The film begins with an appropriate proem, some texts inform us how even the Spaniards did not know Las Hurdes, and we are shown how to get there, first passing through La Alberca; we see its people, and some barbaric local custom. But once in the Hurdes, we finally appreciate its atmosphere, its misery, its lack of food, resources, children drinking dirty water between the stones, living among pigs, pigsties. The camera makes us visit the school, precarious but where teachings are equal to those imparted in any place, like a book of moral teachings. Goiter is the characteristic disease, we see a local girl who dies hopelessly due to the total lack of competent medical attention, dysentery is aggravated when the hurdanos have to eat fruits that are still too immature for human consumption, but hunger tightens too much. Long lines of men who have not been affected by diseases, go to other areas to look for work and money, because seasonal changes take away their already scarce food; but the men return as they went, without money, and without bread. Rudimentary work of tillage, extremely frugal food, harmful larvae, innocuous diseases that become mortal, races degenerated by incest, called cretins, children who die without remedy; after two months, the team withdraws from the Hurdes.
I consider it is correct the way in which the observed is printed, with rawness, without artifices or excessive decorations in their audiovisual language, is shown almost the only thing there is to show in this place: the overwhelming misery. In that sense, the handheld camera appreciated in some sequences is an excellent resource for the intentionality of the film, it brings us closer to what we observe, it is as if we almost walked in that inhospitable place, as if we also entered the arid Hurdes, reinforces the absence of unnecessary artifices. Thus, precarity is well captured by the camera in the sense of the simplicity of its performance, of its development, because there are no colorful movements, elaborate travellings or gadgets completely unnecessary, that would have broken the halo of closeness and realism that was intended to print on the documentary (this aside from other factors, which I will detail later). This closeness, that realism, is cemented from the beginning of the film, with the correct way in which Buñuel introduces us in what he shows us, the tour of the neighboring village of La Alberca is the perfect prolegomenon, we
are really with the travelers, really introduces us from the beginning in the situation, shows us how to get to the Hurdes. We will thus see the relatively barbarous customs of La Alberca, with the men in the competition for headlessing roosters, great way of documenting everything, even the way in which the site of interest is reached; this is a pleasant and precise preamble. And soon there is a fateful and frightful omen, the skulls placed on each side of the entrance of a chapel clearly indicate to us the tragic nature of that place, a place where death constantly lurks, as a pervasive presence, perennial threat flies over the surroundings, and these skulls become chilling witnesses, at the same time gloomy heralds of death.
Eloquent ways to show the severe precariousness we will observe, as the way in which leaves are collected to sleep on them, as well as later, after crushing them, will be used like fertilizer; the way in which circumstances compel them to improvise impacts, as well as the ingenuity, to put it in a way, with which they have to use the few and unthoughtful resources that the inhospitable area provides: dead valleys, scarce trees, abundant aridity, that is the environment in which these unfortunates work. And, as the narrator's voice declares, one of the main points of the film, one of its main intentions, is to show what the hurdanos do to build and work the field that will feed them. In the same line, the Aragonese shows us, among those works carried out by the Hurdanos, how the fact that, with that extreme rudiment, they are able to divert the course of a river, although sometimes the enterprise goes wrong and the work of a whole year is lost; in the midst of that nightmarish situation and overwhelming misery, there are still signs of organization, of coordination to subsist, although sometimes nature cruelly defeats these impulses for survival. The film shows extreme poignancy, such as teachers in schools who give children dry and hard bread, which is eaten soaked in dirty water, and those teachers force them to eat the bread at school for fear that parents will take food away at home; desolate picture that the filmmaker paints. Another eloquent image is that of one of the young hurdanos, drinking unclean water among some rocks, the shortage is overwhelming, a land where the extreme scarcity makes the only thing luxurious, we are told, are the churches. There are also details that many found highly shocking, such as degeneration not only mental but physical, with the incestuous relationships that bring as a result the cretins who roam through that arid land, or the industry of
pilus, low business where profit is gotten of children without a family; the veracity of the documentary generated not a little controversy, and the repudiation of the inhabitants of Las Hurdes, appearing 80 years later
Las Hurdes, earth with soul, by Jesús María Santos, a claimant attempt. Another one of the capital points of the film, tells us the narration, is to document the diseases of the population, being goiter one of the main threats to the health of the settlers. It is also eloquent detail that in some cases the disease is not lethal, are the same hurdanos the ones who, in their ignorance and desire to heal, end up turning those minor diseases into fulminant evils.
