CHAPTERSEVEN

FROMTEXTTOIMAGEANDFILM:
TWOVISUALRECREATIONSOFLAZARILLODETORMES
BYFRANCISCODEGOYAANDFERNANDOFERNNGMEZ

ELIZABETHDRAYSON
UNIVERSITYOFCAMBRIDGE

The aim of this essay is to explore the aesthetic interaction between

literature,artandcinemathatoccursintherelationshipbetweenoneofthemost
famousbookswritteninCastilian,LaVidadeLazarillodeTormes,ydesusFortunas
yAdversidades,apaintingonasubjecttakenfromthatbookbyoneofSpainsmost
importantartistsandafilmbasedontheoriginaltextofLazarilloandadaptedby
anacclaimedSpanishcinematographer.Thehithertoanonymoussixteenthcentury
CastilianliterarytextLazarillodeTormes 1 ,aworkdescribedbyoneofitseditors,
Victor Garca de la Concha 2 , as the most revolutionary in Spanish literature,
enjoyed enormous popularity and became celebrated as the first example of the
Picaresquegenre,andtheforerunnerofthemodernSpanishnovel.Itslively,comic
narrative appeals to the eye of the imagination, yet in spite of its powerful

The question of the authorship of the text has been inconclusively debated. The recent
book by Mercedes Agull Cobo, 2010, claims that there is definitive evidence that the
authorwasDiegoHurtadodeMendoza.IammostgratefultoInmaculadaMedinaBarcofor
drawingmyattentiontothisnewpublication.
2
AlltextualquotationswillbetakenfromtheeditionofLazarillodeTormesbyVictorGarca
delaConcha.

MedinaBarco,Inmaculada(ed.):LiteratureandInterarts:CriticalEssays.Logroo:
UniversidaddeLaRioja,2013,pp.145162.

145

ELIZABETHDRAYSON

influenceuponpicaresquenarrativesinotherEuropeanlanguages,ithashadfew
reincarnationsinvisualform,acircumstancewhichrendersthetwovisualversions
underdiscussionhereevenmorefascinating.
These are, firstly, a visual interpretation of an episode from the story of
LazarillowhichappearsinanearlynineteenthcenturyoilpaintingbyFranciscode
GoyawiththetitleElLazarillodeTormes,andsecondly,theSpanishfilmLzarode
Tormes, released in 2001 and adapted by the awardwinning director and actor
FernandoFernnGmez.IwouldliketoconsiderthereasonswhyGoyachosethis
subjectforhispainting,andinparticularthechoiceofscenehedepicts,andalso
examine some of the artistic techniques he uses, which I will compare with the
creative aims of the Spanish film, which offers a high degree of historical
verisimilitude,yetdepartssubstantiallyfromtheoriginalliterarytext.Thepurpose
of this comparison will be to investigate the ways in which two different artistic
media from different time periods interact with the original written narrative,
leadingtoareflectionuponwhatthisinteractiontellsusaboutboththepainting
andthefilm,andperhapsmostimportantly,whatitrevealsabouttheliterarytext
itself.
Modern literary criticism and formal discussion of visual arts have largely
proceeded along separate paths, as John Dixon Hunt indicates in his preface to
Encounters, a book of essays on the interaction between art and literature (7).
However, the distinguished nineteenthcentury critic Walter Pater noted the
longevity of the debate over the validity of discussing one art form in relation to
another,whileeloquentlyexpressinghisownviewonthesubjectasfollows:

although each art has thus its own specific order of impressions, and an
untranslatable charm, while a first apprehension of the ultimate differences
oftheartsisthebeginningofaestheticcriticism,yetitisnoticeablethat,inits
specialmodeofhandlingitsgivenmaterial,eachartmaybeobservedtopass
intotheconditionofsomeotherart,bywhatGermancriticstermanAnders
streben a partial alienation from its own limitations, through which the
artsareable,notindeedtosupplytheplaceofeachother,butreciprocallyto
lendeachothernewforces.(45).

This perspective will inform the exploration of the three artistic media
underdiscussion.Inotherwords,Iwouldliketotouchuponwhattheuniqueness
ofthemediaofpaintingandoffilmrevealsabouttheliterarytext,andviceversa,
while also engaging with their interaction. As Dixon Hunt observes, encounters
betweenspecificliteraryandvisualworkscandisturbourcomfortableassumptions
about a period and can sharpen our reading of a text. They can recover fresh
insights into literary experience by considering the relationship of the verbal
146

