MovieChat Forums > Fando y Lis (1972) Discussion > Why did this film cause so many riots?

Why did this film cause so many riots?


Why did this film cause so many riots?

reply

bump.

reply

I would like to know this.

-----------
My Blog - http://umma-ohz.blogspot.com/

reply

have you SEEN the film?!

Remember that the premiere of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring also caused a riot, and it was just completely abstract music, in F y L on top of an artist breaking the conventional rules of his medium, you have a barrage of shocking grotesque psycho/sexual images.

When an artist makes a pure work, that is with no concessions to what people expect, it pisses people off, they are insulted because the artist is not concerned with what they want, only with making real his vision. and when they try to understand the work as a typical narrative film and can't, they get angry at the artist, or worse yawn and label him "pretentious" because they refuse to open their minds and experience something new and different.


*
Downloads of Ambient & Neo-classical Music : http://music.download.com/dj_dreamstream

reply

The "have you seen the film?" comment wasnt really necessary. But your point is fair enough, you are simply stating that a lot of the audience are quite temperamental, which will obviously play some part. The fact though I suppose is that surreal and sexual images had been seen and explored earlier than Fando Y Lis, the surrealist movement was doing that in the 30's, so riots do seem quite suprising to me.

-----------
My Blog - http://umma-ohz.blogspot.com/

reply

Ya, I saw this film and thought it was surreal/weird but not enough to cause a flipping riot.

reply

Jodorowsky was part of the Panic Movement which specifically was a response to surrealism which he thought had become bourgeois and conservative. He wanted to create something new and provocative, this was surrealism with a punk/performance art attitude and I don't know of anything else on film that compares to it. I don't know what you other posters imagine the world was like in 1968, but the average film-goer, even at a festival, had never seen anything like this, and I wonder what previous films you are talking about that had more sexually disturbing images than this. Yes we're all really cool here on the imdb, but what myopic world do you live in that you think the vast majority of people would not be disgusted and pissed off by this film even today? Just last year there were worldwide riots over some cartoons! Also AJ talks about the nationalism aspect, can you understand the average Mexican citizen did not want something like FyL to represent Mexican filmaking? Even later, after some success, when he made Holy Mountain he was receiving death threats and had to go to NYC to finish that film.

*
Downloads of Ambient & Neo-classical Music : http://music.download.com/dj_dreamstream

reply

Ok, cool it Mr. The stuff you say is worth listening to but I feel like i'm being attacked here, don't really need that.

I'm referring to the stuff Bunuel produced. Maybe Jodorowsky did want to react to the conservatism that he percieved in surrealism, and yes, i'm aware that its very bourgeois today and probably was by then, particularly as it is one of the main techniques in advertising, however despite being quite conservative by then it still encorporated sexual and violent images, which you may have though people would have adjusted to. Apparently not. I admit my ignorance, if thats what you would like to hear. I have no problem with that.

-----------
My Blog - http://umma-ohz.blogspot.com/

reply

On the DVD commentary track, Jodorowsky explains why it caused a riot back then.

reply

Boy, people will go on and on without facts. Kudos, k_st_m! Didn't these guys want to know what the director had to say?

reply

I wouldn't worry about that movie snob. He seems to not understand that not everyone is going to like the same films or seen the same things. I really hate film nerds like that. The only thing that makes film nerds cool is that they stay away from every social gathering, which is good since they are unable to deal with anything that is not pre-written and predictable.

Hey Doctor T, why do you act as if everyone should know the boring inane crap you find interesting? I think too many movies has made you a grumpy guss. Maybe you should try the real world, it has its moments too, but then again, you can't be as mean to people as on the internet, because people in the real world would beat you down and take your bicycle. Oh, and because your knowledge of obscure films will not make a single friend (other than film nerds like yourself) or convince anyone to go out on a date.

