New Latin American Cinema: Theory, Practice, and Transcontinental Articulations [1, 1 ed.]

Citation preview

NE|1|

LEITIII

mericnn Einema

Enutempnnnr Fllm and Television Sefles A mmpiele listing ef Ih-E has-.l|;.r in this series can be f.-Juiid at the buck elf this mimiie. G-memi Edirnr

Pmmcm B. Eafizws Emery Enllege A-n‘i'iI0i}' Edin:-rs

Luca’ FISCI-IEF.

Mxmm WHITE

UI!.i'HBf5il]' of Pfiltsl:|urg11

Hnrlhwestem Universiqr

PETER Lemmm

CAREH J. DEHIHE

University of Ariznna

University :1-f Aiiznnn

Renee? J. Buneuwm Wayne State UlIi"|'l!!l‘5i1]||'

z

GL3“

-."-.i

~ —:

1

new Lnnn mencnn nn vnnnnnn J.-

Ihenru, Practices and Transcontinental Hrlicnlnlinns Ellihill |ll|

HIEHHEL I. Hllliill

WMHE ETATE l.ln|wE|=|E|'r"~r PEEEE

L1

fl| L‘-‘ L5

UETHDFT

.;-W6’. .2 //' .

|

-viii;

|

|

:2

.

_.-

.

_

|

-

if

t/~/

Cnpyright I-‘E I9??? by Wayne State University Press. Detreit. Michigan 45201. All rights are reserved.

He part ef this he-alt may he repredueed with-put ferrnal permissirm. Manufaeturerl in tl1e United States pf Arneriea. t]1[H]‘JEt5tS'.-1? 54321

Lila-ru-y at Emrgrm. Cat-alngirig-in-Pnhlteatien Data New Latin .tt.meriea.n tI.‘il'|eII‘|H- t’ etlitetl by Michael T. Martin.

p. em. — IItl'-entempnrai-y film and teleyisien series} Includes hibliegraphieal references and ine-esCentents: y. I- Theery. praetiees, and transcontinental artieuiatiens — y. 2- Studies pf national cinemas. ESBH tIt—St43-2TtIl5—2 talk. paperft [SSH tZt—Etl4Ii—.'?:5S5—Et tpblt. : allt. paper]|—[SEtH tIt—IEt1--t3—2T[tt5-I1] talk. paperi [SEN t]—S1='lEl—15tEt»tE>—t5 tphk. : alit. paper} I. Metien pietures—Latin Amer-iea—Histnry. 2. Mnlien pictures-— Sneia] aspeets—Latin Ftmeriea. 3. Metien pietures—Pnlitieal aspects“-

Latin America. I. Martin. Miehael T. ll. Series. PHISIEE-.5.L3H4S I99? T91.-13'[t9S—de2I

(3

'1~

i___|

96-1514! Cl?

E 1!_--If-_'-ii [£3 -L

_l_

_-_'.

tit‘-LAD St-'*te1e:-‘5'I "i

-I,-t-..e=s."r new -'=t—*t-.t

Fer my tr!-tiiiser

['=-j_:;:a,j=_-'- E

GUs 13 Ie

.

S.

_

D‘§“‘I‘“' ht‘ (300316

I] ' " If -3

untyeastiiil iinermirzateant

Fur the native. nhjeetivity is always directed against him. Frantz Fanttrt Le: dimmer rie In terre.1':iH5l

Artfieqttentlyereetesaeeerifertahle. self-suffieient wneltl temitwedfttntnatsliitin. Ethnundefleanuee

"The Photographic Irnage ef Untierdeyelfljlflle-nL" last

Weiiaderaundwhateinemfaeseiflfimefienshnulflheinfluhainflieeefimea: hshsfldeemhihrteinfliemnstelfeefiyenaypnsaihteteeleyaflngtnewefa menlttfinnmyennaeinusnessmdtnwmingthemfnrflaeideuiugieal stragglewhiehthey hayemwageagainstaflkindsefmaefiumrymndeueiesuflhshnfldflseennhihutetn

theirenjaymentaflife. Tnrfisfiu-lieu-reafltlel

I-‘hr Wet-t'er’.r Dieieetie. 1955

= Cit‘). 311.3

.

_

D‘§“‘I‘“' ht‘ (300316

I] ' " If -3

untyeastiiil iinermirzateant

Contents Preface l 1 Aclcnewledg merits 13 The Unfinished Sn-cial Practice nf the New Latin American Cinema Intrecluctnry Hates Michnei T. Martin i5 It THEURIEIHG PULITICAUAEETHETIC TlL5t.,I ECTCIRIES Towards a Third Cinema: Hrttes and Ettperienees fer the

I-in

[Ilevelnpment ef a Cinema nf Lih-eratien in the Third Werld Femnncfc Sninnas and tjctnvic Getine 33 An Esthetie cf Hunger Gfnaber R.-srrhn 59 Prehlems ef Farm and Cement in Itevnlutinnary Cinema Large $rrn_it'nei.t ti?

Fer an Imperfect Cinema Jniic Gareth Espincsn "H

‘Iii

Meditations cm Imperfect Cinema . . . Fifteen ‘fears Later .ft-tfi.-:1 t']r't1ri:'ti-:1 Espines.-:1 E3

Cinema and Undenievelnpment Femnntfc Birri 36 Fer a Nationalist, Realist. Critical and Pepalar Cinema Femanric Birri 95 Seme Hates an the Cencept ef a “Third Cinema“ Grtnvin Getirte '99

The "v’iewer*s Dialectic Tnm.ti.t Gutierrez .-‘Hen lfili

= Cit‘). -gle

_.-._. - .

_

IIII

Contents

II: CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT: 5ClCIUHISTDIIICAL CONTENTS AND MUDES [IF PRDDUCTIUNICDNSUNIPTIUN

An “Clther" History: The New Latin American Cinema Arte M. Lopez I35 Film Artisans and Film Industries in Latin America, lE-‘ISIS-l9S[l: Theoretical and Critical Implications of ‘tfmiations in Modes of Filmic Production and Consumption .-ittitrtrtrte Barron I5? The Economic Condition of Cinema in Latin America Atficftrrei Cflflndn I35

Rediscovering Documentary: Cultural Contest and lntentionaliry Michael Citation 2131 III: TEA.NSC[INTII"~lENTAL ARTICULATIDN5

The Third Cinema Question: Notes and Reflections Ftrtti Wiifemen IE]

Resolutions of the Third World Filmmakers Meeting. Algiers, Dec. 5-I4 (l!i'I'3} Cine-:rste 252 Europe: An Indispensable Linlc in the Production and Circulation of Latin American Cinema Antonio Sitrinneto IE3

W: NEW LATIN AMERICAN CINEMA REVISITEI] Anffither View of New Latin American Cinema B. Rn.-try Rich 273 The New Latin Arnericm Cinema: A lvlodemist Critique of Modemity Znanrm M. Pick Z93

Select Bibliography 313 Contributors 321 Indes 325

‘

t

-

.

-

PFETHCE

The essays. interviews. and programmatic statements collected here are devoted to the study of a tlreoriaed. dynamic. and unfinished Latin American cinematic movement. In challenging the “history of cinematic representation." the New Latin American Cinema movement is at once national and continental. Its practices reverherate throughout the First World as well as other regions of the Third World. Patented by the continent"s colonial esperience and forged by its continuing underdevelopment and dependency. the movement has inscribed itself in Latin Americans‘ struggles for national and continental autonomy. This collection is deployed in two volumes. ‘Volume l addresses the formation and continental development of the New Latin American Cinema. its theoretical foundations. thematic and aesthetic concems. and transcontinental articulations. Contributions by pioneering filmmakers foreground the prograrmnatic writings of the movement as they theorize the practice of an aesthetically and radically altemative cinema. Volume E surveys the development of the New Latin Ameri-

can Cinema as a national project. The contents of the volumes include significant but diffusely published essays along with several new and revised essays and interviews. Wlrile these writings are varied and cstensive. they cannot pretend to eshaust all the perspectives on the subject under study. To the contrary. revisionist and other perspectives

will no doubt emerge as the movement's first three decades become increasingly historicised and reassessed by film scholars and critics alilre. The volumes are intended to achieve two principal objectives. First. they serve as a basic reference tool for the study of Third World cinema in general and Latin American cinema in particular: and as primary readerite:-its for faculty and students in film. cultural. and Third ‘World studies courses. As such. readers can easily avail thernselves of critical writings which first appeared in journals and monographs of limited circulation. This co|lection*s second objective is to map and account for the movement's diversity and innovativeness in order to esplicate the socio-historical and cultural contests of its development. in so doing. the editor hopes to invite larger debates about identity. nation. and devel-

