On February 14, 2009, The Criterion Collection announced the release of Luis Bunuel’s film “Simon of the Desert,” significant for its being the last film of the great director’s so-called “Mexican Period.” The film, which lasts only 43 minutes long, features two familiar Bunuel collaborators, Claudio Brook (Simon) and Silvia Pinal (The Devil).
I watched the film on a Friday night, alone, and, with the expectation of seeing an outrageous, anti-clerical comedy, I wasn’t disappointed at all. I do believe, however, that unlike other “art” directors, Bunuel is usually more accessible; no other director, in my opinion, is as at once so obscure and somehow very appealing, for the reason that, no one is often as creatively outrageous. This trait is apparent in “Simon of the Desert,” which is loosely based on the fabled Christian ascetic, Simon Stylites, who, as legend has it, in his attempt to expiate himself of venal sins, lived upon a high pedestal for 36 years. The film retells Stylites’ story, with Claudio Brook in the title role, covered in a dirty wool smock, cheeks covered in a matted beard, and speaking with a funny, pompous croak at his adoring, hypocritical followers.
Brook, who had an illustrious career (he starred in two other Bunuel films, “The Exterminating Angel” and “Viridiana”), is quite good; he is pompous, more self-important than noble, though he tries; when he heals the poor, handless cripple, who, walking off afterwards apparently without the slightest impression of the miracle, his cynicism seems, ironically, to reflect that of Simon’s himself. The dirty ascetic, glaring into the windswept land, wonders to himself about the nature of this religious gesture, fantasizing his mother holding his head in her understanding arms, comforting his sorrows. By his nature, he is weak, and we are certain that when the devil comes he will surely capitulate to temptation.
Bunuel made very good use of Silvia Pinal in their too-brief collaboration. The two teamed before in “Exterminating Angel” and “Viridiana”. The latter film is probably her best work, and, incidentally, was a humiliating blow to the dictatorship of Francisco Franco, who commissioned Spain’s leading director and exile back to his homeland to make an art movie, not expecting the hilarious, atheistic fiasco that resulted. Lacking the innocence of the naïve, religious girl in that film, Pinal here is evil itself. I thought that the scenes Pinal was in were the film’s funniest, especially the bizarre ending in a New York nightclub. The devil comes to Simon three times: first, as a sexy schoolgirl, singing a vulgar lullaby; then, as a bearded, cherubic messenger of God; and finally, as a ghostly, necrophilic apparition in a coffin.
The ending of the film still troubles me. Did Simon allow himself to fall under the devil’s spell and be taken to New York, or was he forced against his will? If the first proposition is true, then his fate in the nightclub – to be stranded in the future – is more appropriate. But is it, really?
The film is great. See it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNGOsvrbvu4&feature=related - Scenes from the film.
I watched the film on a Friday night, alone, and, with the expectation of seeing an outrageous, anti-clerical comedy, I wasn’t disappointed at all. I do believe, however, that unlike other “art” directors, Bunuel is usually more accessible; no other director, in my opinion, is as at once so obscure and somehow very appealing, for the reason that, no one is often as creatively outrageous. This trait is apparent in “Simon of the Desert,” which is loosely based on the fabled Christian ascetic, Simon Stylites, who, as legend has it, in his attempt to expiate himself of venal sins, lived upon a high pedestal for 36 years. The film retells Stylites’ story, with Claudio Brook in the title role, covered in a dirty wool smock, cheeks covered in a matted beard, and speaking with a funny, pompous croak at his adoring, hypocritical followers.
Brook, who had an illustrious career (he starred in two other Bunuel films, “The Exterminating Angel” and “Viridiana”), is quite good; he is pompous, more self-important than noble, though he tries; when he heals the poor, handless cripple, who, walking off afterwards apparently without the slightest impression of the miracle, his cynicism seems, ironically, to reflect that of Simon’s himself. The dirty ascetic, glaring into the windswept land, wonders to himself about the nature of this religious gesture, fantasizing his mother holding his head in her understanding arms, comforting his sorrows. By his nature, he is weak, and we are certain that when the devil comes he will surely capitulate to temptation.
Bunuel made very good use of Silvia Pinal in their too-brief collaboration. The two teamed before in “Exterminating Angel” and “Viridiana”. The latter film is probably her best work, and, incidentally, was a humiliating blow to the dictatorship of Francisco Franco, who commissioned Spain’s leading director and exile back to his homeland to make an art movie, not expecting the hilarious, atheistic fiasco that resulted. Lacking the innocence of the naïve, religious girl in that film, Pinal here is evil itself. I thought that the scenes Pinal was in were the film’s funniest, especially the bizarre ending in a New York nightclub. The devil comes to Simon three times: first, as a sexy schoolgirl, singing a vulgar lullaby; then, as a bearded, cherubic messenger of God; and finally, as a ghostly, necrophilic apparition in a coffin.
The ending of the film still troubles me. Did Simon allow himself to fall under the devil’s spell and be taken to New York, or was he forced against his will? If the first proposition is true, then his fate in the nightclub – to be stranded in the future – is more appropriate. But is it, really?
The film is great. See it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNGOsvrbvu4&feature=related - Scenes from the film.
No comments:
Post a Comment