Man, do i hate responders that think they are better than other people, when you can just envision some pimply geek in his parent's basement snorting in derision at everything, finding fault in all but himself. Then when this jacka$$ gets his comeuppance he will probably study the post for spelling errors or lie about being some sort of tough guy (like a marine, yea right) and respond in a desperate attempt to reestablish dominance, but unfortunately it is too late and nop one cares for you anymore.

reply

"what myopic world do you live in that you think the vast majority of people would not be disgusted and pissed off by this film even today?"
I, like many other people I'd imagine, that watch films that have a high amount of shock content such as Jodorowsky's have to remind ourselves that most people are a lot more easily offended and generally quite sensitive when it comes to images of this nature. Sometimes I might be talking about a film to some people and they will be horrified, whilst I'm thinking that what I am saying isn't all that offensive. I suppose if you watch surreal/violent/eroticised films for a certain period of time you become desensitised and are unable to return to the same understanding of what is "crossing the line" that most members of the general public have.

reply

i researched that the riots were caused at one point in the film where the old woman are playing cards on the mountain side and they are sucking peach pits out of the young mans mouth. which is tame with surrealism today but at that time and state of the country i suppose any small extreme can piss of a catholic community.

reply

--I, like many other people I'd imagine, that watch films that have a high amount of shock content such as Jodorowsky's have to remind ourselves that most people are a lot more easily offended and generally quite sensitive when it comes to images of this nature. --

But you'd think 'sensitive' people would refrain from throwing rocks at a man's car. That's pretty insensitive.

God, I hate the politically correct, even more than extremist conservatives. Why can't everybody just drift about the middle like me?

reply

normich_chris said:
Hey Doctor T, why do you act as if everyone should know the boring inane crap you find interesting?

um, the OP asked a question, and i tried to answer it for them. sorry if you're offended by actual knowledge about the subject, i never suggested everyone should know what i know, or agree with my opinion, but this is a board for "film-nerds" to discuss obscure stuff like this.

i did nothing more than express my surprise that apparently people on this board live in a world where no one they know, their parents, grandparents, friends, coworkers, would find this film extremely shocking. i still find this thread wildly amazingly inexplicable. i did not throw insults around like you do, use the word "hate", and wow, talk about desperation to discredit someone - what's with racking your little mind to come up all your fantasy assumptions about my life? by the way, you're really close, lol, i'm in my 50's, live on the beach in LA, had 40 people at my house for a xmas party, etc etc. now i guess you'll insult me for being old?


*
Downloads of Ambient & Neo-classical Music : http://music.download.com/dj_dreamstream

reply

Dammit - if only this was a dating board - I know who I'd be messaging :D

As already mentioned, the DVD commentary explains a great deal about how this film was received - Jodorowsky broke a lot of laws and taboos shooting this film in Mexico and received serious death threats (even from other directors) as a result!

reply

Doctor T
Normich_Chris was having a go at you because you were being condescending, but I'd assume like most condescending people it's a character flaw and you don't even know you're doing it.

reply

LOL. Good post Chris. I loved the bicycle piece the best.

You are right though, billy-no-friends got a little too heated about a subject that has many different sides to begin with. To be upset about it like he was is as pointless as pouring water in a bottomless bucket.

But as far as Fando y Lis, I have a high tolerance for "different" movies, but as someone else said, "artistic, eccentric *beep* is still *beep* Everyone has their drug to enlighten the mind; this black and white drivel didn't make the cut FOR ME.

Next.

reply


I decided to keep score and cyborg is easily the worst multi out of the multiple multis in this thread.


.

reply

Also AJ talks about the nationalism aspect, can you understand the average Mexican citizen did not want something like FyL to represent Mexican filmaking? Even later, after some success, when he made Holy Mountain he was receiving death threats and had to go to NYC to finish that film.


Let's clarify something:
"The average mexican citizen" in 1968 had no idea about who the heck was Alejandro Jodorowsky, neither about a film called "Fando y Lis".
It's like saying that the average US citizen knew already who was David Lynch and had already seen "Eraserhead" back in 1977.

Even now in 2008 "the average yank" haven't seen "Eraserhead".

Back in 1968 only the people who used to work in plays knew who was Jodorowsky.

The audience in the festival of Acapulco were not your "Average José", but mostly people related to the film industry: critics, cinema buffs, censors, filmmakers, actors, producers, journalists, etc.

The whole fuzz was made by the film establishment: old conservative directors, producers, critics and actors who disliked the movie.
The scandal was fueled by yellowish newspapers and by Jodorowsky himself. Like when he said that the famous director "Emilio Fernández" wanted to kill him.
That's not true; "el indio" Fernández was a great director but he used to drink and talk too much (and sometimes not only that). He denied in a number of times that he really meant to kill Jodorowsky. Emilio Fernández surely threatened lots of people besides Alejandro because that was his temper, specially when drunk.
At the end both ended being kinda "friends".

Don't believe all what Jodorowsky says. He is one of my fav directors but he is a "Prima Donna" as well. And being honest that is one of the reasons why I like him.

