NOTE IMDb
7,5/10
25 k
MA NOTE
Un ancien artiste de cirque s'échappe d'un hôpital psychiatrique pour rejoindre sa mère sans bras - le leader d'un étrange culte religieux - et est forcé de commettre des meurtres brutaux en... Tout lireUn ancien artiste de cirque s'échappe d'un hôpital psychiatrique pour rejoindre sa mère sans bras - le leader d'un étrange culte religieux - et est forcé de commettre des meurtres brutaux en son nom alors qu'il devient "ses bras".Un ancien artiste de cirque s'échappe d'un hôpital psychiatrique pour rejoindre sa mère sans bras - le leader d'un étrange culte religieux - et est forcé de commettre des meurtres brutaux en son nom alors qu'il devient "ses bras".
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 9 nominations au total
Mary Aranza
- Fat Prostitute
- (as Ma. De Jesus Aranzabal)
Jesús Juárez
- Aladin
- (as Jesus Juarez)
Joaquín García Vargas
- Box-Office Attendant
- (as Borolas)
Edgar E. Jiménez Nava
- Monsignor's Chauffeur
- (as Edgar E. Jimenez Nava)
Avis à la une
A very fascinating but disturbing film. Luckily I had the chance to see it in the late-night screening in a small cinema in my city.
The blood in the title reappears in different contexts as theme in the film, from colored water claimed as saint´s blood, over that drained in a tattooing resembling an initiation rite, to that of murdered women. I would not recommend it for people sensitive to such sights. For others it shows that `blood is a very special liquid' in all its metaphysical contexts.
There is some very powerful imagery in this film: a bleeding, dying elephant and its bizarre burial, cut-off arms, white-painted corpses, etc., images that haunt you not because of their goriness but their unique intensity.
The story is based on that of a Mexican mass murderer so I was a bit biased before I went to the cinema, but was surprised when the story unrolled it was not about some ugly, monstrous guy like I expected, but that the protagonist was portrayed as a troubled young man for whom one could have sympathies despite his killings. I won´t summarize the plot once again, just read the summary on this site for that. What made the film especially interesting is that Jodorowsky packs his film full of different motifs: Christian saint´s cult, Freud´s Oedipus complex, the ancient story of Phoenix. As even names are filled with significance in this film it is no coincidence the main character is called Fenix and has an eagle tattooed on his breast. Resembling the ancient myth, Phoenix has to be destroyed first, in this case through freeing his own self from his omnipresent mother figure that holds a grasp on his soul, before he can be reborn again.
The blood in the title reappears in different contexts as theme in the film, from colored water claimed as saint´s blood, over that drained in a tattooing resembling an initiation rite, to that of murdered women. I would not recommend it for people sensitive to such sights. For others it shows that `blood is a very special liquid' in all its metaphysical contexts.
There is some very powerful imagery in this film: a bleeding, dying elephant and its bizarre burial, cut-off arms, white-painted corpses, etc., images that haunt you not because of their goriness but their unique intensity.
The story is based on that of a Mexican mass murderer so I was a bit biased before I went to the cinema, but was surprised when the story unrolled it was not about some ugly, monstrous guy like I expected, but that the protagonist was portrayed as a troubled young man for whom one could have sympathies despite his killings. I won´t summarize the plot once again, just read the summary on this site for that. What made the film especially interesting is that Jodorowsky packs his film full of different motifs: Christian saint´s cult, Freud´s Oedipus complex, the ancient story of Phoenix. As even names are filled with significance in this film it is no coincidence the main character is called Fenix and has an eagle tattooed on his breast. Resembling the ancient myth, Phoenix has to be destroyed first, in this case through freeing his own self from his omnipresent mother figure that holds a grasp on his soul, before he can be reborn again.
There's so much you can say about this work. Vivid characters, colours, and situations that practically leap off the screen into the theatre next to you. A wonderfully quirky, repeatedly startling story. Graceful low-key cinematography that turns slums and sideshows into an eerily beautiful netherworld, countless images that look like you could freeze them and hang them as inspirational totems for cults we have to hope don't exist. Jodorowsky paints with a heavy, vibrant brush, but it's the perfect tone for this primal-yet-humanizing tale.
But I should post a warning. As far as I'm concerned, my first viewing of this film was one of the more worthwhile two hours or so I've ever spent in a theatre, and I think based on my experience that this sadly neglected wonder deserves every bit of word-of-mouth promotion it can get. But I'm betting it's not to everyone's taste.
So this is my advice: if you found Storaro's green and red/jungle foliage and human remains canvasses in Apocalypse Now unsettlingly beautiful the first time you saw them, and wondered momentarily whether still prints were available for hanging before realizing what you were actually suggesting to yourself, here's a film for you. If you found Delicatessan's celebration of the paradoxical beauty hiding in human ugliness and stupidity a bit too sanitized for your taste, Santa Sangre's rather murkier depths await. You will love this work.
If, on the other hand, you have no taste for painters who work best in human blood as opposed to oils, and/or don't appreciate a bloody carnality mixed in with your religious metaphor, you will quite probably hate it with a passion that exceeds my affection. And I don't really blame you or judge you for walking out early. It takes all kinds.
Either way, fondly or with revulsion, you will remember it vividly, ten years later. I can say this confidently, as that's how long it was from the first time I saw this film to the day I wrote this review. Don't say I didn't warn you.
But I should post a warning. As far as I'm concerned, my first viewing of this film was one of the more worthwhile two hours or so I've ever spent in a theatre, and I think based on my experience that this sadly neglected wonder deserves every bit of word-of-mouth promotion it can get. But I'm betting it's not to everyone's taste.
So this is my advice: if you found Storaro's green and red/jungle foliage and human remains canvasses in Apocalypse Now unsettlingly beautiful the first time you saw them, and wondered momentarily whether still prints were available for hanging before realizing what you were actually suggesting to yourself, here's a film for you. If you found Delicatessan's celebration of the paradoxical beauty hiding in human ugliness and stupidity a bit too sanitized for your taste, Santa Sangre's rather murkier depths await. You will love this work.
If, on the other hand, you have no taste for painters who work best in human blood as opposed to oils, and/or don't appreciate a bloody carnality mixed in with your religious metaphor, you will quite probably hate it with a passion that exceeds my affection. And I don't really blame you or judge you for walking out early. It takes all kinds.
Either way, fondly or with revulsion, you will remember it vividly, ten years later. I can say this confidently, as that's how long it was from the first time I saw this film to the day I wrote this review. Don't say I didn't warn you.
I remember seeing this movie in 1990 in a tiny cinema in London, on a date. As we walked from the theater and got on the tube, neither of us said a word for 20 minutes. Finally, she said, "you have a strange taste in films."
Back then, I was heavily into Luis Bunuel. This was one of the few post-Bunuel movies that embodied the essential creepiness and odd humor of the Surrealists (the other one that comes to mind is "Videodrome"). There's the obvious Freudian stuff, the obvious shock stuff, but leaving all that aside, there are indelible moments of cinematic poetry. The elephant; the son's arms; the final shot. It feels, more than 10 years later, like a repressed dream/nightmare.
I don't consider this a "horror" movie, in the sense that there are no slasher, monster, alien, demon, zombie, cannibal, haunted house, supernatural, dread disease, or giallo elements. I don't remember this movie being particularly scary or gory; just creepy. Maybe it's in a similar genre to "Eyes Without a Face," but only in the sense that both movies deal with mutilation and revenge. (Then again, I remember seeing "Un Chien Andalou" and "In the Realm of the Senses" in the horror section of a video store -- a sign of either ignorance or insight, I could never figure out.) This one truly belongs in the Foreign Films section, but not just for being non-Hollywood.
Back then, I was heavily into Luis Bunuel. This was one of the few post-Bunuel movies that embodied the essential creepiness and odd humor of the Surrealists (the other one that comes to mind is "Videodrome"). There's the obvious Freudian stuff, the obvious shock stuff, but leaving all that aside, there are indelible moments of cinematic poetry. The elephant; the son's arms; the final shot. It feels, more than 10 years later, like a repressed dream/nightmare.
