Category: Responses

When I started watching the film I thought it was a documentary. As the film progressed I realized it was actually a number of short stories or episodes of some sort. When I was watching it seemed like I was listening to a lecture or presentation on life of Mexico by people who went there for some time, did research, and wanted to show something different. It obviously does not present Mexico as it really is, as it leaves a number of important details behind, and just shows the obvious and most notorious parts of it. At a point it seemed like they were sort of promoting Mexico as an exotic place. The first half of the film specially, it looked like commercials, as it showed fruits and people dancing with no real narrative. I understand how this movie can have so many flaws in their overall objective of representing Mexico because it is foreign and from a really different culture. However, if they really wanted to represent Mexico, then they shouldn’t have just focused on such external events or stereotypical Mexicaness. I think the movie did not achieve its purpose, weather it was to entertain or to depict Mexico as it is. This makes me interested in what other cultures actually see Mexico as, or used to see it as. No real life in the city was shown either, and the richness in culture was just mentioned through images. Despite this, I think that it is not that bad because if they wanted to show this to Russia, they would have thought Mexico was a place so different from theirs that they would want to visit it or know more about it. It certainly gives an exotic impression of it. It is really interesting how Mexico is portrayed so differently in the view of Mexicans than in the view of foreigners. It was obvious that they were going to differ, but I didn’t know it was going to be to this extent. Mexicans concentrate more on social issues and how the culture is shaped contrary to the foreign films.

I actually felt that the scene of the women combing their hair wasn’t eroticized. I felt that the camera wanted to depict a closeness to nature and basic man. If you see Concepcion and her betrothed, he is looking at her face, not her breasts or what would be expceted for it to be erotic. I was quite hit by that scene, actually, because they looked so wholesome and innocent. It was quite edenic to me, them topless in nature.

From what I understood from the presenter the movie was sponsored and administered by Americans therefore I doubt that tit was aimed to soviet audiences or that it intended to provoke communist pride. In fact, I think that the movie ended up in a museum in New York.

I liked the way the movie was divided in different sections, however the last part (in the cactus plantation) took over the first part-at least for me- because of the story that was told about the abused fiance. i would have liked the movie better had the director kept the documentary like style

I found the Que Viva Mexico to be an interesting film even though it seemed a little disorganized in terms of the storyline. It appeared to be made as a documentary in the first half which showed the traditions and lifestyles in Mexico and the other half about a story of a man trying to get his fiancée back and fighting alongside the other peasants against the landlords. As a soviet production it seemed as though they focused on showing the strength of the Mexican people as they banded together when needed and showed they’re solidarity and loyalty amongst themselves during a time of necessity. In a way I felt that the filmmakers were trying to find a common ground in order to be able to relate this as a form of communism. Because the film was essentially made for a Russian audience, it was almost an attempt to show their countrymen that communism exists in different places and in different forms and that there should be a sense of pride because of that. It can almost be considered as a form of propaganda. Another interesting element was the way the film depicted a kind of Mexico where the men and women worked and were found side by side; that a sense of equality was shown, except for the second part of the movie where the upper class took advantage of the girl. Compared to the other movies that we have watched where either the man or woman were depicted as dominant or weak, in this one they showed each other to be alike. Like the one scene where the guy’s daughter went alongside with the other cowboys to hunt down the rebels. She was out there firing that gun showing that she can be just as effective and courageous as the others, although she does end up getting killed.

An interesting component in the Que Viva Mexico is the limited use of dialogue and when there was some, mainly from the narrator in Russian; sounds seemed to be re-produced in the studio. The presenter did mention that the movie was incomplete and that some elements had obliviously been added such as the scene during the bullfight as a camera was mounted on a bull to produce the sensation of bulls’ perspective and that the viewer was riding the bull. One last thing to mention is my curiosity with the fascination with the skulls and faces and as to why the camera seemed to do a lot of close ups of them.

Well, before putting my fingers onto the keyboard, i pondered this movie for quite a while. I missed the prologue, but still, i like it, for its distinct style and way of portraying, and my biggest impression is that it’s really a typical Soviet one.

1. about music:
I thought it was an ancient documentary made by whatever country at first, until the last background soundtrack struck an exhilarating chord in my heart, I realized that it could only be a Soviet one. I’m totally not political, but due to my secluded memory traced back to my early ages for the influence of “red revolutionary radicalism” from Soviet countries, I definitely catch the theme (at least to my understanding). For the ending music, it just can’t be more soviet and radical (e.g. another famous soviet song is The Sacred War in 1980′, and both of them are representative soviet socialism). Sergei put it at the end of the moive, and i guess he did it with an obvious intention – to lay a stress on the circumstances under the revolution of social democracy in Mexico at early 20th century. As a soviet director, the mexican vital land and its contemporary social reformation surely inflamed Sergei’s curiosity and fervor. As far as i know, Mexico and other Latin american countries like Chile and Argentina had already achieved success of the reformation of socialism, which unquestionably evoked an echo in the heart of Sergei.

2. about Soviet montage:
Basically this movie is composed of several different sections, with each story contains a particular topic belonging to a specific historical background. Except the maguey part (which signifies oppression and rebellion between serfowners and local slaves), there’s nearly no plot! However i think i can tell what those different symbols or props mean when they are been “mechanically” put together. e.g. for the skulls and skeletons part, although people are dancing and even children are eating the sugar skull, since i have no knowledge on the “day of the dead” and because of my own cultural background, i can’t persuade myself to accept the fact that it’s not a weird festival. Until the last scene which i remember is a close shot of a boy’s smiling face, i believe people are really feeling somewhat “happy” that day, and it’s probably because their attitude toward death is optimistic. In short, this kind of segmented shots provide me a lot of space of imagination.

3. about aesthetics of violence:
It can hardly be categorized as a strict documentary or a feature film. Some sections have no voice-over at all, with only pure soundtrack, and story-like plot; but others are more like a documentary with a voice-over, but with no plot at all. Sergei put the documentary elements, the scenes for depicting the story plot, and actions like violence all together, forming a somewhat fabricated movie with a scenario which is demonstrated through a documentary way. Thus on the relationship between pure arts and material reality, Sergei stirs up the clear ambit of artificiality and documentary reality, which envelops the ability and the approach for an audience to comprehend the script and the society depicted in the movie by themselves.

I’ve never watched such kind of movie before. For me, it’s so unique.

Viva Mexico seemed to be drawn to the cultural aspects of Mexico that would be of interest to any foreigner. There were a lot of elements in the film that indicated the time it was filmed. The film took the approach of a documentary in the initial scenes, yet as the film progressed it was more planned and no longer sustained that feeling. The plot was very loose and the film appeared to have no objective, but to serve as merely a documentation of life in Mexico. However the voice over seemed to adopt a superior and arrogant stance in relation to the people. The gaze of the camera eroticized the women combing their hair and projected stereotypes onto the culture. The second half of the film took a different stance and a story-line was developed, in which the characters were acting out the plot. The film went from neutral and somewhat objective to making social commentary about Mexico’s elite. As a result this film was the first of its kind and appeared to set the stage for later films such as Los Olvidados.
At the beginning of the film the director explains that the filming was done over a period of two months, but remained unfinished. As a result, the scenes that are shown seem random and it is as if the director just made up some dialogue to merely accompany the shots. The story-lines were so disconnected from each other and had little to no relevance to one another.
The first part of the film seems to be much more genuine and artistic. Yet this artistic identity is not sustained over time and the film tries to appeal to too many genres. It is as if the director initially decided he wanted to film a love story and then suddenly in the middle of the film he decided he was more interested in making an action film. Initially, I felt like I was a spectator at the zoo, watching these people perform their cultural traditions. The people were very disconnected, even when they made eye contact with the gaze of the camera. Their culture was romanticized, such as when the woman cut the top off of a coconut and handed it to the man swinging in the hammock. These are the images that give people the sort of romanticized impressions they have about Mexico.
The director did have a sound understanding about Dia del Muertos and how the cultural tradition “mocks death.” This really resonated within me because as I have also experienced, Dia del Muertos is a unique holiday because it celebrates life and unlike many cultures, it does not see death as a taboo subject. People in fact spend the entire night in the cemetery with food and family unlike other cultures that fear the cemetery.
The music had a large influence over the way the characters were seen. Light and sweet music accompanied the Native women, whereas loud and boisterous chords were played when the bad characters were shown. Yet at the same time the music was quite random and there was little consistency.
I really have no concrete opinion about this film, in fact I felt pretty indifferent to it.

