This is a copy of the blog entry I posted the first time I taught the class. We will discuss that matter in class tomorrow. It very much describes the class content we covered today, and gives you an idea of the expectations regarding the blogs.
Please complete the assignment at the end of the entry and e-mail me if you encounter any problems.
You can see the film we screened in class here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=jQOXKoMHOE0
Hour of the Furnaces (from a post from June, 2012)
Today we started the class by presenting some ideas about the content and objectives of the course. One of the premises of the course is that film as an art form in Argentina reflects the way in which political and economic circumstances frame everyday life and art making, and how filmmakers produce works that reflect their vision of themselves as political agents, intellectuals, and artists.
We mentioned how in Argentina, traditionally, artists have played an important role as shapers of national identity and, especially since the 1950s, have tried to produce films that want to escape, visually and ideologically, from the tendencies that dominated its market: on the one hand, the Hollywood tradition of film as entertainment –exemplified by the 1935 film El día que me quieras, starring tango heartthrob Carlos Gardel, a film produced and distributed by US studios that perpetuated stereotypes about the country and its inhabitants. On the other, another form of filmmaking that followed European principles and viewed film as “high” art (art that reflects the sophisticated aesthetics of countries such as France, Italy and Germany, that does not speak of the realities of the Argentine working class).
Falicov’s book The Cinematic Tango, which we will use as our primary reference in the class, places great emphasis on how the relationship of the film industry and the government in Argentina shape the way film is approached and supported both by the state and by the public. Like our class, Falicov sets as a starting point the mid-1980s, which marks the end of a long period of especially violent dictatorships in Argentina, and when, in confronting democracy, society is faced with the choice of offering support for a national form of filmmaking that would contribute to the exploration of national issues in a manner different from the one traditionally established by the economic domination of film distribution circuits by U.S. businesses, or fuel a form of “entertainment” filmmaking aimed at producing films for mass consumption in the following tradition, (or something in between).
We watched Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino's The Hour of the Furnaces, (1968), a political documentary that embodies many of the principles the filmmakers of the 1960s used to separate themselves from the Hollywood tradition. Solanas and Getino are the authors of the text “Towards a Third Cinema” (in Blackboard), which defines the circumstances that lead the two to propose the creation of a “national cinema of liberation” and the objectives of such films. Using a pedagogical tone that combines the statistical, the historical, and the symbolic in the narrative, and documentary images that contrast life in the city and in the country, in the posh neighborhood and meeting points of the economic and intellectual elites in the capital and the squalor of the life of the working poor in the urban shantytowns and the underdeveloped provinces, the film is an open call to revolution, “educating” its audience in the fallacies and contradictions that perpetuate the NEOCOLONIAL condition of the country, how its economic dependency generates also an intellectual and political dependency, perpetuating a system that reflects a “second hand ideology” that is depersonalized, “disguised” with the cultural principles of the colonizing nations, creating an “idealized” culture that does not reflect the realities (historical, social, racial, economic) of the people. “If you really want to be a true MAN, you have to be like me” says the colonizer. The paternalism of European culture, Solanas says, masks its racism, and seeks to push the colonized subject towards the adoption of its European principles, instead of allowing him/her to search for its own roots, traditions, and values. Getino and Solanas look at the influence of the cultural models imposed by the West (music, art, advertising, literature, even religion) as tools that manipulate and drown any attempts on the part of the national cultures to explore, develop, and express their own identity, to organize their society in their own terms. The part of the film that we watched (13 chapters that represent only 1/3 of the total movie) presents the argument for the development of a form of revolutionary resistance, the only one, according to the filmmakers, that is left to a people whose everyday life, identity, ideology, economy, etc. are controlled by traditional elites and their foreign handlers who have political and economic control of the country and defend both using physical and psychological violence. “The war in Latin America is waged mostly in the mind of the people” they say, “the mass media are more powerful than napalm”.
The film is a great starting point to the class not simply because it advocates for this radical political and cultural change, but also because it offers a set of aesthetic and ideological alternatives to the dominant paradigm of Western colonialism. Solanas’ documentary is an excellent example of the way in which Latin American filmmakers propose to use cinema to exact change in the region. Interestingly, later in the semester we will watch another documentary by Solanas that will explore the same ideas in the context of Argentina in the 21st century.
Before you react to the film in this blog, read Getino and Solanas’ article and the first Chapter of Falicov’s book, and use those texts as a basis for your reflection
We mentioned how in Argentina, traditionally, artists have played an important role as shapers of national identity and, especially since the 1950s, have tried to produce films that want to escape, visually and ideologically, from the tendencies that dominated its market: on the one hand, the Hollywood tradition of film as entertainment –exemplified by the 1935 film El día que me quieras, starring tango heartthrob Carlos Gardel, a film produced and distributed by US studios that perpetuated stereotypes about the country and its inhabitants. On the other, another form of filmmaking that followed European principles and viewed film as “high” art (art that reflects the sophisticated aesthetics of countries such as France, Italy and Germany, that does not speak of the realities of the Argentine working class).Falicov’s book The Cinematic Tango, which we will use as our primary reference in the class, places great emphasis on how the relationship of the film industry and the government in Argentina shape the way film is approached and supported both by the state and by the public. Like our class, Falicov sets as a starting point the mid-1980s, which marks the end of a long period of especially violent dictatorships in Argentina, and when, in confronting democracy, society is faced with the choice of offering support for a national form of filmmaking that would contribute to the exploration of national issues in a manner different from the one traditionally established by the economic domination of film distribution circuits by U.S. businesses, or fuel a form of “entertainment” filmmaking aimed at producing films for mass consumption in the following tradition, (or something in between).
We watched Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino's The Hour of the Furnaces, (1968), a political documentary that embodies many of the principles the filmmakers of the 1960s used to separate themselves from the Hollywood tradition. Solanas and Getino are the authors of the text “Towards a Third Cinema” (in Blackboard), which defines the circumstances that lead the two to propose the creation of a “national cinema of liberation” and the objectives of such films. Using a pedagogical tone that combines the statistical, the historical, and the symbolic in the narrative, and documentary images that contrast life in the city and in the country, in the posh neighborhood and meeting points of the economic and intellectual elites in the capital and the squalor of the life of the working poor in the urban shantytowns and the underdeveloped provinces, the film is an open call to revolution, “educating” its audience in the fallacies and contradictions that perpetuate the NEOCOLONIAL condition of the country, how its economic dependency generates also an intellectual and political dependency, perpetuating a system that reflects a “second hand ideology” that is depersonalized, “disguised” with the cultural principles of the colonizing nations, creating an “idealized” culture that does not reflect the realities (historical, social, racial, economic) of the people. “If you really want to be a true MAN, you have to be like me” says the colonizer. The paternalism of European culture, Solanas says, masks its racism, and seeks to push the colonized subject towards the adoption of its European principles, instead of allowing him/her to search for its own roots, traditions, and values. Getino and Solanas look at the influence of the cultural models imposed by the West (music, art, advertising, literature, even religion) as tools that manipulate and drown any attempts on the part of the national cultures to explore, develop, and express their own identity, to organize their society in their own terms. The part of the film that we watched (13 chapters that represent only 1/3 of the total movie) presents the argument for the development of a form of revolutionary resistance, the only one, according to the filmmakers, that is left to a people whose everyday life, identity, ideology, economy, etc. are controlled by traditional elites and their foreign handlers who have political and economic control of the country and defend both using physical and psychological violence. “The war in Latin America is waged mostly in the mind of the people” they say, “the mass media are more powerful than napalm”.
