I'm wondering if concentration on the dryness of the spoken word of Las Hurdes and the shock value of using the word "idiots" is being superimposed on the contrast and contradictions that abound in the "yes, but" film. From the crititisms I've read the "shock" came from the images. I agree in LAS HURDES, VIRIDIANA objectify the poor but I question the idea of objectication/exploitation in LOS OLVIDADOS. If is so then the list would have to include CINEMA NOVA from Brazil: Glauber Rocha's AN AESTHETIC OF HUNGER, Nelson Pereira's BARREN LIVES, and post-Novo Babenco's LUCIO FLAVIO & PIXOTE. Babenco received death threats for LUCIO FLAVIO - was the film exploitive, objectifying or subjectifying? The list of thes films goes on, EL LUTE/RUN FOR YOUR LIFE by Vincente Aranda, THE WILD CHILD by Truffaut, CALUGA O MENTE by Gonzalo Justiniano, JEAN DE FLORETTE, LOS SANTOS INNOCENTES, EL LADO OSCURO DEL CORAZON. Returning to Bunel what has fasinated has been the objectification of the church, including LAS HURDES. Here I find Bunel begins to form a pattern on his later works. Here in Chile a few years ago two films involved in Spanish Film Festival touring 16 countries were banned. One for using "Harsh Street Language" and the other we never found out why. In there place VIRIDIANA as shown. I'm sure Bunel would have appreciated this as much as I did. When exploring the image use of the "idiots" I'd counterpoint it with the hunchback in JEAN DE FLORETTE and the drawf in DE ESO NO SE HABLA. Bembergs film demonstrates the contradictions of acceptance and non acceptance of "difference". chao Peggi ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]