User reviews

Dossignan (Gérard Depardieu) is a zealous rural priest. The dean Menou-Segrais tries to keep him reasonable. But Dossignan will be tempted by Satan, then will try to save the soul of Mouchette, a young woman who killed one of her lovers.

Having not read the original novel, I couldn't say how much is from the original and how much is from the film itself. But despite being from the 1920s, the story has a very modern feel to it. It could be the 1920s, the 1980s or even the 2010s.

There is that constant play between faith, conviction and organization. And it need not be the Catholic Church. Any organization, religious or secular, will have its passionate members who want to do something more. This is a very nice examination of that, and really showcases what made Depardieu an international star.

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.

I'm not quite sure what people mean when they say this film is "difficult". On the surface, the film has a very straightforward storyline of a priest (played brilliantly and movingly by Depardieu) struggling with his own demons that materialise internally and externally.

From this basic premise the film can be explored from several key standpoints to obtain real insights into subjects such as the power/source of faith, the relationship between thought/belief and one's relationship to the world we inhabit.

Moreover, the questioning employed by Pialat and Depardieu means that the path of thought through these issues is profound, intense and disturbing. The film provokes the intellect constantly and I could understand that if there was nothing more to the film, one might say that "is that it?"

What takes this film much further is the emotional undercurrent - both understated and abyssal, the stunning cinematography and restrained direction. These factors combine to create a complete cinematic experience.

One scene stands out in this respect: we watch the priest wander the countryside in a daze and he pauses on the side of a hill, lush with spring grass. Depardieu looks up, eyes searching for insight, an answer, a response. In a brilliant stroke of luck, passing clouds obscure the sun and Depardieu instinctively internalises this shifting light with a simultaneous passing of emotion portrayed through his face and posture. We watch both the internal shifting cloud of emotion and the changing light create a charge and intensity that is rarely seen in cinema. There is an element of the `unknowable' in this scene that still moves me, even after many viewings.

I also enjoy making comparison between this film and Dreyer's "Das Wort" (The Word), my favourite of Dreyer's works which has some common theme's, explored from different perspectives.

A truly great film, worthy of the Palme D'or it won.

Wonderful! Fascinating! Bernanos captured with an obvious anti-clerical twist from Pialat. A cult-movie for art-movies amateurs... If you have seen other Pialat's films, you understand the progression of his art. Very honest film that shakes your bones to the core. Sandrine Bonnaire is just perfect and Depardieu's calm and open acting works very well with the character. A dark movie at its best! This is a well-deserved Golden Palm from the 1987 Cannes Festival, handed by Yves Montand, as president of the Jury. What a scandal it was -- giving the palm to an outcast like Pialat. History will remember that Cannes, on its 50th anniversary, tried and succeeded on promoting true art in films.

The novice priest declares himself unable to pursue his calling, given the sinfulness that he speaks of in his parish. But, from the start, he is pouring out his feelings of inadequacy without our seeing anything that he has had to face. It is all mere talk; and his near hysteria might be explained when, after he has collapsed (in a faint, or a fit?), his sympathetic and humble spiritual adviser uncovers the blood-spattered chest--the consequence of his self-flagellation, of which we witness another bout later. Is he fanatical, or mad?

We see nothing of the parochial trials, and sickness, endured by Bernanos' Curé de campagne (Robert Bresson's film), faced with hostility and mockery from his villagers. The two traumatic events (Mouchette cutting her throat, and a dying boy "coming to life" in the priest's arms) shock us, but do not form an integral part of the curate's spiritual day-to-day experience. They are merely sensational. Depardieu is not convincing as an agonised believer. Yet, in the spontaneous sincerity of his accompanying interview, he appears to draw inspiration from Augustine!

One of the major books of the 20th century, Georges Bernanos' "Under the Sun of Satan" isn't an easy read. Centered on the personal crisis on a young priest who struggles to find God's voice, it is a powerful comment on humanity's more convenient devotion to Satan. Not the Satan that became a stock-word to define tentations, but that energy of despair, that 'gravity' effect toward the lowest depths of the soul. As I said in my review of Ingmar Bergman's "Silence", if we can't make ourselves worthy of God, let's make ourselves even more worthless.

