Over the last two
days we have seen the different approaches to Argentine film taken after the
military dictatorship. It is important that you study Falicov's discussion of the
film industry in the period that follows the “Dirty War,” the
dictatorship that had begun in 1976. The election of Raúl Alfonsín, of the
moderately conservative Radical Party (Unión Cívica Radical) in 1983 initiates
a democratic transition that saw the end of film censorship and sought to
establish an economic as well as an aesthetic agenda for Argentine film,
creating a new set of challenges for the industry.
In our screening of La historia oficial/The Official Story (1984), we discussed the way the industry was used to promote a specific image of Argentina abroad. In today´s discussion, we have to consider that Alfonsín appointed Manuel Antín, a director who was representative of the "aesthetic", not the "political" line of Argentine filmmaking, as head of the Instituto Nacional de Cine (National Film Institute). This suggests that the Alfonsín government favored that tendency. Falicov suggests that this was done in hopes of promoting a cinematic style that could help establish an intellectualized image of Argentina in the international market (and a more educated national audience) over an industry that would satisfy the demands of a working-class national audience eager to consume the type of action films and comedies produced in the United States. Falicov confirms this through her analysis of how government funds were allocated to the production of “art house” movies (65% of the films produced during the period), which appealed to a middle-class Argentine audience as well as European moviegoers, versus those targeting a popular audience (family films, comedies, which accounted for 35% of the budget of the Institute).
On the one hand, the appointment of Antín might be a reflection of the conflicts and contradictions at play in the Argentine Zeitgeist: Middle-class Argentines partake of an identity defined by the nations “founding fathers” as based on the “civilized” principles of European tradition (in general, Solanas deplored, Argentine aesthetics tended to follow the trends and academic dictates developed in Europe), in contrast with a “barbarism” that over the years had been associated with different sectors of the lower classes (racially represented by indigenous peoples, uneducated immigrants, rural peasants, or the urban working class), a social and cultural stage considered below that achieved by the middle class. In our discussion of The Official Story we mentioned how becoming a member of the bourgeoisie (that middle class) meant having overcome that barbaric state and IMPLIED becoming a standard bearer (aesthetic, ideological) for the culture. This could apply to Fernando Solanas’ films, on the one hand explaining The Hour of the Furnaces’ attempt at creating a novel aesthetics for the revolution, on the other another one of his films, discussed by Falicov, El Exilio de Gardel, which Falicov clasifies as an attempt at negotiating the barrier between what an Argentine film made for Argentinians (Hour of the Furnaces) in contrast to “an Argentine film made for the French”.
There are also political considerations
associated with this privileging of the art-house style over popular film. The
most blatant is that Alfonsin’s Radical Party appealed mostly to the urban,
educated middle-class, and by financing and promoting this type of
cinematography the government was appealing to its political base. On the other
hand, and we discussed this briefly yesterday in the post about La Historia
Oficial, there was a need for Argentina to rebuild its image at the
international level, and the art-house film was a vehicle that could contribute
to that reacceptance of Argentina as an international creative force. Films
like Luis Puenzo’s not only would have presented to international audiences an
Argentina ready to face its past and atone for its trespasses, but also to regain
the place it had always claimed in Western culture. Falicov mentions how film
in the Alfonsín era was used as a tool to promote Argentina as a tourist and
investment destination. An Argentina ready to come to terms with its past,
presented as a nation with an educated middle class, versus one preoccupied
with the social, political and economic conflicts of the working class --and
all the social turmoil that implies-- reflected in neorealist and
social-realist films, which would not have helped the cause of the government,
since that social reality conveys a sense of social instability that repels the
type of international investment Argentina desperately needed.
For filmmakers, this political use of film generates a complex conflict. Theorists like Solanas saw film as a tool of liberation, both political, because of the messages film could transmit, and artistic, since part of his project called for the development of a filmic language divorced from the alienating, neocolonial model perpetuated by Hollywood, as well as from the elitist European model based on bourgeois aesthetic principles. The favoring of the European aesthetics because of political and economic reasons did not allow for an evolution of the neorealist and Third Cinema concepts, limiting the possibilities of expanding Argentina’s search for an independent filmic language.
Carlos Sorín’s La
película del rey (A king and His movie, 1985) is more than just an
allegorization of the conditions faced by the Argentine film industry in the
mid-1980s. The film parodies the difficulties encountered by a filmmaker
attempting to bring a project to the screen, and the level to which an artist
is forced to compromise his vision to be able to bring it to fruition. The
interpretation of the film is made more complex by the multiple readings
allowed by its layering of conflicts: Historical (Is the story of the French
king of Patagonia a political allegory of Argentina and the difficulties of
bringing civilization to barbarism, of founding a nation on foreign
(alien(ating)) political principles, and therefore a critique of the way
Argentina has imagined itself for 200 years?); Artistic (is the story an
allegory of the difficulties faced by a Quixotic idealist who tries to bring
his artistic vision to fruition, thus paralleling the obstacles encountered by
the filmmaker in realizing his dream?); Social (is the film a reflection on the
need to compromise a vision (political, artistic, economic) in order to
accommodate the needs and demands of other actors –in the sense of social
actors, not movie personnel-- involved in the project?), etc.
In any case, in its aesthetics and narrative structure the film seems to fit the traditional bourgeois concept of filmmaking in Argentina than the revolutionary model espoused by Solanas. At the same time, it could be argued that Arturo, the director of the film within the film, is originally trying to create a socially-relevant film, one that explores historical and philosophical implications of the adventure of the King, and yet is forced by the economic circumstances to adopt a more “abstract” approach to the film –giving up his extras and substituting them for mannequins, among many other compromises-- one that forces the movie closer to the European model than the historical one the director had envisioned when developing the project. In any case, the conclusion suggests that the dreamer will continue to dream and to attempt to bring that dream to life. In your blog entry for today, analyze an element of today´s film in the context of this discussion: What is the story Carlos Sorín is trying to tell about filmmaking? How do you think he BEST presents this idea in the movie? (through a character, a specific scene of the film, an idea presented in the movie). Do you think there are aspects where he is NOT successful? Pick one, where, why?
The hyperinflation in 1989 was so tragic that it caused President Raul Alfonsin to resign. Carlos Saul Menem was then elected with promises of welfare rights and working with labour unions and he quickly dismissed those promises after election. In deep financial crisis, Argentina became the country with the highest number of privatization in the entire world. The budget for arts and culture were being cut dramatically from 1989 to 1992. Fernando Solanas proposed to turn a vacant shopping center into a Latin American cultural centre called Galerias Pacifico. Mario Falak, a friend of Menem, was then given the license to turn Galerias Pacifico back into a shopping centre. This is just one example of how the critics came to call Menem’s administration the ‘culture of the shopping mall’.