I really enjoyed this movie. Specifically though, I was really intrigued by the deep connections the filmmakers make between the Mexico they film and nature and the past. The first part, in which they observe the ruins, and the people are integrated into the ruins really affected me. In doing this, they showed how the identity of true Mexico is kept intact even after the assimilation forced upon them by the Spaniards. The long shots of peoples faces as they mirror the statues of the temples spoke voliumes to me. This creates a kind of exaltation of Mexican identity we haven’t seen before; it makes me think of the grandeur of the Aztecs and how it has not gone away. A part of the narration I could not forget is when the narrator says “It is a kingdom of death, where the past rules the future.” This stabalizes a connection with the true base of Mexican Identity which hasn’t been changed by the present state of Mexico.
I think this film is able to create a Mexico in an honest way. This is aided by the discourses the narrator presents. He tells of Concepcion and the bull fighter, both representing common Mexicans in a positive light who become representations of the country’s people.
The connection to nature, as seen in the constant shots of animals frolicking and what not, and the people relaxing in nature without the aid of material goods shows a kind of value to Mexican identity. A connection to nature to me signifies a connection to virtue and exsistelntial truthfulness.
For these reasons, the constant images of nature and the past, this film is a far greater representation of Mexican identity than others we have seen. Though the film somewhat generalizes, it steers away from making stock characters and critiquing them. The film brings to light the values of Mexico rather than condemming it for the faults so many other representations dwell on .

This movie was weird and random and I didn’t understand it. I didn’t understand the general statement or the purpose of it. I thought it was really artistic…the photography was amazing at first…in the beginning of the movie when they compared people in the present with the sculptures of people from the past the lighting and angles were beautiful…there was one where they showed the slant of the pyramid and it filled up most of the shot. In the rest of it they showed a face…In the end, it’s not that it wasn’t as artistic, but it seemed like they put a lot of effort into the first part and then in the end they showed really cheesy parts (like when the woman got shot and then she did the worst death that I’ve ever seen acted out and then the music goes from a solo timpani to a really loud gong and then you see her hat rolling down the hill…i couldn’t believe how cheesy that part was, especially with the combination of the death and the gong) ..so i guess my point is that the movie’s quality isn’t consistent.
Also, the music was inconsistent both by itself and with its relationship with the rest of the movie. The movie reminded me of Batalla en el Cielo in that it focused a lot on the artistic and sound. Like he said, it’s about expression, not communication. That’s what this felt like too even though it’s probably not meant to. I really loved the piece in the opening scene (the one that re-occurred twice later in different variations)…the piece used Mexican instrumentation, but had Russian influence (chromatic harmonies, humming, etc.), so it seemed like the composer was Russian and tried to interpret Mexican music but still have a European identity so that it could reach out to Europeans. It wasn’t until a scene in the middle (I think it was after the weird pilgrimage) where they finally played pure Mexican music…the one where people are dancing in the town…and then later at the bull fight, they also played traditional music, but I think it could have been Spanish instead of Mexican…I don’t know. Also, when they were in that weird house thing, and there’s music going on, but then the camera shows a picture of that General guy (I forget who he was) and they put in a random dramatic musical statement with a kind of darker instrumentation to kind of say “watch out, he’s bad.” And then earlier, they were in that house and the music was playing and then all of a sudden on top of it there were weird random drones. So weird.
But the other part of the whole music thing is that other than the bull fight, and the part where the girls are singing in the paradise-type place with the monkeys it didn’t seem to fit in…it seemed like the composer wrote a bunch of music and then placed it anywhere. Like I kind of said before, I noticed the music more because the movie was mostly sound and images.
The movie also reminded me of the movie Soy Cuba. It is also Russian, and it exaggerates the Cuban point of view of the relationship between Cuba and the USA…if i understood this movie more, I would probably be able to see more examples of how Russia is exaggerating/its interpretation-other than the music. By the time the movie was half way through, I was bored because I didn’t know what to think.

