Looking back

Taking a look back at the class, I can enjoyed it very much. There were some movies that I would rather not have seen, but in general, it really gave me a pretty big scope on mexican cinema, and more importantly, it got me triggered on learning more about stereotypes of latin american people on film. I had never really thought about the social implications these have, until reading more about it. Stereotypes really reflect an inner image that needs to be stripped down further. I think I'm going to tal about each movie and how I liked it or not:
aguila o sol - it was the first cantinflas movie I saw, and it was a bizarre movie because most of the narrative seemed to be in the head, and then the plot points suddenly come together in the end. I didn't dislike it, but my grandmother is a cantinflas fan and she seems to like other movies more.
Los olvidados - I don't know if this is a Mexican film per se, it was directed by a spanish and even if he lived in Mexico many years, he used his film to portray the negative aspects of Mexico in a social context, alienating what makes Mexico good, it was too one-sided but I liked it either way.
Mecanica Nacional - I really didn't like this movie. It portrayed family and relationship life in Mexico pretty well, with a focus on the lower class, but the narrative was slow and the movie itself was really slow as well. There was no real conflict, and weirdly it is one of the movie that focuses more on stereotypes (the latin lover, the dark lady, the obnoxious grandmother etc...)
El cajellon de los milagros - this was the the film I liked the best in class. I loved it. The juxtaposition of narratives is interesting, the tragic ending makes it worth watching, there are no stereotypes because most of the characters are 3 dimensional, even if you think theyre one-dimensional (a stereotype, like the germans in three amigos) the director showed us a different facet of the characters to make us feel sorry and like them at the same time.
Batalla en el cielo - Had it's interesting parts, but it could have been done into a 30 minute movie and had the same effects. Scenes were long and nothing happened. If I want to watch nice photography I'll go to an art gallery.
Que viva Mexico - This is the movie I remember the least, I don't know why. It portrayed Mexico from a very touristy perspective, almost too touristy. It reminded me of "Come to the jungle" commercials. The last segment was interesting because it played with what a documentary was trying to achieve, but also played on stereotypes.
Touch of evil - After watching this film twice, I really think it is overated. Just because it became a cult classic doesn't mean its good. Its confusing at many parts and I think I'm just saying this because Charlton Heston was a horrible Mexican, so i'm going to stop.
The wild bunch - This was probably the American film that showed stereotypes as reality the most. The characters were very well fleshed though, these are evil men that kill and rob but you still like them. The ending is amazing as well. They had to die, but more importantly, they knew they could do nothing about it. Great ending.
Three amigos - I know professor Murray thinks this is a masterpiece, but I still have the idea that this movie does not achieve what it was trying to do (make fun of stereotypes and create new versions of them in our mind) because of the target audience. 12 year old are not going to watch this movie and think: "oh that was a parodical representation of Mexico meant to make us think about what we see in cinema". We will, they won't. Either way it was funny.
Traffic - Interesting portrayal of Mexico, also the only hero is Mexican. Finally a movie that doesn't dwell on stereotypes, but presents reality in the drug world as it is: tragic yet necessary.

Traffic

I thought this was a really good film. It was completely biased towards the Americans, but it was still a good film nevertheless. The reason I'm saying it was biased towards the Americans is because the Mexican government and military seem to be corrupt up to the last person, and the only person that was not corrupt (Javier) is the one that actually gets to succeed, working for the US. It also raises the issue of the war on drugs being both on the street and on the home, its a war that needs to be fought on both sides. It was interesting to see judge Wakefield have to decide between his family and his country. I think the message of this film is that we first need to start with the war on drugs on an every day level and then move to the whole country. Teenagers need to be educated more and then the levels of demand can lower. That was actually a way that Mexico was portrayed negatively, I don't know if their stand on demand is that one ("Drug addicts overdose, and then they die. One less to care about) but it was viewed under a very negative light. It is something horrible to say, but the US does not do anything to help them.
In relation to the portrayal of Mexico, we don't get to see much of Mexico outside the law part, we see the criminals and the military, and even they work together to send drugs to the US. I think this gives a really negative message about Mexican law enforcement: no one in Mexico cares about the US, they just want to send gangs through. I think this is specially the mentality of the US right now, Obama has cut off free truck trade, not allowing as many trucks to pass the Mexican-US border. This is of couse as a measure to cut the amount of drugs that pass the border. Mexico is infuriated because this violates NAFTA and the peso has devalued, but the power that these drug lords have is incredible. El Chapo (Sinaloa cartel)recently made it to the forbes billionaire list, the Tijuana Cartel made 200 million dollars in 2000. I think that recently has been the first time the US has actually done something about Mexican cartels that have been increasing in size over the last 5 years. It is also the first time the secretary of state works with someone in the government, as we saw in the film, the Texan intelligence agency has no contact with the Mexican side.
There is a weird humanization of Mexicans though. They all seem to be connected to the world of illegal drugs, and yet they are humanized as to say that their economy depends on it. They all live from the profits, it is all connected in the US and in the Mexican border. I think what this film was trying to say, is that in the end, when it comes to drugs, there is no border. The Tijuana cartel can kill anyone in any side of the border. Yet there is this huge difference in the way people live, the yellow saturation shows a more degrated Mexico, while the US suburbs are shown in bright colors and in Golf courses. While Javier is in the desert, Helena was drinking watching her son playing Golf. In my opinion, everyone benefits economically, and everyone loses in the end. If the US wants to actually have a war on drugs, it needs to help Mexico distance itself from the economic dependence it has right now on illegal drugs. It also needs to realize that looking for the main guy won't help, they have to destory the factories and the coca plantations. and the way to do it, according to this movie, is give the people a chance for change into betterment: money.

Three amigos

This movie was funny but something someone said in class got me thinking. This movie is about three amigos that believe they're in a show, because of a silent movie that shows them as being heroes. Now... they're Americans. Carmen actually states that no one can help them, especially Mexican men who just seem lazy and drunk all the time. Now, this movie is making fun of the stereotypes in westerns like the wild bunch, were mexicans are actually shown as Lazy, drunk and well, corrupt and megalomaniacs. But at the same time it is showing the stereotype and promoting the idea that Americans are going to save Mexico, because in the end they do. Three americans come up with the plan and destroy a whole lot of bandidos. And in the end, it does show the stereotypes and does nothing to portray them differently. So because of this, does this work as the satire it is intended to, or does it fall under the category of movies about Mexico with bad stereotypes like The Wild Bunch or High Noon?
I think it falls under the category of movies about Mexico with bad stereotypes and this is why: We are in a spanish class studying about Meican cinema, and we see things differently. But this movie is not intended for college students in a class about Mexican cinema. Its meant for the Average middle class American that thinks of Mexico as what is shown in the big screen: dirty, full of bandidos, drug lords and mexican woman who can't defend themselves. The movie does nothing to change the view of Mexico. It makes fun of the stereotypes, but does not show a real Mexico. Where in the movie does the director or writer try to change the stereotype? If a 10 year old watches this movie he is going to believe the things in the film, and still believe that Americans are the heroes and Mexicans are drunk and lazy. Yes, they exxagerate it and make fun of it, but I am not sure that a lot of people would read it the way we do. Now, if we talk about, it made a good presentation of stereotypes in Westerns and ridiculing them, but my point is that it did not try to change the expectations. El guapo was still a sick bandido, Carmen was the dame in need of help, the people got drunk, etc. I really think this is goign to be a movie to talk about because they exxagerated in such a manner that we could tell it was a farce, but maybe not everyone can.