Don't forget also the historical context: 1968. México was ruled then by a fascistoid government that later in the same year massacred hundreds of students who only asked for some social reforms.
Obviously that kind of government wouldn't allow any movie that could cause a riot to be in exhibition.

Mexican films as provocative as Fando y Lis were shot in México before. Buñuel had already shot "Nazarín" who deals with a pathetic christ-like priest. "Viridiana" that contains one of the most blasphemous scenes ever shot. "El ángel exterminador" shows subtle but extremely provocative images concernig christian concepts and beliefs, besides it's an acid critique to the ruling class. "Simón del desierto", an allegory about the devil corrupting a saint, ridicules the catholic church.
All that before Jodorowsky's "Fando y Lis"

Of course not many dared to mess with Buñuel because he was already quite famous worldwide and because most of his movies were masterpieces. Jodorowsky in the other hand was only the new kid in town, an easy target for the conservative groups.

So the whole scandal contains a core of true but also lots of urban legends that Jodorowsky himself have encouraged. Take it all with a grain of salt. That's my advice.





reply

Thanks, I think this is the only post that is actually worth reading on this entire thread.

reply

Agreed. WOW, people are sensitive on here.

reply

Excellent comment; I usually dislike films made for political agendae; Jadorosky makes them for his creative agenda, which has attention-getting his principal agenda. (There is no negative attention.)
I enjoy most of his stuff, it's all shocking in one way or another, but that's his schtick.

reply

Very well said. I felt this feeling after seeing Prometheus, but instead of rioting and demanding the screenwriter and Ridley Scott be strung up.... I waited to vent to a sympathetic ear.

reply

The internets are serious *beep* business, lulz.

Anyway, I'm actually sitting here halfway through the movie right now and I quite like it. as someone said earlier, if you've seen the movie, and think of it through the eyes of a Mexican in 1968, (which, I'm sure none of us are likely capable of) I'm sure you can get an idea of why the film caused a riot. Think of a theater in Alabama showing a film where a white woman and a black man kiss in 1959.

reply

It reminds me of a joke me and my friend have about Stravinsky's rite of spring. "This bassoon solo is an OUTRAGE!". the riots are simply caused by fools. To me, to have something you've made cause a riot is an incredible honor -- greater than any award out there.

reply

It was in Mexico in 1968. Also Jodorowski used the Mariscal's blood in a blood drinking scene and rumors were flying about Jodorowski being a vampire. Also Diana Mariscal was anorexic and at the premier they blamed Jodorowski's vampirism.

reply

I think that this discussion on this thread about F y L explains in great detail why there were riots during the premiere.

reply

Exactly!
Also Kinematico got it right.

~ nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it ~

reply

HELLO?
Excuse me but I just read through this entire thread and I don't know why people cannot answer a SIMPLE question.
1. I did not see the film. That does not disqualify me from asking a question about it.
2. I did not post a question, but the OP asked the exact question I had.
3. NO ONE (except for one person) answered the &%(*&%^ Question!!!!! (thank you to the person who posted the scene with the peach pits, that was the ONLY real answer).
4. I didn't bother keeping track of who was who in this discussion, but most of you seem like you just want to somehow prove how enlightened and knowledgeable you all are in the world of film. It was a simple question and an APPROPRIATE answer would have been:
-the scene where (fill in the blank) happened
-the scene that showed (fill in the blank)
-the part where (fill in the blank) was depicted
And the reason for all my blanks is that I still don't know the ANSWER TO THE QUESTION!!!!!

Thanks for wasting my time.

reply

i believe it would be many scenes of the film leading up to a riot. the blood drinking scene, where a guy convinces them to let them draw some of the leading womans blood to "heal" the man who he has with him and then he takes it from syringe and shoots it into a glass. then he drinks it all up instead of offering it to the friend. and i didnt actually watch the entire film as i found it boring, and difficult to watch. the movie just has an intense number of odd surreal scenes, and by the time you get to the scene where these nasty old ladies are sucking peach pits out of young mens mouths during sitting around playing cards i think it was so taboo at the time the audience finally couldnt handle it anymore. if you like me reading this thread too hear about disturbing parts of the movie then note i also find when they come across the "people in the mud" that basically just live out wallowing in mud and are completely covered and laying in it too be quite disturbing too.

reply

anyone who starts "rioting" or getting out of control because they dont like a piece of art probably has the mental capacity of a baboon.

reply

Whatever the reasons, The Rite of Spring also caused riots, but at least it was worth the riot.

CB

Good Times, Noodle Salad

reply