Bajo el sol de Satán

Bernanos and Pialat. a meeting who becomes mixture of nuances from the both universes. a film for readers in more measure because it seems be a kind of labyrinth. a film for Maurice Pialat fans because his mark is key of strange, almost confuse work. a film about faith, sin and Catholicism. with the shadows imposed by a great French writer and with two actors - Bonnaire and Depardieu - who reveals the delicacy and darkness of a circle without common rules.Pialat himself does a special role. result - almost a poem. a film as a question. that fact does it not the most inspired choice for many. but it may not be reduced as few beautiful scenes or at good acting. so, it is an invitation to discover the book for understand the bitter , cold sense of story.

The novice priest declares himself unable to pursue his calling, given the sinfulness that he speaks of in his parish. But, from the start, he is pouring out his feelings of inadequacy without our seeing anything that he has had to face. It is all mere talk; and his near hysteria might be explained when, after he has collapsed (in a faint, or a fit?), his sympathetic and humble spiritual adviser uncovers the blood-spattered chest--the consequence of his self-flagellation, of which we witness another bout later. Is he fanatical, or mad?

We see nothing of the parochial trials, and sickness, endured by Bernanos' Curé de campagne (Robert Bresson's film), faced with hostility and mockery from his villagers. The two traumatic events (Mouchette cutting her throat, and a dying boy "coming to life" in the priest's arms) shock us, but do not form an integral part of the curate's spiritual day-to-day experience. They are merely sensational. Depardieu is not convincing as an agonised believer. Yet, in the spontaneous sincerity of his accompanying interview, he appears to draw inspiration from Augustine!

Dossignan (Gérard Depardieu) is a zealous rural priest. The dean Menou-Segrais tries to keep him reasonable. But Dossignan will be tempted by Satan, then will try to save the soul of Mouchette, a young woman who killed one of her lovers.

Having not read the original novel, I couldn't say how much is from the original and how much is from the film itself. But despite being from the 1920s, the story has a very modern feel to it. It could be the 1920s, the 1980s or even the 2010s.

There is that constant play between faith, conviction and organization. And it need not be the Catholic Church. Any organization, religious or secular, will have its passionate members who want to do something more. This is a very nice examination of that, and really showcases what made Depardieu an international star.

I'm not quite sure what people mean when they say this film is "difficult". On the surface, the film has a very straightforward storyline of a priest (played brilliantly and movingly by Depardieu) struggling with his own demons that materialise internally and externally.

From this basic premise the film can be explored from several key standpoints to obtain real insights into subjects such as the power/source of faith, the relationship between thought/belief and one's relationship to the world we inhabit.

Moreover, the questioning employed by Pialat and Depardieu means that the path of thought through these issues is profound, intense and disturbing. The film provokes the intellect constantly and I could understand that if there was nothing more to the film, one might say that "is that it?"

What takes this film much further is the emotional undercurrent - both understated and abyssal, the stunning cinematography and restrained direction. These factors combine to create a complete cinematic experience.

One scene stands out in this respect: we watch the priest wander the countryside in a daze and he pauses on the side of a hill, lush with spring grass. Depardieu looks up, eyes searching for insight, an answer, a response. In a brilliant stroke of luck, passing clouds obscure the sun and Depardieu instinctively internalises this shifting light with a simultaneous passing of emotion portrayed through his face and posture. We watch both the internal shifting cloud of emotion and the changing light create a charge and intensity that is rarely seen in cinema. There is an element of the `unknowable' in this scene that still moves me, even after many viewings.

I also enjoy making comparison between this film and Dreyer's "Das Wort" (The Word), my favourite of Dreyer's works which has some common theme's, explored from different perspectives.

A truly great film, worthy of the Palme D'or it won.

Pretentious French cinema at best... more likely, a failed attempt at cinema.

As a French and a movie lover, I admire many french authors and film makers that are deemed 'difficult' or intellectual (I adore Godard for one). This movie is not a masterpiece of cinema: it lacks all the characteristics of it.

The actors are the major problem of the film. Depardieu has no spirituality and it shows. Sure he's a "nice guy" in life and he can be very good in lighter roles, but how anyone can find him convincing in this role I can't imagine. Sandrine Bonnaire, apart from the fact that it takes tremendous imagination to believe that she is supposed to be attractive, is not movie actress. Her performance is that of a boring theater player (I caught her several times looking at the audience, waiting for applause).

As for the story, it jumps from scene to scene without any sense of continuity or progress, it's mere accumulation that goes nowhere.

But then of course it won a Palme d'Or, well that must mean it's good and we're not able to grasp such high and elevated thinking!

Sorry I don't buy.