FROMTEXTTOIMAGEANDFILM:TWOVISUALRECREATIONSOFLAZARILLODETORMESBYFRANCISCO

creation to the visions common to a whole society at a given point (10). In this
light,wemightexplorehowthesixteenthcenturyliteraryworkinquestionrelates
to the kind of visions common to the societies of early nineteenthcentury Spain
throughthevehicleofGoyaspainting,andtothoseoftwentyfirstcenturySpain
viathecinematicgenre.Inturn,wemayconsiderwhatthoseencountersbringto
ourreadingoftheoriginalwrittennarrative.
Theessaywillfocusuponthespecificepisodefromtheliteraryworkwhich
Goyainterpretsinhispainting,andwhichalsoappearsinthefilmversion,thereby
comparingthesamenarrativeeventacrossallthreemedia.TheoriginalLazarillode
Tormes is set in early sixteenthcentury Spain, amid the povertystricken lower
classes, where the young boy Lazarillo is living with his widowed mother and her
Moorishlover.Attheageofeight,hismothersendshimoutintotheworldtowork
foraseriesofcruel,corruptandimpoverishedmasters,beginningwiththeciego,
theblindmanwhomLazarilloguides(andfromwhichtheCastilianwordlazarillo
meaningblindmansboyorguideoriginates),andfromwhomhelearnsthehard
lessonsofsurvivalinthecorruptandhypocriticalsocietyinwhichhefindshimself.
Pulling himself up by his bootstraps, he finally achieves what he describes as la
cumbre de la buena fortuna (the height of good fortune) when he gains
employmentasatowncrierinToledo,oneofthehumblestofjobs,andisableto
buy himself secondhand clothes. His marriage to a local girl becomes
problematical, since she acts as housekeeper for the local archpriest, with whom
she conducts a passionate affair, while the adult Lzaro turns a blind eye. So
althoughLazarillohasrisenfromthedepthstosomeformofsocialrespectability,it
isattheinevitableexpenseofhisownmoralintegrity.
The text is written in the first person in the form of a letter to an
anonymous person whom the narrator addresses as Vuestra Merced, meaning
Your Honour or Your Worship, whose identity has been the subject of much
speculation, as has the author of the work. It is this apparently autobiographical
account of a likeable rogue which became the fundamental definition of the
Picaresquenovel,agenrewhichenjoyedgreatpopularityandspreadfromSpainto
England,FranceandGermany.LazarillodeTormes,ortogivetheworkitsfulltitle,
LaVidadeLazarillodeTormes,ydesusfortunasyadversidades,whichisaparody
of the titles of chivalric romances, has strong visual and performance qualities,
combiningslapstickandlinguistichumourindiscretenarrativeepisodeswhichare
theatrical by virtue of the prevalent use of dialogue and in the presence of
dramaticconflict,allcentringuponthethemeofappearanceandrealitywhichwas
soubiquitousinliteratureandartinEarlyModernSpain.Thetextisambiguousand
enigmaticinitscharacterizationanditspseudoautobiography;beneaththecomic
surfaceliesthebittersatireofsocialandreligiouscorruptionandhypocrisywhich
147

ELIZABETHDRAYSON

ledittobeputonthelistofprohibitedbooksbytheInquisition.In1573,theCrown
allowed circulation of a version which omitted Chapters 4 and 5 and assorted
paragraphsfromotherpartsofthebook,butacompleteversiondidnotappearin
Spain until the nineteenth century. Even this was a version of the manuscript
publishedinAntwerpthatcirculatedthroughoutEurope.
Iwouldliketosuggestthatitisthefundamentalthemeofinnerandouter
appearances, of ser y parecer, which informs the two visual interpretations to be
discussed. The episode which forms the centrepiece of this essay is one in which
Lazarillo,whoisdrivenmadwithhunger,contrivestodeceivehismastertheblind
man by stealing his longaniza, a long pork sausage, substituting a turnip for the
meatwhichtheciegoiscookingonthefire.Theblindmanbecomesfuriouswhen
hediscoversthetrick,seizestheboyandtriestosmellwhetherhehaseatenthe
sausagebypokinghislongnoseintoLazarillosmouth.ThetextfollowsinSpanish,
withanEnglishtranslation:

EstbamosenEscalona,villadelduquedella,enunmesn,ydiomeunpedazo
delonganizaqueleasase.Yaquelalonganizahabapringadoycomdoselas
pringadas,sacunmaraveddelabolsaymandquefueseporldevinoala
taberna.Psomeeldemonioelaparejodelantelosojos,elcual,comosuelen
decir,hacealladrn,yfuequehabacabeelfuegounnabopequeo,larguillo
y ruinoso, y tal que por no ser para la olla debi ser echado all. Y como al
presente nadie estuviese sino l y yo solos, como me vi con apetito goloso,
habindomepuestodentroelsabrosoolordelalonganiza,delcualsolamente
sabaquehabadegozar,nomirandoqumepodrasuceder,pospuestotodo
eltemorporcumplirconeldeseo,entantoqueelciegosacabadelabolsael
dinero,saqulalonganizaymuyprestometelsobredichonaboenelasador,
elcualmiamo,dndomeeldineroparaelvino,tomycomenzadarvueltas
al fuego, queriendo asar al que de ser cocido, por sus demritos haba
escapado.
Yo fui por el vino, con el cual no tard en despachar la longaniza, y cuando
vine, hall al pecador del ciego que tena entre dos rebanadas apretado el
nabo, al cual an no haba conoscido por no lo haber tentado con la mano.
Como tomase las rebanadas y mordiese en ellas pensando tambin llevar
partedelalonganiza,hallseenfroconelfronabo.Alterseydijo:
Quesesto,Lazarillo?
Laceradodem!dijeyo.Siqueriesamecharalgo?Yonovengode
traerelvino?Algunoestabaahy,porburlar,haraesto.
No, no, dijo l , que yo no he dejado el asador de la mano; no es
posible.
Yo torn a jurar y perjurar que estaba libre de aquel trueco y cambio; mas
pocomeaprovech,puesalasastuciasdelmalditociegonadaseleesconda.
Levantseyasimeporlacabezayllegseaolerme.Ycomodebisentirel
huelgo,ausodebuenpodenco,pormejorsatisfacersedelaverdadyconla
148

