Rose Finn SPANLIT comments

Overview of Span 404

2009-04-01T22:36:00.000-07:00

This class had a topic of things I'm interested in life: film and Spanish, and Mexico. I liked that we talked about film, because I need to continue expanding my knowledge of movies and how they're put together and why they're made if I want to continue writing films. It's interesting to study the difference between Mexican and American cinema and how they each portray Mexico's standard of living. In the first movie we watched with Cantinflas, we saw slapstick Mexican comedy parodying parts of Mexican life from the 1930s. There was a warmth and a humility to his humor that felt timeless, even though the movie itself was obviously very dated.
The way Mexico is portrayed in the Hollywood films was an entirely different kettle of fish. In the slapstick American movie about Mexico, Mexicans are portrayed as in need of American help and highly underdeveloped, especially in comparison with the American lifestyle. Steve Martin, Chevy Chase, and Martin Sheen act bumbling and stupid, but they arrive to help a small Mexican pueblo, filled with people waiting to be rescued from the antagonist of the movie. Granted this film was mimicking old Westerns and previous Hollywood movies that truly depicted Mexico as such, but the fact that there were enough Hollywood movies to begin with that stereotyped Mexicans as dirty, helpless beings that The Three Amigos had such a launching pad to jump off from says something about Hollywood cinema.
I liked the film discussions and I liked seeing the vast differences between Mexican dramas and comedies and American ones. I wished we could have spoken more Spanish in class, as having discussions in Spanish continually helps me speak it better, but at least this class stayed in the general topic of what I'm studying. I liked that I got the chance to see movies that I never would have watched on my own because it can help me build on my ideas about screenplays and how to write and produce movies, and how cinematic elements can enhance the narrative of a film.

Traffic

2009-03-24T22:32:00.000-07:00

I thought "Traffic" was a pretty decent movie. It tried to do a lot with one topic, and in some ways, it really executed its point well, and in others, because it was trying to do so much, it glossed over getting into any sort of depth with any one character or plot line. This made it harder to be as much about human relationships, and just went with its theme more than anything else.
The first half seemed stronger than the second to me. The set up was pretty strong, and the less it had to do with the specific relationships, the better it was. When we first saw the government official trying to follow through with his war on drugs, it was all pretty believable and the plot line drew the audience in.
Some parts that I thought were less realistic and that drew me out of the plot line were when Catherine Zeta Jones, after not having any idea whatsoever that her husband was a drug lord, suddenly was offering a "Mexican" (Benjamin whatever is hardly Latino) bribe and trying to get cops killed when the base for her character was that she had no idea about any of the illegal dealings of her husband.
The teenage girl with drug issues was way too over the top. This can be a tendency with American movies, the default mode is to go way over the top, ie a teenage girl from a repressed conservative background starts doing crack every time we see her and prostituting herself. I liked the idea of the irony of the daughter of a purveyor of the war on drugs being a girl who does drugs, as that's a common aspect of adolescence. But I thought that her being so over the top was not only unrealistic, but also equated drug use with turning into a crackhead prostitute, which is most often not the case.
Benicio del Torro I thought was one of the strongest characters and strongest actors. I liked his plot line, because it truly emphasized how corrupt the Mexican government and law enforcement is, which is a very topical concept right now, as Mexico is currently on the verge of being completely run by drug lords. In that respect, this was a very timely movie to watch.

