Tag Archives: week6

10/14/21

One Less Widow

I was pleasantly surprised that Thursday’s Widows was not a classic crime thriller, but rather an interesting portrait of Argentina in the months preceding the economic collapse. Though there’s a lot of different perspectives worth thinking about within the film, one thing that grabbed my attention was, of course, the group suicide. Specifically, I wondered what exactly the suicide was supposed to mean with regard to the rest of the film. I want to consider a few different ideas for how to understand it:

 

A first idea, would be that the suicides simply show how the extravagance and immorality of the privileged group led to their own demise. When considered with the architecture, music and general context of an impending “fall”, the groups suicide seems reminiscent of a Greek or Roman excess that results in societal collapse. Their suicides indicate weakness, and though they themselves don’t seem remotely guilty of the implied negative impact they’ve had on society, their suicide still almost seems necessary, just as an emperor or king should feel immense shame if their empire collapsed whilst they lived in luxury.

A second idea, however, brings  a lot of necessary context to their deaths. It seems that their suicides take a very different meaning when Ronnie’s abstinence from the ritual is considered. Ronnie, as the only male character (other than Juan) seemingly capable of any sensitivity or femininity, survives the suicide, which is arguably, especially in such a masculine context, a weak act. It is hard to decide whether the suicide is indicative of the characters’ weakness and cowardliness considering the acts they have committed, then, or whether it is a noble acceptance of their culpability. Alternatively, it could be symbolic of how the rich often think they are the biggest victims of a system which largely benefits themselves.

A telling detail could be that discussion between Ronnie and Tano, where Tano seems resentful for Ronnie’s departure, and Ronnie asks if he is really serious about this “idea”. Why would Tano be angry that Ronnie is leaving, and why does he mock his masculinity at this crucial moment? Perhaps Tano believes Ronnie is as culpable as they are, and that his femininity is shameful, despite the fact that it arguably allows him to survive. I believe Tano, by insisting that it is merely a game or idea, is denying the virtuosity of this group suicide, yet he still hates Ronnie for leaving. This whole interaction convinces me that the suicide is not seen by them as dignified but rather as necessary. It could also signify how the rich always escape the consequences of their actions one way or another, even through death.

One last thing I wanted to touch on was Ronnie’s injury. I wondered what exactly was the point of him breaking his leg, narratively. One possibility was that it represented the physical injury this situation would cause him, versus the spiritual/existential injury caused to the other men. Another could be that it represents how his body limits him from being like the other men – that there is some corporeal disconnect, linked to masculinity, that prevents their similarity, and thus prevents him from meeting them at the pool. Most of all, it seems his injury once again puts him in others care, and accentuates how he has a support system and people who listen, whereas the others have nothing. Ronnie, of all the men, is the only one who manages to save his wife from being a widow – whether this is a strong or a weak act, according to the film, is still unclear to me.

10/14/21

Escape from Death

In the theatrical depiction of Claudia Piñeiro’s Thursday’s Widows we are invited to view the dynamic between four men as they gather each Thursday. These men hold a position of power in relation to their perceived wealth and status of their jobs. One of the members of this group is not like the others. Ronnie stands out from his peers, as he doesn’t have a job at any point in the film. However, while this is viewed within the society depicted in the film as a negative thing, or perhaps a failure on Ronnie’s part, I argue that this saves him.

Around the 1:40 mark, after Tano’s idea of dying, Ronnie gives a moving speech on his life, showcasing the love he has for his wife and son, we as viewers can compare this to how none of the other men can claim to have the same family dynamic as this. How Ronnie and Mavy and Juan are the only family depicted with any sort of relationship. One that doesn’t revolve around money, or lying, or sex. Rather their family relationship showcases what some would consider “normal” challenges, like a troubled child. This is an active critique of the upper class issues we see depicted in Tano and Teresa’s marriage, as well as Lala and Martin’s family. As the only one of the four men who doesn’t kill himself at the end of the movie, we see his separation from the capitalist ways of the others.

Ronnie’s absence from the world that killed his friends, and then his and his family’s escape from that world at the end of the movie showcases the negative connection to capitalism and the high paying jobs of the upper class.

10/13/21

Gates cannot keep away violence

While Claudia Piñeiro’s Thursday’s Widows, sets itself up as a mystery thriller when one of the affluent wives, Teresa, discovers the death of her husband along with his two friends floating dead in their pool, the story unfolds to be a social commentary about how even the most “untouchable” communities are strictly dependant on the economic system that brought them up in the first place. In this case, the “tragedy” the characters were subjected to was the failure of neoliberal capitalism in Argentina. There is almost a sense of apathy for the deaths of these prominent men because as Tano put it, their success or “well-being was based on the ill-being of others.” The scenes where the camera pans up to reveal a ghetto right behind the walls and where Ronnie is watching the news of protests and crowds fighting for rations, juxtaposes the opulent and nonchalant lives of the wealthy, but also foreshadows their inevitable downfall.

Although the rich do segregate themselves from the rest of society, they are not immune to violence especially when the men start losing their jobs and prominence. Consumption is a facade of their class status and signals the idealistic lifestyle that neoliberalism purports. However, the facade that it’s normal for people to have power over and exploit others can quickly turn to depression, domestic abuse, and ultimately suicide on an individual scale because it’s clearly unsustainable in terms of economic growth and improving standards of living for all. While detective fiction stories usually restore some sense of order when the crime has been solved, Argentina in the early 21st century is still far from it. Additionally, the act of the men committing suicide was also a crime because they committed insurance fraud by framing their death as an accident. It can be interpreted that justice has been restored because their death symbolizes the failure of neoliberalism, but given the aforementioned context of the purpose of their death and the prevailing conflict in Argentinian society, it is unclear whether the story ends on a hopeful note.

10/13/21

Thursday’s Blog Post

Thursday’s Widows demonstrates how a film can be just as effective as a detective fiction short story in making a statement about economic and sociocultural issues. As “detective fiction,” I definitely found I wasn’t as engaged in “solving the mystery” as I was when reading Borges or Bermúdez, because I just knew that through no effort of my own the answer would be provided for me eventually – films naturally don’t require as much “work” as reading does. However, because of the use of prolepsis in the film I nonetheless found myself looking for clues and suspicious characters over the course of the movie, because we discovered early in the film the location, means by which, and victims of the crime. As a “literary device” in film form, prolepsis (foreshadowing?) was effective in providing intrigue from the beginning.

With respect to the genre and its broader meta-message, if we are to believe that the killers were in fact Tano, Gustavo and Martín themselves, the movie strays from typical detective fiction in that there is really no detective figure central to the story. I think the absence of a glorified state personnel, like a detective or police officer, as a main character, definitely serves as a critique of the state itself – especially when we consider that these men committed suicide largely because of the state’s actions (the collapsing economy). In this way, the film “flips the script” to demonize the state, whilst celebrating and sympathizing with the killers, much in the same way as Bermudez’s Puzzle of the Broken Watch, where a police officer ends up being the killer.

10/12/21

“Thursday’s Widows” and … Zombies?

“Thursday’s Widows” (2008) follows the deaths of three seemingly wealthy men, pretending to live perfect lives, ‘detached’ from Argentina’s social and economic realities. We rarely catch a glimpse of what is truly going on outside the gated and exclusive residential zone. Yet, through news clips and quick shots contrasting the slums and wealthy zones of the city, we know of the apocalyptic nature in which Argentina finds itself. People are fighting for food, suffering gas shortages, and unable to access their money from the banks. Meanwhile, in refuge within their community, the wealthy Argentinians mockingly say, “what would we do without our credit cards.”

An obvious social critique, the film has a zombie apocalyptic feel to it, a theme commonly used to reflect social anxieties through science fiction means. This technique is reminiscent of Night of the Living Dead (1968) by George Romero and his sequels, which are critiques of racial relations and capitalism. Although “Thursday’s Widows” does not actually feature zombies, there is an “us” vs “them” theme, from how they treat their house workers to how they look at the outside, scared that the images they see on the television will affect their perfect, “safe haven” and “detached-from-reality” bubble. What they do not realize until Ronnie tells the wives the truth about their husbands’ deaths, is that it is too late, the effects of the economic virus floating in Argentina has already infected them. No matter their isolation, they have already turned into zombies. Which, in a way, might have been what they wanted, as the three women affected are the ones who seemed to desire it the most. Gustavo and Carla, a problematic couple from the ‘outside,’ Martin’s harsh economic standing, which resembles the situation most of ‘outside’ Argentina is living, and Tano’s depression, which is an ‘outside’ feeling due to the economic context, are how the ‘virus’ begins to develop, resulting in their deaths, except for Carla who was innocent in the story. By the last scene, the community has turned into zombies after the husbands’ deaths. As Ronnie’s family leaves, the final stage perfectly sets their escape from repeating the same mistakes. As their car leaves the infected area, a seemingly safe space, gates, barbwire, and security guards are shown. Yet, it is just as dead on the inside, as the ‘outside.’ At some point, Lala says something like: “what if they [working-class Argentinians] come to the gates and try to enter.” Again, utilizing zombie imagery of them trying to infiltrate the community as if it had not already happened on its own. Furthermore, the three husbands who die are also the most corrupt ones, who work for foreigners and exploit their fellow nationals, which partially fuels the economic crisis—coming full circle, and referring to the karma which Ronnie makes a note of at the beginning of the movie. At last, the only ones who “make it out alive” and are to find refuge away from the infected zone are those who can still trust and love each other. As in a zombie apocalypse, you need trust to make it out alive.

10/11/21

“You know too much” as a student is an accomplishment, as a journalist is a death sentence

In this story I found it a bit confusing that it is divided in two parts, first we can infer that Aldama by giving money to Anahi is “bribing” her (buying her silence) or as we know an excessive show of macho and classist power and we can believe that Aldama murdered Larry in front of the “crazy woman”.

In the second part, the journalist Renzi is in charge of publishing the news, with his high academic level, he realizes after studying Anahi’s “babbling” that in reality the real murderer is Almada and not Antunez, but his editor-in-chief recommends him that what the police say is the truth and that he should not say the opposite for his own good. He still dares to publish the truth leaving us as readers wondering if something bad happened to him and realizing that the first part is the article he wrote. 

The author is referring to the corruption within the police in Argentina, journalists who try to change the country with the truth end up dead, the example is given that a person with connections, money and high rank is untouchable and can get away with it, Atúnez will spend his whole life in jail and Almada does not have a single worry. 

At the end we realize that Renzi did not care and still published the article. Maybe he is either very naive or very brave, sadly telling the truth should not be considered a feat of bravery but in a country sunk in corruption, the truth cannot even cross your mind.