Bernanos wrote the book after the Great War when French people; instead of mourning the dead or contemplating the barbarity they had just undergone, indulged in lust, fun and celebrations. The author indirectly points out the way the Roaring Twenties deafened humanity from the calls of the grace. As a fervent Catholic, he deplored the 1905 new laicity law and the way rationality inherited from the Kantian revolution and psychoanalysis, prevented priests from operating in what he described as "the bleak battlefield of our instincts" (the war that would never stop).

I mentioned Bergman, Maurice Pialat channelled the introspective "Winter Light", also about a priest caught in a faith crisis. But Bernanos' hero Donissan (played by Gérard Depardieu) believes in God, his struggle is more complex: his life reduced to petty rituals and confessional's confidences, his mind became a regular depository of human crasses he couldn't get rid of. Ironically, he's in a situation where he must keep his flock close, but his enemy (Satan) closer. Full of insecurity, he poignantly admits his failure to find the right language with Abbot Menou-Segrais (Maurice Pialat). He flogs himself regularly to expiate his own powerlessness.

And I couldn't see anyone but Depardieu as Donissan. With his broad shoulders and towering presence, Depardieu has always been a force of nature capable to play larger-than-life and flamboyant characters but there's something inherently instinctive in that man who learned acting from the scratch, without any Academical background, spontaneous at the risk of stumbling on a word, starting a sentence he wouldn't finish or just being silly. The power of Depardieu is that even his his oafishness could move audiences. Fittingly so, Donissan was a man who acknowledged his intellectual limits, but had the faith that moved mountains.

There's a second subplot with Mouchette, a sixteen-years old teenager who announces her lover that she's pregnant. The merit of Mouchette is to draw Donissan's torments in flesh and blood, preventing the story to get stranded in abstractions. She enjoys being beautiful and desired, much more by handsome men. She doesn't embody sin but embraces it as the lesser of two evils. Indeed, she hates her condition; daughter of a peasant, as mediocre a politician as a brewer, surrounded by hypocrites who lust on her body but would never make it worth ruining their little lives. Not only have men failed to elevate her but they wouldn't even join her in a stylish and assumed degradation.

Mouchette becomes the instrument of her own vengeance toward the human genre... including herself. And Sandrine Bonnaire was perfect, with her frail petite frame and yet eyes that contained more passion and strength than all the male characters combined. The story is driven by Donissan et Mouchette and when the two meet: it's the ultimate convergence of two souls that were lost for different reasons ... but as close as they were, literally, they had went just too far in their own journey to reach one another.

Now, there's a third important player in the film, a man Donissan meets during a long walk across the countryside, he's played by Jean-Christophe Bouvet, Pialat knows how to use a blatant 'Day for Night' effect with deliberately exaggerated blue and pale tones to convey the supernatural aspect of that crucial encounter. He isn't exactly a fancy director but he knew that epiphanic moment needed an extra-surrealistic push, visually. The rest of the film is more sober even in the passionate moments.

There is a lot of dialogue between Pialat and Depardieu but they never sound as on-the-nose or expositional material, the reason is simple: these men are priests, they're used to listen and they're used to silence, they can either process their thoughts or explain how they can't, all in a very soft voice, that befits their status but also establishes an unconscious resignation for failure in a world where the Catholic church had lost its grip on people. There's an important moment where Menou-Segrais makes Donissan (too honest to deny) admit he put himself in the hand of someone he didn't have esteem for. The abbot knows he lives in bourgeois semi-idleness he wouldn't trade for all the mental torture of the world. But Donissan is capable of passion (in the 'pathos' sense): he whips himself, shouts at Mouchette, raises a dead corpse with that strength and body language that elevate even his silent moments to sheer eloquence.

"Under the Sun of Satan" earned France its second Golden Palm twenty years after "A Man and a Woman", meeting with furious boos from audiences who wished it was "Wings of Desire", I couldn't be more satisfied by that outcome for Wenders' film that dealt with similar themes but with flashy artsy stuff to conceal its skeletal story. Pialat took up a higher challenge and made a film I just wish directors like Ingmar Bergman or Martin Scorsese saw it.

Getting his Golden Palm, he raised his fist and said "if you don't like me, I don't like you either", I always thought this was anger speaking, after seeing the film and hearing the director speak about it, I think it was exhaustion and maybe frustration of not having reached his audience just like Donissan with his people... and he was humble enough to appease the tension afterwards.