FROMTEXTTOIMAGEANDFILM:TWOVISUALRECREATIONSOFLAZARILLODETORMESBYFRANCISCO

granagonaquellevaba,asindomeconlasmanos,abramelabocamsdesu
derechoydesatentadamentemetalanariz,lacualltenaluengayafiladaya
aquellasazn,conelenojo,sehabaaumentadounpalmo;conelpicodela
cualmellegalagulilla.Yconesto,yconelgranmiedoquetena,yconla
brevedad del tiempo, la negra longaniza an no haba hecho asiento en el
estmago,ylomsprincipal,coneldestientodelacumplidsimanariz,medio
cuasiahogndome,todasestascosassejuntaronyfueroncausaqueelhecho
ygolosinasemanifestaseylosuyofuesevueltoasudueo.Demaneraque,
antes que elmal ciego sacase de mi boca su trompa, tal alteracin sinti mi
estmago,queledioconelhurtoenella;desuertequesunarizylanegramal
maxcadalonganizaauntiemposalierondemiboca.
Oh gran Dios, quin estuviera aquella hora sepultado, que muerto ya lo
estaba! Fue tal el coraje del perverso ciego, que, si al ruido no acudieran,
pienso que no me dejara con la vida. Sacronme de entre sus manos,
dejndoselas llenas de aquellos pocos cabellos que tena, araada la cara y
rascuado el pescuezo y la garganta. Y esto bien lo meresca, pues por su
maldad me venan tantas persecuciones. (La Vida de Lazarillo de Tormes,
1987,1214).

(WewereinEscalona,atowninthatdukedom,ataninn,andtheblindman
gavemeapieceoflongporksausagetoroastforhim.Whenthesausagehad
spatteredoutsomegreasyjuices,whichheateonapieceofbread,hetooka
smallcoinoutofhisbagandsentmetothetavernforsomewine.Thedevil
gave me the means that makes the thief, as they say. Because it happened
that a small, long, misshapen turnip lay beside the fire, which had been
throwntherebecauseitwasnotgoodenoughtogointhepot.
And since at that moment only the blind man and I were there, and I was
starving hungry because I had scented the delicious smell of the sausage,
which I knew was all I was likely to enjoy of it, and not thinking what might
befallme,Iputallfearasidetofulfilmydesire.Assoonastheblindmantook
the money out of his bag, I snatched the sausage and in a trice I put the
aforesaid turnip on the roasting dish in its place. My master gave me the
money,tooktheroastingdishandstartedtoturntheturnipoverthefireand
cookwhathadnotbeendeemedfitforthepotduetoitsshortcomings.
Iwentforthewine,andonthewayIsoondespatchedthesausage.WhenI
gotback,Ifoundthesinfuloldblindmanwiththeturnipgraspedbetweentwo
slicesofbread,butwithoutknowingit,forhehadntyettoucheditwithhis
hands.Ashepickedupthebreadandbitintoit,imagininghewouldbiteoffa
pieceofsausageaswell,hecameuphardagainstthecoldturnip.Hegotangry
andsaid:
Whatisthis,Lazarillo?
Oh,howwretchedIam!Isaid,Soyouwanttoblamemeforthis?HaventI
justbeentogetthewine?Someonemusthavebeenhereanddonethisfora
trick.
No, no,he said, Ive had the roastingdish in myhand all the time. Its not
possible.

149

ELIZABETHDRAYSON

IkeptswearingoverandoverthatIwasnotthetricksterwhohadexchanged
the turnip for the sausage, but little good it did me, as nothing was hidden
fromthecunningmindofthatcursedoldblindman.Hegotupandseizedme
bytheheadandleantclosertosmellme.Andlikeagoodhound,hetriedto
sniff mybreath toascertainthe truth better. I was inagonybecausehe had
hold of me with his hands, yet he opened my mouth wider than it could
comfortably go, and illadvisedly stuck in his nose, which was long and
pointed,andatthatmoment,ithadgrownsixincheswithrage,sothatthetip
reachedmygullet.
And what with that and my great fear, and the short time that had elapsed
sinceIdeatenit,theblackenedsausagehadnotsettledinmystomach.The
worstthingwasthathisamplenosewashalfchokingme,andallthesethings
conspired and caused both the truth and the tasty morsel to manifest
themselves.Itwasreturnedtoitsrightfulowner,andwhathappenedwasthat
beforetheeviloldmantookhissnoutoutofmymouth,mystomachturned
up,andthestolengoodsroseupagainsthim,sothathisnoseandtheblack
poorlychewedsausageflewoutofmymouthatthesametime.
OhdearLord!Whoatthattimewouldnotratherhavebeenburied,forIwas
already dead! Such was the rage of the perverse blind man that if people
hadnt come running to see what the commotion was, I think I would have
beenagonner.Theydraggedmefromhisclutches,leavinghimwithhandfuls
ofthefewlocksofhairIhad.Myfacewasscratchedandsoweremyneckand
throat,whichdeservedit,sincetheirevildoingcausedmesuchpersecution.)

