Some help to understand

I'm not a Bunuel expert by any means, but by having this and other religious and historical references word-for-word throughout the movie, it seemed to me that he was trying to show the absurdity of religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular.

The Milky Way although by no means one of Bunuel's finest films is about his very ambivalent relationship with the Christian faith. Bunuel had no love for the Church but in all his films you'll find strong presence of Catholic imagery and his films are certainly meditations on Catholic morality and also the burden of being raised in a religion with the reputation for committing numerous sins and also many good in history.

And he dwells on the history of the Church with all it's faults. And apparently even incidents as bizarre as that bishop exuming the body of a respected priest only to posthumously burn him on the stake after finding 'heretical' articles he did not publish is based on fact. But at the same time I think Bunuel did not disapprove of the actual principle of the Church that is Catholicism. Take the guy who sees the virgin Mary after disgracing the rosary only for her to return it to him. As that guy says, 'I insulted her, abused her and she just returned it(the rosary) to me.'

Then he shows Jesus irrevently but certainly with respect even that hilarious scene where he contemplates shaving his beard. And especially in the last scene where he has Jesus restoring sight to the blind.

The principle being that the heretics and the blasphemers or sinners are the ones more likely to attain grace then the ones who stay in the flock. The Virgin Mary appeared to someone who blasphemed her rather than someone devout. Even in the story which that priest related she helped someone who was betraying the faith rather than someone who was faithful to the convent.

I am not entirely sure that the film is anti-religious that is against the actual religious principle but it's definitely against organized religion.

It's interesting, when the film was released it provoked differing reactions. Carlos Fuentes, the Mexican writer thought it was an anti-religious war film while Julio Cortazar thought it was funded by the Vatican!!!




How much is a good nights sleep worth?

This is an interesting thread, but to be honest, I thought someone would come out with what it all means! No one seems to know for sure. Perhaps organised religion was so intimidating back then, any criticisim had to be muted or oblique, rather like satire under a Communist regime, for fear of reprisals.

The statement at the end: that everything should come from the Catholic texts - does that mean, you should take it all as gospel? Or that other, wicked stuff comes from interpretations that you won't find in the original texts?

If those two blind men are cured as in the final scene, why are they walking with canes at all? I took it to mean they represented US, the unbelievers who can't follow the (admittedly charming) Christ and fall into a ditch. But I had flu when I saw it, and felt every comment was a kind of pressure to make me find God.

Either the tramps had their lifes already determined because they did exactly what the old man (God) told them. Or everything was a mere coincidence.

Movement ends, intent continues;
Intent ends, spirit continues