332 Viridiana

[tavernier]

But even these or supposed dross like Susana and Abismos de Pasion are fanatstically inventive and engaging.

Agreed.....always loved Susana!

[zedz]

I can only think of three or four Bunuels that do less than knock me out - Robinson Crusoe, Nazarin, la Voie Lactee, Gran Casino and Cela s'Appelle Aurore. But even these or supposed dross like Susana and Abismos de Pasion are fanatstically inventive and engaging.

I'd add El Gran Calavera to the list of disappointments, but, as you say, even the weakest films offer a worthwhile insight into Bunuel's art. Fond as I am of the later films, I think the heights of the Mexican period (which extends past Exterminating Angel to the miraculous Simon of the Desert - maybe my favourite Bunuel - thus slightly overlapping the French / Carriere period) far outweigh those of the French.

[justeleblanc]

You're wrong (insert "ignorant slut" comment here). Did you get a chance to watch That Obscure Object of Desire?

[zedz]

Fond as I am of the later films, I think the heights of the Mexican period (which extends past Exterminating Angel to the miraculous Simon of the Desert - maybe my favourite Bunuel - thus slightly overlapping the French / Carriere period) far outweigh those of the French.

You're wrong (insert "ignorant slut" comment here). Did you get a chance to watch That Obscure Object of Desire?

Hey, I still like most of the later films a lot, but my favourite Bunuels are probably Simon, Exterminating Angel, Viridiana, Un Chien Andalou, Las Hurdes, Los Olvidados, El, La mort en ce jardin and Archibaldo, so the French ones barely make the top ten. Even the best of those (and I agree that Obscure Object is near the top of that particular heap) would be hard-pressed to beat out any of the top six on points. I find the episodic films more 'safe' and less explosive than extended hallucinations like Simon and Exterminating Angel.

[justeleblanc]

Hey, I still like most of the later films a lot, but my favourite Bunuels are probably Simon, Exterminating Angel, Viridiana, Un Chien Andalou, Las Hurdes, Los Olvidados, El, La mort en ce jardin and Archibaldo, so the French ones barely make the top ten. Even the best of those (and I agree that Obscure Object is near the top of that particular heap) would be hard-pressed to beat out any of the top six on points. I find the episodic films more 'safe' and less explosive than extended hallucinations like Simon and Exterminating Angel.

And there are still many Mexican films of his I still need to see. Though I kinda don't really care for chien or l'age. And I know I'm gonna get beaten with soap for saying this, but they are like Eisenstein's October, important films but the payoff has been lost over time.

And this might be a stupid question but does anyone know the name of the rock song at the end of Viridiana?

[GringoTex]

Don't forget Exterminating Angel (1962).

Coming to DVD!

[Cinesimilitude]

well, if there is no criterion news by the release date, I'll get it.

[justeleblanc]

well, if there is no criterion news by the release date, I'll get it.

I would give it a year.

[zedz]

the Cineastes Notre Temps episode has been excerpted for extracts (like some of Kobayashi material was not presented in full, etc) rather than run from start to finish which irks me. The fucking interviews with Bunuel are some of the most compelling talks with a director I've ever seen, period, and I certainly wish I could have seen it from start to finish.

I watched this last night and am curious as to what's missing from the Cineastes episode. The original was 45 minutes, right? On the disc it's about 38, so couldn't the discrepancy just be down to missing clips for which they couldn't secure rights?

It's a great episode, by the way,offering a terrific insight into Bunuel's personality.

[LightBulbFilm]

Anyone else notice the copy right to mercury films at the end... Did that bother anyone else as it did me?

[Jack Phillips]

Was the question of the AR ever answered satisfactorily?

And does anyone know the Galdós source novel on which the film is based? This second question I ask to confirm that the gag with the jump-rope was Bunuel's idea--that is, Bunuel's idea once he'd stolen it from Hitchcock.

