MovieChat Forums > La voie lactée (1969) Discussion > Do you think I'd like this?

Do you think I'd like this?

posted 16 years ago by withnothingunderneath
12 replies | jump to latest

I just picked this movie up as I feel like I need to get into Bunuel's films so I can create a valid opinion of him. My question is do you think this would be a good first choice of his films for me to see? If not, what would you say is his best film or the most accessible? I tend to like French films and very ecclectic or off the wall and even satyrical films. Basically, I'll watch just about anything. I have seen L'age D'Or and throughouly enjoyed it.

Favorite Directors:
Jean Luc Godard
Andrei Tarkovsky
Paul Thomas Anderson
David Cronenberg
Akira Kurosawa
Jean Pierre Melville
The list really goes on...

[–] JuanLatino 16 years ago

Yes, I think you will. I just started getting into Buñuel also and I love French films. This one deals with religion and has a space/time continuum bending style.

As far as which one of his films to start out with...I started with Phantom of Liberty, but I'd also like suggestions of any others to see that are his best.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] londona-parker 16 years ago

If this is a french film and you tend to like French film, then you will tend to like this film.

[–] conductor71-2 15 years ago

> My question is do you think this would be a good first choice of his films for me to see?

Not necessary. If you have a background on Christianity (not just being "I love Jesus!" "the Iraq war is a god-send mission" sort of Christian, but actually knowing the dogma et all, like the Holy Trinity, the status of Jesus' divinity and Jesus' humanity, the various interpretations of "salvation," etc), you can go for this, or if you are very open-minded. But it may be very confusing if you don't get what the people are talking about at all.

The first joke is fairly easy to get; Jesus preparing to shave, and Mary tells him "My son, you look much better with your beard."

But then it goes deeper and deeper in making fun of the Christian dogma, like how the body of Christ can be contained in a piece of bread, or what happens to the body of Christ when it enters your digestion system, or how one can understand the holy trinity, or... The climax being a duel between a Jansenist and a Jesuit! The more they are serious the more they become hilarious, but it can be confusing as we often don't even understand what the film is making fun of.

> I tend to like French films and very ecclectic or off the wall and even satyrical films. Basically, I'll watch just about anything. I have seen L'age D'Or and throughouly enjoyed it.

Then I would first recommend The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, to get used to the particular narrative structure, then perhaps The Phantom of Liberty. With these it's easier to detect what is made fun of on a concrete levels. Then once you get used to the strategy, you can tackle on this one.

[–] artihcus022 15 years ago

Well I know a fair bit about the religious history but I still found The Milky Way underwhelming, still it's fascinating and hilarious. The scenes with Jesus are hilarious and daffy. Still it has a great cast(just like much of late Bunuel), Edith Scob(radiant as Mary), Pierre Clementi(naturally as Satan), Michel Piccoli as the Marquis de Sade and Delphine Seyrig's weird cameo at the end. And the actor playing Jesus was also great.

The climax being a duel between a Jansenist and a Jesuit! The more they are serious the more they become hilarious, but it can be confusing as we often don't even understand what the film is making fun of.

I think that was Bunuel's idea. To take a poetic historical look at Church history rather than logically go from point to point. My favourite bit is that discussion in that modern restaurant where that guy says, "Nowadays everyone is Catholic!" "What about the Jews?" "The Jews are the most Catholic of all..." I didn't understand what he means but it's hilarious.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

[–] conductor71-2 15 years ago

> To take a poetic historical look at Church history rather than logically go from point to point.

But theologically it is indeed very logical. The underlining irony is that they take all these abstract concepts as if they were matters of at most realistic seriousness, as if these things are concrete facts and can be debated as factual.

But then that was also the history of Christianity, especially catholicism, that they did kill each other for these debates as the Church was not simply a religious institution, but the becoming the most powerful political authority.

> My favourite bit is that discussion in that modern restaurant where that guy says, "Nowadays everyone is Catholic!" "What about the Jews?" "The Jews are the most Catholic of all..." I didn't understand what he means but it's hilarious.

Of course that bishop is mentally ill but even what he says is logical in a verbal sense. "Catholic" means universal and Catholicism is originally conceived as such a flexible sect it can always adapt itself to the reality of the faithful--or supposedly so, when the reality of the history has been quite different, of course! The film is also about that absurdity, the human limitation of never grasping the concept they themselves created. In that sense it can even be the essential Bunuel film.