= Cit‘). -glc

“

_.-._. - .

-

.

11

Prefncc

opment tn ' Latin America . Essays in the collection should arouse read

ers to study the cinematographic {and increasingly video} corpus of worlt of this movement. its traditions and place tn world cinema. —ivI.T.l'vI.

'

" ‘

GL1

:__|'-.j -._.--512

-

ll_

. -; .;j-_;

Acknowledgments This project has talren nearly three years to complete. For an anthology of readings this seems escesslve. Identifying the numerous writings selected for the volumes. many only available in obscure film. cultural and ethnic studies periodicals and monographs. was instructive. interminable telephone discussions punctuated by fair er-rchanges with authors and publishers both here in the United States and abroad rendered the esperience of assembling this collection arduous at bestI have readily convinced myself that the nest project I undertake will. most assuredly. not be an anthology. However. during the development of this project I benefited. in no small measure. from the generosity and encouragement of individuals and orgartiaations to whom I am indebted and grateful. They include my friends and comrades Lamont 't’ealrey. Howard Cradlin. Robert Shepard. and Leslie Danrasceno; and colleagues Hamid Nalicy and David Maciel. Michael Chanan. Dan C-reorgalras. Julianne HonouCat'vajal. Robert Stam. Randal Johnson. Paulo Antonio Paranagua. John Hess. and Roma Cribson I thanlr for their generosity in granting me permission to reprint essays in this anthology. To E. Hope Anderson and Kathryne ‘ll’. Lindberg I atn etemally grateful for their editorial assistance in the early drafts of the Amaral interview and the final draft of the introductory essay. respectively; to Louise Jefferson. for her translation of a section of an essay on Cuban cinema; to Timothy Barnard. for his translation and reworlring of Cletavio f3etino‘s essay; and to Chuclr Itleinhans and Robert Burgoyne. for their review of the prospectus and helpful suggestions for the redeployment of the contents of the anthology. I also tharrlr Arthur Evans. the director of the Wayne State University Press. who first suggested I had two volumes. given the scope and size of these readings. I am also indebted to my editor ltathy Wildfong. copyeditor Mary Gillis. and production manager Alice Nigoghosian of the Press for their patience and collaborative interventions during the production of these volumes. For financial support to complete this project. I arrr grateful to Garrett Heberlein. ‘v'ice President for Research and Dean of the '

‘

GC]-

13

_|-._; __f_:

H-In .. I

_

|

I-1

.-tei:rtou'l'erign-renr.r

Graduate School. and to the Ciffice of Research and Sponsored Pro grams at Wayne State University.

'3'

Glut

:___|"-.] -._.-"51

_

I F

I -i III-'--.1

The Unfinished Social Practice Of the

New Latin American Cinema: Introductory Notes Michael T. Marttn

Latin America‘s cinematic traditions are not of recent vintage; rather. they emerged during the first half of the twentieth century. beginning in the late lSEltJs. when European producers exhibited films to the loom bourgeoisie in Rio. Montevideo. Buenos Aires. Mesico City. and Havana. and local film production was started in ‘l-Ienezuela. Argontina. Brazil. Uruguay. Cuba. and Merrico.‘ ‘While European films served m the early models for Latin American fiirrunalrers. and European followed by Hollywood companies dominated distribution. local production. arguably innovative and culturally distinct. altemately sparse and prolific. was established in Brazil. Argentina. Merrico. Cuba. and ltenezuela. among other countries. during the first several decades of this century.‘ Until the lilbfls. however. European and North American film scholars and critics largely ignored the cinematic wotl-rs of filmmalrem from Latin America and other regions of the Third World. or. at best. condescendingly relegated Third World cinema to the margins of film history. During the l!§lTIls. fiction and documentary films by Third World. particularly Latin American. filmmalrers were recognized at intemational film festivals; and through art house errhibitions in the United States and Europe. their films received critical and popular audience aoclaim. Concomitantly. North American and European. along with Latin American. film scholars have generated. in recent years. a substantial corpus of criticism and research on Latin American film practices. Monographs. anthologies. and articles in specialized film joumals have put this important area of study on the cultural mapfi‘

Clrr glc

‘i

lfi

Mitrfiuel T. ritfrrrrin

The essays. interviews artd declarationtmanifestoes collected here are devoted to the study of a loosely constituted. dynamic. and unfinished movement of “films of a new lrind.“ Referred to as the “New Latin American Cinema." the movement‘s cultural productions and theoretical writings have increasingly and significantly contributed to film history and critical theory. Arising in Argentina. Brazil and Cuba in the late lllfills and lildlls. in response to the deepening underdevelopment and economic and cultural dependency of the continent. the movement has inscribed itself in Latin Americans‘ struggles for national and continental autonomy. ‘While of great theoretical and historical importance to the development artd study of world cinema. especially to Third ‘World cinema. the New Latin American Cinema is not a spontaneous. autonomous. unified. and monolithic project. As one observer has pointedly noted. its development as a cinematographic movement and oppositional social practice has been uneven temporally. formally [by cinematic modetgenre}. and spatially between Latin America's cinematic traditions-‘ And while the proponents and pioneer filmmal-rert‘theotists. of the New Latin American Cinema have shared aesthetic and thematic concems. their representational strategies are as diverse as the population groups and hybrid cultures of Latin America. The differences that errist among these filmmalrers are apparent in the cinematic representations of culture Md identity. and arguably most evident in the films of Latin Americans who. in esile. live in the mctropolises where “posrcoloniality" displaces traditional community artd cultural affiliations. and memory is attenuated and reconstituted. This collection provides the setting and errpanse for the consideration of the New Latin American Cinema as a national and continental project [including the diaspotictesilic esperience]. committed to a social practice that at once opposes capitalist and foreign domination and affinrrs national and popular e:-rpression. Further. these essays consider the rnovement‘s transcontinental articulations in the First ‘World and in other regions of the Third World. The period under study begins with the fomrative years of the movement. the lEt5t}s artd 15'-ltills. through developments of the l'.§l3lIl-st several of the essays account for developments in the i’-Hits. Together. the writings of filmmalrers. theorists and scholars revisit the cinematic worlrs and practices of this movement. critically explicate the socio-historical and cultural contests of their production. and in doing so invite larger debates about cultural and national identity. and the processes of “development.” underdevelopment artd dependency in Latin America.

- = Grit. -glc

_.-. - .

-

.

Introductory Notes

IT

I The collection is organized into two volumes: volume l. Theory. Practices. and Transcontinental Articulations.‘ and volmne 1. Sttrrlies of National Cinenrus. In part I of volume l the central question of a Latin (“Third ‘ll'r~"orld“} American aesthetic is taken up in the major pmgrammatic statements by Glauber Rocha. Julio Garcia Espinosa. Jorge Sanjines. and Femando Solanas artd Ctctavlo C-retino. By “aesthetic.” I mean what Robert Starn has described as “the search for production methods and a style appropriate to the economic conditions and political circumstances of the Third ‘ll'r"otld."i‘ These declarations. along with other polemical writings by Femando Bini and Tomas Clutirhrec Alea. delimit an “active cinema for an active spectator.“ and constitute the ideological and aesthetic foundations of the New Latin American Cinema movement.“ These writings. notes Ju-