[Narshty]

I may well be alone, but this strikes me as one of Bunuel's least engaging films; it's so flat and zestless with such thin characters. It sits at a monotonous, theoretical level from start to end, with uncharacteristically weak staging in numerous sequences - I'm thinking of things like the unnecessary close-up of the second dog tied to the cart, or the cat visibly hurled by an off-screen stagehand at the rat. It's unconvincingly overemphatic. It may also be that I haven't got much sympathy with some of his arguments, ie. the cretinous notion that if you can't solve every problem, why do anything at all? I missed the snap and relish of his usual work; my interest was piqued when the crew of beggars had their first meal, but they only have their single pitch too; so little alters. Bunuel's distance can be hilarious and thrilling, but this is the first time he seemed flat-out disinterested. It's embarrassing because I find it hard to go into further detail other than saying it did nothing for me; this afternoon was the second time I'd seen it and once again the film failed to reach me on any level. I've seen far less Bunuel than I'd like, but this strikes me as the bottom of the deck by quite a drop.

[Michael Kerpan]

I think the film is a lot less simplistic than you think it, Narshty. And I've liked it more with each re-visitation.

I find Bunuel to (ultimately) be unusually sympathetic to the plight of Viridiana. One complicating factor is the lack of a clear-cut time scale. While the time frame seems compressed on initial viewing, I now think there is a lot of eliding going on. Viridiana's "experiment" appears less stupid (to me) if one finds it actually (more or less) succeeds for a considerable amount of time. And Bunuel shows it finally falls apart (at least, in part) due to bad luck (the beggars are left on their own for a prolonged period of time -- an event that was never really part of V's plan).

[Michael]

Narshty, didn't you find anything funny at all? It's one of the funniest films I've ever seen, it's so nuts in sort of a John Waters way.

[HerrSchreck]

Although I like Viridiana, I think in cinematic terms I understand where Narsh is coming from. I don't think the problem with the film, if there is one, lies in the wisdom of Viridiana's enterprise (or for us to speculate on the effect of happenstance on charity)... I think there's a slight possibility of the waning of the effect of film in time for some. The formal innovations of the film are relatively few, in that it's treated more or less as firmly crafted melodrama-- which for me is it's strength. I see the film (don't laugh) like I see The Exorcist: the director is treating this material like it's absolutely as plausable and natural in everyday life as any other melodrama playing in the next theater down the street.

The success or failure of Viridiana ultimately rests, I suspect, on how much the viewer enjoys seeing this kind of a story play out. It's formal conceits are not going to jump out at you, because the staging is relatively unobtrusive. I think if you are not predisposed to 1) drop your jaw at various points in the material, or 2) get a riled pleasure out of seeing some of these points being made viz the church, piety, hypocracy, etc, then the film will probably not end up very toothesome.

As opposed to so many other films (thinking of the Soviets here) which can pull you in, without any interest in the viewer fore or aft in the subject matter (socio-political) whatsoever, purely on the strength of their astonishing formal cinematic conceits.

[Mr Sausage]

...with such thin characters.

Bunuel's a parodist; his movies do not rely, nor really need, well-rounded characters. His people function better as pawns in his games. If you look at some of his other films, you'll often see that the characters are less people than an accumulation of mannerisms and appearences, and that they have little internal motivation. When in Discreet Charm... the husband and wife want to have sex before the dinner party, it's not really because there's an internal reason they cannot keep their hands off each other (Bunuel even leaves out the seduction so that there cannot be any motivation). It's just part of their bourgeosie ridiculousness, which is heightened by their subsequent actions: she's the usual "over-loud" sex-pot under the sterile exterior, and he's the usual lusty guy who doesn't care how visible they are when they do it. Bunuel is just playing on types.

It may also be that I haven't got much sympathy with some of his arguments, ie. the cretinous notion that if you can't solve every problem, why do anything at all?

I don't think this is the intention at all. I think absolutely he's going after the naieve, unhelpful, and finally rather stupid idea that one can solve every problem in the world by just a practical application of human kindness. As you can see, the only outcome is just further vice and cruelty. As for the dog bit, which no doubt inspired your lack of sympathy, are you sure you're not confusing your own feelings with that of the film's? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm merely wondering if, while the gesture of untying the dog might struck one as being useless given the subsequent reveal, if that was its actual intention. I don't think Bunuel would sit there and tell you that untying the dog was a silly thing to do, since he clearly understands the cruelty of dragging it behind a cart. What I think he wants to impress is that one act of kindness is not going to start a revolution, it's not going to cure all cruelty. The dog bit is merely more thematic material that comments on Viridiana's quest: she would unty a dog thinking that she would soon cure the world by it, and then put herself in a position to be bitten by said dog because she doesn't realize her one act of kindness hasn't reversed the fact that the dog's probably been beaten, kicked, and starved for most of its life. Bunuel may believe the world cannot be changed, but I don't think he's telling us we should do nothing: merely that we should not delude ourselves about what we actually are doing.

