Posts by Brian:
Apr
1
Overview of Span 404
Comments Off on Overview of Span 404
This class had a topic of things I’m interested in life: film and Spanish, and Mexico. I liked that we talked about film, because I need to continue expanding my knowledge of movies and how they’re put together and why they’re made if I want to continue writing films. It’s interesting to study the difference between Mexican and American cinema and how they each portray Mexico’s standard of living. In the first movie we watched with Cantinflas, we saw slapstick Mexican comedy parodying parts of Mexican life from the 1930s. There was a warmth and a humility to his humor that felt timeless, even though the movie itself was obviously very dated.
The way Mexico is portrayed in the Hollywood films was an entirely different kettle of fish. In the slapstick American movie about Mexico, Mexicans are portrayed as in need of American help and highly underdeveloped, especially in comparison with the American lifestyle. Steve Martin, Chevy Chase, and Martin Sheen act bumbling and stupid, but they arrive to help a small Mexican pueblo, filled with people waiting to be rescued from the antagonist of the movie. Granted this film was mimicking old Westerns and previous Hollywood movies that truly depicted Mexico as such, but the fact that there were enough Hollywood movies to begin with that stereotyped Mexicans as dirty, helpless beings that The Three Amigos had such a launching pad to jump off from says something about Hollywood cinema.
I liked the film discussions and I liked seeing the vast differences between Mexican dramas and comedies and American ones. I wished we could have spoken more Spanish in class, as having discussions in Spanish continually helps me speak it better, but at least this class stayed in the general topic of what I’m studying. I liked that I got the chance to see movies that I never would have watched on my own because it can help me build on my ideas about screenplays and how to write and produce movies, and how cinematic elements can enhance the narrative of a film.
Mar
31
Closing post
Comments Off on Closing post
Honestly i didn’t anticipate getting much cinematic terminologies and concepts from 404, but i feel that it brings me staffs way more valuable than those, and for sure this post is gonna be the most tough one to draw.
Due to geographic reasons, there are two regions on earth that are enigmas for the majority of asians: one goes to Africa, and the other, South America. I dream about adventuring in a primary forrest or jungle and encountering uncontacted original tribes on the mysterious land of South America. But all that’s my imagination, because i have no experience in any spanish-speaking country up to now. I can say that my impression on South America mostly comes from all these ten movies now, but i’d rather laying my trust on them. Mexico is apparently a typical nation with profound history and culture under the intense influence of “mezcla”, which has no longer being a simple symbol of hybrid or interculture, but stands for more.
In terms of technical perspective, Batalla en el cielo and Que viva Mexico are two most distinctive ones. For the former, the way of portraying the plot triggers my interest; the later, the crossing forth and back on a blurred boudary b/w documentary and feature film gives me another impression. What is more important than pure technical form, is the attitude toward what happened on the territory of Mexico from a viewpoint of mexicans or mezclas. No matter it’s Aguila o sol or Los olvidados, Mecánica nacional or El callejón de los milagros, all of these are based on a mixed objective and subjective point. Ranging from low social class to high, not only i can see bright shining traits of a person, but also can i see some dirty and disgusting roles. All these vivid and distinguished characters constitute a seemly true mexican society, which does not only resemble other regions all over the world, but also has its distinct point due to the effect of its complicated history background and human race. I feel like that these mexican-produced movies are probably like the nature of its folks, open-minded and magnanimous, daring to show all staffs about its society. They may not demonstrate much contemporary high level cinematic skills, but the passion to its land and citizens surely surpasses those mechanical staffs. On the other hand, the last couple of movies are more attractive in terms of its cinematic form. Perhaps because of some history and geographical reasons, Hollywood movies no doubtfully contains more issues concerning cross-culture, and then it’s an additional point that makes Mexico seems much more mysterious. A mexican and a US definitely have different outlook upon their relation and each other’s circumstances, and i cannot see which one would be considered correct or more to the facts, because anything can happen in any country. But i get a strong feeling about the heroism and nationalism in us movies. I think this kind of tendency make a movie more impressive.
If the above intellectual knowledge of what i’ve got is fruitful, then the changing of my conception on the significance of film or even deeper, the broad meaning of literature, is precious. The art of cinematography for me is no longer a social symbol of out-and-out entertainment, but rather, a window that enables me to explore the complexity of society and humanity. I used to try to analyse a film and the roles much from a technological perspective, but now, i tend to touch them by my heart, because there are always more staff behind the scenes that are worth to dig out than those of i’ve expected; I used to be careless on people and staffs around me, but now, i’ve learnt to feel them by soul. That’s priceless. Thanx Jon!
Mar
31
Summary
Comments Off on Summary
I’m really glad I had the experience of seeing the movies in this course, because the only Mexican movies that I had seen before the course started were The Three Amigos and Nacho Libre. Other than those, the only movies from Spanish speaking countries that I’ve seen are from Spain, Cuba and Argentina.
I remember thinking a few weeks ago that even though the movies in this course were really different from each other in general, that some of them also had a lot in common with each other (or common themes in some way) and it was hard to write a blog that would sound completely different from a previous blog that I had written. Many of the movies in the second half of the course focused on crossing the border and in the end, they were very similar…Touch of Evil – Mexicans and Americans cross the border into the other country, and both American and Mexicans are the ‘bad guys.’ The Three Amigos- Americans cross the border, and end up saving the day. The Wild Bunch- Americans cross the border and the Mexicans are written to be really stupid and everybody gets killed except for the group that was the most scared of getting killed. Traffic is purely about crossing the border and it’s different in the way that there are more perspectives on many things. In comparison to some of the other border crossing movies, I actually think it’s the most interesting in terms of the layering effect of status, and who has more power. The Wild Bunch had a bit of that going on too, as I wrote in my blog for that movie, but I don’t think it was as meaningful as in Traffic. In the second half of the course, I think that the only movie that didn’t focus on the relationship between Mexico and the US was Que Viva Mexico.