I just read on IMDB that this is a masterpiece, and that the author of the review puts this film right up there next to Citizen Kane and Casablanca. I think this is an exxageration in every sense of the word. I didn’t think this film was good or bad, im completely indifferently to it.The first part of the film, the part in the jungle where the couple was shown in all of their stages: courtship, marriage, having a son, reminded me a lot of documentaries I saw in Peru about the jungle. There is this weird sense of separation between these natives and the audience, almost as you are watching a National Geographic special. The camera is there but because there is no dialogue and the music aids in giving the scene a sense of mystical mystery, the audience never feels like they know the people. I think there is a sense of Latin America to sell the magical and exotic parts of their country to the world, there are commercials promoting tourism even today that show the Mexican jungle and natives running around. Now, I think that promoting tourism is really great, but what I always wondered is this: is what the tourists seeing really real? For example, I went to Cuzco and people there thought I was a tourist from outside Peru, and they treated me differently once they knew I was actually from Lima. They became more relaxed and friendly, and stopped treating me with this bizarre sense of respect. So I wonder: is this exotic tourism a vicious cycle in which the tourists go and expect something, and as a job the people act in that certain way? Did Eisenstein go into the jungle expecting to see people act in a certain manner, and hence, once they saw they were getting paid, the people from the jungle started acting the manner he wanted it to be? The reason I went on this tangent is because I didn’t know why I thought this movie was not good, but now I realize its because its a construct of a construct. We are not seeing anything real, we are seeing the natives act in the manner that Einsenstein wanted them to act, but apart from that, Eisenstein (or whoever edited this) constructed a story to give it a sense of exoticism because that is what he saw. I know this might sound weird, but I can’t get it out of my head. I always thought those documentaries they showed us in school about the jungle were fake, it had that weird acting like if they were on a reality TV show or something. But this film takes it a step further and adds a narrative, making it less rialable because the images have to fit the story. I am going to stop thinking about this film as a documentary and more as a fiction film so I can actually judge it.
As a fiction film, it has some good points and some bad points. First of all, the bull fighting sequence is really well shot and edited to give the sense of ultimate and uncontrallable death. It is not Eisenstein best, Eisenstein’s best is the Odessa sequence, but this sequence juxtaposes the idea of tradition and values. While we are seeing the bull fighting sequence from the POV of the bull (this suggests we have to have pity for the bull), there are also sequences showing the audience applauding the death of the bull. This makes us think: this tradition is horrible, but it is a part of their culture. The bullfighter is actually admired and applauded, while the only thing he has done is kill a bull. This interesting play on values make us realize that this is a culture that is different from the viewers and we have to respect it. I didn’t like the Magey sequence though. It was the most narratively focused of the 5, and I think this was its major flaw. It completely destroyed the idea that this could actually occur, and created a more of a melodramatic tragedy. The acting was over the top, and although some scenes where well shot, the editing was nothing of Eisenstein worth. I think that because it broke the style of the film it failed to work as strongly as the others. The score was also very much a narrator in this part, much more than in the others, almost mockingly.
Anyway, it was an OK film. Maybe if Eisenstein would have finished it, it would have become the political vehicle Battleship was, but he didn’t, so this is just another representation of Latin America through a tourists eyes. Go to facebook and check your friends pictures’ of their first trip to Latin America and you will see similar photographs, guaranteed.

There is something very enigmatic about Eisenstein’s approach to “Montage”.
Especially moving were the huge amount of close-up shots of the face, made even more dynamic by the casting of real mexican people as opposed to actors. The faces were creased and weathered, and seemed to tell a million stories on their own. There were also, as in most Eisenstein films, a couple close ups of men with their eyes rolled all the way back in their head leaving only the whites of their eyes. This image seems to evoke extreme suffering, and perhaps looking towards god. I’m interested to hear what others thought.
And the pilgrimage! Crazy! Was that staged? The shot of the three men with the cacti on their back standing on a rock and turning towards the camera was wild!
Anyway.
I loved the beginning of the film (Not the part with the old guy talking but once the actual film started) that took the human form, and specifically the mexican people, and directly paired it with the land, the history and the monuments. It had a huge impact on me and I felt that the shots were at the same time respectful to the culture, but also removed and uninformed. There was a sense of awe established by the shot construction about these stone figures and symbols, a very light physical comparison of the facial features on both the mexican people and the stone people, but a lack of any explanation with regards to significance that these symbols have. I wonder if this will be a reoccurring theme in the films we watch next? I imagine there will be either a complete lack of explanation, a mistake with regards to certain represented symbols, OR a total over emphasized explanation of a specific mexican symbology that would never be expressed if the film was made by a mexican filmmaker. That’s a theory anyway…
Regardless, the soviet style and mentality definitely showed itself in the film and I enjoyed the idea mentioned in class about the Mexican revolution providing an ideal narrative and story for how it relates to Stalin’s communist USSR.
I also enjoyed the film…
Nice.

Esta película es muy diferente que las otras que hemos visto en la clase. Mi primera impresión de la película es que es muy pictórica. Las primeras escenas consisten de imágenes quietas que son casi como fotografías y no son solamente fotos pero fotos aterradoras.

