One of the great triumphs of Buñuel, one of his great summits as a filmmaker, a film declared a world heritage for mankind by UNESCO, and undoubtedly one of the most important films in all Mexican film history. Luis Buñuel finally got his great triumph, overwhelming success between both public and critics, the film got over an initial censorship, to finally consolidate himself as a world-class director, and parked forever among the most select and versatile filmmakers. After the disparate results of his two previous films,
Great Casino (1947) and
The Great Madcap (1949), finally the Aragonese director had his great revenge, with a film in whose materialization was genuinely interested, artistically stimulated. Buñuel narrates without dissimulation and with very raw realism a true history, the history of poverty and misery, the marginal world of the youth of Mexico, a country in which he was exiled after a few periods in Hollywood. The filmmaker presents the experiences of a group of Mexican children, the forgotten, they live in a poor neighborhood, Bruno and his friends, there is no money or work, they devote themselves to stealing, until the Jaibo arrives, an older boy just escaped from a correctional, and that, with deaths in between, will transform that little world. One of the indispensable films of the director, an enormous work that transcends being a mere film.
The story begins with a prologue, we see large European cities, not free of poverty and crime, then we are put in the modern city of Mexico. A group of boys, some children and some older, are playing in the street; among them is Pedro (Alfonso Mejia). Quickly appears the Jaibo (Roberto Cobo), recently escaped from a correctional, admired by the whole gang. Commanded by the Jaibo, all of them try to rob a blind man, Don Carmelo (Miguel Inclán), and after failing, they give him a beating. Pedro then goes to his house, where his mother (Estela Inda) despises him, denies him food because he is a bum. Other children appear, like the Ojitos (Mário Ramírez), and soon the Jaibo avenges of Julian (Javier Amézcua), young fellow for whom supposedly he went to the correctional, and he kills him in the presence of Pedro. Ojitos, who becomes Don Carmelo's guide, lives with Meche (Alma Delia Fuentes), while the Jaibo is always around, commanding everyone as when they beat a cripple. Some suspect that Jaibo killed Julian, Pedro is frightened, gets a job, always remains rejected by his mother, and the Jaibo, when goes to look for him at his house, ends up seducing Pedro's mother. Following a robbery that the Jaibo actually did, Pedro is sent to a farm school, from which he escapes, enraged with the Jaibo, a fight is unleashed, which will have fatal consequences for all.
To start with the film's analysis, the credits are presented with a tense and dramatic music, but in turn with a powerful urban chiaroscuro, an old construction, demolished, which serves as a great prolegomenon for what we are going to witness, in addition to being warned that this is a film based on real events, with true characters. The prologue goes well into what we will see, the biggest icons of the greatest world metropolis are presented, we see the twin towers, the Eiffel Tower, the Big Ben, the United States, France and England, nuclei of the world, not exempt of crime, and the movie puts Mexico at the same height as those metropolis. The film portrays the severe precariousness and misery in Mexican neighborhoods, accusing the authorities of neglecting this serious problem, which is reflected in the adventures of young people, violence and delinquency, shown and intermixed however with the innocence of their age, dissimilar duality; we see the Ojitos drinking milk directly from the udder of a cow, we also see the robberies in which they participate, their miseries, however, never leaving childhood, their infantile condition. As the great Bazin said, it is a world in which atrocity is sublimated, delinquency and brutal violent impulses, that "tender malice", are sublimated by the innocence of the playful world of children, like when, just to give an example, we are shown the treatment given to the sequence of the beating to the man without legs, the trunk man. It is exemplary that sequence with a music certainly playful, childish, so that we do not forget that after all, despite the dastardly of their action, it is about children, the portrayed gets contrasted, Buñuel does not judge what he portrays, leaves the spectator with the task -if he wishes- to judge, and his vision is released of prejudices. That underworld is quickly portrayed, an infantile malice, beating the blind, and misery, the mother denying food to her son, a marginal world. That world is framed by large unfinished buildings, just like perennial and bizarre presences, like menacing and giant skeletons, framing much of the action, events where violence prevails, like the beating of Don Carmelo, but mainly the murder of Julian.
