I made it to the frogs and the pyramid of blood... - La montaña sagrada (1975) Discussion

[–] Reiyou 18 years ago

I watched again, with the commentary track. Jodorowski made no comment about actually killing the frogs or chameleons, either during the bloodletting from the tops of the pyramids, or during the explosions.

When I was in Mexico as a little kid back in the early 1970's, the street markets sold stuffed, laquered frogs that were mounted on wood like a sculpture, doing things like playing musical instruments or playing pool. I still got them in a box in my parents attic. I am thinking (or maybe hoping) that Jodorovsky purchased some already dead/stuffed frogs from the marketplace during the explosions.

Anyone know the facts?

reply

[–] catorrington 17 years ago

I liked this comment after everyone started slating the original poster:

"No, this movie is not for everybody. If you found it that disturbing,you were wise to turn it off! It gets more shocking as it goes. When this opened in cinemas in 1973 lots of the audiences were decimated in the first few minutes. The ones who hung in there were dazzled then dashed by the ending. Nobody liked this film completely right away.
Still, you might want to check whoever recommended it to you in the first place and disregard their enthusiasms in the future as they are very different from anything mainstream. Those of us who like this movie get pretty excited about it BECAUSE it is so full of surprises. Others are just intrigued by it but would like it better if it were a collection of paintings executed over a lifetime. No one should be forced to watch anything that will disturb them. Sometimes those of us who like films of flavor and substance end up dying of hunger for something exciting and when we find it, enthuse indiscriminately to anyone who'll listen, including nice people like you who can't, won't, shouldn't or just plain wouldn't like to get it. You may have to tell us to zip it or just nod and say "That's nice, dear." or "Mmmm"
You don't have to see it"

I went to see it as part of a cinema season, while taking an Art course at uni, so you can't say I'm closed minded or not creative, because I'm not.

But even I had to leave a little bit after the models had been made to look like Jesus and he woke up and destroyed them all. Parts just made me feel queasy. To each his own aye?

Carly
----------------
I'm not a nymphomaniac... I'm a compulsive liar.

reply

[–] thebiglime 17 years ago

You were upset by the death of animals. I was upset by how many men lost their balls to make this movie!

reply

[–] maxadocious 17 years ago

Well... I'm glad that some people have some free time on their hands. I can only imagine what someone's life must be like in order to be SO disgusted by this film for purely animal reasons. I mean d amn I have problems of my own to worry about... I can understand being grossed out by seeing some animals get killed on screen, but I don't remember actually seeing any of it, when the stuff blows up it's just some far away shots and some very close up shots of some toads sitting at the bottom of a pyramid.

It's good to be sensitive, that's what makes "shock art" so interesting. It grosses you out; like walking into a Damien Hirst (sp?) exhibition and seeing a bunch of dead lambs sitting in tanks out of a clandestine lab or seeing a sculpture made out of bone or dead crows. this movie is like that, it's art, and what's more I don't thin that demonizing an artist for using animals (dead or alive) is right; people have systematically killed animals for years and years for trophies, for clothing, for ivory, etc. Such a minor thing as what is in this movie should not even be a blip on the radar.

PS: this is turning into a mirror image of the Cimino message board

reply

[–] kennerguy66 11 years ago

Just because something is not wrong doesn't make it right, and vice versa.

Shaka Da Gnu

reply

[–] Kinematico 17 years ago

Don't forget that this movie was shot 35 years ago. Things have changed a lot since then: i.e. in the 70's CGI effects didn't exist.

The point of that scene was to re-enact the conquest, not only of México but of the whole Americas by the europeans. And yes, it was brutal. WAY MORE BRUTAL than the scene with the Toads.

With that scene Jodorowsky tried to capture a brief glimpse from the brutality of the conquest. You should know that 90% of the native american population from Canada to Argentina were eliminated in just one century.

In some countries like México, Guatemala, Perú, Bolivia and Ecuador luckyly there is still an important population of native-americans.

In the other hand in all the caribbean countries, Argentina, Uruguay, etc the natives were completely exterminated (there are some survivors in northern argentina)

In USA, Canada, Chile and Brazil they were almost completely exterminated as well, but at least few hundreds of thousands have survived.

