Susana (1951)

 Susana (1951) aka Susana, demonio y carne (Susana, Demon and Flesh)

Luis Buñuel claimed that during his commercial Mexican period he never once compromised his Surrealistic ideals.
That may be so, with Susana, one of his most underrated works he may have compromised narrative drive…

Or, did he?

The film itself might be described as a Noirish version of Boudu sauvé des eaux (1932) if we were to replace the lovable French tramp with a Bad Seed styled femme fatale.

The inky visuals are certainly Noirish enough.

And the unknowingly taken into the bosom-of-the-bourgeoise-family bad-girl escapee from a women’s prison (the film calls it a ‘reformatory,’) certainly has everyone (other than a superstitious but wise, old servant) eating out of her hand, and seducing everyone it’s advantageous for her to do.

So why is it then that the spectacular double-murder, suicide (or whatever,) tragical conclusion we are expecting never happens?
Why is it that everything is resolved in an utterly unbelievable sitcom fashion with everyone settling comfortably back into precisely the same situation they were in before?

My question to you, instead, is why did you not ask the same question at the end of Belle du Jour?
Was it because the Surreal quality of the work had you question the reality of everything you’d just seen (including an also unbelievable happy, sappy end?)

Turns out you forgot Buñuel is a Surrealist.

Yes, there are little Buñuel touches (fetishism involving mud and mud covered lovers, bats, rats, spiders, and impaled wasp, etc., feet, legs (caressed by an old man, no less,) egg on legs, gun barrel caressing (again, an old man doing this,) whips, etc.) but other than a seeming divine intervention which allows the femme fatale to escape prison all other events are presented in an all too realistic style.
Devilish intervention is more likely, if going by the movie’s alternate tile; but if God allowed Adam and Eve to be tempted, why would he not also loose this serpent in the middle of this nice, complacent Eden? (The shape of the bars on the window also miraculously changes from the crucifix-shaped shadow we see on the floor to the actual physical object which is a bit different looking.)

Don Luis managed to pull the rug out from under you, yet again:
That ridiculous conclusion is surely meant to be met with outrage.

Much like Hitchcock’s concessions to television censors when he had criminals get away with their crimes in his short films and it was only verbally that he concluded that they must have been caught afterwards, (winking at the audience all the while,) Buñuel also asks that you disbelieve his movie’s end.
The only difference is that this time around, Buñuel does it with a straight face.

If seen in a straightforward manner the film is surely to be rejected by most audiences, and all merely because of its silly conclusion, since up to that point things were going perfectly fine; but, if you understand that don Luis is not compromising his Surrealistic ideals, then you will see what is actually meant.

Based on the events we see, the family’s bourgeoisie complacency would have surely been destroyed, (what about throwing in a couple of murders in there as well?) but that never happens!

It’s not surprising then that this Buñuel 'potboiler' is so underrated.

With Fernando Soler, Rosita Quintana, Víctor Manuel Mendoza, María Gentil Arcos, Luis López Somoza and Matilde Palou.
The technical script is by Buñuel, but surely he had help with dialogue as he captures mexicanismos in a lovely and very humorous manner.