I think that seeing the different border crossing movies were educational if you wanted to focus on learning about different perspectives of border crossings between Mexico and the US because they all pretty much have a different ending and a different ‘bad guy’ and ‘winner’, but in the end, I learned more from the first half of the course because the movies were more contrasting. Aguila o Sol was way different from El Callejon de los Milagros, and even though we compared Aguila o Sol and Los Olvidados in one of our discussions because of the orphan theme, the movies were still contrasting. Batalla en el Cielo was refreshingly different from the other movies. I think that if the course were longer, that seeing the various border crossing movies would have been a good introduction, and then we could have branched off into more movies about the perspective of Mexico from countries other than the US…like are there movies that have Mexico in them from a country in South America? Or Europe? I think that I would like to see those if they exist, especially after taking this course, and also because I hate most Hollywood movies with a passion. It’s worth it to me to order a movie from Spain (like I had to with Batalla en el Cielo because they didn’t have it on Amazon and I didn’t want to look much longer) if I’m going to get something out of it. Like I said, Batalla en el Cielo was different from other movies, and even though it’s not something that I would watch with my friends or family (also since it’s European, I can’t play it on my DVD player anyways), I still really learned from it.
Mar
31
Class Response
Comments Off on Class Response
I really enjoyed the first half of the term because I found the films more interesting. However, I will be honest, this class made me watch films I would never consider watching, such as The Wild Bunch. Then again, after I read the articles and had a historical context to ground the film in, I found an appreciation for it. Overall, I think this class taught me how analyze films from a historical and social context. I found this an interesting approach because in other film classes I have taken, we have read everything from body language, to scene change, to camera position and frame set-up. However we neglected to talk about the films’ relevance to historical and social movements and in addition to see how Mexico is constructed through several different gazes. I think I could have grasped some of the themes in the Mexican films better, had we been given more of a historical context before we watched the movies. Then again, it could have been suggested that we read the articles before watching the films because that way, we could know what to look for and what themes to consider. On the other hand, it is difficult to say because it is important to formulate our own analysis of the film as well before we fall back on what the critics have to say about the film. I also was under the impression that we were going to speak in Spanish and so I was somewhat disappointed about that aspect of the class. Not to say, I would have understood all of the material, but I would have preferred it. I think one of the most interesting articles we read was how stereotypes have been constructed on the basis of colonialist assumption, or rather anxiety. This is interesting because it considers the formulation of identity and explains why many of the Hollywood films often depict the Mexicans, or native people at that, as less civilized, and almost barbaric. Yet then again, the romanticized portrayals of Mexicans were enjoyed and rather applauded by Mexican audiences because it showed them in a light they wanted to aspire of becoming. I remember our first conversation and our discussion of this type of mystification and how it functioned as a false set of ideals never to be reached. Another discussion I enjoyed was about the eroticism found in Las Cantiflas between the men. This brought up cultural difference and whether we could in fact, consider the men’s displays of affection as anything homoerotic. With the film Los Olvidados, we discussed the documentation of reality or what can be considered “real.” This raised interest in stylistics, such as Bunuel’s use of surrealism and the socio-meaning behind Pedro’s dream. I am not sure what to say about Mecanica Nacional, only that I found the grandmother to be hilarious and the film strangely odd. With this film, I know we talked about machismo nature and the role of the women in this film, as there is the busty woman, who is sassy, but then there is the daughter of the protagonist, who is submissive and meek. El Callejon de los Milagros was a great film and showed several different storylines. I remember discussing the presence of homosexuality in the film and how it eventually the main protagonist was outright about his practice of it. La batalla del cielo, I found it interesting because it gave a real and accurate portrayal of the practice of religion, however the film was somewhat slow in its plotline. Que Viva Mexico was almost like the filming of a national geography, yet it changed considerably near the middle of the plot and became an action film. Touch of Evil was an okay film. I found it funny that the hero was made a Mexican, who was in reality an American playing a Mexican. If that were ever to happy now-a-days, that film would come under some deep heat. I personally prefer Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane. As I mentioned earlier, I found an appreciation for The Wild Bunch, yet I was cringing all the way through, while watching it. I remember Rose brought up something about how Three Amigos would be regarded as somewhat factual in its portray of stereotypes in the United States because people’s knowledge of Mexico is primarily based off of films. Yet, I am not sure if I agreed with her because the film is a known comedy and therefore audiences watch the film, knowing that the film and humor is generally modeled off of exaggerated depictions. I think she should have more faith in her fellow citizens. Lastly, Traffic showed different facets of humanity being affected by the war on drugs. I enjoyed our conversation in class about the anti-hero and whether or not this film has any type of solution to the problem. Then again, the content of the film is not that easy and it would not carry the same weight as it did, had it come up with some trite, artificial solution. Well thanks for an interesting class and I will now never see another movie about Mexico the way I saw it before after watching so many different cinematic gazes.
Mar
31
Summary Con’t
Comments Off on Summary Con’t
Mecanica Nacional: I think this movie was all about excessiveness. Excessive consumption, sex and alcohol. What this mirrors though, and is in a sense another way of portraying, is the excessive representations of mexican identity. This excessiveness works to show the tropes of Mexican identity which are relied on in films to create the tone.
Callejon de Los Milagros: What I noticed most in this film was the kind of helplessness felt by the characters in the film. There wasn’t much in the way of happy endings for everyone, and no matter what kind of life anyone led, there was no way in being accepted. This thus creates an invocation of the openness and emptyness of Mexican identity. The multiple conflicts and the lack of resolutions also lend to this.
Batalla en El Cielo: this film showed the conflicts of Mexico City through sexuality. Themen and women in the film are all numb to what surrounds them, but sex nonetheless is a huge part of all of their lives. I also noticed that within all the crime and immorality, there is still a heavy reliance on Catholicism.
Que Viva Mexico: Like I said in class, this film was very much a depiction of Mexican identity as genuinely traditional mexico as seen in the first scene. Then there is a depiciton of Mexican identity after Spanish influence has taken ahold of Mexico ass seen in the bull fighting scene. And then the result of these two cvoming together in conflict is seen in the last scene with the battle.
The discursive efforsts of this film end though in the final scene regarding a summary of the events of the revolution.
Touch of Evil: This film shows a switching of identities. It relies strongly on the border as a particular setting and invocating force of the conflict. Within this setting of the border there is seen a hibridity of mexican and American identity as seen in Miguel’s character and in his marriage. Within this hibridity though there is stil seen a hierarchy of Mexican identity above that of America as seen in the corruption on the US side. yet it is not that simple because Miguel uses corrupt ways to find out the info that he needs to charge the sherriff.
The Wild Bunch: This film introduced us to the conflict at the border which we still see today. Here it is a conflict of gun supplies and the confusion of jurisdiction which gets in the way of properly delaing with the conflist so as to resolve it. We also saw in this film a degradation of women which completely took away their identity, not jsut made il representations of them.
Three Amigos: This film really played on the tropes of Mexican representation in films. In the story line, it had the bandidos attacking an innocent town and the Americans save the day. There are also images and background effects used which are tropes as the chickens and excessive tequila presence. Overall, this is a comdey showing the fallacy of overused Mexican interpretations.
Traffic: This film deals with the drug problem between the US and Mexico. There is seen an incapability of the set ways of dealing with the issue on both sides of the border. As we discussed in class, there isnt very easily seen a didactic essence to the film. It is unclear which side is less at fault, and there is also an ambiguity behind the film’s end as being hopeful or hopeless. What it does do though, is engage the watcher so much so that his perception is what completes the work.
Mar
31
Summary
Comments Off on Summary
Not having taken a film course before, I didn’t know what to expect. I don’t know much about film theory nor do I have a technical background. That being said, I usually always watch films for entertainment. I think watching them in a classroom context definitely forced me to think deeper about the films. I began to recognize that even if I didn’t like a film I should try to understand its message or meaning. This was not always easy, however, the Thursday discussions greatly helped. I also found that many of the articles tended to express what I was trying to say (although much more concisely and eloquently), or for the most part the had the tendency to shed light on some aspects of the film I had not considered.
It was also interesting to learn how film can be used to look at a representation of a place, idea, etc. from different perspectives.
I personally enjoyed a number of the films, (Los Olvidads, El callejón de los milagros, Touch of Evil, The Wild Bunch, Thee amigos, and Traffic). I felt let down by Batalla en el cielo and Que Viva Mexico, however I think that’s because of my lack of understanding of the films, and I wasn’t able to gain much from the articles and discussions. I think they’re worth rewatching, though, because I’m sure they have something good to say.
I still have to put some thought into the themes and discussions we had in the class… I’m having trouble picking two movies for the paper.
Mar
31
Summary
Comments Off on Summary
I’m just going to go through the movies we watched and what I thought was most notable of each of them.
Aguila o Sol: What I noticed most about this film was Mexico’s own satire of their people, seen most clearly in the act of Cantiflas and his friend. Also the conflict is resolved in the end by the assimilation of Cantiflas into a higher society, lending to a hierarchy of people, I think. We talked the most about the dream sequence and what purpose it served. From what I remember, it showed how Cantiflas was an outsider until money put him in a situation of acceptance.
Los Olvidados: This film played with the genre of documentary even though what we perceive as such is far different from what it was in the time that the film was made. The narration at the beginning is the biggest indication that it is a film to expose the situation in Mexico city, but it does this through a discourse throughout the film. To keep the audience aware that they are indeed watching an observation of life rather than part of the action as in other films in which the camera is invisible, this film makes the separation between observer and thing oberved clear in scenes such as the egg landing on the lens.
Have to go to class… will be continued….
Mar
30
Review…
Comments Off on Review…
I have never been in a film class before, except for a Literature and Film class in High School in which we talked about how books were adapted into films, but I didn’t get much out of that class. I am totally the person who will watch a film quite passively, as entertainment. I will not often stick with or see value in films I do not like. This class made me realize the merit in films I usually would have written off. It doesn’t mean I am going to watch them voluntarily, but at least I can get something out of them now. For example, I hated Three Amigos at first, but I grew to appreciate it more the more I thought about it and the parodies it made. It was nice to see Mexican films, especially dating so far back, as I haven’t seen that many. I saw part of Los Olvidados in High School and remember strongly disliking it, because I didn’t understand it. But in this course with the discussion and the articles, it helps me to see more clearly what a film is doing or at leas trying to do… then I can form an opinion. I am simply not accustomed to watching a film critically in this sort of way.
So… review? I will talk about the most memorable parts of the course, I guess. We started with Cantinflas in Aguila o Sol and Bunuel’s Los Olvidados, two of the most famous artists in early Mexican cinema. When I told my friend about this class and the movies we were watching, she responded with disgust for both of them. This was interesting for me, taking this into account when reading articles about what people think of Cantinflas, etc. Callejón de los Milagros was the one film that I see the relationship between the US and Mexico in; many young men go to the States for work, but we see all the shops in el Callejon going out of business, and the changes in the lives of those they leave behind. The film that struck me the most from the first half of the class was Batalla en el Cielo, for its lack of dialogue and movement, which made me uncomfortable, and as a result, more involved in watching it.
Honestly, it is hard for me to relate the first half of the class with the second. I understand that the first half was about Mexico City because of the original plan for the course. The second half was mostly about the border, as the US naturally has an interest in the border more than the city. But the fact that the focus of the films in either half is so different it makes it difficult to compare the two. We are supposed to be thinking about representations of Mexico in this class, but the Mexico of the border and the Mexico of the D.F. are really different to begin with.
As for the second half, like I said above, I usually would not like any of these films… but upon closer examination and through the discussions in this course I can appreciate them nonetheless, for various reasons.
