Writing the New Argentina in Juan José
Campanella’s
El Secreto De Sus Ojos/The Secret In Their Eyes
Juan
José Campanella’s Academy Award-winning film El secreto de sus ojos/The Secret in Their Eyes (2009), has been
praised for its technical prowess, and for “engaging emotion as well as
intellect” [1]. Campanella´s
Hollywood-learned technical skills have been welcomed by Argentine critics and
State industry commentators as an example of
how Latin American film can
address complex political issues while remaining commercially viable at
the national and international levels.
The film
has also been praised for its ability to confront a difficult period of
Argentine history, that of the dictatorship of the 1970s and 80s, and the
policies of “forgetting” that were promoted by the State in order advance
national reconciliation: “Ben and Irene as they
separately examine the decisions they made back in the 1970s. For both of them,
as for their country, accurate remembrance of that period is crucial.”[2]
The protagonists are brought together by their common sense of justice and
their desire to challenge and even subvert the power structure that has been
perverted by powerful interests in order to solve a brutal rape-murder case
that took place in the early 1970s. It is in this common spirit of resistance in
the face of injustice that their bond develops and grows, contributing also to the
film’s “official” allegorical meaning: the return to Argentina of a fair system
of justice.
Academically, the film has been studied as a psychological exploration of the complexities and contradictions that resulted from the dictatorship of the “Dirty War,” an allegory of the dynamics of “forgetting” that followed the country’s transition to democracy, and the slow reconstruction and association of events that link the political horrors of those years and the lives of the protagonists.
But the existing allegorical explorations overlook an
element of the relationship between the protagonists: their class status. This
paper uses the theories of national allegory advanced by Fredric Jameson to
offer an interpretation of how the relationship between the two protagonists, Irene
and Benjamín, including the way the political situation of Benjamín’s is
resolved, generating a conflictive reading of the film’s vision of history.
This vision results in an illusory alliance between the emerging bourgeoisie,
represented by Benjamín, and the traditional oligarchy, represented by Irene,
as well as by the class role ascribed to other characters in the film, and
exposes a different way of understanding the film’s attempt at confronting both
the unresolved issues of Argentina’s political past and its possible future.
The film
is told in a series of flashbacks that trace the memories that paralegal (not
lawyer, he insists through the film) Benjamín Esposito is trying to awaken in
order to tell the story of a murder he investigated in his youth. The murder,
which is not political in nature, ties into the political reality of the
Argentina of the 1970s through the association of the murderer to police squads
that acted with impunity during the dictatorship. Through the flashbacks we
follow Benjamín´s early attempts at resolving the murder, often circumventing
legal technicalities with the support of Assistant Judge Irene, but his efforts
are eventually thwarted by the obstacles and threats produced by the dictatorship´s
ideological bureaucracy already in place before 1976. Many of the more complex
reading s of the film, like Moraña´s, focus their analysis on the resolution of
the murder-mystery aspect of the film, a reading that leaves unresolved the
other subplot of the story, the long unspoken love affair between Espósito and
Irene.
In her book El cuerpo del delito. Un
manual, Argentine critic Josefina Ludmer explores the concept of crime
according to different schools of thought, and concludes that a “crime” is a
four-cornered structure that involves the criminal, the victim, the state, and
civil society. This quadrangular structure, according to Ludmer, implies that
all crimes are political (18-20). Most critics have focused their analysis of
the political meaning of Campanella´s film in the resolution of the traditional
crime: Benjamín discovers that, given the State´s obstruction of the legal
system, it is up to civil society (both the victim´s husband, and Benjamín acting
outside of the realm of the legal profession he represents, (although within
the SPIRIT of the law)) to punish the criminal –or, in the case of Benjamín—to
overlook the transgressions of the victim in order to embrace a sort of poetic
justice that, according to Moraña, allows us to focus on the fear of forgetting
that seems to engulf Espósito, and that leads him not only to develop the novel
that serves as an engine for the plot, but also an engine of memory for Espósito and Irene, who are then
driven to pursue the “real” outcome of
the story years after the crime had been officially closed. For Moraña, this
exercise in memory is a way of seeking justice for the victims by rescuing them
from the anonymity of the official story, which has rendered them twice harmed:
first by the original crime, and then by allowing the criminal, who also
commits criminal acts in the name of the corrupt state, to remain at large. In
shielding the criminal, the state loses its legitimacy and justifies the
extrajudicial action of the social actors. As Solomianski states, “the end says
something we don’t´seem to understand amidst the confusion (…): when the State
fails to fulfill its public function, individuals must abandon the private
realm to take control of the public one.” (775).
But
critics seem to have overlooked an important element of the story: the way it forges private alliances across
traditionally conflictive elements of Argentine society in order to overcome
the passivity or the criminality of the state. In this case, this alliance is
given also as the redeeming element of the exercise in memory that is the
recreation of the crime: the culmination or realization of the love story
between Benjamin and Irene, which represents also the point of closure of the
conflict of the film.
From our
point of view, this part of the resolution of the plot forces an alliance
between traditionally antagonistic social and economic forces in Argentine
society, that of the oligarchy, represented by Irene Menéndez Hastings, (of Scottish ancestry in traditionally
anglophile Argentine society;
US-educated (in Cornell, not
Harvard –we could joke a second-tier oligarch because of these shortcomings in
her pedigree), who gains access to the lower tiers of the justice system thank
s to her father´s influence (although she will still have to “make her way to
the top”) vs Benjamín Expósito, an ambitious child of the working class (an
issue repeatedly mentioned in the film and that is also suggested by his last
name, Expósito, a surname often given to children of unknown parentage in
Argentine orphanages) who, we surmise from the plot references, has managed,
through his perseverance and intelligence, to overcome the barriers to his social
class and achieve a position of responsibility in the magistrate´s office
despite, again, as we learn repeatedly, of him not being a lawyer but a
paralegal. Benjamin and Irene ´s
alliance allows the former to perform investigations into the crime despite
illegitimate barriers built into the legal system by the state´s repressive apparatus to defend its henchmen,
and developing the coping mechanism of the “other” in the violent world of the
pre-dictatorship, the reliance on extrajudicial actions justified by their
certainty in the guilt of the suspect, Ordoñez.
It is thanks to this complicity that Expósito gains access to the clues
of the crime, in what is both an act of rebellion and resistance that is cut at
the root by the increasing violence of the system (the crime and initial
investigation take place in 1974, the violence era when the State´s own AAA
(Alianza Anticomunista Argentina) began paramilitary activities against the
left-wing opposition, violence that
would culminate in the 1976 coup, the moment when, after the murder of Pablo
Sandoval, Expósito´s assistant, and the chilling encounter with the murderer in
an elevator, convince both Irene and Benjamin of their inability to fight the
system.
In her
excellent Crisis and Capitalism in
Contemporary Argentine Cinema, Joan Page (134-135) describes how film
production in Argentina develops strategies of reterritorialization that
respond to the realignment of political and economic forces after the
dictatorship, but also the attempt at legitimating the new social and especially
economic order. Like Tamara Falicov in her The
Cinematic Tango. Contemporary Argentine Film, Page sees in many Argentine
film productions supported by the government-run INCAA (Instituto Nacional de
Cine y Artes Audiovisuales) and
developed for the international market (as had been the case with an earlier
Oscar winner, La historia oficial, 1985)
an attempt at constructing a narrative that justifies the inaction of the
population during the dictatorship by emphasizing the irrational, random, and merciless
nature of the repressive acts of the State.
In the case of El secreto de sus ojos, the resulting
story reconciles many of the paradoxes created by the new paradigms of
democratic Argentina, especially those related to the economic crisis resulting
from the privatization of national industries and the embracing of neoliberal
economic policies of free trade --here
it is important to note that the “present” time of the film takes place in
1999, two years before the collapse of the Argentine economic system that might
have culminated the neoliberal experiment in the country.
Chilean critic Nelly Richard has theorized
extensively on the attempts of post-dictatorial southern cone governments to
develop narratives of post-dictatorship reconciliation that explained the embrace
of the neoliberal capitalist order in the new democracies, a move that to many
critics, including Richards herself, simply legitimized the actions of the
representatives of the traditional economic order (the alliance of local
oligarchies and transnational corporate interests) to continue the economic
policies that the dictatorship was installed to defend against the interests of the working class.
The love
story between Benjamín and Irene follows this logic of reconciliation but also
builds a logic of submission between what would traditionally be socially
antagonistic parties that are forced into an alliance against a common enemy
who seems to have simply vanished from the scene, and whose punishment is left
to those who were directly victimized by the irrational violence of the State
(here it would be interesting to explore further the relationship between
social violence– the of Liliana Coloto, presented as a truly innocent victim,
vs. the murder of Sandoval, who is killed for political motives but who is
never “avenged”). At the same time, the
25-year gap between the initial investigation of the murder is truncated by the
dictatorship that forces Espósito into internal exile in northern Argentina (a
pseudo-disappearance of sorts) that is encouraged by Irene and negotiated by
her father, making him (the invisible, benevolent, patriarchal hand of the
traditional Patrician oligarchy) the saving deus
ex machina. The closure the film
offers Benjamín and Irene is in reality a return to the traditional order:
Irene has become a judge; Benjamín, now retired, is further able to find
closure by offering his narrative of the crime (although it is never resolved
through the legitimate authority of the State, but rather through its
“parallel” reconstruction by Espósito, another paradox that deserves further
study but matches our reading of the film as reactionary). The legitimacy of
this resolution (although, again, official justice is never achieved), is enshrined
by the consummation of Irene and Benjamín´s romance, which signals the
overcoming of the trauma produced by the irrational actions of the State.
Irene´s new position can be read allegorically as the legitimation of the “new”
legal system, which although still in the hands of the traditional oligarchy,
is now given a “feminized”, “maternal” form, that opens its doors (and its
rose) to Esposito, the rebel who is brought back into the fold of the authority
of the new State.
Even the
resolution of the psychological/subliminal element of the story points at this
appeasing class reconciliation. Espósito becomes aware of his feelings for
Irene when he solves the mystery of the word that recurrently comes to him in
his dreams as he is trying to find subconscious clues to solving the crime. He
repeatedly wakes up and writes the words “Temo” (I fear), which trouble him;
finally, he realizes that what he had been writing all along is “Te amo” (I
love you) and that his subconscious has been telling him all along does not
have to do with the crime, but with his feelings towards Irene. While some
critics have interpreted this illumination as the transforming moment that
allows the protagonist to close the historical gap created by political
violence, we can also read it as the filmmaker´s attempt at appeasing class
conflict: The proletarian´s subconscious fear of the oligarch is magically
transformed by her seemingly accepting his desire, which could be seen as a
moment of overcoming of the class taboos, another “sign” of Argentine progress?
but which in the film becomes surrender (in the closing shot, Benjamín enters
Irene´s office and the door closes behind him), and therefore acceptance of the
established order, not the emergence of a new one, or the emergence of a new
order that follows the rules of the old.
El
secreto de sus ojos has been hailed as a work that uses traditional
Hollywood techniques of “intensified continuity” to explore the complex dynamic
of reconciliation undergone in Argentina after the dictatorship. But the goal of the film is not to confront or
challenge the efficacy of the policy of forgetting that was officially established during the transition to democracy in order
to avoid further violence and secure the
survival of the nation, but rather to take advantage of, or even manipulate
that amnesia in order to build and alternate narrative of reconciliation that,
instead of fueling a reinvention of the
State that takes into consideration the failures and shortcomings of the
previous paradigm, reverts to the old one and justifies the perpetuation of the
status quo. The film´s private,
secret solution to the original murder turns collective injustice and horror
(the unjust application of the law during the Dirty War) into an individual act
of revenge, and in traditional Hollywood mode justifies and privileges
individual action (the victim´s husband acting as judge and executioner) when
the legal system fails the citizenry and the nation, a resolution that is as
problematic as the perpetuation of the fossilized social structure it seems to
defend. The logic of authority upheld in the film seems more a reflection of
the appeasing policies of reconciliation advocated by the defenders of the
amnesty laws of the transition than an attempt at redefining the imaginary of
the nation in order to confront the errors of the past and reinvent itself.
The film
is an example of how government subsidies that allow filmmakers to take
advantage of the sophisticated and expensive game of smoke and mirrors that is
CGI (one of the most commented scenes of the film, that of the soccer stadium,
was produced using the software used in the production of The Lord of the Rings and took 9 months to develop) can be used to give viewers (in Argentina and
abroad) a false sense of closure.
[1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2010-04-23-mcaps23_ST_N.htm.
Accessed Oct. 15, 2014.
The Secret in Their Eyes (2009) shares many similarities with Juan José Campanella’s modern version of Luis Puenzo’s The Official Story (1985). Both have commercial elements to them to appeal to the middle class audience and an intriguing story line that is entertaining and easy to watch. In the 1980s films strived to promote Argentina as optimistic about it transition to democracy and open market/free trade. At this time it was important to ease the middle class guilt from ignoring disappearances and refusing to believe the violence caused by The Dirty War and military dictatorship. Therefore at this time government protection for the film was given to redeem and explain the outcome Argentina faced with at this time. When looking deeper at the two films the ‘story’ or ‘secret’ of Argentina’s unmentionable past, present and future outlook is interwoven in the fabric of these two films.