The film is a great starting point to the class not simply because it advocates for this radical political and cultural change, but also because it offers a set of aesthetic and ideological alternatives to the dominant paradigm of Western colonialism. Solanas’ documentary is an excellent example of the way in which Latin American filmmakers propose to use cinema to exact change in the region. Interestingly, later in the semester we will watch another documentary by Solanas that will explore the same ideas in the context of Argentina in the 21st century.
Before you react to the film in this blog, read Getino and Solanas’ article and the first Chapter of Falicov’s book, and use those texts as a basis for your reflection
As an introduction to the class today on Argentine film, it was interesting to discover the emergence and use of neorealism and neocolonialism to help aid Argentine filmmakers develop not only Argentina’s, but Latin America’s identity as a whole in the film industry. Neorealism became such due to the “High art” in Italy that only portrayed life how people wanted it to be, and not how it actually was. The “High art” films were created for money. American entertainment also contributed to the coming of neorealism because as an industry, it alienated its audience. Neorealism’s goal came about to be political. It surfaced with the hope not to make money, but rather to engage the audience and have them leave thinking about how things can be changed for the better. Because everything we watched today was filled with tons of new information (for myself), I would like to mainly focus on only one film so that my thoughts are not too widely spread out and because this one was particularly the most interesting.
ReplyDeleteFernando Birri’s Tire dié (1960) as we all know follows the lives of the workers, including children, who live in Santa Fe, Argentina. As learned in class, this film follows the neorealism concept hoping to portray how life actually is in Argentina amongst the working class, or rather the masses. One interesting way Birri captures the reality of these Argentines’ lives is by juxtaposing (a common technique during this time) Buenos Aires and Santa Fe. The beginning of Tire dié shows booming Buenos Aires with amazing statistics that make it seem like an extremely wealthy country, but then it abruptly switches to Santa Fe and shows the complete opposite. This technique is also used in La hora de los hornos (1968) by using Buenos Aires and rural areas for its example.
Another common technique to portray this reality is the use of diegetic sound, or the sound made by the environment. Music is not used to bring the audience into a reality of actually feeling present with what they are seeing in that moment. In this film, the horn of the train can be heard, and as for La hora de los hornos, the industrial noises can be heard such as noises in a factory. The students filming utilize a gritty look as part of the aesthetic.
Perhaps the most important contributions to Tire dié (also seen in La hora de los hornos) is the commentary/interviews that each individual gives. One woman explains how woman are criticized for working and begging, but they cannot steal or they will go to jail. She ultimately asks “How can we provide for our kids [under these conditions]?” The most important commentary given is of an upper class male on the train from Buenos Aires to Santa Fe who says “This looks like a misery, but they just don’t want to work.” This quote perfectly captures the mentality, the problem that Birri is trying to expose. The upper class had abandoned the classes underneath it and claimed that everyone lived in those conditions by choice.
The purpose of the film The Hour of the Furnaces by Fernando Solana and Octavio Getino was to persuade the native Argentinean community to essentially take back their country and to stop blindly following the government, and the influence of the United States. The goals of the producers were to show the corruption going on in the country and how the culture of Argentina was transforming into the culture of the United States and the repercussions that have evolved from the transformation. They got their point across using several strategies to persuade their audience into taking action. These strategies included imagery, music, organization of the overall film, and connecting with the audience at an emotional and personal level.
ReplyDeleteThis persuasion was evident from the very beginning of the film, where the images were of violence and terror throughout the streets of Argentina caused by the military. Not only were the images dramatic but the music chosen intensified the feeling of distress and fear. On top of that the flashes of words encouraged change, such as power, oppression, liberation and more. These were incorporated into the film to get their audience motivated for change, hoping the best motivation would be fear. Not only was the fear of their audience’s lives used to persuade but the fear of the loss of their audience’s identity. Throughout the film producers went back and forth between urban Argentina and the growing cities of Argentina. Through these images the audience is shown the reality of how different the culture has become. It is almost as different as night and day. They express that not only is the culture so drastically different but they imply the beginning of racism. That the more native Argentine culture is seen as below the new and upcoming culture or “American” culture. This was incorporated into the film to show that the people of Argentina need to take a stand before the hate of their beautiful culture leads to the cultures demise. Leaving the audience feeling as though their identity is being ripped away.
Fear was not the only tactic used to motivated the audience of the film. The way in which the film was organized and narrated also influenced the persuasion of the film. As a whole the film was broken up into sections and everything the narrators said was easily interpretable and straight forward. Allowing every viewer, educated or not to follow and understand the purpose of the presentation. This helped the producers connect to every person possible, aiding in their goal of a revolution.
What was probably the most motivating tactic in this film was the idea of native culture as “subhuman”. They showed the American culture that the Argentine society had been following was a more admirable culture. The music that was played during the scenes showing the cities had more upbeat music and nicer clothes compared to that of the urban Argentina. They tried to explain that the people in these areas are being brainwashed into thinking that their native culture is below par compared to the American culture and if things don’t change more and more individuals will believe this idea too. This encroaching culture was demoralizing the native Argentine culture. By spelling out this awful truth to the citizens of Argentina the producers of the film hope to motivate the audience into taking pride in their culture and fight for it.
This film in no means was edited in hopes to entertain, but instead was designed to encourage the masses of liberation. The producers used neorealism to emotionally and personally connect with their audience to motivate and encourage a well needed change in this particular society.
The 1968 film The Hour of the Furnaces, which was filmed in Argentina, smuggled out of the country to edit, then back in to show to the laboring masses, shuffled in a new era of film for Argentina, one that valued both aesthetical and political intelligence. Solanas and Getino call out the dependency theory that Argentina has seemed to adopt, depending on other nations for their income and wealth. This bleeds into a cultural dependency, not sure what exactly makes an Argentine, as they have depended on others for so long. The film is a revolutionary documentary begging for a call to arms from those who have been erased from the Argentine cultural landscape.
ReplyDeleteWe see this displayed in the book as it discusses the Office of Inter-American Affairs, ironically headed by Nelson A. Rockefeller around seemingly the same time England and the US were giving out loans from banks probably owned by the Rockefeller family. The OCIAA looked over films sent to Latin America to make sure they were shedding a positive light on the US. When we begin to project our ethnocentricity into the media of other countries, I would argue that the results could be disastrous.
As these films of American nationalism are penetrating the minds of the elite Argentines, 75% of Argentines cannot meet basic needs with their salary. 6% of arable land is being cultivated. 4 in 10 babies die, 70 of 100 children are illegitimate, and 900,000 children are abandoned. 1 million Argentines have syphilis and 1.5 million have tuberculosis. 80% of the native population has syphilis and tuberculosis. In the face of crisis, it’s hard not to turn to the socialites of Buenos Aires and wonder why they are more worried about western trends than their own countrymen.
Aldo Torres Jimenez. January 4, 2016
ReplyDeleteFilm 3690
The film La Hora De Los Hornos (1968) presents a very strong political view towards the Argentinean government. The film’s director Fernando “Pino” Solanas presents the world of those that suffer in the slums of Argentina. Now that film was becoming more accessible to the masses, film was able to drastically change the way people communicated. With more accessibility, the impact of ideas, opinions and information had also changed. In this film, the first minutes Mr. Solanas gave the very radical view of the government. His first thoughts explained how the Argentinian government fell under a neo-colonization ideology. Mr. Solanas goes onto explain that the people of Argentina have been lied to and exploited to only help those who have power.
With such strong views the film also had to have; a very clear message and intention. The film was intended to inform all of Argentina the things that the government was doing to the people. It was intended to gain a following. The film had a political agenda and it was going to be the start to something much larger, a revolution. The film ignited the fuse to the tension that existed between the government and the people. It made people make a choice between the neo-colonization ideology and the demand for a democracy. The people that lived impoverished where not being treated well by the Argentinian government and a radical decided to do something about it.
Although this film does provide bias information, thoughts and assumptions, it also brought to light a very big political problem. In order for countries to prosper, people need to prosper. Even if protecting those who can afford is more profitable, it will damage the long term development of any country. Giving opportunity to a free market and competition will help the people create opportunities to make an honest living for them and their families.
The Hour of the Furnaces by Fernando Pino Solanas and Octavio Getino (1968) is innovative in its imagery and has an “underground” style with its compilation taking place outside of Argentina and is shown in private settings during this time. In this film, neocolonialism is discussed. According to Wikipedia, neocolonialism can be defined as the practice of using capitalism, business globalization and imperialism in place of military control (direct or indirect). This practice divides the continent and according to this film, acts as open aggression against Latin American countries.
ReplyDeleteArgentina is characterized by massive amounts of surface area with varied climates. With a population of 23 million at the time of the film, about 70% of this population resides in the cities. With high infant death rates, low wages, and long workdays, the native Argentine is suppressed into poverty. Furthermore, the English influences play a role in further suppressing the people of Argentina, saying, “Change is necessary, but impossible” and that the “Indian is worth nothing.” The culture of the cosmopolitan as well as import and export culture is celebrated while the native culture is diminished. It seems that the natives have been forgotten, as is clearly exemplified in high levels of disease, poverty, and illiteracy.
With the Argentines in a desperate situation, the notion of dependence is introduced in the film. The dependence on the government and foreign countries to support the economy is a common characteristic of Latin American countries and hinders further development. A country cannot have political independence without economic independence. Though higher education is available, the film mentions the fact that while the students are receiving a higher education, the curriculum is designed to mold the students’ minds to certain ideologies. The English and other foreign cultures that dominate Argentina at this time discover that the use of mass communication is very useful and is distributed via magazines, records, and movies. The citizens are more or less taught to think in English, becoming more distant from their roots.
The film is well done in that it is emotionally evocative. The imagery is striking and forces the viewer to watch unblinkingly. One of the most impactful parts of the film is towards the end. There are countless images of people crying with sounds of laughter playing in the background. I feel this signifies the true abandonment of the Argentine people and the despair that comes with depending on powers outside of themselves. It is sad to think that although the people depend on the government and outside powers to “stabilize” the country, they are still left behind.
Fernando Birri's "Hour of the Furnaces" depicts the political agendas of neo-colonialism. The documentary takes place in Argentina after the fall of Juan Domingo Peron. There were immense problems with the distribution of wealth at this time. Argentina was a dependent country, meaning that it completely depended on other countries politically, economically, and socially. The movie focuses on the many important themes, one being the idea of "el barbarie" vs. "la civilizacion", barbarianism vs. civilization. In this case, the uncivilized will teach the civilized. Violence and hatred became the norm, and it became an issue of oppression for the upper class and liberation for the poor. "Tire Die" similarly addresses this issue of unequal distribution of resources through the eyes of children begging for money from the train that passes through town. People work way too hard to make way too little money to support their family, and the more wealthy class assumes they simply do not work and are lazy. However, that is not the case. After the fall of Peron, 80% of the population had no land. And of those who did have land, 50% of the land was owned by a mere 1.5% of the population. The way that Birri expresses this problem is through the use of neocolonialism and humanity. Neocolonialism completely changed what it meant to be human. Civilization, ironically, became barbaric. With Argentina highly underdeveloped, illiteracy was the norm. Education was rare. And it was all to keep people from becoming truly aware of the condition of the country. People experienced alienation and no identity of their own, the government's way of distracting the people. Finally, with neocolonialism brought ideological warfare. Mass communication was at an all-time high. People in the city experienced escapism and skepticism about life. It became "monstrosity disguised as beauty", and did not allow for the poor people of Latin America to have a choice in life or death. But somehow, life can be found through death.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how both filmmakers used neorealism as a foundation for their films. Both films have a serious tone to them with the intention of reflecting the reality of life in Argentina. There seems to be a lack of an establishment of a particular national identity. Falicov does state in her book The Cinematic Tango, “Argentina’s film industry to those of other nations, point to an issue that Argentine cultural producers constantly face. Preserving and sustaining national culture via cultural policy legislation conflicts with complex and often contradictory notions of cultural identity in Argentina” (3). I find it interesting that Birri’s film reflects a dark tone with children begging for a dime. There seems to be a disconnect with the children, women and men between themselves and the place that they live in. Falicov discusses the fact that Birri’s film was revolutionary and accepted by the masses. The fact that a person watched it was a sign of revolution. The fact that there are parts where the film calls for discussion engages the viewers to the ideas that the film presents which makes it even more revolutionary. I also find it interesting that both films do go with the flow of neorealism, an artistic movement coming from Italy. The way that both films are put together does notion a sense of a European national identity that Argentina begins to take on very early (as reflected in these documentaries). Not once do we see any film aesthetics that would reflect a complete revolution in film making that would only be something found in Argentina. Much of the terms that are used in the making of these documentaries come from Europe. It is interesting that we discussed in class how Argentina filmmakers studied film in Italy. It would make sense that many of their ideas in regards to the creation of cinema in Argentina would come from Europe. It is important to remember the funding that is pouring into to these pictures. The filmmakers that are brewing from an early Argentina Cinematic movement are people who have a passion for cinema. Many of these filmmakers had the funds to study film and make art. In other words, the people who are at the center of filmmaking during this time are filmmakers who are embracing European ideologies in regards to filmmaking. This is definitely going to influence the Argentine cinema that the masses see and will eventually learn to love and appreciate. It will be a part of Argentina cinema as reflected in the films that we will see throughout the class. I also find it interesting that Falicov mentions that Argentina is the first Spanish speaking nation to produce sound films in Spanish. The 1930’s are a reflection of rapid industrialization. This theme was very present in the documentaries that we saw today for example, the moving train in Tire Dié. This goes to the notion that what a culture is presently experiencing usually tends to be reflected in the cinema that is produced.
DeleteI really enjoyed the films we watched in today class, especially “The Hour of The Furnaces”.
ReplyDeleteBefore this film we spoke of powerful dictators such as Peron taking money from the rich few to try to industrialize Argentina. It made me draw a parallel between Argentina’s past and our present here in the United States.
As you stated, Peron’s regime collapsed in the 1950’s because his communist/fascist ideals couldn’t be sustained. In Communism “there are two major social classes: the working class – who must work to survive, and who make up a majority of society – and the capitalist class – a minority who derive profit from employing the proletariat, through private ownership of the means of production.” This is interesting, because in our own country we have self-described socialists running for the democratic nomination as we speak. One nominee, per their own statement, believes in a system of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the government, making the rest of us dependent upon the government… something I am vehemently against. It stands to reason that we would learn from the history of other countries to realize this form of government doesn’t work. Argentina’s history is proof that having few with great power is a disaster waiting to happen.