Los Three Amigos

2009-03-17T23:54:00.000-07:00

I think this is going to be one of the harder blogs to write, considering I can't really take much of this movie seriously.
Seeing movies like this with Steve Martin in them make me really sad because he has the ability to be a very funny, talented man, but he's in so many bad movies (ie Father of the Bride, Father of the Bride II, Young at Heart, LA Story, the list is endless). Chevy Chase is generally in this sort of mishugas slapstick comedy, so this wasn't much of a deviation from the norm for him. Steve Martin, on the other hand, was once a very funny young white-haired man who did great gags on Saturday Night Live, and was in the only movie I've ever liked him in, "Parenthood."
The point being, seeing him in such a stupid movie was, as it usually is, difficult for me to watch. I don't like raining on others' parades, but this movie was really stupid. Aside from maybe one or two gags, I just wasn't into the humor at all. Granted I don't find slapstick that funny usually (aside from Woody Allen slapstick movies), I still had a really hard time sitting through this. I expect I was probably the only kid in the class with this issue.
It's hard to say too much about this film as any sort of Mexican commentary, as Jon called this a self-reflective "meta-film," so I'm not sure what I can say that won't just go back to the argument that it was meant to be stereotypical and stupid, a spoof of all those old westerns. If the plot line weren't so ridiculous and the whole script didn't wreak of trying to be funny, maybe I would've enjoyed it as it is more.

The Wild Bunch.

2009-03-11T00:43:00.000-07:00

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.

Just a Touch of Evil

2009-03-03T20:55:00.000-08:00

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.

Batalla en el Cielo

2009-02-12T22:45:00.000-08:00

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.

El Callejon de los Milagros

2009-02-04T00:18:00.000-08:00

I actually really liked this movie, despite its melodramatic points. I was pretty compelled the whole way through. Obviously there are aspects of it that I found less believable than others, ie when Susanita and the twenty- six year old guy get married. That part just seemed so middle aged woman dream coming true thing that doesn't really happen very often in reality. I did like it when he responded "sure" in his sleazy way, though.
I was very impressed that this movie talked about homosexuality from the standpoint of an abusive middle aged married man. I also initially thought this movie was from the 80s, until I realized it was from 1995, but nonetheless, Mexican culture is very patriarchal and very Catholic, thus much less tolerant of homosexuality than, say, Canada, where gay marriage is legal and gay men have a much less difficult set of walls to tear down, metaphorically. This aspect of the movie made me respect it a lot more, and I also found the whole situation entirely believable. The use of drugs made this movie feel more real to me, as well.
I liked how hot and cold the father ran, not that it made me like the character for it, but I found him very realistic. Much of the time when asshole self-righteous characters are depicted in film, writers have a tendency to show them as very black and white, one-sided. But the fact that the father became so enraged when he felt betrayed and showed no vulnerability, but still simultaneously loved his grandson added more depth to his character.
There was a little bit of overacting, but it was a very dramatic movie, so somehow it fit, even though generally I can't stand overacting. In terms of this movie as a cultural depiction, I enjoyed the view of the city street that we see interspersed through the film, I thought that was a good motif, because it showed how a street in Mexico actually looks. The fact that Alma felt like her only options of a future were prostitution or marrying rich felt very real and very tragic. I'm not sure if this film was as much a societal commentary, as much as it was about human relationships and the endurance of love.

Readings and other delights

2009-01-28T01:19:00.000-08:00

The readings for this week seem to be more centered around "El Callejon de los Milagros" than "Mecanica Nacional," so I'm going to focus more on the readings.
The "Sexuality in Space" reading goes pretty far in depth into the film, even as far as camera angles, as mentioned on page 31: "As two men take leave of one another the camera pans slightly to the right, thereby bringing into view the opening of the Zocalo metro station..." and goes further into more detail about every small technical aspect of the film. I found this article to be a little bit over the top in ways of the use of academic jargon as well as hardcore film vocabulary that always sends a piece of writing over the top when applied.
Noble talked about Y Tu Mama Tambien in the post-script at the end of the piece, noting that "...this road movie, a genre, like melodrama, that endows space with an excess of symbolic signification," etc., etc. Y Tu Mama Tambien is one of my favorite movies, but it's hard for me to talk about it in such a way that detaches the emotion from the film. For me, film is such a visceral, intense, emotional experience, especially Y Tu Mama, and it's hard for me to turn into a set of chattering words that turn it into a mathematical equation of social commentary.
It's also hard for me to agree or disagree with Noble's thoughts on this upcoming movie, as it's next week's choice and I haven't seen it yet. But there was one idea I was intrigued by on page 31, reading a motif in the movie of "the male body being closed and the female body being open." Anyone can gather certain evidence from random motifs in any movie, we can read into anything as we see fit. But this idea struck a chord with me, not because of any literal meanings, but the idea that men and women gather information and cope with life in different ways based on our genetic make-up and what constitutes our sex as well as gender. That not only culture helps shape how we handle the world, but that our physiology plays a part, too.