Mar
30
Review…
Comments Off on Review…
I have never been in a film class before, except for a Literature and Film class in High School in which we talked about how books were adapted into films, but I didn’t get much out of that class. I am totally the person who will watch a film quite passively, as entertainment. I will not often stick with or see value in films I do not like. This class made me realize the merit in films I usually would have written off. It doesn’t mean I am going to watch them voluntarily, but at least I can get something out of them now. For example, I hated Three Amigos at first, but I grew to appreciate it more the more I thought about it and the parodies it made. It was nice to see Mexican films, especially dating so far back, as I haven’t seen that many. I saw part of Los Olvidados in High School and remember strongly disliking it, because I didn’t understand it. But in this course with the discussion and the articles, it helps me to see more clearly what a film is doing or at leas trying to do… then I can form an opinion. I am simply not accustomed to watching a film critically in this sort of way.
So… review? I will talk about the most memorable parts of the course, I guess. We started with Cantinflas in Aguila o Sol and Bunuel’s Los Olvidados, two of the most famous artists in early Mexican cinema. When I told my friend about this class and the movies we were watching, she responded with disgust for both of them. This was interesting for me, taking this into account when reading articles about what people think of Cantinflas, etc. Callejón de los Milagros was the one film that I see the relationship between the US and Mexico in; many young men go to the States for work, but we see all the shops in el Callejon going out of business, and the changes in the lives of those they leave behind. The film that struck me the most from the first half of the class was Batalla en el Cielo, for its lack of dialogue and movement, which made me uncomfortable, and as a result, more involved in watching it.
Honestly, it is hard for me to relate the first half of the class with the second. I understand that the first half was about Mexico City because of the original plan for the course. The second half was mostly about the border, as the US naturally has an interest in the border more than the city. But the fact that the focus of the films in either half is so different it makes it difficult to compare the two. We are supposed to be thinking about representations of Mexico in this class, but the Mexico of the border and the Mexico of the D.F. are really different to begin with.
As for the second half, like I said above, I usually would not like any of these films… but upon closer examination and through the discussions in this course I can appreciate them nonetheless, for various reasons.
Mar
30
summary of the class
Comments Off on summary of the class
I had never taken a film class before, and I think I learned a lot in this one. I was expecting the class to be completely in Spanish and to be about all of Latin America, not just Mexico. However, I still enjoyed the class, most movies, and the discussions that came from it. I particularly liked how we sat for discussions because it was more of a discussion than a lecture, which I think makes more people participate. I liked the fact that we were introduced to different genres of films, and from different time periods. It was a good experience to think more in depth about films and the impact each have, and what they are trying to say in more detail.
I thought that the American movies were going to show us the American perspective on Mexico, but if it did it only showed the Mexican border. I know that this is the strongest link with the americans that the mexicans had, but I thought it would be more interesting to see an american movie filmed predominately in Mexico City for example. The distinction between Americans and Mexicans in some films was not well done either because some mexicans spoke in english or had some sort of accent. My favorite movies I think were Three Amigos, El Callejon de los Milagros, Traffic, and Los Olvidados. Each was a very different type of movie but the characters defined very important issues and aspects of the mexican society.
After all, I enjoyed the class very much because of the discussions and the way we had to analyze the films.
Mar
29
smegtoad 2009-03-30 01:50:18
Comments Off on smegtoad 2009-03-30 01:50:18
Well,
I wasn’t really involved in the first half of the course. Sorry Jon.
I thought the whole class was in Spanish. I don’t speak spanish.
I was happy to find out discussions were in english though and I’m sorry I wasn’t there from the start.
As a film major, I’m constantly watching and appreciating films from a technical, theory based and content driven perspective.
I think it’s safe to assume that many moviegoers watch films to be entertained as opposed to challenged.
And that’s sad, because layers of meaning can be found within even the most banal films.
Three Amigos for example.
I was completely taken off guard with this film and the layers of “meta” acting and realism shown.
Also the use of comedy as a method of presenting this film within a film seemed to be the optimal way to deal with that idea, unless you treated it as a psychological, horror film with no escape. This isn’t a fully fleshed out idea, but regardless, the film made me think.
And so, I was very happy to take this course and gain a feel for how Mexico is represented in film.
I’m glad this course exists for students who are not in the film program so as to promote more interesting thinking on the medium.
I also feel like now I have much less of a grasp on my vision of Mexico then when I came into this course because the country is so varied and cannot be lumped together into one idea of representation.
I will not stop using the term “stereotype” but I’ll think more about what it means in the future.
Anyway, really enjoyed the class and the discussions.
Mar
29
Looking back
Comments Off on Looking back
Taking a look back at the class, I can enjoyed it very much. There were some movies that I would rather not have seen, but in general, it really gave me a pretty big scope on mexican cinema, and more importantly, it got me triggered on learning more about stereotypes of latin american people on film. I had never really thought about the social implications these have, until reading more about it. Stereotypes really reflect an inner image that needs to be stripped down further. I think I’m going to tal about each movie and how I liked it or not:
aguila o sol – it was the first cantinflas movie I saw, and it was a bizarre movie because most of the narrative seemed to be in the head, and then the plot points suddenly come together in the end. I didn’t dislike it, but my grandmother is a cantinflas fan and she seems to like other movies more.
Los olvidados – I don’t know if this is a Mexican film per se, it was directed by a spanish and even if he lived in Mexico many years, he used his film to portray the negative aspects of Mexico in a social context, alienating what makes Mexico good, it was too one-sided but I liked it either way.
Mecanica Nacional – I really didn’t like this movie. It portrayed family and relationship life in Mexico pretty well, with a focus on the lower class, but the narrative was slow and the movie itself was really slow as well. There was no real conflict, and weirdly it is one of the movie that focuses more on stereotypes (the latin lover, the dark lady, the obnoxious grandmother etc…)
El cajellon de los milagros – this was the the film I liked the best in class. I loved it. The juxtaposition of narratives is interesting, the tragic ending makes it worth watching, there are no stereotypes because most of the characters are 3 dimensional, even if you think theyre one-dimensional (a stereotype, like the germans in three amigos) the director showed us a different facet of the characters to make us feel sorry and like them at the same time.
Batalla en el cielo – Had it’s interesting parts, but it could have been done into a 30 minute movie and had the same effects. Scenes were long and nothing happened. If I want to watch nice photography I’ll go to an art gallery.
Que viva Mexico – This is the movie I remember the least, I don’t know why. It portrayed Mexico from a very touristy perspective, almost too touristy. It reminded me of “Come to the jungle” commercials. The last segment was interesting because it played with what a documentary was trying to achieve, but also played on stereotypes.
Touch of evil – After watching this film twice, I really think it is overated. Just because it became a cult classic doesn’t mean its good. Its confusing at many parts and I think I’m just saying this because Charlton Heston was a horrible Mexican, so i’m going to stop.
The wild bunch – This was probably the American film that showed stereotypes as reality the most. The characters were very well fleshed though, these are evil men that kill and rob but you still like them. The ending is amazing as well. They had to die, but more importantly, they knew they could do nothing about it. Great ending.
Three amigos – I know professor Murray thinks this is a masterpiece, but I still have the idea that this movie does not achieve what it was trying to do (make fun of stereotypes and create new versions of them in our mind) because of the target audience. 12 year old are not going to watch this movie and think: “oh that was a parodical representation of Mexico meant to make us think about what we see in cinema”. We will, they won’t. Either way it was funny.
Traffic – Interesting portrayal of Mexico, also the only hero is Mexican. Finally a movie that doesn’t dwell on stereotypes, but presents reality in the drug world as it is: tragic yet necessary.
Mar
27
Closing post
Comments Off on Closing post
Honestly i didn’t anticipate getting much cinematic terminologies and concepts from 404, but i feel that it brings me staffs way more valuable than those, and for sure this post is gonna be the most tough one to draw.
Due to geographic reasons, there are two regions on earth that are enigmas for the majority of asians: one goes to Africa, and the other, South America. I dream about adventuring in a primary forrest or jungle and encountering uncontacted original tribes on the mysterious land of South America. But all that’s my imagination, because i have no experience in any spanish-speaking country up to now. I can say that my impression on South America mostly comes from all these ten movies now, but i’d rather laying my trust on them. Mexico is apparently a typical nation with profound history and culture under the intense influence of “mezcla”, which has no longer being a simple symbol of hybrid or interculture, but stands for more.
In terms of technical perspective, Batalla en el cielo and Que viva Mexico are two most distinctive ones. For the former, the way of portraying the plot triggers my interest; the later, the crossing forth and back on a blurred boudary b/w documentary and feature film gives me another impression. What is more important than pure technical form, is the attitude toward what happened on the territory of Mexico from a viewpoint of mexicans or mezclas. No matter it’s Aguila o sol or Los olvidados, Mecánica nacional or El callejón de los milagros, all of these are based on a mixed objective and subjective point. Ranging from low social class to high, not only i can see bright shining traits of a person, but also can i see some dirty and disgusting roles. All these vivid and distinguished characters constitute a seemly true mexican society, which does not only resemble other regions all over the world, but also has its distinct point due to the effect of its complicated history background and human race. I feel like that these mexican-produced movies are probably like the nature of its folks, open-minded and magnanimous, daring to show all staffs about its society. They may not demonstrate much contemporary high level cinematic skills, but the passion to its land and citizens surely surpasses those mechanical staffs. On the other hand, the last couple of movies are more attractive in terms of its cinematic form. Perhaps because of some history and geographical reasons, Hollywood movies no doubtfully contains more issues concerning cross-culture, and then it’s an additional point that makes Mexico seems much more mysterious. A mexican and a US definitely have different outlook upon their relation and each other’s circumstances, and i cannot see which one would be considered correct or more to the facts, because anything can happen in any country. But i get a strong feeling about the heroism and nationalism in us movies. I think this kind of tendency make a movie more impressive.
If the above intellectual knowledge of what i’ve got is fruitful, then the changing of my conception on the significance of film or even deeper, the broad meaning of literature, is precious. The art of cinematography for me is no longer a social symbol of out-and-out entertainment, but rather, a window that enables me to explore the complexity of society and humanity. I used to try to analyse a film and the roles much from a technological perspective, but now, i tend to touch them by my heart, because there are always more staff behind the scenes that are worth to dig out than those of i’ve expected; I used to be careless on people and staffs around me, but now, i’ve learnt to feel them by soul. That’s priceless. Thanx Jon!
Mar
26
Summary 404
Comments Off on Summary 404
I wasn’t sure what to expect coming into Span 404. I have always had an interest in watching movies and figured it would be kind of interesting to be able to learn how to analyze film. At first I found it a little intimidating to express my own thoughts about a film because I wasn’t really sure where to begin. But as the term progressed I felt more comfortable about it. I had a better sense of direction in terms of what to look for and how to convey these interpretations via the ‘blog’ or in class. The first half began with analyzing films created in Mexican cinema and it was interesting to see the progression of the film history and the fact that it had so much history. It was great to see that the quality of filmmaking rivaled with that of Hollywood. My favorite movie that we watched in the first half would have to be Los Olvidados. It was my first time watching it and don’t think it will be my last. These movies allowed the filmmakers to share their visions of Mexico through film and allowed viewers, such as myself, to understand a little better the struggles and achievements Mexico has done over the years. The second half of the course allowed me to view the perspective of a filmmaker from outside of Mexico. The ‘s’ word was introduced at one point as it became more prevalent of the attempts some filmmakers made to try and construct a Mexico using ‘stereotypes’ in some cases. It is important for these movies to be accurate because these films get across to foreign cinemas that reach a much larger audience. Many people don’t get a chance to visit Mexico so the only perspective they have of it is through the movies. Overall, I found Span 404 to be very enjoyable and fun. It’s not everyday where you can go to class and watch a movie. But the nice thing about it was being able to discuss it later and to get the different perspectives and opinions that other people had about the films. Thanks Jon for making it a fun class and I wish everyone all the best!
