Posts by Brian:
Mar
24
Traffic
Comments Off on Traffic
This is my second watching Traffic and like the first time I really enjoyed it. What I find to be really interesting is the many different stories going on at the same time; you have all different sides of the drug trafficking problem being brought to light. The film deals with issues of cross border drug smuggling, the dilemmas facing the justice system and the end results of the people affected by the drugs. It provides an insight on the aspect of the justice system and fighting crime to the rehabilitation and counseling of drug users. On the one side you have the law enforcement agency in Mexico having to deal with corrupt police and army officials. Because the police earn less wages they resort to making some extra on the side with ‘entrepreneurial activities” as Benicio Del Torro had said in one if his scenes. Benicio’s character struggles with his conscience of being involved with corruption and upholding the law. And on the other side you have the main stories going on with the judicial aspect and their priority to tackle the drug problem. They have to deal with fact that they are dealing with very creative and resourceful criminals that know that the law can end up siding with them. You have the US police who do the ground work to enforce these laws as they take down the drug dealers. They show the struggles they deal with to bring these criminals to justice as they put their lives on the line only to see that their work was in vain as they are let off. You also have the drug dealers themselves with their families living like one of our neighbors and how they deal with this lifestyle. And ultimately you have the end users and their struggles; in this case the drug czars own family. It shows the ugly side of the issue of drug use and how it breaks down a person and a family. Ultimately one of the film’s messages comes down as Mexico being the origin of the problems in the US and that they are the only ones that suffer which isn’t true. The movie fails to show that the people in Mexico (and in other countries for that matter) are also affected by these problems and suffer the same reality occurring in any place where drugs are readily available.
Mar
24
Traffic
Comments Off on Traffic
I thought “Traffic” was a pretty decent movie. It tried to do a lot with one topic, and in some ways, it really executed its point well, and in others, because it was trying to do so much, it glossed over getting into any sort of depth with any one character or plot line. This made it harder to be as much about human relationships, and just went with its theme more than anything else.
The first half seemed stronger than the second to me. The set up was pretty strong, and the less it had to do with the specific relationships, the better it was. When we first saw the government official trying to follow through with his war on drugs, it was all pretty believable and the plot line drew the audience in.
Some parts that I thought were less realistic and that drew me out of the plot line were when Catherine Zeta Jones, after not having any idea whatsoever that her husband was a drug lord, suddenly was offering a “Mexican” (Benjamin whatever is hardly Latino) bribe and trying to get cops killed when the base for her character was that she had no idea about any of the illegal dealings of her husband.
The teenage girl with drug issues was way too over the top. This can be a tendency with American movies, the default mode is to go way over the top, ie a teenage girl from a repressed conservative background starts doing crack every time we see her and prostituting herself. I liked the idea of the irony of the daughter of a purveyor of the war on drugs being a girl who does drugs, as that’s a common aspect of adolescence. But I thought that her being so over the top was not only unrealistic, but also equated drug use with turning into a crackhead prostitute, which is most often not the case.
Benicio del Torro I thought was one of the strongest characters and strongest actors. I liked his plot line, because it truly emphasized how corrupt the Mexican government and law enforcement is, which is a very topical concept right now, as Mexico is currently on the verge of being completely run by drug lords. In that respect, this was a very timely movie to watch.
Mar
24
Traffic
Comments Off on Traffic
This was probably one of my favourites this term. Thinking about it, it was pretty similar to Touch of Evil: US and Mexican authorities attempting to solve a problem, corruption, etc.
This movie provides many interesting perspectives on the drug war. We are able to witness the ruthless violence involved in the distribution cartels in Tijuana, the effects of its consumption in the US, and how authorities approach it and deal with it. I find that this makes Traffic an important movie, as the drug war is a major issue in this time at the US. It asks the audience to decided which approach and policy is best in dealing with drug issues, especially with the huge market between Mexico and the US. I enjoyed having a more holistic picture of the drug trade, in comparison to a movie like Requiem for a Dream where there is a strong focus on the users. But although the film proposes that the audience consider approaches to drug policy, I think it is indirectly condemning the war on drugs.
This movie condemns the war on drugs not in an extremely direct fashion, but simply by showing aspects of the drug trade. What the audience is left with is: relentless violence and murders, corruption at the highest level, easy availability of drugs to teenagers (even the daughter of the US drug czar, quite a powerful statement). She claims that she doesn’t drink much because it’s easier for someone her age to get drugs. The witness the two American cops are protecting makes us realize this shortly before his death, too. He makes the cops feel absurd about their positions since no matter what they do, the drugs will still be available. The daughter’s friend also tells the drug czar that it’s economically impossible for the drug cartels to stop: with 300%+ markups as a result of the drugs illegality it’s extremely easy for people to make big money. In the end, we see a conservative drug czar being open to listening, and possibly changing his mind. It’s a nice approach, though, as the film isn’t “preaching”.
Definitely an interesting look at the relations between the US and Mexico, too.
Mar
24
Traffic
Comments Off on Traffic
This was probably one of my favourites this term. Thinking about it, it was pretty similar to Touch of Evil: US and Mexican authorities attempting to solve a problem, corruption, etc.