From the initial sequences we notice that Buñuel is already tanned, both as a filmmaker in general, and in Mexican cinema in particular; his visual narrative exposes travellings, dynamism in its assembly, a language already cemented. The powerful photography of the master Gabriel Figueroa impresses us with intense light contrasts, something characteristic of this stage of the director, and some of the night images highlight with intense chiaroscuros. On the other hand, an extraordinary technical resource is that of Pedro throwing the egg against the camera, against us, against the society that has him trapped in that desperate situation, a personage almost interacts with us, evidencing the accusing directive of the film. It is extraordinary that Buñuel, even in realistic and conventional pictures, never loses his surrealism, his dream figure, his characteristic images, beginning with the hen, which appears at important moments, being the first moment after the beating to the blind. Definitely the sequence of Pedro's dream is among the most attractive of the film, the most fascinating, Buñuel returns to his roots, to the onirism, to the surreal, feels like a filmmaker with free track, portraying what feels genuinely like a dream, a terrain quite familiar, indivisible of Buñuel throughout his life as a filmmaker. The aragonese's wide spectrum of technical resources then peeps out once again, overlays of shots, a dense unfolding of Peter, a solemn Marian representation of the child's mother, or the powerfully perennial presence of the hen, feathers falling on a sordidly smiling and bloody face of Julián; it is indeed something dreamy, Buñuel is like a fish in the water. In that dense dream is printed the longed love of mother, some guilt and remorse in Pedro for his participation in the death of Julian, is the artistic peak of the film, definitely Buñuelian; for things like this, Buñuel longed to direct a film completely of his own, for things like this, Buñuel agreed to direct
The Great Madcap, to prepare for his great project, his true artistic challenge. The element of the hen is vital, an element whose origin Buñuel himself is not able to clarify at all, simply stating that it is an image or presence that inspires some respect in him, perhaps original from his childhood. The hens are always present, the mother strikes the birds, while Pedro screams desperately to stop; but later, he himself slaughters some white hens, like taking revenge, unleashing his fury and impotence.
Buñuel does it again, continues to shape another of his great topics, sex, flesh, lust in the figure of Meche, spilling milk on her legs. Then, of course, we see the Jaibo with Pedro's mother, the lust and libido of that game of seduction, of looks, when the young man looks at the woman, we almost see the character of
An Andalusian dog, full of sexual desire, but in this case, that desire is consumed, when we see the door close. The characters are very well delineated, is one of the causes that the film has so much power and realism, and it is Peter central character, with his mother who seems to hate him, because apparently he was the product of a rape, we finish sketching a character forgotten, an unfortunate, a miserable, a damned. It is the greatest representation of the pathos of his life, "I would like to behave well, but I do not know how", he says desperately to his mother, summarizing well his condition, his case is heartbreaking, he is trapped in a world from where there is no escape, there is no money, there is no work, the only thing that abounds is the misery and the shortage. He wants to get out of that spiral with no way out, violence, death, perdition, but he will be powerless, failure after failure, that bad world ends up devouring him. It is not an optimistic feature, as the film's preamble warned, and leaves the progressive forces of society to change, leaving a gap to the revolutionaries. The mother, of course, also has importance, eternal desire of affection for Peter, interesting the suggestive Marian representation in Peter's dream, all of pure white, then, in reality, we see her all dressed in black, frontally opposite, delivering his son to the correctional, severe opposition of the dream against reality. Likewise, one of the central characters, the Jaibo, is promptly and eloquently portrayed, when one of the children asks who the Jaibo is, and the image immediately followed is that of the character, advancing neatly, with a slight low-angle shot, as establishing his hierarchy; and is that, despite everything, is the undisputed boss of the group, has charisma, leads the group, everyone obey and fear him. They are significant the characters that Buñuel delineates, the director of the farm school affirms, "give him some food, then, we will see", represents the whole society, the State, looking for a temporary exit, a quick and easy exit, and relegates with indifference the real problem, is a firm accusation against society, which does not face a serious problem that eats youth alive. But there is also the blind man, longing for the times of Porfirio, he represents the people, the people full of misery, who thinks with melancholy in the past, even a repressive regime, is a vital position that makes clear the world that portrays Buñuel. That world is closed with the grave image of the donkey with a dead on his back, passing next to the mother, the image is powerful, just like the slight low-angle shot, a full shot, fateful, final fatal. The film is a select part of the history of cinema, is among the highest of all Mexican film production, a masterpiece, Buñuel touched the sky with his hands.