ThiscomicsceneisoneofseveralinwhichLazarilloshowsbothhiscapacity
toresistthecrueltreatmentofhismaster,andalsohisclevernessinadaptinghis
behaviourinordertosurvive.Thevocabularyofhungerprevailsinthefirstpartof
thebook,andisattheheartofLazarillosfightforsurvival.Thisparticularepisode
demonstrates the tension between the boys subjection, in this case to the blind
man,andingeneralterms,tothesocietyhelivesin,andhisconstantstruggleto
escapethatsubjectionandfightforhisownindependence.Ithasstrongtheatrical
qualitiesinitswittydialogueandinthecollusionofthereaderwithLazarilloinhis
deception.Itplaysupontheideaofappearanceandrealitytheblindmanthinks
hehasasausageinhisbread,whenitisreallyaturnip,andLazarillothinkshehas
playedhistricksuccessfully,onlytobepunishedcruellyandlosethebenefitofthe
sausageaswell!.
ItisthisscenewhichGoyatakesasthesubjectofhispaintingElLazarillode
Tormes,whichwaslistedinhiscollectionin1812andprobablypaintedpriortothis
date. It is an oil painting on canvas measuring 0.80 x 0.65m, and is now in the
Coleccin Araoz, belonging to the widow of the literary critic and writer Gregorio
Maran, in Madrid. The painting has an intriguing equivocalness, since among
others, Maran, the original owner, believed it represented popular medical
150

FROMTEXTTOIMAGEANDFILM:TWOVISUALRECREATIONSOFLAZARILLODETORMESBYFRANCISCO

practice. The scene depicted was perceived to show an attempt to cure el

garrotillo,awordusuallymeaningcroup,butalsohavingthepossiblemeaningof
diptheria. The only evidence for this interpretation lay in the fact that Goyas
physician, Dr Arrieta, was interested in diptheria (1964, 303) combined with an
awareness of many desperate attempts to help children dying of the slow
asphyxiationcausedbythedisease,bytryingtofreetherespiratorytractfromits
constricting membranes. However, cataloguing information has unequivocally
identifiedthetitleofthepaintingasElLazarillodeTormes,listedasno.25onthe
inventoryofGoyasgoodsin1812.

Figure1.ElLazarillodeTormesbyFranciscodeGoya.

Thisworkhasbeenvirtuallyignoredbyarthistorians,withtheexceptionof
theEnglishHispanistNigelGlendinning,whoreferstoitbrieflyinanarticleinThe
Listenerin1964.Inrelationtoitswrittensource,henotesthatGoyaswillingness
toturntoliteratureforhisimagesrenderedaccessibilitymoredifficultfortheless
intellectualpublicofhistimeandalsoformodernornonSpanishaudiences(302).
Inthiscase,theunpleasantlookingmanwhocanbeseenholdingaboybetween
his knees, while he forces open his mouth to poke his fingers inside is not a
benevolentdoctor,buttheblindbeggar,whoselongnoseinthisimageisnecessary
tothestory,sincefinallyitcausesLazarillotobringupthestolensausage.
Three questions arise from a more detailed examination of the painting.
Firstly,whatdrewGoyatothissubject?Secondly,whatdoesitrevealabouthisown
preoccupationsandthoseofhistime?Andthirdly,whatlightdoesitsheduponthe
literarywork?Asregardsthesubject,thedepictionofboysandyoungpcaroswith
151

ELIZABETHDRAYSON

torn clothing who live in the street and eat whatever they can steal appear in the
seriesofgenrepaintingsbyMurillodatedbetween1665and1675,anditisknown
thatthepoetQuintana,whocorrespondedwithGoya,likenedaspectsofhisworkto
thoseoftheearlierpainter.InthepicturebyMurilloinFigure2,dated1650,these
boys eating stolen melon and grapes present a snapshot in the life of the ragged
street urchins of povertystricken Seville after the 1649 plague. Perhaps Goya had
these works in mind in considering his subject, whose drab colours and thematic
focus on assuaging hunger are similar to Goyas painting of Lazarillo; even the
haircutsandbarechestsoftheboysmirrorthelaterwork.Goyaschoiceofsubject
mayalsoindicatethecontemporarypopularityorcurrencyofthetextatthestartof
thenineteenthcentury,whichislikelytohaveenjoyedrenewedattentionsincethe
unexpurgated version was newly available in Spanish at this time. In choosing this
literary source of inspiration, the artist is mapping the fictional narrative onto an
everyday scene of lowclass life. The art historian John Moffitt notes that Goya
returned to that native tradition which considers painting as a vehicle for moral
instruction rather art for arts sake, and reiterates Goyas attachment to social
commentary,includinganimplicitproletarianselfidentification(178).
The technical aspects of the picture suggest a number of the artists
preoccupations, both as regards style and in terms of what he wished to convey. In
ordertoilluminatetheseaspectsmoreclearly,itishelpfultocompareanotherpainting
ofthissubject,ElLazarillodeTormesbyLuisSantamaraPizarro,paintedabout1887.

Figure2.NioscomiendomelnyuvasbyMurillo.

152

FROMTEXTTOIMAGEANDFILM:TWOVISUALRECREATIONSOFLAZARILLODETORMESBYFRANCISCO

Figure3.ElLazarillodeTormesbyLuisSantamaraPizarro.

Santamara Pizarro studied at the Escuela Especial de Pintura, Escultura y

Grabado in Madrid, and took part in National Fine Art exhibitions between 1884
and 1912. He presented El Lazarillo de Tormes in 1887, and it is his best known
work,anoilpaintingoncanvasmeasuring160x200cm,nowheldintheMuseode
Almera.Itdoesnotdepictthesameepisode,butinsteadshowswithgreatrealism
thesceneinwhichLazarillostealssomeoftheblindmanswineusingastraw.Itis
aninteriorscene,indicatedbysomestepsleadingtoadoor,whichfocusesonthe
two protagonists in the foreground. These two figures encapsulate the narrative
impactofthepicture,whichispaintedinsoberneutralcolours.Thepresentationof
detailedobservationisaccomplished,thoughtheworklacksemotionalforce.Ifwe
then compare Goyas painting, the contrast is striking. The latters spatial
conception is relatively simple, with great prominence given to the black
background. Gudiol notes the outlining in black of the figure of the man is a
methodGoyaintroducedinTheFlagellantsandinTheBurialoftheSardine(155).
The two figures are vividly, even luridly, lit in the foreground, and appear to
emergefromagreatdarkareaonlybrokenupbythevibrantredofthefireonthe
right, where the blind man has been attempting to cook his sausage. Its flames
suggest the hell that Lazarillo finds himself in. John Moffitt describes certain
stylistic traits of Goya which he believes were derived from the medium of
weaving, a technique with which Goya was very familiar, having drawn many
cartoonsfortapestriesintheearlierpartofhiscareer.Inthispaintingwecansee
schematised colour areas, simple silhouettes in chiaroscuro and a narrative focus
which suppresses irrelevant details, all of which were characteristic of tapestry
153

ELIZABETHDRAYSON

design(Moffitt182).Theeffectofthesetraitsinthispaintingistoemphasizethe
violenceofthescene,whichrepresentsthesetwofiguresasalmostphysicallythe
samebeing,asifLazarilloisactuallygrowingoutoftheblindman,sotightlyishe
beingsubjectedbyhismasterskneeswhilebeinggraspedfirmlybytheneck.This
physicalconnectednesssuggeststhemutualdependencyoftheirrelationshipthe
ciego cannot see to walk without his guide, and Lazarillo needs the blind man to
provide what food and shelter there is but its antagonistic nature is powerfully
conveyed by Lazarillos halfcomic expression of fear, with the whites of his eyes
showingashetriestolookattheoldman,whoseowneyesremainironicallyclosed
and sightless. Goyas use of earthen colours and warm underpainting underlines
thedrabnessandpovertyoflifeatthissociallevel,whiletheinherentdramaofthe
relationshipbetweenthetwoprotagonistsisconveyedbythedramaticcontrastof
lightandshade.Wehaveastrongsenseofthepowerandauthoritywieldedbythe
man over the boy, illustrating a more general point made by Moffitt that Goyas
portraitsshowanewemphasisonpsychologyratherthanonphysiology(184).
In an article on modern art, David Sylvester points out the frequent and
significantdepictionofthemouthinGoyasworks:

ThemouthplaysaroleinGoyasartmoreprominentthaninthatofanyother
major artist. Mouths leer, grin, gape, gasp, moan, shriek, belch. A hanged
mansmouthliesopenandawomanreachesuptofilchhisteeth.Grownmen
stickfingersintheirmouthslikesuckinginfants.(1).

Sylvester remarks on Goyas depiction of Saturn devouring his children, and

suggeststhatthepaintingofLazarilloisitscomiccounterpart.Whilethisisdebateable,
hisclaimthatmouthsarefocalpointsinmanyscenesotherthanthosedepictingoral
aggressionorsymbolisingoralsexualityholdstrueforthispictureLazarillosmouth
drawstheeyeatoncetothecentreoftheimage,andconstitutesavisualreference
tothethematicideaofhunger,whichinthisepisodeistheboyssolemotivation
andhisdownfall.SylvesteralsoremarksonGoyasfiguresasloomingshapes,often
menacing, often in cloak or cowl, as is the blind beggar in this scene. All that is
visible of him are his face with its blind eyes, and his hands and knees, the
instruments of violence towards his guide. All in all it has the quality of a
nightmare, which creates an interesting conflict with its technical perfection and
vitality.
So in this picture, in which the comic and the fearful form a grotesque
image, Goya may have been alluding to the unpleasant reality of life around him
during the Spanish War of Independence against the French invaders which took
placebetween1808and1812.Atthistimepeoplesufferedgreatcruelty,violence
154

FROMTEXTTOIMAGEANDFILM:TWOVISUALRECREATIONSOFLAZARILLODETORMESBYFRANCISCO

and poverty, which the artist depicted in his series of paintings known as Los
Caprichos.Someoftheattentiontodetailedrealismshowninthoseworksisalso
conveyedhere.Wecanlookatthispaintingwithoutknowingitstitle,orthenames
of its protagonists, and receive an impression of fear and violence. However, its
titleprovescrucialtoourfullerunderstanding.MysuggestionisthatGoyawanted
to emphasize the close links between art, literature and reality in creating this
imagetakenfromaspecificandpopularwork,whichmightalsorepresentanalbeit
unpalatable aspect of daily life. He has perceived the enigmatic nature of the
literary work, and created the same in his painting. Nigel Glendinning lights upon
thepresenceofmysteryanddivergentmeaninginGoyaswork:

Goya is indeed the tongue of war. He speaks of other sources of human

suffering too, and their causes in human behaviour, social and political
attitudesandthenatureofthings.Goyaisalsothetongueofbeautyandjoy.
Thereislaughteraswellasangerinhiswork;hopeanddespair.Welistento
thetongue,trytointerpretit.Wesayhowlineorcolourortextureseemto
be.Yetstillintheend,asWittgensteinsaid:Whateverweseecouldbeother
than it is. Whatever we can describe at all could be other than it is. (1977,
254).

