I am certainly still processing “The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada” but it was clear as soon as the film was over that this was a beautiful picture. I felt a human quality to so many of the characters that we haven’t necessarily seen in our previous films. In the way that Rachel is able […]

At the start of The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, we did not see: “A true story” written as we did with Walker. But as the reading says, Tommy Lee Jones was inspired by a West Texas teenager of Mexican descent who was shot by border patrol. All that happened in this film I could see happening in real life. This film was convincing. The acting, cinematography and script made this film my favorite we have seen so far in this class.  

Regarding, US and Latin American relations, in my opinion this is the most conducive film for creating a two way bridge that connects ‘us’ to ‘them.’ Politically it was effective, more so than the other films we have watched. The reading explains this by taking it a step further. Watkins thesis that the sovereign’s precariousness and attention to grievability is more complex than politics of recognition is accurate. Pete does represent a victory for precariousness over sovereignty. Before reading the article, my analysis would have ended with an analysis of the political ambitions in the film. I think the Mexicans were never inferior to the Americans and the sense of two separate nations, countries and peoples was successfully blurred. This allowed for the focus to be on morals and values that create identity instead of concerning the viewer with our common assumptions of differences in identity as Watkins argues.

The shot of the campfire where the body of Melquiades sits in the middle was unlike any shot I have seen before. It was highly emotional but I am not totally sure how I felt about it. It reminds the viewer that this is a western film, but Pete’s determination to preserve the dead body made me as a viewer disgusted, intrigued, worried but I also found it comical.  

After researching the film online, I found an article on Christianity Today that examined judgment and redemption as themes in this film. The article says, “in this film violence is often the forerunner of an epiphany, and God’s providence works in strange and mysterious ways.” This is interesting when put beside Watkins argument that Pete does not have the strong desire to control that is associated with mastery and sovereignty. Watkins also explains how Norton’s character shows our inability to control the implications of our actions. So this made me wonder if Jones and Arriaga wanted it to have a religious message.

I like films that leave a lot of the interpretation up to the viewer. This film displayed clear messages as well as messages open for interpretation. For some viewers, it does provide religious messages. For others, it explores society’s misunderstanding of borders in the literal and social sense.

 

This film was pretty heavy for me to watch although I enjoyed the story very much. As I was watching it in class it reminded me of two of my favourite films Amores Perros and Babel. Both these films along with Three Burials connect all the characters stories although they all come very different worlds. I later came to find out that the writer of all these three films is Guillermo Arriaga and it’s no wonder I enjoyed this film. Arriaga also uses the flashback technique a lot with his stories, which can cause confusion when watching at first but as the story progresses it is as if you are adding pieces to a puzzle all together. As a viewer it really makes you take a step back and think that we really don’t know someone’s story and that in some way we all share many similarities despite our differences, be it, our cultural background or spiritual beliefs.

The film introduces Mike Norton and his wife Lou Ann who have moved to Texas because Mike has a job as a border patrol officer. Norton’s character comes off as very self-absorbed, he doesn’t seem to have very much emotion or care towards what seems like anyone, including his wife and I think even for himself. We see that his relationship with his wife is very distant during the sex scene in the kitchen. It’s very unromantic, with no stimulation what so ever for Lou Ann, it seems as if it has become a normality for her because she just stands there watching her soap opera waiting for him to finish. This soap opera which Arriaga brings back towards the end of the film.