2009-01-22T00:20:00.000-08:00

I thought "Los Olvidados" was a great film. Even though it was very subversive and ahead of its time in a lot of ways, it was also very different from recent dramatic social commentary films in that it showed slumming Mexican life all from real characters with no comedic releases. The only deviation from the injustice and suffering that was nearly constantly portrayed was when any one of the children just had a moment where they acted like kids and did something silly.
Though it was much harder to watch because there was nearly nothing buffering us from the truth or lightening the mood at all for the whole duration, it felt intensely powerful and prolific. The truth of it really resonated with me in a whole new way, I truly felt the injustices of the time. Though it's a bad comparison, I've noticed from being American and growing up in the states that the more neglected and disenfranchized and the less educated a society becomes a la its government, the more the internal workings of a society begin to combust.
What I find interesting while truly depressing about the message of this film is that progress was never really reached. At the beginning, we are shown that the message of this film was not that of pessimism, but that of optimism, hoping that by educating people more and more, that eventually progress would change the fate of the impoverished Mexican communities. What's sad is that some progress has been made, but now there's even less of a middle class than there once was in Mexico, and poverty rates continue to flourish. I hope that progress can be made, especially with a brand new American president, who I'm hoping won't say silly things like let's "seal the borders," who will work with the Mexican president.

2009-01-13T22:37:00.000-08:00

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."

span404

2009-01-12T13:04:00.000-08:00

So, this is round two with this blog. Please ignore any previous entries, they're all from SPAN312.
My name is Rose Finn, and I'm from Portland, Oregon. I'm a creative writing major, but I'm looking into a Spanish minor, because I've been taking Spanish classes since I was in seventh grade, and my family is a group of JeMexicans (a phrase I coined). My dad and his siblings were all born in Mexico, and his siblings were raised there, while by the time my dad was five, his Jewish parents up and moved to Milwaukee, Wisconson. So there you have it- JewMexicans. They all speak fluent Spanish, especially my aunt who runs a bilingual school in Chicago and married an Ecuadorian.
The readings thus far are interesting, although it's always difficult for me to sift through the academic jargon that overpowers academic articles. In my program, my initial focus was on screenplay, so I'm hoping this class will provide a whole new take on film, which already it's shaping up that way. I found it interesting in the Monsivais reading about how Mexican cinema has been sociological rather than artistic, which would make a lot of sense, given it's blatant social problems. I'm fascinated and intrigued with Mexican culture, though it happens to be a third world country, and there are certain malfunctions of a society that go with that title. I was in Mexico last February, and I noticed how there are virtually no regulations with workers' compensation, when workdays are permitted to start and end, alcohol, and many other facets of society that are highly regulated in Canada and the US.

