El Topo
1970
Alejandro Jodorowsky
I don't even know what to say. Thanks to all those who watched this one. Check out our thoughts below, assuming anyone has any coherent thoughts. Big ask!
~~~~~~~~~~~
Sam
Did you need a 90-second symbolic dream sequence that's part of a cohesive movie turned into two-hour incomprehensible but still kind of entertaining romp? Maybe?
This spaghetti Western that's surreal as fuck contains multitudes—tedious, funny, gory, dark, and completely all over the place. There are many normal things set up here, but El Topo goes to great lengths to subvert expectations every time. Sometimes, that's a purposeful decision of a filmmaker, here it feels just messy.
For example, the movie opens with our man in black cowboy riding into the desert with a naked boy attached to him. The cowboy forces the boy to bury a photo of his mother and his favorite toy, and explicitly tells him to put away childish things. A little on the nose, but ok—do we have an origin story for the boy here? Nope, the boy is ditched within 20 minutes. Instead, we follow the exploits of a cowboy as he faces down the four fiercest killers in the desert, as demanded by his lover. Is that the movie? Well, for a period, but that all wraps up with an hour left. And then we really go for it...
Listen, I get how many scenes, specific images, plot devices, music, whatever could be very influential on future filmmakers. But this isn't a case where I'm cutting the innovator slack because he doesn't know what's to come. This is a filmmaker being very aware of what a conventional structure is, throwing spaghetti (Western) at the wall, and some stuff is cool.
But then there's just sex and religious imagery, and lazy sound mixing/FX.
Kait was having difficulties with the subtitles and I told her she didn't need them. It didn't help me understand the movie at all!
Also, I'm not going to finish this before the deadline. I watched 90 minutes. I will finish late tonight after the Explos stink in their home finale. I'll see you in the comments!
1.5 little boy peckers out of 5
~~~~~~~~~~
Kait
Ummm. I, uh. Well. Whoa. Huh. Wait, what? No way. Oh my god. Wait.
That's me watching this movie. Without subtitles when I understand very little Spanish. That was not the right choice. I also wish I had read a synopsis before viewing. I think that would have grounded me a bit. 124 minutes of "what the fuck is happening?" had me pretty disoriented.
Notwithstanding, I think I enjoyed it? This is the type of movie I'd prefer to sit with for much longer than 24 hours before writing anything about it. I also would like to rewatch with subtitles, but here we are, and here are some of my barely-baked thoughts.
- The heavy symbolism in this movie reminded me of when we read books in high school and analyzed the symbolism. "And what do we think a field full of dead rabbits represents?" "Did you notice the dead rabbit in the desert with the crow on top of it? How does that connect?" "The blood as lipstick, what could that be saying about pain and pleasure?" Felt a bit overdone at times and like a homework assignment to catch it all.
- I enjoyed how queer this film is. Characters existed outside of conventional gender norms. Lots of homoeroticism in the film, too, challenging the traditional heteronormative, masculine Western narratives.
- I've done some light reading on Alejandro Jodorowsky's work and how he utilized disabled bodies to challenge conventional, idealized able-bodied representations in cinema. That was clearly on display here, and I read that the subterranean community in the second half of the movie is supposed to represent the spiritually profound counter-culture to the obviously corrupt, indulgent, violence-obsessed community above. Love that. Loooove that.
- This movie had some of the most unnerving imagery I've seen in a long time.
- How about that cultish church scene where they're passing around the gun?! Honestly, I had been on the fence about this film for most of it and got hooked in then. A little late I guess. I liked the second half better than the first.
- The sexual assault of that woman in the desert that leads to her being able to find sand eggs for food? Fuck that.
- I have mixed feelings about the use excessive violence in this film. I can understand what's trying to be accomplished, but where's the limit?
I’d like to watch this again with subtitles and with a working knowledge of the story, purpose, history, things like that. Until then, I think I'm giving it a 2.5 pukes out of 5. Mostly because my appreciation and enjoyment of this film only really blossomed after reading about it on the internet.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Joe
I'm usually shocked when something like this happens, and that's a byproduct of me purposefully going into every filmwatching experience with as little information as possible about that film. So when the movie that I assumed was going to be a straight-up western actually ends up being a drug-fueled and violent symbolic journey that just happens to take place in a desert, then I'm flustered. I don't know what it's "about" or what is "happening," and it takes me way too long to adjust and try to fit my SYMBOLISM hat on.