Mar
26
Summary
Comments Off on Summary
Even though we were supposed not to learn anything about Mexico I did. I learn about Mexican history, especially about Porfirio Diaz dictatorship and the mexican revolution. I think that was useful for the understanding of the movie as a lot of the main characters of that time were used as symbols and arqueotypes of Mexico in modern movies like the Wild bunch, The three amigos and Que viva Mexico.
I especially like movies were the Director’s construction of Mexico and take on Mexican society was implicit like Battle in Heaven and Touch of evil. I was not surprised to see a lot of complexity and variety of themes and symbols about Mexican society because of the size and significance of the country specially for its relation with the united states. However I found that It was not always easy to see were the director of the movies were taking the audience by portraying such symbols like bandits, prostitutes and virginal women.
I also found interesting the progression in time of the representations of Mexico. It was obvious that in later movies like Traffic, El callejon, The three amigos and Battle in heaven the happy Mexican town and the rude revolutionaries are avoided. Nonetheless there is still a feel of the evolution of those characters in modern society. For example Tijuana in Trafic had a lot of the same characteristics as the town in the end of Que viva Mexico. The markets and the radical differences in social class and the candid women like Ana. Also I think that Marcos is a good example of the evolution of a farmer. He maintains the social status of his predecessor and he seems closer to nature and of course he is a macho man.
Machismo was a big theme in all movies. Mexico was definitely constructed as a machist state. It was also portrayed as a place with a rich culture but a lot of negative aspects like homophobia, corruption, extreme violence problems and socio-economic gaps. Indigenous people and culture was only explicitly mentioned in Que viva Mexico and even then I was briefly. I think that the lack of native people demonstrates that Mexico is mostly seen as a mixed placed and that indigenes culture is just part of the heritage and some traditions. In Agila o sol for example some of the dances alluded indigenous culture but it was clear that the actor had little indigenous blood in them.
I think it was interesting to see Mexican and non-Mexican representations of Mexico to be able to compare how the themes vary when the audiences are different and how Mexico is addressed from different point of views
Mar
26
Traffic
Comments Off on Traffic
I’ve been sick these days, and since i have the movie in my computer, i watched it again. I just want to say that when i first watched it, i felt it was excellent, but after going through all the movies, i cann’t say that it’s outstanding, but it’s still good. Below is the comment i made when i first watched it:
Después miré la película Tráfico, creo que está es una de las películas más excellentes en la historia del cine de droga. Comparar está con otras películas que tienen la misma tema, Tráfico figura todos los aspectos acerca de droga, de la distribución al tráfico de droga, de la drogacción al drogadicto y de la anti-droga al dejar de la droga. Todos estos argumentos se representan en una manera parelela por tres cuentos por un montón de papeles, que no ninguna de las personas es el principal personaje, sino la única protagonista es la droga. Este punto lo hace notable.
Aunque el senario parece una cooperación entre las administraciones del control de drogas de los Estados Unidos y de México, en verdad el director establece una distinción entre las acciones del control de drogas de estos dos países. Generalmente, cuando se define el cine las imagenes y las posiciones del anti droga, lo que se refleja por la tema es que, para los Estados Unidos, muestra un papel positivo constante; pero en contraste, para México, sus personajes positivos que están en el lado del control de droga son más complicados y tienen más cambios entre la justicia y la maliginidad.
En primer lugar, hay un contraste notable entre el tono de color de fondo. En San Diego, el fondo es azul frío. Sin embargo en cada ciudad del México, es amarillo turbio que nos da una impresión sin desarollar y de sucio. Por lo tanto en el cine, México parece más pobre y su sociedad parece más desordenado.
En segundo lugar, la posición verdadero y potencial del representante del México gobierno, Capitán Salazar, es otro ejemplo que forma la total de impresión de debilidad de la sociedad de México. En la misma posición del trabajo, el jefe de la oficina del control de droga de los Estados Unidos, Robert, es un papel positivo contantemente, por lo menos no trabaja para cualquiera de los distribuidores del droga. Según unas informaciones, el papel de Capitán Salazar es creado de acuerdo con un capitán actual con misma situación en la historia del México, quien muestra la corrupción y el crimen que incrustados en la sociedad mexicano.
Por último, el papel del policía mexicano, Javier, es el personaje más complicado que experimenta un cambio del su sentimento para su trabajo. Como un personaje positivo, la posición de Javier hasta el lado de justicia y de maliginidad en cuanto al control de droga cambia cuando pasa el senario. Sin embargo para Montel y Ray, los policías americanos, sus imagenes son constantemente justos y brillantes. En pocas palabras, la retrata describe por el cine sobre el control de droga de México es más negativa y oscura.
Mar
25
Response
Comments Off on Response
In response to Alyssa: I also saw the bias the cinematography emphasized, as it showed Mexico as dirty and dingy, while California was saturated in color and seemed bright, crisp and romanticized. I also commented in my blog about the daughter’s friend because I think what he had to say was really honest. It seems that the people that are caught in the cross-fire of drug-use or drug selling are those that come from poorer backgrounds. Therefore to sell drugs seems like a good idea, especially if you have a huge demand for those drugs. All in all, I think the film is trying to make the point that anyone is liable to becoming involved.
In response to Elena: Obviously this film is biased and is taking the American’s point of view. Therefore, the point you make about the lack of organization the American police and DEA had in dealing with drugs and the chaotic nature of their “bust” is interesting. I did not even realize this until you mentioned it now. I think it is good to be perceptive about details such as these and not to become a passive spectator when watching Hollywood films that can act as vehicles for propaganda.
Mar
25
Traffic
Comments Off on Traffic
A very powerful film and entirely different from last week’s Three Amigos to say the least.
It truly does expose so much of the futility inherent in the “War on Drugs”.