This movie provides many interesting perspectives on the drug war. We are able to witness the ruthless violence involved in the distribution cartels in Tijuana, the effects of its consumption in the US, and how authorities approach it and deal with it. I find that this makes Traffic an important movie, as the drug war is a major issue in this time at the US. It asks the audience to decided which approach and policy is best in dealing with drug issues, especially with the huge market between Mexico and the US. I enjoyed having a more holistic picture of the drug trade, in comparison to a movie like Requiem for a Dream where there is a strong focus on the users. But although the film proposes that the audience consider approaches to drug policy, I think it is indirectly condemning the war on drugs.
This movie condemns the war on drugs not in an extremely direct fashion, but simply by showing aspects of the drug trade. What the audience is left with is: relentless violence and murders, corruption at the highest level, easy availability of drugs to teenagers (even the daughter of the US drug czar, quite a powerful statement). She claims that she doesn’t drink much because it’s easier for someone her age to get drugs. The witness the two American cops are protecting makes us realize this shortly before his death, too. He makes the cops feel absurd about their positions since no matter what they do, the drugs will still be available. The daughter’s friend also tells the drug czar that it’s economically impossible for the drug cartels to stop: with 300%+ markups as a result of the drugs illegality it’s extremely easy for people to make big money. In the end, we see a conservative drug czar being open to listening, and possibly changing his mind. It’s a nice approach, though, as the film isn’t “preaching”.
Definitely an interesting look at the relations between the US and Mexico, too.
Mar
24
Traffic
Comments Off on Traffic
I do not agree with a lot of the comments made in the article “You are Alright, but …”. For example when the author says that the sex scene between the black american and Caroline dehumanizes him because his face is not shown. I think that the way the shot was done adds to the dramatic feel of the situation. To me this movie did a good job at portraying ethnicity without falling into an argument about racism and without falling into stereotypes. I think that Traffic was trying to be realistic. Truth is that there is inequality between people from different color and different cultural backgrounds in the United States and therefore It was more coherent with reality to put a white male in a high rank position in the American government than any other person even if this adds on the Hollywood portray of white male Americans. However, one think I do agree with Shaw is that white Americans were not portrayed as drug dealers only as drug victims. I did not like that because the movie should try to represent reality from every possible perspective and not just from economic hierarchy.
Another think I did not like about the article is the critique about the colors used to represent Mexico and USA. I think that any color used by the director would have been criticized and references would b young to argue for any meaning. I think that the director wanted the viewer to know were the scenes were happening without a context. For example in the last scene when Javier is watching the kids play baseball we know he is in Mexico because of the sepia-yellowish color of the image.
I like the movie because it tried to represent the complexity of the dynamics of drug trafficking and because it showed some powerful images like the car explosion, the death of Manolo and the cocaine-toy. The dialogues were also powerful, the speech of Ruiz about how the police is working for the drug dealers was really good at showing the flaws of the war on drugs. The last words of Roberto’s speech and his conversation with the person in charge of the intelligence building in the border raised many questions about the real head of the cartel’s and the point of a war on drugs. What I did not like was that the movie was not direct, it carried no specific message. I can see people going to the theater, liking the stories and getting overwhelmed for an hour but forgetting about it because it does not suggest anything. On one hand Ruiz and the two cops and Robert ‘s stories seems to suggest that the war on drugs is useless. On the other hand, Javier’s story romanticizes the DEA and the police. From his story line one can conclude that more police like him is all that is needed to end drug trafficking.
My favorite part was the one played by Elen (Zeta-Jones) because it seem honest to me. I believe that a lot of people involved on drugs do it out of selfishness and indifference for justice but not because they are evil like Salazar or Flores.
About the representation of Mexico I think that some of the characters were depicted as modern versions of Pancho Villa or bandits. Salazar was just weird and creepy as well as Flores. Even Javier and Manolo had a weird unpleasant tone of voice and very slow dramatic pitch. I think the scene with the stolen car and the English-speaking couple was unnecessary and all it did was to make Tijuana look really bad. There were two scenes were Mexico/USA meta-converged. First when Robert is driving on the highway and the blue and the yellow mix to form green and another when Robert looks with the binoculars towards Mexico. I think that these two scenes put Mexico at the same level of USA is that both countries suffer from the consequences of the same problem but USA is more diligent and willing to fight the problem, at least in the movie.
Also the shots above Mexico city were a good way to show what I interpreted as the visit to a place that has nothing to do with the smuggling that happens in the border and that is not interested on it but is the center of attention because of the president and the administrative bodies that reside there. In other words in the movie Mexico was constructed as a country with divided interests .
Mar
19
Three Amigos
Comments Off on Three Amigos
I thought this movie was really funny. It was very interesting how they made fun of all of the aspects that are normally present in western movies. Everything was exaggerated and people seemed to see things that were completely out of place as normal. This form of mockery was present for the Mexicans as well as for the Americans. Although the only western movie Ive seen is The Wild Bunch, it made fun of every single detail. At the same time, it followed the same structure that a western movie has, or at least the same as in the Wild Bunch. The same elements were present as well as the same characters. It seems that Western movies have stock characters, where the plot is on of the only things that is changed. I found it peculiar to see so many hens in the movie. They were everywhere, even inside a pot which someone shoots. Hence, they also make fun of the Mexican culture represented in this kind of movies. It is funny because since people know that this is not the way that Mexico really is, it is making it even more obvious that the representation is not as portrayed. The role of women has always been a topic of discussion for the previous movies. Here women also play a significant role. The Three Amigos decide to go back to fight El Guapo because he had the girl. However, the amigos, apart from one actually desired them. When one of them was asked if he wanted to kiss her, he replies, NOW? So they dont really have a contact with them since they relate all of their lives to the movies they have made. However, this part is probably not important compared to the fact that El Guapo saw the lady he took from the village as an object too. He said that if she didnt have sex with him on his birthday he would kill her. The way his friend talks about women is similar, since he says that men should just take the girls by force when he was talking to El Guapo. Certainly women are depicted as an object in the eyes of the Mexicans, while the american dont really have any experience with them.
