MovieChat Forums > La montaña sagrada (1975) Discussion > Doesn't anyone else see this film as OVE...

Doesn't anyone else see this film as OVERKILL?

posted 16 years ago by emmi-lou
53 replies | jump to latest

I can't think of any other filmmaker who has crammed more gaudiness or trashiness into one film. If the director is trying to make a comment on consumerism, sexuality, religion, etc. in our culture, why do it so heavy-handedly? Most of the people who watch this already know how ridiculous our society has become and that it could get worse. Why would Jodorowsky want to shove our faces in feces, blood, piss, and vomit 100 times? Alright, so his head might have been doused in acid while this was being made, but for people to call it a thought-provoking, avant-garde masterpiece???!! There's nothing masterly about it...everything seems overly contrived, and unfocused....even the acting is terrible.

[–] simplyfsl 14 years ago

I think it is not as disturbing in graphical conveyance of message as Salo is, it has so many themes, its a piece of art and a movie made in 70'2 showing effect of war, torture and violent toys (reminiscent of violent video games children play these days), it all has stood test of time..May be the movie is not for everyone, but you can't deny that for the audience that is ready to get absorbed, movie makes you think even after it ends..

Why so Serious ?

[–] KafkaArtist 14 years ago

Why you mad tho?

But seriously, its called surrealism. Its a form of art. Its not supposed to make any sense so you shouldn't even attempt to take anything of substance from the majority of the stuff. The film is not meant to have any focus.

And I don't think you understand the term avante-garde very well. A very loose definition would be "something different from the majority". How many other films are there like this one in the history of cinema? Very few come close to the shear brutality and inventiveness of the absurd scenes Alejandro creates. Sure Buneul created it, David Lynch gave his critically acclaimed attempts at what I call "knock-off surrealism" (The unsettling plot images have an actual meaning in the directors mind whereas real surrealism is not meant to have any meaning) but Alejandro is pretty much the epitome of the surreal artist. I can't fathom another film out-doing some of the works he's done in terms of surrealism.

Hope this betters you appreciation for the film.

[–] SloppyJ30 14 years ago

I don't think "surreal" comes close to capturing the feeling of watching any of Jodorowsky's films. I haven't found a label that does. Maybe "aggressively surreal"? I stopped even trying to categorize shortly after seeing them, because, really, who cares? All I demand of a movie like this is to take me on a unique trip that only a certain artist can provide. Jodorowsky's films do this; whether this bit or that bit meant something specific or general is irrelevant. Even if I figured out or was told that a scene was meant to refer to something, would that enhance my enjoyment of the film? Nah.

I feel kinda sorta the same about David Lynch films. They're equally as weird, but are much more focused, disciplined and restrained than AJ's output. AJ seemingly has no filter once he starts shooting, and I have no reference point to begin to decode his messages, if they exist. So, I choose to believe they don't. Strap me in and hit play.

-------------------------

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I must atone.

[–] all-a-stew 11 years ago

Yes, right? This is surely a sequence of provocative images, heavy-handedly pushing anti-ideology.

http://junkieintheattic.wordpress.com

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wayneski 11 years ago

I would have to be in the not an overkill voter.

For a film made 40 years ago with a tiny budget, it's good stuff. Did it entertain with a unique vision? I think so. I was literally wondering what the heck was I watching the whole time.

Each scene and the progression of what the Christ like character was experiencing,
attacked modern dogma with satire & absurdity.

It's not your everyday hollywood flick for sure. The stupid Saw movies are way more overkill in violence.

"There's nothing masterly about it"

Oh but there is, scene after scene of satirical criticism of our modern era.
40 years ago Jodorowsky depicted us as a brainwashed war-mongering society. And here we are today, haven't changed a bit. WMD's? Iraq anyone?

The ending put the proverbial nail on the coffin.

Make no mistake about it. He called it. We are it.

[–] RomanianCracka 9 years ago

For a film made 40 years ago with a tiny budget, it's good stuff. Did it entertain with a unique vision? I think so. I was literally wondering what the heck was I watching the whole time.

Is that so? From what I know this film had a budget of about 750.000 $, which more than 40 years ago wasn't a tiny budget. It was more than enough to make ten times better films. I like some of Jododorowsky's work, especially Santa Sangre, but I don't get it why people call this one a master piece. I wouldn't call it bad, but I wouldn't call it good either and certainly not a masterpiece. The idea was Ok, or the notion if you will, but the work itself is not outstanding. The acting embarassing, the directing fairly decent ecc. I mean I respect the fans of this genre and of this film opinions, as I myself appreciate this genre too, but I think I have the right to call it a rather ordinary film. With great potential, but failing to excel in other aspects.

[–] wayneski 9 years ago

I just assumed it was a small budget film. Doesn't all old films look as though they're small indies?

It actually had an ok budget. Still small compared to the other Hollywood films released in 1973. Papillon (1973) $12 Million, compared to American Graffiti (1973) $775,000.

So this drug induced film cost about the same as American Graffiti, and Enter the Dragon. It's really on the cheaper end, bording on B movie.

I would say the film doesn't have a normal narrative, it's very heavy handed. Scenes juxtaposed one right after the next. Similar to drug fuled binges by addicts.

The acting is very dry and stoic, but was this Shakespeare? Or was this a reflection of the times? The 70's was very tumultous historically.

I see that reflected in the film.

Restrepo (2010) Thank you Hetherington

[–] ObscureAuteur 10 years ago

For trashiness alone it might be topped by Pasolini's Salo which is not nearly as gaudy.

I thought it was good enough to justify the trashiness if that is what it is. Unlike Salo where some notion about Dante's Inferno or a socialist flip off to one's executioners just isn't quite enough.

The Holy Mountain makes Bunuel look like a pious Catholic by comparison.

CB

Good Times, Noodle Salad

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]