I don't consider this a "horror" movie, in the sense that there are no slasher, monster, alien, demon, zombie, cannibal, haunted house, supernatural, dread disease, or giallo elements. I don't remember this movie being particularly scary or gory; just creepy. Maybe it's in a similar genre to "Eyes Without a Face," but only in the sense that both movies deal with mutilation and revenge. (Then again, I remember seeing "Un Chien Andalou" and "In the Realm of the Senses" in the horror section of a video store -- a sign of either ignorance or insight, I could never figure out.) This one truly belongs in the Foreign Films section, but not just for being non-Hollywood.
This is truly a shocking film crammed with bizarre and grotesque violence both explicit and lurking beyond the 'five-senses perception'.A sick masterpiece by a sick genius.Santa Sangre evolves into the strange universe of its creator ,Alejandro Jodorowsky.This is not at least surprising because most of his works:films (El Topo etc.),comics (The cast of the Metabarons,Inkal etc.)etc etc,are pieces of the very same puzzle,Alejandro's universe.
Santa Sangre (Holy Blood) is a pure surrealistic work.Symbols,insanity, Life and Death mix up the wild beauty of Ancient Greek Tragedy.In conclusion: this is not a film for everyone,but if you are open minded you will be able to make a step further,beyond the image itself and face the deep brutal truth of this movie.This is how it would look like a movie shot by Salvator Dali himself.
Santa Sangre (Holy Blood) is a pure surrealistic work.Symbols,insanity, Life and Death mix up the wild beauty of Ancient Greek Tragedy.In conclusion: this is not a film for everyone,but if you are open minded you will be able to make a step further,beyond the image itself and face the deep brutal truth of this movie.This is how it would look like a movie shot by Salvator Dali himself.
I saw the U.S. premiere of this movie at the DC FilmFest. I was intrigued by the thought of a man who makes movies once every 15 years.
Well, I'll tell you. The people sitting next to me left 10 - 15 minutes into the movie. If you can get through the first 30 minutes, it is worthwhile.
Of course, I am into very surrealistic movies and ones that address the question of what is real and what is not.
After seeing it, the visuals have stayed with me over the years. A powerful movie for the adventurous.
Well, I'll tell you. The people sitting next to me left 10 - 15 minutes into the movie. If you can get through the first 30 minutes, it is worthwhile.
Of course, I am into very surrealistic movies and ones that address the question of what is real and what is not.
After seeing it, the visuals have stayed with me over the years. A powerful movie for the adventurous.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesAlejandro Jodorowsky's sons Adan Jodorowsky & Axel Jodorowsky both play the part of Fenix at different ages.
- GaffesWhen the elephant is dying, all the close-ups of its trunk bleeding show the trunk to be clean. All the long shots of the elephant show it's trunk covered in blood.
- Crédits fous[over the final freeze-frame] I stretch out my hands to thee: my soul thirsts for thee like a parched land ... Teach me the way I should go, for to thee I lift up my soul. - Psalms 143.6, 8
- Versions alternativesThe US has two versions available on video: the R-rated version, which runs about 120 minutes, and the NC-17 version, which is about 123 minutes (the one released uncut in Britain and other European countries). The differences between the two are hardly noticeable except for two scenes - the first scene being the dismemberment of the mother. In the NC-17 version, there are extra cuts of blood and gore spraying on the walls, and then we also see a few extra shots of blood spurting out of the father's neck shortly after he commits suicide (we see this from behind; a startlingly un-explicit shot to be considered NC-17 material). The other scene is even more noticeable. The death of the prostitute is much more explicit in the NC-17 version: we see many shots of her being graphically stabbed in the back and chest with loads of blood literally dumping out of her wounds. Then, we briefly see the knife stab through the back of her neck and poke out the front - all in one explicit shot. Practically the entire scene is missing in the R-rated version.
- Bandes originalesCaballo negro
Composed by Dámaso Pérez Prado
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Santa Sangre?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 787 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée
- 2h 3min(123 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant