• Search for:

• Recent Posts

  • Overview of Span 404
  • Closing post
  • Summary
  • Class Response
  • Summary Con’t

• Blogroll

  • French, Hispanic, and Italian Studies
  • LAST201: Popular Culture in Latin America
  • Latin American Studies
  • SPAN364: Survey of Spanish-American Literature to the 1820s
  • SPAN365: Magical Realism Reconsidered
  • SPAN401: Spanish-English Translation

• Contributors

  • Alyssa Satterwhite’s SPAN 404 Blog
  • Blake Harris
  • Carolina’s Cinema of Mexico blog
  • ESPANOL 404
  • Lauren’s Blogger
  • Marianne B.log
  • Max’s Blog
  • Posthegemony
  • Rose Finn SPANLIT comments
  • smegtoad
  • SPAN 404
  • Span 404 — Cinema of Mexico
  • Span404
  • Span404 entries
  • Spanish 404
  • 千曜七七 (Angell)

Personally I don’t have much special feeling about this moive.

It’s definitely long and the plot is huge, composed of a series of stories. All roles seem “bravo”,

and the last shootout is tremendous, so perhaps for guys, this is really exciting.

I don’t like the excessive violence in it, but I marvel at Peckinpah’s shooting and editing

techniques, with my assumption that there has no “computer artificiality” been invented to

modify and embellish the shots at that epoch. So I was always wondering how he did it when I

saw the sparging of blood and particularly the shot of the explosion of the timber bridge and the

falling down of those horses. I guess Peckinpah would be one of the pioneers of this kind of

violent action movies, and also, maybe editing plays an important role in it.

I thought that this movie was the most interesting one so far since reading break. I liked it because it wasn’t in a documentary style, and just in general, the way it was directed, it was more interesting than the movie last week.
I watched the movie with subtitles and I thought that it was weird that they didn’t translate the Spanish dialogue into English. I understand that they were in Mexico most of the time and the director probably wanted to capture as much of the culture as possible (I think that this is why I liked the movie better than last week where the culture was pretty much just shown in the beginning), so they wanted to have people speaking in Spanish. But there were entire conversations that went on for a few minutes that weren’t translated, for example when Teresa and Angel are talking, so it made me wonder who the audience was meant to be, and if all of them were expected to understand both languages. The rest of the movie seemed to aim towards Americans, language-wise, for example, when they said the word ‘gringo,’ they usually surrounded it with English so that the audience could understand them.
I also thought it was weird that the only American women in the movie were in the beginning in the Temperance Union, and the rest of the woman were Mexican, and half of them were naked most of the time. I don’t know what the movie’s trying to say, because it wasn’t really the common message that Americans are superior…Angel was Mexican and he was always part of the family to the group. No matter what country they were in, all of the groups were just looking for the “prize” whether it be money or guns, and race didn’t matter. In fact, the rich and powerful people were mainly Mexican, the General.
This wasn’t extremely obvious to me until the end, but there was a kind of layering effect that ended up being kind of humourous. Like I said before, all of the groups were looking for a prize of some sort. It ended up being a kind of chase, but each team was different. The ‘wild bunch’ was really smart,and in the bounty hunter group, there was only one smart guy and the rest weren’t as capable, and the soldiers were rich but stupid, which was obvious when they were trying out the machine gun and when they tried to convince the wild bunch to follow them to the General – in that part, the wild bunch outsmarted them. So in the end, you might have thought that the rich people would have won because they had money, and now guns, and that the bounty hunters would have continued to lose, or maybe you wouldn’t have thought that, but what happened was that for the most part the General and his followers died first, and then the wild bunch, and then for the most part, the bounty hunters. Only one person from the two bottom groups survived, and the people from the Mexican town, who were considered the weakest because they didn’t have weapons. Most of them survived, except Angel and Teresa, who had left the town to try to be something bigger.