Mar
19
Lauren’s Blogger 2009-03-19 16:22:00
Comments Off on Lauren’s Blogger 2009-03-19 16:22:00
In response to Hudson404: It was interesting how the women were portrayed in vast contrast with those women in previous movies we have watched. I think this, in fact humanized the villians because El Guapo talks about his emotions and his inability to talk to Carmen. Even though he is told he can just “have her” he rebukes it is different with women! In addition, another woman makes him a sweater for his birthday and so, I suppose the comedy found it this, is that the villians are just like the Three Amigos, or at least no different.
In response to Mario: I am not sure if this film did do anything to deflect the “stereotypes” it played off of. I think it only emphasized these roles in order to call attention to them, but besides that, the film, overall was no different than other films we have watched. The Americans – Hollywood gang- ended up saving the day. Like Vargas, who is supposed to be playing the role as a “Mexican,” he too, in reality is an American and ends up saving the day.
Mar
19
Tres Amigos
Comments Off on Tres Amigos
It has been a long time since I have seen The Three Amigos and I really enjoyed it again! It kind of brought a lighter side to the films that we have watched so far as many of them centered on difficult themes. I find that this film was the comedy version of the Wild Bunch because of the many elements that were in that movie found their way into the Three Amigos like the Germans being involved in the gun smuggling who are seen as tough gunslingers. The film also has some common plots like the villagers in distress who seek out the help of outsiders and also rescuing the girl in distress. But as they attempt to rescue her they’re plan at first fails and the girl seems to give some better ideas to plan the escape out. It was interesting to see the contrast of the portrayal of the women in the , which they seemed to be strong and respected, but at El Guapo’s they are not as respected and seen as object to El Guapo and his gang. The movie does exaggerate quite a bit with the Amigos wardrobe and also the scenes where they break out in dance, which obviously indicates the distance they are trying to make between a real western and the comical version. Another shot was the background that was obviously a canvass of a sunset during the scene where they are outdoors gathered around the camp fire joined by some animals.. As many of the westerns always have a character that is the ultimate bad guy in Three Amigos El Guapo is portrayed as the clumsy hardened criminal who is the leader of a gang who are just as clumsy. The villagers seemed to need direction and courage to stand up to El Guapo and are given a plan by the Amigos to confront their fears. A great part of this scene is when Martin Short delivers the battle cry to get everyone motivated about conquering an individual’s personal “El Guapo”.
Mar
19
Three amigos
Comments Off on Three amigos
This movie was funny but something someone said in class got me thinking. This movie is about three amigos that believe they’re in a show, because of a silent movie that shows them as being heroes. Now… they’re Americans. Carmen actually states that no one can help them, especially Mexican men who just seem lazy and drunk all the time. Now, this movie is making fun of the stereotypes in westerns like the wild bunch, were mexicans are actually shown as Lazy, drunk and well, corrupt and megalomaniacs. But at the same time it is showing the stereotype and promoting the idea that Americans are going to save Mexico, because in the end they do. Three americans come up with the plan and destroy a whole lot of bandidos. And in the end, it does show the stereotypes and does nothing to portray them differently. So because of this, does this work as the satire it is intended to, or does it fall under the category of movies about Mexico with bad stereotypes like The Wild Bunch or High Noon?
I think it falls under the category of movies about Mexico with bad stereotypes and this is why: We are in a spanish class studying about Meican cinema, and we see things differently. But this movie is not intended for college students in a class about Mexican cinema. Its meant for the Average middle class American that thinks of Mexico as what is shown in the big screen: dirty, full of bandidos, drug lords and mexican woman who can’t defend themselves. The movie does nothing to change the view of Mexico. It makes fun of the stereotypes, but does not show a real Mexico. Where in the movie does the director or writer try to change the stereotype? If a 10 year old watches this movie he is going to believe the things in the film, and still believe that Americans are the heroes and Mexicans are drunk and lazy. Yes, they exxagerate it and make fun of it, but I am not sure that a lot of people would read it the way we do. Now, if we talk about, it made a good presentation of stereotypes in Westerns and ridiculing them, but my point is that it did not try to change the expectations. El guapo was still a sick bandido, Carmen was the dame in need of help, the people got drunk, etc. I really think this is goign to be a movie to talk about because they exxagerated in such a manner that we could tell it was a farce, but maybe not everyone can.
Mar
18
¡Three Amigos!
Comments Off on ¡Three Amigos!