ReplyDeleteIn 1989, Rene Mugica became the head of the INC and Octavio Getino became the Vice Director. Mugica was an actor and filmmaker during the ‘golden age’ (1940s) and had a good understanding about how the film industry used to be compared to how it is now. Even though they had a great plan in place, their administration did not last long and was not effective mostly due to the monetary predicament. When it comes to statistics, the numbers were considerably low in 1989 and 1991. Getino hoped to receive support from the public and not from the state because filmmakers were no longer reaching the public. The politics involved resulted in the resignation of Mugica. Getino thought that films should be more about culture and more intellectualized. In 1992 only 10 films were made in Argentina. This was almost as low as in the 1930s when films were just starting to be made. Movie theatres were closing and not many people were able to afford to go to the movies anymore.
Guido Parisier, like Falak, was also a friend of Menem and became the new director of the National Film Institute (1991-1995). Parisier was not an art lover and insisted that the state should participate in the film industry. He was determined to create financial gain and created cinematic laws which many considered unfair and thought should go through Congress. Because of his unwillingness to go through the appropriate channels to pass bills, he was deemed ‘the last caudillo’.
In 1994, Antonio Ottone took over for Parisier and encountered immediate confrontation about his decisions on financial support. Ottone was a supporter of the ‘cine pobre’ (poor cinema) whereas Mario ‘Pacho’ O’Donnell preferred ‘cine rico’ (wealthy cinema). Menem then appoints another one of his good friends, Julio Maharbiz, to be in charge of the INCAA from 1995 to 1999. Figuring out what extent the state would be involved was a tricky decision. The films that were less marketable were the ones that were distressed at the benefit of the “industrial” films which flourished. This ended up making 1997 an incredible year for Argentina when the cinema outperformed Hollywood. All of this was due to Menem’s push towards making films a form of entertainment and not as “artsy”.
In Carlos Sorin’s La pelicula del rey (A king and His movie, 1985), there were many struggles that are related to the history of making films in Argentina. Arturo is aware of the need to appeal to the commercial industry yet insists on going his own direction. Instead of hiring an actor to play the leading role, he hires someone else that fits his vision of what the movie should be about. He “flirts” with the idea of hiring a Brazilian actress so the movie would have an American appeal and he does not use her. It is obvious that Arturo knows what type of movie would make money, but he would rather make a movie that is more artistic. Instead of backing out at the first sign of opposition, he comes up with creative ideas to keep filming. I think the scene with Arturo and his ex-wife was not conducive to the general idea of the movie. That one small scene seemed to be closer to a ‘cine rico’ which did not quite fit with the uncomfortable lunacy that was portrayed throughout.
As with any profession, there are some instances of distress and trouble. For an Argentinian filmmaker after Paul Alfonsin reign, this trouble was getting financial backing for projects. In the film, La Pelicula Del Rey, director Carlos Sorin depicts the struggles of an idealist director trying to create a showed the King of Patagonia and his rise to power. The idea of a movie within a movie is an exceptional element used by Sorin and could be paralleled to Christopher Nolan’s work in Inception. Within the film, there are edits between the actual movie (one could say behind the scenes), and the movie that the obsessive director Arturo is trying to create. Among the two movies, there is clearly a parallel between Arturo and the star of his own movie, the King.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of the movie, Arturo was talking in an interview about his dreams and aspirations of his film. In the scene, the viewer can observed Arturo’s delightful expression when talking about his film and his vision. Similar to what Falicov mentions in her book, Arturo describes a form of art-house cinema that showcased the attractiveness of Argentinian films to the world. His whole ideology revolves around making a film that is culturally relevant and could get the attention of tourists across the globe. As the film progresses, we see Arturo shift from being exceptionally optimistic about his endeavors to having grandeur delusions about his film. A prominent scene that stood out was the taping of the King’s ceremony. At this event, many of the bourgeoisie elites and producers were invited to be a part of this scene and to promote future financial gains. This was because the film’s original producer left and consequently the film needed some investment if it was to be completed. At this scene, Arturo is talking with his consultant about the people who attended this event. To his dismay, the consultant stated that there was little interest in financially supporting his film and that members of the tourism department didn’t appear. Relating to the struggles of the filmmakers at this time, Arturo had to cut corners on his film if he wanted to finish it. Culturally, this was prevalent among many Argentinian filmmakers. If they didn’t have the financial stability, then they had to create a lower budget film than they intended. This might even mean altering their idea to suit the new budget.
This deadly blow for Argentina cinema was reflected in the film when the actor who played the King quit, leaving Arturo to play his part. The dampening effects of finance was such a burden that Arturo’s initial vision for the film was practically lost. Even though he was able to add a twist by replacing his actors with mannequins, the film’s purpose shifted from the majestic rise of a Patagonian King to the delusions of a mad king. Such an abstract concept clearly wasn’t what Arturo originally had in mind, yet he was still adamant and spirited to not letting his dream die. Similar to the king’s transformation, Arturo didn’t realize his own collapse of self until the very end where he was arrested for starting a fire, yet there was a silver lining to his endeavor. In the ending scene, Arturo turns to his consultant and mentions the story of the “Fake Inca Ruler” who tricked people into believing he was of noble status. This undying perseverance not only tells the audience about Arturo character, but could be allegorical to the plight of filmmakers during this time. The whole film is telling the audience that Argentinian cinema might have some troubles, yet is resilient enough to make beautifully crafted films. Lastly, the constant switching between the film’s reality and Arturo film showed how not all vision are set in stone, but are constantly weaving between obstacles and that a country can still strive to create stunning masterpieces.
La Pelicula del Rey (1985) seems to poke fun at the situation of the lack of funding there is for movies in Argentina. During this time period the Argentine Cinema was in desperate need of revamping and in need for promotion of their own movies internationally. La Pelicua del Rey depicts a struggling director trying to scrap resources together in order to complete a film where there seems to be a constant challenge every step of the way. However, the director does not give up and persists, even if that means taking the job himself and having himself play the part of the king. In a way I believe that this represents Argentine’s struggle for democracy and struggle to find a king for the people, a king that they had envisioned. The director has a perfect image of the king, and picks a man who he believes can play the part perfectly, however the king drops out after his demands concerning payment are not met. The director then decides to jump in, and play the movie himself. This references the struggle of the people lacking what they needed from the government. They do not have a fit king, not everyone in Argentina has the resources they need in order to survive and thrive.
ReplyDeleteMovies during this time period were urged to promote Argentina at an International level. The movie even references adding tropical scenes that includes the Brazilian actress in order to appeal to more American audiences. This was in fact the attitude the government had towards the cinema in Argentina, yet Falicov states, “culture is more authentic and powerful if it was made for working people”. Argentina was still in search of their own culture and trying to reestablish on of their own. Argentine cinemas proved to have a difficult time appealing to their audiences and struggle to find their own identity in this new era. This movie depicts the element of struggle to find their own identity as the government has regulated what they what from the cinema and what cultures they wish the movies to appeal to
“A king and His movie”(1985) is not only the story of a director and his pursuit to film a movie while encountering countless setbacks, but also on a deeper level an exploration of the difficulties in creating film during the 1980’s as a result of political and social changes. Carlos Sorín portrays the difficult line filmmakers must walk between filmmaking of the past and present and changing objectives as well as the difficulty of choosing between a filmmakers own visions and goals for the film and the often divergent political and social agenda. This story is told best through the scene in the movie where Vass the director is forced to drastically comprise his artistic vision first by playing the king himself and then by using mannequins rather than real actors for extras in the scene. This creates perhaps the most visually haunting scene in the movie; however, it is a huge comprise for Vass as evident by his goals for the film which were set forth in the interview in the opening scenes of the movie. In this interview he portrays some of his artistic vision for the film, describing the King of Patagonia as a strong, adventurer and defending claims that he was an usurper. When he is forced to use fake extras and take the place of an actor which he worked so hard to cast and even tracked down after the actor shaved thinking he was a cop he is sacrificing some of his artistic vision for an accurate portrayal of the epic journey this king/adventurer took to power. This tells the story of the difficulty changing legislation and political leaders created for filmmakers. Changes in the political infrastructure of Argentina from a military dictatorship to a democracy also created changes in legislation related to film and systematic changes in the allowable and popular subjects of film and the target audiences and purposes of films. Falicov describes how the Alfonsín administration led to major changes in film including less restriction on the content filmmakers could portray and also a change in the target audience to a middle class viewership. Moreover, Falicov said this period showed just the “white” side of Argentina whereas Peron had integrated the darker side of the population or “mestizos” into the films. There was also a shift from political to more aesthetic films. The aforementioned scene in “A king and His movie” where Vass makes multiple artistic sacrifices exemplifies these transitions in filmmaking. Vass originally had an artistic and aesthetic goal to create an accurate prediction of the king’s rise to power including ethnic actors such as Indians. In these final scenes of the movie he has to compromise and use mannequins instead of real actors. This shifts his film away from his original desire for a political film to a more aesthetic film. The use of mannequins is more aesthetic versus ethnic actors such as Indians, which he had originally desired, which was more characteristic of the era of filmmaking under Peron. Moreover, it is a sacrifice from an artistic respect because he is sacrificing real for artificial, even though it may be more aesthetic. He may have originally wanted to make a political statement and present
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletethe social reality of the story of the King of Patagonia; however, by making a more aesthetic film he was also catering to a different audience, a middle class and international audience which was the new target audience for movies of this time period. The filmmaking industry had shifted more towards European style aesthetic filmmaking at this time. During this time artistic films brought in the most revenue and were also given the most funding therefore, although this portrayed a common sacrifice it was also a financial trade off. Vass even had to avoid the authorities and press because they got wind of the film he was making which was more politically controversial than was characteristic for that time. All of these sacrifices Vass makes reveal the story of the complex process of making films during this time period which was exacerbated by political changes and changes in the film industry which often forced filmmakers to sacrifice their goals or artistic visions in order to successfully produce a film for both social and financial reasons. Although this struggle is presented throughout the movie there are instances that do not support this idea including the phone conversation where Vass gets extremely frustrated because his assistant could not find the man he saw at the market and would be perfect for the role. This suggested that filmmakers were very overbearing and got everything exactly how they wanted it in filmmaking. This scene made it seem like the only struggle in making films in Argentina was pleasing the director. However, when viewed in the context of the rest of the movie it is clear that regardless of a director’s visions there are countless barriers they face in the filmmaking process that often force them to make changes to their artistic visions.
ReplyDeleteCarlos Sorín has placed many ideas up for analysis and interpretation in A King and His Movie. I couldn’t agree more with the comment that was made today in class about the idea of the director as a dictator. To expand on this idea, I think it is interesting how much the “director” of the film within this film dreams and makes decisions based on his artistic perspective. Falicov discusses the 1980’s in The Cinematic Tango by stating, “During the early 1980’s, when Argentina was becoming part of a ‘free and democratic’ capitalist system, the economic landscape shifted from that of a nation under national capitalist interests or foreign capital investment, to one controlled by transnational interests” (71). This film goes with this idea in the sense that the mannequins do represent an artistic aesthetic more similar to that of Europe. It is also important to remember that David has to make this decision because as a “filmmaker” and “director” his resources are limited. This speaks to the idea of an inability to artistically find an Argentine National Identity because of the lack of resources that artists have during the time period. The natural and possibly “cheap” thing to do is to go back to what is familiar (in this case, filmmakers must go back to an artistic aesthetic close to their European ancestors). Much of this film speaks to the idea popular in the Don Quixote text that it is possible to dream and to make your dreams reality. This idea is played out in David’s character as he is constantly pushing the film forward even when resources and support disappear. I believe that this film plays with this European idea moving forward with your desires, hopes and dreams even when the government and those around you seem to have little to do with you. This film reclaims the idea of the director as a dictator because it is essentially establishing Argentine filmmakers as artists and stating that their drive to create art has little to do with the support of the government or lack thereof. In this sense, the film becomes very political as it pushes Argentina into an interesting artistic movement. Sadly, Carlos Menem’s government will bring more challenges to Argentine filmmakers as Falicov states in Chapter three. Ultimately, I believe this film demonstrates a deep sense of challenge that Argentine filmmakers face during the 1980’s. The comedic side comes out in the idea that filmmakers are the protagonists of their own art.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe film “La pelicula del rey” was a story of a young director shooting a film with endless obstacles. In the beginning they faced their first obstacle when an important member of their crew goes missing. Although, he was essential to the production David decided to proceed with his work. David and his crew unmistakably tumbled through very complicated situations to film their story. In a way Carlos Sorin resembles this movie with the filmmaking industry. For instance, throughout the film, the producer struggled to finish his movie due to the arising obstacles, one tragic after another. First David’s crew is running out of funds as the financial producer disappeared without a trace and as a result they had to come with creative solutions to overcome and continue to film. However, making these critical solutions in the end backfired. One of their quick and easy fix was to hire non- professionals, cheap and easy funding’s only made matters worse. In a way I believe David’s character can be represented as Sorin’s alter ego because in the film you can see David’s passion and ambition to dream big and he also knows that the show cant stop. But even this ambition can lead to a mess, David lost his main character and seemed to loose his mind for a brief second during the film. He then decided to take the lead and continue to film. Moreover, small details in the film helped interpretation their connection because Sorin is carried away by his own fascination seen in the film. For example, the vast land scenery and the expansion of land is a great example. In the end, “La pelicula del rey” displayed many interesting aspects in the filmmaking industry but also displayed the protagonist true passion and ambition to complete is difficult mission.
