What struck me most about Andrea Noble’s chapter was the role played by cameras in the emotional depiction of early 20th century caudillo, Pancho Villa. An emotional Mexican revolutionary is one thing, but the “mediatization” (264) of his tearful displays throughout his life seemed to bring him to somewhat of a ‘movie star’ status, in my opinion. Not to say, of course, that the nature of his emotional expression was purely strategic or political, but rather to highlight its significance in a cultural context- its ability to attract cultural popularity, and, in a sense, unify both the popular and wealthy classes. The political and cultural power of emotion is not something I had spent much time considering before reading this piece, but because emotion is so fundamental, so ‘human’, it is undeniable the impact public displays of it, such as those of Villa, can have on bystanders or onlookers- an ‘affective’, revolutionary power.
Most notably were the time, context and societal standards Pancho Villa and his tearful displays took place in. A transformative, and fragmented political period in Mexico, the early 20th century met Villa’s tears with both unifying amazement and discomfort. His tears, whether in defense for his life or in public mourning, were powerful displays of rejection for what constituted a socially acceptable ‘masculine’ code of conduct or expression, and it was this deviation or ‘shamelessness’ that distinguishes Pancho Villa from those standing beside him in black and white photographs. Crying, sobbing or weeping in front of a camera was something almost entirely unseen in Villa’s time, expressions of feelings that Noble argues were “the ‘glue’ that, however imperfectly, came to cement the fragments of the Mexican mosaic” (251). Whether they are observed, photographed, filmed or described in writing, the relationship tears have with culture depends on how they are portrayed and by who. My question is, what role do cameras play in our views and perceptions of public emotional expression? How does culture play into that?
Hey Natalie, nice post!
In an attempt to answer your question I would say that cameras play an important role in how we view and percieve public emotional expression. Cameras are cool in that they can capture moments and snippets of personal moments that would otherwise be overlooked. In other words, they allow outsiders to gain insight into emotional experiences that the public usually wouldn’t have access to. However, because cameras are tools, they allow us to see what the photographer or filmmaker wants us to. As those capturing the pictures or videos are members of a culture themselves, they might subconsciously represent their own views in their art but not always! Sometimes photographers and filmmakers are able to separate themselves from their works.
Hi Magalee, Thank you for your comment! I definitely agree, we must look at photographs or films with critical lenses and understand that there is always information we are not told or biases that aren’t immediately evident.
Hi Natalie!
I think cameras play a massive role in our views and perceptions, not only of public emotional expression but also of smaller details in our everyday lives. If you’re hanging out with friends and someone begins recording you, would you change your behaviour? I probably would, especially if it made me seem more presentable – which is sort of why I was quite shocked to read about Pancho Villa’s tears. Men aren’t typically associated with showing emotion and he was openly crying in front of cameras.
Like Magalee noted, photographers and filmmakers hold a lot of power over what they want to film and how they want to use cameras to showcase their views on a specific situation. Crying in front of them can almost be seen as brave since the power you had is now completely out of your hands.
Very true Ana- thank you for you comment! It’s interesting how the presence of a camera often changes the authenticity of the moment being captured. Though Pancho Villa was captured crying several times, how do we know that the camera didn’t affect how he reacted in those moments, or did it..
Hi Natalie,
You made great points! I do think cameras played a huge role in the cult of personality of Pancho Villa. He really is an iconic figure in Mexico, and the camera likely played a big role in this. I’m taking my English Literature seminar on literature in the age of the camera, and we’ve discussed how photographs serve as evidence that something occurred (so in this case, it makes it fairly undeniable that Pancho Villa did cry several times during meaningful events), but it also, perhaps more importantly, is an inherently ambiguous form. For example, while a photo of a tree might somewhat ‘prove’, at least excluding photomanipulation, that the tree was “there”, it does not prove the tree is still there, and in fact it doesn’t generally prove WHEN it was there, or even where sometimes. I think both of these assumptions are true for many cultures (that photos are both evidence but are inherently lacking in context and therefore ambiguous), certainly in Mexican culture for my experience, and I think this might have been very significant in the case of Pancho Villa and other revolutionaries. I think the lack of context, the ambiguity, might have intrigued people into finding out who Pancho Villa is. Who is this guy who cries in a country where, yes, men do cry, but very rarely and often in shame or in secret? Who is this guy that was so unconcerned to be spotted crying, to be photographed crying, not only in a situation as dire as facing the prospect of his execution, but in other occasions as well? I wonder if Pancho Villa had written a completely honest autobiography how much the personality cult would differ, or if there would even be one. I think the intrigue and mystery surrounding his personage was key in branding him as an iconic figure in Mexico, and I think the camera is at least partially responsible for that.
Thank you for your comments Isabel! Those are some really interesting questions you bring up- it’s so true that photos, while capturing a moment, also hold such ambiguity about them. They capture a visual, but not necessarily the story, or context, or sounds that surround them or influence that particular moment. there is definitely a link between cameras and notions of ‘iconic’ people, or moments in history. Super fascinating thoughts!