I don’t have too many positive things to say about this movie. This film as well as Touch of Evil, both relate to a Mexican theme in a very similar way: both show how Hollywood cinema portrays Mexico and sets up relations between the US and Mexico through pseudo-imperialistic relationships; the Mexicans are the whores, the slaves, the savages, the idiots, while the Americans commandeer them, corale them, and condescendingly show them a “real” way of life. This film in particular equates the wild n’ crazy cowboys with no morals or scruples with the Mexican way of life. Beyond depicting America’s patronizing and belittling view of Mexico, this movie should not be qualified as Mexican whatsoever.
As a woman and as someone who is beginning to write screenplays, I hated this movie. I do consider myself a feminist, but not a righteous, ignorant one. I can get down to Mac Dre and listen to him rap about bitches and hos if the lyrics and/or the music have redeeming value. But considering this film had very little value for me, I couldn’t tolerate how much it equated women, especially Mexican women, as nothing but sexual objects. There was not one female character in this two and a half hour movie that wasn’t some sort of a prostitute; literal or figuratively. This made me want to vomit by the end.
As an American, I’ve grown up having Mexican friends. My dad was born in Mexico, and his siblings grew up there. In many ways I feel more of a connection with Mexican culture than with that of American. I understand how Hollywood always has portrayed Mexico as America’s bitch, but that doesn’t make me agree with this idea, especially when I’ve seen so many more, better movies in my previous Spanish classes about Mexicans trying to cross the border and seeing how harrowing that experience is.
The screenplay for this was one of the worst I’ve ever experienced. The dialogue was very much that of the time and genre, neither of which I’m generally into. Old western movies are not among my favorites, and with painfully contrived dialogue and the whole movie being violent, sexist, and racist, there was very little I found tolerable. The frequent zoom-in shots (also of the time and genre) made for the extra dated aspect.

This is my first time watching the Wild Bunch and I thought it was an excellent movie. It’s the type of movie that keeps you interested from start to finish because of the strong acting and storyline along with great action and suspense. The movie showed a lot of violence that must have been quite graphic for its time in the 60’s as the director tried to give a realistic portrayal of how they used to live in that era, which was set in the early 1900’s. From the beginning sequence when they robbed the bank to the general cutting Angels throat which subsequently leads into the graphic gun battle of the soldiers massacre and their own death at the end of the movie, there was no shortage of violence. I found an interesting element in the movie when they decide to deal with the general to steal American weapons from the train. It kind of brought to the forefront the issue of arms dealing and how it can affect a regions stability. The idea that money can impair Pike’s conscience to decide to equip an army after he has seen first hand the abuse Mapache has done to his own people such as to the villagers in Angel’s town. But also as he provides weapons to the general he does agree to Angel’s terms to allow him to take some weapons for the villagers for his share of his money as Pike sees the town’s right to defend themselves. And as the terms of the sale are spearheaded by the German advisors it shows that all parties are interested in attaining advanced weaponry to later get the upper hand in their agendas.

I read that the film used some cinematography that was advanced for its time with the use of multi-angle editing with wide angle camera lens which was central for the live action and outdoor shots, such as the scene where just after Pike threatens to blow up the weapons the camera later pans above the canyon to capture the generals soldiers ride off on both sides to retreat back to the camp. This scene captures the grand landscape in the background and the canyon below as you see the soldiers ride quickly. And also the shot of the “long walk” as they make their way back to Mapache’s to get Angel. Another element in the movie was the kind of feeling that the end of an era was upon Pike and the gang and the sense that they new it as he was looking for his last big job to call it quits. He uses a great line “We’ve got to start thinking beyond our guns. Those days are closing fast” which sums up what they are feeling and coming to the realization that times are a changin. You kind of sense it when Pike has kind of lost his touch as he tries to mount the horse he looses his footing, but also when they check out Mapache’s automobile as they inspect it with such fascination and also the new form of weaponry they find intriguing when they first see the machine gun. Along with the “old ways” was that loyalty that Pike finds so important. The way Pike decides to agree and help the general to steal the arms in order to avoid a confrontation for Angel with the general, or when the four decide to go back to save Angel from being killed, when Pike mentions Deke’s loyalty to the railroad as he pursued him and when Pike has the dream when he realizes he had dishonored his fellow gang member Deke after he leaves him behind during the raid. They all had a sort of ‘code of honor’ among them which was fading with the times.

