"Simón del Desierto:" Luis Buñuel was Ahead of His Time

Hey guys! So, today I want to talk about the short film "Simon of the Desert" (or, Simón del Desierto as it's titled in Spanish). I want to give a brief background of the film, including the plan for the project versus the finished product, and then I want to analyze the main themes.

YouTube has allowed an upload of the film if you'd like to view it.

All of the opinions in this post are my own.

Spoilers ahead.

Let's Get Into the Background.

According to Mexican actor Silvia Pinal who features as one of the two main leads, the film began as a project meant to have three parts, each handled by a different director. One part would be directed by Gustavo Alatriste (Pinal's husband at the time, and who ended up as the film's producer), the other by Luis Buñuel and the third by another. Federico Fellini and Jules Dassin were in talks to take on the third part, and both of these directors were already known for -- like Buñuel -- incorporating controversial themes of politics and religion into their work. In the end, because it seemed unlikely that a third director would commit (and for the sake of continuity), the decision was made for Buñuel to direct the whole film. It would feature as a short film rather than a full-length one.

Some critics point to the fact that the film seems to end abruptly, throwing the momentum a bit. But, in general, the reviews for the film remain positive. To this day, the film is considered one of Buñuel's best and most daring.

Luis Buñuel -- whose life and film legacy deserve deep analysis and praise - had by 1949 left his native Spain and had obtained citizenship to live and work in Mexico. Before "Simon" he had made two films also featuring Silvia Pinal in starring roles: the first being 1960's "Viridiana," which he'd returned to Spain to make but that the Franco regime him would exile him for, and the other was 1962's "The Exterminating Angel" which he filmed entirely in Mexico. Both films were critically acclaimed. Much was said about their themes on class issues and Catholicism.

"Simon of the Desert" is considered the last of the trilogy of Buñuel's Mexican era. It was shot in the dune fields of Chihuahua, either in '64 or '65 with a primarily Mexican cast.

The film is meant, however, to be set in fifth-century Syria! Claudio Brook plays a character based on the real-life Christian saint Simeon Stylites, who -- according to records -- spent what's estimated to be around forty years living atop a pillar in the desert, and to whom believers flocked to so as to receive blessings and ask for miracles. Yes, the actual St. Simeon was a kind of celebrity, a living saint who made his asceticism very obvious. This was nothing new, as many men and women in the first five centuries of Christianity chose to go into the deserts in the Roman Empire to become "hermits" and achieve sainthood before their deaths. 

Buñuel plays with this pre-death-holiness concept and manages to throw major shade at the idea that one can become a saint by publicly renouncing comfort, luxury and a place in society -- while braving the elements - and oblige others to provide them with needs.

The character of Simon in the film is, indeed, provided for and admired and lamented over by many people. He spends all day and night in prayer atop his column, dressed in a rag. He is so obviously 'above' everyone. He comforts his mother, performs miracles, sees into people's hearts and condemns their selfish intentions, and he even exorcises a demon out of a Byzantine priest (who, while possessed, frames Simon for hypocrisy and makes several heretical exclamations, one being 'viva la apokatastasis!' which I'll get to in a minute).

However, Simon isn't free from devils. He's tempted three times by the Devil herself, Satan, played by Pinal. First, she arrives (surreally) as a schoolgirl dressed in a twentieth-century-European style uniform and singing insults in Latin. Simon asks her what she's doing and who she is, and the Devil replies vaguely that she's only playing given she's just an "innocent girl." Simon catches on and banishes her, to which she replies -- as an old and naked hag -- that she'll return soon. 

Next, the Devil comes disguised as Christ. Rather than praise Simon, she chastises him and recommends he indulge in his base needs. Simon once more banishes her, having seen through her illusion.

Thirdly, and finally, Satan approaches Simon's pillar in a moving coffin and then emerges dressed like a Grecian goddess. She tells Simon to stop praying so much, particularly because he hasn't understood yet that she believes just as much in God as he does! If they're to be honest with each other, she claims, they could spend a long time speaking on the bliss of union with God. They're going to travel, she then tells the ascetic, far away.