When Pete and Norton are near the end of their journey they meet a group of Mexican men watching the same soap opera. Up to this point, Norton has been through a lot. Pete ridiculed his character in many different ways (having him unbury Melquiades, ordering him to sit in his chair and drink from his cup in his home). Norton had been bitten by a snake, was cured and punished by Marianna (the same woman who he had violently punched at the beginning of the film) and much more. The scene where Norton is watching this soap opera clip, however, I think is a turning point for his character. In my opinion, it serves as an awakening for Norton and for the audience it makes us sympathize with him a bit because we finally see some emotion out of him. I think this is where Norton realizes his wrongs, not only his wrongs in his treatment towards Mexican immigrants and his wrong in killing Melquiades but, also, his wrongs in his relationship with Lou Ann. I think he begins to remember her and realizes that he doesn’t have much or in this case doesn’t have anyone left by his side. Earlier in the film when Lou Ann leaves Texas to go back to Cincinnati we hear her tell Rachel that she has nothing left in Texas. When Rachel questions her about her husband she says that he is “beyond redemption”. As Norton watches the soap opera he laughs and says “I’ve seen this one” then later breaks into tears which starts his self realization for redemption that is finally seen at the end of the film when Pete tells him to ask for forgiveness.

Yasaman Rafiei 2017-08-09

The Three Burials is a great movie, mostly because of Tommy Lee Jones and his spectacular talents as an actor and a director, besides the touching screenplay of Guillermo Arriaga. The storyline was simple, inspired by a true story and right to the point: Pete Perkins (Tommy Lee Jones) was a middle-aged rancher who became a friend of a young, decent, timid cowboy named Melquíades. He was more than a friend to him, he was more than a friend to everyone; he was the father figure. When Melquíades was killed by Mike Norton (Barry Pepper), Perkins saw it in himself to carry out his will to have a worthy burial in his homeland while dragging Norton all the way with him.

In my opinion, Lee’s acting was perfect. He was so attached to his character as if he was a rancher his whole life. Moreover, as a director, he worked on the details of every other character and gave them a back story, each of which grabbed the attention of the viewer. One of the most breathtaking characters was the lonely blind man with a radio.

The movie was full of beautiful sceneries and splendid sunsets, full of impressive rural landscapes. All these were mixed with the colourful interiors of the Mexican side. On the other hand, the two predominant colours of grey and white in the American interiors mostly were reflected sadness and sorrow. This is why Pete pictured Mexico as the land of felicity and dreamed of living with his, so called, lover over the border. However, Mexicans had an opposing opinion and did their best to cross the border into their dreamland.

In this movie, all Mexicans were depicted welcoming, noble, and kind. The only Mexican who expressed some reasonable violence was Mariana, who after saving Mike, poured hot coffee on him, hit him on the nose and said: “now we are even!” However, even Mariana did not hold back her smile from Mike in the next scene. Given these differences, Jones mostly took sides with the Mexicans rather than his own compatriots.

We can see three turning points in Norton’s character. At the beginning of the movie, he was a violent and narcissistic person who saw himself superior to the others (Mexican). He came all the way down to Texas with the idea of saving his country’s borders as a patrol guard and tried to be the wall who stops the “others”. He saw everyone who passed the border as enemies and easily moved ahead to beat them. His violent, cold, and apathetic character was not only evident in front of Mexicans but also appeared in his behaviours towards his wife. In the second quarter of the movie, his personality is humiliated by Pete. In Mike’s eyes, Mexican were considered as low lives, thus, Pete forced him to go to Mel’s house, drink water from his mug, and wear his clothes. Another way of looking at this is that Pete, the father figure, wanted to teach Mike a lesson “before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes.”

After crossing the border, in the last half of the movie, Mike transitioned into his new personality by familiarizing with Mexicans. When he saw how he can interact with the “other”’s culture, and how intimate they could become, the space between him and the “others” collapsed. He started to accept Mexicans and comprehended the depth of the catastrophe that he had committed. These all shaped his new identity. He started experiencing the hybridity on the borderland. In the end, it is time for Mike’s redemption; mourning for Mel’s death and seeking forgiveness on his knees. His cries “I’m sorry, Melquiades! For taking your life, I’m sorry!” helped him free his soul.

Maybe the best line of the movie was the last one where Mike asks Pete “You gonna be all right?” This emphasizes how he had changed during his borderland journey. In just a few days, his whole life turned around, he saw many ups and downs and learned the meaning of loyalty, justice, and friendship.