Because if it's not actually drenched in symbolism, then it's about nothing. There's no other option. So we must consider the symbolism. And in considering it, we can have fun, we can explore what others have thought in the past, we can even make shit up! But we can also grieve the movie that could've been, the movie that had a coherent plot AND gave us enough meaty figurative symbols to sustain the Film Club and/or artsy fartsy cinephiliac conversation.
"Artsy fartsy" is a term one might use to look down upon something like this, but for the record, I am not above it, regardless of the denigrating terms I might use (it's a defense mechanism—get over it). I'm totally down to talk about the crazy shit that's happening in this film. I'm just saying that maybe I have small-to-medium doubts about the long-term worth of such a conversation. Is it symbolism or just shock? That's what your Ebert type might present as a question, but I don't fall as hard on the "symbolism" side of the divide as he does. I'm, like, on the fence. I think there's an equally likely chance that Jodorowsky was a genius as he was full of shit.
To the pot-smoking Tuesday night 1 AM New York crowds of the 1970s, it didn't matter. Or, better yet, maybe the pot made you feel both at once, the symbolism and the shock, both at once so that they both mattered 100%. Damn my sober Tuesday afternoon 1 PM Philadelphia brain for not taking the extra help when offered. In reviewing my notes, I think maybe it's just easier to talk about the shock value? Is that why I'm pushing back against the idea of this film being so drenched in symbolism? Because I don't feel like talking about, I dunno, Christianity or Zen or whatever the fuck?
Okay, okay, let's talk some shock then, if that's where I'm going. Let's talk those wild tonal shifts. That was the first moment I knew that we were in for a wild, possibly nonsensical ride, that first bonkers musical shift from haunting (El Topo and the child observing the bloody massacre) to circus music (some dude making out with a woman's dress shoe, and his friend fucking a picture of a woman he made out of desert rocks). There can't possibly be any deeper meaning to the guy tonguing a shoe, right? What, are we saying that the, uh, the fuckin' shoe is a symbol for walking, like women are a lower class and it took a lot of walking and a lot of miles marching to achieve any sort of gender equality in modern society? Fuck out of here with THAT shit. This is just a creepy dude getting to sloppy first with a shoe.
We could go all day with the shit that is going to stick with me just because it's provocative. The kid shooting himself, obviously. The woman who was half-bird or something? The unnamed woman eating a cactus in an even more profane way than that guy kissed the shoe. The Bill Cipher imagery plastered all over town. The way the music and laughter cuts out completely when El Topo and his soon-to-be bride stop performing and start begging. Or how about just the way that our protagonist goes from looking like Jason Mantzoukas to looking like Daniel Stern to looking like bald Eric André over the course of his reawakening?
It's funnier, and easier, to talk this way. It's harder, and way less fun, to try to consider WHAT IT ALL MEANS. Especially because film club and book club and music club have sharpened my ability to talk bullshit like this, and even if I have the ability to write 1000 words on the stigmata imagery, I don't know if anything I'm saying actually means anything, or it's just pouring out of my fingers because that's what my fingers are trained to do at this point. Or maybe I've gone crazy. Ya know, because I watched El Topo.
I can keep my skepticism and still want to do better. I still want to watch a movie and understand it. Even if it really is bullshit, I want to think that I know. And so I'll take some notes while watching a movie like this, maybe notes involving little guesses as to what the FUCK is even going on. So I'll present to you my theory on what I think El Topo is about, and then you can take my theory and shove it up your ass, so small is the theory a drop in the bucket of a conversation about this movie that has been happening for 55 years now.
My theory is that this is a film about the importance of losing. Losing is humility. Winning is ego. Those who win are struck down. Those who lose are the true winners. This is what the fourth master was saying when he killed himself. He's saying that if El Topo can't learn how to lose the right way, then he's going to lose anyway. This is why the naked boy needs to bury a teddy bear and a pic of his mom, he's losing his childhood, and accepting that fact. This is why he kills the four masters and then his woman rides off without him—by winning, he has lost. I know it feels like I'm talking nonsense here, but that's the name of the game, baby.
God will not protect you from a loaded gun. Don't try to win. Learn to lose.
Shit, man, there's so much more we could say, but that's what the comment section is for. See me down there if you wanna talk about: El Topo's redemption journey and/or villain arc from hero to murderer to rapist to dead to alive to savior to burn victim; the discussion with the third master about the head versus the heart (and whether that dumb band the Head and the Heart have ever seen El Topo); symbolism of cum as desert water, I know, I know, sorry; the idea of sins or karma or something, ya know, with the boy he abandoned coming back to kill him (or try to); gleeful violence and sex intertwined to legitimately uncomfortable degrees; the guy with no arms and the guy with no legs working together, feels like some deep shit about working together that maybe was slightly out-of-place in this film; "Is it worth it for my people to come here? This is much worse."
