Land Without Bread

I found it very interesting reading the reactions of others here, from interpreting this as everything from a pure comedy to a pure documentary. The truth is that it denies classification, and for many that just simply does not compute. Therefore, it has obviously done exactly what Bunuel wanted.

The aim of surrealism is to lure you in with the trap of a conventional narrative, and then hit you right in the face with something impossible to just passively accept. This film is the perfect example of this. You are absolutely forced into the role of active observer; forced to draw your own conclusions. Independent thought is pulled to the surface, returning comprehension to it's original purity. Reality lies not in what you are seeing, and not in what you are hearing, but somewhere in-between.

My God, this man was a genius, and so far ahead of his time it's unbelievable. Spielberg shows you what you want to see. Bunuel shows you what you need to see. Find this film and see it. Its value is incalculable.

Luis Buñuel's approach to film-making was so unusual, and his intentions so hard to decipher, that you can never be quite sure what his movies were meant to convey. So it should probably not be too surprising that even when he makes a documentary it is still hard to tell exactly what he was doing. While this gives every initial appearance of being a straightforward documentary, it is not long before Buñuel's detailed yet surrealistic approach begins to show in subtle ways.

Whatever else may be true, it is an unusual film, and a generally interesting one. It is also unsettling - at times, very much so. It depicts a civilization that, though located in the midst of Spain just before the Franco era, could almost be from pre-historic times. Many of the images and much of the commentary are disturbing and uncomfortable to watch, to say the least. Yet the tone is far from emotional, and in fact it seems to be deliberately withdrawn, even unsympathetic, much of the time.

At the same time, it's easy to see why there are those who suggest that Buñuel was not filming a strictly objective documentary. While there are no outlandish or fantastical images, his distinctive style shows up in less obvious ways, through odd details and sequences. There also seem to be a number of different versions of the narration, which do not always cast events in the same light. So, as so often tends to be the cast with Buñuel, all that you can do is to watch it for yourself and then make your best guess as to what it all means.

I have ancestors from my father side who are originally from Las Hurdes. The highlands were exactly like the documentary film portrays them. The lowlands slightly better off, The documentary helped them because the world focused on them and offered some help. Finally a cementery was built and food imported. Problem is the civil war that followed shortly afterwards. Buñuel was a surrealist film director who tried to shift towards realism after joining the communist party. The civil war against communists and fascists further increased poverty but no films were allowed for decades under the dictatorship 1936-1975

This is a fascinating documentary from Luis Bunuel about a little known people called the Hurdanos, who live primitive miserable lives in a remote region of Spain. Its hard to imagine that even in the early 20th century when this film was made, there were still people living in "civilized" Europe under the conditions shown in this film. Only a few years before this film was made did these people know of bread. They have only rudimentary farming skills. The narrator states that at no time did the film crew hear anyone sing or play music, so perhaps music is unknown to them. Malnutrition, pestilence, genetic disorders from inbreeding, and lack of proper hygiene plague these poor wretched people. This film shows them dying off in such high numbers, that one has wonder why these people didn't all die off or migrate to more hospitable terrain long ago.

Like so many other documentaries, some scenes were obviously staged for the camera, like the now notorious donkey falling off a cliff. We see the donkey falling in several different shots taken from different angles, which makes it unlikely the cameramen just happened to be there when the donkey fell.

Some people claim this film is an attack on Franco, but Franco didn't come to power until 1936. Actually I don't think this film was trying attack anyone. It merely does what I think its makers set out to do; try to capture the lives of a people who are very different from the rest of us.

I have been frustrated by the version of the film that is available in my area, entitled "Unpromised Land". The original "Tierra sin Pan" has a completely different commentary which is made "politically correct" in the "Unpromised" version. Avoid "Unpromised Land" as it censors and alters the original intent of the film as conceived by Bunuel!