While I watched “The Hour of The Furnaces”, I was surprised at the huge disparity between the elite class and the working class. The gap was so big that it was almost as if they were in completely different countries yet they existed only miles apart. I believe this is what F. Solanes was trying to portray. Argentina in the 1960’s was being depicted as what they believed to be the perfect lifestyle in films viewed around the world but some film makers like Solanes believed that instead of keeping their problems out of sight and therefore out of mind, they should reveal what daily life in Argentina actually looked like, hoping this would begin a healing process for the country. In “The Hour of The Furnaces”, Argentina’s juxtaposition between the working class and capitalist class was made known by Solanes with an intense passion for the plight of the poor and intense hatred of the those who adopted a neo-colonialist way of life and thrived while their fellow countrymen suffered. It was also an ardent plea for a change in political ideals.
Although the film wasn’t allowed to circulate immediately, I’m sure it caused quite a stir at the time and although many of the poor probably never saw this film they probably would have been grateful they weren’t being swept under the rug as an afterthought any longer.
Taking in account the brief background given on the influence that the military leader- Perón had. His goals ultimately pursued a different socioeconomic structure for Argentina. The films presented on todays class identified projects that needed developments, these films incorporated stories in depth to create a reaction of individuals. For example, the film “Throw a dime” presented children who lived in poverty and as a result would request coins from travelers passing through. This film exposed a brief national culture and through this video their voice and commitment were very much political. The children along with others were victims of this repression during this era. Furthermore, the film “The Hour of the Furnace” also presented a challenging project to expose the social reality of their country. In the beginning the film presented acts of violence and men and women protesting. Throughout the “The Hour of the Furnace” it perceived political authority and distribution of wealth. In addition, this film also distinguished the infrastructure between the rich and the poor.
ReplyDeleteWe started off today discussing the different aspects that need evaluating when viewing a film. In Latin America cinema, you must look at how balanced the artistic and economic aspects are in the creation of a film. Understanding the objective of filmmakers, I believe is a very important part of watching a film. Another thing to weigh is the political and cultural circumstances. The idea of film is to tell a story, therefore understanding whose point of view the story is being told from gives immeasurable insights when evaluating a film. Censorship, propaganda and bias are all things to be look for.
ReplyDeleteAnother topic discussed today was the evolution of neorealism in the film industry of Latin America. Neorealism looks to present everyday realities through stories that might be relatable to the public. This shift in viewing a film, rather than just finding an imaginative escape, forces audiences to evaluate their lives and criticize society, looking for meaningful solutions to societal problems. The challenge for filmmakers lies in challenging tradition, and looking to move national cinema towards low cost film that reflect reality.
In the Eleventh Hour's New Cinema of Latin America, the documentary introduced us to prominent cinematic leaders of Latin America, Fernando Birri, a pioneer in Argentine film and Julio Garcia Espinosa, a leader of Cuban neorealistic film. One intersting thing to note is that Latin American filmmakers and artists in general not only have a voice in the artistic community but most also are prominent figures in the political scene of their country. Tire Die, directed by Fernando Birri in 1960, is a grand example of the neorealistic style of film. The contrast from the opening scene of the wealthy city while narrating statistics of luxury to the impoverished communities near the train tracks where young boys beg for coins gives such vivid imagery towards the drastic social and political reality. This film is only one of the firsts in a great flood of neorealist films in Latin America and specifically Argentina.
As the political situation of Argentina intensifies and the political parties radicalize, a reflection of this crisis can be seen in film as filmmakers strive to have their voice heard. The Hour of the Furnaces, a film by Fernando "Pino" Solarles in 1968, perfectly depicts this. The film seeks to pull at the consciences of the audience to see the corruption of Argentina. In this film we see many examples of cultural alienation or cultural imperialism, such as people being taught to think in English. International cultural ideas that were brought into the country had no ties with the people or the reality of the country and therefore left those outside large urban centers isolated. The voice of the intellectual such as the filmmakers strive to give a voice to those in isolation, but also enlighten the argentine working and lower classes to the problems of politics such as the distribution of wealth.
Overall, our first day of class was full of great examples of how film was used in Latin America to show the harsh realities that often go unacknowledged and rarely fought to change.
[without the blackboard text; I decided to write it anyway despite not having access.]
ReplyDeleteThe three films watched in class today happened to be a perfect introduction into Latin American history and film, but in specific, Argentinian history and film. From the beginning of time, man has created art forms to portray feelings or happenings in the world around him. From paintings to sculptures, poetry to plays, art has surrounded human history. By the turn of the 20th century, a new art form was arising: film. While America began to use film as entertainment, those in Italy—and thus spreading into Latin America—used film as a means to portray very difficult and deep concepts that challenged the audience to continue to think. This art form was called neorealism. The filmmakers wanted to present the reality of life that everyday people are witnessing through stories that are relatable, and would hopefully open the eyes of a “brainwashed” and dependent country (by means of other dominant countries who have done the brainwashing in some manner). Two very shocking and eye-opening films were on the forefront of the desire of Argentine filmmakers’ agendas of neorealism. “Tire die”, a short film by Fernando Birri, brought forth a reality that was intensely deep for the 30 minutes. It contrasted the city of Santa Fe to the outskirts’ urban slums of Santa Fe. Children skipped school to help their parents work, and they would often run alongside trains begging for extra money. The use of dramatic angles, sounds like the impending train-whistle, images of the “upper class” chewing gum while these children ran and begged, and the audiences waiting for the hands of the children to grasp that of the people giving money all contribute to the brilliance of the film, evoking strong emotions in the audience. “La hora de los hornos” is the second film, one that was not allowed at all during Fernando Solanas’s time. But it was that important to him that his people of Argentina see what was happening in their world, that he smuggled the movie back in. The movie was not censored like the government ruled, but because of this, it was able to show the actual reality facing Argentina. Snapshots of the beautiful city and materialistic advertisements were contrasted with quick snapshots of the urban poor and malnutrition; an angelic opera song rang out as a brutal fight took place on screen; a creepy laugh echoes while pictures of poverty appear in the movie; the camera zooms in on the wonderfully human faces of the supposed “outsiders” (criollos) of Argentina. Again, all of this lends to cinematic brilliance, evoking uncomfortable and eerie emotions in the audience. Hopefully by bringing the Argentine audience out of their dependent fog through brutal and thought-provoking (and long) films like Solanas and Birris, these neorealism filmmakers can help better the country of Argentina, liberating its people.
We watched La hora de los Hornos (1968) a film directed by Fernando E. Solanas and Octavio Getino. La hora de los hornos is a leftist Peronist film and was created in an era when social unrest wreaked havoc on the nations stability. According to Wikipedia Peronism is an Argentine political movement based on the political thought of former President Juan Domingo Peron. The three pillars of the peronist ideal are known as the “three flags”, they are social justice, economic independence and political sovereignty. Peronism aims to mediate tensions between the social classes of society. Solano and Getino say, our film collective is trying to be the cinematographic arm of General Peron (while he was exiled).
ReplyDeleteThis form of underground “guerilla filmmaking” recorded poverty stricken Latin American reality, what Fernando Birri calls “underdeveloped”. The film La hora de los hornos in itself was a political act and one that was not intended to be viewed passively. In fact, just to see the film was an act of it own. It was not displayed in the open but in a clandestine fashion. The film was viewed in secret and was not advertised to the public. Its intention was to make the audience a participant and protagonist of their own history, aware of social and political conditions.