Goyahitontheessenceofthiswrittentextinhisportrayalofitslaughter,
its anger and its equivocalness in this still image of the satirical black humour of
LazarillodeTormes.
Thesecondvisualrecreationoftheliterarytexttobediscussedisthe2001
SpanishfilmLzarodeTormes,ahighlyacclaimedproductionwhichwontwoGoya
awards, onefor the Best Script Adaptation, carried out by the eminent actor and
director Fernando Fernn Gmez, and one for Best Costume Design. Jos Luis
Garca Snchez was the director, and the film was produced by Andrs Vicente
Gmez.ThefamousSpanishactorRafaellvarez,ElBrujo,playsLzaro,arolehe
hadperformedmanytimesonthestageasasoloact.Inaveryfavourablereviewin
the arts supplement to the national newspaper El Pas (21 Jan 2001) ngel
FernndezSantos alights upon certain aspects of the film which are directly
relevanttothisdiscussion.HespeaksofthewrittentextofLazarillodeTormesas
beingmorethanjustabookbecauseitcombinesanideaoflifewhichhasuniversal
meaning with elements which would be unimaginable outside the Spain in which
they are rooted. He identifies the painterly quality of the visual spectacle in the
film,describingitasunlienzotenebristapobladopordelicadosfogonazosdeluz
negra. Se ven en ella ecos de Velzquez, de Zurbarn (a tenebrist canvas full of
delicate flashes of black or dark light. One can see echoes of Velzquez, of
155

ELIZABETHDRAYSON

Zurbarn). Although there is no reference to Goya, this is an astute comment on

some scenes whose strong narrative content is reinforced by chiaroscuro lighting
effects,asshowninFigure4.

Figure4.Chiaroscurolightingeffects,LzarodeTormes,2001.

FernndezSantosalsoemphasizesthepotentialofthetexttooffermany
differentreadings.Hestates:Hay[]tantosLazarilloscomolecturasdel(There
areasmanyLazarillosastherearereadingsofit).Hedevelopsthisideafurther:

YbajolapieldelLzaroconquehanennoblecidoelcineespaolunpuado
de ingenios en estado de gracia no late una sola lectura, sino varias que
convergen y crean en la pantalla esa inconfundible sensacin de densa
ligerezaquebrotadelcinecomplejocuandoesresueltoconsencillez.

(AndbeneaththesurfaceoftheLzarowithwhichasmallgroupofinspired
mindshasennobledSpanishcinemathereisnotasinglereading,butvarious
readings which converge and create on the screen that unmistakeable
sensationoffrivolitycombinedwithrealunderlyingsubstancecharacteristic
ofcomplexcinemawhenitispresentedwithsimplicity.)

156

FROMTEXTTOIMAGEANDFILM:TWOVISUALRECREATIONSOFLAZARILLODETORMESBYFRANCISCO

This capacity of the text to invite different interpretations underpins the

narrative structure of the film, as the very title indicates. The use of the name
Lzaro rather than Lazarillo at once alerts the viewer familiar with the original to
thefactthatthestoryistobepresentedfromtheperspectiveofthegrownman,
whoselively,charismaticpersonalityweavestogetherpastandpresentadventures
from a mature vantage point, and links the narrative sequences. In passing, it is
interestingtonotethatthetwopreviousfilmsmadeonthesamesubject,a1925
versionnowlost,andthe1959/60filmdirectedbyCsarArdavn,bothusethetitle
El Lazarillo de Tormes. However, the written text begins in the form of a letter
writteninmaturitytoanunknownauthorityfigure,andtheliterarynarrativethen
followsthechronologicalsequenceofLazarilloslifeasayoungboy.Inthecaseof
the film, the director plays with this chronological sequence to rework the plot
structure.
Themediumoffilmlendsitselftothiskindofrestructuring,thepurposeof
whichinthiscaseistoallowthenarrativetofocusuponthelodefaldas,thelove
trianglebetweenLzaro,hiswifeandthesplendidlycharacterizedarchpriest,who
has no defining features apart from his lust in the written story, but who is
splendidlydrawninthefilmasagenial,bonvivanttype,whogivesLzaroajob
sellingwinefromthearchpriestsownvineyard,performshispriestlydutieswhen
requiredanddevoteshimselftogoodfood,wineandLzaroswifetherestofthe
time.TheirtriangularrelationshipenablesLzarotohavethedignityofawifeand
homeofhisown,aswellasgainfulemployment,providedheturnsablindeyeto
theadulterousaffairbeingcarriedonunderhisnose.
ThestrongperformancedimensionoftheoriginalLazarilloisenhancedby
cinematic techniques, which amplify the effects of both dialogue and dramatic
monologue, of humour and of the dramatic tensions and conflict between
characters.Thesedimensionsandthereconfiguringofthechronologicalsequence
fundamental to Lzaros storytelling, which is at the heart of this film, are
exemplified in the episode in which he narrates the story of his relationship with
theblindbeggar,includingthefamousepisodewiththesausage.Thesesequences
are beautifully constructed using a series of contrasts and ironies, framed by the
figureofLzaro,whoisdoingwhatheknowsbest,whichistoputonashow,toact
a part. He is cast in the mould of the medieval juglar or minstrel, who tells
entertaining stories for a living. This lends Lzaro himself an archetypal, timeless
dimension which places him firmly within an ancient Spanish folkloric and oral
tradition. While this role is portrayed through the ubiquitous art form of the 21st
century, the film, the juxtaposition of content and form is not uncomfortable,
instead reinforcing both the medieval and the modern as they come together to
createanewvision.Itisinterestingtonoteinthisregardtheimportancethatearly
157

