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.
Interesting take. I did see a lot of religious references and connections to it, and one thing that really intrigued me was that Pete (as insane as he was) could be seen as a spiritual guide for Norton’s path to redemption and what I really liked about this film was how changed Norton became and how it sort of made me somewhat sorry for him. The journey to Mexico could be seen as a path of repentance and forgiveness in which Norton finally accomplishes.
After reading your blog I definitely think there’s some religious message within the film. I think Pete’s character serves as a father figure (in other words he is God like) to Norton. Pete’s main concern as a viewer is seen that he wants to provide justice for the death on Melquiades but if we look at it through a religious lens I think he’s their to provide Norton for his redemption. I also think Melquiades’ character serves as the many lives of immigrants who cross the border and for those that never had the chance to make it. I had no idea that this based on a true story but as I was watching it I was reminded by the many stories my family members have told me about their journeys crossing the border.
I enjoyed your perspective on breaking down the us vs them mentality in the film. It made me think about how in some ways Melaquiles and Mike ended in similar positions. They had both made a difficult journey across the boarder from their home, they both lost their families, they both ended up alone, yet at the same time, they both have a sort of resolution. Not to say that they were meant to be seen as similar characters, but their narratives could be seen as having similarities, breaking the us vs them binary.
I agree here that a reading based around themes of redemption, penitence, forgiveness, and so on can be productive. But this needn’t necessarily be framed simply in terms of Christianity. Another parallel here (if not necessarily intended by the film-makers) might be with the story of Antigone (about which Judith Butler, an inspiration for the article we read, has written an entire book). For Antigone is also a story about a burial, and about ensuring that justice is done to the dead.