The readings for this week were alright, I liked reading about Cantiflas. I found it interesting to learn that Mexican cinema comments more on socioeconomic differences and cultural issues. The film tonight felt ahead of its, in my opinion. In terms of camera angles and some of the acting, it felt more real than many films of its time, even from where there were more resources for film, like the states. It was also nicely shot, the still shots for a while, the connection between the two entertainers, it all felt more palpable, and timeless in some aspects. I didn't entirely comprehend all of the dialogue, but from what I could understand, I really felt a connection between the two male protagonists.
Cuando estaban borrachos por la mayoria del tiempo, pensaba que este fue un comentario en como la clase social mas abajo maneja su lugar an la sociedad. Para el sueno, no comprendi por que el sueno era tan largo, o que el sueno realmente significaba. Por que fue el baile tan larga y que significaba la novia cantando por mucho tiempo? Eran las palabras que cantaba de ella importante al sueno, y la idea y tema de la pelicula?
In the reading "the Formation of a National Cinema Audience," I found an interesting note on page 73: "Where the church had previously been one of the few public spaces in which different sectors of society would have encountered one another in their leisure time, the cinema represented a new point of contact in this hierarchical society." It's so fascinating how Mexican cinema came to be a bridge between the social classes, as well as a major commentary on the disparity between rich and poor. It's always great to see film as a means to enlightenment and understanding of human nature, instead of some cheesy, lowest common denomonator film that helps to form drool on the side of one's chin while watching it, ie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry."