Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Tetrady not as good as all the hype

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Martin Bradley If Maurice Pialat's "Under the Sun of Satan" reminds you thematically in some small way of Bresson's "Diary of a Country Priest" perhaps it's because both of them are based on novels by Georges Bernanos and both deal with a priest's lack of faith but whereas "Diary of a Country Priest" was rooted very much in a terrible reality Pialat's picture is largely phantasmagorical, you might even say supernatural. Gerard Depardieu is the doubting priest and Sandrine Bonnaire the misguided, possibly 'evil' girl whose soul he tries to save and it's so dour and po-faced it feels like a parody.It's obvious were are meant to take it all very seriously but this is the worst kind of intellectual tosh; at least those dire exorcist horror movies involving priests don't have any pretensions to being anything other than what they are on the surface unlike this nonsense which controversially won the Palme d'Or but was booed by a large section of the audience who obviously saw through it. There are those who think it's a masterpiece but when set beside the Bresson picture it seems to me to be something of a travesty.

robert-temple-1 This film is based upon the novel SOUS LE SOLEIL DE Satan (UNDER THE SUN OF Satan) by Georges Bernanos (1888-1948). It was filmed previously for French television in 1971, but that film does not appear to have survived. Bernanos was one of France's leading Catholic authors of the 20th century, the other two main ones being his contemporaries Jacques Maritain and Paul Claudel. Bernanos was obsessed with his faith, and especially with the role of Catholic priests in relation to their parishioners. His most famous novel is DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST, which was filmed by Robert Bresson in 1951. I had to read that novel when I was young, and dragged my way through to the very end, though it took months to recover from the trauma of so much boredom and tedium. Really, all that Catholic angst is enough to turn one's stomach. In this very bad film, Gerard Depardieu plays a young priest of overwhelmingly masochistic tendencies. We see him savagely whipping himself with a flail made of steel chain, we see him peeling off part of a hair shirt with his blood seeping from his chest. He is clearly a very, very sick man who belongs in an asylum. But in his case, that asylum is alas his church. To Bernanos all this matters, but to those of us who are not in the clutches of Rome, it could not be of less interest. The film is badly directed by Maurice Pialat, who also adapted the novel into a screenplay with his wife and in addition acted in the film. The screenplay is static and wholly uncinematic. The film largely consists of set pieces which go on far too long, where large amounts of Bernanos's anguished prose pours from the mouths of the artificially posed actors. Depardieu is doomed to collide with the appalling character played by Sandrine Bonnaire, a 16 year-old narcissistic and amoral psychopath who has killed her lover with a shotgun. Bonnaire aged 20 was a touch too old for the part, but she portrays the girl very well despite the long and languid speeches she is required to declaim in tedious talky scenes which never end. Sandrine Bonnaire is an inspired actress, and she will always be remembered for what may be her finest role, as the lead actress in Agnes Varda's brilliant film VAGABOND (1985), a harrowing and searing portrayal of loneliness and hopelessness. She is also spectacular in Jacques Rivette's masterpiece SECRET DEFENCE (1998, see my review). But all of her efforts in this film are ultimately of no avail, because the film stinks.

r-c-s I saw the original french version and i must admit dialogues were challenging for me at times. On the background of early 1900's rural France, the movie revolves around the spiritual dilemma of a young priest ( what's the real meaning of service?) under the guidance of a dean, who soon starts to suspect his pupil might be sort of saint...a fool...or both. Pialat explores the thin line behind folly and sainthood. It's all a gray area where shades of gray detract from the meaning of both light & darkness. Overall, not a "viewer's" movie...little to see. Dialogues are difficult, and at times intricate; there are no conventional emotions, no plot spins. The "plot" is not really such one...there are subplots, such as a young girl with many lovers ( gets pregnant by one, has sex with another while dreaming of reaching Paris to become the mistress of a MP, etc )...there is another subplot about a dying child and peasants' devotion bordering superstition... i wanted to watch this because i wanted to watch another movie by Pialat...his style may not entertain everybody the same way, though.Someone makes a point about Bonnaire being no "attractive" lass and here i have to agree ( she's not "ugly", yet not attractive as well). The point, however, is that (see the other Pialat's movie "à nos amours" where Bonnaire stars again ) that proves the director's dedication to portraying "real" people within reasonable circumstances, without Hollywood gimmicks and porn stars wanna-be's eager to show some skin ( i always think: skin is OK, but then got for true porn).I can also guess translations & adaptations may have resulted in a mess.

sansay When you are not religious, watching this movie becomes more of a chore than anything. I did go all the way to the end just out of curiosity. The ability to stimulate my curiosity is what made me give it 5 stars. And true, it's well played, well shot, true also that the restraint fits well considering the topic.But... you've got to be a total devout to believe in the miracle of God giving life back to the boy, just because this priest asks for it. Why did he take it in the first place?Anyway, all of this doesn't make any sense in the end. Yes Depardieu is a great actor, yes yes and yes, all of this movie is well made... but the topic ... all those grownup men concentrating on such a huge nonsense? I just can't understand that.