Category: Los olvidados

Lo que me llamó la atención – en conexción al progreso y la modernización de la ciudad de México – fue la atención a la belleza que da Buñuel. Hay dos escenas que viene a la mente. Hay una escena sin sonido en que un hombre desconocido solicita sexo con Pedro. Al fondo de la escena hay un salón de belleza que atrae la atención del espectador. ¿Y por que presenta esta gran justaposición Buñuel? Claro que el salón representa el desarrollo que disfruta las clases medias y altas de la sociedad mexicana. El único propósito de un salón de belleza es hacer más elegantes a las mujeres. Mientras esto, Pedro está en la calle sin comida y dinero. Esta justaposición presenta la gran separación entre las clases sociales. México – igual que las personajes femininas (la mamá de Pedro, y la muchacha) – trata de ser bonito, pero detrás de esta máscara se encuentra la realidad. La segunda escena que me impactó fue cuando Ojitos le dice a la muchacha que el hecho de poner leche sobre la piel hace que la piel se siente como seda y se ve muy bonita.
Hay varias escenas que muestra la importancia de la leche para sobrevivir. Primero, el ciego explica que no hay nada mejor para la salud que la leche. Segundo, moriendo de hambre, Ojitos no puede controlarse y mama la tetilla de la vaca para sacar leche. La inagotable leche sustenta a la gente mientras la muchacha la utiliza para hacerse más bonita. En fin, esta belleza vale más que las necesidades del bienestar humano. La leche también representa el mundo tradicional. Por ejemplo, El Ciego (un personaje tradicional) habla de su importancia, Ojitos (un campesino) también está ya muy acostumbrado a su riqueza.

Fue interesante ver como Ojitos se adaptó muy bien a los contornos de la ciudad. Un lugar lleno de animales, heno y pobreza, las condiciones no eran tan distintos que el campo. Quizás por eso, Ojitos no se juntaba con los demás muchachos en la calle.

Estoy de acuedo contigo que la pelicula en una manera mostraba que haya esperanza para el futuro. Originalmente despues la pelicula senti impotente y que no habia indicacion de esperanza. En el otra mano aunque Pedro fue matado al final el estaba tratando a cambiar su manera de vida. El principal le dio la oportunidad para que pudiera tomar un rumbo diferente. Es importante que la audencia sepa la situacion de estos ninos y su condicion en los barrios pobres.

I thought “Los Olvidados” was a great film. Even though it was very subversive and ahead of its time in a lot of ways, it was also very different from recent dramatic social commentary films in that it showed slumming Mexican life all from real characters with no comedic releases. The only deviation from the injustice and suffering that was nearly constantly portrayed was when any one of the children just had a moment where they acted like kids and did something silly.
Though it was much harder to watch because there was nearly nothing buffering us from the truth or lightening the mood at all for the whole duration, it felt intensely powerful and prolific. The truth of it really resonated with me in a whole new way, I truly felt the injustices of the time. Though it’s a bad comparison, I’ve noticed from being American and growing up in the states that the more neglected and disenfranchized and the less educated a society becomes a la its government, the more the internal workings of a society begin to combust.
What I find interesting while truly depressing about the message of this film is that progress was never really reached. At the beginning, we are shown that the message of this film was not that of pessimism, but that of optimism, hoping that by educating people more and more, that eventually progress would change the fate of the impoverished Mexican communities. What’s sad is that some progress has been made, but now there’s even less of a middle class than there once was in Mexico, and poverty rates continue to flourish. I hope that progress can be made, especially with a brand new American president, who I’m hoping won’t say silly things like let’s “seal the borders,” who will work with the Mexican president.

Me gusta la película Los Olvidados mucho porque la trama es coherente y credible. Me parece que más realista que Aguila o sol pero al mismo tiempo, Aguila o sol es una comedía. Pienso que la película puede ser un forma de documentary porque los escenario y la mayoría de personajes son reales, no son accesorios. Además, la película refleja muchos problemas que existen en México. Estoy de acuerdo con Winston que, “The difference [between documentary and fiction] is to be found in the mind of the audience”.

La yuxtaposición entre el ciego y el principal de la escuela de granja sirve como un crítico fuerte. Aunque la manera del principal no funcionaba 100%, ya podemos ver el cambio en Pedro. La confianza que el principal tenía de Pedro le daba un sentido de importancia. En lugar de compartir el dinero con Jaibo, Pedro trató de devolver el dinero ah principal. Eso es un cambio significante. También, esta confianza del principal le daba Pedro el coraje a decir el pueblo las criminalidades de Jaibo. Por lo tanto, aunque Pedro fue matado al final, no cambia el hecho que había cambios en las acciones y mentalidad de Pedro. Si tenía más tiempo, podría ser bueno otra vez. Sin embargo, es muy triste que la sociedad que estaba en reforma no tuviera bastante gente como el principal pero pobreza estaba demasiado.

También me sorprende mucho que solamente Jaibo y Pedro son actores porque la situación era tan horrible que tengo un poquito dificultad creyendo que las escenas pasaron (y todavía pasan) en la ciudad de México.

One of the most truly fascinating aspects of this film, as seen by a modern viewing audience, is the categorization of this film as a “Documentary”. Clearly the film is shot in a linear, narrative structure, with broken up sequencing of events, and makes no effort to appear candid (or at least doesn’t appear candid when viewed today). It would be interesting to research the reactions and thoughts on the film upon release, and if the label of documentary held up in the public eye in the early 1950’s. Regardless, the reading focuses entirely on this issue so I’ll digress…

As for the content of the film…
I am a huge fan of surrealist films, especially those made by Bunuel and Dali, so I very much enjoyed the bizarre dream sequences in the film. The slab of meat especially giving off the sense of a grotesque greed and hunger, and the deadly grabbing of the meat by Jaibo. The surrealist elements also bled out of the dream sequences and into the narrative of the film, particularly with the reoccurring image of the black hen to Pedro whenever something ill fated has happened, or is about to happen. And the old, blind man also carries with him a feel of the unreal, crippled yet capable of drastically affecting the lives of the boys. In fact the old blind man was a very strange character as he was set up by Bunuel to be sympathetic (blind and attacked by a gang of boys) but switches completely by the end of the film when we realize how horrible he is to those around him (creeping on the girl and abusing “small eyes”)
Great film.
Pedro’s character was especially heartbreaking.
Lovely.

I can’t see my posts on the course blog and I am getting really frustrated 🙁

Los olvidados es una película que me afecto en un sentido personal. Haber vivido cerca de los barrios de Caracas, yo recuerdo haber visto niños como los de esta pelicula. La película, en su demuestración de un momento transicionál en México, usa el tipo de documentál y de narrativo para poder mostrar los efectos de esta transición efectivamente.
La escena que muestra a los niños llegando a casa en el barrio y en el fondo se puede ver una carretera llena de carros modernos. Buñuel sigue comparando lo moderno con lo antiguo duranto toda la película. Una comparación se ve entre el siego y el director de la escuela. El siego muestra que el es tradicionál y es parte de la cultura Mexicana que existia ántes de la revolución. El siego piensa que la única forma de parar los delincuentes del barrio es si los matan a todos, y este pensamiento es la última cosa que se oye en la película cuendo él grita que los deberían matar antes de nacer.
El director de la escuela granja representa la modernización positiva de la cultura mexicana. El director tiene esperanza en los niños y cree que si uno les muestra que tienen otras abilidades ellos pueden entrar otra ves a la sociedad y vivir sin crimen. La escena en la escuela granja le muestra a el público que el problema no es causado por los niños sino por los padres y la sociedad que los tiene desdichados.
En ésta comparación entre el siego y el director y en el resultado de que ningún sistema funciona suficientemente bien, se puede ver el deseo de Buñuel de mantener la película como un documental. El ensayo que leímos ántes de la película dice que esta representación dual es por el deseo de Buñuel de hacer que la audiencia haga su propia significación de la película, y tambien su deso de mostrar una vida vivida y no analisada. Al final, en ver este dilema de las dos opciones, se ve que el arreglo de el problema de Los olvidados no va a poder ser arreglado muy facilmente, pero se va a tener que arreglar ya que Buñuel lo represento tan realmente y auténticamente.

Los olvidados had quite the negative tone from start to finish just as was mentioned at the beginning of the movie. This film depicted a raw and explicit image of the day in the life of impoverished youth in the slums of Mexico City but to an exaggerated extent to possibly send the message to really get the point across to the audience; give something for them to talk about and then the social issues are understood. For example, the film didn’t just show youth stealing apples or ripping off stores, it when as far as to show a blind man and disabled man getting pushed around, humiliated, and robbed. This was to show how brutal and heartless these characters really were. This film had a few elements similar to Aguila o sol such as the issue of social class being the central theme, both dealing with the lesser class, but it is important to note that Aguila o sol showed the two social classes of the have’s and have not’s where in Los olvidados it was entirely the have not’s . Also, the main characters in both films not having strong family values, especially the lack of father figures, and the use of dream sequences to act as a sobering experience for change to Polito and Pedro. That would be most of the similarities to the two films as there were more differences in terms of direction and tone. The main difference that sticks out is the fact that Los olvidados has a negative tone from start to finish and has no happy, or at least, positive ending. Polito gets his father and saves his friendships, whereas Pedro ends up dead. The problems that are faced at the beginning are not resolved and just as there was a hope for a positive outcome, such as in the case of Pedro’s mother finally accepting her son or when Pedro is attempting to change his life to a positive direction, tragedy and misfortune strikes and no silver lining is considered. The character of El Jaibo is shown to be the consistent and persistent criminal who has a bad intention in every judgement he makes. As Pedro attempts to better himself and to win over his mother, El Jaibo is there to lure him back. An example of this is during the slow motion dream where Pedro is yearning for his mothers’ affection and acceptance and when she offers him the meat, there is El Jaibo nearby who takes his food away and ultimately ruins his dream. One last thing to mention was the fact that I did not like Don Carmelo, the blind man. At the beginning of the movie, where he gets roughed up, I felt bad for him and thought he would be a fighter for justice but towards the end he is like the criminals he despises as he did not have any morals in him. The way he treat Ojitos and the girl Meche and his view on justice, which was to kill the criminals, made him just as bad.

El fin de Los Olvidados me dejo sintiendo muy triste. La mayoría de las películas de Hollywood usualmente termina con los finales felices porque desean atraer a la audiencia y lo que crean la audiencia quiere a mirar para que escapar su realidad actual. Sin embargo en este caso el propuesto de esta película fue a forzar la audiencia pensar en los problemas sociales que peste México, específicamente las familias pobres sin recursos. Los Olvidados fue muy distinto en contrasto a Águila o Sol porque evoco los sentimientos de la audiencia en una manera que no fue artificial. Para que producir una película como Los Olvidados que sea un gran riesgo especialmente durante los tiempos cuando fue producido. El gobierno de México tiene una historia corrupta y abusaba su poder frecuentemente. Aunque la película fue hecho en 1950, la película pareció ser muy avanzada para los tiempos, especialmente los temas que la película explora.
La película me hizo recordar la película La Ciudad de Dios porque a las dos cada muestra las vidas de los niños que sean victimas de la sociedad y inhabilidad cambiar su posición social. Sentí emociones diferentes hacia los niños en Los Olvidados porque mientras que sus situaciones fueran tristes y infortunadas, en el otro mano victimaban la gente mas débiles que ellos. Sin embargo el mensaje principal parte de la película es el hecho de que las familias promotaban su acciones abusivos. Por ejemplo Pedro deseaba que su madre le amara pero desde ella negaba le darlo y no el podía confiar en a nadie, por lo tanto el se rebelo contra el sistema. Es terrible que siquiera Metche y su abuelo no pudieran contar la policía sobre el asesinato de Pedro porque tenían miedo que serian eventualmente acusado. Entonces la película demostró que no hay justicia para las personas parte del clase trabajando. A mi pareció que el tema de abandonamiento sea el razón principal por los problemas mayorías y la gente no tiene influencia para cambiar su situación.

I think this film criticizes the inability of the system in place to reform individuals in Mexican society. The fact that Jaibo escaped from prison and actually became a worst person than he was before shows that prison is not the way to go since people do not progress when released to society. This in contrast with the farm school shows what should be done, or a better idea of what could benefit society. I am assuming that this type of school farm was not present at the time in Mexico and if it was, they were a very limited amount. The police throughout the movie were most of the time helpless and did not seem to work efficiently by themselves either.
The lower Mexican class at the time is reflected very thoroughly. They lived with animals that were used as a major food source, and their setting was not urbanized. Yet the movie shows aspects of the urban life very close to where the characters in the movie lived. This shows how the country is in a development state and there is still a great difference between the lower and middle class. Still there is no interaction between both classes. What I found most astonishing was that the boys took advantage of the weaker ones. They make the poor even poorer, and the miserable even more miserable. It seems that true feelings of compassion or deep feelings were only seen when it involved parents. Both Pedro and Jaibo had a connection to their respective mothers. Pedro tried to prove her he was a good kid, and seemed like he worked hard to please her. He could not achieve this due to the obstacles Jaibo put on him. Jaibo on the other side, although he had not seen his mother for many years, he could still remember her face and described her as if he had seen her the day before. When he was dying he could hear the voice of his mother in his head too. When he talked about his mother was the only point when his character showed some sensibility. Julian also had a strong connection with his father, as he would always take him from a bar because he was always drunk. The father mentioned how Julian worked so hard to feed the family. The movie also demonstrates the importance of the role of the parent in the children’s lives. As many children from the gang said at the start of the movie, they moved out of their houses because they didn’t stand their parents or vice-versa, which caused them to live in the streets.