Racking my brain again…
Recalling all of these movies i’ve watched up to now (including Traffic) concerning Mexican culture, tradition, and custom, i have a vague feeling of the existence of a significant margin b/w the first 7 (Que Viva Mexico is counted) and the last 4. Obviously, Hollywood films present more sophisticatedly artistic, cinematic, and dramatic technics and devices, but once there is heterogeneous perspectives upon a specific object, it always comes controversy. North americans have different viewpoints with those of latinos, and even within the group of hollywood, directors always attempt to dig different aspects of a same object, or i should say it’s just because they have their own outlooks on it based on their personal experience. Although the first group of films have a sort of same tendency, but in general, they all incorporate both “good and bad” for a particular race (latinos), but hollywood apparently has an inclination of going to extremes – either barbaric folks or progressive outsiders, either uneducated mexican women or brave US women, and either tactful mexican cop or crafty US officer…I wonder which one is more onto the verge of the true representation of mexico? Of course i know that there is a cinematic device called “dramatization”, but as an audience who has no background knowledge about mexico, i always have a tendency to classify those properties either humanistic or ethical shown in the moive, so i guess if i only have a chance to watch only one of them, i might get biased idea.
Back to Three Amigos…
I like it simply because it’s funny. Wowww finally i’ve got to watch a movie without burning my brain cells or straining my heart. I like the light atmosphere it creats, and i’m not picky on comedies as long as it makes me laugh. Once again, characters have distinctive personalities that “didactically” presents me which group is evil and which one is angel; in this way, this seems unsophisticated, and i expect more complex traits of roles, which would be more attractive.
Mar
18
Three Amigos
Comments Off on Three Amigos
Three Amigos!
Comedy!
…for kids?
So much death, and yet such juvenile humour. Martin Short had the only distinct, interesting character so he stood out to me as the funniest of the three. It seemed like the film had been hastily edited down to a more reasonable time thus sacrificing the comedic timing necessary for the jokes. Either that or children need some sort of accelerated physical joke telling to keep them interested.
Anyways, regardless…
A film like this can easily be dismissed as “fluff” or unworthy of any academic discussion, but I think there are some interesting elements to the film that stand out.
The most noteworthy for me was this double removal of a film within a film, and the clear portrayal of the assumed actual reality as totally synthetic and ridiculous.
Immediately, during the old fashioned black and white film, we as the audience recognize Steve Martin, Chevy Chase and Martin Short as famous comedic actors. We then see the Mexican audience watching these three actors as if they were action stars, or strong, manly actors (This reinforced by the German who idolizes Ned). Of course, we know this isn’t true at all and that sets up the humorous misunderstanding that drives the plot.
Then, Steve, Chevy and Martin leave Hollywood for Mexico, and we never hear their actual character names as the actors who play the three amigos. They continue to call each other by their stage names.
It’s almost as if some fantastical reality has been set up where the Three Amigos escape the confines of the cinema and go to Mexico where they eventually discover that they truly are the Three Amigos, and yet all this is shown to us the audience within a film.
It reminds me of a children’s comedic rendition of David Lynch’s “Inland Empire” where the actor can never escape their act.
Even furthermore, I am tempted to read the entire film as a sick, hunger and desperation induced hallucinated adventure by Steve Martin’s character who so distraught about losing his job invents this story in his mind. That would be one way to justify the absurd “real” singing animals, bush and the invisible swordsman.
Mar
18
Three Amigos
Comments Off on Three Amigos
I am not a fan of Steve Martin. At all. Nor the other main actors (the other two amigos) in this movie, based on the types of movies I know them to usually be in. When we started the film and I saw the cast, I thought I was going to hate it. And at first, I didn’t like it, all I could see was stereotypes of Mexico. A naive, uneducated, beautiful Mexican country girl, not having been exposed to film, we will assume, takes it to be reality, and writes to the Three Amigos for help. It poked fun at the communication disconnect between Americans and Mexicans, which was fine. But if you take it as representing actual people, Mexico, etc. it is quite offensive, or at least could be seen as such.
However, once I realized that it was not trying to represent Mexico so much as make fun of Hollywood and the old Western movies, I had a greater appreciation for the movie. It alluded to the ignorance of so many big screen actors who represent people without knowing anything about them really. Like Dusty asks if there is some other food, they don’t understand what the girl is asking of them, they through a fit at El Guapo when they realize it is real, and they keep saying the same lines over and over again, even when they realized it is not a show. It also had so many allusions to Westerns, such as the Mexican villain and the Gringos who come in and save the day. The unnecessary amount of shooting guns, drinking, mistreating women… etc. The correspondences to the Wild Bunch (and other westerns, I am sure, I just haven’t seen many) were actually quite numerous once I stopped to think about them: the Germans being the most striking one.
So, though I started out not liking the movie, when looking at it as a parady of films, and not of real people, it is much easier to appreciate.
Mar
18
The Three Amigos
Comments Off on The Three Amigos
When I was around twelve, I recorded this movie off of the Disney channel on TV like I did other with a lot of other movies. I really liked this one though, I thought it was funny, I liked the music in it and I watched it a lot. Now it’s really hard for me to look at it from a different point of view, especially from an academic point of view for a class where we’re supposed to discuss the different perspectives of Mexico. When I watched this movie when I was younger, I didn’t care about the Mexico part of it, I just cared about the singing bush and the other humour. Now I still think that the music is well-composed for the movie’s purpose, but I can’t believe that I missed how ridiculous a lot of the humour really is. This time I pretty much only laughed when Dusty asked if they had anything other than Mexican food, but I didn’t laugh because it was funny, I laughed because it was pathetic. The truth is, I’m finding it really hard to come up with anything other than the word stereotype, but I’ll keep trying. I guess I’ll just point out things instead of coming up with a general statement about my opinion.
