• 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)

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.

I feel like there’s a lot that could be said about this movie, but so much is left for interpretation, it’s hard to know where to begin.
I don’t know if I completely liked or agreed with the general statement of this movie, but there are some elements that I really liked. I actually really enjoyed the beginning, and the view of the world we see. It was very honest, and I felt like I was actually in the airport in Mexico City- it actually looked like how Mexico looked to me while I was there, and the feeling of watching everything through a certain muted lens resonated with me.
I agree with what Carolina said in class about how this film could be interpreted as existentialist. The tone of it reminded me so much of watching The Stranger, as well as the book (by Albert Camus). Even the plot of Batalla has similarities with the plot of The Stranger. After watching this, I don’t see how this film could be anything other than some sort of existentialist commentary (this is one of those moments where I think I sound like a total douche).
The best aspect of Batalla en el Cielo for me was how it was shot. It was filmed so beautifully, someone could take a still shot from almost any moment in that movie and it would be a brilliant piece of photography. that really aided in me not disliking the movie entirely.
The sense of realism, the camera work, and how it was shot were my favorite parts. The self-indulgent takes, the intensity bordering on melodrama, and the stiff dialogue took me out of the moment and the realism. The best dialogue was from everyone on the street. Anything between characters in personal relationships felt stiff and unreal, which made me dislike the movie more. I hate it when movies just try to be different, surrealist, and/or existentialist, because those are things that I just don’t prioritize first when enjoying a film. Something about at least one of the characters has to strike a chord for me to like the movie, and none of these characters felt tangible or alive for me, which detracted from the beauty of some of the realistic perspective of life in Mexico City.

This film seems to be interested in the iconic figures such as the Virgen de Guadalupe and the flag, which are representative of Mexico. In response to Marianne, after Marcos death, instead of the flag being raised, we see the flag coming down. As I mentioned in my earlier blog, Marcos is representative, on some level or aspect of the infrastructure of Mexico. His thoughts are not coherent, as Ana even notes and his actions create chaos and do not make sense. On the other hand, he puts up this facade, as if he is completely unperturbed. Is it the director’s intention to emphasize that this is possibly how Mexico, as a nation deals with the problems that plague its country?
In response to Angell, even though the film has a lot of moments considered “erotic,” I do not find that the film itself evokes any interest in eroticism. Through the film’s lens, the human body does not seem to be eroticized, but instead is deconstructed and shown completely in the raw. Often when we think of something “erotic,” it usually pertains to the nude. Yet in this case, I believe the director, instead wants to show emotion and sex in all of its vulgarity. Something “erotic” is usually sensual however the film detaches sex from lust. The film overall feels void of emotion, as the characters have sex to have sex and there is no passion involved. Therefore the performance of sex becomes monotonous and just like any another daily activity.

Yo miraba esta película antes del principio del esto semestre. Para serte franca, mi impresión general para esto film es que, yo fui sumamente sacudida por los primeros minutos del cine, y por lo tanto es la primera película que me da un sentimiento que está fuera de mi expectativa completamente.

1. Sobre las tomas eróticas:
Pienso que no es una película erótica, aunque tiene algunas tomas sorprendentes. La razón es que, para una película erótica, tiene que incluir unas tomas que pueden excitar las audiencias; pero en esta película, creo que no hay una persona se provoca una pasión sexual por las tomas eróticas – es imposible, especialmente la escena de los esposos (la pareja).
Creo que la intención del director a las tomas es que, simplemente para crear su estilo específico, porque todas tomas eróticas de otras películas son sexual y pueden dar un sentimiento sexual, pero lo que en esta película nos da un sentimiento triste y lamentable – es diferente de otros cines. Y por esto sentimiento al principio, yo puedo adivinar que está es una tragedia.

2. ¿Por qué elige los actores sin profesionalidad?
Creo que, en primer lugar, como todos saben, es un ejemplo de Italian Neo-classical form (as far as i remember). Siempre los personas corrientes sin profesionalidad del acto pueden provocar un efecto más verdadero a los lectores, porque no tienen una capacidad de representar los personajes.
Sin embargo, tal vez es de una otra causa. Hay un Francés director famoso llamada Robert Bresson, quien exprsaba su punto como, “Films must break away from the particular form of the theater. The actors should not have their own thoughts or thinking on the script; they are only a tool of the director; they do exactly what the director tells them to do; they should not take any emotion” (if my memory serves me right). En esta película, los actoress lo me parecen es sin emociones en los rostros, y con toda seguridad, los actores hicen lo que dicen el director; pero lo que difiere de lo punto de Robert es que, aunque los actores no tienen las emociones de los personajes (personajes en el guión), tienen sus propias emociones. Y tal vez es un punto más único del film.

