MovieChat Forums > Viridiana (1962) Discussion > blasphemy?

blasphemy?

posted 18 years ago by thesiouxfallskid
21 replies | jump to latest

My understanding of the word blasphemy is that it is used where there is something profane or disrespectful going on regarding the church or those faithful to it. Yes Viridiana was not worldly wise but she had very good intentions and the disastrous supper emphasized her failure, but I sure do not see anything in the film itself as profane or disrespectful under the scrutiny of good hard cold logic. After all, human beings (which includes priests and nuns) make mistakes and our understanding of things is still insufficient to eradicate the ills of the world and our own failings. I had a good impression of the church from this film relative to what I have observed in life. Similarly with the film Black Robe (also afoul of the church apparently) where the priest had good intentions, did his best, and remained faithful to the end. Should we expect more? Viridiana cannot be construed to represent the totality of the church or the beggars as being the totality of the down and out or the disastrous supper as the totality of the works of the church. We should be aware of our failures and not label blasphemous those who vividly point them out to us or the world cannot become a better place. Can anyone construct a sound argument to justify the position of the church on this film?

[–] boldaslove83 18 years ago

Making parody of the last supper is probably what upset the church the most. I think this scene is amazing though.

[–] kadajawi 17 years ago

Burning a crown of thorns surely didn't help either, quite powerful image too.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rodridament 17 years ago

Racist
Intolerant
Bigot!

He's a chicken, I tell you! A giant chicken!

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Racist? why? Intolerant, sure, bigot, definitely, but racist?

[–] Lord_X 13 years ago

Language! The thing that means stuff.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] squandermania 16 years ago

Besides The Last Supper and the crown of thorns, Bunuel also mocks the sacredness of marriage by having Don Jaime almost rape Viridiana in a wedding dress, and by having the drunk poor leper dance around in it at the end. The added touch of having Handel's Messiah in the background of the big dinner at the end is great too. All in all, I would say that it is blasphemous because he is making money from satirizing these sacred symbols and institutions.

That is not to say it isn't a great film. It's just a blasphemous great film.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

Bunuel also mocks the sacredness of marriage

Not forgetting cousin Jorge living with a woman without any 'blessing'.

To say a little often is to tell more than to say a great deal.

[–] Kinematico 17 years ago

"Saint Luis Buñuel" was a genious, period!

That scene of the "last supper" with the beggars is simply MARVELOUS! One of the most shocking and powerful scenes of all time.

I don't care what the conservative fanatics thinks about it. Buñuel was a genious and a great man who happened to be atheist.

I bet if there is a heaven, many atheists, pagans and agnostics are there. In the other hand if there is a hell, surely lots of pious christians are burning there.

[–] trevor-136 17 years ago

My idea of Hell IS a place full of Christians...and all other religious nuts!

[–] cuculiza_od 17 years ago

Yeah, the fuilm is pretty much full of blasphemy, and the amazing thing is that Buñuel doesn't give a *beep*

[–] puzzow 17 years ago

He was attacking organized religion, not God, so I don't think it counts as blasphemy. Unfortunately, too many people can't distinguish between the two. They put their faith in an institution made up fallible human beings, and when that institution screws up, they either refuse to recognize it-- because the institution is synonymous with God in thier mineds and criticism of it is therefore tantamount to blasphemy-- or their faith dies along with their trust in the institution.

[–] Trippetta10 15 years ago

The scenes described above were blasphemous, but what people find confusing is that nonwithstanding the blasphemy Bunuel presents the very religious Viridiana as the only decent person in the film. It's almost as though Bunuel is mocking Catholicism not because he thinks it is corrupt and heartless (as other filmmakers have) because it encourages people to be kind, which he seems to think is a waste of time. It's not as though Bunuel offers a more worldly or secular alternative to Viridiana's naive generosity either (Jorge is a condescending womanizer). It was a powerful film, but God it's view of human nature was bleak.

[–] Hubert88 14 years ago

I'd have to agree with you. A whole slew of people just lump God or spirituality together with organized religions. I'd also like to note that Buñuel expresses his repugnance more so with the hypocritical nature of the so-called adherents of Christianity. Nazarin depicts the true Christian spirit, or way of life, in my opinion. Buñuel's frustration arose from the hypocrisy, like I mentioned before.

[–] New_Wind 13 years ago

Very well said and articulated Puzzow !

[–] alserrano 12 years ago

My 0.02: Viridiana isn't exactly an "attack" to religion, but a parody of religious movies. Viridiana, like a Von Trier heroine, is gentle, full of humanity, generosity, charity, mercifulness and other typical Christian virtues, which is nice. But those religious movies show that all those actions have rewards, like turning miserable people into "good" ones, and being recognized as a saviour from all. In this movie, this doesn't happen. The other characters that seem good have their own motivations, everyone wants to take advantage of her, and well, meanwhile, Buñuel put the Last Supper part. But it is accesory, as the movie is mostly a thematic parody.

[–] oknar1977 9 years ago

great scene, it made me speechless

it's shocking by today's standards, I think. I can only imagine the look on the faces of religios fanatics when they watched it :D

[–] DanaShelbyChancey 9 years ago

I felt the scenes going back and forth between the group of people praying; and the group that was working, digging, building, at the house, to improve things, was what the Church took offense to.

That the film was saying that quiet prayer is not doing anything tangible like the workers did.

The word blasphemy is one of those words that is misused and its meaning twisted to suit all kinds of ideas.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

Another aspect of attack on Catholicism was showing that Viridiana's penitence, namely taking in the beggars, was almost her undoing. The idea of confessing, atoning, and being forgiven is an important element in Catholicism. Her atonement is unsuccessful and she is saved by her licentious cousin Jorge who bribes one of the beggars to kill another. That's pretty strong stuff even by today's standards.

To say a little often is to tell more than to say a great deal.

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

that scene with the last supper was very disturbing, it's going to be etched into my mind for ever, fantastic scene as it was though

so many movies, so little time