We come to another important point, the accusations of false documentary, of exercise that pursues manipulation, that distorts reality, the artificial pamphlet, all criticisms that I consider unfounded. It was accused, for example, of orchestrating the demise of the goat, of generating many situations instead of just showing them, attempting against a genuine documentary. "This ill woman does not suspect our presence" says the narrator about a hurdan, opposing a little to what is so much attributed to the artificiality and lack of spontaneity in everything represented; the narrator tells us of a "collaborator", a hurdan friend who collaborates with them so they could film one of the cretins. Also is criticized the fact of lying even in the declaration of the moment in which everything was filmed, because we see in the text that everything is said to have been filmed in 1932, shortly after the Spanish Republic was established, when in fact it was shot in 1933, which is actually true, and exploited by detractors. But it is ridiculous to consider the film unworthy over it, the whole artistic work necessarily bears the imprint of its author, it is to some extent impossible to print the reality completely, as cinema, like all art, is permeated by the humanity of its creator, its optics; even in a documentary this manifests. The picture is an accusation, an assault, stirs the extreme and total abandonment of this land, the way in which Spain has forgotten Las Hurdes, it is significant that we are told that the lands were unknown even for the Spaniards, who did not know of its existence until 1922, when the first highway was built. And the work fulfills its purpose, it portrays the overwhelming misery, the misery of the land of the director, although there is a lot of shock in how it is transmitted. Buñuel, Pierre Unik and Julio Acín, the film's production team, were based in
Las Jurdes, the journal that the French intellectual Maurice Legendre took of his own and previous visit and exploration to Las Hurdes. The film changed over the years, when Buñuel added some variations, such as Brahms' music, which definitively resized all the shocking reality and misery observed, as well as the narrator voice of Francisco Rabal, initially inexistent. But certainly the most significant variation is the final picture, the text that speaks of some of Hitler and Mussolini's most influential totalitarian forces, and takes sides against fascism, the anti-fascist message changes the approach one might have. Harsh and rough history, Buñuel claimed that a certain halo of surrealism floated on the feature, that it was not so far of his two previous short films, and we almost feel the dead donkey like a distant echo of
An Andalusian dog. Despite the criticism, the film is a milestone in cinematographic documentaries, really sharp and true portrait, another cornerstone in the filmography of one of the most egregious Iberian filmmakers.
By 1933, and with only two short films to his credit, the Iberian Luis Buñuel had already gained a well-deserved place in the cinema world scenario, with the effervescent avant-garde, and surrealism that was very much in vogue in artistic circles at the time. Thus, after the delirious Un Chien Andalou (1929), and the no less oniric and irreverent The golden age (1930), the director embarks in this opportunity in a work that from some points of view takes distances from the above mentioned movies, but still has a certain link with those, as Buñuel himself pointed out in an interview. And not to lose the custom, the director again faces many detractors and critics with his work, this documentary in which he portrays us and shows the deplorable conditions, inhuman circumstances in which the citizens of the Spanish area known as Las Hurdes live, where extreme precariousness prevails. Buñuel brings us closer to that poor world, famine, misery, the paltry life of the inhabitants, a work that over the years has acquired other nuances, especially in the ending. Accused of pamphlet film, of artificial and fake realism, the documentary meant severe opprobrium for the inhabitants of the Hurdes, but has become as time went by a landmark for documentaries, and has good place in the filmography of the Aragonese.
The film begins with an appropriate proem, some texts inform us how even the Spaniards did not know Las Hurdes, and we are shown how to get there, first passing through La Alberca; we see its people, and some barbaric local custom. But once in the Hurdes, we finally appreciate its atmosphere, its misery, its lack of food, resources, children drinking dirty water between the stones, living among pigs, pigsties. The camera makes us visit the school, precarious but where teachings are equal to those imparted in any place, like a book of moral teachings. Goiter is the characteristic disease, we see a local girl who dies hopelessly due to the total lack of competent medical attention, dysentery is aggravated when the hurdanos have to eat fruits that are still too immature for human consumption, but hunger tightens too much. Long lines of men who have not been affected by diseases, go to other areas to look for work and money, because seasonal changes take away their already scarce food; but the men return as they went, without money, and without bread. Rudimentary work of tillage, extremely frugal food, harmful larvae, innocuous diseases that become mortal, races degenerated by incest, called cretins, children who die without remedy; after two months, the team withdraws from the Hurdes.