Walker is a film based on some true historical context as well as retelling the rise and fall of one of America’s first military fillibuster; William Walker. Before writing this blog I was curious about the history behind William Walker and from what I read it seemed the real Walker was a very well-educated man studying medicine and law in various institutions and then working as a newspaper editor and journalist. Walker was also advent duelist but it seemed he had no prior military education or experience in war. It regards to Walker’s belief in ‘Manifest destiny’ Walker already had goals and visions of establishing slave states and colonies in Latin America. Unlike the movie which suggests Walker was some virtue-driven hero who is out for adventure and saving the world. Also it seemed Walker acted on his own will to conquer Nicaragua rather then being asked by Cornelius Vanderbilt (as the movie suggests). Comparing to the real William Walker (who looked more of a gentleman/businessman type) to the action-hero Walker played by Ed Harris (known for playing strong serious masculine archetypes), its obvious the film ignores half the truth of historical accuracy and rather portrays Walker as a heroic character who falls from grace. The progression and the story of the film seems to focus more on Walker’s actions and connecting this with modern political events rather than exploring more on historical context and accuracy.

The anachronisms in the film such as the Newsweek magazines, cars, coke, and the helicopters all seem to try to convey and connect the events of Walker’s filibusting campaign to the American involvement of Nicaragua during the Contra Wars. It can’t be any more obvious the film is criticizing American interventionism and the concept of Manifest Destiny as a destructive idea. What was more interesting about this film was that it was filmed exactly in Nicaragua during the Contra Wars so the topic and the theme of the film was really in depth and I could guess that this brought a lot of shock and awe to the audiences. I think the direction and the idea of making a movie based on old history connecting to the current events of Nicaragua at that time was brilliant and well-thought of.

Overall the film conveys a strong political message in a creative and surrealistic manner. The mix of historical storyline with anachronisms and tying in modern events is what really made this film unique and enjoyable.

 

William Walker representa una imagen de Estados Unidos sobre sí misma, sobre cómo quisiera imaginarse ante Latinoamérica. El inicio de la película nos presenta a Walker peleando contra los mexicanos en su territorio para ser posteriormente juzgado y declarado inocente en los tribunales estadounidenses al apelar a la doctrina del Destino Manifiesto: llevar un comportamiento moral sobre el continente no es algo por lo que un hombre pueda ser juzgado, es un designio divino y no existen juicios que los hombres puedan interponer ante algo que Dios ha previsto como un destino.

Walker es en ente sentido un ejemplo del humanismo ilustrado: médico, abogado, periodista y hombre de armas; facetas que contrastan con la austeridad, religiosidad y rigidez de su comportamiento. Walker desde el inicio no aparece como alguien que actúe por sus propios intereses, sino que actúa en relación a lo que piensa es mejor dentro un propósito más elevado. La vida y la muerte resultan relativas al respecto, tomemos en consideración dos momentos de la película para ejemplificar esto: el primero, donde Walker de una forma casi mesiánica promete a sus soldados la victoria, para luego en su primera batalla en Nicaragua abandonar a los heridos a suerte para poder continuar; el segundo, hacia el final, cuando afirma que su propio lugar como personaje es relativo, ya que una y otra vez los Estados Unidos volverán sobre Nicaragua en el futuro de manera inevitable. (cuestión que se acentúa con la inclusión de elementos contemporáneos sobre el momento histórico donde se desarrolla la acción al final de la película)

Hay elementos que se muestran durante en la cinta que permiten poner en cuestión el mismo lugar de Walker como un agente que sólo responde a un objetivo superior a él y que funcionan como una crítica de sus acciones. Pensemos en que su llegada a Nicaragua ha sido producto de intereses económicos y políticos sobre la región y que fundamentalmente su presencia allí es dependiente de ellos, cuando corta las relaciones comerciales con su benefactor económico al declararse presidente comienza un rápido proceso de decadencia. Por otro lado, la cuestión del esclavismo, ante la cual aparece al inicio como un detractor, es luego vista favorablemente y es implantada como una forma de tratar de obtener mayores beneficios económicos en Nicaragua; de nuevo, son cuestiones externas de las cuales el personaje no parece ser totalmente consciente las que van guiando acciones importantes en la película.