The wild bunch

I don't particularly like Westerns. They bore me and I think they're all predictable. The only western I have liked has been High Noon. And Unforgiven, although I wouldn't consider it a Western. This movie is no a western in essence either. It is a movie about the changing times. I have never seen a machine gun or a shotgun in a western before. And I haven't seen such violence like in the last massacre scene either. This movie plays with your expectations, it makes you think about what is going on. These men are outlaws in a world were they are not going to be able to be outlaws anymore. They are a dying breed, and I think this reflects perfectly the Western trend in the United States.
Westerns have been popular ever since movies began. The great train robbery is one of the first films to employ parallel editing, and that was a western. So was D.W. grifith "The girl and her trust". And up to the 1950's westerns represented the American ideal of dominating the lands and overcoming the terrible things that happen around you. The hero (mostly John Wayne) always won. But by the 1960's this trend was falling. People began producing more science fiction and the musical boomed, people were looking for escapism and a way to reflect the cold war era. This movie is probably one of the last true westerns.
I call this a western because it has everything you need for a western: the setting, the morally ambiguos characters that decide to fight for a change, the villains that look out of a cartoon novel, etc... Unforgiven doesn't have that, it just has the setting. I really liked the ending, when they look at each other after Angel has died, they know they are going to die. But instead of running away or trying to make a truce, they fight back. I took this as their last chance for thrill. They look at each in a kind of Bonnie and Clyde way and because they decide to die, that makes them heroes. They might be the epitamy of an anti-hero, but the moment they go to Mexico and see all this corruption, they change into heroes.
This is an aspect I didn't like about the film. Mexico was protrayed as corrupt and dirty and with no moral ambitions. It is because of Mexico that they change, they see it is worse than them. The characters play on stock characters, and even the only Mexican worth saving, Angel, is a deliquent in the end. Although the film was set in the Mexican revolution, that still doesn't cut it to show them as complete monsters and non-caring. When that woman was shot, they just laughed it off. This is not the first western that shows Mexicans like this of course, but it is still offensive.

Touch of evil

This is the second time I see this film and I still don't know what to think of it. I think I did not enjoy this movie very much because I have very high expectations for Orson Welles. This film is very well made, but it is slow in some parts. I like how Welles decided to eliminate all the stock characters from this film. The hero is a Mexican and the villain is American, something that is rarely seen in American movies. Now, the hero is really Charlton Heston, who was at the top of his game having just acted in The ten commandments and about to act in Ben-Hur. For me this is quite interesting, because it gives a double message. Welles is saying that a hero can be mexican and that the pre-conceived ideals we have of the people can sometimes be wrong. Now, the actor playing the hero is really an American (who, by the way, can't talk in a Mexican accent). This suggests that either Welles was trying to say that Americans are always going to be better than Mexicans, and they are the people behind the heroes, or simply that the studio wanted Heston and Welles could not get a Mexican actor. I am trying to think how this movie would have been with a Mexican actor in the main role, and I think it would have given it a completely different take on the film. It would have been more interesting, but it probably would not have had the same level of respect and empowerment Heston had. I think it is because we are watching a movie star at the peak of his game that his authority increases. Either way, the reversal of roles was interesting because it is the first time the anti-hero is American and the hero is actually Mexican.
Now on more film history kind of way, the first time I ever heard about this film it was introduced to me as a film noir. When I read the trivia on IMDB, I read that Welles decided to play with the narrative structure like in the Bogart film The Big sleep. I did see a lot of film noir in this film (the powerful independent woman, represented by Susie, the shadows and the techniques used to emphasize the double sided personalities of the characters, the mystery, etc...) but in noir the hero or heroine is normally punished in one way or another. Here the hero is left alone, and the murdered is the anti-hero (Welles). I think that because the noir movement was dying (if not already dead) by 1958, that this can’t be considered a typical noir film. It just lacks the depressing conclusion that noir became so known for. In the end, this film is interesting to watch because of the reversal of roles and the long shots, but it might be a little too outdated.