ReplyDeleteArgentina in the late 1900s was left in shambles. Struggling to find a national identity of their own, they turned to international influences in order to make a name for themselves. La película del rey (1985) clearly depicts the struggles of filmmaking during this time in Argentina. After the censorship period in Argentina, filmmakers were thrown into the industry with nothing to base their work on except daily life. However, that was not good enough. Daily life was either seen as horrific to other countries or bland to Argentinians. Thus, a new cinema, or "Third Cinema" was born- a destruction of the images of colonial and neocolonial cinema and a construction of another cinema that captures the revolutionary impulse of the people of the Third World. In this type of new cinema, filmmakers were bound to a set of values, morals, traditions, and behaviors. They were heavily watched and critiqued.
ReplyDeleteIn the film we watched today, Sorin uses Arturo, the director within the film, to show the pressure as well as the dedication of filmmaking. It takes time, money, dedication, and heart. It is easy to see a film and judge it based on the aesthetics or the wording of the dialogue, but Sorin told the story most people do not see-the "behind the stage" action, so to say. This is evident at the end of the film when the characters in Arturo's film walk away and quit acting, and Arturo plays his own king and uses mannequins to play the other characters' roles. I think this was a very strong point that Sorin makes to show the dedication that filmmakers have and the personal connections they have for their films. It was a very powerful, often unseen, message.
The 1985 film The King and His Movie produced by Carlos Sorin depicts the development of a movie in the mid-1980s. It follows a less direct criticism of the social, economic, and political issues facing Argentina at the time and the theme of attempting to restore life to order after Argentina’s troubled past of military dictatorships defining normal and abusing its power. How Argentina will respond to the freedom they now have determines the future of the Argentinean peoples. Flim’s way of spreading awareness and telling history in a form that reaches more people than a speech for example is also an art form that can say more than words and express thoughts not easily said. With a slight Hollywood like finish that tries to appeal to the international audience to be successfully government funded may be linked to Argentina’s enlightenment upbringing from Europe. The question of if decolonialism and a “Third Cinema” that Falicov speaks of in her book The Cinematic Tango intertwines with the film with the theme of following your own way and perseverance despite what obstacles attempt to crush one’s dreams of a better life or in this case finishing a film. Although the movie itself has a tragic comedic quality to it and mirrors the reality of the struggle funding films and has some history of a French man who became king of Indians in Patagonia then was driven out when he went insane, The King and His Movie also presents an artistic and abstract view.
ReplyDeleteThe story that Carlos Sorin illustrates in his film is one of good intentions gone wrong. The repeated conflicts in producing a historical film that the character, film director Arturo, experiences is met by resiliency until the film is completed, which reflects the attitudes of Argentina’s people. This also turns out to be a similar pattern to Argentina’s repeating history of dictatorships and their current relief of overcoming their hardships. Carlos Sorin best presents this idea in the movie through Arturo in even the fact that he slowly was losing money to finance his film. He is unable to find people willing to fund his film and cannot pay his cast. Eventually Arturo is the only one left to finish what he started. Argentina’s dependence on outside loans and other financial support is reflected in this idea. Along with the inflation and competition of television and VCR threatens Argentina’s film industry in reality and advocates cheaply produced films. Therefore in Carlos Sorin in his movie reveals the process of the decline of good quality films. Arturo’s intention to find real people after looking at the real actors was unsuccessful then resorting to using mannequins and lastly to himself acting can speak to the falling apart of the nation socially, economically, and politically yet the hope of the nation Argentina dreams of to be realized in their newly found freedom and democracy. The last scene of the train of Arturo’s new vision for his next film and Arturo’s assistant’s facial expression and rubbing of his head foreshadows the repeating of the same mistakes- the forgetting of all the difficulties and suffering and forging ahead to new ideas.On one hand Carlos Sorin tells this story well, however it is not as apparent in the scene at the orphanage. Arturo’s cast does not fit in with the orphans and the man in charge of the orphanage out in the middle of Patagonia, Bonanno, throws the cast out. Arturo had no money so they stayed at the orphanage, however something happens that gives Bonanno reason to make them leave.
Immediately after the Alfonsín reign in Argentina, filmmakers began to create movies to try create some sort of identity for Argentina and Latina America as a whole. They of course followed neorealism and neocolonialism of Italy and France, but also looked to films created in the United States as a model of what not to be. Because of this, the neorealism really began to set root in films from Argentina. The uses of diegetic sound, survey-documentaries, and juxtapositions of images from upper middle class lives to that of the working class shipped and made a foothold for Argentine films.
ReplyDeleteEven though Argentina’s films began to start having success, La película del rey, demonstrates the difficulties that filmmakers experienced when funds were not readily available—whether it be because the government stops subsidizing or producers jumping ship. This movie follows a man who wants to make a movie of the Frenchman who was the self-proclaimed king of Padagonia. It shows the element of filmmakers’ creative control over their own product and how finances also contribute to that. It too brings light of what the filmmakers want to do versus what they end up doing with their project.
Although this La pelicula del rey does not have much symbolism, it could be argued (as such in class) that David represents a dictatorship. He goes in, takes control of the movie and expects it to be done his way no matter what. He starts to lose people as a result and in the end, he is left almost all alone. This could be perceived as a message that all dictatorships will follow this path of destruction.
From beginning to end, David wants to make this film, but his conditions have to keep changing do to funding. For example, his cast, his props, etc. At the end he comes to face defeat when the police come to arrest him. He accepts the fact the film is done and simply says vamos (let’s go). What was once a great idea, became nothing but a crushed reality. Again, like all dictatorships. Ultimately, at the end of the film what caught my attention the most was the fact that David was able to come up with another film idea and be just as excited as he was at the beginning of making La pelicula del rey. This goes to show, that even after a crazy defeat, one can come back and redeem themselves so long as they keep an open mind to try new ideas. A message that perhaps Sorin wanted to share with the audience about Argentina…that although it succumbed to a dictatorship, now it has accepted its wrongdoings and is trying to start anew.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Carlos Sabín’s La película del rey, he depicts the struggles of creating Argentine film in the 1980’s. When Raul Alfonsín was elected to power, the film industry flourished due to encouragement from the state and private funding. Falicov also attributes the “boom” of cinema in Argentina to the development of film festivals, allowing Argentine filmmakers to display their work and gain prestige and attention. After his resignation, Carlos Saul Menem entered into power and though he maintained his populist stance initially, he quickly turned his back on the promises he made during his campaign. He reversed his stance on privatization. The arts were defunded and many jobs were lost. The intense inflation at the time made it almost impossible for the cinematic world to survive and many theatres closed.
ReplyDeleteLa pelÍcula del rey was produced with a low budget and was not successful commercially. This is indicative of Italian neorealism, a period in which films were created with low budgets in order to portray a message. In the film, the audience gets an idea of how difficult it is to make a film at this moment in time. The director of the film starts with a cast of professional actors in a classy studio. As the shooting of the movie continues, the director loses his cast of actors (union members) and is forced to hire individuals he finds outside of the professional acting world. After many mishaps, the director stands alone and plays the king, attempting to hold the last remaining pieces of his production together though he is given every reason to quit. The character of the director reflects the resilient Argentine spirit, especially after it’s recent ugly history with military regimes, dictatorship, and the dirty war. After David and Arturo are arrested for starting a fire and the film has been declared a failure, the duo is on a train, discussing the next dream. This is another expression of the unbreakable Argentine spirit. While the director is willing to give anything it takes to keep the shooting of the film afloat, his counterpart Arturo constantly reminds him of the financial side of the operation and is more concerned with making a profit.
