Monthly Archives: August 2017

08/9/17

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005), is a Post/Neo Western movie, directed and acted by Tommy Lee Jones. It tells the story of Melquiades Estrada, a Mexican illegal migrant who enters Texas in search of a job and a new life. Soon enough, Melquiades and Pete Perkins (Tommy Lee Jones), become friends and work partners. However, this new and unfiltered friendship is soon tested when Melquiades is killed and Pete is forced to find his friend’s killer and to fulfill the promise of burying Mel in his home town in Mexico.

I think that Three Burials is a post/Neo Western movie because it retains elements of conflict of the traditional Western genre movie such as good versus evil (cowboys’ vs Indians/Mexicans), freedom versus settlement, solitude versus cooperation and wild versus civilization. Nevertheless, other new and interesting elements are brought into the mix of Three Burials as a way to reinvent the Western genre and to challenge pre-established social and cultural norms impose by society which are based on stereotypes the ‘other’ as foreigner and evil. For instance, in the case of The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, both Pete Perkins as well as the audience are forced to come to terms with the concept of friendship, honor, ‘the other’ and traditional family values. As we have seen in previous Western themed movies such Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) and The Mark of Zorro (1920), movies have being responsible for constructing pre-established notions of how society should look-like and where white American cowboys redeemed themselves in foreign lands (Mexico in the case of Sierra Madre). This is to say that, some values are more important than others: honor, solitude, tradition, and nature. In the case of The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, the West belongs not only to the white American cowboys of Texas but it opens a cultural and social space for Mel himself to enter this Western world as a baquero just like his counterparts.  Here, the US-Mexico border, is a fluid zone where identities are recognized but allowed to coexists, cultural hybridity is present, and spaces take different meaning and values. Among this fluid Mexico-US border area, Pete’s mission to find the killer of his friend and later his mission to bury him in Mexico also challenge the notion of the typical Western movie.

The value and meaning of true friendship is highly explored in Three Burials. For once, the way in which Pete welcomes and allows Mel to work in his Texan ranch and to become his friend, shows that the view of the Mexican as the ‘other’ does not apply in the same context as it did in movies such as Zorro or Sierra Madre. For example, there is a clear intention by Pete to carry out Mel’s wishes of being buried in his homeland and what he does to accomplish this is what makes the movie interesting to analyze. Not only does Pete find out who Mel’s murderer is but forces Officer Norton to carry Mel’s dead body through the US-Mexico border, across the desert (on a mule’s back) and buries him in his ‘home’ town. Hence, showcasing the overall sense of dedication and friendship for his Mexican friend and demonstrating loyalty for others beyond social and cultural boundaries. For this reason, Perkin’s reason is not only driven by his desire for vengeance but instead love and solidarity for his friend are paramount drivers of this post-Western film.

The difference among the importance of family values giving in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, deserves close attention. In fact, the way in which Officer Norton’s house hold is presented vastly contrasts that one of Mel’s family ideas or among those of Mel and Pete’s, who in some respect has become a sort of acquired family for Mel’s. Officer Norton family is in crisis. Norton and his wife seem to be at lost (bored in a new city and lost in this new job). Instead, Mel’s family values are around his ‘wife’ and children and his relationship with Pete are portrayed as good, honest and carefree. Pete cares a lot for Mel’s, so much so that he introduces him the companionship of Lou Ann Norton, Officer Norton’s wife, to be his romantic partner. It is like if Pete is a father figure to Mel and race, origin, and blood does not matter to him but what really matters is his friend’s happiness and well-being. What transpires in the end and really matter for Pete is to restore the respect and dignity of his good friend Mel. Hence, the three consecutive burials lead Pete to force Mike Norton to take a road trip to Mexico so they can give Mel a proper burial.

To finalize, Lou Ann Norton and Mel find their own way to be happy in the motel room. It is here where Lou Ann is the happiest. It is in the motel room, among this liminal space, where she escapes being raped by her husband the border patrol Officer. It is in here, the motel room, where Lou Ann takes charge of her destiny and help ease Mel into being himself. Language does not matter in this motel room liminal space. Hence, music, television and dancing become excuses to get to know each other better. Sex is not necessary. Only their intimacy for one another is what allows them to escape their realities and to forget their sorrows. For this reason, Lou Ann and Mel brake the conventions of family values in the motel room and allow themselves to be happy for a while before returning to their day-to-day spaces. In the case of Lou Ann is her role as bored house-wife and for Mel is an illegal cowboy in Texas.

Lastly, it is important to mention that Lou Ann escapes her stagnated reality when she leaves the Texan town of Van Horn after her husband goes missing. On the other hand, Mel only escapes his illegal and foreign condition when he is mistakenly and wrongly killed by Officer Mike Norton. Hence, choice of action versus fatal destiny are put forward in the movie as circumstantial themes which conducts the action within the movie.

08/4/17

Walker and Nicaragua’s Invasion

Interventionism of one country over another is the marker which defines the movie Walker (1985). And in this case, the United States over Nicaragua in the name of democracy. Democracy here plays an important part of extension of power. Power of a man, William Walker, an American mercenary who travels to Nicaragua with the only aim at inviting the country and later becoming the President of the same. Interesting enough, one thing I liked about the movie was the narrator’s voice. He gave an inside and offered another dimension of the story. And the narrator also glorifies the action of the movie by saying, for example, “brave men”.

The movie Walker alludes to Christopher Columbus and his ‘discovery’ of the new world once they land in Nicaragua. It also reminds me of the movie También la lluvia (2010). In both movies the use of military force of one ‘civilization’/people over the other in the name of God or with a righteous destiny, can be seen. In the case of Walker, they want to change society which they consider backwards, emphasizing hygiene, God, and science. In other worlds, an American moral compass promoted with the power of guns a military might. For this reason, the immoral among the American ranks get executed and the Conservatives in Nicaragua get killed in order to make way for the liberal Americans who will bring progress and commerce.

The creation of a Republic in Nicaragua is set to be one of the causes for the invasion. However, it is Walker who takes power by force and changes the rules of engagement. After Walker’s American soldiers take power, they make themselves Nicaraguan citizens, which in turns allows for the Americans and Walker himself to think they are contributing in making Nicaragua a more civilized nation. The Nation building process here is not legitimate, yet imposed by force, and it is something which at the end of the movie is set to be the destiny of this country. I saw this as a prophesy. The end of the movie mixes this futuristic prophetic destiny of invasion and by extension all Latin America, and William tells the people of Nicaragua that “America will be back, time and time again!” And in a sense this is true. The United States have invited Nicaragua, and other countries in Latin American, time and time again.

I found interesting that William promises the drum soldier guy that, “not harm will come to you”, and he later is the first who dies. I don’t think Walker really cares if his soldiers live or die, he only cares about power and becoming Nicaragua’s El Presidente. The role that Yrena plays here is interesting. She, Yrena is Criollo Spanish Nicaraguan woman who calls out Walker on his power desire by telling him in Spanish that all short men have the same complex, just like Napoleon did. A direct comparison between Napoleon and Walker can be made here. Both are short men, power hungry, and both invited countries and lost them. The issue of slavery is hint in the movie.

On the other hand, there is a black woman who points out that slavery will be instituted, and later in the movie, Walker talks about bringing blacks to Nicaragua to work in the fields. But not before there is a hint about using the indigenous people to work the fields instead of the black people, given their docile nature.

In my opinion, the best part of the movie is how many times Walker escapes death. It is like his fearless persona allows him to be daring and to escape unharmed.

08/1/17

Having Fun in Acapulco with Elvis is a Matter of Perspective

Fun in Acapulco (1963) tells the story of Mike Windgren (Elvis Presley), who is fired from his job at a show boat and has to take a job as a lifeguard at a nearby hotel in Acapulco. Mike, fearful of diving into the pool, faces his rival, another lifeguard, Moreno who becomes jealous of him for going out with his girl, Marguerita, and the two become enemies.