Solanas and Getino use their concept of ‘Third Cinema’ to separate themselves from the classic Hollywood cinema and the European auteurist cinema that had previously dominated. A ‘Third Cinema’ is a cinema outside of and against the system, in a system of liberation….. offering alternatives to the dominant paradigm of Western culture and allowing Argentines to keep and develop their own cultural identity.
La hora de los hornos is filmed in gritty black and white, with opening scenes of violence and police brutality. The beginning part of the film utilizes a quick pace with fast, heart pounding music that gets progressively faster and more urgent.
The documentary is divided into three parts, 260 minutes of total film. We watched Part I Neocolonialism and Violence (95min). Common themes are violence, neocolonialism, the history and statistics of Argentina’s poor and underprivileged in contrast with the wealthy elites of society. The film cuts in and out with black screens and flashing slogans invoking mobilization against an oppressive system. Solanas who had experience in advertisement used the same cinematic technique of cutting in and out to condemn the rise of consumer culture in Buenos Aires. Solanas showcases a dichotomy of consumer images of western advertisements of western products and western culture with images of Argentina’s main export, cattle, being slaughtered in a brutal fashion.
Interesting enough, a few short years later, in 1973 a reversal in government views allowed for the film which was previously banned to be released.
Keeping the film industry alive in Argentina was quite a challenge. There were many dramatic influences that determined what films were shown between the golden age (1940s-1950s) and the Dirty War (1976-1984). Politics played the most important factor. Because Argentina remained neutral in order to continue trade with Britain and Germany, the US saw them as a threat. The decision to not side with the Allied war effort caused US to ban the sale of raw film stock to Argentina. Inevitably, the decline of the film industry was considerable in Argentina. Mexico was rewarded by their participation in the Allied cause and the production of films increased dramatically as Argentina’s production decreased. Supporting Mexico also benefitted the US because it extended the audience, provided new theatres, and improved the quality of films in Latin America. Since films were considered politically influential, censorship continued to be an important factor. Raul Alejandro Apold became known as the ‘czar of Argentine film’ due to his severe censorship of blacklisting those who did not conform to the ideas behind the Peronist national party. With the new rules in place, film producers were able to rely on the state for support. Schools such as the Association of Experimental Film and the Association of Short Film Directors were established. This paved the way for new film makers, known as the ‘Generation of ‘60’ to create inexpensive and artistic films. At the time, these films were not screened and therefore not viewed by the public. It would not be until later that this brief part of history would be appreciated. Another form of ‘guerilla filmmaking’ arose as a political act. These films were uncovering the harsh conditions of underdeveloped civilizations. La hora de los hornos was also considered a revolutionary act. This film portrays the audience as the protagonist in the film and stirred up emotions in the public which caused them to react. When Peron returns, the censorship on films become more casual and many films that were previously banned are now released due to Octavio Getino. Unfortunately, Tato was hired to implement censorship again and it intensified to the point where filmmakers where censoring themselves. Many fled out of fear while others disappeared. The Dirty War was the greatest impact on the film industry thus far. It wasn’t until December 1980 that there was a public denouncement of censorship. Shortly after, films have depicted how they felt during their time of isolation.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s class we watched pieces from 3 different films, all documentaries. The first film was “Eleventh Hour” made in the early 1970’s. This documentary was helpful in introducing the well known filmmakers of the time, and their focus when creating their films. Based on the commentaries of the filmmakers, there was a clear political activism approach that was a big part of Argentine film, which came to be as a result of the military dictatorship during this time that devastated the country. The interviewed filmmakers further explained the many challenges that they had to face and continue to face while creating and displaying their films. One challenge is the restrictions of the political controls over Argentina that decides if a film will be banned or released. As second challenge is finding a place to show their films. According to the text, “The Cinematic Tango” Falicov explains that during this time United States theater companies, like Paramount, owned theaters in the major cities of Argentina and dominated the production of films and the films able to be shown in the Paramount theaters. Because the United States film industry was the dominant presence throughout the world and in Argentina, the popularity of the main stream dramatic and romanticized stories in films became the most widely accepted form of film media. This created the challenge of Argentine filmmakers to compete with the popular romanticized films of the United States. They did this by generating films with a clear aesthetic to show the reality of life that was occurring within their country rather than a romanticized fairy tale, this style was called neo-realism.
ReplyDeleteA perfect example of this kind of Argentine film style was seen in the second documentary that we watched called“ Tire Die” by Fernando Birri in 1960. This film was shot in the slums of Santa Fe by the railroad station where the young children beg for train riders to throw them money. The film zooms in on many dirty faced boys and girls with no shoes who run after the train. Their faces plead with the wealthy passengers, their hands are outstretched and ready to receive any act of pity. The sounds that were chosen to be focused on in this short film include the train slowing down and gliding over the tracks, and the children yelling to get the attention of the passengers. As discussed in class, this film was a perfect example of how Argentine filmmakers wanted all films should be made, as it was made with a very low and modest budget and resources, and it met the standards of neo-realism. Filmmakers believed that the lesser the money and resources, the more natural and real the film content could be. This film brought awareness to the poverty and devastation that people are living in just outside the heart of the city. Unfortunately, this film would only be able to reach an audience who lived in the big cities.
ReplyDeleteThe final film that we watched in class was “ La Hora de los Hornos” by Fernando Pino Solanas in 1968. During the creation of this film, the political situation of Argentina is much more intense due to the power of the military regime. Fernando Solanas wanted to develop a film that could educate the people of Argentina about the corruption of the political authority and government processes that have controlled the social and cultural norms. Solanas, through this awareness, wanted to help the Argentines to develop their own desire for liberation from this corrupt environment. Overall the film had very strong propaganda for liberation and rebellion which it justified by giving very detailed historical context of the corruption of Argentina. This included the information about the rise of the different powers, the statistics of the Argentine economy, the daily violence, neo-racism and dependence. Solanas carefully and stylistically used the camera’s focus on the different sounds of music and voices to engage the audience and to emphasize the reality of the conditions of rural versus the wealthy. He also clearly explained his anti-United States position in the film as he reveals the social and cultural influences that it has on the wealthier classes and the damages it has caused as a result. As
ReplyDeleteIt is intriguing how cinematic expression can instill a new perspective on a certain way of life. In class, we looked at Fernando Birri’s Tire Dié (1960) & Fernando Solana’s La Hora de Los Hornos (1968), which both had cinematography that was “radical” during their times. Both of these films addressed the ideology of neocolonialism. Both were highly reactive to the rising European influences that affected Argentinian and other South American entertainment. There was a cynical tone that emphasized the loss of tradition to this new wave, yet didn’t explicitly scold the upper classes. Instead, these films used contradictory shots of peacefulness paired with disgust or anguish. The purpose of these films was to instill a political change, hoping that the films would cause some cognitive dissonance among its viewers. Consequently, such films were considered taboo in the film industry since all the content that was previous created showcased only the best qualities of Argentinian culture. In The Cinematic Tango (2007), Falicov mentions that this trend was called “guerilla filmmaking” and quoted that it was the “cinematographic arm of General Perón” (pg. 36).