Hay varias escenas que ocurren más tarde en la película también que parecen como fotos por ejemplo, hay este hombre que monta a caballo (se echa a caballo?), los tres hombres que están de pie sobre el monte con el cielo detrás de ellos, etc.
Algo que captura mi atención es que hay dos estilos distintos dentro de la película. Hay una parte que es más documental y real mientras hay otra que es más novelada y arreglada. El principio y el fin de la película parecen mucha más natural y real cuando el resto parecen más arreglada. Por lo tanto, como Alyssa, me sorprendo un poco porque al principio de la película, el hombre menciona que la mayoría de la película consiste de documental y poco de acting.

Sin embargo, me gusta la parte de actuación. Pienso que es muy bien hecho considerando el límite de tecnología y la omisión de palabras. La película incluye mucha detalle de la vida mexicana en aquel tiempo: los estilos de vestir, estilos de beber, estilos de vivir, etc. Siento mal para las mujeres porque tienen que trabajar tanto para obtener la vida que quiere mientras los hombres no hacen mucho. Las mujeres tienen que trabajan desde niñez para tener su collar de oro cuando los hombres se relajan en las hamacas (or so it seems).

Me gusta cómo los mexicanos perciben la muerte. Ellos no tienen miedo de la muerte desemejante a norteamericanos y asiáticos. En Taiwan, la palabra muerte es un tabú que es mejor no la mencionamos.

¡Que viva México! provides an unexpected point of view of Mexico from Russia. I think the film sincerely attempts to provide a picture of a “true” Mexico. What I found interesting is what they show and what they don’t show. The movie starts off by showing a landscape of Mexico, and then goes into the people and the revolution. What I find is interesting, especially compared to the other movies we’ve watched so far, is the lack of the representation of the city as a space. Mexico city was and still is a rapidly growing urban centre. Mexico was represented as an almost barren land. I’m not sure how much I liked the lack of a clear plot. It was pretty hard to really get to know or develop the characters. This could stem from the film’s attempt to display Mexico as a whole collective rather than exploring the individual, which could be influenced from the film’s communist roots.

I liked the authentic feel of the film but I’m not sure if the lack of dialog/plot worked for me.

Los rituales al rededor de la muerte incluyendo el funeral del fallecido fueron las escenas que envolvieron todos los demas temas de la pelicula y por esto creo el director y los productores representan mexico como una sociedad donde la muerte es parte escensial de la cultura.

En Sandunga la vida indigena post-colonial es representada y contrastada con la vida de los indigenas durante la epoca precolombina. Este primer clip se desarrolla al rededor de un matrimoio. Creo que esta parte simboliza la vida y el inicio de la familia.

Fiesta, Maguey estan mas relacionadas con el tema de la muerte. En fiesta se representa la muerte de Jesus y el sufrimiento religioso de los mexicanos. La religion es presentada como fuente de temor y de sacrificio pero tambien de profunda devocion. En esta parte tambien se muestra la fiesta brava que basicamente es el asecinato de un toro. Aqui la muerte produce emocion y adrenalina en los personajes de la pelicula. Maguey tambien explora el tema de la muerte pero enta vez es de hombres y del honor.

Soldadura tambien tenio como objeto explorar la muerte pero esta vez durante la guerra y no como una situacion aislada pero comun en la sociedad.

Otros temas adicionaless tambien son explorados en la pelicula como la opresion de la clase campesina por los latifundistas, el meztizaje cultural entre europa y america y la conexion entre los campesinos e indigenas con la tierra. Este ultimo tema se desarrolla principalmente en maguey, donde la planta sirve de refugio, fuente de entretencion y trabajo y espectador de la lucha entre clases y la muerte.

Me parecio que esta pelicula combina muy bien el paisaje con la cultura y toca temas escenciales en la idosincracia mexicana, sin embargo me parece que el ritmo y el sentimiento transmitido en las primeras dos partes de eploracion y adentramiento en mexico se pierde en maguey porque hay demasiado enfoque en la historia de un solo individuo y la pelico parece tener una narrativa.

En cuanto al a parte tecnica me gusto cuando las personas eran sobrepuestas con objetos porque la relacion entre el espacio construido por el hombre (edificios, esculturas, plantas, canous) y la cultura era obvio y expresivo. Tambien me gustaron los acercamientos a los rostros de las personas y la ambientacion musical porque de algun modo me transportaban a Mexico. No obstante, la mayoria de las representaciones de las personas en la pelicula son cliches modernos que no expressan la identidad mexicana pero ciertos habitos que se mantienen en la cultura para exportar o unir a la nacion pero que no son relevantes en la realidad de la misma.