Luis Bunuel at Columbia University 1941

When I first watched Land Without Bread, I didn't know what to expect. All I knew was that it was a pre-documentary documentary made by the same guy who did the eye-slicing movie with Dali. There was, of course a level of skepticism involved, after all you could make a movie about anything by narrating footage. I just didn't think Bunuel would have any reason to fake something like that. When I read his essay in PIFF, I thought he sounded genuine. He even recounted how the native Hurdanos even protested leaving. Unfortunately, Land without bread turned out to be less of a pre-documentary documentary and more of a pre-documentary mockumentary. I'll admit I was taken in by it at first. Realizing that Land Without Bread was staged was the most disillusioning stripping of an ethnographic film's integrity since I heard Nanook of the North was staged.
The film seems out of context because of how old it is. We expect mockumentaries now, but in 1932 I'm sure the public was less likely to catch the film's subtle give-aways. I'm not surprised Land Without Bread film was banned by the Spanish government. If you have a film purporting to be a travelogue that depicts a fabricated impoverished society in Spain, the film is almost certain to seem less like art and more like anti-Spain propaganda. I guess Spanish authorities were not fully aware that Bunuel was merely transcending genres even as he invented them. I suppose under-appreciation come with the territory of being ahead of your time.
In Bunuel's conclusion, he stated "although sufficient money is one of the most important conditions to make a film, a film can be made just the same when one loves the work." Given the context of the quote, I read it as either 1) his dedication to his craft, or 2) his commitment to the lie. As a filmmaker, perhaps it's a veiled critique of them being one in the same.