I consider it is correct the way in which the observed is printed, with rawness, without artifices or excessive decorations in their audiovisual language, is shown almost the only thing there is to show in this place: the overwhelming misery. In that sense, the handheld camera appreciated in some sequences is an excellent resource for the intentionality of the film, it brings us closer to what we observe, it is as if we almost walked in that inhospitable place, as if we also entered the arid Hurdes, reinforces the absence of unnecessary artifices. Thus, precarity is well captured by the camera in the sense of the simplicity of its performance, of its development, because there are no colorful movements, elaborate travellings or gadgets completely unnecessary, that would have broken the halo of closeness and realism that was intended to print on the documentary (this aside from other factors, which I will detail later). This closeness, that realism, is cemented from the beginning of the film, with the correct way in which Buñuel introduces us in what he shows us, the tour of the neighboring village of La Alberca is the perfect prolegomenon, we are really with the travelers, really introduces us from the beginning in the situation, shows us how to get to the Hurdes. We will thus see the relatively barbarous customs of La Alberca, with the men in the competition for headlessing roosters, great way of documenting everything, even the way in which the site of interest is reached; this is a pleasant and precise preamble. And soon there is a fateful and frightful omen, the skulls placed on each side of the entrance of a chapel clearly indicate to us the tragic nature of that place, a place where death constantly lurks, as a pervasive presence, perennial threat flies over the surroundings, and these skulls become chilling witnesses, at the same time gloomy heralds of death.
We come to another important point, the accusations of false documentary, of exercise that pursues manipulation, that distorts reality, the artificial pamphlet, all criticisms that I consider unfounded. It was accused, for example, of orchestrating the demise of the goat, of generating many situations instead of just showing them, attempting against a genuine documentary. "This ill woman does not suspect our presence" says the narrator about a hurdan, opposing a little to what is so much attributed to the artificiality and lack of spontaneity in everything represented; the narrator tells us of a "collaborator", a hurdan friend who collaborates with them so they could film one of the cretins. Also is criticized the fact of lying even in the declaration of the moment in which everything was filmed, because we see in the text that everything is said to have been filmed in 1932, shortly after the Spanish Republic was established, when in fact it was shot in 1933, which is actually true, and exploited by detractors. But it is ridiculous to consider the film unworthy over it, the whole artistic work necessarily bears the imprint of its author, it is to some extent impossible to print the reality completely, as cinema, like all art, is permeated by the humanity of its creator, its optics; even in a documentary this manifests. The picture is an accusation, an assault, stirs the extreme and total abandonment of this land, the way in which Spain has forgotten Las Hurdes, it is significant that we are told that the lands were unknown even for the Spaniards, who did not know of its existence until 1922, when the first highway was built. And the work fulfills its purpose, it portrays the overwhelming misery, the misery of the land of the director, although there is a lot of shock in how it is transmitted. Buñuel, Pierre Unik and Julio Acín, the film's production team, were based in Las Jurdes, the journal that the French intellectual Maurice Legendre took of his own and previous visit and exploration to Las Hurdes. The film changed over the years, when Buñuel added some variations, such as Brahms' music, which definitively resized all the shocking reality and misery observed, as well as the narrator voice of Francisco Rabal, initially inexistent. But certainly the most significant variation is the final picture, the text that speaks of some of Hitler and Mussolini's most influential totalitarian forces, and takes sides against fascism, the anti-fascist message changes the approach one might have. Harsh and rough history, Buñuel claimed that a certain halo of surrealism floated on the feature, that it was not so far of his two previous short films, and we almost feel the dead donkey like a distant echo of An Andalusian dog. Despite the criticism, the film is a milestone in cinematographic documentaries, really sharp and true portrait, another cornerstone in the filmography of one of the most egregious Iberian filmmakers.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario