Caballos Salvajes/ Wild Horses
Today’s class focused on the era of the blockbuster during the Menem years. Falicov explains how, under Alfonsín, Argentina had begun the transition from an economy driven by a concept of national capitalism (where the state controlled and administered enterprises considered important for the “national interest”) to one that followed a global capitalist model, where transnational corporations were allowed into the country to compete with these enterprises. In her discussion of La historia oficial, Falicov had pointed at some of the effects this shift had in Argentine film --in chapter 3, her analysis of “the whiskey shot”, which she used to underscored how Puenzo’s experience as a director of commercials had “helped the film to conform to the established conventions of an international (read U.S.) style of filmmaking,” what Frederic Jameson calls a “geopolitical aesthetic” (71).
This shift towards global capitalism is accelerated after the hyperinflation crisis of 1989, Alfonsín’s resignation and the rise to power of Peronist Carlos Menem. Although the Peronists had opposed Alfonsín’s privatization of state-run enterprises, almost immediately after Menem’s election they reneged on their promises of welfare state intervention and adopted a strong policy of privatization, establishing strong ties with global corporations in order to alleviate the nation’s foreign debt. As part of this economic shift, the state also curtailed its financial support of cultural institutions, and placed many of the administrative positions associated with that realm in the hand of members of the business community, creating an unprecedented relationship between business and culture that the world of the arts had always tried to prevent in order to preserve the values of the “unique, auteur-inspired work.” (77)
The effects of this new relationship between government, business, and culture resulted in a dramatic shift in the focus and the direction of the Argentine film industry. Falicov calls it the “culture of the shopping mall” and quotes a statement by then Secretary of Culture Julio Bárbaro “My identity hinges on the suit I wear or the car I drive”. Argentine cultural policy moved away from the European model, where the state supports cultural production, to one where culture is left “exposed to the laws of savage capitalism” (77-78).These changes, however, were also partially aimed at reestablishing the relationship between the film industry and the Argentine public, a distancing that had been criticized, among others, by Octavio Getino, who was director of the INC for a year, from October, 1989 to November, 1990. His position, like Solanas’, had been critical of filmmakers’ reliance on state subsidies to finance “hyperintellectualized” films; he felt the industry needed to regain its contact with the working class audience. Initially, the results seem to have been the opposite: the eight films produced under the new subsidy rules in the first quarter of 1991 reached less than 5000 viewers each, which meant the state invested US $1920 per viewer on those films.
Through the Menem years, the approaches to the film industry shifted back and forth between different proposals to preserve and promote national culture. Earlier in the class we mentioned two of the lines that emerged, “cine rico” (rich cinema), supported by directors who wanted the film institute to fund higher-budget ventures from high-profile, established filmmakers, and cine pobre, “poor cinema”, whose supporters advocated for the funding of low-budget films that could also showcase the talents of a younger generation of filmmakers. Antonio Ottone, who took the reins of ICA (now known as INCAA to incorporate the broader concept of “audio-visual” production to its realm) in 1994, was a proponent of the latter model: “Argentina, as a Latin American country, needed to conceive of film production not as a commercial industry, but instead as a cultural form that could be produced on a small scale and still be noteworthy” (93). Ottone resigned in 1995 under pressure from the representatives of the “cine rico”.
The film we watched today, Caballos Salvajes (Marcelo Pineyro, 1995), is an excellent example of the type of film that emerged from these debates. New York Times critic Stephen Holden compared the film to Natural Born Killers (Oliver Stone, 1994) for its attitude towards fame and media circuses, but the film also tries to overcome –from my perspective, very ineffectively—the conflicts affecting the Argentine film industry at the time. Ineffectively because, although Caballos salvajes seems to present an apt resolution to these conflicts, it does not make any effort to move its intended audience (the Argentine working class public) to action against the forces that it presents as “evil”, resulting in a product that is often, to quote Holden, “giddily naïve”.On the other hand, Caballos salvajes resorts to many of the strategies many critics saw as necessary to renew the national cinema: It used corporate sponsorship to supplement the support it received from state subsidies; presented a picturesque view of rural Argentina that might appeal to potential tourists at home and abroad (allowing it to qualify for state support), and built its protagonists –a retired old anarchist victimized by the system and a young, naïve banker whose choices are proof of a strong moral character—into working-class heroes fighting a corrupt system whose tentacles include powerful politicians, bankers, thugs, and policemen. The “untameables” escape to Patagonia to the rhythm of a soundtrack rich in Argentine rock tunes, and are pursued by an idealistic television journalist (whose boss is also part of the cabal), joined by a young, rebellious woman with a gun, and helped by an array of blue-collar workers –ranging from truckers to gas-station attendants and a smuggler, all willing to help them get away from the dark forces of the establishment. The question that remains is: What does this film DO for its intended audience? How does it help the plight of the unemployed, of the destitute victims of the radical economic policies of the Memem government? How does it advance the cause of the liberation of Argentina from neocolonial powers? Has the omelet turned? To paraphrase the song sung in the film, who is eating bread, who mierda, mierda?
This shift towards global capitalism is accelerated after the hyperinflation crisis of 1989, Alfonsín’s resignation and the rise to power of Peronist Carlos Menem. Although the Peronists had opposed Alfonsín’s privatization of state-run enterprises, almost immediately after Menem’s election they reneged on their promises of welfare state intervention and adopted a strong policy of privatization, establishing strong ties with global corporations in order to alleviate the nation’s foreign debt. As part of this economic shift, the state also curtailed its financial support of cultural institutions, and placed many of the administrative positions associated with that realm in the hand of members of the business community, creating an unprecedented relationship between business and culture that the world of the arts had always tried to prevent in order to preserve the values of the “unique, auteur-inspired work.” (77)The effects of this new relationship between government, business, and culture resulted in a dramatic shift in the focus and the direction of the Argentine film industry. Falicov calls it the “culture of the shopping mall” and quotes a statement by then Secretary of Culture Julio Bárbaro “My identity hinges on the suit I wear or the car I drive”. Argentine cultural policy moved away from the European model, where the state supports cultural production, to one where culture is left “exposed to the laws of savage capitalism” (77-78).These changes, however, were also partially aimed at reestablishing the relationship between the film industry and the Argentine public, a distancing that had been criticized, among others, by Octavio Getino, who was director of the INC for a year, from October, 1989 to November, 1990. His position, like Solanas’, had been critical of filmmakers’ reliance on state subsidies to finance “hyperintellectualized” films; he felt the industry needed to regain its contact with the working class audience. Initially, the results seem to have been the opposite: the eight films produced under the new subsidy rules in the first quarter of 1991 reached less than 5000 viewers each, which meant the state invested US $1920 per viewer on those films.
Through the Menem years, the approaches to the film industry shifted back and forth between different proposals to preserve and promote national culture. Earlier in the class we mentioned two of the lines that emerged, “cine rico” (rich cinema), supported by directors who wanted the film institute to fund higher-budget ventures from high-profile, established filmmakers, and cine pobre, “poor cinema”, whose supporters advocated for the funding of low-budget films that could also showcase the talents of a younger generation of filmmakers. Antonio Ottone, who took the reins of ICA (now known as INCAA to incorporate the broader concept of “audio-visual” production to its realm) in 1994, was a proponent of the latter model: “Argentina, as a Latin American country, needed to conceive of film production not as a commercial industry, but instead as a cultural form that could be produced on a small scale and still be noteworthy” (93). Ottone resigned in 1995 under pressure from the representatives of the “cine rico”.
The film we watched today, Caballos Salvajes (Marcelo Pineyro, 1995), is an excellent example of the type of film that emerged from these debates. New York Times critic Stephen Holden compared the film to Natural Born Killers (Oliver Stone, 1994) for its attitude towards fame and media circuses, but the film also tries to overcome –from my perspective, very ineffectively—the conflicts affecting the Argentine film industry at the time. Ineffectively because, although Caballos salvajes seems to present an apt resolution to these conflicts, it does not make any effort to move its intended audience (the Argentine working class public) to action against the forces that it presents as “evil”, resulting in a product that is often, to quote Holden, “giddily naïve”.On the other hand, Caballos salvajes resorts to many of the strategies many critics saw as necessary to renew the national cinema: It used corporate sponsorship to supplement the support it received from state subsidies; presented a picturesque view of rural Argentina that might appeal to potential tourists at home and abroad (allowing it to qualify for state support), and built its protagonists –a retired old anarchist victimized by the system and a young, naïve banker whose choices are proof of a strong moral character—into working-class heroes fighting a corrupt system whose tentacles include powerful politicians, bankers, thugs, and policemen. The “untameables” escape to Patagonia to the rhythm of a soundtrack rich in Argentine rock tunes, and are pursued by an idealistic television journalist (whose boss is also part of the cabal), joined by a young, rebellious woman with a gun, and helped by an array of blue-collar workers –ranging from truckers to gas-station attendants and a smuggler, all willing to help them get away from the dark forces of the establishment. The question that remains is: What does this film DO for its intended audience? How does it help the plight of the unemployed, of the destitute victims of the radical economic policies of the Memem government? How does it advance the cause of the liberation of Argentina from neocolonial powers? Has the omelet turned? To paraphrase the song sung in the film, who is eating bread, who mierda, mierda?
Caballos salvajes, as discussed in class, is a film that exemplifies laws and legislation for Argentine film in its popular form. It points to a corrupt system that ends up screwing over peoples’ lives from all different backgrounds. For example, we have a banker and an old man who claims he will kill himself to get his money back. As Falivoc mentions in the book, Argentine film takes a shift after Alfonsin’s resignation. Long story short, some filmmakers like Solanas felt as if there needed to be a reconnection with the working class audience. Caballos salvajes attempts to do that by not directly pointing fingers at the government or anyone in particular and by the choice of protagonists. Does this film successfully capture the corrupt government and its effects? And does it help reconnect with the working class audience? In my opinion not so much, and the reason is that there are too many loopholes.
ReplyDeleteThe loopholes cause way too many questions. We have the main plot: two men and a woman are “good thieves” are trying to avoid being caught by the real thieves (because they take money from the people and are not questioned by anyone in power), and how the three become best friends. But then we have a love interest between Ana and Pedro, and we never really know if they actually are in a strong relationship at the end. Then, there’s the question of “is Pedro really just going to abandon his mother?” What do the “real thieves” get by the end of the movie? Nothing, so why were they so relevant in story? And, what happens to the “real thieves?” Did they ever get condemned even after being exposed when Jose gave all those workers the money?
Caballos salvajes focused on too many themes and ended up failing to directly/clearly show how the Argentine government changed film. In the end, this film did not really do anything for intended audience because nothing is gained by the protagonists, nor the antagonists…except maybe love and friendship. It does not have a message that says “by standing up for yourselves, those who did wrong must answer for their crimes.” Also, one of the protagonists dies! So, how can working class have hope to achieve anything by the end of this? I could see that this film may have had good intentions, but the style and technique in the creation of this film seem too experimental, or just not fully polished. Too many ideas were thrown into one project.
I agree everything in the film was all over the place. If you really try and analyze the film to determine of it was a successful film in this era. The consensus is most certainly, no.
DeleteAlthough Dr. Frenando was disappointed in Caballos Salvajes (Marcelo Pineyro, 1995) as a film that was produced by the government that really had no good marketing angles behind the film to help persuade the audience into accepting a certain governmental party nor trying to build Argentines economic situation it was still a good film. If you take all that out and look at it simply as a block buster film it was not that horrible of a movie. There was a very good personal message to the movie that is very relatable to the audience as individuals. If you compare this film to The Official Story, Argentina’s political issues were far more stressful and upsetting during that time period and the middle class demographic had been feeling very guilty about the situation their actions had caused. So after thinking about this you could see how a film like Caballos Salvajes could be seen as necessary for the government to support. It gave the people at this time a more upbeat film to help boost the spirits of the people. Tying to convey that yes the Argentine people have had a tough past but what is stopping the country from starting a new chapter and enjoying life again.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, if you were to analyze the film from a more political stand point you can understand Dr. Fernando’s disappointment in the film. During the 1990’s and Menem’s presidency Argentina was experiencing an economic down fall, “nearly half of the country’s middle class slipped into a lower socio-economic class… unemployment increased from 6.5 percent in 1991 to 12.2 percent in 1994” (pg.81). Which is a very important point to think about due to the fact that this film was released in 1995. Not only was this going on in Argentina but Menem as a leader was pushing for a materialistic type of society. This film in no way pushes for action in liberating Argentina from neocolonial powers. It in no way motivated its audiences into action. The only way the film kind of influenced a change was by encouraging everyone to move to the country, but again gave no insight on how to go about doing so. If everyone moved to the mountains than the society would be less materialistic and less influenced by other countries such as the United States but was not a relevant option. Which if you think about could have been purposely done. The government wanted to move to a more materialistic society in the end but made it look like they had the same views as the people of returning to their native roots.
Changing topics “9 Queens” was also a blockbuster cinema during this time period that could be seen as a better representation of how government funded film should be. Meaning it had done a little better of a job selling Argentina as a country for tourism. There were many great scenes showing their fine city and really focusing on the harbor as well as one of their finer hotels. Not only did it help promote tourism but it also dug deeper into the political issues of Argentina at the time. This was especially seen in the last scene when Juan and Marcos tried to cash their check but the bank had closed overnight due to an economic crash that lead to the government putting hold on citizen’s accounts. All of this drama lead to protesting in the streets of horrified citizens whose entire life savings and sense of wellbeing was taken from them.
The two main characters were struggling to stay afloat Juan more so than anyone. But almost all the main characters were a part of the middle class as a means to relate to a specific audience. The only issue with the film is that even though they added how the banks were crashing they still made the ending a happy one. Which does not really make any sense when a large tragedy just hit the Argentine people. In no way was the public going to experience a crash of banks and be so happy because they just stole 200,000 dollars. They took the crisis out of the situation and kind of brushed the whole ordeal off.
Paige,
DeleteGreat post, I would have to agree with your comment that "Caballos Salvajes" really had no sense of getting the audience to jump into action or feel more aware about the corruption of the government. However, as you mentioned and as we discussed in class, the push for commercialism and more entertainment style of film under Menem, was purposed to make money off the films by drawing in the working class audiences of Argentina. This film was very similar to the Hollywood blockbusters that we are so used to seeing here in teh United States, and overall it was very successful in making a good amount of money and appealing to the working class audience.
Nueve Reinas is a film produced in 2000. The film details a heist in which Juan tricks Marco into giving the inheritance he stole from his sister in a plot to scam a business man with the Nueva Reinas stamps. The entire film Juan is portrayed as the nice guy, out scamming and swindling for the first time. Marcos, on the other hand, is portrayed as an experienced swindler only looking out for himself. Marcos has constantly hurt others in order to gain more for himself and in the end this is his undoing. The ending scene of the film is all the characters thought to have been Marcos pawns, together under the leadership of Juan with all the money including Marcos. In the end the swindler was swindled.
ReplyDeleteThis movie helps to portray the economic crisis that Argentina was facing in the early 2000's. While Argentina did not plunge into massive economic and political difficulties until 2001, this film helps to show the beginning of this fall. During the telling of this story, and ideology is never put out right which would be congruent with the times in Argentine. In the text, The Cinematic Tango, it is stated that filmmakers were still grappling with social, economic and political issues but rather than do so in a traditional way they told their stories from a different standpoint.
In the previous films, stories were told with set political or economic goals in mind. Caballos Salvaje was intentionally reaching out to the working class while appeasing the middle class by not allowing anything to happen to the bad guys. Nueve Reinas, does not tell the story in the same way. While it still appeals to both the working and the middle class through their vision of corruption, they also allow all the "bad" consequences to happen to the bad guy, Marcos. They also represent the financial situation and blame the Corporate entity or as in the movie, "The Board". Nueve Reinas was a movie from a new era, an era that shows Argentine strife while maintaining an entertainment value.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis post is on the Nueve Reinas page.
DeleteIn the film “Caballos Salvajes”, produced in 1995 by director Marcelo Pineyro, José is an old rebel who wants to get back at a corporation who stole $15,344 from him. Going about his plan in a completely unorthodox way he walks into the corporation and hands the supervisor, Pedro, a note saying that he will kill himself immediately if the money isn’t returned. The supervisor, speaking to José from behind his boss’s desk, opens the drawer of the desk during the ensuing chaos and finds half a million dollars. Not understanding why his boss would have so much money in a desk drawer raises questions Pedro cannot answer and he makes a quick decision to allow Jose to take him hostage so the police won’t shoot him as he leaves.
ReplyDeleteAfter getting away successfully, Pedro discovers his boss is working with the mafia and he can’t turn himself in because the mafia would be looking for him and the laundered money so he makes a decision to drive to Pategonia with Jose. While fleeing from police and the mafia they find that the media is making false claims against them and they decide to correct them by taping a short video to explain their actions. This is the beginning of a strong public support of the couple whom the people begin calling “the untamables”.
During their journey to the border a girl named Ana tries to steal the bag that contains the laundered money. She joins their group as they evade police and two members of the mafia Pedro’s boss sent after them. Along the way they are aided by employees at many different gas stations who have banded together to help the couple they now viewed as modern-day Robin Hoods.
Caballos Salvajes, in a way, represents the Robin Hood ideal to the people of Argentina at the time this film was created. The government of Argentina was corrupt and millions of the working class were left to starve while the rich became richer. Believing that a few could stand up against the elite would have given hope to the people who, at the time, thought there was no way to get out of the situation the government had put them in. It was a brazen movie of rebellion, independence, and freedom.