I'm curious to see how everybody else falls along the symbolism/shock line today. Could go either way. It can be either one or it could be both, or shit, man, it could even be neither! That's what kind of movie this was! I feel more confused after it ended than before it started! (But that, as always, is a good thing.)
GRADE: 3.5 pukes out of 5
~~~~~~~~~~~
GROUP AVERAGE GRADE: 2.5 pukes out of 5
Cover me in honeybees and bury me in the comments.
(NEXT TIME: The Maltese Falcon is about... a bird, I'm assuming...?)
7 comments:
**trigger warning for sexual assault**
I was glad that in one of her bullet points Kait came down hard on the scene in which El Topo rapes Marah. Here's something that probably warrants discussion. Jodorowsky claimed in the '70s that, in filming this scene, he actually raped actress Mara Lorenzio. 50 years later, during the #MeToo movement, he went back on that, stating that "[his previous claim] presents fictional violence against a woman as a tool for exposure," i.e. that he was bullshitting for publicity. Occam's razor feels like he was bullshitting, but it's definitely discomforting that his claim that he was a rapist, fictional or nonfictional, was allowed to linger for so long.
Honestly, I think all this plays into the theory that most of El Topo is there for shock value, and not because there is "deeper symbolic meaning." Not all. There's some symbolism, and that's worth discussing. But a dude going around claiming that he raped someone on set is probably gonna be the type of dude who's just trying to be provocative for provocation's sake.
Update after finishing the movie. Still sucks.
But the little kid came back! He's an adult now!
I read about this too, and that the actress, Mara, has never said anything publicly about it. Pisses me off that even if fictional (unlikely), he admitted to using violence against women as a tool for exposure. That’s simply not okay. And yet, it’s not uncommon. Violence against anyone for that matter. It begs the question of what’s more effective in compeling us to respect women as a society - another movie with sexual assault? or how about a movie with a woman simply enjoying her life and doing cool shit. I agree that much of this film seemed Hell bent on being provocative, and that perhaps shock value alone was the goal. I do, however, also think that examining what shocks us can drive us to a deeper meaning. Violence against women is shocking, there’s no nuance there or deeper meaning. But the shock value of seeing a woman with a “man’s” voice, the homoerotic cactus eating scene, men in lipstick, the disabled bodies saving the main character instead of being the ones needing the saving - I imagine that shocked quite a few people (myself included!) and when that wears off, there’s the question of if this was more normalized in the first place, would I have been so shocked? And I think there’s value in that.
After reading your reviews, I’m guessing a rewatch with subtitles isn’t going to change much for me. I read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia after and it blew my mind. I didn’t even know that priest was his kid grown up as an adult. Shit I didn’t even know that the cowboy had been underground that whole and that he was the god-like figure that emerged and later set himself on fire. No clue. I started to watch it as little tiny plays. Each time this cowboy met a new “boss” to destroy I was like “okay here we go” there didn’t seem to be any connective tissue otherwise.
While, yes, I think being able to understand the dialogue is gonna help in understanding a movie, I think you also are making a good point here about how to view the movie, in pieces. It definitely felt like one of those movies that had a clear middle and took a big turn after that. Which is cool. Cooler if you understand that it's the same main character in both, haha.
I guess I saw it as the first half being his downfall, and the second half his attempted redemption. Even though the attempt was a failure, gunning down all those folks.
It feels like we are in agreement here. You can correct me if I'm wrong. Regarding the sexual violence, there's a difference between this happening within the story (which the filmmaker can use to say something that is not necessarily "the character is right to do this," as they shouldn't in this case; which the audience can interpret however they want), and this being said by the real filmmaker as a thing that actually happening in the making of the film, which is different, and horrifying, and takes us out of the movie experience, in my opinion.
And yeah, that's a great point about some shit being shocking only in the context of societal norms. I imagine that I was probably slightly less shocked at seeing the male monks being molested by the male soldiers (or whatever they were, the bad guys) than audiences in the 1970s, or maybe it was just a different kind of shocked, I dunno. But I think it's a good point to consider the shock itself as a weathervane for the winds of culture at that time.
Post a Comment