I really disliked this movie. The plot of the film was convoluted and made little sense to me. I was not even sure until the end of the movie who the main protagonists were or whether or not I was supposed to even sympathize with them. Those characters who were followed throughout the majority of the film were never fully developed and therefore I had no feelings of attachment to them, especially when they died. In fact, I was overjoyed when one of the female characters actually managed to obtain some power; shooting one of the men a part of the grotesque group. I did have some hope for the plot at the beginning of the film, yet over time the men became less human and more monstrous. The film seemed to be influenced by a pastiche of other works, involving conquests of power and the concept of manifest destiny. The novel, Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, specifically came to mind while watching The Wild Bunch, as the men are led through the unknown world of Mexico. Like Africa, which was considered the “dark continent,” when Heart of Darkness was written is like the Mexican culture depicted in the film, as the people were put on display as something enigmatic and almost primitive. Like the novel, there seems to be a split between civilization and barbarianism. Anything that is unknown and unfamiliar to the men, is emphasized as something primitive. Yet on the other hand, the unknown is also eroticized. The women are depicted as disposable, as they are extremely sexualized and seem to be only good for one thing, sex. As a result, the people are only seen as spectacles, appearing savage-like and untamed. The women merely aid the men as their foils, while the men drive the plot forward. For example, after Angel has killed his “ex-girlfriend,” he is accused of plotting the death of the leader of the Federales. However, once he makes it clear that he was just jealous and only had the intentions of killing his ex-girlfriend, everything is overlooked. The film forces the women to function within a man’s world, only as objects of their desire. The film, The treasure of the Sierra Madre also seemed to influence the Wild Bunch. Like Humphrey Bogart, the outlaws also become more coniving and hungry for power. They are corrupted by their desires and blinded by their conquest.
The Wild Bunch exploits Mexican culture, especially the cultural traditions, as they show the older women having a funeral for the ex-girlfriend of Angel. When the group of men first visit Angel’s village, the way the people were depicted, reminded me of the first film we watched, in which the culture was portrayed as peaceful and exotic, as the women were shown in their maternal roles. Throughout the film, when Mexican “culture” was shown, the Mexican fanfare would start up, indicating romance and well, drunken bafoonery. For example when some of the men from the group get together with the Mexican women, they are laughing and drinking, while the same joyous music plays in the background. The women have no objection and allow themselves to be groped and canoodled.
Some other elements of the film that caught my attention were the amount of zoom-in shots. I am not sure if these were suppose to excite the audience and cause for dramatic tension or what the director’s strategy was. Another element I noticed was how the men were always laughing, whether it was out of cruelty or pure joy. This just goes to show that comedy does often take root at someone else’s expense. In the beginning when the scorpion is attacked by the ants, perhaps this is suppose to foreshadow the mens’ destinies, as the children laugh at the scorpion’s misfortune. Overall, I thought the film had cheap entertainment value and had little to no resolution.

I think that if we look at this film and ask ourselves, how does it construct Mexico? we can draw a number of conclusions. However, I think that since most movies from now on do not represent Mexico as it is, it is more interesting to look at why they chose to do what they did in the movie. I think the character of Quinlan is very interesting because it had an effect on what the people thought of the police. For his whole career as a police man he had planted false evidence so that the cases would be closed. The whole intent for this I think is so that fear disappears from the people and society lives peacefully. He does not work alone however, he has his crew that helps him. When Vargas sees this he becomes really annoyed by this. They have a conflict on what a cop is supposed to do and how they are supposed to do it. Here we see two stories that in their own country are seen as one of the best if not the best on their job, but each with a different way of taking care of things. From the eyes of foreigners, this says that Mexicans don’t really follow rules and Americans do. I’m not saying that they are saying this is for everything but probably for some issues or identities like the police for example. Another interesting point in this movie was that Vargas’ wife seemed to be a little racist towards the Mexicans. She called Pancho a guy that she had never met before just because it was a very Mexican name but really had no other intention than probably mock him. She didn’t seemed scared either when she was taken because “they had something for her husband”. But that can be attributed to her strong character.

In response to Hudson404, I also thought that was interesting how Charlton Heston was made to look Mexican with face paint. Pease comments in his article that originally Heston was cast to play the role of a white detective, yet this part was eventually changed and instead, he was forced to “make himself up in brown.” Perhaps the American characters are always demanding that English be spoken, merely for the sake of Heston’s character. In reality this was only to cover up his real identity and instead of functionion as a way of social commentary, it was in reality just a way of covering up character flaws. If the film did have Hispanic actors, why didn’t the film crew just hire a Hispanic lead? This seems to emphasize the fact that the American film industry did consider themselves superior in relation to other countries.
In response to Elena I don’t believe we should look at the representation of reality in this film. However if we were to consider how this film reflected present day society, we could consider it having some social commentary about the way people treat one another and the injustice that can be found within any country. Last Thursday we talked about how there are several different types of reality. On the other hand, with time, reality has seemed to be locked in place and defined by how realistic the events are that place within the film. But I do not think this is Welles intension, instead I believe this film was about experimentation. The fact that Heston was an American playing a Mexican could be considered experimental in itself and as Mario stated in his blog, the film would take on a completely different stance and feeling, had a Mexican actor played the main role.

I think that the regard of the border encompasses almost the entire core of the film’s thematic purpose. The division between these two nations establishes the dominance of Hank, but also allows for his downfall. It creates the division between Susan and Mike that we deem unimportant: they are not of the same country, they are divided aswell. I hope that we in class discuss the issue of the border in the film. I think that it was the catalyst for the conflict of the film; the business man whose car explodes is going there to enjoy more freedom, one could say, but his assumptions are wrong, and he ends up taking such freedom for granted. I cant help but think that its very important that the film begins at a border town, and ends in the river which separates them…

RESPONSE TO HUDSON404: I think that the actions of the hotel clerk speak to the directro’s attempt to show that Susan is as unsafe on that side of the border as on the other. It actually seems to me that she gets into much more trouble at the motel, then in Mexico when she willingly goes to Grande’s house and he ensures her that noone is keeping her there, and she may do as she wants.The reading talks about this critique on the border’s state of law.

It’s so annoying to be late for the movie but finally I’ve got to watch the first 3 minutes. It’s really a long shot, and i personally guess that the underscoring of the scene might be the most interesting one. Welles uses different sounds of, like, footstep, car horn, and broadcasting music to create an atmosphere that triggers me to “expect” something to happen on that particular car. I think its relationship between vision and sound goes quite effective, so I believe that background music weighs a lot in this movie.

The musical color in the movie is also remarkable. It differs from background sound, which pumps the sense of reality of the setting directly into my mind. Instead, Welles shots on desert landscape, the littery beard on officer Hank’s face, and the filthy riverside…all these things contribute to a musical color that brings me a feeling of desolation.

The plot is fluctuant, absorbing and complete – good, for that i no need to rack my brain to conjecture what happens in the story, so i like this kind of movie in the way that saving my brain cells. Also I wanna express my praise for this plot. There is no character in the film is perfect to me, even the male protagonist, because the way Welles portrays makes me consider that this character is a fictional and typical one who is standing for justice. Well, I have to confess that i have a bias against American films, especially Hollywood ones, because many NOWADAY Hollywood productions are tragically becoming a useful instrument for those politicians to control public voice (eg. i never take those hollywood shots on mainland china or hongkong seriously), but this one might shows the truth. It reminds me of Traffic, which might also be what truely happens in US and Mexico, but that one to me is a little bit heroic and nationalist. I guess Welles tries to demonstrate the story in a “realistic” sense.

I think that the purpose of the story teller was to humanize the bad cop (Hank). She seemed to be her lover or concubine. I think that the director did not want us to see Hank just as an evil being but as a human.
I thought that the begging was strange specially because of the attitude of the wife towards the bandits that were following her. She was so fake and ridiculous demanding towards them. However, as u said I did focus my attention on Susan and Vargas after the incident with the bandits and I forgot about the car accident

