Los Hurdes was first shown in 1933 with no sound. Buquel read the the
narrative script himself and played rocords as a soundtrack and was
immediately banned by the the republican government in  Lerroux for
showing the country in a bad light.  The sound version was released four
years later in Paris.  During the civil war Buqel was declared a
criminal as author of this film and was to be brought in if he was
found.
 
The film was made to _shock_ people.  Andri Bazin said <<that it wasn't
important if the country residents were shown in a true light or not,
the point was human misery. So between Paris and Madrid it was possible
to reach the limit of human decadence.  No in Tibet, Alaska or in South
Africa, but in some place in Spain men like you and me heirs of the sam
civlilization, the same race have become to be these dehumanized
_cretinos_ to kill flies on the face.  It's also of little importance
that this is and exception, what is important is that it could exist.>>
He concluded with <<Buqels surrealism is no more than a concern to reach
the depths of reality>>  Others of the time said that Buquels poetry
made this groegraphic documentary  a provocatively distinct.
 
When confronted by the president of the committee of Las Hurdes who said
Buqel had shown only the worst, Buqel responded that he spokes like the
minsiter of Lerroux.  He then took his film and left.
 
A good book on this film is Luis Buqel y Las Hurdes by Cisar Arconada
also Luis Buqel, Mi Ultimo Suspiro.
 
Poverty and desolation of man can also be seen in Los Olvidados which
was also heavily critized for shown Mexico DF in a bad light.
 
Jeannette Sloniowski wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> I am currently working on a paper on Las Hurdes (Land Without Bread).  The
> argument is about Bunuel's use of the grotesque and the affective results
> of this.  I asked a linguist to read it over.  I had made a point about
> Bunuel's use of the word "idiots" to describe some young boys in the
> village of Nemoral. (Bunuel goes on to call them a "choir of idiots"
> later.)  I have argued that the use of "idiot" is upsetting to spectators.
> I think that it is these days -- usually there is some uncomfortable
> laughter or shifting during this part of the film.  My friend argues that
> in 1932 when the film was made "idiocy" was an accepted term and probably
> caused much less problem for spectators then than now.
>
> Does anyone have anything to say about this?  Has anyone seen the original
> version with the Spanish or French narration?  Is there a difference in the
> original?  Are there cultural differences here that I should be noting?
>
> I have also argued that it was common in those times to hide anyone who had
> a "problematic" physical or mental condition and that Bunuel's showing of
> these boys is in itself an upsetting thing, especially since he says that
> the condition is a result of illness and sometimes incest.  Any thoughts
> about this?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeannette Sloniowski
> Film and Communications
> Brock University
>
> ----
> To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]