final thoughts

2008-04-14T10:37:00.000-07:00

I don't know why, but I completely forgot to do a last blog. Well, here it is now, better late than never, I guess.
All of the books we read in class had interesting premises, though the amount I enjoyed reading most of them was fairly low. Facundo made me bored to tears (though not literally) and I the Supreme was painful to push through. The President or Feast of the Goat were probably my favorites to read. Gabriel Garcia Marquez is just plain a good writer, though I know Feast wasn't his best work, either. The President was very interesting to me, because the style of it was very unique. It didn't simply complain about regimes, it took on the standpoint of many different people under the regime, and how the dictator system of government affects people psychologically. The Zany was really interesting and I thought it added a whole new layer to the Latin American dictator novel genre. Most authors just talk about how it affected them or the rich and well connected, this novel covered a broad spectrum, and was still saucy in its main relationships.
Facundo was just the most inapplicable for me, which is what I had trouble with. This isn't to say I don't feel for the plight of the political prisoner in exile, or anybody that has experienced the true injustice of a dictatorship, but the way in which most of Facundo was written was just dry as toast. My dad once said to me about his opinion on books, "books didn't start getting good until midway through the 20th century." My dad does tend to have black and white blanketing opinions that are often arguable, but generally there is some truth to them, and I think there is some truth to this opinion. There was a lot of dry, unrealistic language in older books, and a lot of self-indulgent writing because there wasn't just a demand for immediate entertainment. Facundo is a wonderful example of this.
All in all, this class wasn't so bad, but considering how many truly incredible Latin American authors and books are out there, a lot of the time concerning history, it would have been nice to read some more actually applicable, well-written Latin American books. But thank you, Jon, for your dedication and time and effort you put into this class, I enjoyed it overall.

Second half of Feast

2008-03-31T22:29:00.000-07:00

I thought this book was interesting, though messy at points, obviously, as it jumped around quite a bit in its chronology. I thought it made a bold statement about the state of a country during its dictatorship, as all of the other dictator novels have. The character Egghead emobies the idea that though people are not stupid or unaware of what's occuring in their country and their government, they are forced to turn a blind eye to what's happening and specifically, in this book, to Trujillo's insanities. The people can't really make a stand against their leader, for fear of torture and/or death, and knowing what horrifying acts are being committed won't help them in the end, it will just make them more fearful and possibly more vulnerable.
What I find with Vargas Llosa's writing is that he has many ideas and characters that are good in theory, but slightly underdeveloped. Urania feels slightly two-dimensional to me, and her story seems like a good set-up for the plot, rather than a realistic portrayal of one woman's difficult existence. The scenes with Trujillo felt more real, and he felt more real, as well.
There's a good dialogue between Trujillo and Dr. Balaguer on page 222 that really exemplifies the paranoia even within the truly sociopathic dictator personality, and the extreme devotion among a few certain parties to the lost followers: "'You don't drink, you don't smoke, you don't eat, you don't chase women, money, or power. Is that the way you really are? Or is it a strategy with a hidden agenda?' Dr. Balaguer's clean-shaven face flushed again. His soft voice did not falter when he declared: 'Ever since I met Your Excellency...my only vice has been serving you. That was when I learned that by serving Trujillo I was serving my country. That has enriched my life more than a woman, or money, or power could have done. I will never find the words to thank Your Excellency for allowing me to work at your side.'"

Feast of the Goat: part one

2008-03-24T21:18:00.000-07:00

One of my first thoughts about this book upon beginning to read it was who the narrator was in relation to the protagonist. It's an innovative way to convey the narrator, as the narrator seems to be just an unkown third person, but the style of speech isn't simply she did this she did that, the narrator has its own personality and commentary, and isn't omnitient. Even on the first page this becomes clear: "Was it his idea or hers? Too late to find out, my girl; your mother was in heaven and your father condemned to a living death. You'll never know. Urania! As absurd as insulting old Santo Domingo de Guzman by calling it ciudad Trujillo. Could that have been her father's idea too?"
This quote really confused me, because of this bizarre narrator sort of commentary. It doesn't explain any sort of relation, and yet the narrator talks to her. I noticed this a little with Facundo and pretty much all of the books we have read thus far, this sort of distorted idea of the traditional narrator, the narrator having an opinion and the main voice switching and changing, especially in I the Supreme, obviously.
The difference between Mario Vargas LLosa and other Latin American authors is the extent of dramatism used in his language, in addition to the content of his stories. I've read a different book by this author, or most of the book, Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter, which had interesting characters and premise, but his ideas weren't fully developed and he sort of meandered through their lives when the book could have been very intense and passionate. It was sort of a Latin American novel version of "The Graduate," which could have been fantastic. Hopefully with this book he explores his ideas more and doesn't let certain details go unnoticed.