It seemed like the perspective of Mexico was just a few small towns, where the people were either poor or bad. The people in the poor towns were seen as uneducated, obviously when Carmen misunderstood what the movie was. I guess at some point, that idea could have been humorous, ‘A small town is desperate for help, so a woman mistakes a movie for an advertisement and sends for the actors.’
The actors of the Three Amigos in the movie were in apparently a lot of movies about Mexico, but they didn’t seem to know anything about it when they actually went there, which is why it was pathetic when Dusty asked about the Mexican food.
Overall, I thought that for this kind of parody, it was really well done, which is probably why I liked it when I was younger. This answer is probably really obvious, but due to the sentimental history that I have with this movie, I have to ask, what is it really trying to say? Is it trying to make complete fun of the relationship between the US and Mexico (a common theme in the movies of this course)? Or was it just a partial parody of Mexico with the intention of creating a comedy, so they added in more funny stuff with a Mexican theme? Or is there actually any difference between those two questions? I don’t know if I’m choosing the right words to say what I’m thinking.
I thought that the part where they were drinking water in the desert would have been perfect for a humorous environmental ad: don’t waste water, other people need it.
Mar
17
Los Three Amigos
Comments Off on Los Three Amigos
I think this is going to be one of the harder blogs to write, considering I can’t really take much of this movie seriously.
Seeing movies like this with Steve Martin in them make me really sad because he has the ability to be a very funny, talented man, but he’s in so many bad movies (ie Father of the Bride, Father of the Bride II, Young at Heart, LA Story, the list is endless). Chevy Chase is generally in this sort of mishugas slapstick comedy, so this wasn’t much of a deviation from the norm for him. Steve Martin, on the other hand, was once a very funny young white-haired man who did great gags on Saturday Night Live, and was in the only movie I’ve ever liked him in, “Parenthood.”
The point being, seeing him in such a stupid movie was, as it usually is, difficult for me to watch. I don’t like raining on others’ parades, but this movie was really stupid. Aside from maybe one or two gags, I just wasn’t into the humor at all. Granted I don’t find slapstick that funny usually (aside from Woody Allen slapstick movies), I still had a really hard time sitting through this. I expect I was probably the only kid in the class with this issue.
It’s hard to say too much about this film as any sort of Mexican commentary, as Jon called this a self-reflective “meta-film,” so I’m not sure what I can say that won’t just go back to the argument that it was meant to be stereotypical and stupid, a spoof of all those old westerns. If the plot line weren’t so ridiculous and the whole script didn’t wreak of trying to be funny, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it as it is more.
Mar
17
The Three Amigos
Comments Off on The Three Amigos
I did not know anything about this film previously. Therefore, when I first heard the title, I thought it would be another one of those cliche Western movies. Instead, it was a refreshing change from the films we have seen previously, especially as of late. It actually had more of an impact on me after seeing The Wild Bunch. It was clever because it used the image of Mexico, dreamed up by Hollywood directors and this in turn, drew on the absurdity, especially that fantasy world created by actors. There were many tropes used in the film and as a result it played with the audience’s expectations. There were many elements in the film attributed to older films, specifically that of The Wild Bunch. The Three Amigos gave me a breath of fresh air because it emphasizes and exagerates those worlds that have been speculated upon by the U.S. film industry. The film remained neutral, but still calls attention to Hollywood and how silly their characterization of other cultures has been and more importantly, the Gringo protagonists, made a mockery of themselves. Even though the film initally seemed to have a senseless plot, in reality it was clever and made social commentary about the ridiculous nature of Hollywood.
The film had a Disney quality to it, as The Three Amigos dance, sing and laugh alongslide a slew of desert animals who speak, oh and I forgot to include, a talking bush. This film seemed to parody many older films. It also reminded me of Singin’ in the Rain because this film also makes commentary about Hollywood, when silent pictures were getting the boot and talking picture were becoming popular. Like the celebrities in Singin’ in the Rain, The Three Amigos are also glamorized by Hollywood, but when they are placed in real society, they are practically unable to function, let alone, understand what is going on around them.
As we talked about at the end of class, the movie takes place within a movie, which is also similar to Singin’ in the Rain. Reality is blurred and even when Steve Martin realizes he has been shot by a “real” bullet, the group still acts like they are in a film as they sing, dance and use their moves they have learned, while playing their roles in films. Also in contrast to The Wild Bunch, the women have power and overall, have litte to do with the men. In the end, the character who seems to be the most effeminine wins the “hot” girl, who seems to show up out of no where. Once again, it is the absurdity and unlikeliness that the The Three Amigos would win that makes this film so enjoyable and funny.
Mar
17
Three Amigos
Comments Off on Three Amigos
What I noticed most about this film was the playing upon tropes by the film’s portrayal of Mexico. Like we said in discussion, the film parodies the Western genre, but what I noticed most was the playing upon particulars within Mexican representaion.