ELIZABETHDRAYSON

filmtheoristssuchasEisensteinandBalzsplaceduponthelinksbetweencinema
and medieval art, conceiving of the medium of film as a medieval medium par
excellence, particularly in the capacity of both media to show outer likeness and
inneressencetoperfection. 3
AsLzaroentertainsthescruffyboysonthestreetwithhistale,anironic
contrastbecomesapparentbetweenhisaffectionate,livelyrelationshipwiththem
inthepresent,andtheflashbacksportrayinghimasayoungboyofthesameageas
thoselistening,sentoutintotheworldagedeightnevertoseehismotheragain,
andcruellytreatedbyhisfirstmaster.Thesceneinwhichheleaveshismotherto
workasaguidefortheblindmanisfilmedinblackandwhite,marking,tomymind,
not only the distant past, but also the point at which his childhood ends and he
steps into an uncomfortable reality. The further irony of the boy and blind man
walking hand in hand into the huge orange sunset as if they are characters in a
fairytalesharpensthecrueltyandrealismofthefollowingepisode,inwhichtheold
manbangstheboysheadagainstthestonebullonthebridgeoutsideSalamanca.

Figure5.Lazarilloleaveshismother.

Foramoredetaileddiscussionofthisinterestingtheoreticalview,seeBettinaBildhauer,
2009,4059.
158

FROMTEXTTOIMAGEANDFILM:TWOVISUALRECREATIONSOFLAZARILLODETORMESBYFRANCISCO

ThisisthepointinbothbookandfilmatwhichLazarilloawakensfromhis
simplezaashecallsit,andbeginstoemploythecunningandquickwittednessof
whatwouldbecomeknownasthepcaro,inordertosurvive.
ThisbringsustotheepisodeinwhichLazarillostealsthesausage,whichis
the first in this film to illustrate the boys opportunism and quick intelligence,
heightenedbyhisperpetualhunger.Themovingimagedrawsoutcertainqualities
which are not apparent in Goyas version, nor even in the original, although the
lighting creates a similar chiaroscuro effect to that in the painting. It focuses the
viewers attention upon the art of deception with great humour in the written
text,theturnipwhichtheboysubstitutesforthesausageisnotgoodenougheven
for the pot, but its shape is not described. In the film, the visual similarity in size
and shape with the sausage provides an opportunity for the starving boy, who
instantlyseeshowhecanstealhimselfameal.Thesubsequentcrueltyoftheblind
manisperhapsbornofhisvulnerabilitytodeception,whichhastaughthimtobe
alerttoeverykindoftrickery,andtouseithimself.

Figure6.Theblindmanseekshissausage.

Figure 6 captures the moment when the blind man grabs Lazarillo and
yankshismouthopentoseewhetherhehaseatenthelonganizasausage.Thestill
image bears a strong resemblance to the depiction of the same scene in Goyas

159

ELIZABETHDRAYSON

painting; both images suggest a physical interdependency between the two

protagonists, and the pose is the same, although in the case of the film shot,
Lazarilloisnotthedirectfocusoftheviewerasheistotheleft,whileheistothe
right and in the foreground of the oil painting. Drab brown colours are given a
warmglowinthefilmstill,whichhasnothingoftheluridnessofGoyasimage;it
hastheeffectofsofteningandidealizingthescene,instarkcontrastwiththeharsh
violence suggested by Goya. The amusement of this scene in the movie hinges
uponthetensionbetweenthetwotricksters,whopittheirwitsagainsteachother
overthelowlylonganiza,whichtakesonvitalyetdisturbingimportanceinthefight
againsthungerandforsurvival.Finallythenarrationoftheepisodereturnstothe
presentasLzaromimestheendofthestorytohisaudienceofstreeturchins.
In their vivid flashbacks and dynamic performativity, these sequences
capture the essence of how the cinematic form transforms the source text by
reconstructingthetemporalstructureandemphasizingitsdramaticqualitiesinthe
dualperformancesofmanandboy,ofLzaroand Lazarillo.Twokeymotifs,food
andwine,aresignificanthere,andaredevelopedintherestofthefilminakindof
counterpoint in which lack of food and the resultant clawing hunger that Lzaro
describesatthebeginningareasourceofconsiderablesuffering,whilewine,which
the blind man demands, later becomes a source of profit and enjoyment when
Lzaro earns his living as a wine seller for the archpriest. The conventional
associationofwinewithreligiouscommunionistransformedintoakindofsecular
communion,asitbringsthethreeprotagonistsofthelovetriangletogether,aswell
asthoseofthelocalcommunitywhodrinkattheinn.
Inconclusion,Iwishtoreturn tothequestionsposedat the beginningof
thisessay.WhatdoestherecreationoftheliterarytextofLazarillodeTormestell
us, firstly, about Goyas painting, and secondly, about Fernando Fernn Gmezs
adaptationforthefilm?Inthefirstcase,itprovidesevidenceofGoyasfamiliarity
withworksofliterature,andofhisinterestinusingthemassuitablesubjects,an
aspect of his artistic inspiration which is virtually overlooked. This is further
confirmed by his predilection for the theme of the celestina or bawd which
appearsinapairofpaintingsalmostcontemporarywiththeoneofLazarillo,andin
all likelihood inspired by the famous literary work La Celestina by Fernando de
Rojasdatingfromabout1500.Inaddition,inthestrugglebetweenLazarilloandthe
blindmaninGoyasimage,weseeafightbetweenyouthandagewhichgivesthe
workwhatthearthistorianJosGudioldescribesasakindofobsessivepowerinits
expressionoftherealityofeverydayhumandrama.Itseemsunquestionablethat
thepainterwasdeeplyaffectedbythehorrorsoftheWarofIndependence;inthis
work the closeness in Goyas mind of the fictional and the real reveals the
relevanceofLazarillosworldfortheartistsowntime.
160