lianne Burton. were “written by film—malrers whose theoretical propositions derive from the concrete practice of attempting to make specific films under specific historical conditions.“ influenced by the Afro-Caribbean theorist. Frantz Farron. Femartdo Solanas and Ctctavio Cretino. in “Towards a Third Cinema“ [I969]. call for a clandestine. subversive. “guetilla.“ and "unfinished." cinema that radically counteracts the hegemony of Hollywood and European capitalist production and disnibution practices.‘-" Solanas and Getino conceive of cinema. especially in the documentary mode. as an insteament for social analysis. political action. and social transformation.“ In “An Esthetie of Hunger“ flElt55; “Eateries de la violencia“]. the Brazilian filmmaker. Glauber Rocha. inverts the social reality of underdevelopment and dependency—the “themes of hunger“—into a signifier of resistance and usnsformation where violence is the authentic and empowering errpression of the oppressed: he inserts the filmmaker allied with the movement. Cinenrn lllavo. in the continent‘s snuggle against neocolonial domination. Concemed with the development of a participatory and collective cinema. the Bolivian filmmaker. Jorge Sanjlnes. in “Problems of Form and Content in Revolutionary Cinema“ [l'§lTS}. delineates a film practice in which the struggles of peasant communities are the thematics of a revolutionary cinema. and peasants are the protagonists in the cinematic recovery of their identity. culture and history. The fourth major polemic of the New Latin American Cinema. distinguished. in part. from the above statements by its post-revolutionary concems. is “For an Imperfect Cinema" (1969). authored by the Cuban filmmaker Julio C-rarcia Espinosa. ‘Written ten years after the Cuban Revolution. Espinosa‘s essay rejects the technical perfection of Hollywood artd

= Cir‘). glc

.

lli

ll-i'ir'ltctcl T. ti-fartitt

European cinema artd calls for “an authentically revolutionary artistic culture” in which. drawing on popular art. filmmaker and {active} spectator are co-authors. and the problems and struggles of ordinmt people are the raw material of an altemative and “imperfect” cinema. “l The issues addressed in the above declarations reverherate in “Cinema and Underdevelopment” (l'Eto2}. and “For a Nationalist. Realist. Critical and Popular Cinema” {I93-4} by the Argentine documentarist and founder of the Documentary Film School of Santa Fe {Escuela Etocumental dc Santa Fe}. Femando Birri. in “Some Notes on the Concept of a ‘Third Cinema‘ ” [I934]. Ctctavio Cretino provides important contestual information about the historical development of the “Cine Liberation” movement in Argentina. and in “lvleditations on Imperfect Cinema . . . Fifteen ‘fears Later“ tltitlitl-}. Espinosa clarifies artd elaborates his premises for an imperfect cinema. And the recently deceased Cuban filmmaker Tomas Gutitirrez Alea. in “The "tt'iewer‘s

Iltialectic” {IRES}. estends Espinosa‘s concerns about the relation of the cinema to the spectator and society in postrevolutionary Cuba to its mobilizing role in the ideological struggle against “reactionary ten-

dencies” in socialist society. and. more importantly. to shaping the social process itself as a “guide for action” in which the spectator has an “active role.”" The writings in part l advance a conception of cinema as a transforrnational social practice. and. especially in the essays by Espinosa

artd Alea. as a conception in which the social processes that generate problems in society are revealed and indeterminate. Collectively. they feature a “notion of a cinema which incorporates in itself a discourse Hon its social and materials conditions of production.”" and in which the participants principal task is to develop a “socially productive lcinema” that. argues Alea. is “genuinely and integrally revolutionary. ractive. stimulating. mobilizing. and—consequently—popular.”'"‘ In assessing the early films and theoretical writings of the New

Latin Americmr Cinema. Ana M. Lopez. resolves that they: signaled a naive belief in the camera's ability to record “truths” —to capture a national reality or essence without any mediation —as if a simple inversion of the dominant colonized culture were sufficient to negate that culture and institute a truly national one. Gradually. the kind of knowledge that the cinema was asked to invoke and produce acquired a different character. “Realism.” no longer seen as tied to simple perceptual tmth or to a mimetic approsimation of the real. was increasingly used to refer to a self-conscious material practice. The cinema‘s powers of representation—its ability to reproduce the surface of the

= Grit. -glc

_.-. - .

-

.

