The criticism of intent is a killer on bad films that have no real depth and do not last a few years beyond their intent’s purpose. Such was re-emphasized to me during a viewing of Spanish filmmaker Luis Buñuel’s vastly overrated black and white 1961 "shock classic" Viridiana.
Of course, all the alleged shock value had to do with Buñuel’s puerile attempts to poke fun at and scandalize both the Roman Catholic Church and the regime of Fascist dictator Francisco Franco, and nearly five decades later it looks more like a college prank video than any serious cinema. Furthermore, it is not in the least bit subversive, as many poor critics claim, because its criticism of the Church especially, even then, was so manifest as to make one wonder if those who claimed it had subversive qualities even knew what the term meant.
Of course, given Buñuel’s start as a Surrealist superstar - that overused and often misapplied term - it’s no surprise that much of his filmic career would be seen through such a pretentious lens, especially by fans masquing as critics, rather than dealing with the individual films, and whether they fail or not.
The fact is, while Viridiana is a reasonably capably made film on a technical level (although there is no standout cinematography, musical scoring, nor interesting visual compositions), it fails because its screenplay is abysmal. As in other "classics" of his whose luster has faded (think Belle De Jour), Viridiana is larded with cardboard characters, caricatures, and outright stereotypes that are bad enough alone, but given that they are not put to any truly subversive use, they are all the more a wasted effort. They also suggest the paper-thin grasp of reality, especially the political sort, that die hard Leftists like him are often represented as having, making him the biggest unintended caricature of all those associated with the film.
The lead titular character is a sexy, blond wannabe nun, perhaps nearing thirty, who has hidden away from the world after what seems to be a lifetime of failure — at life, love, relationships, and generally communicating and fitting in with others of the human race. She is cold, withdrawn, repressed; but unlike such heroines in an Ingmar Bergman film, she lacks any real depth to express these things to even herself. In short, she is a clueless wonder.
Article comments
1 - Joey
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 - Dan Schneider
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.
3 - Davidy323
Funny you would note "Personal attacks are NOT allowed" yet Dan clearly does so in his reply to the above commentator. I know this review is old but I just watched Viridiana today and did a Google search for reviews. This review not only dissects Bunuels film but manages to throw a cheap potshot at Cocteau. Not necessary in my opinion to make a point for this review. You already have your big words assembled. Why bother Cocteau?