For one, I couldn’t ignore the presentaion of modern versus antiquity in the first scene. Like Los Olvidados, this shows a Mexico in transition, and sets the time and place for the film’s plot. Unlike Los Olvidados though, this film shows the people riding donkeys and in ponchos fully aware of their backwardness… they are shown in contempt for themselves almost.
Another trope of Mexican representaion was the constant presence of tequila. It was so present that it became materialized. The bottles were always clean and plentiful. Even though anyone agrees that they are a part of Mexican characteristic construction, they presence was so played upon that they seemed out of place almost. But I guess it could also be said that they were so present to be deemed an extension of their arms. I guess that discrepancy will be decided by each viewer.
The third trope I wish to reflect on is that of the chickens. There were chickens everywehre. I’m pretty sure that they shot a pot once that was hanging down and from it came a chicken. This play became tired out in the end, but I suspect that it is to personify its cliche.
The last trope which noticed in the movie was that of Germans. Their characteristics are overexpressed and so prevalent that again, this lends to the falacy of German representations in Western genre.
Mar
17
Three Amigos
Comments Off on Three Amigos
Three Amigos provides a satire of the portrayal of Mexico in cinema. Beyond all the gaffes and seemingly silly acts in this movie, a lot of insight can be gained. This movie was definitely an extreme parody, everything was overdone, overblown and overkill. I’ll bet it’d be pretty hard to find a town in Mexico where everyone drinks their own entire bottle of tequila (hmm maybe we should try to find it..). There’s also the oversized hats of the three amigos, the 6 shooter guns who can shoot a million bullets, the giant piñatas, the handful of sand in the water gourd, the extremely strong accent with which the Mexicans spoke, and the list goes on. But that’s exactly the point of this movie: it parodies those very ste***types in movies which attempt to portay a “real” Mexico.
I was taken aback during the first acts of violence in the bar with the German. The movie seemed to be very lighthearted until that point, and I found myself not expecting the high level of violence. However, I guess I’m kind of naïve in expecting that, since it is after all a western style movie. The light heartedness helps along with that parody though, making some violent scenes funny and ridiculous.
Maybe I’m stretching this too far, especially since its the movie is meant to be a spoof. But it’s definitely interesting to see how the three American gringos are praised and relied on by the peasants. The Mexicans have a problem in their village and their course of action is to seek help from Americans, not from within their country. I guess the girl and young boy go to the neighbouring town and get laughed at… but it’s kind of a pathetic attempt. However, it does go along with the lawlessness that is typically associated with the western genre.
I guess I can say I enjoyed the movie… but even though it’s meant to be cheesy, I found it way too cheesy.
Mar
17
Three amigos
Comments Off on Three amigos
Another movie set in Revolutionary Mexico. The 1920’s violent scenery, virginal and vulnerable women and chaotic macho society living in the leftovers of colonial times are all portrayed in the movie. Even though by 1970 most of the Mexican society shown in the movie was almost inexistent it seems like I represented the true Mexico to Americans and therefore the movie is set in the 1920’s instead of in modern Mexico.
The three Amigos parody Mexico and its ignorance as well as Americans and their materialistic world. It makes fun of actors who think of nothing but easy money and who can’t think beyond their perfect bubble world. I think of the movie as a comedy that makes fun of everything related to America and the Mexico-United States relations without developing a particular point or argument. The story line is original and absurd and that makes it funny. The Three amigos are like the three musketeers of Mexico except they are Americans. It is ironic that foreigners trying to be Mexican become heroes of Mexico instead of real Mexicans . It was funny how all the bandits at the cantina could speak perfect English. I was not sure when we (audience) were supposed to think that they were speaking Spanish and when English. The cantina is the place were most hilarious conversations and incidents happen. Also it is the place of all the homosocial interaction. For example when the women looking for help enters the bar everyone pauses and gives her unfriendly looks and one of the men almost rapes her. That scene is contrasted with the act of the Three amigos who dance very soft feminine music and moves at the cantina.
The dialogs are smar t funny .. like beer is like tequila ! or do you have anything bedsides Mexican food? or What are we doing in Mexico? I already got shot!. Also I noticed that the Germans were the bad guys which seems logical after half the world blame them for word war I and II. Like in many of the other movies we have seen women are shown as providers of pleasure for men and objects to fight over.
My final impression of the movie is that it did not mean to be revolutionary it was not ambitious like Touch of evil, Que viva Mexico, Los olvidados or The wild bunch. I really felt like the movie just wanted to entertain. For instance, all the atrocities committed by el Guapo in Santo Poco like the burning of the church and the kidnapping of Carmen? lost seriousness inmedialty after the three amigos entered the desert.
Mar
13
The Wild Bunch
Comments Off on The Wild Bunch
It was a really long film and I didn’t like it much at the beginning but it kind of grew on me. Close to the end of the movie, I was quite attached to the Wild Bunch and their emotions. However, it was also because of this attachment that I was frustrated, shocked and disappointed to see them leaving Angel there with the Mexicans. I had a mix feeling towards the situation. One side of me knew that it wouldn’t make sense for the whole gang to go down, while the other side of me thought “how could they have just abandoned their ‘comrade’?” However, I think they redeemed themselves at the end by taking on the suicidal mission of rescuing Angel. I was touched when the four of them marched towards their suicidal mission (at this point I already forgot they were the bad guys and I really shouldn’t be touched by their violent actions). Although overall, the movie was a bit too violent for my liking, I thought it was quite realistic and at times necessary for the message and the image that it tries to portray and deliver. I had a mix feeling about the ending of the film. I was especially bothered to see Angel being tortured like that.
To be honest, I didn’t pay much attention to how they treated the women. The women were so neglected I thought the director purposely portrayed it in such a way to emphasize that the movie was about men and the historical background. The readings really helped me appreciate the movie more. If I hadn’t read the articles, I probably wouldn’t have thought as highly of the film. I like the analogies that it draws – character analogies, historical event analogies, etc.
I also really like the long pause of silence when they shot the Mexican leader. I thought it created powerful tension. I even held my breath for a bit when it happened.
Mar
11
In response to Miguel:
When the prostitute was insisting that the men pay her, I was confused by the woman, brushing her hair. She and the protagonist were exchanging suggestive looks or rather, looks of empathy and compassion. Yet on hearing the other prostitute in the neighboring room, the protagonist seemed to revert back to his old ways, demanding that him and the other men leave without paying. I thought this was where the men would redeem themselves and their ways. Instead, they left to reclaim their Mexican friend. This seemd to initially convey the kinship they had with the other male, aside from cultural differences, but of course this interaction turned to turmoil. I think it is interesting that of all the men in the group, the Mexican of course was claimed a traitor. Therefore, this film shows the feelings perhaps Mexico and the U.S. felt for one another? On the other hand, I would like to believe this was suppose to be a parody on a bad western film.
In response to Mario:
I did not originally think of the protagonists as anti-heros. But once you pointed out the fact that the men start fighting with the knowledge that they will die, like the anti-hero, the mens’ deaths are inevitable and therefore they decide to control the way they are going to die. It made me think of Beowulf, and how he has several battles with monsters, in which he is successful at conquering, but with each encounter the battle becomes more of a challenge. The dying culture of Beowulf is like the dying culture of the Western.
Mar
11
The Wild Bunch
Comments Off on The Wild Bunch
Im really curious what is going to said about this movie in class. I really want to know why this movie is considered such a classic when I thought that although had some things to offer, it didn’t have much. This is actually the first time that I have a watched a full western type movie. As like in Touch of Evil, it was focused on the relationship between Mexicans and Americans. It is pretty evident that both have a preconception of each other that is not good at all. They don’t trust each other and they think they are foolish in some sort of way. Mexicans however are presented as dumb and animal like. They don’t do what people do in a normal society, and in contrast they are just eating, drinking, and having sex. Females are presented as very inferior in comparison to men. They have no authority whatsoever and are always depicted as a pleasure object. We never really see a conversation between a man and a woman, only once where a prostitute asks for the money when the Americans do not pay. By not paying after having so much gold from the rifles sold, we see that the Americans really do not care about the Mexicans and feel they are inferior to them. So, the machismo in Mexico is another recurrent theme in this movie. I thought it was interesting how Angel’s friend just left him with the Mexicans after he found out he had stolen the rifles. The way the Mexicans treated him was even more astonishing and this showed them as savages. Overall I thought there was a lot of unnecessary killing, although its probably a common thing in western type movies.
Mar
11
The wild bunch
Comments Off on The wild bunch
Two things caught my attention in this movie, the apparent lack of values in everyone in the movie and the tension between the characters in most of the scenes. From the begging the wild bunch seemed to me as a group of American bandits with a code of honor that kept its members from betraying each other but with no ideological purposes.”The wild bunch” was full of drunk, violent, macho men, who mistreated women and killed innocent people. However, it was no clear to me if they attacked the American town only to get gold or if there were other reasons.
The tension between the characters was present in almost every scene. The Americans who leaded the militia seem to be in conflict all the time. I think that the battle leader was involuntarily in charge of the military and therefore his opinions were ignored by the old-town-owners. I think he was actually like the “Wild bunch” but he was imprisoned and forced to serve the police and flip sides. He was also in conflict with his soldiers because they did not have the spirit of “the warrior” and only fought for money.
The wild bunch seemed to have a lot of internal problems as well. Its members kept arguing all the time. Obviously they also had a problem with the General Mapache who seem stupid and weak to them. Finally, the General Mapache and the revolucionarios had their own war going on.
The end of the movie changed my mind about the lack of morals of the wild bunch. I thought that the wild bunch valued friendship highly and that is why they killed general Mapache. I think that the Wild bunch saw the spirit of the warriors on Angel and the revolutionaries hence when they saw little posibility to escape gloriously and their lives sourounded by cheap prostitutes and solitude they did not mind to die for Angel’s cause.
I also found interesting the theme of prostitution. I think prostitutes have appeared in every movie we have seen and I think that desire and sex work are an essential aspect of mexican culture and mexican representations. I thought that mexican women survived best being prostitutes and even when they weren’t getting paid they were trading their body for mercy, acceptance and protection.
Mar
11
The Wild Bunch
Comments Off on The Wild Bunch
Ah, the last of the westerns and the western hero.
Symbolically dying at the end of the film along with the genre.
Peckinpah creates a western world that is fluxuating and changing before the very eyes of these traditional cowboys.