Sidenote: I wasn't wowed either, Narshty. Much prefer That Obscure Object of Desire.

[Narshty]

I don't doubt I've barely scratched the surface of the film with a viewpoint as artistically unsympathetic as mine (I'd love some examples of what I seem to have missed) and I'm fascinated by the different takes on the film that have turned up since my first post. However I don't agree that Bunuel is a parodist; he's too interested in the worst impulses of human nature and the behaviour and emotional patterns he delineates are so recognisable, you could call his characters distillations rather than types. He almost never begins with accepted stereotypes, or alternatively presents them from his own mould (ala Discreet Charm). I didn't find the movie funny, but certain moments gave me a scandalised jolt - the switchblade crucifix and Don Jaime's "That's enough for today" response to Rita's skipping.

The fact that the dog scene is set up as a gag that I find irritating and faintly offensive. The reveal of the second dog doesn't seem to be a kind of tragic shrug that injustice and cruelty still remains, it seems to be jeering at the character. The bit when the dog wants to go back to its former owner is a perfect moment; it's the "Who does that moron think he is?" follow-up that I find, at best, obnoxious. What's more, I never took it that Viridiana thought she could change the world - she openly states she knows how little she can do before all hell breaks loose - she just doesn't factor in the kinds of human nature she thought her virtue and good example would nullify. I just found the film dry as toast (never happened before with Bunuel), though I agree that That Obscure Object of Desire is his finest work.

[Mr Sausage]

However I don't agree that Bunuel is a parodist; he's too interested in the worst impulses of human nature

There's nothing mutually exclusive here. Anyway I'm using 'parody' in the OED sense of "to produce or constitute a humorously exaggerated imitation of; to ridicule or satirize." You don't need well rounded humans for that; grotesques will do just fine.

the behaviour and emotional patterns he delineates are so recognisable, you could call his characters distillations rather than types.

Again you seem to be making distinctions that don't exist. At least I don't see how the recognizability of "behaviour and emotional patterns" points more towards a distillation than a type, the latter being by definition a recurring well-known pattern. (Actually, out of curiosity, and since I had the window open, I also looked up 'type' in the OED and found this: "A kind, class, or order as distinguished by a particular character," which describes Exterminating Angel, Discreet Charm, ect. quite well I think). One distills something down to its essence, and I'm much more comfortable calling his characters representations of a certain class of people than I am calling them the essence of that class, tho' that may just be me.

The reveal of the second dog doesn't seem to be a kind of tragic shrug that injustice and cruelty still remains, it seems to be jeering at the character. The bit when the dog wants to go back to its former owner is a perfect moment; it's the "Who does that moron think he is?" follow-up that I find, at best, obnoxious.

I'm more inclined to think it's jeering at the audience for getting an easy, sentimental pleasure out of a save-the-poor-animal moment. It's a jab at the same hypocritical sentimentality that causes an organization like PETA to not bat an eyelid whenever someone is horribly murdered in The Dark Knight, but to take up arms when Batman hits a dog. It's a sick joke, but I don't think it's at the expense of the man or the dog (the bit about the dog wanting back to its owner is merely a thematic recapitulation of the poor returning to their own cruel and manipulative life in the midst of a better, kinder possibility. It's not the first time Bunuel is equating animal and man--the end of Exterminating Angel comes to mind). I think Bunuel knows that the sight of a hapless dog gets more "oooh's" than the sight of some hapless humans.

What's more, I never took it that Viridiana thought she could change the world - she openly states she knows how little she can do before all hell breaks loose - she just doesn't factor in the kinds of human nature she thought her virtue and good example would nullify

A lazy choice of words on my part. I meant more the type who think they can do more with the little they have than is actually feasible. And I always took Viridiana's comment that she knows how little she can do more as an unthinking Christian platitude/apologia than an actual conscious understanding of her limitations. The mere fact that she gathers the homeless into the house is enough to demonstrate she's overreaching. But you're spot on saying "she just doesn't factor in the kinds of human nature she thought her virtue and good example would nullify." Part of Bunuel's point is how hypocritical nunnery is: admonishing you to seflessly help the world all while keeping you in isolated ignorance of how the world actually is.