Still, one of the most famous moments of Cannes' history, a unanimous but controversial win, but a deserved win nonetheless.

I couldn't relate to this film. It failed to engage me either intellectually, emotionally or aesthetically. The dialogue was very dense and uninvolving. I couldn't connect with and hence care about any of the characters and I'm finding it hard to find much that's positive to say about it.

I've read that to understand it properly one needs to be familiar with some of the more obscure aspects of Catholic theology. I'll admit that, as an atheist, I probably am unfamiliar with many of the finer details of Catholicism, but I have also seen many films dealing with religious issues that have touched me because their themes are still universal to the human condition and don't rely on specialised knowledge or beliefs.

Bernanos and Pialat. a meeting who becomes mixture of nuances from the both universes. a film for readers in more measure because it seems be a kind of labyrinth. a film for Maurice Pialat fans because his mark is key of strange, almost confuse work. a film about faith, sin and Catholicism. with the shadows imposed by a great French writer and with two actors - Bonnaire and Depardieu - who reveals the delicacy and darkness of a circle without common rules.Pialat himself does a special role. result - almost a poem. a film as a question. that fact does it not the most inspired choice for many. but it may not be reduced as few beautiful scenes or at good acting. so, it is an invitation to discover the book for understand the bitter , cold sense of story.

Smart, challenging, ultimately unsuccessful film that wowed viewers at Cannes. The film has exquisite acting and some brilliant scenes, but it's too convoluted to make any kind of impact on the viewer. Gerard Depardieu shines in his difficult role as does Sandrine Bonnaire.

The best scene in the film is when Depardieu comes across Satan -- chilling.

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.

As with countless other fine and well-meaning French productions, this one has plenty of intricate dialogue-which is seldom translated in whole. As a result, I am sure that for some people the narrative barely makes any sense; for others it will be unjustifiably dense and even lyric. I am sure some people must love the slow pace and the religious subject matter to the point of exaltation. As it happens with the immensely frustrating film Therese [Alain Cavalier, 90m, 1986], this one never really delivers on its premises/promises. I do not want to give away its really simplistic plot, so won't get into the details of its many faux pas dealing with the simple life of a country faux naif. That said, I just want to add how the film manages to elevate its pretentiousness to the level of art! The viewer is left to feel below the film's main theme and message, mainly on account that it deals with mystical matters not to be understood by the viewing masses-especially by those who watch the film. The point is lost in the main character's constant self-flagellation-physical and spiritual. The, in short, viewer can never identify with Donissan or with Mouchette-or with anyone else in the film. Even Buñuel's The Milky Way [1968] is easier and more fun, and this is a stretch. To be sure, we know what is going on at all times, but it is hard to imagine why is there so much ado about matters that are best left untouched. For a more vivid portray of the struggles of religious significance see Agnes of God [1985], The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ [1988], or El crimen del padre Amaro [2002]. Should you insist in seeing this uneven production, which is only available in a very poor VHS format, go on at your own peril. At least-if it is any consolation-it isn't that long!

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.

This film is full of flaws in the direction, mezzanines, decoupage and final editing, it is unbelievable to me that this film won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1987 . This 2 points only for the beautiful acting of Gérard Depardieu .

Pretentious French cinema at best... more likely, a failed attempt at cinema.

As a French and a movie lover, I admire many french authors and film makers that are deemed 'difficult' or intellectual (I adore Godard for one). This movie is not a masterpiece of cinema: it lacks all the characteristics of it.

The actors are the major problem of the film. Depardieu has no spirituality and it shows. Sure he's a "nice guy" in life and he can be very good in lighter roles, but how anyone can find him convincing in this role I can't imagine. Sandrine Bonnaire, apart from the fact that it takes tremendous imagination to believe that she is supposed to be attractive, is not movie actress. Her performance is that of a boring theater player (I caught her several times looking at the audience, waiting for applause).

As for the story, it jumps from scene to scene without any sense of continuity or progress, it's mere accumulation that goes nowhere.

But then of course it won a Palme d'Or, well that must mean it's good and we're not able to grasp such high and elevated thinking!

Sorry I don't buy.