FROMTEXTTOIMAGEANDFILM:TWOVISUALRECREATIONSOFLAZARILLODETORMESBYFRANCISCO

In the film version, the subjective interpretation of both the director and
the adaptor of the script is crucial, as are the individual interpretations of the
actors.Inthiscaseawholevisuallystunningworldiscreatedand conceivedwith
greathistoricalverisimilitudeintermsofcostume,set,lightingeffectsandspecially
composedmusic.Atthesametime,themediumoffilmallowsthereconstruction
ofchronologyandofplot;itpermitsthecomplexchoppingandinterlayeringofthe
narrativetoproduceanaffectionateandsomewhatidealizedversionoftheoriginal
which concentrates upon the humorous side of things, softens the narrative and
removesitshereticalfeel.TheproducerAndrsVicenteGmezdescribeshisfilmas
un chiaroscuro barroco de horror y risa (a Baroque chiaroscuro of horror and
laughter), while acknowledging that the storyline offers what he calls a very
contemporaryandauthenticexperiencefortheviewer.Hedoesnotelaborateon
thisremark,thoughinpartitmustrelatetothewonderfulverisimilitudeoftheset
designandcostumes.Undoubtedlythestoryofthepoorboywhomakeshiswayin
acruelworld,incombinationwiththecomiclovetrianglewithitsdarkersideare
plotlineswecanrelatetoaseasilyinthe21stcenturyasinthesixteenth.
Sowhatdothesetworeinterpretationsindifferentmediarevealaboutthe
literary text itself, and why is this important? We can say that Goyas painting
highlights the power of literature to convey social realism; it also shows the
essentialambiguityofmeaningattheheartofthewrittenwork,inwhichsituations
andpeopleseemtobeonethingontheoutsidewhiletheinnerrealityisdifferent.
Thisisinawayreflectedintheambiguousnessofthesubjectofthepainting,which
juxtaposesthecomicallyfearfulLazarilloandthecruel,domineeringblindbeggar,
youthandage,andreinforcesthosedualismsinthewrittentextwhichcreatemuch
ofitsvividintensityanddrama.
The cinematic version of the story does something different again. Its
benigngoodhumourbringsthecruel,penetratingsatireoftheliteraryworkmore
sharply into focus for us, while still underlining the multivalency of the original,
whoseenigmaticqualitieslendthemselvestovaryingreadingsandinterpretations.
Whydo theseconclusionsmatter?Intheworksunderdiscussion,we can
seeonesubjectgivenlifeinthreedifferentartisticmedia,whichbringtheconcerns
ofLazarillostime,earlysixteenthcenturySpain,intodialoguewiththelatereraof
the Spanish War of Independence in the early nineteenthcentury, and also with
our own times, in a manner which enhances our understanding of each. The
receptionofLazarillodeTormesviathemediaofartandcinemaisevidenceofthe
enduringappealofaliterarymasterpiece,whichhasinspirednewcreativevisions
ofcontemporaryrelevance.Itshowshowveryfruitfultheinteractionofliterature
withpaintingandfilmcanbe.

161

ELIZABETHDRAYSON

References
Primary
GarcadelaConcha,Vctor(ed.).LaVidadeLazarillodeTormes,ydesusFortunasy
Adversidades.Madrid:EspasaCalpe,1987.Print.
Goya,Francisco.ElLazarillodeTormes.Before1812.ColeccinAraoz,Madrid.
LzarodeTormes(DVDvdeo),2001,MangaFilms,Madrid.

Secondary
Agull Cobo, Mercedes. A vueltas con el autor del Lazarillo. Madrid: Calambur,
2010.(BibliotecaLitterae,21).Print.
Bildauer,BettinaandBernau,Anke(eds.).Medievalfilm.Manchester:Manchester
UniversityPress,2009.Print.
Dixon Hunt, John (ed.). Encounters: Essays on Literature and the Visual Arts.
London:StudioVista,1971.Print.
FernndezSantos,ngel.Gozosaluznegra.ElEspectador,suplementodeElPas,
21January2001.Web.27April2010.
Glendinning,Nigel.GoyasImagination.TheListener,20February1964:301303.
Print.
. Goya and his Critics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1977.
Print.
Gudiol, Jos. Goya, 17461828: Biography, Analytical Study and Catalogue of his
Paintings.Trans.KennethLyons.Barcelona:Polgrafa,1971.Print.
Moffitt,John.TheArtsinSpain.London:ThamesandHudson,1999.Print.
Murillo,Bartolom.Nioscomiendomelnyuvas.1650.AltePinakotehk,Munich.
Web.3January2011.
Pater, Walter. Essays on Literature and Art. Ed. Jennifer Uglow. London: Dent,
1973.Print.
SantamaraPizarro,Luis.ElLazarillodeTormes.c.1897.MuseodeAlmera.
Sylvester, David. About Modern Art: critical essays 19482000. London: Pimlico,
2002.Web.31March2010.

162