Second half of The General

2008-03-17T14:50:00.000-07:00

After last class' discussion about words that come to mind when reading about the General, various other adjectives pop into my head when Marquez describes him. He's such a vulnerable character, with so many health issues, it's hard to understand how he has such a distorted self-view. His weakness, if not just physically, is so intense it's almost palpable, it's hard to feel what he feels, what with not being able to sleep, his ever-present constipation, and a plethora of other issues.
I've heard that other books by him, i.e. Love in the Time of Cholera and 100 Years of Solitude are easier to read, less daunting, which I could see. After I The Supreme, this feels much easier, but I think Marquez probably really shows off his skills in those books. I really love some of his descriptions, though, the way everything feels as though it's right in front of you. On page 144, he describes a setting beautifully: "After three days of rain, the light was a gold powder that filtered through the leaves of the trees and moved the birds to sing among the orange blossoms. The General listened for a moment, heard them in his soul, and almost sighed: 'At least they still sing.'" This not only exemplifies a beautiful description, but the General's vulnerability and loneliness, as well. There's such a tangible sense of sadness throughout the book, as his life, and what the book focuses on, is almost entirely revolving around his themes of disillusionment and how to overcome it. He is a proud, stubborn, cynical, high maintenance man with a somewhat heightened self-view, but ultimately, he's just trying to make through each day, and all of his life ambitions and accomplishments have been thwarted through one form or another.

The beginning of the General and his Labyrinth

2008-03-11T00:25:00.000-07:00

Well this book feels like a picture book in comparison to I The Supreme. My first favorite (please excuse my American spelling) passage from this book was on page 5: "Then he plucked the hairs in his nose and ears, polished his perfect teeth with charcoal powder on a silver-handled silk brush, trimmed and buffed the nails on his fingers and toes, and at last took off the poncho and poured a large vial of cologne over his entire body, rubbing it in with both hands until the flask was empty. That dawn he officiated at the daily mass of his ablutions with more frenetic severity than usual, trying to purge his body and spirit of twenty years of fruitless wars and the disillusionments of power."
That was a long passage, I know, but it was all so packed with good detail and distinct images. If an author is able to do this by page 5, one must know that this will be at the very least a decent book. The reader begins to get an idea of the character by the absolute ridiculousness he goes to in primping and beautifying oneself. I laughed at the point when he poured cologne all over himself, just at the image and idea, I guess. Upon reading the last line, the image becomes less humorous and emphasizes and teaches even more about this man we know very little about. He's, in a sense, absolving his sins and memories through the scent of something nicer, something that would rid his memory. Already I can tell this will be a slighty more hopeful book than the ones we've read prior to this, and if Marquez can make me laugh and feel wistful and sad within the first five pages, that's a very good sign about the strength of his writing.
The sadness and empathy you feel for Simon at points is almost palapble. I think the message from some of it though is very ironic and makes some very interesting statements about human nature and life in general. Here this man is, he's liberated so many people, but it's not the Disney ending we would have hoped for. People still are angry and resentful, and a person who takes on the responsibility of freeing or helping a person, a nation, a people, whatever, has to know beforehand that they may not get the recognition or response they desired. Life has a way of going a different direction of one's expectations.