ReplyDeleteFocusing on the more recent film The Secret in Their Eyes contains a complicated love story, humor, murders, violence and thieves that one would expect in an attention grabbing commercial film attracting international and young audiences, demonstrating advancement of technology and portraying the Argentine nation favorably. The large “explosion of population growth” in 2009 meant there was a 16 year old voting population that needed to be motivated to take matters into their own hands to change the future success of Argentina. Hidden symbols and allegories openly speak intentionally or unintentionally of political, economic, cultural, and social ills that brought Argentina to its current situation and asks how far Argentinean’s are willing to go for justice. Through the film the solution suggested is to fight back fire with fire. There is an underlying theme to serve justice. In Falicov’s The Cinematic Tango Contemporary Agentine Film those involved in the crimes during the military dictatorship were forgiven and given a fresh new start(final point law). In The Secret in Their Eyes the atrocious murder of Liliana, innocent and newly-wed, by Gomez, long-time childhood friend and disturbing obsession with being with Liliana, goes unforgotten, covered up, then resurfaced, set free illegally, and at last punished for his wrongs by justly. The twist is that the one who carried out this justice was not the legal system or government, yet Morales, an ordinary working class man, who happens to be the husband of Liliana, takes the responsibility on himself to sentence Gomez to jail for life by keeping him hostage in a makeshift cell. All of this can be read as mirroring the corruption of the government being secret and forgotten during the dictatorship. Then remembered when democracy comes into the picture after 1982. Lastly, the government still trying to get away with plots to steal money from people and the economic crisis in 2001 can be seen as the murderer set free and working for the government and killing Esposito’s drunk friend. Now the people of Argentina are called to put the people in power with their ideals shown in the movie when Gomez is locked up.
Gomez had taken his obsession with Liliana too far and paid the cost. Is Argentina in the same position? Are they allowing their emotions, greed, lust, selfishness, deceit, corruption etc. drive decisions? In this frenzy where is the mercy for those suffering? Where is the end to the madness? Is Argentina deep in an empty relationship of nothing – feeling nothing, doing nothing- and after time decides to leave this relationship now that it is complicated for one that makes sense- one that it has been wanting to be with its whole existence. Essentially, the ‘passion’ of Argentina, the identity of Argentina, is known by the mistakes repeated. In this case, it would be the lawlessness of the lower class, the inaction/indifference of the middle class, and the corruption of the upper class. Racism between criollos and indigenous peoples and Argentineans and non-Argentine also contributes to the tension and lack of resolution in Argentina.
The Secret in Their Eyes debuted in 2009 and was directed by Juan Campanella. A modern Argentine thriller it portrayed a retired legal counselor, Benjamin (played by Ricardo Darin) who comes back to Buenos Aires, after leaving 25 years before because of his attempted murder, to write a novel about a case from his past where a young lady was brutally raped and murdered in her home.
ReplyDeleteWhen he worked as a legal counselor in Buenos Aires Benjamin fell in love with his boss Irene (played by Soledad Villamil), who worked as an assistant judge. In Argentinian society she was considered out of his league. She came from a prominent family and attended college in the United States. As the movie progresses the audience can see that she loves him also but he thinks himself beneath her and won’t make a move.
The movie continually flashes to the past and back to present day to portray not only a love that is still very much alive but also the continued investigation into the murder. The murderer was found to be a man named Gomez (played by Javier Godino) whom the victim grew up with, and after having solved this and arresting Gomez in a chase at a soccer stadium, Gomez was set free a short time later for cooperating with other investigations.
The victim’s husband Morales (played by Pablo Rago) is lost in his love for his murdered wife, so much so, that after Benjamin flees Buenos Aires after Gomez tries to kills him when he was released from prison, Morales decides to take justice into his own hands. We find out during the final minutes of the movie that Morales, 25 years earlier, waits for Gomez and knocks him out and shoves him into the truck of a car. Instead of killing Gomez, Morales moves out of the city and imprisons Gomez in a homemade cell. Twenty-five years later Morales in seen bringing food to his prisoner and Gomez begs for him just to talk with him.
The entire movie is filled with symbolism from Argentina’s history, the corruption that set Gomez free after being convicted of murder and the clear separation between the classes with Benjamin and Irene contest the long set ideals of a country tormented by its past and wanting to move on into a brighter future.
The Secret In Their Eyes, directed by Juan José Campanella in 2009, is fraught with allegorical references of Argentina’s political, social, and economic history during the 1970s. Although, we talked mainly about the class clash in the film during class, what stood out to me the most was how Campanella chose to portray Argentia’s justice system. I already had an idea of how corrupt the Argentine government was from watching The Official Story, but that was from a different viewpoint. This film deals with a completely different aspect of morality, as it considers what should happen and what did happen to a convicted murderer, Isidoro Gomez. The Dirty War was a time of severe political upheaval, and Campanella effectively portrays this dark time to viewers through the unjust portrayal of Argentina’s justice system.
ReplyDeleteThe first glimpse into Argentina’s justice system occurs when Morales discusses retribution with Benjamín before Gomez has been caught. Benjamín tells Morales that Gomez will get a lifetime sentence in prison for homicide. Morales expresses his concern about this out loud. At first, he thinks it would be more acceptable if Gomez received the death penalty- a life for a life. It seemed like the right option in Morale’s opinion, as he wanted Gomez to suffer just as much as his wife did. However, after debating, Morales realizes that the death penalty would be the easy way out for Gomez, and that he didn’t deserve such a quick and painless death, as with an injection. Morales wanted Gomez to suffer. Morales wanted Gomez to pay for what he did to his wife.
The second instance of Argentina’s justice system is after Gomez is released and is looking for retribution himself. It was my understanding that he hires thugs to murder Benjamín in his own home. Irene convinces Benjamín to leave Buenos Aires, since he is not safe. Here is an instance of the class clash in this film. Benjamín is working class and Irene is upper class. He does not have the means and connections like she does to protect himself. Irene has her father’s money and social status to protect her from Gomez. Benjamín’s life would not have been in danger in the first place if Argentina’s corrupt justice system would have kept a convicted murderer in prison where he belonged.
The last example of Argentina’s justice system in The Secret In Their Eyes is Morale’s imprisonment of Gomez. If Argentina had a correctly working government, Gomez would have spent the rest of his life in prison. If Morales wants justice he must take matters into his own hands. In my opinion, Gomez’s fate is worse in the hands of Morales as it is obvious to viewers that he is underfed, and that Morales has not said a word to him for 25 years. Gomez would have had a better life in federal prison than the life Morales had chosen for him. It is obvious to viewers that Gomez is miserable. I think Morales would consider this a just and fair sentence considering the crimes Gomez committed. It is obvious to the viewers that this is a worse punishment for Gomez than death, which is what Morales wanted, and thought was just.
