felixoteiza
The most ironic thing I see in this Buñuel is how strenuously Simon fights his sexual urges, violently awakened in the occasion by a sultry, curvaceous, Devil...while standing on what must be the biggest phallic symbol a hundred miles around. I think such image resumes the best what SOTD is all about: the fact that the farthest we humans think we have gotten away from our own nature—through physical effort, willpower--the tighter we are attached to it. That's the tragedy and comedy of our human condition, that we can't escape our nature, that of being minds and souls striving to reach a spiritual reality while being incapable of escaping our animal trappings, urges. We may expel them through the front door, thought they have gone for good, yet in the meanwhile they have gotten back by the kitchen door. That's, I think, the subject on which Buñuel focused his film, consciously or not--the futility of all asceticism, the lack of meaning of any human search for spiritual transcendence or purity--rather than just trying to mock established religion. Buñuel is that misleading to many; they think for ex. that The Exterminating Angel is about nothing, just a joke, while it really focuses on the mental traps we build for ourselves.Now there's nothing insulting in saying that Buñuel wasn't aware of what he was doing when shooting this or his other films. That's how real genius generally works, with the artist not even realizing what he's doing. True genius is not rational but intuitive. The artist does his artwork in a given way, including diverse elements, some of which apparently shouldn't be there, not because the logical mind tells him to do so, but simply because "it seems right". Such a thing, image, sound, fits there nicely so he'll add it to the whole. It's only when the art wok is complete that is makes sense, or should maybe.SOTD works very adequately that particular no man's land straddling the humane and the divine, between the everyday and the transcendental; something that has always intrigued me, because also an inescapable element of our human condition. For ex., one thing that has always intrigued me is how Man creates--or acknowledges, if you are a believer--the divine only to smirch it, to make it pedestrian in the next step. I'm thinking, for ex., about an old "recipe" for hard boiled eggs--put them in boiled water the time for three Hail Marys. Or wondering how Jesus handled events that usually make any of us fume; for ex, while he was still a kid, helping Joseph in his carpenter shop, did he let go a swear word when he hit his thumb instead of the nail?. That's another angle on which SOTD works; when, for ex., Simon mixes his prayers with trivial comments about his body functions, symptoms; or about the stupidity of someone around, about even the sudden realization that he may be talking nonsense instead of reaching new peaks of wisdom. But the best ex. is that of the thief hitting his kid with his miraculously given back hand. Buñuel's message here is clear: Man can't just handle divinity, transcendence; all he can do is to build mockeries of them. Just like the pillar--phallus on which Simon carries out his futile endeavor.The cinematography here is adequate without being superb--many shots from atop the pillar and the corresponding under it, looking up, as to emphasize the only two possible locations for every character—but we have to marvel at Figueroa's work, when all what he had in front of his lenses was the pillar and the desert. As for direction, Buñuel seems to have given great freedom to his actors, just told them what to do, do a few takes and then select the one he liked better. This is particularly true for Pinal and Brook. One has to admire also the great versatility of Mexican actors, for whom no scene seems to be too shocking, absurd or surrealistic. Both elements together make for great comic moments, amongst others, Simon pompously giving the could shoulder to his mom--his "mission" is far more important--and Pinal's Devil acting as a happy-go-lucky, carefree girl. The ending may be interpreted in many ways, but I think the idea behind it is, how things in life that tempt us--and to which we resist for a time, as Simon does towards earthly pleasures--appear trivial, ordinary once we succumb to them. Pinal herself, a sultry vixen while only a temptation, becomes a regular gal in night clothes when she finally gets him where she wants him. Man can't handle the transcendental I said, because even the transcendental he turns it into the pedestrian.In all a daring, imaginative, if short, surrealistic movie; one that will surely leave an impression on you, whatever that impression may be. Also said to have inspired Monty Python's Life Of Brian. Unfortunately that inspiration doesn't seem to have gone deep enough to make this last go beyond the lame joke and the man-in-drags routine. 8/10.
cocomariev
To be honest, I didn't really like this film at all. Confusing and unexpected ending. I don't particularly like this kind of theme, but had to watch it for my film class. I do think that Luis Bunuel did do a great job at directing this film. The story of "Simón del Desierto" is loosely based on Saint Simeon Stylites' life, a monk who like Simón, decided to spent his days at the top of a pillar. "Simon del Desierto" parallels St. Simeon's story. Luis Bunuel shows us the way in which Saints are seen and venerated by the religious people. Using Simón as an example, Buñuel explores the human side of religion, and exposes his views on it. I thought that was bold and daring move by Bunuel. I like that he was comical throughout the movie which created a less tense atmosphere. One of the scenes that I thought was comical were the ones with the sheep farmer. His jabs at organized religion for example are bound to offend many who are devoted. I don't think that this film is for everyone. I can definitely see how it could offend many people. I wouldn't recommend it if you can't take that sort of humor. I will never see this movie again, but I do think that it is a great film to watch if you are interested in film history. Weird ending and I didn't really understand the meaning behind it.
finchy9-976-77969
Simon of the Desert was definitely an odd film. I mean the whole movie it is just this legitimately insane man, named Simon, just standing on a pillar praying to God. The odd this is that he has been doing this for six years, six weeks, and six days (that's not coincidental at all). But seriously this guy is nuts. He abandons everyone he loves and everything sane about the human world for God. And now comes along Satan whose is constantly disguised so that he can try and convince Simon to come down from the pillar and stop praying to God. Satan first comes to Simon as a beautiful woman, hoping to entice Simon to get off the pillar, Simon refuses and continues praying to God. Then Satan comes disguised as Jesus Christ himself, but Simon calls the bluff again and ignores Satan again and continues praying to God. Then a coffin pulls up next to the pillar and out jumps Satan, without a disguise, and carries Simon off to some place unknown. The next thing you know you are staring at a nightclub full of people just dancing. We have gone from being back in the bible days to what seems like a modern day night club. And as the camera pans through all the people dancing. We catch Simon sitting at a table in the middle of the dance floor sitting there with Satan. He says he wants to go, but Satan says not and gets up and starts dancing. It is a very strange film, but it is very similar to the story in the Bible when Jesus was in the desert fasting for forty days and Satan comes to him three times and tries to tempt Jesus to bow before him. This film is like the satirical version of that story. I do not really what to think about the film, honestly, it just has to bizarre of an ending.
