Any review of the film Under the Sun of Satan ought to state the following factoid upfront. When the movie was announced as the winner of
the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival (with the jury declaring that it was
a unanimous vote), the audience whistled when the director Maurice
Pialat made his way to the stage to receive the award. Pialat's response
to this was to raise his fist, replying: "I won’t be untrue to my reputation. I am, above all, happy this evening
for all the shouts and whistles you’ve directed at me; and, if you don’t like
me, I can tell you that I don’t like you either." That stated,
this critic would have voted as the honourable jurors did, if he was hypothetically
serving on that jury. It is an extraordinary film by a very important filmmaker—pugnacious
and unsentimental. Pialat only made 11 feature films. Under the Sun of Satan would easily be among his best two films—the other being A Mouth Agape (1974). Pialat was
critical of the French New Wave. He made his first film at age 43, and died at
77. He went on to influence filmmakers such as Leos Carax, Chantal Akerman and Catherine
Briellat. This critic, too, finds the
work of Pialat superior and more satisfying compared to the films of Godard and Truffaut.
Under the Sun of Satan is admittedly not a film that can be
appreciated by an average viewer. It is
a film that has commonalities with at least two masterpieces of world cinema: Swedish
director Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal
(1957) and the French director Robert Bresson’s The Diary of a Country Priest (1951). Two important common factors between Under the Sun of Satan and The Seventh Seal are the live spoken and
physical interactions of good Christian human beings with Satan and the
perplexing silence of God. Two important common factors between Under the Sun of Satan and The Diary of a Country Priest are that
both films are based on books written by Georges Bernanos (1888-1948) and both
deal with idealistic and intensely spiritual Roman Catholic priests serving parishes
in rural France frequently interacting with their senior colleagues. Much of
the three films are both theological and dense for an average viewer to
appreciate, all the more if the viewer is not familiar with Christian
literature, especially Thomas à Kempis’ 15th Century book Imitation of Christ. Bernanos, in his book
The
Diary of a Country Priest, states that a mediocre priest is always sentimental
and mediocrities are a trap set by Satan. In Pialat’s film Under the Sun of Satan, the troubled younger priest Donissan
(Gerard Depardieu) is shown making notes of certain parts of Imitation of Christ, as he studies certain
passages of the book.
All the above details would assume
that Pialat’s film Under the Sun of
Satan is a film where Satan is defeated. It is more a film where the filmmaker
acknowledges the presence of Satan around the best of us and God appears to be a
silent spectator. While the end of the film suggests the increasing public
reverence of Donissan’s powers to bring the dead to life—the key question Pialat
and Bernanos seem to be asking of the viewer (and the reader of the book) is
whether the latter day powers of Donissan to do miracles comes from God or from Satan. It
is a film and book that describes a situation where Satan can influence the
most well meaning and pious of Christian priests. Pialat’s film is more about
Donissan being aware of the immediacy of the Devil than of God in life.
Satan (right) meets Donissan (Depardieu) the priest |
Satan's conversation with Donnisan |
Pialat’s
film goes not merely to the extent of depicting Satan as a fellow traveller following
a tired and troubled priest on a long journey on foot in the night but ends the
long peripatetic discourse between the two with a scene where the Devil even
sexually harasses the priest when he lying on the ground to rest his tired
legs. The Devil kisses the priest, but Pialat shows the Devil wiping his own mouth
after that action, indicating perhaps the priest is still too holy for him to
corrupt.
Richard Brody writing about the
film in New Yorker (issue of 7 May
2013) assesses the film succinctly when he wrote “Pialat has made a nonbeliever’s film about the psychological, social,
and metaphorical power of religion. He shows that if religion is anything at
all, it’s tough stuff that gains its moral authority not by easing the fears of
believers or reconciling them to evil but, rather, by imbuing them with the
terrifying yet awe-inspiring sense that immense and cosmic powers are here at
hand, to submit to or to wrestle with.”
Donnisan (Depardieu) meets Mouchette (Bonnaire): devoid of carnal attraction |
How did Pialat make monumental
film of the first novel of Bernanos? First, he chose the actor Depardieu to
play the tormented young priest. Depardieu is a giant of a man physically and
Pialat gets him to essay a man burdened by an invisible cross, tiring himself
by walking long distances day and night, scourging himself in self mortification,
not seeing in 16-year-old Mouchette (Sandrine Bonnaire) any carnal desire but concern
of the evil that has overpowered her life and ways to absolve her sins. Pialat transforms
Depardieu from a ladies’ man to a brooding monk who remarks “I am a zero, only useful when next to other numbers,”
to his senior priest Menou-Segrais (Pialat himself). Pialat’s decision to play
the senior priest to Depardieu’s junior priest is that of a Svengali of sorts,
even though he too has his own problems with faith, drawing ironic parallels in
film of a director and his actor, with both Donnisan exhibiting a constant love-hate relationship. The body language of Depardieu is amazing to note in this
film, especially with the large-sized actor downsized to an ant-like figure in long
shots of the countryside captured by cinematographer Willy Kurant.
The imposing physical stature of Depardieu metaphorically reduced in size by Pialat and his cinematographer Willy Kurant set against the natural grandeur of rural France |
The side-bar events of Mouchette’s
young life exploited by evil men and Mouchette killing of one of her lovers are
not important to the film compared to the priest’s unusual ability to see Mouchette’s
amoral actions from afar and even talk to her after she has committed a murder.
Another side-bar event of Donnisan reviving a dead child is more Pialat’s/Bernanos’
commentary on Satan allowing Donnisan to believe that he can achieve miracles
by manipulating his spiritual pride.
Pialat's and Kurant's touches: Light and shadows; reflecting Bernanos play of words on sun and Satan |
Bernanos’ title “sun of Satan” is
a clue. Can Satan provide light? When
Satan appears to Donnisan it is in the night. Pialat and Kurant show Donnisan towards
the end of the film covered in shadows rather than in light.
This is a film where Donnisan equates
morality with "hygiene of the senses." It is a film which talks of inner life being
a battle of instincts. It is no ordinary film, it is quite complex. Yet it is not a film that most viewers will comprehend and easily appreciate.
But then that is true of most works of director Pialat.
The enigmatic ending in the confession box: "I didn't know evil--I learned it from the mouth of sinners." |
P.S. This critic has reviewed the
Pialat’s 1974 film The Mouth Agape
earlier on this blog. (You can access the review by clicking on
the name of the film).
No comments :
Post a Comment