Michael Neumann Leave it to Luis Buñuel, a man who once took comfort from the fact that he was "still an atheist, thank God", to provide such an entertaining analysis of Catholicism at its most absurd. In the middle film of an otherwise unrelated stylistic trilogy (along with 'The Phantom of Liberty' and 'The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie') the master surrealist takes us on a guided tour of heretical Catholic doctrine through the ages, following two modern day pilgrims across southern France, where they encounter a bewildering assortment of fanatics, prophets, and true believers. The various digressions are as weird as they are well-documented, but because of its dry wit and detached presentation the film is (perversely) more instructive than it is shocking, except perhaps to the Vatican. Buñuel makes his observations without malice; his aim is to simply illustrate how the One True Faith is, in fact, a motley collection of often contradictory ideas and bizarre rituals.

Lechuguilla Two impoverished hobos travel on foot through France, en route to Santiago-de-Compostella, in Spain. They are on a spiritual pilgrimage. Along the way they walk into one self-contained story, absorb its value, then leave, only to walk into another self-contained story. The film's structure is thus episodic. And each episode or vignette highlights a parable about some facet of religious belief.The encounters are set in different eras of history, as for example the time of the life of Christ, or the fourth century A.D. In each little story, inhabitants pontificate their certainty of religious belief that often contradicts other beliefs held with just as much certainty. Thus, differences in abstract religious dogma translate into aggressive and militaristic behavior, to stamp out opposing beliefs.Throughout the dialectic narrative, a central theme seems to be the casting of doubt on old, rigid belief systems in general, and those of the Catholic Church in particular.Visuals are competent, though fairly conventional. The script is talky. Acting and dialogue trend stagy and stilted. Music is irrelevant.Aimed at an audience of the intellectually curious, "The Milky Way" is a message film that can be frustrating for viewers who want everything spelled out clearly. And that's the whole point. Contradictions and logical fallacies in belief systems ensure absolutely a lack of clarity; hence, a narrative journey, or way, that is confusing, opaque, cloudy, or ... milky.

christopher-underwood I found this tale of a couple of tramp like figures ostensibly making a pilgrimage to Spain, interesting and amusing but by halfway was finding a lot of the dialogue annoying. Lots of religious diatribes and spouting and contradictions. I began to weary of the non-stop barrage of stupidity and then it gradually dawned on me that Bunuel was taking the p***. Indeed I note from the closing credits that all the dogma and seeming unbelievable tosh, were all exact quotes from religious tracts and writings throughout the history of Christianity. Bunuel has, in fact, very cleverly set up a believable tale, in which along the way he manages to get so much of this stuff said that it beautifully illustrates just how crazy some of this stuff is. Still not an easy first sitting but maybe with the knowledge gained a second viewing would be more enjoyable.

Chris_Docker The Milky Way is set in comparatively modern times. Two vagabond pilgrims make a journey to Spain. Specifically, to Santiago de Compostela. The remains of James the Apostle were thought to be interred there. On the way they meet various characters from different time periods. Including Jesus, the devil, the Virgin Mary, Jesuits, Jansenists, the Marquis de Sade, assorted clerics and a prostitute. All provide vignettes in which points of heresy are debated. People are routinely condemned to death or challenged to duels based on the fine shading of the wording of faith. It runs like a cross between Pilgrim's Progress and The Canterbury Tales, with just a touch of Life of Brian in passing.But what puts the Milky Way in a class apart from most films of its ilk – even reverent biblical epics – is its careful adherence to the wording of the theological debates running through Christianity's history. According to Buñuel (who deserted Catholicism for atheism at the age of sixteen), "Besides the situation itself and the authentic doctrinal dispute it evokes, the film is above all a journey through fanaticism, where each person obstinately clings to his own particle of truth, ready if need be to kill or to die for it. The road traveled by the two pilgrims can represent, finally, any political or even aesthetic ideology."Strangely, the film was welcomed on release both by Buñuel's anti-religious following and (to his embarrassment) the The Holy See itself. According to his biographer, Buñuel had planned for many years a film that would affirm his atheism, the intellectual scepticism he held towards a church he had renounced in his teens. Director and producer compiled a list of apostasies and repression and concluded that most heresies came from six areas of doubt: (1) The double nature of Christ. Was he God or man? God and man? God pretending to be man? (2) The Trinity; how can three natures co-exist in the same entity? (3) The Immaculate Conception. Mary, a virgin, was nevertheless Christ's mother. (4) Transubstantiation. Can bread literally become the body of Christ? Is this just a metaphor? (5) The problem of God's omnipotence. Is God all-powerful? If so, do we enjoy free will? (6) Evil. Did God create evil? "The list suggested no obvious structure, so they simply dramatized incidents illustrating the heresies, linking them with a pair of wandering modern pilgrims."*Now if you've read this far, you may well already be interested in theology, whether as a believer or atheist, but it highlights one of the big shortcomings of the film. The psychopathology of Christianity is mainly of interest to its own theologians. While the film will just about hold you if you have already pondered such questions, others may be wondering why he spent so long dwelling on such bilge. Having dispensed, he claims, with such imponderables, is he simply exorcising old ghosts from his early teens? One religious-based reviewer wrote: "Whilst it's certainly sceptical about Christianity, the fact that it's been written by people who know their Catholicism inside out, and are not afraid to make a film that is inaccessible to those do not, means the film at least deserves some respect even if ultimately we disagree with its, somewhat tenuous, conclusions." It is a position with which I could only guardedly agree."One thing troubles me," says a young acolyte in one of the film's Spanish Inquisition periods. "The burning of heretics – may it not go against the will of the Holy Spirit?" The inquisitor replies, "It is the secular justice of men that punishes them. Not because they are heretics but for their sedition." Pushing his luck, the acolyte counters with, "But then, those whose brothers have been burnt will burn others, and so on. Each one believing he possesses the truth. Why these millions of deaths?" A stern glance and the acolyte desists – before he too is cast to the flames. (The logic seems more applicable to the constant conflicts between Islam and Christianity – or at least Palestine and Israel. In terms of burning people, the Catholic Church triumphed over every other brand of Christianity with unfettered brutality.)Perhaps Buñuel found it amusing or even instructive to make this film. The millions of deaths, and the fanaticism that led to them, is not condemned. To the believer, perhaps they were God's will. But to this reviewer at least, Buñuel maybe falls short of his usual high achievements in elevating the good or bringing down hypocrisy. The Milky way is clever enough – even erudite – but ultimately an intellectual exercise rather than the powerful film it could have been.*(nb - six areas of doubt are quoted from Baxter's biography of the director)