Monthly Archives: August 2017

While watching the film, I was a little disappointed in the character of Kate. I thought she was weak and used as merely a stepping stone for the other agents. In the end, it seems like she was on the surface exactly that. But she is very important for the main argument of the film— that following the rules does not always lead to the best outcome. She is used to complete a mission in a never ending war and will be forgotten just like the Mexican police officer. But what I appreciated was the fact that she was challenged by her counterparts for her values, not her gender. She was not meant to look pretty and was in on the fighting. Kate was a part of the complicated system representing the side that we often see as being ‘good’ or moral. Her final act— not shooting Alejandro demonstrates her commitment to her beliefs and she does not submit to his way of fighting the war.

This film is clearly not just another action film about drugs and shooting. It challenges America’s role in the war on drugs. Matt and Kate represent the two extremes of American policing in Mexico. Matt holds the belief that actions which would usually be unacceptable, immoral, and against the law are ok if you still carry the end goal of the mission in mind. Kate attempts to follow the rules and do what is right. This competition is common among stories involving competing institutions and characters within the government. Each side sees their way as being the best and compete against one another though they have the same enemy

While TV shows and movies about drug trafficking often juxtapose the extremes of drug trade by glorifying the guys on top and the guys on the bottom of the drug trade, this film focused on a different extreme. I saw it more an examination of the extremes of motivation. Alejandro is the most motivated and emotionally fueled character acting solely out of vengeance. Kate, seems to display more frustration towards her counterparts and is the only character who cries. However, I see her as a stoic in her own way. She is motivated by her commitment to do what is right and did not deter from it though her beliefs were constantly challenged.

The color was very important to this film. After watching a few analysis videos of the film, I realized how important beige was for the film. It controls the landscapes, lighting, internal and external walls as well as the colors of the characters clothes. Beige is a color that does not argue anything in particular. It is not often connected to symbols or motifs. Because it seemingly lacks life nor warrants opinion, it fits the film’s argument that the war on drugs is a wicked cycle challenges our notions of justice and good and bad. Where do you look for answers to a difficult situation when the current solutions seems inhumane and morally wrong?

At the start of The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, we did not see: “A true story” written as we did with Walker. But as the reading says, Tommy Lee Jones was inspired by a West Texas teenager of Mexican descent who was shot by border patrol. All that happened in this film I could see happening in real life. This film was convincing. The acting, cinematography and script made this film my favorite we have seen so far in this class.  

Regarding, US and Latin American relations, in my opinion this is the most conducive film for creating a two way bridge that connects ‘us’ to ‘them.’ Politically it was effective, more so than the other films we have watched. The reading explains this by taking it a step further. Watkins thesis that the sovereign’s precariousness and attention to grievability is more complex than politics of recognition is accurate. Pete does represent a victory for precariousness over sovereignty. Before reading the article, my analysis would have ended with an analysis of the political ambitions in the film. I think the Mexicans were never inferior to the Americans and the sense of two separate nations, countries and peoples was successfully blurred. This allowed for the focus to be on morals and values that create identity instead of concerning the viewer with our common assumptions of differences in identity as Watkins argues.

The shot of the campfire where the body of Melquiades sits in the middle was unlike any shot I have seen before. It was highly emotional but I am not totally sure how I felt about it. It reminds the viewer that this is a western film, but Pete’s determination to preserve the dead body made me as a viewer disgusted, intrigued, worried but I also found it comical.  

After researching the film online, I found an article on Christianity Today that examined judgment and redemption as themes in this film. The article says, “in this film violence is often the forerunner of an epiphany, and God’s providence works in strange and mysterious ways.” This is interesting when put beside Watkins argument that Pete does not have the strong desire to control that is associated with mastery and sovereignty. Watkins also explains how Norton’s character shows our inability to control the implications of our actions. So this made me wonder if Jones and Arriaga wanted it to have a religious message.

I like films that leave a lot of the interpretation up to the viewer. This film displayed clear messages as well as messages open for interpretation. For some viewers, it does provide religious messages. For others, it explores society’s misunderstanding of borders in the literal and social sense.

In class yesterday, when we were discussing what a bad movie was, I said that movies which fail to meet the basics of cinematography such as camera shots that don’t make sense or films without coherent plots are bad movies. At the same time, however, I said that I like when film tries to push boundaries and re-invent the styles we become used to. When it fails in doing this though, a bad movie is the result. And what I said really did not make a lot of sense, I was thinking far too literally. 

Bananas was an immediate response that destroyed my previous point about what makes for a bad film. If there is someone who can break all of the rules of film, lack coherence, choreograph awkward shots while making the viewer disgusted, engaged, and smile all at the same it would be young Woody Allen. But he does it in a way that works extremely well.

In fact, this was the first Woody Allen film I have ever seen. From what I have heard from my parents and grandparents, he is strange, controversial and funny. This one, unlike a timid Elvis at the top of the high dive, was hilarious. Bananas stands in sharp contrast to our previous film in terms of its protagonist and how it interacts with Latin America. The critique of the media as well as the overly transparent political process was ridiculous in a good way. I don’t like slapstick humor that much. However, the drawn out, physically uncomfortable shots such as when Neville and his girlfriend are in bed I found very funny.  While watching Fun in Acapulco, I could not decide if I liked Mike Windgren. Interesting, I felt similar towards Fielding Mellish. He is easy to laugh at but hard to like.

What the film was trying to say about American involvement in Latin America, I am not entirely sure. There was a large cultural response to US intervention in the region, Cuba specifically during the 1960’s. It seems to me that Allen thought it would be fun if he joked about it. We are left with a clever critique that makes all of the American characters in the film look stupid no matter what side they are on. Because of the transparency of the critique, of the films we have watched, this film provides the strongest argument against the US state intervention as well as against the ignorance of American society towards these globalsituations.