ReplyDeleteIn Tire Dié, this was observed with the opposing shots of the beautiful countryside, with the running children asking for money. Within the film, the audience must see the true reality instead of a mask. On one hand, they got to admire the scenic shots, yet on the other, must notice the dirty faces of children traveling for hours to accept some money. This film, along with La Hora de Los Hornos forced the viewer to accept this harsh reality instead of tossing it aside. A technique that both used was the use of natural sound. In both films, there is a genuine impression observed with every shot. This is, in part, due to the low production that the filmmakers has, however, it doesn’t hinder the message of the film. In fact, it strengthens it because it creates an outlet for realistic expression. These films are not trying to showcase the upper class, but rather showcase the poverty stricken people that must do anything to survive.
In La Hora de Los Hornos, Solana’s cinematography was gripping and enthralling. He was able to capture the playful tones of the commercial markets, while also capturing the tyrannical oppression of a working class. With quick jump cuts and black screens with slogans, the film conveyed a sense of urgency and demanded action to be taken. Additionally, the use of sound, or the absence of it, really emphasized the key ideas the film was trying to present. There was rarely an instance of music when the film was showing the workers and all the struggles in Argentina. It was interesting to note that whenever music was playing, it was during the scenes where Solana was satirizing the European influences, such as commercials. The dynamic differences between the shots was profound. It created a sense of subjugation and asked for a sense of uprising. With the upper class negating the lower classes, no progress could be made. At the end of the film, it showed a close up of Che Guevara, the revolutionist, for roughly five minutes with little sound. Even though this film was the first of a three-part series, it was evident that strong neorealism was seen and felt in every sequence. Without a doubt, the role of a guerrilla filmmaker during this time must have been cumbersome since they must balance between crafting art and conveying a political ideology.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWithin the first day of class I was introduced to the world of film and how economics, politics, culture, and target audience plays a role in it. There are artistic and commercial films which tend to be more popular and provide an escape from daily life. There are also realistic and a style of film called neo realism that engaged the audience to take action and progress. This contradicted the American and European type of films that were created for entertainment and individual artistic expression respectively. From the humble beginnings of Argentina’s largely agricultural exports and working class before World War Two there was a monopoly of movie producers such as Lumier Brothers and Argentina Solo Film that were successful showing tangos, documentaries, comedies, and melodramas until the 1940s. Then the Cold War, World War Two happened and dictators up until 1982 censored and banned and suppressed the people influencing all aspects of film.
ReplyDeleteIn class we first watched Tire Die produced in 1958 by Fernando Birri and his film students. This film was a low budget production that took three years to make. In the beginning of this thirty three minute movie statistics are listed off in the background and images of the city Santa Fe are on the screen. Then the movie points out the full picture by shifting focus to the many slums, poverty, and industrialization that tells the story of the majority of the population’s reality. Through interviews with kids begging for money at the railroad station to close ups of the poor living conditions and disease, these shocking sights and sounds educate and the middle class and those living in big cities connecting them to the issues reality of the masses. Tire Die reflects the economic situation and the restlessness of the people through highly visual film and was shown in private homes because it was rejected by film exhibitors.
In 1968 a dictatorship known as Ongania regime added restrictions and caused social, political, and economic disaster and unrest as well as the dictators after him. Also in 1968 a film inspiring revolution was made. In class we watched the first part of Fernando “Pino” Solanas and Getino’s The Hour of The Furnaces where an hour and a half is dedicated to educate and spark action in those few who saw it in secret. Tribal sounding drums beat to begin and end part one. Bold text flashes across the screen and invites those who see themselves as rebels and as oppressed to watch by creating interest with quick and surprising pictures. Then a brief overview of history of Argentina sets a foundation for the rest of the film. Statistics, the sound of a flute tell the outside illusion of wealth then like Tire Die it contrasts with the poverty and violence and disease statistics along with the imagery. Then the film goes on to capture the daily violence found with sirens, shooting, factory, noisy talking, and headlamps of workers bobbing in the dark. Then the capital city Buenos Aires is shown as split between the poor and the rich. Close ups of Indians testifying of the racism, the clip from Tire Die of the children asking for dimes at the railroad, industry demonstrated by the harsh imagery from a slaughter house with pictures of the beautiful and wealthy people with nice music sprinkled in between. The topic of dependence upon the United States on investments, politics, social and more is touched on as well as a distrust of university education molding minds to an ideological disconnected view of the reality of their nation. The purpose of such strong imagery is due to the growing tension and censorship at the time. Argentina’s struggle to have its own voice and independence is evident through this film.
Filmmaking is an art that serves a definitive global purpose. The economic and social ramifications of film renders it instrumental in society. The film industry in Argentina has been largely paved by the advent of neorealism and neocolonialism. Concomitant with the fluctuating cinematic situation was the inconsistent governing power of Argentina. The objective of neorealism in filmmaking was to expose the reality of living conditions and social circumstances across the country. The emergence of politics and aesthetic in filmmaking increased its imperative nature.
ReplyDeleteThe Hour of the Furnaces (1968) is a film founded on the standards of neorealism upheld by Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino. The sounds, images, and techniques that flood the film compose the distinct aesthetic. Along similar lines, Tire Die’ (1960) directed by Fernando Birri was created with neorealism at the forefront. The directors of both films sought to intentionally contrast the opposing situations existing in Argentina. The technique of juxtaposition is an easily comprehensible device that emphasizes the idea of good versus evil. In The Hour of the Furnaces, Solanas and Getino provided revealing statistics such as 90% of the rural population (at the time) lived in shacks that rendered hunger and disease rampant, 80% of the population did not own land, and 45 million Latin Americans are “resigned” to poverty. The following scenes show a sprawling cityscape that is Buenos Aires, one of the largest cities in the world. The disparity between the images of bleak living conditions and well-suited city success emerged through neorealism. The purpose of this movement in film was to bring an impending cultural identity crisis to light by educating the masses on the political and social situations. This clandestine film also achieved the objective of neorealism by incorporating bold text and narration. The beginning of the film was complete with claims such as “Un mismo pasado, un mismo enemigo, una misma posibilidad.” These three lines acknowledged and emphasized the existence of an adversary to the people of Argentina. Uniting the population with empowering phrases before relaying the clips of reality served as an additional pillar of neorealism. The techniques present in The Hour of the Furnaces relay the intentional nature of neorealism and neocolonialism as the topics pertained to the power of film.
The film “La honra de los Hornos” by Fernando Pino Solano serves as propaganda for the people and strives to sway the public to believe and fight for their liberation through rebellion. The film begins by displaying quotes from famous world leaders that supports their cause and will hopefully convince the audience to agree with the movie. To further its argument, the movie also has interviews from native people who are the last of their kind and who have been persecuted for many years. They appear to have nothing while it seems the European descent in Argentina have everything. One of the most compelling scenes in the movie was the decision to show the slaughtering of the cattle. I believe it was a metaphor that Solano used to compare how the natives were being treated. The Cattle are not treated as they should be and it shows the butchers trapping the cattle in a narrow space and hitting them on the head with a sharp object. In a way the neocolonialism trapped the natives in Argentina and took from them what mattered most to them. Their life, their way of living. They were no longer free to live the way they had imagined. The director, near the end, also had the sound of gunshots firing paired each gunshot with pictures of the neocolonists, those that had inflicted the oppression onto the natives. This serves as a symbol as they are killing the Argentinians, and that they are killing the heart of this land. After proposing all these issues, Solano presents the people with the solution of rebellion and to fight for their life. In fact, the movie states, “Our War is Peace”. After giving the people a sense of hopelessness the director strives to offer a solution that he believes will inflict change much need for many years.
