Jodorowsky’s Holy Mountain
The Holy Mountain (1973). Dir. Alejandro Jodorowsky.
I will make no attempt to dissemble, I absolutely love this film.
“Every stone has a soul…”
There is something about The Holy Mountain that is instantly engaging. No matter to whom I show this film, there is always a reaction akin to fascination. Even when at the climax there is laughter, or where the ridiculous peeks from under the skirts of the beautiful photography there is never any sense that anything was left to chance. There is something very reassuring about seeing such a distinct alchemical vision, such as Jodorowsky’s.
The film itself concerns mystic transmutation, not merely of matter, but of soul, heart, mind. As with any ritual the film opens with a purification ritual led by the Alchemist (Jodorowsky himself). And already the strongest aspects of the film are obvious: Visually beguiling, and aurally disintegrating we, with various levels of mystification, are party to the ritual in a way that doesn’t speak down to the viewer. In fact, I would argue that Jodorowsky is explicitly inviting the viewer to enter into the dialogue of enlightenment with the film. As the Alchemist later explains, “there are many roads to enlightenment.” And just as the intense colors and symbolic juxtapositions force the eye to follow complex patterns, so too does this invitation scoff at the usual conceit of a passive audience.
The film portrays crypto-personae that represent aspects of human experience in a modern age. Jodorowsky seems to be making the claim that much of modern life, eschewing open pursuit of enlightenment, is obfuscating at least one of the true aims of life, the pursuit of spiritual growth and change. Unlike El Topo, The Holy Mountain, actively engages with conceptions of mass-life and alienation from the spirit that are ubiquitous themes in modernist works. I would make the further claim that the film should not be taken as a ‘return’ to anything, there is no attempt at fundamentalist/primordialist spirituality. Jodorowsky is attempting to iterate brand new syncretism of body and spirit.
However, and I know that the film will not resonate for all in the ways that it does for me, I know that even if the film is to be taken purely on visual merits then there is a great film here. Sometimes, particularly in works that have such intense ideological messages, it is better to ignore the message to enjoy the art.
For your viewing pleasure a clip from the film, be warned this is probably NSFW and thereby not appropriate for children, either:
April 24, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“Sometimes, particularly in works that have such intense ideological messages, it is better to ignore the message to enjoy the art.”
I agree on this point; however, I think Jodorowsky’s message is as realistic as much as his art is metaphorical. The reason I loved this film so much was that it wasn’t about reaching this intangible “thing” that makes you a more enlightened being- rather, for me, the final scene was a snap-out-of-it moment. Fantasy is not reality and it will never make you more able to deal with the real world as it presents itself. Become an objective viewer of your self and the world- that’s the message I took from the film, and I believe it to be a good one, and at least as powerful as the art displayed in the film itself.
April 24, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I think you rightly bring the focus back to the realistic message. However, the point I was attempting to get at is that even if you disagree with the message, there is a wealth of art there. I know that the ending, for me, represents one of the most important steps in the celluloid ritual. I have, on the other hand, watched the film with those who felt that the final message was trite, or whatnot. What I wanted to say is that regardless of your perspective towards the purpose of the film, or its overarching message, the visual and aural wealth of the entirety is too great to be overshadowed by the message. The message, in some ways, is not any more important than any of the other aspects of the film.
In the same way that the focus of Lit. Criticism has moved away from authorial intent (at least in academic criticism), I feel like it is important to take the film as it is experienced, while simultaneously attempting to recognize a context for the film.
I don’t think that we’re really disagreeing, I think it has more to do with the fact that in my experience of the film I felt seared by the visual and aural components of the film, auditory and visual after-images swam around me after the film ended. And, that feeling is related to, but not coterminous with, the intended message of the film.
I hope that that clarifies my intent a little bit, thanks for commenting!
August 20, 2008 at 1:31 am
[...] question. Either way, he is a highly interesting topic for a blog post (as you can see here, here, here and [...]