Walker experimenta un proceso de caída en la locura en el transcurso de la narración hasta el final, sus convicciones puritanas contrastan con su deseo por Yrene; un discurso en apariencia democrático al inicio, finaliza con un gobierno dictatorial que tiene su final con la quema de Granada, como si el personaje prefiriera reducir a cenizas la ciudad que no puede sostener a permitirla existir bajo un gobierno que no sea el suyo. Pero el fallo de una empresa no significa en Walker el final de un destino, de ahí que no decida escapar con sus hombres y decida quedarse en la ciudad en llamas, e incluso intentar volver para encontrar la muerte en Honduras, pensando todavía que tiene un propósito que cumplir en esas tierras y que de no hacerlo es necesario su propio sacrificio personal.

En Walker podemos mirar cómo se realiza una crítica al intervencionismo norteamericano en América Latina y se muestran las fisuras de un discurso que sólo esconde la violencia y la ambición.  En el tiempo de Walker fue el Destino Manifiesto, luego en los 80 la lucha contra el socialismo, en aras de la libertad y la democracia, en el futuro algún nuevo discurso ocupará su lugar, pero detrás de ellos existen intereses que antes que ser liberadores e inocentes esconden la criminalidad y la ignominia.

 

John Parker August 7: Walker (1987)

I enjoyed the film tremendously for both its cinematographic and literary merit. I thought the acting was excellent, as were the music and décor. In fact, as I learned later, Alex Cox filmed this in Nicaragua and during a time of civil strife with Sandinistas battling Contras and Ronald Reagan pleading for America to help the “brave Freedom Fighters.” Yaz mentions that this is an American-help-goes-bad story and calls Walker a “cruel dictator” who believes that because of God’s design, “victory is with us.” My interest in the film, however, is really more for its literary reference, as I will try to convince later on. I may be going out on a limb here, but not too far I hope. I’d love to develop this into my final project for Jon.

I see this film as Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1899). The helicopter that arrives with American soldiers emphasizes a connection to the film Apocalypse Now (1979). The modern magazines and cars that we see previously prepare us for this highly dramatic and over-the-top incursion near the end. In Heart of Darkness, Kurtz, an English ivory trader named Mr. Kurtz wreaks havoc with the local population in the jungles of British colonial Africa. Conrad’s denunciation of colonialism is replayed later when Marlon Brandon plays Colonel Kurtz in Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now dealing with the Vietnam War. One of his most famous lines is “the horror, the horror,” right out of Conrad. Aex Cox’s William Walker is yet another mercenary with flexible ideals who Nayid says “takes power by force and changes the rules of engagement.” Walker and his men, in an attempt to create a “more civilized nation,” re-establish slavery and are overtly contempt of the local Indigenous population.

Conrad, through the narrator of Heart of Darkness, attacks colonialism and its supposed civilizing plan. He even equates civilized people with the savages, the city of London with the isolated wilds of Africa, the intentions of colonialism with the destruction of people native to the land. Mr. Kurtz says: “Exterminate all the brutes.” He leaves traces of desolation everywhere he has been and eventually becomes an embarrassing problem to the powers that be; they eventually abandon him and even want him dead. Crazy Walker, hungry for power, abuses the locals and is constantly reviewing his political and moral agendas. Like Fred Dobbs in Treasure of the Sierra Madre, he goes crazy in an exotic land that abounds with riches for his taking. He eventually loses everything. He is abandoned by the society he tried to establish and by those who initially sponsored his mission that became his quest for self-aggrandizement. Like “Wrath of God,” as Don Lope de Aguirre called himself, like Mr. Kurtz and later Colonel Kurtz, he cannot contain the havoc that he has caused.