ReplyDeleteThe Hour of the Furnaces by Octavio Getino and Fernando Solanas was the first film I have viewed that strongly depicted to the viewer a desperate call for action, specifically the political process of liberation for a non-liberated country. Solanas and Getino effectively demonstrated the neocolonial condition of Argentina through what I would call compartmentalized “sections,” similar to the glossary of a book titled “history,” “geography,” etc. These compartmentalized sections proved effective because from a viewer’s perspective, one only had to pause the film to discuss the section they had just watched. I think this would prove effective because this film’s perspective of neocolonialism depicts a country split into factions without any real political direction. Getino and Solanas offer a solution through the private, risky screenings of their film to convince the countrymen of Argentina that liberation will only be possible under the rule of Peron once more. The most convincing moment for me as a first time viewer of Getino’s and Solana’s collaboration was the three minute reproduced picture of Che Guevara’s face with his eyes wide open.
ReplyDeleteThis film also uses many audiovisual techniques to capture the viewer’s attention, and again convey the message of liberation to the audience. The techniques I noticed were “flickers” of real life pictures shown so quickly at times it was hard to grasp what was viewed, as well as contemplative sequence shots, such as the 3 minute reproduced picture of Che Guevara’s face. The most disturbing sequence of images and video were the animal slaughter house combined with the “flickers” of advertising clips depicting happy, every day men, women, children, and families in tandem with classical music. This strongly conveyed the message that not everything is as it seems, and if you look below the surface you will strongly disagree with certain practices and routines of daily life, and will eventually demand change. For those who wanted change, Getino and Salanas gave them options, and planted the idea for the need and want of their liberation in their minds and in their hearts.
La Hora de los Hornos, directed by Fernando Solanas, is an anti-American film which promotes violence as a means of getting what the argentine people want. As a means of organization, this film is divided into many chapters, marked by bolded white capital letters that stand out starkly on a fully black back drop. This form of contrast is seen at many other points during the film. Over pictures of suffering children, the film plays an up tempo music. Images of laughing Americans are mixed with viciously slaughtered cattle. A child’s jovial laugh is played over terrible images of war. Finally, gunshots are synchronized with rapidly shown advertisements from the United States. As stated above by other classmates, this film is largely anti-US propaganda. The filmmakers clearly wanted to associate the image of the white, glamorous American and their culture as harmful to the Argentinian way of life. At one point in the film, the cameras follow young citizens of Buenos Aires to a music store where they smoke and sing along to American produced English records. There is almost a satirical edge to this chapter (which follows the oligarchy, or ruling class) as the young Argentinians laugh and smoke to music in a language that they don’t use daily. Ultimately, the purpose of this film was to highlight the injustices that the argentine people were facing at the time (according to the filmmakers), and to create an atmosphere hostile to US presence.
ReplyDeleteThis film employs the use of Italian neo-realism, in which films are produced as cheaply and with as little editing as possible in an attempt to show the audience as much of reality as possible. Another film we watched in class Tira Die, directed by Fernando Birri, also uses this style. This film is a documentary about the children who live in the slums of Santa Fe that make their money by begging from a train that runs near their homes. The movie starts off with many helicopter shots of Santa Fe and a voiceover from Birri. Birri gives the audience astonishing statistics of the wealth and populous of Santa Fe, which makes it all the more astonishing when the audience is shown the slums where the children live. After many interviews from the denizens of the slums, the film builds to its final scene, which shows an uninterrupted view of how the children beg for money, their pitiful cries, and the reactions of the people on the train. These range from pity, to accusations of laziness on the part of the parents, to disdain. The goal of this film was to show the stark contrast between the wealthy and the poor of the country, to inform the movie going population of the conditions that the poor face, and to create sympathy for the children and their families that rely on charity to survive.
The book, The Cinematic Tango, does an excellent job of describing how the argentine film industry was created and how it has developed. As written, much of the development of this industry owes some thanks to the Americans, who built many theaters but also directed many Spanish-speaking films that entertained the wealthy city dwellers of Argentina. It is unknown whether the industry would have developed with the strength it has (and the ultimate artistic and political purpose) had it not been for the influence of Hollywood in its early years, but this will hopefully be discussed later in the class.
The film "The Hour of the Furnaces" by Fernando Solanas was an intriguing insight to the 1960's of Argentina. During this time Argentina was in a military dictatorship on the verge of Civil War. The film uses techniques such as sound, music and visual comparisons to contrast the working class with that of the middle class. One of the many points made in the film and the one I believe to be the most pertinent to the progression of Argentina is the farse of academic freedom. Those who get education are those whom are believed would suit the ideologies held at the time. They were taught in ways that ignored the national ideology. This made the students disconnected from the people and the realities of the country. Instead of being taught about the realities they were taught the ideologies that would keep them dependent on Western culture. These teachings keep the intellectuals from creating their own identity for the nation. This prevents progress. This inability to progress could be a potential predicate of the military coup that took place in 1976. The films sensory way of appealing to the necessity of change for the working class is effective for the viewer. It poignantly points out the dependency of the nation and the continual circle of dependency that Is perpetuated by the educational system at the time.
ReplyDeleteOne of the scenes that caught my attention from “The Official Story” was when Alicia and her high school friend were sitting on the couch together, and the high school friend reveals the tragic torture that she endured. She explains to Alicia that because of her affiliation with her domestic partner who must have been on bad terms with the government, she was taken and interrogated by the military. They interrogated her over and over again, wanting her to tell them the whereabouts of her partner. She repeatedly told them she had not seen him in 2 years and she did not know where he was, but they did not believe her. They almost drowned her several times, she was beaten and raped. She also mentions that she was not alone in the building she was held captive in. The screams of other women in all around her were so loud that she could not differentiate her own screams from others. She goes on to reveal that many women who were captured were also pregnant, and as soon as they gave birth, their babies were taken from them and sold to wealthy people, while they were killed. As soon as the friend mentions this, Alicia becomes defensive since she has an adopted daughter that her husband randomly showed up with 5 years ago. The friend continues to share that as soon as she was let go, she fled the country and moved to Europe with her son.
ReplyDeleteThis scene reveals very important historical on goings that took place during the military dictatorship era of Argentina. The military would take captive anyone thought to associate with radical and anti-military government, and they would interrogate and torture them. Pregnant women’s babies were taken from them as soon as they were born, and many men and women in the working class were killed. This scene also reveals the privilege of the middle class compared to the working class. The majority of people killed by the military regime were in the working class. The middle class mostly stayed clear of military punishment because they benefitted not only financially, but also in their family safety by being affiliated with the ideals of the military force. Many middle class educated/intellectual people fled the country in fear, including Alicia’s friend, who had the financial resources to get her and her son to a different country. Alicia, as a wealthy middle class woman, had the privilege to be oblivious to the reality of the actions being conducted by the military, she was even blind to the truth that her husband was involved with the military dictatorship. Her adopted daughter was given to her by her husband, and she had no idea that her child could have been one of the babies that was taken from their mothers.
This scene is supposed to acknowledge the reality of the evil done in Argentina during the military dictatorship, while directing the idea of a price to be paid for the majority of the middle class for allowing this to happen and not standing up for what was right. It also allows the audience to view the democracy of the early 80’s as a much more peaceful and effective government compared to the events during the military dictatorship. This scene would help the international audience to see Argentina for the good, bad, and the ugly; to see that it is making progress towards moving on towards building a more peaceful democracy within the country.
