Eternal church detractor, oposer to fascist reign and bourgeoise idylle, the legendary Luis Buñuel returned to Spain after years of exile in France, USA and Mexico to direct a film that would ultimately cause a stir in his native country and the catholic church. After working on several films in different countries, some that are regarded as masterpieces even today, Buñuel’s true first film in his own land marks somewhat of a turning point in his career, garnering him a lot of international attention and winning the Palme d’Or, but at the same time unleashing a great amount of controversy that caused the film to be banned in Spain and be publicly dennounced by the Vatican. Labeled as blasphemy, Buñuel had this to say about his film: “I didn’t deliberately set out to be blasphemous, but then Pope John XXIII is a better judge of such things that I am.” Well, there is indeed reason for the church to regard the movie as blasphemous, but in truth it is all the more beautiful for it.

Viridiana (Silvia Pinal) is a young novice about to take her vows. Her only living relative, her uncle Don Jaime (Fernando Rey), invites her over to his state to spend a few days there. Even though Viridiana is reluctant, for she has met the man only one and considers him to be cold and distant, she agrees after her Mother Superior tells her to accept the invitation. At her uncle’s state she meets and befriends his servants, and slowly starts getting closer to Don Jaime. At the midpoint of the film, after a series of events that shake the perceived normality, Viridiana sets out to help the socially outclassed, wanting to offer them a little “human warmth”. But she’ll soon find out that things aren’t as simple and as black or white as she was thought in the convent.

There’s a lot to be read in “Viridiana”. To see it merely as an attack on the church is very short-sighted. It does critize the institution and its members, and it is full of symbolism and allegories that lead to such conclusion (just think about the hidden knife in the crucifix), but it does allow for other more varied readings. There is the political angle, for example, by which many scholars note parallels between Don Jaime’s abusive lord-esque figure and Franco himself, though personally I don’t buy into that, since Don Jaime is portrayed rather humanly and sympathetic in spite of his unholy intentions. I’d rather go with a more “universal” interpretation: the film is about humanity, its drives and its decadence. There’s of course a lot of emphasis on faith, religion and politics, but the film, especially in the second half, seems more focused on depicting both the good and bad in humanity, or rather how the good more often than not isn’t enough to mitigate the bad. As critic Michael Wood in his essay “The Human Condition” about this film said: “It is a picture of a society that doesn’t understand its needs.” Under this fall the religious, political and social angles Buñuel expertly tackles.

Performance-wise there isn’t one interpreter that misses his or her mark. Silvia Pinal captures excellently the pureness and warmness of Viridiana, and her evolution as a character is very believable, after the veil of innocence is shattered by a world that does not care about goodness. Also excellent is Fernando Rey in his portrayal of Don Jaime, a complex and lonely, even if unlikeable, figure. Margarita Lozano, who plays Ramona, a servant of Don Jaime, is also great at portraying a morally ambigous character, embodying perfectly the multiple facets of her character: woman, mother, friend and servant. Francisco Rabal, who plays Don Jaime’s illegitimate son Jorge, also performs quite great and acts as an ideological foil to Viridiana in the film’s second half. Even little Teresa Rabal as Rita, Ramona’s daughter, does a pretty good job and seizes naturally her role in the story. And to cap it off is the cast of beggars who embrace their chaotic roles in a non-chalant fashion; its still discussed today wheather they were actors or actual beggars in the movie, even if Buñuel himself stated that they were indeed performers, for there’ve been other that claim the existence of evidence that suggests the contrary.

Buñuel’s role in this film is undisputably masterful. He wrote (with Julio Alejandro) and directed, crafting a piece of art that is both wonderfully touching and outrageously provocative in equal meassure – then again, that is the man’s signature. There’s no denying that everything in the film falls under his vision (producer Gustavo Alatriste reportedly gave him complete artistic freedom), and the result of that vision is a picture that is nearly perfect on every level. According to his own words, he doesn’t pay much attention to aesthetics such as composition, costume and production design, etc., he focuses rather on the human aspect of the story and the interactions between his characters – and honestly speaking, that approach works so magnificently well that that attention he mentions translates effortlessly to the aesthetic component, wheather deliberately or not.

I’d like to shortly adress the ending. Without giving away much detail, the film’s original ending had to be changed after spanish censors protested about its suggestive nature (I think the film hadn’t been shot, it was still in pre-production stage). Ironically enough, the ending we did get is even more suggestive than the original, but it is even more ambigous, leaving enough room for doubt so it could pass the censors. And to tell the truth, it works way better than the originally intended one.

With a career that spans several decades and quite a good number of masterpieces that include “L’Age d’Or” (1930), “Nazarín” (1959), “The Exterminating Angel” (1962), “Belle de Jour” (1967) and “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie” (among many others), “Viridiana” still stands as one of Buñuel’s greatest achievements. Critized, dennounced and outright banned, there’s no doubt that the film made a big splash upon release. And in spite of all the controversy, the talent behind it was instantly recognized, being awarded the most important prize at the 1961 Cannes Film Festival; that recognition is even greater today. Definitely a film that should be in any serious cinephile’s list, especially for fans of the great Luis Buñuel.

Thanks for reading and I hope you liked this review. You can be of big help by sharing it with your friends and family, and if you want to stay up to date with the contents of this blog don’t forget to follow. Until next time!