As Jodorowsky says, perhaps watching too many "pop-corn blockbusters" is destroying your minds.

reply

[–] ContinentalOp 12 years ago

''In some countries like México, Guatemala, Perú, Bolivia and Ecuador luckyly there is still an important population of native-americans.''

Indeed, about 70-90% of those populations have varying degree of native ancestry. In short, they are Native Americans, whether they are mestizos or indios, and I hate the way that the USA particularly ignores this fact in regards to Mexico. Sorry, guys, these ''wetbacks'', though mixed with Europeans (like most US Native Americans, actually), are Native Americans. And no amount of ignorance and political guff with change that fact. The USA not only killed off many Native American tribes, they also stole land from the people of Mexico; states like California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona etc. were part of Mexico. The people who inhabited them were usually mestizo (native and European).

And just looking at an average Mexican shows that they are natives.

''In the other hand in all the caribbean countries''

That is almost correct. Although genetics tests etc, show that the people of Puerto Rica, even Cuba and Dominican Replublic do have native ancestry too fof the most part (Arawak, Taino) but there are no tribes and there are little left over in the cultures outside of things like traditional costumes (such as in the Dominican Republic, during celebrations you have people adorned in Taino costumes).

Formerly KingAngantyr

reply

[–] Mannex17 16 years ago

Well that's unfortunate. : (

Please consider giving the movie another try at a later time.

reply

[–] martint-6 16 years ago

Exactly

reply

[–] AlfNet 15 years ago

Lol I love those who are argumenting that killing animals for a film is ok but killing them for the selfish act of eating is wrong.

Niiiiice!

Unfkinbelieveable.

reply

[–] froghawk 14 years ago

No one will ever know what he did. Take El Topo for instance. These are all quotes from him:

"I killed all the rabbits because no one else wanted to do it.
It upset them. I did it with Karate blows on the neck.
To kill a rabbit, you take it by the ears and strike it on
the nape of the neck with the edge of your hand.
And the rabbit dies easily. That's all I look for in life:
to die easily. By killing three hundred rabbits, I learned
how to die peacefully. A rabbit surrenders its life much more
easily than a woman surrenders to an orgasm. Easier.
The vengeance of today's woman is to make the man work to give
her an orgasm. "I'll reach an orgasm by the sweat of your brow."

"When the film first came out, I was accused of killing animals to make it. 8 So I said: "Yes! I kill animals! Yes! I hate women! I hate animals! I love violence!" I said that because, for me, these questions were idiotic. How you can judge a work with that kind of concept? In reality, actually, all the animals in the film had already been killed. They were sick. There was a myxomatosis outbreak, that had killed a lot of rabbits, and I bought these dead rabbits. So, in reality, I didn't kill animals, but I said that I did. In reality, I don't hate women, but at that time, I said that I did. "I am a man! A male!" I was demonstrating the cruelty of pictures that are anti-feminist and cruel, but which don't come out and say that, because they are impotent. My intention was to awake the consciousness: first my consciousness, and then the consciousness of the public. That was my intention, to create a shock, to make pictures that can bring a change to your life."

"I will kill any animal you eat in all my pictures. I do not kill dog or cat. I can kill chicken. I cannot have 10,000 rabbits stampede they tell me, so I say I want 300 rabbits dead. How many cows do you kill a day? 80,000 a day? One million? Finish with the hamburgers and I will finish to kill animals. It is essential to show how you are criminals. First, you must live human beings. Then give food to dogs."

In short, he loves to mess with his audience. He also claims to have actually raped the actress during the El Topo rape scene. I doubt he actually killed anything - there's no on-screen evidence that he did, anyway. It seems antithetical to his philosophy. He loves to be shocking and misleading.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sbaldwin999 13 years ago

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that those horny toads and frogs died... the only scene where it looked like any harm could be done to them is where you see one strapped around the stomach to the pyramid... other than that the scene where everything explodes could have been, and looks like, dead frogs... the scene where the blood is running down the pyramid doesn't show the source of the blood and considering the large amount that comes out, i assume it was a fountain... you don't actually see any of them die so way to jump to a conclusion, accuse the director of being something he could very well not be (an animal 'murderer') and turning off and missing out on a wonderful movie because of something you don't even know for sure...

reply