[–] artihcus022 15 years ago

Of course that bishop is mentally ill but even what he says is logical in a verbal sense. "Catholic" means universal and Catholicism is originally conceived as such a flexible sect it can always adapt itself to the reality of the faithful...

Interesting. Bunuel once noted that as a boy he was raised to believe in an actual hell and the like but years later he noted that things had changed to the point that many priests no longer believed or taught a literal hell. Maybe as part of a reaction to those changes. The Milky Way is Post-Vatican II(and strangely became a box office success in Post-'68 France).

The film is also about that absurdity, the human limitation of never grasping the concept they themselves created. In that sense it can even be the essential Bunuel film.

Maybe. Although I think Bunuel's last film dealt with that more profoundly or even Tristana.

I felt that at the end of the film where we have Jesus and his apostles entering the frame you get the sense that Bunuel sees Jesus as a kind of "accidental anarchist" who spread both peace and confusion. Like he cures the blind man's sight again but he doesn't know how to see with his new eyes or what he's supposed to be seeing. It's a very strange human portrait of Jesus, as if he's a kind of man-child.

What do you make of the fact that the film actually provoked extreme reactions from two people who knew Bunuel(and both great Latin American writers) - Carlos Fuentes said it was an anti-religious war film while Julio Cortazar said it was financed by Vatican, I bet Bunuel loved that.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

[–] conductor71-2 15 years ago

> I felt that at the end of the film where we have Jesus and his apostles entering the frame you get the sense that Bunuel sees Jesus as a kind of "accidental anarchist" who spread both peace and confusion.

But the scene is LITERALLY on that! After "curing" the blind Bunuel and Carriere put the famous most confusing quote from the Gospels, that he came to bring conflicts between the son and the father, the daughter against the mother. Of course, it is only confusing to "Christians" who usually ignore the Torah, forgetting the philosophical context within which Jesus of Nazareth appeared. In the Genesis, God tell Abraham to kill Isaac, then God makes Jacob fight him, and gives him the name "Isra El," meaning "he who fights God." So the God of Israel literally means the God of he who fights God.

> Like he cures the blind man's sight again but he doesn't know how to see with his new eyes or what he's supposed to be seeing.

Bunuel's own interpretation is that the blind guys were not cured, but they remained polite and did not complain as after all the Christ has been very kind to them .

Of course you can never trust Don Luis about his proclaimed interpretation of his own works! But seriously, that ending is very enigmatic, you cannot even be sure if these blind guys were "cured" (I personally never thought they were).

> It's a very strange human portrait of Jesus, as if he's a kind of man-child.

Bernard Verley did a very good job for sure, the shaving gag is hilarious.

> What do you make of the fact that the film actually provoked extreme reactions from two people who knew Bunuel(and both great Latin American writers) - Carlos Fuentes said it was an anti-religious war film while Julio Cortazar said it was financed by Vatican, I bet Bunuel loved that.

Well some people were shocked for sure just by the fact that Don Luis suddenly made a film about Christianity. I don't think it is necessary "against," but just making fun of it. It is a very serious parody done with a lot of care and attention. Maybe that serious faithfulness made some people confused, but to me the joke is quite clear.

The insane bishop sequence is very much the key; at that early point of the film already the underlining themes are stated very clearly. The insane bishop claims that a faithful must accept the dogma literally and that's the whole point of faith. It sounds insane and the guy is insane, but that insane idea is at the core of the authorized Catholic dogma regarding the status of Jesus--as repeated when the film visits later conflictual notions of the holy trinity. On the other hand there is also the police chief, who says "in order to maintain the application of the law, you cannot always be Christian" or something like that--well, that was the attitude the Church constantly took against the sects deemed as heretic, and the film describes that too.

[–] artihcus022 15 years ago

Of course you can never trust Don Luis about his proclaimed interpretation of his own works! But seriously, that ending is very enigmatic, you cannot even be sure if these blind guys were "cured" (I personally never thought they were).

I thought it means more in the sense of well, Plato's Cave. They passed their lives without their eyes and suddenly they have their sight restored and they can't tell what they are seeing. In the philosophical sense of course. Plato's Cave is of course about conditioned perception of certain images and how it channels our subjectivity whereas these guys haven't ever seen in their lives. Anyways, that's what I thought. But then Plato being Greek would be out of place in this film.

...the shaving gag is hilarious.

It is. I howled in laughter when I saw that.

Well some people were shocked for sure just by the fact that Don Luis suddenly made a film about Christianity. I don't think it is necessary "against," but just making fun of it. It is a very serious parody done with a lot of care and attention.

Yeah. And although it is a sharp satire that's full of hilarious and disturbing gags(like the scene with Marquis de Sade, Bunuel's favourite) there's also moments which suddenly are quite moving in the way Bunuel can be. Like when one of them have that vision of Mary who returns a rosary after they had flung it away as a joke. I mean again you could say it's a parody of all the various visions of the Virgin that keep getting documented by the Church. But there's something quite beautiful in that scene. Even something sincere. There's certainly no satire in the way Edith Scob plays her.

On the other hand there is also the police chief, who says "in order to maintain the application of the law, you cannot always be Christian" or something like that--well, that was the attitude the Church constantly took against the sects deemed as heretic, and the film describes that too.

So Bunuel's on the side of the heretics and the blasphemers? Maybe some of them more than others.
It makes sense given his life and his experiences in the Spanish Civil War (where he saw the clergy give the fascist salute to Franco's guards) and falls in line with his views in Nazarin and Viridiana.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

[–] conductor71-2 15 years ago

> They passed their lives without their eyes and suddenly they have their sight restored and they can't tell what they are seeing.

Well there is a mention of that too, one of the (former) blinds asking "Please tell me what color is white and which color is black."

But then Don Luis may say he was just pretending, as it was part of them being so polite they didn't want to hurt Jesus' feelings. It's also possible to see that one is cured and the other wasn't, by the last shot.

> I mean again you could say it's a parody of all the various visions of the Virgin that keep getting documented by the Church. But there's something quite beautiful in that scene.

Really??? I think it's so kitch it can only be a joke. I mean, if you grow up within a Catholic environment, as it is filled with such bad-tasted iconography of the "holy virgin" every souvenir shops and local festivals.

> it is a sharp satire that's full of hilarious and disturbing gags(like the scene with Marquis de Sade, Bunuel's favourite)

The De Sade scene isn't that good, it's the weakest scene in the film. Maybe it was a surrealist homage as de Sade is a surrealist icon, but de Sade is rather out place in the context of the film, I feel.

> So Bunuel's on the side of the heretics and the blasphemers?

Well, he is a surrealist, so naturally he should be, logically speaking (though I don't thin it's that simple).

> Maybe some of them more than others.

I never said anything of the kind. He is taking neither side, it's more a problem of the general attitude. If the heretics have won the debate, they would behave in the exact same manner--remember the duel between the Jesuit and the Jansenist? The heretic is as aggressively stubborn as the main-stream.

Same with the corps-burning sequence about the holy trinity. Then the heretical side is made to look as a fool when falling so easily to the oldest kitch cliche of Catholicism--the absurd adoration of Virgin Mary.

> and falls in line with his views in Nazarin and Viridiana.

But Nazarin is a very serious Catholic piece... It is anti-clergy for sure but not anti-religion. Though authoritative organized churches hate to even address the issue, it is at the core of Christianity or even of the Judeo-Christian religion; basically it is a variation of the book of Job, and to me the most successful in cinema.

[–] artihcus022 15 years ago

If the heretics have won the debate, they would behave in the exact same manner--remember the duel between the Jesuit and the Jansenist? The heretic is as aggressively stubborn as the main-stream.

Yes, you are right there. I'll have to see the film again now.

It is anti-clergy for sure but not anti-religion.

What about Viridiana?

basically it is a variation of the book of Job, and to me the most successful in cinema.

It's certainly among the most visually beautiful(although not picturesque beautiful obviously). And that last scene with the drums is unforgettable all the moreso because of Paco Rabal's performance in that scene where he accepts her offering.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

[–] heelmaster2000 15 years ago

I just saw this today along with The Phantom Of Liberty and That Obscure Object Of Desire, and this was my fav out of all three.