REVIEW

DVD Review: Viridiana

Written by Dan Schneider
Published January 16, 2008
page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Of course, Jorge slowly tries to seduce both Ramona and Viridiana, but only succeeds with the maid. Then, as she and Jorge go off for a day to a lawyer’s office, the indigents take over the main house, have a feast, and then do lewd and perverse things. The most "shocking" was having the poor line up in a mock Last Supper pose as one woman flashes her gonads at them. Yet, the whole image is forced, in the extreme, and therefore not nearly as effective as a similar scene in Robert Altman’s M*A*S*H, where a Last Supper pose was struck, nor is it even as effective as a similar sequence in Federico Fellini’s Variety Lights (Luci Del Varietà), where indigent performers spend a night in a manse.

As said, however, unless one is a religious fanatic the shock value passes quickly, if it even registers nowadays. When a couple of the indigents fuck behind a sofa the blind poor man goes wild. Of course, Viridiana and Jorge return right then, and while most of the indigents leave, two of them attack and knock out Jorge, and tie him up. Then they grab Viridiana and try to rape her. As one of them puts her down on the bed, Jorge bribes the one with leprosy to kill the would-be rapist. He does, the police come, and order is restored.

The film ends with the home modernized, and Ramona in Jorge’s bedroom. Viridiana enters, Jorge opines that he always knew he would end up shuffling the deck with his cousin (an old and blatantly obvious slang for sex), and the three of them play cards to the rockabilly tune "Shake Your Cares Away" — a none too subtle suggestion that, after having gotten through two attempted rapes, the ex-nun is ready to become her cousin’s lover, and possibly engage in a ménage-a-trois.

This very unintriguing story arc is made worse by its execution, which suffers from anomie and banality, the use of non-professional actors, and poor plot pacing. In films by Japanese filmmaker Yasujiro Ozu, ellipses are effectively used because he suffuses the viewer with pedestrian and symbolic moments of import that play off of each other, whereas Buñuel leaves gaping plot holes in his hour and a half long film that do not invite a viewer to draw obvious conclusions.

As example, what happens to make Viridiana change her mind about her uncle in a few short days, and what prompts her opening of a hostel? Since the answers are not obvious, yet have obvious bearing on major plot elements, their absence is a sign of poor writing, not narrative economy. Plus there is not a single original character in the film. Unlike, say, Maria in The Sound Of Music, Viridiana’s expulsion from the nunnery elicits a ho-hum reaction, and her character is not nearly as realistic as Julie Andrews' famed character. That’s truly something since Maria regularly breaks out into song!

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
Dan Schneider is the founder and webmaster of Cosmoetica: the best in poetica.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
DVD Review: Viridiana
Published: January 16, 2008
Type: Review
Section: Video
Filed Under: Video: Foreign Language, Video: Drama, Video: Art House
Writer: Dan Schneider
Dan Schneider's BC Writer page
Dan Schneider's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Dan Schneider
Video: Foreign Language
Video: Drama
Video: Art House
All Video Articles
All Review articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — March 2, 2008 @ 21:36PM — Joey [URL]

Crikey, it sounds like the reviewer has an axe to grind with Buñuel and with surrealism. This review reads like one man's attack on a form he neither likes nor understands.

The overuse of emotive adjectives such as "puerile", "pretentious", "abysmal" and "excruciatingly" point to this being a treatise against the filmmaker instead of an honest appraisal of the film.

The reviewer's misunderstanding of the movie is apparent throughout. For instance, nowhere does he indicate any realisation that the movie is supposed to be funny. This even while he is describing some of the movie's funnier scenes, which he seems to think are failed dramatic moments!

Then there is the constant harping on the weakness of the "plot" and the unrealism of the "characters" - complete irrelevances in a surrealist film. One might as well complain of the lack of sword-fighting skeletons in Italian realist film.

All in all, a misguided review.

#2 — March 3, 2008 @ 16:44PM — Dan Schneider [URL]

Like has nothing to do with criticism, and Surrealism is not difficult to understand, but bad art, by whatever -ism it's labeled, is still bad art. Being part of a school does not insulate one from the objective merits of success or not.

'The overuse of emotive adjectives such as "puerile", "pretentious", "abysmal" and "excruciatingly" point to this being a treatise against the filmmaker instead of an honest appraisal of the film.'

Given the substance of the film, they were tame adjectives, and used sparingly. Bunuel was nothing if self-indulgent and obvious.

'nowhere does he indicate any realisation that the movie is supposed to be funny.'

The key word is supposed, which, you unwittingly underscore in support of my point.

'Then there is the constant harping on the weakness of the "plot" and the unrealism of the "characters"'

Surrealism, or any other school, does not abnegate the basics of storytelling, although to weak minds, such never occurs, -ismically or not.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/72945)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments