Sous le soleil de Satan

Smart, challenging, ultimately unsuccessful film that wowed viewers at Cannes. The film has exquisite acting and some brilliant scenes, but it's too convoluted to make any kind of impact on the viewer. Gerard Depardieu shines in his difficult role as does Sandrine Bonnaire.

The best scene in the film is when Depardieu comes across Satan -- chilling.

As with countless other fine and well-meaning French productions, this one has plenty of intricate dialogue-which is seldom translated in whole. As a result, I am sure that for some people the narrative barely makes any sense; for others it will be unjustifiably dense and even lyric. I am sure some people must love the slow pace and the religious subject matter to the point of exaltation. As it happens with the immensely frustrating film Therese [Alain Cavalier, 90m, 1986], this one never really delivers on its premises/promises. I do not want to give away its really simplistic plot, so won't get into the details of its many faux pas dealing with the simple life of a country faux naif. That said, I just want to add how the film manages to elevate its pretentiousness to the level of art! The viewer is left to feel below the film's main theme and message, mainly on account that it deals with mystical matters not to be understood by the viewing masses-especially by those who watch the film. The point is lost in the main character's constant self-flagellation-physical and spiritual. The, in short, viewer can never identify with Donissan or with Mouchette-or with anyone else in the film. Even Buñuel's The Milky Way [1968] is easier and more fun, and this is a stretch. To be sure, we know what is going on at all times, but it is hard to imagine why is there so much ado about matters that are best left untouched. For a more vivid portray of the struggles of religious significance see Agnes of God [1985], The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ [1988], or El crimen del padre Amaro [2002]. Should you insist in seeing this uneven production, which is only available in a very poor VHS format, go on at your own peril. At least-if it is any consolation-it isn't that long!

I saw the original french version and i must admit dialogues were challenging for me at times. On the background of early 1900's rural France, the movie revolves around the spiritual dilemma of a young priest ( what's the real meaning of service?) under the guidance of a dean, who soon starts to suspect his pupil might be sort of saint...a fool...or both. Pialat explores the thin line behind folly and sainthood. It's all a gray area where shades of gray detract from the meaning of both light & darkness. Overall, not a "viewer's" movie...little to see. Dialogues are difficult, and at times intricate; there are no conventional emotions, no plot spins. The "plot" is not really such one...there are subplots, such as a young girl with many lovers ( gets pregnant by one, has sex with another while dreaming of reaching Paris to become the mistress of a MP, etc )...there is another subplot about a dying child and peasants' devotion bordering superstition... i wanted to watch this because i wanted to watch another movie by Pialat...his style may not entertain everybody the same way, though.

Someone makes a point about Bonnaire being no "attractive" lass and here i have to agree ( she's not "ugly", yet not attractive as well). The point, however, is that (see the other Pialat's movie "à nos amours" where Bonnaire stars again ) that proves the director's dedication to portraying "real" people within reasonable circumstances, without Hollywood gimmicks and porn stars wanna-be's eager to show some skin ( i always think: skin is OK, but then got for true porn).

I can also guess translations & adaptations may have resulted in a mess.

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.

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!