3. Sobre los “rounding/cycle shots” and “static -motion shots” (i can´t find other words)
Usa muchos “rounding shots and static -motion shots”, especialmente cuando el protagonista, Marcos, se atasca por su deseo a Ana y por su pecado. Personalmente, me gusta esto tipo de “shot”, porque “rounding shots” siempre manifiesta una situación desordenada, y puede representa la “lucha” en la corazón de Marcos; y “still – motion shots” muestra un énfasis destacado el progreso de cómo piensa Marcos. – Creo que es un punto importante de la trama de esta película.

Por otras cosas, no estoy familiarizada con el religión de México, y por lo tanto, pienso que Marcos hice un “pilgrimage” (sí o no?) tal vez porque él trata de “limpar” su pecado delante del Dios.

The film La Batalla en el Cielo shows an interest in the mundane activities of daily life as each shot is filmed for a prolonged period of time in order to create the allusion that the activities are unfolding and taking place right before the audience. This style and technique seems to be contagious among contemporary films, especially those that try to catch the essence of a place. Sophia Coppola’s long extended exposures in the films Lost in Translation and Marie Antoinette remind me of this film because the main objective of the director is to underscore the beauty in everyday life.
However I believe it was the director’s intention to humanize Marco by showing him in his routine yet this also built up the mystery, emotion and anticipation for what was to come next. As Marco meditates on the situation, we too are forced to meditate on situation and those events that have already taken place. On the other hand, Marco is zapped of emotion and therefore we only know him from an outsider’s perspective since we only know what he tells us. This creates a relationship between Marco and the spectator, which in itself is realistic because we only know as much as any other character within the plot.
The audience seems to take on the role as a flâneur, which is someone who literally takes in the sights of the city by strolling around. This term over time has accumulated a lot of significance, but specifically refers to the understanding of urban phenomena and modernity. This term seems to encapsulate the essence of this film, as the spectator does not assume any kind of authority over any of the other characters within the plot. Therefore we are left to our own interpretations about the characters. As a result the film is abstract and not easily accessible. More often than not, the director wants to control the spectator’s gaze but in this case we are at a loss. The film reminded me of an abstract painting in which there is no focal point. The film seems to take on an organic medium, as well as the potential for a number of interpretations.
On the other hand, this style of film makes it difficult to engage with the characters because they are somewhat flat in their depictions. It is necessary to remain patient with the characters and the development of the plot because otherwise the film seems pointless. The director also shows interest in the human body, which also seems to go hand in hand with the film’s organic quality. The bodies in the film vary in shape and size and simultaneously reveal the raw beauty of society and Mexico, even its darker, seedier elements. It is interesting that while Ana, presents part of the elite class, her body also reflects society’s ideals. In contrast, Marco, who is once referred to as “gordito” presents the lower class and his body reflects those parts of Mexico City that the society attempts to conceal.

Like I said in our discussion yesterday, what most affected me was the persisten sound of a clock ticking. I’ve learned in literature, for example in Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf, that this is a reassuring sign of temporality and the coming promise of mortality. While this mortality is a repeated gloomy occurence in the film, it is hard to deny its peacefulness when it over takes the protagonist. Marcos to me represents a kind of tragic hero, but does not wholly fulfill the requirements to be one as he is not mentally well. His saving grace though is seen in this instability which eventually leads to his quasi suicidal death.
The ticking of the clock is thus seen to symbolise the deterioration of his character. As the events propel, and even though they are presented in backflash and in an entangled nature, the persistent sound of time does not allow for the derailment of mortality.
What I find interesting and think it speaks to the film’s thematic intentions, is that it is not clear to me if this promise of death is a salvation for Marcos or a punishment. To support the former option, I think that his dying in the church after the pilgrimage is meaningful and shows a peace attained in death for this troubled character. But I also think that it could be seen as a punishment of divine quality because his wife does not show any emotion in seeing him die, the bells atop the church do not make a sound, and the closing seen of the flag coming down without him shows that his death is not very important.