“Los Olvidados” is a film that calls for social reform in a society where urbanization is calling for drastic measures on people’s lives and it creates a problem that lies in the core of every person. With the use of a very realistic form of filmmaking, obviously being influenced by neo-realism in Italian cinema at the time (with Visconti, and De Sicca being the forefathers of the movement after the second world war), Bunuel achieves his goal of conveying the true Mexico in the streets in this film. I thought that the main message of the film was about the dismissal of education in this society. Never once does an adult actually say “Go to school” but instead they say “Go to work”. Not only that but every time a parent is shown they are shown as either drunk or completetly despondent. This lack of encouragement is what probably leads the kids to a life in the street. What is interesting is that even when Pedro goes to school, it still teaches students about how to do manual work instead of actual school material. This goes back to the theme of urbanization because it suggests that eventually all those workers are going to specialize in some part of society and that they will not be able to move up in the world. That was actually one of the themes in neo-realism as well: the burgeois will always stay burgeois and the poor will always stay poor. This fear of industrialization ran throughout the late 40s, and 50s, and the dangers of industrialization is still seen in third world countries where the separation between the rich and the poor are becoming larger and the middle class is practically non-existent.

I always find it interesting to sympathize with characters that do wrongdoings. I never sympathized with el Jaibo, because he is always shown as cocky and the most violent of the crew, but I sympathized with the rest of the gang. The same that when I see a show like Dexter, or a film like Leon, if the main characters have a reason to do what they are doing and it is justified, you immediately side with them. In this film, at the start, I thought their only motivation was survival, but then I realized that this characters had agendas of their own. They wanted to feel loved, respected, cared after, that is why they go into deliquency. That makes you sympathize with the characters even more and feel a mixture of lament while at the same time rooting for them. I think that if the characters would not have been in the situation they were in (in need for survival in a neglecting society) they would have been viewed as monsters. A perfect example is in Lord of the flies. The characters turn to violence as a form of survival, yet because their actions are not explained in terms of society making them who they are, they are seen as monsters (of course it also has to do with the fact that the narration was biased towards the kids that did not lose their innocence and died for the cause, but even if it came from the point of view of the wild kids it would have still been seen as a loss of innocence)

Los olvidados has a lot of huge important themes, especially since Buñuel thought of it as a documentary, but I think that the relationships are the most interesting part of the film…the relationships between the gang and their parents, the relationships within the gang, and the relationships between the gang and others such as authority figures, animals and people who are weaker than them (the blind man and the legless man).
When I first heard about this movie, I thought that the kids were orphans who started a gang, so when I saw the movie and some of the kids had parents/authority figures in their lives I thought it was interesting that they did but still choose to rebel and be part of a gang. And also that Pedro still really cares about what his mom thinks of him even though he makes a lot of bad decisions. His dream about his mother convinces him to behave, and makes him realize that his relationship with Jaibo is a bad one…Jaibo tries to control him and pulls him into situations that’ll get both of them in trouble…but even after he tries to get out of Jaibo’s influence, he can’t escape him until they’re both dead. The gang picks on people who are weaker than them, so that they can take their money, and they run away from any authority figure that could potentially punish them. Also at the beginning, it seems like Buñuel is going to have Ojitos inspire the gang members to change because he’s from the country and he’s knowledgeable, and he has a good heart. I kind of missed what was happening when he was pretending to be sick, but I thought that in general that his relationship with the blind man was important because it showed that different behaviour is possible, especially when he starts to get mad at the blind man and starts to throw a rock at him, but then chooses not to…I thought that whole scene represented the possibility of making good choices if you want to make them. I wasn’t really clear about Pedro’s relationship with animals, or why chickens/roosters kept appearing everywhere when something good or bad happened. Pedro seemed to have a soft heart for animals, which could represent the good in him, but he was still willing to kill them at the farm when he got angry.

Today was the second time I watched the film and I was surprised that I did not feel as sad as I did the first time. I remember being very moved by the hatred and anger that the children felt in the movie and also very uncomfortable with the blind beggar character because of the way he rejected the past of time and the changes of social dynamics. I didn’t feel anything of that this time. I am actually worried of being so far removed from the reality shown in the movie that I can not feel for the community represented in the movie anymore. I think that they have become “those people” and
I have just become an audience.