One of the great triumphs of Buñuel, one of his great summits as a filmmaker, a film declared a world heritage for mankind by UNESCO, and undoubtedly one of the most important films in all Mexican film history. Luis Buñuel finally got his great triumph, overwhelming success between both public and critics, the film got over an initial censorship, to finally consolidate himself as a world-class director, and parked forever among the most select and versatile filmmakers. After the disparate results of his two previous films, Great Casino (1947) and The Great Madcap (1949), finally the Aragonese director had his great revenge, with a film in whose materialization was genuinely interested, artistically stimulated. Buñuel narrates without dissimulation and with very raw realism a true history, the history of poverty and misery, the marginal world of the youth of Mexico, a country in which he was exiled after a few periods in Hollywood. The filmmaker presents the experiences of a group of Mexican children, the forgotten, they live in a poor neighborhood, Bruno and his friends, there is no money or work, they devote themselves to stealing, until the Jaibo arrives, an older boy just escaped from a correctional, and that, with deaths in between, will transform that little world. One of the indispensable films of the director, an enormous work that transcends being a mere film.
The story begins with a prologue, we see large European cities, not free of poverty and crime, then we are put in the modern city of Mexico. A group of boys, some children and some older, are playing in the street; among them is Pedro (Alfonso Mejia). Quickly appears the Jaibo (Roberto Cobo), recently escaped from a correctional, admired by the whole gang. Commanded by the Jaibo, all of them try to rob a blind man, Don Carmelo (Miguel Inclán), and after failing, they give him a beating. Pedro then goes to his house, where his mother (Estela Inda) despises him, denies him food because he is a bum. Other children appear, like the Ojitos (Mário Ramírez), and soon the Jaibo avenges of Julian (Javier Amézcua), young fellow for whom supposedly he went to the correctional, and he kills him in the presence of Pedro. Ojitos, who becomes Don Carmelo's guide, lives with Meche (Alma Delia Fuentes), while the Jaibo is always around, commanding everyone as when they beat a cripple. Some suspect that Jaibo killed Julian, Pedro is frightened, gets a job, always remains rejected by his mother, and the Jaibo, when goes to look for him at his house, ends up seducing Pedro's mother. Following a robbery that the Jaibo actually did, Pedro is sent to a farm school, from which he escapes, enraged with the Jaibo, a fight is unleashed, which will have fatal consequences for all.
To start with the film's analysis, the credits are presented with a tense and dramatic music, but in turn with a powerful urban chiaroscuro, an old construction, demolished, which serves as a great prolegomenon for what we are going to witness, in addition to being warned that this is a film based on real events, with true characters. The prologue goes well into what we will see, the biggest icons of the greatest world metropolis are presented, we see the twin towers, the Eiffel Tower, the Big Ben, the United States, France and England, nuclei of the world, not exempt of crime, and the movie puts Mexico at the same height as those metropolis. The film portrays the severe precariousness and misery in Mexican neighborhoods, accusing the authorities of neglecting this serious problem, which is reflected in the adventures of young people, violence and delinquency, shown and intermixed however with the innocence of their age, dissimilar duality; we see the Ojitos drinking milk directly from the udder of a cow, we also see the robberies in which they participate, their miseries, however, never leaving childhood, their infantile condition. As the great Bazin said, it is a world in which atrocity is sublimated, delinquency and brutal violent impulses, that "tender malice", are sublimated by the innocence of the playful world of children, like when, just to give an example, we are shown the treatment given to the sequence of the beating to the man without legs, the trunk man. It is exemplary that sequence with a music certainly playful, childish, so that we do not forget that after all, despite the dastardly of their action, it is about children, the portrayed gets contrasted, Buñuel does not judge what he portrays, leaves the spectator with the task -if he wishes- to judge, and his vision is released of prejudices. That underworld is quickly portrayed, an infantile malice, beating the blind, and misery, the mother denying food to her son, a marginal world. That world is framed by large unfinished buildings, just like perennial and bizarre presences, like menacing and giant skeletons, framing much of the action, events where violence prevails, like the beating of Don Carmelo, but mainly the murder of Julian.
