Buñuel
Spoilers ahead--if spoilers in a 47 year old movie matter to you.
What happens to a movie when shock no longer shocks. That's how I felt last night when I watched Luis Buñuel's 1961 film "Viridiana." The Catholic church attacked the film as blasphemous. The Spanish government banned it. I was left utterly indifferent.
Sure, I liked the long, lingering shots of Silvia Pinal's legs. I guess I can see how in 1961, the Church might be offended at sexualizing a nun. And I guess the scene where the paupers are trashing the house and they pose like The Last Supper is clever. But I wasn't shocked in the least. It seemed like Buñuel was trying to hard to satirize religion and social mores than make an interesting film. The motivations behind Pinal are really difficult to discern. Why does she leave the nunnery for good when her uncle kills himself? It's never explained or even really hinted at. This is the key moment in the film. What are her thoughts at the end? We see her dressed like a modern woman, so clearly she is leaving her isolated life behind. Why?
When the shock value becomes blasé, what do we have left? Not really all that much. Buñuel gets good performances out of his actors, but the story plays second fiddle to the satire. For its time, it's interesting, but boy does this film seem dated. What is the message of the film anyway. Since it is a message film, we have to take that seriously. Is the message that it is pointless to help the poor? That the Church is also pointless? That we should just have a good time? I think that's all this film is really telling us--have a good time with your money.
I've felt that way in my attempts to get into Buñuel before. "Un Chien Andalou" is interesting from an experimental standpoint but that's about all. I watched "El" several years ago. It was fine, but I don't think I thought about it between about an hour after I watched it and right now. And like Viridiana, I find "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" highly overrated; again, the satire doesn't date well.
|