Like Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil has an ominous nature to it as it utilizes noir techniques. The plot seemed to take many twists and turns. The style of the film reminded me of Citizen Kane as the opening scene begins with lurking shadows and faceless footsteps. This scene seems to set the mood of the film, as the audience follows the honest police, Vargas, around in his quest to seek truth. During the majority of the film, the audience does not have any grounds for truth. Yet we readily accept that Vargas is the good cop, simply because he is the first character we are introduced to and as a result we instantly develop an attachment to him. Ironically the cop that is assumed bad ends up being right in his premonitions about Sanchez, which we only find out after he dies. The first scene, where the murder takes place in reality does not play a central role within the l storyline. Instead this scene functions as a way of displacing the viewer. The film’s primary concern is to bring the bad cop to justice and to reveal his fraudulent behavior. It is interesting to note that even though many of the characters are well aware of his behavior, they all seem to stick by him. I didn’t understand the role the fortuneteller played, only that she allowed the bad cop to hang around, usually after he had committed some scandalous act. The only part she seemed necessary within the plot was at the end when she explained to the bad cop that he had no future. Obviously this worked to foreshadow his eventual demise.
Like the film we watched last week as well as Los Olvidados, Touch of Evil has opening commentary from the director. This seemed to be popular among film directors during the time. Usually when we watch contemporary films we are very disconnected from the director and we only see the “man behind the screen” when he/she gets up on stage to accept an award. However with these earlier films the directors were the front men and immersed themselves within their own films. I find it is interesting that Orson Welles always plays one of the leading roles in his films as well. The opening script heightens the audience’s perception and allows the director to develop a relationship with his audience.
The opening scene is interesting because the audience is initially so far removed from the characters. Like a voyeur, we only know that a bomb has been put in a car and as we follow it, we know it is only a matter of time until it explodes. The tension is heightened as the car continually makes stops at every intersection and we are yielded helpless. Yet as we pull away from the focus of the car we temporarily forget the adrenalin that has been built up within us and our minds become preoccupied with Vargas and his wife. As soon as they go in for their first kiss, we hear a loud explosion. We start in the middle of the drama, are pulled out of it and then forced to recall it. As a result the audience takes on a number of different spectatorships, as we go from having more knowledge than any of the characters, to oblivious, and then experiencing the occurrence of events with the characters.
The scene where Vargas’ wife is suspect for using narcotics, reminded me of film noir when women were usually the plot’s criminals, such as when Suzie is blamed for killing Mr. Grande.
Another unique and interesting aspect about the film is how the bad cop is American and the good cop is Mexican. Often this would not be the case and it made me question whether Welles’ had some motive for doing this or whether or not it was some social critique he was making about our justice system. The Americans seemed to be more ignorant in contrast to the Mexican characters as they mispronounced words in Spanish and demanded that English be spoken. This also seems to emphasize how Americans are ethnocentric in their culture and language. I remember when I was in Mexico and my friend told me that you can always tell whether or not someone is American and that is when they can speak only one language: English.

Touch of evil had a few clichés from the old style sleuth and caper movies of the 50’s. The dialogues seemed to be more complex and dramatic as the use of different filming styles such as the angles and crane shots. Made it seem definitely a more American style of filming compared to the other films we have watched. Even the sheriff, Quinlan, tends to get the odd close up of the camera on him, sort of a way of showing his size and intimidation. Also, seems to be a limited use of film score as more audible background music such as the car radios are heard when the cars drive by. Mike Vargas was an interesting character. He attempted to solve a bombing case during his honeymoon and the real story ends up being his attempt to bring down Sheriff Quinlan and at the end they don’t even find out who planned the bomb. Even Quinlan had his own agenda as he felt threatened by Vargas as he was cramming his style as his reputation was taking a hit. A lot went unanswered and too many different scenes going on without much explanations. What I found interesting was the fact that they made Charlton Heston look Mexican and when he spoke the director made the attempt to drown him out with ambient noises, like loud music or people talking out loud so as to not hear his accent when he spoke Spanish. He would say a couple of words but you wouldn’t hear him say much else. There was also the cue used by the other characters to tell him to speak in English as a way to cut off his Spanish speaking lines. What I also found rather interesting was the methodical approach the gangsters took. They seem to take their time and like to play around with Mike Vargas’ wife Susan. They seem to be preoccupied with involving the wife into the affairs when they could just go right to Mike. Like when the gangster tells her to follow him also at the hotel where she stays by herself. What I found to be really weird is that hotel clerk who kind of acted and sounded creepy. She is in a strange place and why would she want to stay by herself and why her husband would leave her alone…so much for a honeymoon. What was hard to follow was to the extreme lengths they went to try and frame the wife as they tried to frame her and also take her credibility away. Why didn’t they just take Mike Vargas out of the picture as they had so many attempts?

