Just a Touch of Evil

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.