In Caballos Salvajes, a movie directed in 1995 by Marcelo Piñeyro, shows the struggle of the working class to receive economic justice. Argentina at this time consists of a financial system, where the upper class dominate finances, including banks, and injustices toward the working class are committed daily. Specifically, in the movie, a young man Pedro who works in the bank helps an elder, poor man José to receive the money that is rightfully his.
ReplyDeleteIf we simply look at the movie in a social perspective, we see that the filmmakers could be trying to show that social class is presented in such a way as to glorify the working class, showing them as the “good guys” and the oppressed, which is true. The “bad guys” would be the bank owners, or upper class who are trying to find the two outlaws and who took the money from José in the first place. In this sense, the movie is a socially uplifting message toward the working class that justice can be found and equality is in reach.
However, we cannot ignore the fact that the film was funded by the government, which adds a whole new perspective of analysis. If the government funded this movie, it is difficult to understand why the film ends the way it does. José is killed, Pedro and Ana run off to the mountains, and that is it. There is no resolution with the upper class bank men. There is no sense of closure. There is a message to the working class of “all you can do is leave. Do not complain or try to change the system.” The message is to be apathetic toward hope and ignorant of change. The political message in the film is faulty, shaky, and incongruent.
Caballos Salvajes is an argentine film that helped expose a corruption in the system. An unjust system that only helped the richer get richer and poorer get poorer, this film presented a story of a community getting together to support what rightfully belongs to them. The old man was a victim of the system who longed for justice to be served. He chooses a path of vengeance because he didn’t have many solutions and in the mist of things he crossed paths with a working-class gentleman that changed the story completely across their nation. Many characters in Caballos salvajes displayed numerous of moral values; loyalty, respect, courage, and honor. Through these values the film intentionally captures its audience to motivate them in the cause for a change. This technique is effective because it awakes people of the troublesome issues in their economic system.
ReplyDeleteThe “untamables” present a couple of men whose courage is symbolic to many citizens in Argentina. They encourage many individuals to work together and get what rightfully belongs to them because it helps the fight of the unemployed and victims of the radical economic policies that only benefit the rich. In the end, this film brings out the corruption of the economic crisis while seeking their audience into a necessary change by presenting two significant characters into the story.
The movie, “Caballos Salvaje” directed by Marcelo Piñeyro in 1995, does a good job meeting the political standards for film during the presidency of Carlos Menem and the inconsistent policies of the National Film Institute. Under Carlos Menem, the film industry initially struggled as attempts to stabilize the economy targeted the prices of movie tickets and the types of movies that would be funded by the government. From 1989-1990, Réne Mugica and Octavio Getino were in charge of the Film Institue, and their overall goal was to support the creation of films that appealed to the working class, non-intellectual audiences. Falicov mentions that they wanted films to differ “drastically from the more traditional ‘art for art’s sake’ perspective, and the more middle-upper-class view of culture as elite, fine art or ‘high culture’ (79). In order for this drastic switch in film style to occur, Mugica and Getino only supported more commercial, mass culture, popular entertainment film productions; overall, films had to make money from the local Argentine audiences. In 1991 Guido Parisier became head of the National Film Institute, and according to Falicov, he made the most changes to the Film Institute from a businessman standpoint, while maintaining the need for more commercialized films established under Mugica and Gentino ( 84). Parisier, unlike any leaders of the Film Institute before him, made it very difficult to obtain any kind of government film financing without a strong financial backer. Falicov explains that “in 1995 the Institute asked film producers and directors to back their loans ‘2 to 1’: the producer/director should show that he or she had double the amount of money necessary in guarantees in order to ensure payment back on the loan” (87-88). As a result, this law excluded new and younger directors who did not have much money from producing movies.
ReplyDeletePiñeyro, was one of the few directors during this restrictive rule of the Film Institute, to produce a film that met all their standards. As an established director, and already very famous for his box office hit in 1993 “Tango feroz: la leyenda de Tanguito," Piñyero had little difficulty proving he had strong financial backing for the creation of his new film, so he was able to obtain the government funding that he needed under Parisier. Piñeyro’s film was also a more commercial/ popular entertainment film that met the standard for the National Film Institute and was the second highest money making film of the country at that time with a larger local audience. The film accomplishes this commercialism by mimicking the kinds of Hollywood blockbusters that were most well-known and widely accepted during this time. It was a romantic comedy and drama that was more relatable to the average working class audience. Unlike the films prior to the 1990’s, “Caballos Salvaje” portrayed the working class as the main protagonists who must rely on one another and take care of one another in their struggle to take back what is theirs from the lying and deceitful middle class antagonists of the story. The protagonists show the working class that despite the crap that is going on in society around them, they are all masters of their own destiny whose lives are worth living. Their long journey helps all the protagonists find out what their identities really are, which is a classic theme and lovable story to a wide range of audience viewers.
It was interesting to see that this film did not directly point fingers at the corruption of the government like the earlier films we watched in class had done. None of the bad guys, who were wealthy business men, were ever punished for their wrong doings, and the working class protagonists did not have the happiest of outcomes either since José dies and Pedro and Ana are forced to hide out in the mountains. Justice is really not achieved in the end.
Carlos Menem, the Peronist President of Argentina in 1989, wrought considerable changes to the Argentine government. He entered the higher political scene amidst wide-spread economic crisis and presented policies of privatization. The film Caballos Salvajes was produced in a time of governmental decline in financial support of the arts. As Falicov highlights, “In an age of neoliberal reform characterized by a shrinkage of the state, what becomes of cultural industries such as national cinema, which would be doomed without state support?” (93) Caballos Salvajes illustrates the reality of this industry when under the influence of government financing.
ReplyDeleteThe presence of the government in the production of the film is apparent through characters and the overall theme. The Hollywood appeal of the film, as a focal component, has merit. The Argentine working class was presented with a sense of solidarity negated by the lack of real substance. In terms of characters, the protagonists are members of the working class, making the storyline relatable to many viewers. Two fugitives embody the presence of good as they “fight the system” and rob a corrupt establishment. The bank was a symbol of evil throughout the film as many characters sought to aid “los indomables.” In an ideal situation, the fight for good versus evil always ends in the triumph for good and ultimate defeat of evil. In the case of this film, the result is inconclusive. The indifferent nature of the conclusion produced no definitive persuasion for the viewer. The love interest between Ana and Pedro leads them into uncertain territory. Jose sees them off, releases his horses, and the audience is presented with a sense of hope because he seemingly defied the odds. The lingering since of hope is literally shot down by an off-screen character. The surprising twist might even suggest that complacency is more satisfying than trying to make a difference. The film sways towards the side of evil because there is no reported repercussion for the corrupt bank. Other elements of the film that show the presence of the Argentine government in production include tourist appeal and upholding governmental standards. While the working class exists as the “good” in the film, the ultimate message does nothing to support the plight of the intended audience.
Thursday we watched the film Caballos Salvajes (Wild Horses) produced in 1995 by Marcelo Piñeyro. This film received government funding and made use of product advertising of Pepsi Cola. Film scholar Janet Wasko (1994) describes advertising products in the movies as something that “compromises the integrity of the narrative of the film itself” (101). In my opinion it makes the movie more realistic. The state involvement in supporting the film industry, while necessary speaks volumes about the government’s view of the working-class audience they are targeting. The ending of the movie repeats the scene of one of the protagonists, Jose an anarchist, diabetic, wise old man who is a victim of having $15,344 stolen from him dancing around joyful to be alive. At the beginning of the film Jose made a bet that the business man would not let him kill himself when he handed him the note and demanded to get his money back. This young business man, Pedro only manages to take about $500. The reporters, police and the boss of the main character, Pedro, chase after the two who are called the “Untamables”. Along the way the “Untamables” are recognized by a girl on a bus, Ana who is said to be a prostitute, wearing dark clothing and an edgy haircut. Ana steals the bag with the money, but gets caught by Pedro who takes the money back and she stubbornly refuses to be left behind and insists on joining the two “Untamables”. These protagonists give the stolen money away to a crowd of people gathered around a reporter who is tracking the story of the two men and had read the note Jose had written. Pedro, Jose and Ana do not want the money. It was never just about money. All they wanted was for the truth about the government stealing Jose’s money to be known. The chain of people stealing the money not only shows the desperate economic struggle of the working class, but also shows the psychology of the characters when they say that even the bible mentions stealing something already stolen is no sin. The common people realize this and support the “Untamables” in their escape from the police and reporters giving them meals, not charging for gas and providing a place to stay the night. Music plays in the background while they drive through the country with lyrics like “I have no place to go” enhancing the scene that portrays the uncertainty of their future now that they have run away from the city. How do the wild horses play into this conartist movie? Jose saves a herd of wild horses from slaughter and releases them into the wild. However, Jose is shot and dies while the girl and Pedro go to the country leaving behind their comfortable life and family. Although in the film a spirit of independence and hope is promoted to the audience, the antagonists have no consequence for their actions. Perhaps the reason why the government funded the film was to push the message to the working-class to not blame the government, but to be satisfied with being alive. No problems are solved and suggests those against the corruption taking advantage of them to leave the country. How does Argentina expect to solve its problems if it cannot accept the source of its corrupt and misguided ways?
ReplyDeleteIn Caballos Salvajes there is a commercial quality to it that is similar to Hollywood movies. Since in 1994 there were only 325 movie theatres open and most favored Hollywood movies it is reasonable to assume that to gain an audience for a national film a more commercial type of film is likely to compete with these promoted U.S. films. This was Menem’s ideology during his presidency. To solve the problem of national films surviving financially, multiplex cinemas were built and mainstream movies with a ‘global aesthetic’ mixed with local language and landscapes were produced. Simply by considering the quick turn over of the INCAA chief executives from 1994 to 1995 it is easy to see why Argentina’s film industry needed to make blockbusters through slick, action-packed, high-budget films that could be more successful in bringing in money for the film industry. Beginning with Parisier succeeded by Antonio Ottone supporting the ‘cine pobre’ or poor cinema philosophy that funded low budget films in hopes of giving first time filmmakers a chance. However, Ottone was kicked out and replaced by a supporter of wealthy cinema, the secretary of culture Mario ‘Pacho’ O’Donnell. O’Donnell’s goal was to make higher quality films that are mainly for making money internationally. Unfortunately, O’Donnell did not hold his position for long and left in 1995. He was a leader who failed to follow correct hiring practices and misplaced funds. Then Julio Mahárbiz, a close friend with President Menem and head of National Radio became head of INCAA from 1995 to 1999 despite lack of background in film production (93). The New Cinema Law passed in 1994 also made funding for individual filmmakers difficult since they needed proof of ability to pay back loans. Wild Horses reflects the wealthy cinema and economic corruption within the film industry during this time period.
ReplyDeleteThe 1995 film Caballos Salvajes, or Wild Horses, moved Argentinian film to an even broader audience by appealing to the audiences through the “Hollywood” –like style of the movie, conforming film via Puenzo’s direction into “the established conventions of an international style of filmmaking” (as mentioned above) (Falicov 71). Because the government wanted Argentina to appeal to the international world, the government funded this undertaking. Unfortunately, because of this government funding, the reality of the chaos that was really going on under the hand of the president, Manem, was undermined and barely touched on in the movie. Sure, there were scandals and corruption depicted in the movie, but only within the bank and the leaders of the press. And their issues were never brought to justice. And sure the movie had chaos (by means of the constant action and running away), which could metaphorically speak to the chaos in the country. But all this to say, the real issues at hand in Argentina were never truly delved into by means of this movie. In fact, one could say that the ending of this movie actually represents a different metaphor, one in which the message of the government (through this film) is actually quite shocking.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the film, the characters are in an almost constant pursuit of freedom while their oppressors are constantly on their heels. At each bend in the road, the characters are forced to make a decision, a decision that could keep them in capitivity of the system or one that could set them free. One sees it right from the start of the movie, when Pedro quickly decides to let the old man live by giving him the money and by actually helping the old man escape. One sees it with the girl, Ana; she has a choice over whether to go with them or turn them in; the old man Jose says during this time, “It is she who has to make up her mind, not us”. The old man himself is called “The Untamable,” he wants freedom from this system (and eventually he wants the freedom of his horses). It is symbolic that the system calls him “The Untamable,” for it is as if they wish to “control” this freedom in their own way. All of them are working class people, symbolically desiring some sort of freedom from the oppressive system of Argentina.
By the end of the movie, all three of them—Pedro, Ana, and Jose—are forced to separate. Pedro and Ana supposedly leave the country, and the old man is unexpectedly shot. It is in this moment that one could interpret this as reaching their goal for freedom. It is by death alone, the movie suggests through this ending, that one finally finds true freedom from the system. Sure, Jose inspired others and sure, Jose danced by the ocean saying life was worth living. But when it comes down to it, the corruption and the higher classes were always going to be pursuing and oppressing him. Life was worth living for sake of the pursuit of freedom, but freedom was finally achieved via his death. It is a morbid interpretation of the ending; but, considering that the movie was government funded, perhaps this was the horrible (since the government itself was horrible in some sense) hidden message of the government to the working class. They can enjoy life somewhat, but they will never be able to escape the system until they die (or leave the country). It reminds me of a quote by Scrooge in A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens: a man pleads for money for the poor by saying that many poor would rather die, to which Scrooge responds (paraphrasing), “Then they had go ahead and do it, and decrease the surplus population.” The bad guys were served no justice and continued living their ways, the good guys of the working class died or left the country. Is this how they figured they’d solve the governmental problems? Was this the solution? Unfortunately, the ending of this movie seems to potentially suggest that.
The film Caballos Salvajes produced in 1995 by Marcelo Piñeyro. This film was funded by the government and made use of product advertising of Pepsi Cola. The state involvement in supporting the film industry, while necessary speaks volumes about the government’s view of the working-class audience they are targeting. The ending of the movie repeats the scene of one of the protagonists, Jose an anarchist, diabetic, wise old man who is a victim of having $15,344 stolen from him dancing around joyful to be alive. the protagonist are forced to make a decision, a decision that could keep them in capitivity of the system or one that could set them free. One sees it right from the start of the movie, when Pedro quickly decides to let the old man live by giving him the money and by actually helping the old man escape. At the beginning of the film Jose made a bet that the business man would not let him kill himself when he handed him the note and demanded to get his money back. This young business man, Pedro only manages to take about $500. The reporters, police and the boss of the main character, Pedro, chase after the two who are called the “Untamables”. Along the way the “Untamables” are recognized by a girl on a bus, Ana who is said to be a prostitute, wearing dark clothing and an edgy haircut. Ana steals the bag with the money, but gets caught by Pedro who takes the money back and she stubbornly refuses to be left behind and insists on joining the two “Untamables.” It is symbolic that the system calls him “The Untamable,” for it is as if they wish to “control” this freedom in their own way. All of them are working class people, symbolically desiring some sort of freedom from the oppressive system of Argentina.
ReplyDeleteBy the end of the movie, all three of them main characters Pedro, Ana, and Jose go their separate ways. Pedro and Ana supposedly leave the country, and the old man is unexpectedly shot. It is in this moment that one could interpret this as reaching their goal for freedom. It is by death alone, the movie suggests through this ending, that one finally finds true freedom from the system. Considered as a " road movie " , the film tells the journey of two men and a woman on the margins of the law, what begins as a paradoxical robbery , the robber did not threaten anyone but to kill himself , not to steal , but that restore what has been stolen , the adventure becomes a form of discourse that ends up being convincing.
In class, we watched Caballos Salvages that was released during the Menem government. I have a few comments about it. First, it clearly characterizes the Menem regimen with its increased action and increased sex appeal of actors. I’d like to point out how hard the Argentine government at the time is trying to copy Hollywood. They say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery and if that is true Caballos Salvages could mirror the effort the government was making to imitate not only the U.S. film industry but also their politics.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in the book, “Manen took this idea of elevating mass commercial culture and infused it with corporate sponsorship and the participation of the global corporate elite.” This is so apparent in the film with the Pepsi, among other companies, sponsorship. In many ways this film could be considered an advertisement for the U.S.
I must agree with Profe. Feliu-Moggi’s point of view in that the message the government may be trying to send is a bit disconcerting. It seems to me that even if that the point wasn’t justice, if the point was to remind people to fight for their country and for themselves, the notion that abandoning your family, friends, and stability to go live in the country with no real plan is so unrealistic. This theme of escape, the government seems to be suggesting that if things aren’t right or if you are disatisfied then leaving everything is the best option. How about the reality of life is rarely all that you expect there are times that are far better and then some that are just hard? As a government in a time of trying to encourage the working class, leading them towards achieving success through hard work seems like a better morale boost. If the government's goal is to get in touch with the working class, they failed. They failed because for most working class of Argentina during this time, leaving their lives and riding off into the sunset and into the unknown, for most, would mean ruin or even death.
However, from the different perspective, it could be considered ingenious for the government to present this type of film. Especially if they are imitating Hollywood, where films have become a form of escape, to experience thing that may never be realistic, the government presents a fun chase and gives the working class an ending, that would never be possible for them. Also, the idea independence and the individual spirit that faces adversity could be inspiring. In that sense, the working class could fantasize about a future that would provide a temporary escape from reality and for the class status that could have been very important.
The film Caballos Salvajes (1995) was very interesting in the way that it depicted the life of middle class Argentina. It also had some political views. One strong example was when Jose (Hector Alterio) was trying to make a withdrawal from the bank. This lead Jose to do something very drastic and force the bank to hand over his money. This shows how weak Argentina’s bank system is. Additionally from this scene we are able to see how the people in Argentina who have money don’t do it in a legal way.
ReplyDeleteAs the movie progresses “Los Caballos Salvajes” become the heroes of the common people. This part of the film shows how people are good. The people of Argentina did not believe in the government and the people felt like they were being stolen from. “Los Caballos Salvajes” gave some money back to the people, which made them instantly famous among the people of Argentina. Jose ends up rethinking his life and gives him hope. It is a dramatic film and is apparent why it was a blockbuster film in Argentina.
Overall this film had a good message and it was entertaining. Another thing that I found interesting was the way that the film became funded by the government. During some scenes it showed the scenery and the eye-pleasing parts of Argentina. I thought that adding a love story in the film would make the story more likeable. In one of the ending scenes it shows Jose letting his horses go. The symbolism in this scene is apparent. It is saying that there is a wild horse “caballo salvaje” in all of us. Sometimes we just need to let go and follow along with whatever happens in our lives. Out of all of the films that we watched in class, I believe that this one has been the most entertaining.
During the Peron administration the filmmaking industry shifted towards a European aesthetic. Film subjects were no longer dictated by censorship and the films began to resemble Hollywood films. Finances largely defined this shift. The government realized that the most lucrative market was the international market and the film industry catered their films towards this new market. Funding sources changed and Argentina took after Hollywood blockbusters and started funding films in part through coproduction or advertising. Moreover, because this new aesthetic of artistic filmmaking brought in the most revenue filmmakers that made artistic films were given the most money. These new forms of government funding affected the content of films which is very evident in “Wild Horses”. The new aesthetic meant films were more action packed, had a more aesthetic soundtrack and more diverse characters all of which you see within “Wild Horses”. “Wild Horses” is the story of an older man Jose who decides to get even with the company that stole thousands of dollars from his family in the past. He threatens to kill himself in front of a company manager named Pedro and ends up taking him hostage. They then decide to run from the cops together to Pantagonia and along the way they pick up Ana who ends up helping them on their journey. This plot is a classic example of the new subject material which was more Europeanized that appeared in movies as a result of changes in funding during the time. The film is very Europeanized in other ways as well. The soundtrack in the film even used and English song. Moreover, the characters were all very attractive soap opera stars which is common of the Hollywood aesthetic and the cast was also diverse. Further, it is an action packed film and was filmed in locations very similar to locations you would see in the United States or Europe. You also see evidence of new sources of funding that were happening during this time within the film. We discussed in class how the film was largely funded because of the scene where the stamps where thrown into the water at the port and this scene was thought to be supportive of tourism so the government funded the film. The film also portrayed social issues which follows the Hollywood aesthetic and allowed the filmmaker to get in touch with the working class through film. Juan and Pedro are portrayed as crusaders for the working class who are righting wrongs the government committed against the people. They conveyed the message that they understood the working class had been mistreated by the military dictatorship and the transitional government and they were supporting the working class by sticking it to the man. They also suggested that one man could make a difference and that there is power in solidarity. This is seen through the song in the movie that says, “ let the poor eat bread and the rich eat shit”. These lyrics show that Juan and Pedro identify with the poor working class. Overall “Wild Horses” is a great example of the new aesthetic of films in Argentina that resembled Hollywood blockbusters and it reveals many of the changes in subject material associated with this new aesthetic which were largely driven by new funding during this time.
ReplyDeleteCaballos Salvajes
ReplyDeleteCaballos Salvajes was one of the most action packed and adventure seeking film thus far. Throughout the movie there was this idea of fighting against the corporate companies and the working class having their money stolen. Curiously, the corporate men who are in charge of all the stolen money from the bank, are never punished in the movie. Nor are there hints or suggestions that hint that there is punishment awaiting these men who stole from the public of Argentina. An interesting thing I noticed was the pronunciation of Pedro’s name. When his corporate friend called him he addressed him as “Peter”, and he would yell its “Pedro!” The old man as well as Ana called him Pedro as. I found it interesting that there was this idea of rejecting the Americanization of names and how there was this hidden promotion of Latin American heritage solely in the pronunciation of Pedro’s name. In almost every element the movie was trying to promote this wonderful, free, adventurous image of Argentina, when in fact that was not the case at all.
This movie was funded by the Argentine government in order to promote the idea of Argentince Cinema. None of the bad men are punished in this movie, and the movie is left with an open ending and the whereabouts of the characters are unknown with the exception of the elderly man who is shot. This may reflect the fact that “Argentina had the most protective film policy in Latin America, and most probably the world” (93). The government prompted these ideas and was trying to tell people how to think, and that life in Argentina was great, all they had to do was take action. This promotes a false sense of security in the country, when in fact the government was falling apart in Argentina. The government strived to control the film industry in Argentina, and through their funding of cinema strived to control the public’s thinking as well.
The film we viewed in class on Thursday, Wild Horses, explores the corruption ongoing in Argentina during Menem’s term. Marcelo Pineyro craftily articulates the delicate relationship between Argentina’s middle class and the privatized upper class. It is apparent that even in the year 1995, Argentina’s government continues to struggle with providing the basic human rights for the working and middle classes. In this film, Jose represents the working class Argentinians who demand social and economic justice. He simply wants back the money the bank took from him many years ago. Pedro is the naively optimistic working class banker exploited by his boss and assumed friend. He gives a voice to the oppressed working and poor class in Argentina-he is their spokesperson. Although, it would be easy to place blame on Jose for making Pedro an assumed criminal, neither criminal is at fault. The system is at fault. They are forced to life on the road and on the run, fleeing from thugs intent on killing them. The thugs in the film represent the punishment doled out to any who are brave enough to confront Menem’s politics, and in this way the film does not convince the working class public to take action against these “evil” economic forces. The communities- service stations that aid Jose, Pedro, and Ana on the road are punished for their acts of kindness. Audience members witness burnt homes and injured individuals who bear the burden of retaliation for ‘The Untamable.’ This sends a message to working class individuals not to challenge the system or else they will be punished. The working class public must be complacent with the way things are. Although the film portrays classic iconography of Hollywood’s hero and law in Westerns to appeal to those seeking entertainment, it is clear that the working class do not have any chance of seeking social and economic justice. This is seen in the final scenes when Pedro and Ana are fleeing on horseback to the mountains and Jose is shot in the back. The film does not leave audiences with a solid resolution further implying to the working class public that equality and justice are not easily within reach, and the fight is not over.
