Published on: http://elpueblo.com.co/la-mujer-del-animal-esa-tan-nuestra-normalizacion-de-la-violencia

Amparo (Natalia Polo) takes one gnawed, almost eaten-away pen and writes on a similarly-looking notebook

My lord, what am I doing? What am I punished for?

This turns out to be the only way the animal’s wife has to release her pain. This film, Victor Gaviria’s latest work, invokes the gender-based violence in a very graphic way which may lead those who do not often explore the inner dynamics of our national issues to agree with a religious explanation on why this woman suffers such a reprehensible and continuous treatment in most of the scenes in the film.

“She’s going through that situation because she’s a sinner. God has forsaken her.” This, although not expressed, may be what the neighbors and people who know her are thinking about her doom when they witness every single abuse she suffers. And even if she ends up believing that her tortuous life has been doomed by the creator (which is understandable, “nothing is worse than physical pain” said Winston Smith in 1984. Physical pain blurs thoughts) that is not the worst. What Gaviria shows in the film is how those who can stand up for her and stop this disgrace by taking decisive action wind up justifying that violence based on what they think is “divine intervention” which punishes “a bad wife, a bad woman”, or simply by behaving indifferently, the most subtle yet abject way.

The images in the film would claim the basis of the storyline is a sort of Tarantinesque ode to violence. Blood and flesh teem right in front of that audience which loves violence but shuns an analysis on its origin.

“The animal’s wife” is, no question, Gaviria’s most heartless, most graphic and, yes, most violent film of the four works he has directed.

Still, by handling the issue of gender-based abuse and violence with such graphic depiction does not intend to make it the core of the storytelling. Instead, Gaviria convincingly uses this resource to stand out that contrast when the tough punch the oppressor gives to victim, the blood flowing down her face, her screams out of helplessness and pain, meets the apathetic presence of those around, those who live in the outskirt of a city. In the age the film takes place, a massive group of forcefully displaced peasants is flooding the streets of Medellin.

By doing this, Gaviria seems to be asking: Would you also turn your backs? If you think this scene is repulsive, don’t you think is more hideous to justify or ignore the violence that scene portrays. Evil is clearly the main character, impersonated by
The Animal, but it is also revealed in such coward, or, perhaps, habituated, acceptance of the man’s personification of wickedness.

Those whose feelings are stirred by this succession of acts of explicit violence would do well if they check interviews, articles and essays on Gaviria’s work. The poet and director once stated that “I make films with the stuff others leave out: I work with stories regarding social issues and with what the actors of life have to say”. While recent Colombian cinema has mostly incorporated an intimate look on different dynamics with a strong European influence, Gaviria has broken his 13-year hiatus from Colombian film scenario with this film: bringing back a drama stand, he renounces long silences, subjective pauses, succinct and arty dialogues and establishes a rapid camera movement, a must when it comes to accurately registering the pitiless violence inflicted by The animal (Tito Alexander Gómez).

Similarly, as already used in his previous works, Gaviria allows a fluent, sincere dialogue, which greatly increases the drama portrayed in every scene of abuse. His expertise on working with natural actors (a trademark of his filmography) sheaths the story with tenable verisimilitude and sensitivity, as well as establishing a closer link between the audience and the story. Thus, the audience is asked to reflect on how similar they can be to those neighbors who watch the attacks on Amparo and ignore them.

There is a background on this story of humiliation, extreme misogyny but especially of criminal, conspiratorial and prevailing standardization of these hideous acts. A true Animal existed as a gangster in one of the outskirts of Medellin, and he really subdued Margarita (Amparo in the film) from 1975 to 1980. 4 years of research and two more of shooting were necessary to screen this 2-hour film, which Gaviria and the production company have taken to the TIFF, the Rome Film Festival and will be soon exhibited in FICCALI (CIFF – Cali International Film Festival). As expected, controversy will spark in the nation when it is massively released next January; we all know our tendency to hollow uproar.