And, they do! They time-travel to what's meant to be New York City in the '60s, to a nightclub in which young people are dancing wildly around to rock and roll music. The dance, Satan says, is called "radioactive flesh" and it's apparently similar to a popular dance at the time called the Watusi. 

This is where the film takes a turn, and where the viewer can wonder whether it was meant to be longer.

Simon and Satan are dressed contemporaneously, They're seen smoking, and Satan seems to be enjoying herself. Disgruntled -- but, oddly not seeming that confused -- Simon asks to be taken back to where he's from and Satan denies his request.

The final line of the film is Satan telling Simon that he has to "endure till the end" as she's already told him that "radioactive flesh" is the dance before the end.

We're meant to believe she's referring to the Apocalypse.

OK, THEMES!

I. Obviously, the Apocalypse. Remember I mentioned that the Byzantine priest exclaims "Viva la Apokatastasis!" What does that mean? The term "apokatastasis" is ancient Greek and literally means "the ultimate return." It can be found in Scripture in the Acts of the Apostles, where St. Peter says that: 

"Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets." Acts 3:19-21.

2. This idea of things "returning" ultimately -- it reeks of Aristotelianism, of the idea that the world goes on and on, always returning, or "revolving."  Understanding the fact makes you virtuous, according to the Stoics and Aristotle.

The eternal return is one of the biggest -- if not the biggest -- points of contention found among Christian theological debate, because Christianity is a religion in which believers understand the world to have a definitive beginning and a definitive end. However, theologians, philosophers and heretics have argued for the last two millennia that "apokatastasis" may be compatible with the Christian worldview, particularly in terms of the argument between "faith-and-works" vs. "faith-not-works" (see: James 2:24).

Ignatius of Loyola (Jesuits // works) vs. Martin Luther (Reformer // "sola fide" or faith only)

People have feelings about this issue and understandably: what's the point of salvation if creation will return to Eden just so humanity can sin again and require Christ to come to save us all again, over and over? It means sin is just as powerful as salvation, if not more, and so there's no point in believing in and worshiping a "saving God." You just have to do right according to what you perceive as "good" like Aristotle claims (and, ahem, St. Thomas Aquinas, who strict Catholics love to quote, was actually a huge Aristotelian, but those themes within Aquinas' work don't often get preached in the pulpit).

I don't want to debate these things too much here.

I want to point out Buñuel's nod to apokatastasis, to Aristotle and the Stoics, to "faith-and-works" with an emphasis on works. (Side note: Buñuel had always been linked to communist movements around Western Europe, hence the Franco regime persecuting him). Buñuel's Satan says there'll be an end. That it's after the dance of "radioactive flesh" and that it's pointless and hypocritical for saints like Simon to act as though there's a hierarchy of saints above sinners.

3. You can't stand on a pillar, or a soapbox, and will your own suffering and therefore your own salvation.

Hypocrisy is, therefore, a major theme in the film.

The "moral" (if we can call it that) of "Simon of the Desert" seems to be: save yourself by looking within. Otherwise, you're committing the ultimate hypocrisy, that which Jesus constantly warns of in the Gospels, which is equating yourself with God by standing away and judging others.

Seems simple but lots of Christians don't seem to get it. I'm not guiltless myself, either, I know.

4. What makes it all the more impactful is that Satan is the wiser character in this story. It's a deconstruction of not only the glamor around ascetics and hermits like St. Simeon Stylites but a deconstruction of Christ's own temptation in the desert in the Gospels.

Christ is tempted three times, it's recorded in the Synoptic (Mt, Mk and Lk) Gospels. And, does he go and judge others? No, he goes up against the hypocrites and is ultimately scapegoated by them and the truth of his innocent life and teachings is made all the more powerful by our vision of the Cross.

Why?

Because it's our Cross too. 

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Gal. 2:20 KJV.

All right.

So, there ends my analysis of Luis Buñuel's "Simon of the Desert" with the backstory, the positive reviews, the summary and an overview of the major themes. 

My next post will be a more personal one related to this film, and I'll be discussing a short story I've published through Amazon KDP.