Que Viva Mexico

I just read on IMDB that this is a masterpiece, and that the author of the review puts this film right up there next to Citizen Kane and Casablanca. I think this is an exxageration in every sense of the word. I didn't think this film was good or bad, im completely indifferently to it.The first part of the film, the part in the jungle where the couple was shown in all of their stages: courtship, marriage, having a son, reminded me a lot of documentaries I saw in Peru about the jungle. There is this weird sense of separation between these natives and the audience, almost as you are watching a National Geographic special. The camera is there but because there is no dialogue and the music aids in giving the scene a sense of mystical mystery, the audience never feels like they know the people. I think there is a sense of Latin America to sell the magical and exotic parts of their country to the world, there are commercials promoting tourism even today that show the Mexican jungle and natives running around. Now, I think that promoting tourism is really great, but what I always wondered is this: is what the tourists seeing really real? For example, I went to Cuzco and people there thought I was a tourist from outside Peru, and they treated me differently once they knew I was actually from Lima. They became more relaxed and friendly, and stopped treating me with this bizarre sense of respect. So I wonder: is this exotic tourism a vicious cycle in which the tourists go and expect something, and as a job the people act in that certain way? Did Eisenstein go into the jungle expecting to see people act in a certain manner, and hence, once they saw they were getting paid, the people from the jungle started acting the manner he wanted it to be? The reason I went on this tangent is because I didn't know why I thought this movie was not good, but now I realize its because its a construct of a construct. We are not seeing anything real, we are seeing the natives act in the manner that Einsenstein wanted them to act, but apart from that, Eisenstein (or whoever edited this) constructed a story to give it a sense of exoticism because that is what he saw. I know this might sound weird, but I can't get it out of my head. I always thought those documentaries they showed us in school about the jungle were fake, it had that weird acting like if they were on a reality TV show or something. But this film takes it a step further and adds a narrative, making it less rialable because the images have to fit the story. I am going to stop thinking about this film as a documentary and more as a fiction film so I can actually judge it.
As a fiction film, it has some good points and some bad points. First of all, the bull fighting sequence is really well shot and edited to give the sense of ultimate and uncontrallable death. It is not Eisenstein best, Eisenstein's best is the Odessa sequence, but this sequence juxtaposes the idea of tradition and values. While we are seeing the bull fighting sequence from the POV of the bull (this suggests we have to have pity for the bull), there are also sequences showing the audience applauding the death of the bull. This makes us think: this tradition is horrible, but it is a part of their culture. The bullfighter is actually admired and applauded, while the only thing he has done is kill a bull. This interesting play on values make us realize that this is a culture that is different from the viewers and we have to respect it. I didn't like the Magey sequence though. It was the most narratively focused of the 5, and I think this was its major flaw. It completely destroyed the idea that this could actually occur, and created a more of a melodramatic tragedy. The acting was over the top, and although some scenes where well shot, the editing was nothing of Eisenstein worth. I think that because it broke the style of the film it failed to work as strongly as the others. The score was also very much a narrator in this part, much more than in the others, almost mockingly.
Anyway, it was an OK film. Maybe if Eisenstein would have finished it, it would have become the political vehicle Battleship was, but he didn't, so this is just another representation of Latin America through a tourists eyes. Go to facebook and check your friends pictures' of their first trip to Latin America and you will see similar photographs, guaranteed.

Batalla en el cielo

As I watched this film I thought to myself: this can be a good short film, but it is being elongated so much it misses the point. There are a lot of scenes that are extended for no apparent reason, like after Ana and Marcos have sex, there is a tracking shot that shows the city, and then we go back to both of them and they are just laying there. Then we see Marcos reflecting after Ana tells him that he should turn himself to the police for a very long time. I think these two shots juxtapose interestingly because while in one you see the city and the monotony of it all, then you see Marcos reflecting in the same way. His life is this monotone repetitive actions that he finds thrills in kidnapping babies and that is probably why he wants to be with Ana so bad. I think Marcos represents the Mexico city, a repetition of actions that try to escape and eventually die. He lives for a dream. Everything he does after Ana comes is to be with her. He kills her because he knows he can't turn himself in, so he would rather see herself dead and die afterwards than to die alone. His selfishness is extreme, but the director tries to justify it by saying that Marcos is actually in love with her. Does that justify his actions? I personally don't think so. If Marcos is a symbol for Mexico city, then that means Mexico city is living for a dream that can't occur in real life. An idealized world that cannot really occur. That is why I liked about the film.
Now what I didn't like. I liked the shots of Marcos reflecting or the POV shots of Marcos looking into the sunset, but some shots were unnecessary. The raising of the flag could have been cut down a lot and many shots were very slow. Although this movie works in the same way as elephant, the slowless represents the monotone events in life, elephant at least had characters that were interesting. Until Marcos killed Ana I thought he was boring and uninteresting. Then the murder gave some complexity to the character, but still, Ana was always more interesting than him. In scenes where only Marcos was shown I always pondered about her. A general's daughter that's a prostitute. I wished I had known her more. I know this movie from Marcos' POV, but maybe a shift in perspective could have been very interesting. I also thought the character of Marcos' wife was one-dimensional and uninteresting. I was more interested in knowing the policeman more than her when Marcos is in the church. One final thought about the all the explicit sex scenes... they're shocking, but its because we are not used to it. I thought they were realistic and un-hollywood like. They were still shocking because full frontal nudity is not common, and I don't think it was completely necessary, but it still created a movie that you can remember, even if its for that reason. In general I thought the movie was slow. I know it had a purpose, but that movie could have been done in 30 minutes and it would have been a great short.