ReplyDeleteThe Official Story (1985) by Luis Puenzo was, in my opinion, a very emotionally driven story supported by the political events that followed the Dirty War in Argentina in the late 1900’s. In relation to the stories correspondence with the actual events that took place, the story takes the viewer into the result society in Argentine after the rearrangement of the governmental control. I think that the film does present a neorealist view that pits the working class against the middle class in a way that shows the societal expectations of each class and the social dilemmas that arise in each group. Alicia represents the woes and virtues of the middle class at the time that followed the revolution in Argentina. She lives a seemingly great life and does what she likes to do, which is teaching history as a professor. Her friend Ana also represents the same societal group but seems to experience the negative consequences that arose from the fallout of the Dirty War. Being held in captivity and being brutally interrogated, Ana confides in Alicia about the, once deemed, conspiracy stories that cause her to question what the official story is behind the so-called disappearances of random citizens, the claims of clandestine anarchy within the government’s grasp and most importantly, she questions the legitimacy of the adoption of her 5 year old daughter Gaby. Sara (I think is the name of the potential grandmother) represents the poor or working class who had no money or resources to find her missing loved ones but used the power to protest to catch the attention of Alicia. Once the reality that her husband’s government supported job may have had something to do with an abduction, Alicia realizes that the truth may not have been the actual story of events that she pushed her students to acknowledge in class.
ReplyDeleteFalicov (2007) states that at this time, Argentine film was at a resurgence from its near collapse and was revamped to appeal to a middle class, educated and intellectual audience. It makes since that this story is geared toward that specific type of audience based on the way the story presents the protagonist of the film who happens to be a middle class wife and mother. Not only does this film connect with this specific group, it also tells a story that many of them can relate to in regards to the illegal adoptions and sale of babies who were born to people in government captivity. Although this story has its targeted audience, I think that it is a film that projects an ample amount of symbolism and emotional suspense to appeal to a variety of audiences while keeping the message intellectually and historically sound.
(I don't think that my comment posted the first time.)
The film The Hour of the Furnaces by Fernando Solana and Octavio Getino was to persuade the native Argentinean. The goals of the producers were to show the corruption going on in the country and how the culture of Argentina was transforming into the culture of the United States and the repercussions that have evolved from the transformation. The film showed violence and terror throughout the streets of Argentina caused by the military. Not only were the images dramatic but the music chosen intensified the feeling of distress and fear. On top of that the flashes of words encouraged change, such as power, oppression, liberation and more. These were incorporated into the film to get their audience motivated for change, hoping the best motivation would be fear. Through these images the audience is shown the reality of how different the culture has become. They express that not only is the culture so drastically different but they imply the beginning of racism. That the more native Argentine culture is seen as below the new and upcoming culture or “American” culture. Argentina in the 1960’s was being depicted as what they believed to be the perfect lifestyle in films viewed around the world but some film makers like Solanes believed that instead of keeping their problems out of sight
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“A King and His Movie”, directed by Carlos Sorin in 1986 was an interesting, yet classic approach to the style of film that was made in Argentina during this era. The film presents the story of the struggle of a very artistic director named David, who is trying to film a movie about the legend of the King of Patagonia and Araucania. One of the most pressing issues seen throughout the entire film is the issue of having funding to produce this film. The producer, who is supposed to be funding the creation of the film, leaves to Europe without informing David or his right-hand man name Arturo until several days later, and he no longer is funding the film. To David’s frustration, there is no money to pay the cast or the picture and sound specialists, but he continues to make the film anyway with limited money and resources.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching this film, it is important to keep in mind the kind of audience that Sorin is creating this film for, and what kind of a purpose that the film is trying to accomplish for the target audience. Falicov explains that during this time period, Argentine films were made specifically for international, national middle-class and educated intellectual’s viewership; ignoring the appeal to the working class (48). As a result, “A King and His Movie” had very little success locally in Argentina, but was a huge success internationally, as it won the GOYA Award, Grand Coral First Prize in Havana and Best First Work in Venice. Falicov discusses that the reason for this push towards an international recognition was because democratic President Alfonsin wanted them to served two purposes, “to gain legitimacy for the Argentina as a bonafide democratic nation... and served as a way to sell to films there” (55).This film, although seemingly simple to follow, has a great deal of symbolism and displays very historically relevant consequences of Argentina’s history that would be more easily appreciated by an educated middle-class viewer.
A historically relevant event that is eluded to is when Artuo explains to David that the wealthy producer who was funding the movie, named De Felipe, has left to Europe and is no longer funding them. During this time period when this movie was made, Alfonsin allowed the film industry to produce a larger number of what Falicov calls “testimonio films” (48). She goes on to explain that the testimonio, “demonstrated that Argentina was undergoing an exorcism of the recent, terrible past”(48). During this time in Argentina’s history, it was not uncommon for wealthy people who had any affiliation with the military dictatorship to secretly take what money they could from their businesses and flee the country. As a result, many people like David, are left to suffer because of the effect of the terrible past of corruption in businesses due to the military dictatorship. However, despite this financial set back, David still continues to attempt to make his movie, which represents the resilient nature of the Argentine people who have overcome the terrible past and continue to work towards making Argentina’s culture a more modern and artistically relevant country.
Throughout lecture and in The Cinematic Tango by Falicov we explored how Argentine films can serve as vehicles for social expression and have been largely impacted by both political and economic issues. These films could not only serve as escapes from reality and entertainment, but also helped bring social issues to the forefront of public discourse. The text discussed how in the 1960’s there was a change in the type of films that were made. Prior to this movies were produced as artistic films and then they became political films, which showed the harsh realities of the country. There was a systematic shift from appealing to the reduced audience (artistic films) to political films that targeted a larger, mass audience. The film The Hour of the Furnaces is a good example of this new political oriented filmmaking. The film portrayed the harsh contrast between the rich cities including Buenos Aires and how people outside of the cities such as those in the small towns surrounding railroads lived. The rich were portrayed as having fancy clothes and carriages to ride to fancy events while the poor barely could make enough money to put food on the table and kids were often forced to beg for dimes running alongside the railroads. This portrayal of the actual lives of everyday Argentinians versus more artistic filmmaking showed the shift to Neo-Realism. Neo-Realism tried to portray the reality of what everyday people were experiencing and leave individuals thinking about the film and issues presented after they left the theater. The Hour of the Furnaces is a good example of Neo-Realism. The film showcased the real life in Argentina during the time it was shot, during a time when Argentina was wrought with social and political upheaval. The film seeks to draw the public’s attention to the poor living conditions of many and get individuals thinking about the issue after watching in hopes that they would start a revolution. Solanas and Getino’s stated how film could play a crucial role in” the battle for the complete liberation of man”. They saw it as a vehicle for political and social change and they wanted to create a “national cinema for liberation”. This is very evident in the seemingly controversial content portrayed in the film. This content reveals the aforementioned change in content of film from artistic to political, which contrasted which, some of the earlier films we saw in class, which just showed individuals walking out of a factory or other events created solely for the purpose of entertainment. During the time the film was produced Argentina was largely influenced by European countries and this was creating a negation of Argentine culture and reality. By creating films in Neo-Realist traditions artists including Solanas and Getino tried to make citizens and political officials aware of contemporary issues which likely had a large impact on legislation passed in support of Argentinian film during this time period. Their film portrayed tropes related to political upheaval that contrasted with more artistic tropes seen often in the very influential European cinema.
ReplyDelete( I don't think this posted the first time)