From the initial sequences we notice that Buñuel is already tanned, both as a filmmaker in general, and in Mexican cinema in particular; his visual narrative exposes travellings, dynamism in its assembly, a language already cemented. The powerful photography of the master Gabriel Figueroa impresses us with intense light contrasts, something characteristic of this stage of the director, and some of the night images highlight with intense chiaroscuros. On the other hand, an extraordinary technical resource is that of Pedro throwing the egg against the camera, against us, against the society that has him trapped in that desperate situation, a personage almost interacts with us, evidencing the accusing directive of the film. It is extraordinary that Buñuel, even in realistic and conventional pictures, never loses his surrealism, his dream figure, his characteristic images, beginning with the hen, which appears at important moments, being the first moment after the beating to the blind. Definitely the sequence of Pedro's dream is among the most attractive of the film, the most fascinating, Buñuel returns to his roots, to the onirism, to the surreal, feels like a filmmaker with free track, portraying what feels genuinely like a dream, a terrain quite familiar, indivisible of Buñuel throughout his life as a filmmaker. The aragonese's wide spectrum of technical resources then peeps out once again, overlays of shots, a dense unfolding of Peter, a solemn Marian representation of the child's mother, or the powerfully perennial presence of the hen, feathers falling on a sordidly smiling and bloody face of Julián; it is indeed something dreamy, Buñuel is like a fish in the water. In that dense dream is printed the longed love of mother, some guilt and remorse in Pedro for his participation in the death of Julian, is the artistic peak of the film, definitely Buñuelian; for things like this, Buñuel longed to direct a film completely of his own, for things like this, Buñuel agreed to direct The Great Madcap, to prepare for his great project, his true artistic challenge. The element of the hen is vital, an element whose origin Buñuel himself is not able to clarify at all, simply stating that it is an image or presence that inspires some respect in him, perhaps original from his childhood. The hens are always present, the mother strikes the birds, while Pedro screams desperately to stop; but later, he himself slaughters some white hens, like taking revenge, unleashing his fury and impotence.
Buñuel does it again, continues to shape another of his great topics, sex, flesh, lust in the figure of Meche, spilling milk on her legs. Then, of course, we see the Jaibo with Pedro's mother, the lust and libido of that game of seduction, of looks, when the young man looks at the woman, we almost see the character of An Andalusian dog, full of sexual desire, but in this case, that desire is consumed, when we see the door close. The characters are very well delineated, is one of the causes that the film has so much power and realism, and it is Peter central character, with his mother who seems to hate him, because apparently he was the product of a rape, we finish sketching a character forgotten, an unfortunate, a miserable, a damned. It is the greatest representation of the pathos of his life, "I would like to behave well, but I do not know how", he says desperately to his mother, summarizing well his condition, his case is heartbreaking, he is trapped in a world from where there is no escape, there is no money, there is no work, the only thing that abounds is the misery and the shortage. He wants to get out of that spiral with no way out, violence, death, perdition, but he will be powerless, failure after failure, that bad world ends up devouring him. It is not an optimistic feature, as the film's preamble warned, and leaves the progressive forces of society to change, leaving a gap to the revolutionaries. The mother, of course, also has importance, eternal desire of affection for Peter, interesting the suggestive Marian representation in Peter's dream, all of pure white, then, in reality, we see her all dressed in black, frontally opposite, delivering his son to the correctional, severe opposition of the dream against reality. Likewise, one of the central characters, the Jaibo, is promptly and eloquently portrayed, when one of the children asks who the Jaibo is, and the image immediately followed is that of the character, advancing neatly, with a slight low-angle shot, as establishing his hierarchy; and is that, despite everything, is the undisputed boss of the group, has charisma, leads the group, everyone obey and fear him. They are significant the characters that Buñuel delineates, the director of the farm school affirms, "give him some food, then, we will see", represents the whole society, the State, looking for a temporary exit, a quick and easy exit, and relegates with indifference the real problem, is a firm accusation against society, which does not face a serious problem that eats youth alive. But there is also the blind man, longing for the times of Porfirio, he represents the people, the people full of misery, who thinks with melancholy in the past, even a repressive regime, is a vital position that makes clear the world that portrays Buñuel. That world is closed with the grave image of the donkey with a dead on his back, passing next to the mother, the image is powerful, just like the slight low-angle shot, a full shot, fateful, final fatal. The film is a select part of the history of cinema, is among the highest of all Mexican film production, a masterpiece, Buñuel touched the sky with his hands.