ReplyDeleteOn January 7th, we watched “Caballos salvajes” (Wild Horses) 1995 produced by Marcelo Pineyro. It was during this time that the film industry in Argentina were beginning to make changes. “In 1995, a movement spearheaded by young, first-time filmmakers came into scene, in part to an institutionally first-time sanctioned effort by the INCAA to provide them with funding opportunities” (Favlov 115). These young filmmakers opposed the commercialized Hollywood style and were commonly called the New Argentine Cinema. Competing against each other, the film that came out during this time were made to appeal to a mass audience for the purpose of receive funding.
ReplyDeleteThis film starts by pointing out the corruption in the banking industry. Jose (Hector Alterio) demands the money the bank had taken from him and Pedro (Leonardo Sbaraglia) feels compelled to assist him during his robbery. The money that was taken out of the drawer was not expected to be there and was obviously a bribe. What the bribe was for was not fully explained and this was probably because the film was funded by the government. Pepsi also contributed and made sure its product was shown a few times throughout.
There was a sense of justice for the working class to fight back for what was taken from them. Jose did not want the “stolen” money. He just wanted what was rightfully his and they ended up spreading the wealth to a part of town that was desperately poor. This act showed to the community that they were not dangerous or bad people and were just out for justice. They also made a home video for the reporters to understand their actions more fully. The reporters began to call them “Los Indomables” (The Untamable) because they are not willing to accept or conform to society.
Throughout this film, nothing bad ever happens to the banks. I found it interesting how quickly the reporters were moving on from this story like it was old news. It is not investigated or even questioned what the money was for. I would like to think that if that happened here, citizens would pay more attention and realize that something is not right with the story. Sadly, society would not notice because most people are swayed in whatever direction the media suggests. This film seems to discourage people to stand up to the government. It suggests that shortly after you are forgotten about, bad things will happen to you and then you will die. This does not inspire me to do the right thing.
Caballos salvajes, directed by Marcelo Pineyro in 1995, gives a great snapshot of the politics of Argentina at the time. The Argentinian film market was trying to captivate a more global audience through “blockbuster” films rather than films suited for an independent circuit. The goal of a blockbuster is to reach as much of the population as possible in an attempt to make money. However, because this film was made in Argentina and funded in part by the government, it also had to satisfy specific cultural criteria.
ReplyDeleteThe intended audience of this film is undoubtedly the working class. The film centers around a working class bank employee, Pedro, and how he is dragged into a revenge scheme of the films other protagonist, José. At first, the goal of the film seems to be inspiring the audience that life is worth living, as José shouts from atop a sand dune near the end of the film. Further inspection reveals something different. Rather than assure the working class audience that their lives are worth it, it leaves a feeling of empty promises.
The bank, undoubtedly the “evil” of the film, never sees justice. While the unemployed and misfortunate people of a small Argentinian town see the generous donation of money from Pedro and José, this is generosity of the people rather than of the government. Basically, this reveals that people are responsible for helping others rather than the government. It also shows that there is no hope for the working class of Argentina to be freed from neocolonial powers such as the bank. At the end of the film, José is killed, and Ana and Pedro escape into the mountains. The only think the oppressed can do to escape their oppression is to leave.
Even though José and Pedro gain the support of the people of Argentina, their actions to gain justice for the victims of economic corruption are never supported by the government. This can be seen by the lack of government intervention in the film. Though it is a fun film to watch it remains just that; fun. While it does provoke some questions, the film is ultimately more concerned with the relationships between the characters and not the even that started their journey in the first place.
Caballos salvajes, directed by Marcelo Pineyro in 1995, gives a great snapshot of the politics of Argentina at the time. The Argentinian film market was trying to captivate a more global audience through “blockbuster” films rather than films suited for an independent circuit. The goal of a blockbuster is to reach as much of the population as possible in an attempt to make money. However, because this film was made in Argentina and funded in part by the government, it also had to satisfy specific cultural criteria.
ReplyDeleteThe intended audience of this film is undoubtedly the working class. The film centers around a working class bank employee, Pedro, and how he is dragged into a revenge scheme of the films other protagonist, José. At first, the goal of the film seems to be inspiring the audience that life is worth living, as José shouts from atop a sand dune near the end of the film. Further inspection reveals something different. Rather than assure the working class audience that their lives are worth it, it leaves a feeling of empty promises.
The bank, undoubtedly the “evil” of the film, never sees justice. While the unemployed and misfortunate people of a small Argentinian town see the generous donation of money from Pedro and José, this is generosity of the people rather than of the government. Basically, this reveals that people are responsible for helping others rather than the government. It also shows that there is no hope for the working class of Argentina to be freed from neocolonial powers such as the bank. At the end of the film, José is killed, and Ana and Pedro escape into the mountains. The only think the oppressed can do to escape their oppression is to leave.
Even though José and Pedro gain the support of the people of Argentina, their actions to gain justice for the victims of economic corruption are never supported by the government. This can be seen by the lack of government intervention in the film. Though it is a fun film to watch it remains just that; fun. While it does provoke some questions, the film is ultimately more concerned with the relationships between the characters and not the even that started their journey in the first place.