I am not sure what message Sabín is trying to convey with the scene between the young boy and the adult actor. Although it highlights the fact that homosexuality is highly frowned upon, I find it to be a bit out of place.
Carlos Sabín’s film is straightforward with less symbolism than the previous films we have watched in class. It contains a movie within a movie and mixes the two realities. It is difficult to follow and these factors help illustrate the difficulties of creating Argentine film.
The movie screened today was El pelicula del rey, directed by Carlos Sorin (1985) is a film within a film. Sorin took his own frustrating experiences about trying to film a movie during a period where funds for film loans and subsides were not given out as freely as they had been in previous eras. The focus of the film industry at this time was to shed a positive light on Argentina and present an air on modernity for the international market. During this time films were subsidized by the state because they were seen as part of the cultural patrimony of the nation. Argentina has a small market and due to previous economic crisis the film industry was an uncertain venture for investors.
ReplyDeleteEl pelicula del rey chronicles the struggles of a director to secure funds to back his cinematic dream which he has a very clear vision. The story that Sorin is trying to tell about filmmaking is that even with a unique script finding funding could be challenging or near impossible. Falicov sources Lito Espinoza, a screenwriter for more than twenty years, “one could get a film loan regardless of income level” (in the Antin years). Espinoza states “young directors and those without money have a much harder time then before, making the system less democratic.”
The idea about the monetary struggles it takes to produce a film is one aspect that stood out to me throughout the film. The opening scene is a pitch of the script requesting financial backers, then finding a perfect King takes coaxing to get the actor to leave his “high” money making season at the leather stand, then the local talent he finds in Patagonia end up deserting him after they stop receiving pay and even the actor who is cast of because of his romance with the young boy asks for money for food on his journey home. But throughout all of this the director brushes it off as if money is of no importance to him. He is determined to find a way to complete the film and at times he even seems enraged that the actors are even asking for their wages. He is a dreamer and even in the final scene he is not discouraged about the failure of the film rather energized about a new adventure… the last one already forgotten.
In the film, "The King's Movie" the struggle of funding is explored thoroughly. The film was a made in 1986 and shows the story of a young director attempting to make his own film while dealing with financial problems. David, the young director, plans to tell the story of a French man becoming King of a group of Indians in Patagonia. David's story starts off well enough with funding from a De Fillipes, himself and his partner. He finds his ideal cast and crew and begins the process of setting up the film. Before they can even get to the location, David and Arturo lose their funding; however, they decide to continue on. Without the flow of cash they team slowly loses its team members until in the end it is only David, Arturo, the interpreter and the actress playing the whore. The movie ends with Arturo and David being arrested for creating a fire for the film, never completing the film they went out to complete.
ReplyDeleteIn today's film industry funding is still a great concern for film production. In response to this issue product placement is now greatly used to assist in the funding process. According to the text, The Cinematic Tango, product placement was not used in Argentine films until 1997, 9 years after the production of "The King's Movie". While product placement had been used in television for years prior to the movie, it was kept from film. Television was considered more commercial and due to the national films aspect of artistry and "non-commercialism" this idea of product placement never intersected to the film industry. Product placement was also never independently considered for film because many thought it to be gratuitous and excessive. This explains why in the movie that David and Arturo never once consider this as a viable way of funding.
This film I believe is used to show the problems with finding financial aid to fund the creation of national films. Had product placement been allowed at that time the movie could have easily been paid for resulting in less issues for David and Arturo. They easily could have used products for the time period subliminally such as clothes and food goods. While this film does not take a particular side to the argument of product placement, it does thoroughly exemplify the struggles Argentine directors face with funding in that time period and could be viewed to potentially provide the framework of finding solutions such as the product placement.
In today’s film A King and His Movie, had a lot of symbolism that could relate to the struggles of Argentina during this time as a country, as well as the struggle in the film industry at this time. But the element in this movie that I noticed the most was the fact that the king and the director were almost as though to be the same character just in different settings. Both characters were experiencing power struggles throughout the entire film. The Kings being the native people as well as his own government group and the director being trying to get funding for his film as well as casts to stay working on the film. Both of the characters tried to remain very level head and good leaders and around the same time in the movie both ended up cracking under the pressure. It appeared that both characters, each in their own stories, had nothing but bad luck. This was easier seen in the director’s story of having insufficient funds for his production and being unable to follow through with all the big ideas he wanted to incorporate into his film. Also at the very end the direct after having nothing but bad luck in finishing his film decided to put his feet back in the water with a new film idea. Because the director was unable to finish his film we were unable to see what the Kings ending was, we did however know that the King had tried to get his power back on three different occasions. Showing that the King too did not give up on his goals either.
ReplyDeleteFrom my interpretation the goal of this film was to model the turmoil the film industry was actually having at this time period as well as through in issues about politics as well. The directors story in the film was a really in your face statement about how hard it was for producers of this time to create their films. The directors as artists were still really motivated and excited about creating new and impressive films but were unable to have as much artistic freedom to create them due to the struggles in the economy at this point in Argentina’s history. As Falicov stated, “The peak rate of inflation soared to previously unmatched heights in world history, to 4,923 percent” (pg.75). Meaning it was not just the film industry that could not find sufficient funds but as a country as a whole had deficient funds.
The director being symbolic for the economic turmoil of Argentina the King was however a symbolic representation of the politics of Argentina at this point in time. As discussed in class the leadership in Argentina was transforming. The military regime was ending and new president had been elected. The story of the king was one of tragedy just as the previous chapter of Argentina. But as the two characters at the end of the movie ended one chapter they continued on to the next with their heads held high in hopes of a better future. Which is what I believe the film was wanting to persuade. I feel as though this movie could be interpreted in countless other ways which is why in a weird way makes this movie so interesting.
La Pelicula del Rey is about a film director who just wants to shoot his production in a Third World country, in which neither the market nor the state will help him. So, actors go on strike, producers suddenly disappear, technicians don't like the work they are doing and everyone expects to earn a huge amount of money, since they are in showbiz. In the end, the artist is still dreaming with his story, he goes on filming alone, with the only help of his best friend, one of the producers, and everything goes wrong. However, one last scene is deeply touching: without a penny, going back to the city from the shooting scenarios, in Patagonia, in a lousy train, the director starts dreaming again with another powerful wonderful history. All this, narrated with a very particular humor and an unique love for film-making itself, makes this my very personal very favorite movie. Argentinean director Carlos Sorin took his own frustrating experiences trying film a movie about the true story of a man who, in 1860, declared himself the King of Patagonia. Soon, however, the production runs into difficulties with its cast of local "talent" and with its financial backers. Virtually deserted by his cast and crew near the end of the shoot, the fictional director decides to finish the film completely alone, working only with a bizarre landscape populated by mannequins. Freely moving from the film-within-a-film to its surrounding story, Sorin etches a parallel between the King of Patagonia and the film director, both of whom are driven by something like madness. Much of this film speaks to the idea popular in the Don Quixote text that it is possible to dream and to make your dreams reality. This idea is played out in David’s character as he is constantly pushing the film forward even when resources and support disappear.
