Cult Review
Senior Film Conservator

If you're the kind of person who likes to get lost in old, unedited footage from the middle of the last century, you’ll probably find this weirdly hypnotic. If you need a narrative, high-stakes drama, or anything resembling a story, you are going to be bored to tears within five minutes.
It’s not a movie in the way we usually talk about movies. There is no plot. There are no characters in the traditional sense, just people existing.
Father O'Reilly obviously had an eye for the small stuff. You see hands weaving baskets, feet walking across dirt paths, and faces that look like they’ve seen a lot of sun. It’s raw, and sometimes the camera work is a bit shaky, which I actually liked. It feels human.
There’s a moment where a group of children are just laughing at the camera, and it’s the most genuine thing in the whole thing. It’s not set up. You can tell they’ve never seen a camera like that before.
Sometimes I think about how different this is from something like The Gold Rush, where everything is built for a laugh or a reaction. Here, there’s no performance. Nobody is acting for the lens.
It reminded me a bit of the random, non-narrative energy you see in early oddities like Sasdjeli, though the subject matter couldn't be further apart. It’s just a record. A document of a place.
I found myself wondering what the priest was thinking while he cranked the camera. Was he trying to capture a soul or just document a habit? He doesn't tell us. He just leaves it there, flickering on the screen. 🌴
It’s not perfect. It skips. It jumps. The focus gets soft. But honestly, I think that’s why it works. It doesn't feel like a lecture from a professor of anthropology. It feels like someone just happened to be there with a camera, which is honestly the best way to watch history.
Year
1935
IMDb Rating
—

Editorial
Deciphering the legacy of transgressive cult cinema.
Community
Log in to comment.