This is the second time I see this film and I still don’t know what to think of it. I think I did not enjoy this movie very much because I have very high expectations for Orson Welles. This film is very well made, but it is slow in some parts. I like how Welles decided to eliminate all the stock characters from this film. The hero is a Mexican and the villain is American, something that is rarely seen in American movies. Now, the hero is really Charlton Heston, who was at the top of his game having just acted in The ten commandments and about to act in Ben-Hur. For me this is quite interesting, because it gives a double message. Welles is saying that a hero can be mexican and that the pre-conceived ideals we have of the people can sometimes be wrong. Now, the actor playing the hero is really an American (who, by the way, can’t talk in a Mexican accent). This suggests that either Welles was trying to say that Americans are always going to be better than Mexicans, and they are the people behind the heroes, or simply that the studio wanted Heston and Welles could not get a Mexican actor. I am trying to think how this movie would have been with a Mexican actor in the main role, and I think it would have given it a completely different take on the film. It would have been more interesting, but it probably would not have had the same level of respect and empowerment Heston had. I think it is because we are watching a movie star at the peak of his game that his authority increases. Either way, the reversal of roles was interesting because it is the first time the anti-hero is American and the hero is actually Mexican.
Now on more film history kind of way, the first time I ever heard about this film it was introduced to me as a film noir. When I read the trivia on IMDB, I read that Welles decided to play with the narrative structure like in the Bogart film The Big sleep. I did see a lot of film noir in this film (the powerful independent woman, represented by Susie, the shadows and the techniques used to emphasize the double sided personalities of the characters, the mystery, etc…) but in noir the hero or heroine is normally punished in one way or another. Here the hero is left alone, and the murdered is the anti-hero (Welles). I think that because the noir movement was dying (if not already dead) by 1958, that this can’t be considered a typical noir film. It just lacks the depressing conclusion that noir became so known for. In the end, this film is interesting to watch because of the reversal of roles and the long shots, but it might be a little too outdated.

I had never seen this film before but had heard a lot about it.
The opening crane shot sequence was unbearably tense and beautifully shot.
The unsuspecting car planted with bomb slowly weaving around crowds of people had me holding my breath.
Welles seemed to purposely bait the audience with different bomb exploding possibilities in that scene too.
For example: The car disappearing behind a building, the policeman directing traffic, the happy couples, the cart full of trinkets, the other cars.
He plays a multitude of mind games on the viewer…
The camera pulls away from the bomb car leading the audience to think the explosion will come and then the car pulls uncomfortably close again. The main characters Vargas and Susie are essentially side by side with the car for a few minutes and the music is at all times very joyous and vibrant. The characters and plot were easy to follow with amazingly memorable characters ie: Hank Quinlan! Yikes. Is it just me or does the T.V show House owe a lot to this character? Welles is an absolutely exceptional actor and shows his skill the representation of Quinlan.
The perfect example of film noir.
Almost a ridiculously dated film now though. The constant mention of reefer and reefer stubs was somewhat comical. Unintentional of course but speaks of a time when the fear of marijuana was at its height.
Also the border! How things have changed since this film was made is unbelievable!
It’s even referenced in the film when (Vargas?) mentions the endless miles of uncontrolled border without a single machine gun in place.
Regardless, loved the film, loved the single take tracking shots (Ie: in the apartment where the dynamite was planted), beautiful lighting and shadows, venetian blinds. Unreal.