This does not seem to affect Gaviria, who was present in the film’s exhibition at the most recent version of BIFF (Bogotá International Film Festival). He reaffirmed his conviction on revealing those stories underlying Medellin with its overpublicized development as well as other cities in the country where cinema seems to be fearful of doing the same: Exposing evil and its corresponding standardization.

Juan Merchán

                              POLITICO Europe’s note on Farhad Khosrokhavar’ op-ed article.

Past November 1^st, Stephen Brown, POLITICO Europe’s Editor in Chief, withdrew an article titled The dangerous French religion of secularism, explaining that it did not meet their editorial standards.

Four days later, Donald Trump gave a speech in which he unfoundedly claimed the presidential election was being stolen. As it is widely known, major outlets cut him off midway.

These two episodes, involving different media and two different events, are a fresh demonstration of how the cancellation culture operates in media, and how it may be doing more harm than good.

Editorial Standards, Lack Of Transparency

Farhad Khosrokhavar is a Franco-Iranian sociologist considered an expert in Jihadism. POLITICO Europe invited him to write an op-ed article over the controversy caused by the poignant killing of Samuel Paty. He did so, hitting hard on laicité, France’s secularism.

POLITICO published Mr. Khosrokhavar’s article, let it rest online for a couple of days, took it down and offered no explanation to audience beyond the mere editorial standards. The questions arose: What is their editorial standard? Why Mr. Khosrokhavar’s piece did not meet them?

It’s clear that media outlets are just private companies, and they can operate their business as it pleases them. But, as big and powerful an outlet can grow up to be, it has an obligation to be transparent. A media outlet cannot elude their accountability to audience.

This is more arresting since the whole discussion revolves around secularism and freedom of speech. If the editors considered that the article somehow jeopardized the separation between religions and states and the right every individual has to express their opinion, isn’t it ironic they are not allowing this renowned individual to express his criticism?

POLITICO’s muting of the article did not cancel the discussion. More experts have jumped in and questioned the French’s version of freedom of speech. In fact, by limiting any questioning voice on this topic, Politico can just be throwing more tinder to the ardent fire surrounding the so-called Western values.

Op-ed articles, as dissenting, inaccurate or prejudiced they can be, are to be contested with another op-ed article or with an editorial message, signaling the media opinion about it. Cancelation of a voice comes to be perceived as censorship by those supporting that voice, and the word censorship is music to the ears of paranoids and conspiracy theorists.

Lies Are To Be Denounced, Not Muted

When MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC cancelled coverage on Trump’s baseless claims, one question popped up: why are they doing it now? Mr. Trump has been lying to the American public routinely, starting from the 2016 elections. The media that cut him off this month already knew he is a compulsive liar back in 2016. Why did not they make that editorial decision back then?

Brad Adgate may have had the answer 2 years  ago: He was always a rating-maker. Now he’s done, isn’t he news-worthy anymore? The lack of clarity here is a serious threat to the ethical obligation media has with their audiences.

In any case, what a president of a country says or does should always be news-worthy, more importantly when those words or actions are immoral or untrue. This even helps media to exercise its most prominent duty in a society: questioning power. Those 4 outlets could have followed CNN’s smarter strategy of captioning the speech to let viewers know he was making baseless accusations.

CNN captioning Trump’s speech. The Telegraph

Cancelling the otherness profoundly wrecks our comprehension of their wrongness. The causes that led to Trump disaster are more alive than ever, and media has failed at identifying what make millions of US citizens vote for him.  This just damages their trust in traditional media, making them seek for pamphletary outlets which meet their ideology needs.

Articles against secularism or any Trump’s infamous rants don’t die out when cancelled by media. Audiences can access any cancelled content online anyway. Traditional media don’t have the monopoly over information anymore, but it seems they think they still do.

Cancellation culture in media ends up feeding the deranged: nothing’s more suitable for a paranoid partisan than a seemingly Orwellian media that disguises reality.

Juan Merchan