La segunda parte de I The Supreme

2008-03-03T15:37:00.000-08:00

Oh god, this is pretty much the hardest book I've ever had to read. Who calls it the best Latin American dictator novel, why do they say that, and where are they? I'd like to understand its greatness a bit more... I think I actually liked The President more.
Moving on, what makes this a more painful read is its descriptions. A good example of the density of his descriptions is on page 233: "The Republic turns, slowly and majestically, toward the audience. She stands firmly on her scissored legs. The two blades spread slightly apart. Pubis shaved completely bare. Bathed in broken reflections, patches of light. Phosphorescent flashes- achiote, bija, orellana, tapaculo, uruku- turn it into a black sun. Likewise her mouth." This description continues on to the next page.
Why is it necessary to have all of these obtuse descriptions throughout the book? If you cut each weird metaphor he uses in half, this book would be half the length and somewhat more bearable to read. Okay, I'll stop complaining now.
I think what makes this book unintentionally humorous is how over the top it can be, even to the very last page, when Patino's describing the "ex" Supreme's slow, subtle descent into death, I almost began to laugh at how ridiculously bad it was. Maybe that's just my sense of humor, but it does begin to retract the ultimate powerful message of the book when every description must be drawn out into a slow, subtle torture in itself.
The second to last page (423) I thought was one of the best in the book, when it becomes clear that the author is really talking to The Supreme and drawing the crushing realization for him that ultimately revolution will carry out his fate in the end.
More specifically, one of my favorite lines from the book is also on page 423: "You misread the will of the People and as a consequence you misused your power, as your dotard's affections spun about gerontropically in the vacuum of your all-embracing will." This is when I really got a sense that it was the author speaking from his heart, demonstrating the pain he suffered while in exile.

la primera parte de I The Supreme

2008-03-03T15:17:00.000-08:00

Wow, I The Supreme is quite the novel. It's a bit much for me at points, considering there's not much in the way of breaking up the pages, and the descriptions can get very tedious. I'm excited to see why it is considered the best Latin American dictator novel of all time.
What I find most interesting about the content of what The Supreme states is his agility and desire not to be forgotten, to be immortal and last forever, in some form or another. To me this shows his weakness, his vulnerability, and makes him a real person, instead of some tyrannical beast with no soul- all he desires, as is an innate human want, is to not be forgotten, to mean something so great that people will remember him and pay homage to his existence. His weakness is his mortality, therefore his weakness also reminds him that he is truly no greater than any other human, and the power he craves can only ever go so far.
I don't know exactly why there aren't any quotations to break up the dialogue between the Supreme and Patino. As we talked about in class, this seems intentional, not just a publishing error. The "I" is reflexive, and shows that no one "I" can be just one person, there is no one ultimate authority, like each power-hungry dictator seems to believe of themself.
It's interesting that there is no defined dialogue, it sets up both people, one with significantly less power than the other, on the same plane, and the one with true vulnerability, as they lie on their death bed, is the more powerful of the two. I think what Bastos intended was to show how futile it is for any person in power to crave to be the dominant source of authority, as eventually, we all are mortal and will end up in the same place, anyway. Ultimately there are no real divisions, it's just our actions while we're living that make us different.

The end of The President

2008-02-05T00:02:00.000-08:00

What an interesting read this book was. All of the metaphors and similes really helped to create many interesting and creative images, as well as feelings associated with the characters. The story was very tragic, but that made the point of it all the more real and palpable. If everyone had gotten what they wanted at the end and the forbidden love had turned out to work out like some sappy romantic comedy, the point of the brutality and injustice of dictatorships couldn't have really been exemplified. Also, it just wouldn't have provoked the same sort of reaction in the reader.
It was a dysfunctional love to begin with, a love that also depicted a level of sexism that it felt like Asturias also wanted to exhibit. Ultimately the female lead had very little say in her life, she was just the object of affection of Miguel Angel-Face, and truly had very little apparent influence. However, he also showed that she had an underlying influence on Angel-Face by having his love and affection, making him inadvertently taking a huge risk to be with her, because of the malevolence of El Senor Presidente.
Because he became a political prisoner, this tied the dramatic conflict in the book that was more character-specific back to the essential idea of the harmfulness and destruction of one man having complete control over a country. The ending was so dark and painful, everything was stated in an emotionless, matter-of-fact manner, it really helped me understand the extent of how psychopathic these sorts of regimes really are.
The Zany was a really fascinating character, as well, and really added an entire section of the book that felt more surreal and bizarre. It was also necessary because it added a depiction of the opposite end of the spectrum, as far as social classes go. He was the lowest of the low on the food chain, so the reader gets to experience what being the lowest-class human in this society feels like, all the way to the top, where the political administration lies. Whichever class one can be a part of, none are safe, secure, or out of harm's way when they're a part of a dictatorship.