I think that commenting on the cinematography and how it affected my perception of the film would be far above my head. I think that my thematic response to the film, though, was aided by the angles and movements of the camera.
But, he final scene in which the American police officer is shot, because of the camera angles, was abble to resonate a kind of salvation. If I remember correctly, the camera is looking down on him, and the good, or better, American cop is looking down on him and shoots him. There’s a kind of heaven like quality to that kind of frame I think, which is enforced by the disgusting and devilish form of the dead man’s corpse. The corpse even washes down amongst the garbage and the audience doesnt feel very shocked at such dehumanization, it’s almost expected that this character ends this way.
In this ending to the movie, one of the main goals of the film becomes clear to me. One of these goals is to show Mexican identity as not inferior to that of the USA. I do not know enough about films at this time to say with sureity that this is not a common occurence, but I believe it would be. Throughout the film, we see the struggle of Vargas against the American cops, but our sympathies lie somewhat undecided until the very end. It is here that the fall of the American cop is evident both in his actions and even in his body. Vargas’ triumph to me is a new representation of North American equality in a way, which shows that it is not each person’s nationality but their character which places them in moral hierarchy above one another. I think this film is one which most clearly depicts individual characters above generalized views. If we think of the American girls in Mecanica Nacional, and then in this film, we see the former as being very boxed in and straight forward, but this film shows them separate and very dynamic in their character development.
Therefore, it is not out of ill representation of American identity in the film, for they are developed jsut as much as Vargas, but it is the carrying out of the plot which enables Vargas’ triumph. This then makes the film a kind of social response, and anthropological representation of Mexican identity within a detective like film. Why the directer did this I cannot say, but I can say that it was effective in changing my perception of Mexican films and films of Mexico.

I’m finding it difficult to talk/think about this movie. I thought that it was really boring and hard to watch and therefore hard to follow at times. I don’t know why I didn’t like it. If somebody had summarized the plot for me, and I hadn’t seen the movie yet, then I probably would have thought that it was interesting and I might want to see it. Again, I don’t know why I didn’t like it. I guess it was the way it was directed. I think that there could be so many different ways of showing this movie…it could even be a good play, I think….except for the first scene…that would have to stay as a movie. I wasn’t that impressed by it though because I’ve seen other movies that have similar one-shot openings (like Soy Cuba, where the camera starts out looking out of a helicopter and it slowly descends).
I’m tired of writing about music and photography in my blogs just because they’re what is the most familiar to me, and I tried to read the first part of the essay for this week to hopefully find inspiration as to what to write and I’m finding it really hard to get passed all of the unnecessary elaborate vocabulary that academics use to make themselves sound smarter. I wish that they would just get to the point so that I can spend my time really thinking about what they’re saying rather than trying to decipher the essay. I really have my work cut out for me for Thursday. Here are some of the things that I reacted to. I thought it was really unfair how people were being treated by others (the guy who was framed, the Mexican cop, and his wife). Also I noticed that Americans weren’t completely portrayed as the ‘bullies’ when they were picking on the Mexicans, it went both ways when the wife was also picked on.
I guess I’m also finding it hard to write because I’m still confused from the discussion on Thursday about the different kinds of reality, and what we are and not allowed to talk about. Could racism between Americans and Mexicans be a kind of real___? Yes, there is racism in the (real) world, but how much of it was true (truth= a variation of real__), and how much of it was exaggerated for the sake of getting the point across to the audience? The bullying went both ways, so I guess it showed that people are horrible to each other in general, not just Americans to Mexicans, which is the message in so many other movies.

I found the narrative very interesting. I liked how the director divided our attention between what was going on with uncle Joe Grandi and with Quinlan to mislead us and make us wonder about the fate of Susan. I thought that the bad cop versus the good cop story must have been original at the time ( I am thinking about the movie with Al Pacino and Robert Deniro, same team and still interesting). I also liked the female characters and how they fit into the concept of mexicanidad and of the femme fatale of the noir cinema.

Brothels, prostitution and cabarets were an important themes in the plot even though they were not the main focus of the movie.

After reading the article I realized a lot of details about the characters that I did not find clear from the movie like the fact that Susan and Miguel were in their honey moon, the exact job of Vargas and his status in the United States. I also found the analysis very interesting. I did not notice that Vargas’ skin tone was darkened for the movie. He proposes that the director, Welles, did this unconsciously to discuss about racial issues in the border and I agree with this since I think that Miguel represented the Mexican state and the desire of Mexicans to appear reliable and knowledgeable to Americans.