As long as there is demand, there will be supply, and as long as there is no control over drug through legalization then there will be extreme measure taken resulting in the death of loved ones. The border crossing was almost humorous in how ineffective it was at stopping the flow of drugs, and for good reason with massive amounts of traffic passing through every day. At points the film verged on documentary, and achieved a further sense of realism through the handheld camerawork. Furthermore, the amount of unending levels of corruption within police and military in Mexico was unbelievable yet scary in its depiction. It’s hard to believe that this film was even made considering how slanderous it is regarding the american political system and the groups of leaders who talk talk talk but are ineffectual at doing anything.
Soderbergh bathes the two stories in different colour palettes evoking a simplicity towards the issue but at the same time quite the opposite. The futility of those who are trying to serve justice and the pain they endure (Don Cheadle’s character for instance) reminded me of the maddening plight for justice in Touch of Evil.
It would be interesting to hear a Mexican reading of this film as it seems to place Mexico in a less concerned state regarding drug trafficking, unaffected by it and also given up to the reality that is the trade.
Mar
25
Traffic
Comments Off on Traffic
I thought this was a really good film. It was completely biased towards the Americans, but it was still a good film nevertheless. The reason I’m saying it was biased towards the Americans is because the Mexican government and military seem to be corrupt up to the last person, and the only person that was not corrupt (Javier) is the one that actually gets to succeed, working for the US. It also raises the issue of the war on drugs being both on the street and on the home, its a war that needs to be fought on both sides. It was interesting to see judge Wakefield have to decide between his family and his country. I think the message of this film is that we first need to start with the war on drugs on an every day level and then move to the whole country. Teenagers need to be educated more and then the levels of demand can lower. That was actually a way that Mexico was portrayed negatively, I don’t know if their stand on demand is that one (“Drug addicts overdose, and then they die. One less to care about) but it was viewed under a very negative light. It is something horrible to say, but the US does not do anything to help them.
In relation to the portrayal of Mexico, we don’t get to see much of Mexico outside the law part, we see the criminals and the military, and even they work together to send drugs to the US. I think this gives a really negative message about Mexican law enforcement: no one in Mexico cares about the US, they just want to send gangs through. I think this is specially the mentality of the US right now, Obama has cut off free truck trade, not allowing as many trucks to pass the Mexican-US border. This is of couse as a measure to cut the amount of drugs that pass the border. Mexico is infuriated because this violates NAFTA and the peso has devalued, but the power that these drug lords have is incredible. El Chapo (Sinaloa cartel)recently made it to the forbes billionaire list, the Tijuana Cartel made 200 million dollars in 2000. I think that recently has been the first time the US has actually done something about Mexican cartels that have been increasing in size over the last 5 years. It is also the first time the secretary of state works with someone in the government, as we saw in the film, the Texan intelligence agency has no contact with the Mexican side.
There is a weird humanization of Mexicans though. They all seem to be connected to the world of illegal drugs, and yet they are humanized as to say that their economy depends on it. They all live from the profits, it is all connected in the US and in the Mexican border. I think what this film was trying to say, is that in the end, when it comes to drugs, there is no border. The Tijuana cartel can kill anyone in any side of the border. Yet there is this huge difference in the way people live, the yellow saturation shows a more degrated Mexico, while the US suburbs are shown in bright colors and in Golf courses. While Javier is in the desert, Helena was drinking watching her son playing Golf. In my opinion, everyone benefits economically, and everyone loses in the end. If the US wants to actually have a war on drugs, it needs to help Mexico distance itself from the economic dependence it has right now on illegal drugs. It also needs to realize that looking for the main guy won’t help, they have to destory the factories and the coca plantations. and the way to do it, according to this movie, is give the people a chance for change into betterment: money.
Mar
25
Traffic – related article/pictures
Comments Off on Traffic – related article/pictures
Hey everyone,
I just found this interesting article and photoset on the Mexican drug war which also have some strong similarities with the movie.
Enjoy
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/03/mexicos_drug_war.html
http://matadorpulse.com/whats-going-on-in-juarez-mexico/
Mar
25
Traffic
Comments Off on Traffic
This movie was a great one to watch. As well as other movies we have watched in class, it showed the take on an issue by the Mexican and American side. It was great that real life organizations were used to describe problems in society in relation to drugs. Important points about the drug control problem were made, like saying how catching an important person in drug traffic does not really solve any problem of drugs, since people are going to be able to obtain the drugs anyway. It just causes more problems regarding deaths and gangs. Also as someone said, the media and the people only want to see bloody headlines and news, not mattering whether the actual problem is solved in any scale. Many points which have been present for a long time were also touched, like the corruption and failure of the justice system. The border is a really complicated place to work with since no one really trusts the other side of the border, and if they do there is always some type of betrayal or many things are hidden. The female role is important here too. They are depicted as ambitious,and are while sometimes treated badly, they have a great influence on men. For example, the drug zhar’s wife gave his husband insight into how their daughter should be more important than his job. She made him realize that the greater problem is the one made to the families, and these are the ones who should take care of the problem because the government cannot really do anything to stop individual heavy consumption of drugs. Ayala’s wife was very ambitious and managed to find ways to keep things going instead of just falling into not having anything. Seems like women had an important role here, which also shows the this shift in society over the years as we see this film that is more recent. The depiction of Mexico I think was very accurate. I found it good that they showed the difference between different cities in Mexico, and not try to portray all of it the same way. I found really interesting the shot of the border where Americans could go into Mexico so easily, while the line of cars to go into thee states from Mexico was huge and so much security was present. The reasons for this is quite obvious however it was an interesting image to watch.
Mar
25
Traffic
Comments Off on Traffic
What I noticed most about this film, and perhaps one of the few things which I didn’t like about it, was the cinematography in the sense of its colour. I know there must be a division of which kind of formula was used in each setting etc, but it was still rather strange.
