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 watching 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- and 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, makes them 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.
Yes, Buñuel is not as pretentious and lacking in filmic basics as that other Surreal fraud, Jean Cocteau- so what? That doesn't make Buñuel a Master; not even close, despite all the praise tossed his way. Viridiana fails not for a huge error or two, but for an unending string of little wrong and inane things, such as ridiculous symbolism- Viridiana sleepwalks and tosses ashes into Jaime's bed, and a film that moves far too quickly and gives no real insight into anything- especially its characters. For ellipses to work, they must be deployed within well-defined characterization, so that viewers can reasonably extrapolate the elided events. Without that, the missing elements shortchange both the tale and the characters.
Furthermore, the film's criticism of Roman Catholicism is absolutely depthless- it has been done before and since, and done better. There is no intellectual rigor, nor a hint of poesy. The political intent overwhelms the minuscule art. And, without real characters, who gives a damn what is intended? The exercise is rendered pointless by its own incompetence, something that haunts most of the Buñuel canon, which may explain why Viridiana- film and character, have such vacancies in their gazes.
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, makes them 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.
Yes, Buñuel is not as pretentious and lacking in filmic basics as that other Surreal fraud, Jean Cocteau- so what? That doesn't make Buñuel a Master; not even close, despite all the praise tossed his way. Viridiana fails not for a huge error or two, but for an unending string of little wrong and inane things, such as ridiculous symbolism- Viridiana sleepwalks and tosses ashes into Jaime's bed, and a film that moves far too quickly and gives no real insight into anything- especially its characters. For ellipses to work, they must be deployed within well-defined characterization, so that viewers can reasonably extrapolate the elided events. Without that, the missing elements shortchange both the tale and the characters.
Furthermore, the film's criticism of Roman Catholicism is absolutely depthless- it has been done before and since, and done better. There is no intellectual rigor, nor a hint of poesy. The political intent overwhelms the minuscule art. And, without real characters, who gives a damn what is intended? The exercise is rendered pointless by its own incompetence, something that haunts most of the Buñuel canon, which may explain why Viridiana- film and character, have such vacancies in their gazes.