My reason for telling my feelings with respect to the movie is to point out that “Los olvidados”, whether a documentary or not, does pretend to raise awareness about what is going on in the slums of Mexico city and therefore he has an specific audience in mind. Such audience are those who do not live in poor neighborhoods or who don’t experience the lost of a son in a gang fight. “Los olvidados” does a good job documenting various issues in expanding cities like marginalization of peripheral areas, delinquency, youth crime and family violence. The story line is so dramatic and intense that it makes the actual facts taken from reality even more shocking. Luis Bunuel adds a lot of dramatic elements to the movie like close captions to the chickens, dreams, coincidences and symbols that add to the intensity of the emotions that the characters deal with and therefore allow the view to get to know them.

In contrast to Aguila o Sol, the orphans of this movie are not as lucky and they end up being killed or abandoned. The women of both films are both supportive instead of protagonist but in “Los olvidados” women are shown as vulnerable and blameful instead of ideal beings.

Lo siento, soy poco tarde.

Los Olvidados ofrece un contraste interesante a Aguila o Sol. En las dos peliculas hay jovenes que viven la mayoria de sus vidas con no padres. En Aguila o Sol, los niños pueden tener una vida con mucho exito. Sin embargo, en Los Olvidados los niños viven una vida de crima. Lo que es interesante tambien es que en las dos peliculas, los niños no tienen padres principalmente porque no tienen bastante dinero.

Es una situacion dificil. Cuando niños como Pedro quieren tener independencia, y ser responsable, hay muchas influencias negativas en su vida que le impedi, como Jaïbo. Esta puede representar la vida de muchas personas en los barrios de Mexico – cuando intentan a vivir una vida responsable, honesta y positiva, como Pedro, hay barreras en todos los tiempos que vulentan de una esquina.

En mi opinion, Los Olvidados no esta un documentario. Sabo que el director hace muchas investigaciónes sobre los barrios en Mexíco antes de hacer la pelicula. Tambien, de que entiendo, una grande parte de los actores no sean profesionales, pero residentes de los barrios. Le da un aspecto realistico a la pelicula. Sin embargo, no hay entrevistas, discusiones, un narrator o un argumento; cosas tipicas de un documentario. Sin embargo, pienso que es una pelicula realistica, importanta, que demonstraba la vida en los barrios.

Me gusta Los Olvidados mucho, me recuerda de la pelicula Braziliana Ciudad de Dios.

Las peleas, las sangres, los madadores y los muertos, todos las cosas son sufrimiento; las ignorancias de los padres a sus hijos y las desesperaciones de los discapacidados me hace triste; el protagonista, Jaibo, me hace no sóla enojada pero simipatica al mismo tiempo. Todos las cosas malos se manifiestan por algunos cuentos pequeños que son en serie. Comparado con Águila or sol, Los olvidados es una tragedia pura que descubre las oscuridades en la sociedad Mexico.

Salvo el director de la escuela, no hay una persona en la película puede ser considerado completo en cuanto a la personalidad. Es claro que Jaibo es como una “basura”, pero otras personas también tienen puntos malos o hacen algunas cosas ilegales. Don Carmelo, el ciego, parece patético a principios del cine, pero lo que hace a la dama joven no es propio. No tiene los ojos, pierde su instrumento para pagar el dinero (es dañado por Jaibo) y no tiene una mujer. Con esta vida anormal, es abandonado por la sociedad; el govierno no descuida a los ciegos. Los chicos son más patéticos. Son abandonado por sus padres y por eso no tienen afectos desde la familia y además, abandonado por la sociedad que es legal trabajar como un niño; el govierno es débil a cultivar los chicos. Los padres son lamentable también, no saben por que se casan y no saben cómo educar sus hijos y cómo les dar el cariño. Jaibo es una persona que ya fue abandonada por la sociedad y que lastima a otras personas en el regreso. Por contraste, Pedro es olvidado, pero con mejor suerte. Todos están de clase baja, todos son víctimas y todos lastiman lo que están en la misma clase. Esta circunstancia parece un ciclo negativo sin fin, nunca va a terminar. Uno sólo “ángel” es el director de la escuela, quien representa la clase alta, que puede ayudar y cambiar de los chicos en clase baja.

La película es un bueno ejemplo de realismo social que manifiesta lo que pasa en realidad en Mexico y, espero que todo la sociedad y el govierno pueden ayudar la clase baja, porque después de todo, la literatura es para descubrir el problema, pero no puede solucionar el problema.