In sticking to Mexican representation though, I really did think it did a good job. The character of the general was done very well as he hid his corruption behind a “humanitarian” heart. Like the corruption one sees so rampant in South America, Salazar is able to fool everyone into thinking he is a good cop working for the good of the people. In connection with this character, I also notice that the people of Mexico nonetheless revere him even after he has been exposed as a criminal. This shows to me the respect people of developing countries have for anyone in power, just as long as it may positively reflect on them aswell. Example would be the guards allowing for his suicide.
Benicio Del Toro’s character, even though only one of the multiple strains of discourse, had the gfreatest impact on me. He showed a man who by his own means alone is trying to better his country, and when he tries to overreach his abilities by working with Salazar, he is quick to realize that he must go back to his true profession as police officer, rather than a fraudulent “man of the people”. I think in the end his character and that of the african american cop are the winners of the conflicting action, but yet I find that del Toro’s character shows that Mexico is more inclined to cfight the war on drugs. It seems that the drug problem goes much depper and is much more hidden in the American side of the border.
Mar
25
Traffic
Comments Off on Traffic
I have seen Traffic previously, but for some reason I don’t remember having such a difficult time watching it, as I had this time. The subject matter is also very relevant especially today with the drug wars taking place right over the border. I think the film is trying to show how many walks of life are affected by just the demand and supply of drugs. My parents live directly across the border in Arizona and the amount of violence reported is phenomenal. During my time spent in the state of Michoacan, Mexico, many of the kidnappings and violence that took place were surrounded around drugs. What I find especially interesting is the fact that doing any sort of illegal drug recreationally is incredibly taboo amongst the youth there. Rather it seems that families who are poor get caught in the cross-fire because there are very few jobs in the state and so they believe this will help them get by. The demand from the U.S. for drugs is what fuels this fire and Mexico is simply the country that takes the blame because many of the drugs pass through the country from South America, the supplier. When Topher Grace- Seth explains to Michael Douglas the money surrounding drugs, he represents many of the young teens who eventually find themselves corrupted by violence. As the article talked about the border “is in a constant state of transition” (130). It is especially interesting how the border has taken on its own characteristics and given rise to representations used in popular culture. Knowing this, the film is very politically charged and in some ways becomes influential as a carrier of biased knowledge. The article also explains that with the praise of the movie surrounding border “traffic” comes the “hierarchial positioning of the United States” (131) especially with the introduction of new border patrol programs.
There were parts of Traffic, when “Mexico” was filmed taking on a grainy, yellow-tinted, but dream-like state. At moments I thought I was watching a completely different film because of this effect and I question the director’s and cinematographer’s motivations or reasons behind this choice. It seemed to be tied to corruption and violence, tying then, Mexico to a negative representation. In contrast to my realization about Mexico and their use of drugs, the article implies that “Mexico’s lawlessness is directly linked to the moral decay of the family on the U.S. side” (139). Frighteningly, many audience members a part of the U.S. may believe this and as a result fulfill their already pre-conceived conceptions about Mexico. Even Salazar, the federal in charge of Mexico’s border is behind the corruption and therefore, we see no hope for morality among the Mexicans.
Mar
25
Traffic
Comments Off on Traffic
One aspect of this movie that I found interesting occurred in the first couple of scenes. There is a definite contrast in the level of organization between the Americans and Mexicans. In a way, it seemed ironic. The Mexican cops knew where the drugs were going to be even though it was a simple drop in the middle of the desert. The Mexican army also knew what was happening and were very precise and disciplined in how they intercepted the police. The Americans, on the other hand, had a much more complex and high tech way of trying to stop the drug smuggler, but the DEA and police ended up getting in each other’s way because they had no communication between themselves. Their drug bust ended up in a chaotic gunfight and chase, and the smuggler nearly got away. In the Mexican scene, guns were drawn but never fired. Their bust was more controlled, which is opposite of what you would expect from the Mexican side.
I liked how this movie was contrasting to the other movies that we’ve seen in this class where the sections are split up and generally (mainly at first) the two countries were separate instead of like in The Wild Bunch where we were mainly evaluating the Americans physically in Mexico.
All of the Americans in the movie are upper class Americans, even the kids are rich – rich and drug addicts. But it wasn’t like a common theme where Americans are rich and Mexicans are poor because the movie showed both rich and poor Mexicans.
In a lot of the parts in the US that had something to do with Michael Douglas and his family, the screen was blue and everything in Mexico had a gold/bronze screen. Why? Maybe it’s partly to make the different sections even more contrasting and easily distinguishable?
Michael Douglas’ character is as concerned with helping drug users as he is with stopping drugs, perhaps because of his daughter’s drug problem. He ends up talking to the General, and asks him about Mexico’s treatment of addiction and his answer is that when they overdose, there’s one less person to worry about. This is another example of how Mexico and the US contrast in this movie.
Mar
24
Traffic.
Comments Off on Traffic.
May I say, first of all, that I find it interesting watching this movie on the same day that I was reading on BBC about the U.S. intensifying border control to fight drugs.
I was really bothered by the coloring of Mexico (in a sickly yellow) and the northern cities (in blue). It contributed to the portrayal of Mexico as dirty, corrupt, desolate, drug-ridden desert, which already I would take issue with. And the blue was just so unnatural, it made me uncomfortable. California was normal, I guess because it is at the intersection between U.S. and Mexico, but then that didn’t fit with the coloring of everything else.
I really liked the point that the daughter’s friend made about how black people were selling drugs because of all the white people looking for drugs… and that if a bunch of people asked white people for drugs all the time, it would be them selling. This was one of the better moments of this film, since the portrayal of both African Americans and Mexicans in this film was quite derogatory. Another part that was good for me was the fact that it was a spoiled over-acheiving a-student, daughter of the drug czar who was the biggest drug addict in the film. It was refreshing, because in many films the drug addicts are poor, stuggling artists or someting in that vein… when in fact, and I can vouch -having gone to a high school with lots of rich kids with drug problems and a having a classmate, star football player die of a cocaine overdose my senior year- the rich, but secretely troubled, kids are some of the biggest consumers out there.
Those are my initial reactions/thoughts. I think that the discussion Thursday should be quite interesting.