Overall, I did not like Batalla en el cielo. The fact that is it was almost a border line pornography film kind of helped with determining my opinion because it lacked dialogue and overall story telling; you didn’t really know what people were thinking or why they were acting the way they were. The movie mainly relied on the cinematography with the visual shots as there were many facial and body close-ups. It’s like the director wanted to put you in the persons place to see what one would see in real life. Like when Marcus would lose his glasses and all he saw was a blur, then the camera would become blurry. And when that would happen the focus was then on the audio as certain sounds would resonate louder than others, such as the clocks to possibly act as symbols to give clues or hidden meanings the filmmakers wanted to use. The director looks like he wanted to use a different style to maybe have a shock value to get audiences talking. With a lack of script you were focused on trying to read peoples body language and use the environment to help set the mood. In a way, the audience would be the one making up the storyline as they interpreted it themselves. This film, as a few films we have watched so far, has again centered mainly on a negative story from start to finish. It showed the misery of a couple living a miserable life when their kidnapping victim ends up dead. The constant close-ups of Marcus and his wife kind of made things eerie as it first gave an impression that they were desperate people, along with the long pauses of them staring at each other, kind of made things awkward as you weren’t sure what to make of it. It didn’t help advance the storyline as it didn’t help explain why they did the kidnapping or how the child died and kind of put us in a moment in their lives as we interrupted their misfortunes and watched their life unfold.

A few scenes that I did not quite understand were when Marcus ends up killing Ana. He leaves her place and walks into the hallway and pauses where he wets himself and then decides to walk back into her place and kills her. Because there is no reasoning why he did this one could only assume that maybe when she used the words when she was seeing him off, “you will always be in my heart” that maybe that angered him as that was the same thing his wife used and that his wife meant more to him than her and felt betrayed by the girl. Another possibility could be that when he said that he was going to turn himself in that he expected a better reaction from her, because it looked like she didn’t care much and sort of wanted him to leave the apartment quickly with not much concern.

I think this film showed a unique representation of Mexico. Compared to the other films that we have seen in class, this film shows the actual interaction between the high class and the working class. In addition to that, aspects of the lower class are shown while in the city, something which we have not seen much either. This is important because as Mexico developed, the lower classes that used to live away from the city migrated to the city to look for more economic opportunities which are not always there. For example, Marcos’ wife sells clocks and other stuff in the Metro, meaning she never found any real “economic opportunity” in the city. This change in environment is always a must-see because it shows their lack of understanding of norms and their true characters. For example, there was a scene in the movie where about ten people step out of a car. It was a bit funny to see this but it actually depicts reality. I also like how the film showed various parts of Mexico, all within range. They showed the city with busy traffic, a farm, a higher class neighbourhood, a gas station, a working class house, etc. This makes the viewer actually compare the two social classes in a better way as they see how everyone interacts differently in different environments. It was also interesting the actions of the people in the white car when it came to Ana’s house. They were dressed up and probably a bit drunk. When they pissed at the back of the car it was a funny moment as everyone does it. However when I thought about I thought that if a darker Mexican in a lower class environment would be doing that, it would show as if he lacks education and norms. Finally I found a lack of “machismo” in this movie as well. I was expecting it to happen in some way or another but never did. It was probably because Marcos had a weak personality. It seemed like women were the ones who were actually in control of situations. Marcos’ wife slaps him and he doesn’t react, Ana’s boyfriend leaves when he is told to get the newspaper, and the “boutique” is presented as the women giving a favor to men. Finally, sex was portrayed in a non sexual way. I don’t know if that makes sense, but at times characters didn’t move at all and had no expressions. Marcos especially, seemed like he couldn’t show what he was feeling, not only at sexual intercourse but at every point in the movie. However this could be explained by the fact he was really scared of what had happened and couldn’t keep his mind off that.

This blog is over 800 words, I hope that’s ok, I had a lot to say.

Tonight was the second time that I watched this movie, and I’m glad I watched it twice. The first time was this weekend, and it was spent basically trying to take in all of the information that the movie was spitting out. Maybe I shouldn’t say ‘spitting out’ because if it was true, then I wouldn’t feel this lost. Maybe I’m over thinking it, maybe not, but I have no idea, and it’s driving me crazy…I haven’t said what I’m talking about yet, so here it is: I’m a very visual person, and I find it hard to speak out in class discussions because when I watch a movie, the things that are running through my head are the relationships between the film score, the photography, and the characters (surprise!…it’s probably because I have always wanted to be a film score composer and when I graduate from UBC in May, I’m going into photography, while a lot of other people are thinking about the things that we actually discuss in class, basically everything else other than what I automatically think about, and no matter how hard I try, it’s really hard for me most of the time to think the way that others think like…after I’m done with UBC, it won’t matter how I think, because I won’t be graded on it, and I’m going to go on into an artistic field … but here’s the point:

If you add up the time it takes to run through the dialogue in this movie, it would probably be about 30 minutes or less. The rest of the 100 minutes is either credits or photography … it should be a movie that I can relate to perfectly but it seems like Reygadas is saying so much in all of the pauses and the photography, but there’s so much, I’m going to have to watch the movie over and over again to understand why exactly he put pauses in (some of the pauses were long enough to be like an actual photograph with a really great composition that I would put on my wall – that said, even though the beginning scene was really artistic with the choice of music and the way that the camera descended and gradually showed what was happening, and from a photographer’s point of view, and interesting composition, I wouldn’t want that anywhere near my wall…same story with the still shots after Marcos and Ana have sex and they’re just lying there…great composition and lighting, but no thanks – I think that whoever was behind the camera or in charge of the photography was a genius.

Maybe it’s all easier that I think. Maybe I’m just excited that we’re finally watching an extremely visual movie and it’s way more simple than I think…but most likely not. I’ll have to wait what people think about it on Thursday.

Even though I’ll have to watch the movie again to have a full understand of the symbolism in the photography, I noticed that whoever was behind the camera (well Reygadas was probably in charge of this) really played with the sense of ordering and time. For example, in the first scene, they could have showed what Ana was doing first before they showed Marcos’ face (reaction), but they wanted to show his reaction first before they showed what he was reacting to. Then later, like I said in class, in the metro, they showed Marcos and his wife first before they revealed where they were and what they were doing there. All you could see were their heads and you could hear the annoying beeping, but you didn’t know where it was coming from (this is similar to the scene in the country where you can hear the hammering but you have no idea what it is until after Marcos and their wife have a conversation). I figured that they didn’t show that they were selling stuff in a hallway somewhere until later, because they wanted the conversation to happen first, with very few distractions to the viewer because it was a follow up of the previous scene when Marcos answers his phone and gets the news from his wife. But in the country scene, there’s no reason why they have to show the source of the hammering at the end, because it isn’t really following anything…I guess it’s similar to the opening scene in that way.

Last thing for now because I’ve written over 700 words…I noticed that there was a sense of going from simple to complex in the metro scene…It’s like they were trying to create layers: first there’s minimal information, just a conversation and beeping, then gradually more information is provided: people ask questions about what they’re selling, and then we see what they’re selling, and then we see the people in that hallway thing, and then finally loads of people walk past them. I wonder if this technique is portrayed this much anywhere else. Maybe that’s what they were trying to do with the first scene, and the country scene, but in less drastic layers. I have to watch the movie again.

This movie is really difficult to understand. There are several scenes that I have not yet figured out what they mean or even what happened. I think I am going to watch the movie a second time to fully grasp what’s going on. It is challenging to analyze the film without a good understanding of it, but I’m going to try.

The movie is rather slow compare to the other movies that we’ve seen. Marcos, the main character, does not express much emotion. Actually, most of the characters in the movie express little emotion. They barely conversed with each other and even when Marcos hugged his wife, the whole action was as though it was in slow motion too. This slow motion creates a heavy and overwhelming atmosphere. I have never been to Mexico so I am not sure if it is a realistic portrayal of the place. However I was always under the impression that Mexico City is busy and crowded where people move at a fast pace?! That being said, I am not suggesting that the characters are completely indifferent. They show their emotion in more discrete ways.

I couldn’t figure out how the last scene played into the murder of Ana. If Marcos loved Ana, why would he kill her instead of turning himself in? When he told her that he was going to be away, she did not seem too concerned or bothered by it; perhaps it was why he decided to kill her instead of turning himself in?! Marcos seemed to care much more about Ana than how much Ana cared about him. When he picked her up from the airport, she was focused on talking on the phone rather than having a conversation with him. He also seriously considered turning himself in because that was what Ana said.

And here are a couple questions that I have:

At the end of the movie, what happened to Marcos? Did he die?

The last scene with him and Ana, when did it happen? Before Ana went away? Before they had sex? After they had sex? I just can’t fully comprehend their relationship…

I think that Marcos killed Ana for no reason and that is the point of the movie. I think he was in so much despair and uneasiness that he let all the repressed feeling one can have to control him. All his fears and disappointments became actions. I don’t think he loved her. Also I thought that Marco’s wife was interesting. We did not get to know her very well but I think she was far from linear. she had so much understanding of her situation that she was able to accept the role Marcos wanted to give her (furniture in the house) and she dealt with it.

