Just seen this for the first time, so these are a few very tentative remarks. What did I see in this film on a first viewing? Quite a lot.
Firstly, a story told visually in an incredibly striking manner, what Hitchcock would certainly have recognized as a tale presented according to the medium of cinema rather than mere pictures of people talking. Take, for example, the scene in which the late, great Paco Rabal hits on the servant lady (who does an awesome job, by the way). The cat and rat images present the viewer with a whole visual narrative in a few frames. This is what masterly cinema is all about. Furthermore, the photography is of the utmost quality and has aged extremely well.
Secondly, an incredibly powerful comment on the limitations of Christian morality, and the hypocrisy and folly which become apparent when such an ethos is actually applied to the material world that we currently live in. Christianity, at least in its original formulation, is as a rather egalitarian, almost socialist creed. Remember Matthew 19:24: "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". Viridiana holds to Christianity's belief in the sanctity of the poor and the wretched by bringing the village's outcast into the stately home she has inherited. However, she does so in a hypocritical fashion, allowing the "undeserving poor" to leech off her inherited wealth but nonetheless keeping them hidden away and separate from the true luxuries which the stately mansion contains. This seems to be a clear criticism of the disparity between the Church's humble discourse and its ostentatious worldly riches. Think about why the Last Supper imagery is employed in the debauched banquet scene. Is it merely gratuitous art-reference or is it part of a meta-narrative?
Thirdly, acute social and psychological insights. Although Viridiana has treated the village poor kindly, they are rabble through and through and soon prove to be such as soon as she is out of site. In this respect, the film seems to purvey an extremely pessimistic vision of human nature. While the scum are under the vigilant eye of a benevolent benefactor their auto-destructive passions are kept in check. As soon as the guardian figure represented by Viridiana is taken out of the equation they are hopelessly lost in sinfulness again. Not that the patricians are at all any better. Fernando Rey's character (the uncle) comes to the verge of raping his niece because she reminds him so much of his dead wife. This is very much reminiscent of Jimmy Stewart's almost necrophiliac obsession with Madeleine Elster/Judy Barton (Kim Novak) in "Vertigo". Cousin Jorge (Rabal's character) is hardly any better, a man with scant regard for the feelings of his womenfolk, simply out to get the best lay available and who lusts after his own cousin. Viridiana is the only truly pure-hearted character in the film, but her pure-heartedness turns out to be a severe handicap in a world full of blind self-interest.
Fourthly, and lastly, absolutely stellar character performances throughout. This is perhaps hard to pick up if you are unable to distinguish the nuances of peninsular Castilian, but the old man with no teeth, the blind beggar, the leper and the town whore who are portrayed in the banquet scene are all extremely realistic small-town Spanish types. They add a humor to the film which is somewhat surprising, considering the melodramatic initial act, and they fully carry the film through to its conclusion.
Anyhow, I hope some of these comments might help you to understand this masterpiece better, and I would love to read other film buffs' opinions on the film, favorable or not.
reply
share
Golem36
16 years ago
Alejandromagno, great post ! I agree with everything you stated.
reply
share