ReplyDeleteLa Pelicula del Rey was a comedy-drama directed by Carlos Sorin and released in 1985. The movie was about an obsessed director set on making a film about the king of Patagonia and Araraucania and his rise to power. Being a movie about making a movie, the story consisted of the events surrounding the director and his ultimate failure to complete the project.
ReplyDeleteSet in an era following the reign of Paul Alfonsin, Argentinian film makers were hard pressed to find the funding to make a decent movie. The story of this director mirrored this plight by showing the obstacles he faced, beginning with the loss of his director and the funding to complete his film.
La Pelicula del Rey cut back a forth between reality and the film in progress and used symbolic references that pointed to the harsh reality of the film industry in Argentina during this period. At the beginning of the film the director was very optimistic about this undertaking and even after a loss of funding, his director quitting, actors refusing to work, not being able to obtain the right number of indigenous for specific scenes, and many other complications, he refused to quit. Long after every other sane person would have given up he wouldn’t stop. After Oso, the actor he hand-selected to play the king, quit he even took on the role himself and used mannequins to fill in for the actors who had long since walked out. He was finally made to stop production because he was arrested for starting a fire, but he never willingly let go of his dream for this film. This signifies the Argentinian film industry as a whole at this time because after he failed to complete the project he immediately began to dream about his next big film and even with the obstacles Argentinian film makers faced they found ways to make spectacular movies that won awards around the world.
The fluctuating government practices, institutions, and leaders in Argentina influenced the cultural situation. At face value, the film industry seemingly exists for the narrow purpose of entertaining an audience. The development of cinema in Argentina over time reveals it to be a politicized production that maintained a broad sphere of influence. Dependent on the leadership in place, the dominating focus of film changed. From discussing social inconsistencies to revealing political discrepancies, cinema served a deep-rooted purpose in Argentine society. La película del rey directed by Carlos Sorín was a multi-faceted film that revealed a variety of messages concurrent with the economic situation. Carlos Menem, who succeeded Raúl Alfonsín, established neoliberal politics that valued the country’s private sector. In terms of film, his administration undermined the artistic segment of Argentina. In the 1980’s, the reorientation of the film institute was a main topic, especially as the Emergency Film Law entered and exited the scene. According to Tamara Falicov, 1992 was “the worst year for Argentine film,” just seven years after La película del rey was produced. Carlos Sorín directed this film with the intention of highlighting the issues facing the film industry in the 1980’s. He achieved this through a comedic approach that parallels the tragi-comedy nature of Don Quijote de la Mancha. In the midst of movies wrought under neorealism, La película del rey discussed the cinematic shortcomings of the period.
ReplyDeleteThe parallel between A King and His Film and Don Quixote, well-known as the first modern novel, created a familiar plot line relevant to the cinematic dilemma. In both instances, the protagonist is determined to fulfill a goal, which speaks to the outlook of filmmakers in Argentina at the time. In the former, David Vass, a determined young director, sets out to portray the King of Patagonia and Araucania in a well-casted film. He is inundated with steady obstacles that try to demolish his pursuit. He found the King in the most unlikely of places, struggles to recruit him, and ultimately loses him in the end. The financial issues lead to a loss of lodging and additional actors. Vass is left with little resources, as he mounted mannequins on horses to fill the space and assimilated the role of the King. Mirroring the sequence of unfortunate events after Quixote, a work based on tragic comedy, lends A King and His Film an element of comedy. There is a fine line when producing a work that has potentially controversial content. By closely associating the work with a familiar piece via the ‘Quixotic’ director, the focus is dispersed from the underlying message. While successful, this selfsame technique has the potential to dilute the power of his intentions. The use of humor challenges the reality of the lack of funding existent in Argentina. On the surface level, the film is about a man who pursues his dreams with an unflinching determination, despite encountering a deluge of complications. On a deeper level, Sorín is criticizing the cinematic uncertainty that arose in Argentina, making movie production a difficult task. He made the film relatable and engaging through the allusion to Don Quixote.
Where most films in Argentina during the 1980s focused on a lot more of the common social, and political issues (ie babies being kidnapped), there was one movie that broke from the typical Argentine film stereotypes to bring to light another dilemma facing Argentina—that of the film world. Filmmaking in Argentina was one of deciding whether a film should be made for money or should be made for art. This struggle contributes to a higher theme; that of the economy of Argentina needing filmmaking to be successful in an international realm, but also the economy and social realm of Argentina wanting to piece artistry (deeper meaning and thought in the movies like the Italian neorealism) together. The balancing of the two, and the fight between the two as well (fighting for government funding), caused filmmakers to go crazy, as portrayed in the movie “La pelicula del rey.”
ReplyDeleteThe obvious but greatest example in the movie is the slow transformation of the filmmaker—David—becoming crazy. He embodies the very character he is trying to portray in his film. He was not trying to make his King crazy, he was merely dreaming of telling a historical adventure story, but as the struggles of filmmaking threaten his dream, the film becomes more of a King going crazy and called to be insane. As the King in the movie slowly becomes more and more crazy, so does David. Or perhaps this relationship between David and his movie can work the other way around as well—as David becomes more crazy with the film process, he incorporates his madness into his King as a sort of outlet. When all the actors leave David, his King mutters “traitors” in the following scene being filmed. David even says that he will shoot the film with dummies; ironically making the audience feel as if he is the dummy. Finally, David is forced to become the King himself, fully implying to the audience that his craziness has come full circle and he has turned into the mad and insane King himself, merely desiring control and conquest but failing drastically.
The movie was supposed to be funded. The movie was supposed to “appeal to an audience” with it’s action and history. The movie was supposed to make money. Along the way, the movie and David lost all of these goals. Yet, they achieved art. As crazy as it was, an artist and dreamer was born and developed. Sure, the movie suggests the mere madness of this back-and-forth fighting of what a film’s purpose should be (whether artistic or for money); it suggests that as the filmmaking process battles between the two, only craziness is gained. The film goes from “money-oriented” to “artistic-oriented” and nothing but craziness occurs. This simply brings about insanity, and drives filmmakers insane as well, to have to fight these battles between the aims of movies when filmmakers themselves have enough to worry about with simply creating a movie. However, with all of this in mind, art remained alive. The movie was still a journey and process of artistic pooling and sparks of artistic genius (no matter how mad). Perhaps Carlos Sorin was pointing to audiences that though funding may come and go, and though battles over the purpose of movies may drive one to insanity, the art of filmmaking (and the film world) remains. Filmmakers are passionate artists and dreamers. Films—not matter how “Hollywood”—all have their artistic qualities. The money may go, but art remains. The money may be provided, the art remains. Film is a form of art, pointing this out to the government and audiences of Argentina may thus be a statement of the continuation of movie-making no matter the funds/goals of the government. Films will still be created, and they will be successful in their own way (even if It was only for the journey). Art will remain.