Also I agree with the author of the article on that the movie attempts to criticize the State of emergency and the “Wet back operation” using visual metaphors for the injustices and disadvantages to America of such political agenda. The most revealing evidence of such argument is the final scene were Hank floats in the river after Vargas made him confess by taking advantage of his powers and declaring an “state of emergency” that allows him to behave outside the law. The transformation of the wife and what happen to her is also a powerful example of the consequences of stopping obeying the law to reestablish it.

I also like the argument made by the author about how Mexicans are members of the American society which can not been included in it because America must lack what immigrants have to offer. I thought it was a philosophical idea suitable to explain the logic behind many of the deportation operation done in the United stated in the 20th centuries. Additionally, this ideas serve as a good background and historical context for the motivation in making touch of evil.

I wonder if the title was selected to remind the audience that the film is noir. Since film noir often has a hero which has poor moral values, I interpreted Touch of evil as the bad attitude and poor work ethic of Miguel by the end of the movie. I think that making critiques to American politics less obvious was important for the director (He has issues with the government) and therefore having a title that emphasized the non-political content of the film was important for the director as well.

I’m not sure how to feel about this film. It had the usual racist and sexist components of Hollywood films of the time, which are still hard for me to get around sometimes, depending on the film. The fact that Charlton Heston played the main lead who was intended to be Mexican really irked me, more than I thought it would.
In terms of cinematic structure, I was really impressed with how most shots in the film were long shots, making for some really interesting takes. What I actually liked most about the film were the camera angles, the long takes, and the use of sound and visual cues. The scene where Orson Welles, the main antagonist, kills the little Mexican dude has some great camera angles. This scene also exemplifies the great use of sound throughout homework. A lot of horror movies use music as a crutch to create dramatic tension and instill fear in the viewer. This movie had ridiculous music playing half the time, which let the plot and tension happen naturally, which I found to be very effective.
The long takes created sort of a play format. Because the acting and dialogue was so pronounced and contrived (as many 50s movies are), all of these elements helped to shape this film into a sort of play. The cinematic touches and elements made this film as famous as it is, in my opinion. The characters and dialogue are pretty flat and forced.
I’m going to use the word steretype now. This movie had mad Mexican stereotypes, and the only Mexican character that wasn’t shady was Charlton Heston. Any movie with Charlton Heston makes me question the merit of that particular film. I also found that based on the dialogue from the white people, the way Mexicans were depicted wasn’t particularly cutting edge or pushing the limits of the way people thought about different cultures, it had to be just perpetuating the collective mentality about foreigners, which is still sadly very prominent in America today.

I found this movie pretty enjoyable and action packed. It felt pretty “advanced” for its time in terms of plots and techniques, it definitely wasn’t as cheesy as other movies of that time. The beginning of the movie I found was extremely suspenseful. I knew the car was going to blow up, but I kept wondering when.. in the crowds of people, by the policemen, by the animals in the street. The damage caused by the bomb could have been far greater. The story was very well developed, slowly dropping hints about the corrupt “star” cop.

It’s interesting to start looking at activities in border towns. The Mexican/US border interactions are pretty interesting, and still very present in today’s current events. It was a good analysis of jurisdiction issues as so many crimes were and are still committed on both sides and across the border. I’m not sure if it was an issue at the time or if it is now, but it seemed like cooperation between US and Mexican officials seemed a bit rocky in the film. It’s hard to say whether its an accurate portrayal or whether it’s just for the movie’s sake, though. Ultimately, the cooperation proves crucial to bringing down a corrupt officer.

If I recall and if I understood correctly, it seems that most of the Mexicans in the movie were villains, whereas the Americans were right. I could be wrong, but if that’s the case it would make sense since it is an American movie. I think the portrayal of Mexicans as such is still current in popular media today.

I have to say this was probably my favourite film in class so far.

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

« go back — keep looking »

• 

• Categories

  • Administration
  • Aguila o sol
  • Batalla en el cielo
  • El callejon de los milagros
  • Gringo in mananaland
  • Introductions
  • Los olvidados
  • Mecanica nacional
  • Overview
  • Que viva Mexico
  • Responses
  • The Wild Bunch
  • Three Amigos
  • Touch of Evil
  • Traffic

• Recent Comments