On one side, this movie depicts the different vicissitudes and troubles that Mike, a young American must face when working as lifeguard in the Mexico’s touristic town of Acapulco. He needs to work for less and attend many interviews with different hotel managers to find the best offer that he and his small partner Raoul, can find. On the other, Fun in Acapulco also shows the troubles that two ex-royals, Marguerita and her father Maximillian, must face when losing their high-class status and are forces to migrate to Mexico and work in the resort. However, the movie takes away from presenting the problems that the Mexican workers or citizens of Acapulco face with the surrounding and powerful economic forces that the hotel and truism industry display in Acapulco. For instance, the figure of Elsa Cardenas as a female bullfighter sends a romanticized image of a heroic figure who likes and chases handsome men. Elsa doesn’t have to work since she seems to have it all and also belongs to a higher social class than the rest of Mexicans. She even has a manager who tries to please her in all he can. But what about Raoul Almeido, the Mexican kid who manages Mike? How does he know so much about the managing business and what about his relationship with all his other ‘cousins’ in Acapulco?

As I see it, Fun in Acapulco focuses on Mike’s issues and takes away from the struggles of the Mexican characters. Or at least, it diminishes them by making them appear as fun and easy-go-lucky type of characters who are contempt with the situation they face. For example, while the audience gets to know that Mike, Marguerita and her dad, all live in the hotel complex, what about the Mexican kid, Raoul? And does Raoul’s extended family of cousins replace the need for a real family within the movie? What’s more, Fun in Acapulco seems to imply that Raoul’s ingenuity and resourcefulness would allow him to be okay even after Mike leaves the hotel for America. Raoul says, “I’ll find another nobody and turn him into a somebody.” In a sense, Raoul’s words allow the viewer to come to the conclusion that the kid, as well as all the other Mexican locals, are not and will not be affected by the tourism industry and the local authorities which regulate that business. What’s important within the movie is not the troubles that Acapulco’s third world location may bring such as poverty, housing issues for tourist workers, hygienic conditions, prostitution, etc., but the American visitor and worker, Mike. What matter are his struggles, his peruse of happiness, the way in which he seduces and captivates the local culture by becoming more Mexican than the Mexican singers. Elvis is a performer and as such, his character Mike, steels the show and adopts the Mexican music, customs, and culture as his own. Hence, the local Mexicans such as Raoul serve as mere background and fillers in the story of an American having fun in Acapulco.

Additionally, when the people of Acapulco are depicted in the movie, they are set to be taking “too many siestas (afternoon naps)”. Mike, then, contraposes this lazy idea of the siesta with his hard work, ambition and the willingness to overcome his diving fear. Mike is the center of attention in the movie and embodies performance, singing, athleticism throughout the whole movie. Mexico, and as a consequence, Acapulco serves to promote the idea of “tropical paradise”, where tourists can have a good time without worrying about anything, all while enjoying the tropical beauty that the landscape offers them. Elvis and his Mexican errant-boy, Raoul, make sort of a dynamic-duo, which allows Elvis to shine. Just like other characters have their side-kicks such as The Lone Ranger, Clayton Moore and his loyal Indian ‘friend’, Jay Silverheels as Tonto. If you ask me, this comparison while different in setting, is similar in racial differentiation and apparels characterization of the ‘other’.

Additionally, Mike the American immigrant but a temporary visitor to Acapulco changes jobs and professions seamlessly. But, Raoul, for instance, stays fixed to his surviving type-of-trade. This shows an advantage for the American character while placing the Mexican one to a defined set of rules with regards to his work, family, and future situation. In the end, only the American Mike, and the tourists he entertains, can have Fun in Acapulco. Hence, ignoring all the issues that the locals of the city of Acapulco may face by their presence.