This is by far my favorite movie until now. I like the plot and I like the performances of all the characters. The movie reminded me of Repulsion by Polanski. It really captured the feeling of the characters even though the characters themselves did not show a lot of expression or physical emotions. I liked the contrast between the fast paced of the city and the stillness of Ana and Marco. The contrast brightened the despair of the main characters because it put them in a context at the same time as it alienated them from Mexico city.
The relationship between sound and picture was also important in the film. There were a lot extraneous sounds in the scenes like the classic music at the gas station, the clocks at the house and the metro station and the music in the country side. The music help us to focus in the people more and less in the surroundings.

I found interesting how the director presented Mexico city. although the director told the interviewer that the film was not political a lot of elements were a lot about Mexico and not just about an x city. The flag, the close captions of religious images, the city shots, the road trip towards Ana’s house, the guy wearing the mexico jacket at the airport, the march of the pilgrins. I agree that the film is about two people but it happens that those people are Mexican and they are very affected by the dynamics of their city. Truth is though that the characters seem free to make their own decisions. they did’t seem so limited by their socioeconomic status like in Los olvidados or El callejon de los milagros.

About the narretive, The marriage was interesting because of the hate-love interactions but also it was genuine and it felt honest to me. Also, women had very different roles in this movies than in any other film we have seen. All females appeared strong and confident.

ahh no sabo que decir. Pienso que hay una cosa en la pelicula que no puedo aggragar. No entiendo la relacion, o la cronologia entre el comienzo y la fin.. y porque hay una diferencia en la emocion de Ana. En estilo de la pelicula es muy lento… el dialogo un poco aburrida. No hay accion, pero estoy seguro que el director esta tratando de decir algo.

Tambien no sabo que decir de Marco. No hay vida en su ojos. De todo que hice.. hay no emocion o reacion, o disucssion o dialogo sobre nada. Su hijo es un poco interesante..no hace o dice nada.. pero es seguro que las cosas que sus padres hacen tienen un efecto en su vida.

estoy esperando con interes a jueves…

As I watched this film I thought to myself: this can be a good short film, but it is being elongated so much it misses the point. There are a lot of scenes that are extended for no apparent reason, like after Ana and Marcos have sex, there is a tracking shot that shows the city, and then we go back to both of them and they are just laying there. Then we see Marcos reflecting after Ana tells him that he should turn himself to the police for a very long time. I think these two shots juxtapose interestingly because while in one you see the city and the monotony of it all, then you see Marcos reflecting in the same way. His life is this monotone repetitive actions that he finds thrills in kidnapping babies and that is probably why he wants to be with Ana so bad. I think Marcos represents the Mexico city, a repetition of actions that try to escape and eventually die. He lives for a dream. Everything he does after Ana comes is to be with her. He kills her because he knows he can’t turn himself in, so he would rather see herself dead and die afterwards than to die alone. His selfishness is extreme, but the director tries to justify it by saying that Marcos is actually in love with her. Does that justify his actions? I personally don’t think so. If Marcos is a symbol for Mexico city, then that means Mexico city is living for a dream that can’t occur in real life. An idealized world that cannot really occur. That is why I liked about the film.
Now what I didn’t like. I liked the shots of Marcos reflecting or the POV shots of Marcos looking into the sunset, but some shots were unnecessary. The raising of the flag could have been cut down a lot and many shots were very slow. Although this movie works in the same way as elephant, the slowless represents the monotone events in life, elephant at least had characters that were interesting. Until Marcos killed Ana I thought he was boring and uninteresting. Then the murder gave some complexity to the character, but still, Ana was always more interesting than him. In scenes where only Marcos was shown I always pondered about her. A general’s daughter that’s a prostitute. I wished I had known her more. I know this movie from Marcos’ POV, but maybe a shift in perspective could have been very interesting. I also thought the character of Marcos’ wife was one-dimensional and uninteresting. I was more interested in knowing the policeman more than her when Marcos is in the church. One final thought about the all the explicit sex scenes… they’re shocking, but its because we are not used to it. I thought they were realistic and un-hollywood like. They were still shocking because full frontal nudity is not common, and I don’t think it was completely necessary, but it still created a movie that you can remember, even if its for that reason. In general I thought the movie was slow. I know it had a purpose, but that movie could have been done in 30 minutes and it would have been a great short.

« 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