Viridiana.

Review #2075: Viridiana.

Cast: 

Silvia Pinal (Viridiana), Francisco Rabal (Jorge), Fernando Rey (Don Jaime), José Calvo (Don Amalio), Margarita Lozano (Ramona), José Manuel Martín (El Cojo), Victoria Zinny (Lucia), Luis Heredia (Manuel 'El Poca'), Joaquín Roa (Don Zequiel - a beggar), Lola Gaos (Enedina), María Isbert (Beggar), Teresa Rabal (Rita) Directed by Luis Buñuel (#1383 - Él, #1723 - Los Olvidados, and #1884 - L'Age d'Or)

Review: 

“I didn’t deliberately set out to be blasphemous, but then Pope John XXIII is a better judge of such things than I am.”

 

The time had come at last for Luis Buñuel to return home to Spain, or at least return to a greater prominence. Well, if that's the way one wants to put it, anyways, because he was never really gone besides making a steady living ever since he left his native country for good once the nationalist forces led by Francisco Franco had fully taken control of the country (Buñuel of course had been busy during the Spanish Civil War as a coordinator of film propaganda for the Republic); Land Without Bread (1933), termed a "pseudo-documentary" and made in Spain, was his last film for over a decade. Gran Casino (1947) wasn't a great success with Mexican audiences, but it was the first of numerous features Buñuel made in Mexico, which would include varying levels of notability from Los Olvidados (1950) to Robinson Crusoe (1954; shot in Mexico in both English and Spanish). Cela s'appelle l'aurore (1956) saw him return to France for a time that resulted in two further productions. Interestingly, the film made right before Viridiana was The Young One (1960), an English-language production made in Mexico. Anyway, back to Viridiana, which Buñuel co-wrote with Julio Alejandro as a loose adaptation of the 1895 novel Halma by Benito Pérez Galdós; in 1959, they had adapted Galdos' Nazarin. The film received interest within festivals but was also called "blasphemous" by the Vatican and was banned in its native Spain for over a decade. At any rate, Buñuel made a variety of films wherever he could in either Mexico, Spain (he returned to direct Tristana in 1970) or elsewhere until his death in 1983 at the age of 83. 

Oddly enough, the ending of the film attracted more attention to it because of what ended up on screen rather than what wasn't seen. When checked for censorship, the ending was one key aspect that needed to be changed from what depicted a character deciding to open a door and close it right behind them...which, well, is certainly different when you consider the actual ending involves characters shuffling cards together. Even knowing that wouldn't prepare you for a film absorbed in vigor and satire for charity in the pious sense. It does not take too long to turn into a show for the macabre within its expressions of desire and a climax that involves, well, a supper that will surely remind folks of what happens when you shine a light on human desires and the imagery that comes with such grotesque nature, such as a crucifix that has a knife in it. The march for spiritualistic charity with the grace of God can only see a clash with the reality that comes in a materialistic world that cannot hide its foundation within the thin face of moral high ground. 90 minutes is more than enough to the indulgences of Buñuel in making a human comedy (whether one is religious or not) that shows futility with such damning effectiveness that asks just what the differences are between those little acts of charity and actual change. With all that in mind, the performances reflect well among the divide of beggars and choosers, as evidenced by the performance by Pinal that reflects upon the loss of one's innocence. She is thrust into a place of brutal honesty when dealing with the company of men that are reflected mostly within Rabal and Rey (the latter is mostly present for the first third of the feature), who each show the inner workings of who they are within how they treat the mansion each inhabit in their time. Calvo represents one of the numerous beggars that come to inhabit the rest of the film, whether that involves men of no sight in themselves (or souls), sores, or people with children to feed. By the time one sees a supper of the grotesque, it is a culmination of such dark amusement to find in the illusions of charity versus human nature. The cynic may not always be right, but one thing that is for certain is that there is no one true way to reaching a person in heart or health; buying a dog off a cart is one thing, not seeing as dog I a cart going the other way is another. In the end, after seeing people for who they are when it comes to giving and taking, one has to make their own path rather than let it fall into the hands of whatever dogma seems to be the right choice. With Buñuel at the helm, you know you are in for a mischievous display to see, and this film handles the task of dark human comedy handily.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Next up: South Korea sees a remake...in color.