I'm surprised I'm defending the movie so much since it was a bit like "dry toast." I think maybe that has less to do with content than execution. Somehow the movie just seems less ebulliant and devious in tone than his others.

[adeeze]

God I loved this fucking film! I thought the scene with Viridiana rounding up the bums in the field to pray was interesting. It reminded me of the bishops in L'Age D'or doing the ritual like prayer by the ocean rocks, done in an almost satanic way. It almost would seem that Bunuel wanted to use that method again but by placing a similar scene in Viridiana. Almost as if it were too wierd and un-recognizable to people before, he would do it in a way where they could recognize it and yet understand what it truly is.

[Narshty]

I think my problem is chiefly with the term "types", which for me has reductive, derivative, negative connotations which I don't think apply to Bunuel's characters, even if many of them do seem to have one-track minds (in various directions). Re-reading criticism on the film, I was convinced I'd originally caught it on a bad day because it sounded so lip-smackingly enjoyable. Rewatching it, it turns out it was Bunuel's execution that had turned me off all along. It still plays to me as one of his most theoretical, least sensual films.

[Mr Sausage]

I think my problem is chiefly with the term "types", which for me has reductive, derivative, negative connotations which I don't think apply to Bunuel's characters, even if many of them do seem to have one-track minds (in various directions).

Nothing reductive, derivative, or negative was intended by my appliction of 'type' to Bunuel's characters. To me a type is only a recurring pattern of significance, and that's how I use it. The term is often misunderstood, so you get these kind of connotations from people always using it in a vague negative sense without any understanding of its positive sense. A type is only a negative thing when it does not suit the purpose of the film or book. Since Bunuel is, to me anyway, a parodist, rounded and internalized characters aren't needed any more than Gulliver's Travels or Jonson's The Alchemist needs them. Bunuel's characters are pawns in his delightful games, and there is nothing that is wrong with that.

[dad1153]

My first and only Buñuel movie (I know, shame on me! ) and it was an eye-opener even though there is no other of his films I can compare it to... yet! Silvia Piñal is bland and totally non-descriptive as the improbably-attractive nun-to-be with a crisis of conscience, and that's a good thing. That's exactly what the Viridiana role demands so that the rest of the characters (Fernando Rey's lustful uncle, Francisco Rabal's cousin, those annoying beggars, etc.) can bounce off of the lead character's kindness and willingness to have her generosity abused. It's a tricky role Piñal nails perfectly on the final scene. She practically gives herself into her cousin's advances, a not-so-subtle and surreal nod by Buñuel to an implied ménage à trois existence as happier than the alternative. Even then, after all she's been through and done, Piñal's character remains a blank page open to interpretation. All we know in the end is that she's willing to be as sexually open as she was religious at the start of the movie; same character, different (though equal in Buñuel's mind?) ends of the moral spectrum.

As an immigrant to the States from a Spanish-speaking third-world country with a lifetime of exposure to Mexican movies starring the likes of Pedro Infante idealizing the poor as humble, near-perfect human beings I can concur with HerrSchreck's comments above. The strength of "Viridiana" is not only that Buñuel takes the telenovela-worthy melodramatic plot seriously, but seriously-enough to not present the beggars in the idealized Catholic view of the poor as saintly and better than anybody else. These flawed, hungry and uncultured poor peasants Viridiana has been kind to break into someone else's home, eat/drink someone else's food and then desecrate the last supper by not only assuming "the position" but using the wrong kind of "flash" to snap the picture. Now that's what I call subversive humor!

"Viridiana" is provocative stuff that resonates with this 36 year-old once-Catholic film lover that's been Atheist since 1986.

[GringoTex]

She practically gives herself into her cousin's advances, a not-so-subtle and surreal nod by Buñuel to an implied ménage à trois existence as happier than the alternative.

I think you're misreading Bunuel here. The ménage à trois isn't about her personal happiness- it's the utter realization of her failure as a saint. Viridiana is doomed to a life of misery. The ménage à trois is a surrender to this misery. Bunuel did not believe in free love (quite the contrary), and this will become more obvious as you view more of his films.

Make sure you check out Bunuel's Mexican films! You can order them from Mexico on ebay. They're a marvelous counterpoint to the Infante films.