The first 1/2 of The President

2008-01-28T22:33:00.000-08:00

Asturias writes in a very unique style, with many onomatopoeias, if that's what he's intending to use them as, such as on page 21, "They're going to bury them! Ta-ra-ra! Ta-ra-ra-boom!" Actually, I'm not completely sure what he was going for with that phrase. I love the idea of delving into what the subconscious effects are of a malicious dictator. The style of this writing is very descriptive and abstract, which makes it a little more difficult to just plow through it quickly, while maintaing complete understanding of the characters, plot, and basic idea of the book. There's a lot of subtext and hidden meaning.
I love how he creates a visual image through describing the context of a scenario. An example of this is on page nineteen, when he says, "doors and doors and doors and windows and doors and windows flashed passed him." This style is very poetic and fluid, and I really enjoy how he incorporates that into his storytelling.
That being said, I'm not sure I actually get a sense of the plot completely. I understand he's trying to expose a ruthless dictator, I understand he goes into a lot of dream sequences, but it's hard for me to differentiate between what's part of the plot and what's a character's psyche. I also don't really get how the dictator affects each individual, like "the Zany." What exactly does "the Zany" represent? Why is he/it called that? Maybe it was mentioned in the text, but I missed that completely. I'm probably just way too literal of a person to get all of Asturias' subtle and creative ideas. But the plot does begin to make more and more sense as it continues.
The angle of the head authority, the resident psychopath realizing something unjust (according to him) is occurring in his presence and he begins to take a gradual, diabolical revenge is a plot theme used in various other storylines since this book was written. Even in Disney movies we see this idea being used, all of the villains always take the one person captive that the protagonist couldn't live without, i.e. Peter Pan, Snow White, Cinderella, etc. The tragic part of this text is that Asturias is speaking out against tyrannical dictators with too much power, a character that does exist all the time, and often runs countries. Not just impoverished ones, either, an example being the current president of the United States.

2008-01-22T00:16:00.000-08:00

Sarmiento's writing style doesn't particularly light my board, but I enjoy how he shows all of the psychology behind Facundo, as well as behind the dictator's mind in general. Examining him from all angles gives a much greater perspective of a Sociopath's mind. He went into great detail about the man, how he enjoys gambling, but rigs his games so that if anyone beats him, they're severly punished (i.e. being hurt or murdered).
Though I like how Sarmiento intends to fully depict the other side of his argument, his descriptions of Facundo still seem so one-sided, as though he's just sort of making everything up about him as he goes along. I'd like to know how this book impacted its readers at the time and how they responded to it. Was it truly revolutionary? He just sounds like a guy with opinions, sometimes uninformed ones, attempting to display his rage and disgust for South America and its political regimes. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but I'd like to know how much he researched and how much of this is truly what Facundo's like. Sarmiento doesn't show Facundo's vulnerable side or at least a complete three hundred sixty degree look at who a dictator, or a psychopath, really is, and how they come to be. He mentions hobbies and what he does, as if this is a tale of a man who came to power, but in the context of an old western or something.
Maybe he couldn't have made the character too blatantly paralleling who he was based off of, otherwise he'd be discovered almost instantly. I'm not sure, but I'd like to know more about who Sarmiento is and what kind of impact he had on society during his time.

