals’ pride that keeps them in the room, never daring to leave. Each party guest believes that their sophistication and place atop the group can be cemented by a never-ending faux resistance. And it is this simple factor that keeps them there for so long that I bet the film's revered director Luis Buñuel himself could not determine how much time had passed.

Throughout their stay, they are tortured by several temptations, including murder, thirst, hunger, and, worst of all, surrendering to the etiquette and morals that each guest holds so dear. And when Leticia (referred to by the party guests as "The Valkyrie"), played by the gloriously talented and gloriously beautiful Silvia Pinal, comes to the realization that everyone is in the same spot as they were on the very first night, just before they refused to leave, this is when they have matured past the pettiness of their high and mighty etiquette and morals. They painstakingly recreate, without the help of Raúl (Tito Junco), the very scene before everyone refused to leave, only this time, they do. The irony: they could have left at any time, but were not ready to. Leticia realized that someone needed to leave, someone needed to be the first, and that some of their etiquette and morals are detrimental to their lives and successes.

As for the case of the servants, butlers, and cooks, explaining this is not as difficult for me as one may have hoped. At the very beginning, all of the help, apart from Julio (Claudio Brook), leave the house inexplicably. The reason: they are not qualified enough nor respectable enough to be in a house of nearly twenty aristocrats. Although they cannot explain why they need to leave, them staying does not feel right.

"But Julio can stay, and why can he?" one might opine inquisitively. This is because he is the most acceptable and first-class ready of the staff. He is the one that the owners refer to by name and the one that the party guests allow to be graced by their presence on a more intimate level. When he disobeys the orders to leave, it is not because the orders are ridiculous or because he is having too much fun to leave, it is because he is unworthy to leave. Once being accepted by the members of higher society, while he does not achieve a full-time residency amongst them, he unfortunately garners enough respect to be able to enter but not enough to leave unaccompanied. He needs the presence of one of the other guests to go with him, because it is not his place to leave first. It would be a disgrace and detrimental to any chance of being reaccepted by the party guests on this occasion (or any other future occasion for that matter).

When the children of a party guest visit the mysterious and majestic mansion with their deacon tutor (Eric del Castillo), one of the sons begins to approach the house, while everyone gathered outside the house wait. Eventually, he comes running back, much to the dismay of the invested bystanders outside. First, I should explain why the people are really standing around outside: they are there because they do not deem themselves worthy enough to approach and enter a house with such esteemed individuals inside. However, the child did not consider this for the simple fact that he is a child.

"But why did the child stop?" one might rightfully wonder. I believe that there are two contributing factors to this. The first is that he is a child who noticed that when no one, not even his siblings, came after him, then he assumed that this was not a place for him to venture into. The second is that he is the son of aristocrats, which means that he has received the beginning stages of lessons in the etiquette and morals that have trapped his parents inside. Through this teaching, he has realized why he is not allowed to enter, as he is not fully capable of being accepted to attend. When the deacon demands to know why he stopped, the boy does not answer because the deacon, although associated with the family, is not socially affluent enough to understand the etiquette and morals of the upper class.

Now, after the party guests manage to leave the room, they turn on the outside light. For the masses waiting outside, this is a new development and it piques their interest. But for our beleaguered guests, this is nothing more than standard etiquette. For them, the more important step is when the aristocrats open the door. Lucas (Pancho Córdova), the very first character that we meet at the start of the film, takes the step forward to greet the people leaving the house. He too hesitates, just like Leticia, before continuing onward for the parade of tired and relieved individuals. With his step, the people that were waiting outside now know that it is acceptable for them to go onto the property and greet the party guests.

Lastly, we come to the final scene, the one in the church. We know our party guests that survived the room are there, as they are shown during a tracking shot. However, they appear to have disappeared right after the service, just like the house staff on the night of the dinner. But there is no mystery as to why they have gone out. They have broken down the wall of their societal expectations and know that it is acceptable for them to leave without saying goodbye to everyone and intentionally waiting for someone else to go first before making their exit. However, the higher ranking priests and the other occupants of the church are not aware that this is an option because they did not experience this revelation inside the Nóbiles’ estate. More importantly, they did not see the former party guests leave because they were too busy saying their goodbyes and engaging in conversation. None of the people here thinks to leave first because they are there to mourn the deaths of the party guests who did not survive the room. Now the churchgoers are enslaved by the same etiquette and morals that held the party guests inside. But when we are provided a peak outside, we see a landscape of chaos, with the military opening fire on the bystanders and the rioters/protestors. We can safely assume that none of the people there is also from the collection of people that stood outside the Nóbiles’ estate because they are already aware of the change in etiquette and norms.

The part that really matters is the turmoil that happens outside the church. This stands as a testament to the true meaning of the film: while the etiquette and morals of the upper class can restrict the very people that follow and hold these aspects to enslavement, the absence of such a class that brought about this enslavement destroys civilization because there is no one above the lower classes to establish the respect that only exists for the upper class.

I must admit that there is one thing that I cannot say with certainty I have deciphered, and that is the double suicide in the room by one of the enamored upper class couples (Xavier Massé & Ofelia Montesco). My best attempt as of right now is that since they were the ones who were most willing to bend and break the binds of their class’ etiquette and morals to be with each other, they were the ones most capable of thinking of a way to escape the “magic spell” of the room and still remain together.

As for our first victim, Sergio Russell (Antonio Bravo), his death is much easier to explain and more key to the film. He tells Doctor Carlos Conde (Augusto Benedico) that he would much rather die before the extermination. The extermination that he references here is the extermination the etiquette and morals that Leticia and the others eventually stumble upon. Sergio is the oldest of the party guests and the most deeply rooted within the etiquette and morals of higher society, which dictate his life more than anyone else’s. He cannot bear to see his companions throw away a portion of their etiquette and morals. So he welcomes death, ensuring that during his last moments alive, the etiquette and morals that are so revered by him will still exist with respect to the situation of the others.

Now, onto the title. I love the title of this film. It’s similar, in fact almost exactly the same, to the oxymoronic title The Killer Angels, the Battle of Gettysburg war novel by Michael Shaara. But even grander in the scheme of things, it discusses the end result of the etiquette and morals of the party guests. Through all of their panic, anguish, terror, and worrying, they were able to return to the exact same arrangements as their first night in that room. This may have been caused by a higher being or force, but the more important thing is that this occurrence appeared as if it was a result from the meddling of a guardian angel, determined to show the party guests the error of their ways and the simple fix they can make to their nature that will prevent them from ever experiencing something like this again. The actions of this guardian angel exterminate the ridiculous and unproductive sections of their etiquette and morals, while keeping the other parts intact. Now, for all I know, there may be some deeper meaning with the use of “angel” in the title, perhaps on the religious front. Just as Viridiana (1961) was filled to the brim with religious metaphors, undertones, and images, this film appeared to be rife with religious meaning. Maybe this religious aspect and outlook on the film could explain the importance of sheep randomly appearing in the mansion and the second room entrapment happening in a church. I and the people I watched The Exterminating Angel with all expressed an interest in wanting to know the reason behind the sheep.

Perhaps that is another layer of meaning to this film all together, one that exists on a religious and spiritual level. All I can say on that topic is that I do not have the mind or attachment to pursue an explanation or even theory about the religion of The Exterminating Angel.