Chased from the north and forced to go south, their aging bodies are apparent and detrimental to their survival.
It would be impossible to watch a Peckinpah film without making mention of the representation of violence within the film.
And if you’ve ever seen “Straw Dogs” you’ll know that this is a re-occuring theme.
The violence is absolutely crude and messy in “The Wild Bunch”
The visual proponent of spraying blood from bullet wounds, bodies falling off buildings and cliffs, and horses slamming into the ground are all extreme in their depiction and scarily realistic.
HIs editing style is very succinct, hardly giving longer then a second before each cut ( during the opening sequence in the town especially ).
This method of editing really rackets up the feeling of utter mayhem during the scene and lack of control.
The innocent town folk are caught up within the gunfight and are mowed down by stray bullets.
There are children clutching each other in the middle of the fight, looking scared and evidently bound to be affected their entire life by these events. During the last scene, one of the characters uses a mexican woman as a body shield to absorb any bullets that come his way.
Peckinpah also uses slow motion to add to these violent outbursts too, for example a horse crashing through a window in slow motion.
Handheld POV camera work is also used as a disorienting tactic and evokes even more mayhem.
As for the portrayal of Mexico, we are introduced to a ridiculous, indulgent military group who hire these men to steal rifles.
They are seen as untrustworthy and cutthroat, everything you need to survive in these tough lands.
The other Mexican group we see are the fighters from the village near where Angel is from, who are amazingly stealthy, calm and seem to give off a sense of earthly wisdom. It’s funny that there is no in between shown. The Mexican men are either drunk, rowdy fighters, or, stealthy, wise fighters.
Funnily enough it is Angel who the Mexican military group torture and embarrass as opposed to an American, even though there is a clear tension and dislike between the Americans and this group in the film. Perhaps this speaks to a lack of national identity at these times, keeping in mind that this is also shown through the storytelling of Peckinpah.
Mar
11
The wild bunch
Comments Off on The wild bunch
I don’t particularly like Westerns. They bore me and I think they’re all predictable. The only western I have liked has been High Noon. And Unforgiven, although I wouldn’t consider it a Western. This movie is no a western in essence either. It is a movie about the changing times. I have never seen a machine gun or a shotgun in a western before. And I haven’t seen such violence like in the last massacre scene either. This movie plays with your expectations, it makes you think about what is going on. These men are outlaws in a world were they are not going to be able to be outlaws anymore. They are a dying breed, and I think this reflects perfectly the Western trend in the United States.
Westerns have been popular ever since movies began. The great train robbery is one of the first films to employ parallel editing, and that was a western. So was D.W. grifith “The girl and her trust”. And up to the 1950’s westerns represented the American ideal of dominating the lands and overcoming the terrible things that happen around you. The hero (mostly John Wayne) always won. But by the 1960’s this trend was falling. People began producing more science fiction and the musical boomed, people were looking for escapism and a way to reflect the cold war era. This movie is probably one of the last true westerns.
I call this a western because it has everything you need for a western: the setting, the morally ambiguos characters that decide to fight for a change, the villains that look out of a cartoon novel, etc… Unforgiven doesn’t have that, it just has the setting. I really liked the ending, when they look at each other after Angel has died, they know they are going to die. But instead of running away or trying to make a truce, they fight back. I took this as their last chance for thrill. They look at each in a kind of Bonnie and Clyde way and because they decide to die, that makes them heroes. They might be the epitamy of an anti-hero, but the moment they go to Mexico and see all this corruption, they change into heroes.
This is an aspect I didn’t like about the film. Mexico was protrayed as corrupt and dirty and with no moral ambitions. It is because of Mexico that they change, they see it is worse than them. The characters play on stock characters, and even the only Mexican worth saving, Angel, is a deliquent in the end. Although the film was set in the Mexican revolution, that still doesn’t cut it to show them as complete monsters and non-caring. When that woman was shot, they just laughed it off. This is not the first western that shows Mexicans like this of course, but it is still offensive.
Mar
11
Wild Bunch
Comments Off on Wild Bunch
What I noticed most about this film was the portrayal of women it presented. Even though Mexican men are shown as characteristically diverse, the women in this film are not given that benefit.
Just like the excessive violence of the film which becomes somewhat ineffectual, the portrayal of women becomes cliched also. There seemed to be breasts shown bare too often so much so that it didn’t mean anything when they were. The scene when the two Americans frolick with the 3 Mexican women was quite upsetting to me too. The women were just getting thrown around and stripped by the men as if they were some inate object; It was pretty disgusting to me. The unimportance of death of women also upset me. When the Mexican’s ex lover is killed by him, and later the fact that the procession of prayers was interrupted by the drunk yells of the Mexicans and Americans shows this degradation of women. There is even a point in the last battle scene in which one of the Mexicans uses a women as a shield against bullets.
Thus far I have just given examples of how Mexiacn were are shown in action, but what I think is most important is the scene in which the Americans leave the women with the baby and do not pay them for their prostitution. This is bad enough, but I remembered how the Americans had earlier talked of spending all of their money back in America on whores. So I’m left to see the deliberate juxtaposition between the American’s tratement of Mexican women and American ones, even if they are whores. Aiding in this moral crime is the Mexican men’s inability to stand up for their fellow country people and their willingness to aid the Americans for an eventual benefit to their violent cause.