The first 1/2 of Facundo

2008-01-14T22:26:00.000-08:00

Reading the conversation Sarmiento printed between him and Dr. Don Manuel Ignacio Castro Barros made me very grateful for living in a free society, where not half the population is fleeing from lack of resources or government cruelty or a severe lack of medical care. This conversation I felt really exemplified the reason for why Sarmiento wanted to speak out against the injustice and pain his society has suffered and write about a dictator. He gives an unusual amount of background on some of the history of Argentina and barbarization, but it really sets the reader up for understanding 1) Where he's coming from, and 2) How dictatorships came to be in Argentina, or just in general.
Just this page long conversation alone really depicts the state of anarchy that revolution and/or war can bring about. This revolution in terms of Marx wasn't a failure, based on the fact that no one in particular had a lot of money; the doctor mentions that everyone is very poor, no one had any large fortunes of fifty thousand pesos. Therefore, everyone was relatively on the same economic plane. However, this revolution destroyed Argentine economy and even population.
It's easy to tell that Sarmiento is greatly impassioned by the history of Argentina and the vast amount of social problems it has faced. One way he shows this is by answering all of his own furious questions with a resounding "no!" He also ends many sentences in exclamation points. An example being, "Might you think that such mediocrity is normal for a city of the interior? No!"
When I got to the fifth chapter, Life of Juan Facundo Quiroga, it seemed to me that the book really should have started here. He had a wonderful, masjestic beginning that painted a vivid picture for the reader. It felt like the first few chapters were more of a self-indulgent rant, to show his knowledge of previous history and to set up the horrors that Argentina has faced, but much of these chapters involved his anger that could have been omitted. His writing takes on an entirely different approach and purpose starting in chapter five, to the point where it might have been easier to just do a bit of research on the 1810 revolution, The "Baqueano," and looked at a map of Argentina before reading "Life of Facundo Quiroga."
I liked the line on page 100, "I see in them a greant man, a man of genius in spite of himself and without knowing it, a Caesar, a Tamerlane, a Mohammed."

first entry

2008-01-10T16:18:00.000-08:00

This is my first blog, and I'm not exactly sure what the parameters are for this one. We talked about the correlation between writing and power in class today, and I was particularly interested in how powerful the medium of writing can be, especially when one is living with unfortunate circumstances, with no real outlet to express their pain. Writing can be very therapeutic and necessary to heal wounds from imprisonment, living under a dictatorship, and severe censorship in general, which becomes apparent with Sarmiento's Facundo.
Facundo isn't exactly the quickest or easiest read thus far, but knowing that it was immensely powerful for an entire culture at one point makes it more immediately interesting. The time period in which it was written, therefore the language that comes with it makes it a more difficult read, for me, at least. I've also noticed that having grown up in an ADD society and generation, I seek stimulous constantly and am bored with any form of entertainment unless it delivers action almost instantaneously. I've noticed that literature became a lot more interesting, on the whole, in the 20th century. Obviously there are exceptions, and there are certainly many influential, revolutionary books written before the 20th century, but the language becomes so dated, even the English translation doesn't feel like it's in a language I can understand fully.
The material for this class is a lot more promising than most literature classes that I've looked at in the UBC course catalogue. Latin America has a rich, fascinating history, that even outdated material can still be interesting because the content and emotion drives each piece of work. I haven't read too much Canadian literature, seeing as I'm not Canadian and have only lived here during University, but what I have read has proved my belief that Canada is too functional a country to produce a high quantity of engaging, passionate, and painful dramas, whether they be fictional or not. Canadians are too nice and the government here is so much more regulated and maintained than any of it's Southern neighbors, I would image that it's hard for the average Canadian to know what being truly screwed over by your government and alienated within your own culture is like. There was no slavery and were no revolutions.
Latin American and Spanish literature I've read thus far has all been worthwhile and interesting. At some point I plan on living in Spain and/or Ecuador, so knowing a bit of background about important works will probably prove ultimately helpful in me attempting to converse intelligently in Spanish (though I don't know if that's possible yet).