The film “La pelicula del rey” was a story of a young director shooting a film with endless obstacles. David, the young director, plans to tell the story of a French man becoming King of a group of Indians in Patagonia. David's story starts off well enough with funding from a De Fillipes, himself and his partner. They didn't have any support from Argentina so they had to look elsewhere for funding and support. He finds his ideal cast and crew and begins the process of setting up the film.Buenos Aires movie director, very fond of the legend of the King of Patagonia and Araucania, decides to make a movie about it. Despite of financial troubles, technical problems, misfortune and desertions, he undertakes the journey to Patagonia for the film with a second-rate actor company. Neglected by the producer and shortly after by the company, he will make the movie alone. before they can even get to the location, David and Arturo lose their funding. Without the flow of cash they team slowly loses its team members, and they suddenly start disappearing as well.Vass meets major obstacles at every turn during the film. First, word leaks out to the Argentine media that Vass is finally making his film and he has to dodge them as he executes his preproduction plans. until in the end it is only David, Arturo, the interpreter and the actress somewhere else playing the whore. The movie ends with Arturo and David being arrested for creating a fire for the film, never completing the film they went out to complete in the fist place. its shows the troubles directors had to go through in order to produce a movie.
ReplyDeleteA King and His Movie, the 1986 Argentine comedy drama film directed by Carlos Sorin, was produced during the presidential term of Raul Alfonsin. Even though he initiated plans to help improve the national economy these failed. The film sector was greatly affected by the declining economy due to the crisis of hyperinflation. The INC appealed to legislators to help restructure revenue streams, but it wasn’t until late in President Carlos Saul Menem’s term that this happened thanks to the efforts made by Octavio Getino (74). As soon as he was elected to office, Menem turned his back on the promised policies, and instead the Argentine economy was ruled through “neoliberal policies of privatization and economic liberalization” (75). Argentina eventually became the country with the largest number of privatizations in the world, a fact that controls the majority of the plot in Sorin’s film, A King and His Movie (76).
ReplyDeleteA King and His Movie was not well known internationally and did not contain notions of stereotypes, very much unlike the film we watched yesterday, The Official Story. Through his film, Sorin depicted the struggles, challenges, and restrictions of film making, and put the majority of the emphasis on the challenges of funding for a film. Money determined how well the movie would be made, who would be hired to play the roles, and last, if the movie would succeed or not. Without funding from De Felippis the movie director, David, was forced to improvise and compromise his original script of a historical documentary to an abstract drama. Money guided the involvement of the second-rate acting company, and once the cast learned of the production’s financial troubles, the majority fled home to the city. In one of the final scenes, viewers watched the stand in mannequins fall to the ground one by one, symbolizing the “death” of the film, and the failed efforts of David to save his production. It was interesting to realize, however, that the failed production of the film was not the director’s fault. David was unfortunate and unlucky to fall prey to the private sector’s monopoly of film in that era.
I found the discussion between the director of the film and the funders at the beginning of the movie to be interesting. What struck me the most was the line spoken by De Filippis, “In movie without charm, there’s nothing.” This phrase was a complete contradiction to Sorin’s motive for the movie. In movies without funding there is nothing. Without funding dreams cease to exist, or so the movie tries to make viewers believe. There was also a line that was said in the film that movies bring happiness. For David, the director, this was true. In the ending scene he began talking about his next adventure, the story of the fake Inca. David won’t give up on his dreams, and through this character, Sorin wants the viewers to believe that Argentine film will come back to life, it will make a come back. Funding for films will be possible again.
Carlos Sorin presented a good film. It showed how the life of a film maker can be difficult and how the industry has very distinct problems. The story starts with a director in the film “La Pelicula Del Rey” (1986) David Vass, who tries to direct a film that does not have any funding. From the beginning to the end, this film shows the different problems that come from directing a film. One interesting thing in “La Pelicula Del Rey” was that the film had a lot of symbolism in it. David Vass directs a film about the French adventurer Orelie-Antoine de Tounes who in many ways relates to the director Mr. Vass.
ReplyDeleteOne key piece in the film which was what I believe the most symbolic piece in the movie and it happened towards the end of the film. The scene showed the prince standing alone in front of the mannequins. In the film, this meant that the king, like the director, had lost all of his followers in war, or in the hardships of trying to the film the movie. Now all that was left was the king, or the director, to finish the project. Additionally, in the film at one point the mannequins started falling over due to the wind, as the sun was setting. This scene also had strong symbolism because it showed that the director had lost all of the people in his kingdom, or his film team. The sunset in the scene showed that the dream was over, it could not be finished due to the lack of resources. As the film also progressed the king was becoming crazier, much like the director of the film.
Overall the film had a lot of interesting aspects that tied it all together. It definitely suited someone that thinks critically about films. Although the film had humor in it, the film also had moments where things were not very clear and connections in the film needed to be made. This film was very symbolic and even had some political parts to it.
La película del rey (1985) shows how filmmaking is long, argumentative, and difficult process. In our book, Valicov notes how around this time period, the country began to suffer some through some incredible economic difficulties including inflation. The INC (responsible for loaning money to films that they deemed worthy), had to stop funding the number of films as they had been under Antíns tenure as president. As a result, many cultural and artistic films had their budgets cut. This seems to be the case in this movie
ReplyDeleteThe director, Carlos Sorín, shows us how difficult filmmaking is by following a young director, a dreamer, as he attempts to tell the story of a Frenchman who sympathizes with the indigenous people of Patagonia. He is ultimately betrayed by this sympathy, and slowly loses his mind as the “movie within a movie” progresses. This parallels the mentality of the director. The film starts out with an interview in which the director is explaining what he plans to do. Initially, all looks well. He finds his lead actor, his studio filming is going well, and production is moving along. When his funding is pulled, the director scraps his highbrow production and finds some local actors, eventually transporting the whole production to Patagonia.
By doing this, Sorín wishes to tell the audience that filmmaking usually involves compromising artistic vision, and that the end product of most films is not exactly what the director intended due to social and economic pressures. This is shown by the funding being pulled by the producer, the inability of the director to find indigenous actors in Patagonia, and the ultimate lack of support for the movie by the crew.
An aspect I feel did not support this cause fully was the mannequins. While they were used effectively (the audience understands that the director has changed his film from one more narrative into something abstract), it was a bit hard for me to believe that he was able to procure these mannequins out of the middle of nowhere. I was also skeptical about the actors and crew following the director to Patagonia. I understand that independent films require a smaller cast and crew, but them following the crazy director down south was not entirely clear for me.
In the text, The Cinematic Tango, they quote two film directors, Alejandro Doria and Bebe Kamin, complaining that while 'now there was the liberty to express oneself creatively, there were no economic resources to do so. Although Alfonsin's governments film budgeted increase, one problem that arose from the more democratic form of issuing film loans was the smaller rate of return the institute faced. By 1989, the crisis of hyperinflation plaguing the nation since 1984 had only grown worse. This film is a great and comedic representation of the difficulties of filmmaking in Argentina in the post-military era. In La pelicula del rey develops the great dilemma that filmmakers face: Follow the traditional way of putting a film together and risk not having the funding to make it or compromising and coming up with creative ideas that may go against the directors original vision but have a higher chance of the film coming to fruition. This film also show the persistency of the directors in keeping the faith. In multiple scenes in the film, we see the director having to reassure the actors and the producers. When dragging through the mud with all the issues that arise when creating a film, do you give up or power through. There are clearly aspects of the film where he is not successful. Although he had envisioned many extras, he was left to use mannequins when they didn't show up. This leads to the idea that maybe people had more important things going on then putting together a film. I complete agree with the point Feliu makes in that the director of the film was truing to create a socially-relevant film, and yet is forced by the economic circumstances to adopt a more abstract approach to the film. It is as though the circumstances of life and society in Argentina was finally overwhelming peoples dreams and goals. People were left with the difficult decision of whether to continue to push towards their goals or leave them in the dust.
ReplyDeleteYesterday we watched a filmed titled; La pelicula del rey or A King and His Movie (1986), written by Carlos Sorin and Jorge Goldenberg. In this film, Arturo, played by Ulises Dumont, is a director who wants to film a historically telling story about the King of Patagonia and Araucania. The film highlights various personalities struggling through a similar hardships while bringing unique personalities and solutions to the issues. Arturo, the main character of the film, holds on to this dream as he can hardly find the funding in Buenos Aires to efficiently pay for the elements that were necessary for the film to be established in the artistic and historical manner he envisioned.
ReplyDeleteI think that the message being presented by Carlos Sorin in this film is one that proposes how possible it is to achieve what you set out to do as long as a balance of self-discipline and determination exists. No matter what happened, from the budget exceeding the monetary funds to being abandoned by the cast members and having to use mannequins in a more symbolic nature to represent the lives or absence of lives that ironically played out on the set of the movie. I think that this is best represented through the depths that Arturo was willing to tread to see his dream be accomplished. I also think that his ability to apply more of an aesthetic nature to the film as a makeshift cast displayed his level of artistic ability and determination to see things through. The scene that I remember displaying this the best was at the end when the sun was setting in the distance while the camera panned through the field while nature took its course and the mannequins began to fall down and/or blow away. I think that this combined with the elemental components that were combined displayed a sense of accomplishment and that the film was complete and everything that was once necessary; like the money, cast and other elements needed, were no longer.
The only thing that I would consider as not successful is the way he chose to transition scenes and to portray the transition throughout the story. The only reason that I say this is because it was a little confusing at times to understand whether the film was depicting the real life situations (within the movie) or those that belonged to the film being created. Other than that, I think that Carlos Sorin does a great job at using symbolism to reinforce his message in various ways.
La película del rey is a film within a film, depicting the struggles of making a film in Argentina in a time when funding for the arts was threatened to be taken away, foreshadowing the spending cuts Menem would eventually make. It is a thankless art, that can make many end up alone, but that never seems to matter, as long as the artist still has the passion in his heart to keep on going. We see this pull through in a couple of different situations.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning, all is going great. There are actors, crew, writers, producers, and general creative chaos everywhere. We see the first struggle really take hold when they find out that the producer has left for presumably Europe. We can look at this symbolically as well. Argentine society has been drawn to European styles for decades, especially within cinema. It is common for them to want to see a European or Hollywood film over any Argentine film in the box office. They are putting their money into Europe and Hollywood over putting it into their own country’s art. We can also look at this as when the government decides to stop subsidizing the film industry, things go array. This was the first catastrophe in a long line of unfortunate events.
Once there is no money, there is no crew, no actors, not a lot of anything in general. Money indeed makes the world go around, and the arts and film are not exempt. If we take money out of the film industry, we will be left with mannequins, just as David is when he is forced to play the king. Once the film industry of a country is gone, that take away a lot of different facets, including a national identity domestically, and abroad.
(Note, I originally posted this on Jan 7th in the January 4th blog comments)
ReplyDelete“A King and His Movie”, directed by Carlos Sorin in 1986 was an interesting, yet classic approach to the style of film that was made in Argentina during this era. The film presents the story of the struggle of a very artistic director named David, who is trying to film a movie about the legend of the King of Patagonia and Araucania. One of the most pressing issues seen throughout the entire film is the issue of having funding to produce this film. The producer, who is supposed to be funding the creation of the film, leaves to Europe without informing David or his right-hand man name Arturo until several days later, and he no longer is funding the film. To David’s frustration, there is no money to pay the cast or the picture and sound specialists, but he continues to make the film anyway with limited money and resources.
While watching this film, it is important to keep in mind the kind of audience that Sorin is creating this film for, and what kind of a purpose that the film is trying to accomplish for the target audience. Falicov explains that during this time period, Argentine films were made specifically for international, national middle-class and educated intellectual’s viewership; ignoring the appeal to the working class (48). As a result, “A King and His Movie” had very little success locally in Argentina, but was a huge success internationally, as it won the GOYA Award, Grand Coral First Prize in Havana and Best First Work in Venice. Falicov discusses that the reason for this push towards an international recognition was because democratic President Alfonsin wanted them to served two purposes, “to gain legitimacy for the Argentina as a bonafide democratic nation... and served as a way to sell to films there” (55).This film, although seemingly simple to follow, has a great deal of symbolism and displays very historically relevant consequences of Argentina’s history that would be more easily appreciated by an educated middle-class viewer.
A historically relevant event that is eluded to is when Artuo explains to David that the wealthy producer who was funding the movie, named De Felipe, has left to Europe and is no longer funding them. During this time period when this movie was made, Alfonsin allowed the film industry to produce a larger number of what Falicov calls “testimonio films” (48). She goes on to explain that the testimonio, “demonstrated that Argentina was undergoing an exorcism of the recent, terrible past”(48). During this time in Argentina’s history, it was not uncommon for wealthy people who had any affiliation with the military dictatorship to secretly take what money they could from their businesses and flee the country. As a result, many people like David, are left to suffer because of the effect of the terrible past of corruption in businesses due to the military dictatorship. However, despite this financial set back, David still continues to attempt to make his movie, which represents the resilient nature of the Argentine people who have overcome the terrible past and continue to work towards making Argentina’s culture a more modern and artistically relevant country.