This film “El Secreto De Sus Ojos” directed by Juan Jose Campanella came at a very delicate part in Argentine politics. The two main characters showed what the film was trying to say in regards to Argentine politics. Irene Hastings played by Soledad Villamil and Benjamin Esposito played by Ricardo Darin each showed instances of political opinions. Irene represented the people of Argentina. Irene had never forgotten about Esposito and always wanted things to go differently. Esposito had always wanted to be in Irene’s life, but they could never fully trust one another. This is much like the government and Argentina which could never find an understanding or an agreement.
ReplyDeleteIn class we mentioned how in the modern day the people of Argentina could never forget what the government did to them. There were very powerful messages and images in this film. During another scene Isidoro Gomez played by Javier Godino is held prisoner by Ricardo Morales played by Pablo Rago. I believed this scene had symbolism as well. This scene showed how the people felt about the government. Esposito again represented the Argentine government and Morales represented the people. Because the government, or Esposito, could not help out the people of Argentina, the people had to handle the issue and take matter into their own hands, which meant torturing Gomez.
Overall this film was one of the more entertaining films that we watched. It was interesting the way political opinions were shown in this film. There was definitely a difference in films compared to the one that were being filmed during the war. This film was not as blunt and direct with the symbolism that it showed in previous films. Now that I have seen Ricardo Darin in a few films I can see the different characters that he plays.
The Secret in Their Eyes (2009, José Campanella) is an exciting film depicting extreme class division and governmental corruption during the time of the guerra sucia and the period of healing yet encouraged erasure of the memory afterwards. The story follows Benjamin (played by Ricardo Darin) in his journey to finally close a case that has haunted him for 25 years. He is aided by judge Irene (played by Soledad Villamil), an old flame who opens doors for him in order to continue the investigation even after the case has been sealed. Benjamin clearly represents the working class and Irene the middle class.
ReplyDeleteWhen a young woman is brutally raped and murdered in her home, Benjamin is sent to investigate the case. After little exploration into the case, it is dismissed after pinning the blame on two wrongfully accused construction workers. Benjamin is unsatisfied with the outcome and continues searching for the truth. With help from Irene, Benjamin is able to go further than anyone else in his position would have been able to go. He finds the actual woman’s killer, Gomez, and takes him down. He is released shortly thereafter because he is “intelligent and brave” and is able to aid the government in other ways. At this point, Gomez becomes untouchable. This is an interesting representation of the governmental corruption and alludes back to Falicov’s mention of the military and government being absolved of all crimes during la guerra sucia. We eventually find out that Morales, the husband of the victim, has taken justice into his own hands and has kept Gomez in a make shift prison cell on his property. This is symbolic of the Argentine people, oppressed and violated, having to take matters into their own hands because the government has failed them profoundly.
The relationship between Benjamin and Irene provides an interesting contrast between the middle class and the working class. The love between the pair is very apparent and there is a palpable romantic tension throughout the film. Benjamin falls in love with her almost instantly when he meets her and she spends years rejecting him. She rescues Ben at the end, sending him out of the country. Though both of their lives are complicated, the ending insinuates that they make it work. I was not satisfied with ending as it seems impractical and unlikely yet they appear to live happily ever after.
The theme of justice is an overarching theme throughout the film. Benjamin is able to surmount many obstacles because of his relationship with Irene. Gomez can be freed because of his relationship to the government and his usefulness. Is it really justice if those that seek it are able to because of their connections?
El secreto de sus ojos directed by Juan José Campenella in 2009 is a powerful film that explores a rape-murder case that took place in 1974 in the period of Argentina’s Dirty War (1974-1983). The main protagonists are Esposito, a retired judiciary employee and Hastings, a judge. Esposito is obsessed with reliving and writing about the case. It becomes an obsession not only for Esposito and Hastings but for the victim’s husband as well. As the film unfolds we also see the romantic relationship that has tortured Esposito and Irene for a quarter century.
ReplyDeleteThe film is darker than it seems. It reinforces the saying an “eye for an eye,” and shows that the justice system at the time is flawed. That who and what you know is the deciding factor in your fate. In the film, after Gomez has confessed to the murder of the girl he is released shortly after. Morano sees his wife's killer on television, included in a security detail for the president of Argentina, María Estela Martínez de Perón. Hastings and Espósito quickly establish that Romano, now working for a government intelligence agency, released the murderer to settle the old score. Romano justifies the release, claiming Gómez has been instrumental in obtaining information to combat left wing guerrillas and that his violent talents are too valuable to be squandered in prison.
This shows that the justice system is unfavorable and that those in power can do whatever they would like to in favor of their objective. The betrayal that Morales must have felt towards the justice system after seeing his wives killer release spurred him to take matters into his own hands and capture Gomez and punish him.
This film provides a poignant illustration of the flaws within the judicial system. The system has in a way forced an honest good hearted citizen to commit a crime because the system has failed him. This speaks to the question of how the system even works if it is creating criminals. In the end Morales is being punished as well as Gomez. Morales cares for his wife’s murderer and has to live with that torment everyday. Esposito leaves and doesn’t report the crime, this show corruptness to me as well because in a fair system it is wrong. But in a film like this the audience secretly cheers because this murderer got what he deserved. The end of the film glosses over this fact and ties it up in a pretty bow with warm and fuzzy feelings of Esposito and Hastings finally having a chance at happiness together. As the credits rolled I couldn’t help but to think back to Gomez and Morales and think how they are still in this constant state of circularity and misery. And how for them things will never change. They are in a constant state of reliving the past and never moving forward.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"The Secret in Their Eyes" is directed by Juan José Campanella, it is a splendid multifaceted film which skillfully alternates between the present and past, as it seamlessly intertwines a murder mystery, love story, and judicial injustice. All of these elements of the story are creating depth. A film that effectively juggles both affection and misery, using Benjamin's conflicted heart as a way to humanize the chilling details, while observing a man not only starved for justice, but after a woman he abandoned decades earlier.
ReplyDeleteBenjamín (Ricardo Darín), a retired court investigator, is trying to write a novel about an old case of his that was never resolved to his satisfaction. More than two decades ago, a woman was brutally raped and murdered, and although suspects were found, the case against them was thrown out on technical grounds. However, Benjamín always suspected someone else entirely. Benjamín and his assistant Pablo Rago (Ricardo Morles), ultimately were certain that a man named Isidoro Gómez was the real killer. For help, he returns to his old office and bounces his thoughts off Irene (Soledad Villamil), whom he has always loved despite never acting on those feelings. The past and the present begin to merge as pieces of the case are reinvestigated, forcing Benjamín to reflect on his past, and what could have been. But Benjamín's search for the truth will put him at the center of a judicial nightmare, as the mystery of the heinous crime committed 25 years ago continues to haunt him in the present. Interweaving past and present, we see how the investigation affects Benjamín, as well as Irene, over the period of decades. Stealthily weaving Esposito's relationship with Irene into the on-going murder mystery, it takes on a life of it's own--a compulsive narrative that manages to be genuinely surprising. Haunting and gracefully, the film reveals its secrets slowly. Lengthly, but engaging, wonderful storytelling, and extremely well-done. The entire cast is uniformly superb, enhancing this foreign thriller--with its intelligent, layered screenplay.
This film does not make any wrong moves. The story is tight, the acting is wonderful, the cinematography is impressive, and even though it concerns such heavy subject matter, the end doesn't leave the audience without any good feelings or something to look forward to.
Blog Post: Los Muertos
ReplyDeleteLos Muertos, directed by Lisandro Alonso in 2004, is a film from the new independent Argentinian style of filmmaking. As such, it employs a use of minimal dialogue and scenery to create a more realistic, “gritty” feel to the film. The film follows a man called Vargas who has recently been released from prison in his search for his daughter. At the beginning of the film, the audience is led to believe that two young boys were murdered by Vargas and it is later alluded to they could have even been his own brothers.
This film is an allegory for Argentina in many respects. Like Vargas, Argentina is still suffering the consequences from crimes committed numerous years ago. Vargas allegedly murdered two children; his own kin. Argentina was responsible for something similar during the military dictatorship. At the expense of their own people, the powerful oligarchy exerted their influence over those with less position than themselves (like the children). Furthermore, while it is heavily suggested that Vargas murdered the boys, it was never fully confirmed. When asked about it in the film, Vargas simply states that he has moved on and wanted to forget about it. In the same way, while many in Argentina could point fingers at who started their social and economic problems, no one was ever to fully understand or indicate the source. Like Vargas, the Argentina of 2004 wanted to forget about these problems and continue on in life as they had always been. At the end of the day, the two boys were dead, and so was the Argentine economy. The source of these issues didn’t matter at that point.
Lastly, the film ended in such a way that the audience was not entirely sure what happened. I was certainly under the impression that Vargas had killed his two grandchildren, but that is never confirmed. There is a bit of a Schrodinger’s cat situation. The children can be both alive and dead. In the same way, the future of Argentina is unclear. We don’t know where they are going, but past experience leads us to expect the worst. Overall, this was a beautifully shot film that asked many questions of its audience, though not in a direct way.
The 2009 film, El secreto de sus ojos, directed by Juan Jose Campenella, is a modern take on the transition and confrontation of the past that Argentina deals with, very similar to La historia oficial. Using a love story and the mystery of murder, it affectively grasps modern audiences attention to portray the injustices of the judicial system and causes the audiences to participate in thinking out these social justices.
ReplyDeleteBut, however visually and aesthetically attractive this film may be, the overall message that it seems to send can not possibly be ignored. After a whole movie of following Esposito, a retired judicial employee, trying to resolve a conflicted feeling of injustice over a previous case, the audience is left to believe that the murderer gets what he deserves although the judicial system is still flawed. The film presents this viewpoint that people are left to deal with their own issues, left to their own solutions, that justice in the political setting is not as important. It also sets a precedent that even though there are flaws in the judicial system, it seems to be acceptable to dismiss them as long as justice is fulfilled at a personal level. If this is the precedent being set for society, then who is to say a man is wrong to kill if it is justified in his own mind? Who Is the system really there for if the injustices are never solved at a political level?
On another note though, there is this optimistic and romanticized notion that the class divisions even after 25 years could be finally broken. The romantic relationship between Esposito and Irene, a beautiful and educated judge, faces the harsh realities of class division of the time period. The ending of the movie gives the audience the happily ever after every moviegoer wants.
The only thing left to decide by the audience is if it is acceptable to dismiss the unresolved political judicial system in exchange for a happily ever after.
El secreto de sus ojos is a 21st century version of La historia oficial. It portrays the corruption and the social unease of Argentina in the 70s. With the characters being of the middle class, the audience can get a sense of identity and connect with the characters on a personal level. As far as the corruption, I would like highlight a few situations that arose during the movie that portrayed the corruption and social unease in the movie.
ReplyDeleteThe first example, is of Sandoval. He himself perhaps represents the corruption of Argentina as a whole Irene and Benjamin represent the workers because after convicting the man who raped the woman, Sandoval released to work for the police force soon after just to get back at Benjamin. And he specifically says “There’s nothing you guys can do about.” And so Irene and Benjamin left without being able to truly get justice of the deceased woman’s death.
The second example is of Irene when Benjamin asks her to reopen the case to find the murderer of the rape victim. She questions him and asks him of course if he is out of her mind, but she specifically says herself “I don’t know if this is what justice is, but it’s a kind of justice at least.” She had to falsify the closing of the case to achieve what their idea was of true justice. But to achieve justice, she committed an unjust action according to the law.
A good representation in this film how people disappeared during this time period, and no one really cared. For example, Ignacio was kidnapped and kept in a home-made jail cell for years and years, but no one had really made an investigation to find him. This happened a lot and perhaps this film wanted to portray that now, Argentina has indeed recognized its issues like the ones seen in this film.
There are so many interpretations of the film, Los Muertos, that could be argued. The intent of the director may have been to fulfill a certain aesthetic cinematography. Taking it as it is, we can simply embrace the story of a mans life as he is released from prison. The long scenes without interruption, the scarce dialog, allows the audience to watch the everyday life of man returning to his family. We are able to watch as he so naturally finds his way back to the habits of his past life, like finding food in nature. However, as critics, we look for allegories, symbolisms and hidden meanings. For example, the contrast between nature and modernization may be interpreted as a reflection of Argentina’s origins versus their present. Also, as Molly pointed out in class, the sounds of the ending may lead one to believe that the protagonist killed his two grandchildren solely based on what we learned about his past actions. If interpreted as a national allegory, one then might interpret a country’s actions, like Argentina, based on their past.
ReplyDeleteHowever, regardless of which interpretation is taken away or what symbolism is found in the film, I believe that the ambiguity of the film leads the audience to self-evaluation. Because there is no direct message or intent given by the director, our inferences and analysis become much more personal. Where are those inferences or analysis coming from? Are our personal experiences, prejudices or other things in our lives being reflected based on what we interpret? One of the great things about these types of films, where there are many things left open to interpretation, is that is gives the audience an opportunity to self-reflection and causes one to reevaluate their life and society. And so maybe that was the real purpose of the director, was not to depict a life story but to cause us to reflect on our lives and lifestyles.
The Secret in Their Eyes (2009) skillfully marries elements of commercial filmmaking and political complexities. Juan José Campanella’s production exposes a new realm of cinema that explores the territory of a common thriller while speaking volumes toward the political situation. The film’s composition and content are familiar to an American audience while maintaining Argentine roots. The viewer is placed in the midst of a love story framed by a resonating murder case. The film follows the past and present as Benjamin, played by Ricardo Darín, addresses the unrequited love and unresolved rape-murder case of his past. The events that transpire in both stories address the shortcomings of Argentina.
ReplyDeleteThe film sets off with the reunion of Benjamin Esposito and Irene Menéndez-Hastings decades after they worked together on a haunting rape-murder case. The viewer is introduced to their history through flashbacks as Esposito writes about the case. A legal counselor and assistant judge work closely, revealing a class separation that seems insurmountable. As his feelings for her escalated so too did their glaring differences. Irene was educated and wealthy, while Esposito represented the working class. Despite his feelings, he did not cross the class lines, revealing strained class relations in Argentina. He ultimately succumbed to the aristocracy and resolved his feelings for Irene at the conclusion of the film.
The rape-murder case prompted the circumstances and actions of the characters. The reaction shot that reveals Esposito’s thoughts and feelings after viewing the brutal scene invests both the character and viewer in the situation. Esposito and his partner dedicated their time to solving the case, urged by the relentless love of Morales for his murdered wife. A fellow investigator pursued the wrongful prosecution of two Bolivian working men, referred to as “rednecks”, who were near the scene, revealing further class and race strains. When Esposito helped clear their names, he provoked the investigator to pursue a personal vendetta. Eventually Esposito’s partner helped uncover and arrest the rapist and murderer. He was freed on the grounds of working as a spy, a work of the vengeful investigator. Ultimately, the partner was killed and Gomez was set free, sending a conspicuous political message of corruption.
In the end, the “justice” system appealed to its own agenda. The murder-rape case was disregarded for personal interests. The ineffective nature of the justice system prompted Morales to pursue his own means of justice. Gomez disappeared, alluding to the unforgiving nature of the Dirty War. The conclusion illustrates the corruption of this system as the people with power were not in power to help the working class. The engrossing murder and love stories were accentuated with political messages of class and racial tension and a corrupt justice system.
“The Secret in Their Eyes” (2009) chronicles the journey of a paralegal named Benjamin and an assistant judge in the search for justice after the legal system failed to provide justice for the rape and murder of a young woman. However, the movie is more than just a riveting portrayal of a quest for justice, it also is a political allegory and an exploration of Argentine class struggle and conflict. The film created an allegory for the prominent attitude of forgetting which occurred for many people after the atrocities of “The Dirty War” and military dictatorship had ended. This allegory is portrayed most vividly through the relationship between Benjamin and Morales. After “The Dirty War” it was easiest for many Argentines to forget about the atrocities of the war and dictatorship so they could move away from them towards democracy. This also mirrored the ambivalence of many middle and upper class individuals to these atrocities while they were happening. The movie shows the journey of Benjamin to find justice for Moralas’ dead wife even years after the case was legally closed. The movie has been described by the “Wall Street Journal” as” Leaping around in time, Campanella uses the aftermath of this one sadistic murder case to expose not just law-enforcement shortcomings but fault lines in Argentine society” . The legal system tried to force him and everyone involved to forget it by closing the case but this was not enough for Benjamin. He continues to seek justice and when he is visiting Moralas at his new home in the country years after the murder he questions him wondering how he could have forgotten and moved on. We later learn Moralas never forgot or moved on and is holding Isidoro captive in a cell on his property. These scenes reveal how many upper and middle class individuals forgot about the war so they could move on; however, those affected (often the lower or working class) could never truly move on. Even when the legal system moved on Morales and Benjamin never could because they had been permanently affected by the murder. The imprisonment allowed justice for Moralas (although unethical) which the legal system did not provide and also symbolized the return of Argentina to a fair system of justice. Further, it illustrates how there really was no true justice for the crimes committed during “The Dirty War”. The imprisonment of Isidoro could also symbolize the larger corruption in the government and the legal system. Even though Isidoro was clearly guilty and should have spent life in prison, corruption within the government and legal system allows him to be a free man. This same corruption has been explored in various movies we have seen such as “Pizza, Beer and Smokes” among others. Moreover, it also relates to another issue explored in the movie, class conflict and the struggle between classes. The whole movie chronicles the love story of Benjamin and Irene. Their love story is somewhat of a forbidden love story because Benjamin is a lower social class and less educated than Irene. They are not allowed to have a relationship until the very end of the movie because of this. Then in the final scene when it is clear that they will start their romantic relationship we see that Irene will be in control of the relationship as she proclaims close the door and reminds Benjamin it will be complicated. This suggests that because Benjamin is of a lower social class he will have to follow the rules and directions set out by Irene. We even see this earlier on in the movie when they want to meet for coffee and Benjamin apologizes after choosing a meeting place that is not fancy enough. This reveals how regardless of personal feelings there are inherent differences between classes and even if individuals wish to break free from the constraints of their class society will make it difficult.
ReplyDelete25 years after some of the worst times in Argentine history, The Secret in Their Eyes is asking for reconciliation. The film, which received substantial funding from the government, seems to ask us to forget the atrocities committed by the upper class while the lower class is still struggling. Justice is only served when associated with the upper class, and if you are not, then you must fend for yourself only to have justice never found. However, if you bound yourself to the upper class and decide to depend on them, as Ben does, voluntarily or otherwise, you may be saved. Irene sends him to the desert when he is in trouble, as he is in the working class, this makes sense in our model of Civilization vs. Barbarism, as only the people with money and from Europe (Irene Hastings) are worth being civilized. Once he comes back to her and they have their romantic moment at the end of the movie, we see Ben accept her terms, instead of setting his own. He has been at her whim the entire movie.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the working class is seemingly constantly pushed down in this movie, they have one redeeming moment. Morales gave up trying to fit in, moved away and found his own justice. However even in this moment of triumph, I would argue that no internal justice is found. He kept on repeating to forget it to Ben when he found him in the countryside, but Morales couldn’t possibly forget when he has to face the rapist and murderer of his wife. We find out that personal justice is not always just.
Although I enjoyed the movie, I would say that this is a prime example of the fact that the Argentine government is promoting a certain kind of movie; they want a particular story told.
El Secreto de Sus Ojos (2009) is a film that proved to be very successful in Argentina. Juan Jose Campanella directed this Best Foreign Language Oscar winning film. In this movie, the character’s deal with confronting their past and a rape/murder case suspect that slips through their fingers. This movie confronts the idea of justice and the idea of finding that justice and fulfilling revenge is above the law. The suspect that rape/murder’s Isadore is caught and even fully admits to his crime that he raped/killed a man’s wife, a woman he was infatuated with, and is let go due to the higher administration wanting him for another job. The fact that he was Argentinian and from the middle class helped his escape from the law as well. What was interesting was the way that Benjamin and Pablo found this man on the idea that you can try to hide your identity and your whereabouts, but a man cannot hide his passions. A man’s passions will drive all their actions. This may have been a subtle message that passions are what drive us, and motivate us and no matter what there is no escaping from that. Another theme confronted in this movie is the idea of escaping the past, and moving forward despite knowing the past. At one point towards the end, the husband of Liliana tells Benjamin that if you keep revisiting the past you will have 10,000 pasts and no future. This message also could reference to Argentine’s past with their government and encouraging the Argentine public to forget about all those guilty and who carry the blame about Argentine’s past, and to move forward in order to provide Argentina with a bright future.
ReplyDeleteClass is also dealt with in this movie. The movie presents Benjamin and Irene in a forbidden love due to the social status of Benjamin, he is not as educated as Irene, comes from a lower class and therefore is presented as unworthy of her. Fallicov address the issue of class as well, stating that the European origin story of Argentina “has helped forge a sense of European superiority from other nations, rather than Argentine's embracing a mestizo (hybrid) or indigenous past” (133). Even when two suspects are caught who are clearly innocent they are of lower working class and are referred to as nobodies. Benjamin, however, fights for them and sticks up for them trying to do right by the law which proves to be difficult in this movie. This movie addresses many issues through this crime case that depicts final revenge and final justice. Final revenge is found for the husband who captures Isadore and plans to keep him prisoner for life in the countryside.
The 2009 film, “ The Secret In Their Eyes” directed by Juan José Campanella, has a very interesting correlation with the corrupt past of Argentina’s history. In the 1970’s Argentina was still under the control of a military dictatorship, according to Falicov “ this was a time of upheaval and polarization between the leftist and Marxist guerrilla groups…the economy was spiraling rapidly downward as part of the political instability, and the country embroiled in what was practically a civil war” ( Falicov 40). The film looks at the political instability within Argentina’s justice system during this time, and vividly shows the active corruption within, that makes it very challenging for the film’s protagonist, Benjamin Esposito, to bring justice to a rape and murder case he is trying to solve.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the film, the line “ forget it” is repeated by different characters in regards to the corruption of the political and justice system. Esposito, a working class man and detective/investigator for the court system in Argentina, has a very difficult time forgetting the past. He cannot put the injustice of the rape/murder case to rest, which results in his revisiting of two key characters, Irene and Morales, so he can bring closure to his investigation. In the flash backs of the past, the film reveals how working class Esposito must take action and seek support of Irene, his love interest and boss, to reopen the case after two innocent racial outcasts were wrongly charged with the crime, and support him in investigating the case further. The film uncovers the sad reality of justice in Argentina, as the murder Gomez, who was caught by Esposito and Irene and put in jail, is released and forgiven of his crime by powerful police/government officials who see him as useful to their hunt of guerilla groups. Because the justice system has failed him, Morales, the husband of the murdered woman Lilianna, cannot forgive or truly forget the past. As a result, he takes justice into his own hands by kidnapping Gomez and imprisoning him in a shed hidden by his home in the country side. This is a similar message to “Caballos Slavajes”, where we see the working class take matters into their own hands to achieve their own sense of justice within the corruption of the political system around them. Esposito and Morales both retreat out of the city to flee the jurisdiction and oppression of the government. In their own ways, they both take personal responsibility for the things that have happened and choose not to forget the past so that they both can attempt to prevent this terrible evil of their pasts from ever happening again.
Reconciliation is another prevalent theme seen in the film, which is displayed in the re-establishing of the relationship between with the very successful and wealthy judge Irene and Esposito. The relationship between Irene and Esposito is very symbolic of the division of the working and upper-middle classes during this time in Argentina’s history. In the 70’s the working class bore the most discrimination and oppression from the wealthy and upper middle-class, who held most of the government power. Esposito faces much oppression from the political powers of Argentina when he attempts to bring justice to this terrible rape/murder case. It is only through his relationship with Irene that he is able to investigate the case further and escape the city when he is in danger. This reveals that during this time, in order to have any kind of influence in the political and justice system, it’s all about the people that you know who have more power and influence that you. Despite their support and love of one another in the 70’s, Irene and Esposito can never have a romantic relationship because of their differences in their class affiliations. However, in the end when they are both much older, Irene and Esposito reconcile the past and begin a new secret romantic relationship. This represents the attempt for Argentina to move on from and forget its past oppression and discrimination, which is very problematic as it almost places a Band-Aid over the wounds of Argentina’s past without addressing or really trying to prevent this discrimination from happening again.
ReplyDeleteRetiree Benjamín Espósito is having trouble getting started on his first novel. He pays a visit to the offices of Judge Irene Menéndez-Hastings to tell her about his plans to recount the story of the Liliana Coloto case, the one they both worked on 25 years before, when Irene was his new department chief and he was the federal agent assigned to the case. Irene suggests that Benjamin start at the beginning.
ReplyDeleteThe beginning is the day that Espósito was assigned to the rape and murder of Coloto, who was attacked in her home on a fine June morning in 1974. Espósito promises her widower, Ricardo Morales, that the killer will do life for his crime. His investigation is joined by his alcoholic friend and assistant, Pablo Sandoval, and the Cornell-educated Hastings. Before the three can start, their rival, Romano, tries to show them up by having officers beat a confession out of two black construction laborers, who had been working near the couple's apartment. Espósito gets them released and physically attacks Romano in a justice building hall. Espósito threatens to file a complaint as Romano justifies the framing with racial discrimination against the construction workers
this movie is by far the best one ive been in class,it was full of suspense, accion, and an amazing twist at the end.
The film “El Secreto De Sus Ojos” was one of my favorite films presented in this class! The movie contained a mixture of romance, drama, mystery, and action in a way to portray the corruption of the country. Benjamin Esposito, a recently retired judicial investigator decides to take a final approach to a brutal homicide victim by making a novel. A case that has overtaken his whole life because even after a substantial amount of time he continues to pursue answers. Not only has this case jeopardized his life it has also ruined his chances with the woman he was passionately in love with. Both characters play a significant role because regardless of their social differences they fell in love and worked together to find the man responsible of the victims tragically death. Irene uses her quick wit and power of her sexuality to turn around a seemingly hopeless interrogation of the case’s suspect by taunts and insults, which helped the case dramatically. The film helps portray the conditions in the state by showing how the judicial system works. For example, Esposito is reluctant to investigate the case, irritated that Romano, a rival investigator, passed it on to them. Not only did he cross path with several enemies but they also cross path with one who was in higher power. In other words, he wasn’t capable to do much even after the murdered was captured. In a sense this helps the audience capture the heroes from the villain hence, a man who is working hard to do the right thing but battles with the corruption of the government and politics. An intriguing aspect of “El secreto de sus ojos” is a following sequence throughout the movie. The film continues to move slowly as it follows the sequence of Benjamin’s memories of the case, seamlessly moving backward and forward in time the way memories do helped the audience comprehend the issues and unwind the plot. Ultimately, The film “El Secreto De Sus Ojos” lingers on the main theme of police corruption, grief, the often-astounding injustice of the justice system, and love lost.
ReplyDeleteJuan José Campanella directed El Secreto De Sus Ojos (2009) which had cinematography similar to common Hollywood films today. The film followed a legal counselor and his pursuit to find the truth of a past case. The film used many of the Hollywood techniques such as high-paced sequencing and multiple camera angles. The film itself symbolized the “Dirty War” period in which the Argentinian government performed many scandalous actions against its citizens. In the film, the protagonist, Benjamin Esposito, is distraught when finding out about the immoral justice system in his endeavor. It was during this period that many of the lower class citizens were terrorized by the government and was highly oppressed. The film showcased this corruption impressively, yet it don’t focus on the social class warfare among the bourgeoisie and the middle class. The relationship between Benjamin and his love interest, Judge Irene Menendez Hastings, doesn’t fully address their societal past.
ReplyDeleteIn the movie, Benjamin is distraught with his note of “I fear”, which could indicate his uneasiness with his case, but the movie didn’t fully express it. Moreover, his shift in thought at the end when he changed the note to “I love you” could be interpreted as a submissive action toward the Argentinian government. It conveyed the notion that the legal system will forever be corrupted and that a lower class paralegal, or any citizen for that matter, has no influence unless they were of a high-class society. That a person must seek out other viable pursuits, such as a love interest, instead of the unethical government system. Even though the audience got to enjoy the rekindling of Benjamin & Irene’s relationship, they did not get to enjoy the proper judicial climax for Benjamin’s case. Instead one is left with the knowledge that a single person, the husband of the dead wife, will torture the killer, Gomez, indefinitely. By having such an ending, one is given the presumption that the legal system is unhelpful and acted as an unavoidable obstacle for both the husband and Benjamin. Viewing the film politically, it didn’t provided a solution toward the problem, but only referenced its existence. Consequently, it showed the Argentinian citizen’s overlook for the government and their compliant act of forgetting their histories.
El Secreto de Sus Ojos by Juan Jose Campanella was one of my favorite films throughout the course. I thought it was interesting that the film reflects upon the idea of social class in Argentina. Many of these themes can be taken as universal as the international community appreciated this film (it did win an Academy Award). In regards to social class, this film clearly reflects this theme through the characters of Irene Hastings and Benjamin Esposito. We pointed out in class the last name of Irene. In the film she points out her last name as Scottish. The other characters in the film point out that she is very educated. Throughout the film Benjamin and Irene form a relationship. They never come to the result of finally joining together possibly because there is a battle of social class between them. Their backgrounds become a hindrance in their relationship. Their relationship stays professional until the end of the film. I think it is interesting that somebody made a comment about this at the end of the film. The fact that Benjamin does not get a chance to be with Irene until the end is problematic. It shows the idea that no matter what the circumstances are, Benjamin can never cross the barrier of social class. The fact that time has passed between the two characters at the end contributes to the problem of the end. I personally liked it because it gives a sense of closure. With this said, I do feel that what we discussed in class does carry a lot of truth. The ending does feel like a perfect bow being tied on a gift for an Argentinian and International audience. It does seem like the filmmakers have written this end as a sense of perfect closure. The fact that social class is still an issue in Latin America and in many other parts of the world goes against such an attempt for closure. Social class is still relevant not just for an Argentinian audience but for an international audience. Many people would identify with the social class barrier between Benjamin and Irene.
ReplyDelete“The eyes are the window of the soul”, an old English proverb states. And nothing could be more true, especially in the film, The Secret in their Eyes. Eyes are everything in this movie. They tell the truth, they reveal memories. Both eyes themselves, and the memories either triggered by eyes or revealed through eyes are key elements of the movie that speak to greater means. They speak to the importance of revealing truth and remembering, in order that the future may be bettered. The movie starts with a close up of eyes, weary and old eyes…concentrated, and trying to remember, all for the sake of Esposito’s story. The eyes, the soul of Esposito, remembers back to the days of the Morales case. The movie is brilliant in its use of flashbacks. In fact, most of the movie is indeed a flashback…one long memory. The movie is suggesting that these flashbacks are so important in discovering truth and hope for the future. For, later in the movie, the flashbacks—memories—of Esposito bring him to the realization that Morales is hiding something. The flashbacks were mainly of Morales’ eyes as well, the eyes that so deeply loved another. Morales is hiding Gomez (the rapist and murderer) in his own personal prison; when Esposito finds out this, all Esposito and Morales can do is stare at each other with their eyes. That is when Esposito “receives” his fulfillment of all of his years of remembering. He is to be admired for his years of remembering, as well. His whole endeavor, writing the story and achieving justice, is based on his memory. Especially his memory of his friend Pablo Sandoval. Esposito has the memory of Pablo (and Pablo’s last actions) stuck in his mind. It has been 25 years since the case, but he cannot forget. And finally, because of his persistence due to his nagging memory, justice is reached. Yes, arguably this justice is still not complete justice (for it is illegal, and hard on Morales), but all of Esposito’s fears and problems are put to rest with Gomez behind bars. And this is how it should be in Argentina as well. Well-balanced memories and a passion for justice may just help the country move forward so that history does not repeat itself. It may help them reach a place of justice. It will help the middle class (and others) move past a state of ignorance. Reawakening the mind to the real problems surrounding one is so important; ignorance, as the paralleled The Official Story suggests, has great costs. Thus, memories help aid against ignorance. It is similar to a popular phrase here in the United States in terms of 9/11, “Never Forget.” Yes, Argentina does need to move forward and cannot be stuck in the past, but their progression forwards will be aided by “never forgetting.”
ReplyDelete