'

Intreducrery Ncrres

I ‘El

I lived werld—were activated nut as a recurd nr duplicatinn cf that surface, hut in nrder 'lCl explain it, tc- reveal its hidden as-

pects, te disclese tlte material matrix that determined it. This prneess was, furthermcre, nut an end in itself . . . hut was articulated as part cf a larger prncess cf cultural, sncial, pnlitical, and ecenemic rencvaticn.“ ln part E cf this vc-lume, fiaur essays examine the develnpment cit’ the New Latin American Cinema as a natienal and cnntinentai mavement. In a detailed analysis rif the histnrical evelutinn pf the |"~lew

Latin American Cinema, Ana tvt. Ltipea is cencemed with its dual develc-pment as a natinnal and “pan-Latin American" cinematic mavement. The muvement‘s ltey practical ccncem tn redefine the cnncepts i cf “natic-naiity" and ‘*natinnhncid” in cinema, and thereby create an all temative [and cppcsiticinal} natinnal cinema, is illuminated by Ldpea‘s enntrast et" the elitism and failed effnrts nf the NHEPH Din tn transfnrm Argentine cinema in the lllfills, tc the pepular and enduring initiatives cf the Dncumentary Film Schcnl ef Santa Fe {see alsn the Birri essays in part lj. lvlnreever, in her analysis cf the naticttal cnntests in which the New Latin American Cinema has develeped, and is differentially manifest in the l9Bll'Is. Ldpea challenges thnse filmmakers ef the mnvement whn have declared that it nn lenger has “a special utility er serve[s] a sc-cial functinn." Rejecting the er-ttremcs cit “self-refeztivity" and “materiality” fnr an apprnach that emphasizes the relatien {and determinancy) cf “ccntest1.ta|" factnrs tc the film test and its interpretaticn, Julianne Burtc-in draws an Westem critical traditinns in nrder tn examine the New Latin American Cinema*s efferts tn transfurm, under diverse se| cial cnnditinns, the mcdes nf “filmic preductien" and recepticmi'eithihitinn, during the first twenty-five years cf the mnvement"s develnpment. She ccncludes that “Latin American filmmakers‘ attempts tn create a revclutidnary cinema tctclit as their p-dint pf depar-

ture net simply the intrnducticn cf a new cnntent er the transfcrrnatinn ' nf cinematic fnrrns, hut the transfnrmatinn nf the subjective cnnditiens ._ nf film pmducticn and film viewing." The twn essays that fellcw are hy Michael Chanan. In the first essay. Chanan taltes up the key prc-hlem cf cultural imperialism under glchal capitalism in Latin America. Tracking the hlnrth American distrilauters‘ dcminaticn pl the Latin American film market, he shews haw they have histerically impeded iccal preductien. And ccnverscly, he examines the cuunter~hegemcnic effcrts nt‘ several Latin American states [Brazil and Cuba], in the ccntemperary pericd, tc pretect their natiunal film industries fmm United States transnatienal cerpc-ratinns.

- = Cc). -glc

_.-., - .'

-

.

ED

A-fichrrcf T. A-fnflfn

In the secend essay. Chanan emphasises like Elurtnn. centextuai facters—“culttu'a] centext" and “intentienality." He is cencerned with the

central pesitinn and paradigmatic rele nf the dncumentary fnrm in the New Latin American Cinema. In the cnntext nf pnstrevnlutiensry Cuba. he examines twe categnries nf decumenLat"y—cine diddcticn and cine restimenr'e—in a typnlegy that cenveys “the preeccupatinns

attd nbjectives nf the New Latin American Cinema ntevement.“ and he cnncludes by nnting that what distinguishes nppnsitienal frnm Hellywee-d studie and Eurnpean cnmmercial cinemas is its redepleyment

and pnsitinning nf the spectatnr and filmmaker in the sncial prncess. Fart S nf vnlume I is devnted tn the articulatinns nf the New Latin American Cinema in the First Wnrld and in ether regiens nf the Third Werld. nf which Latin America is a part, and tn its thenretical elah-n-

ratinn and cultural specificity amnng nppnsitinnal cinemas. Hnwever Third Werld cinema is distinguished by natinnal. gender, linguistic, racial and ethnic categnries. amnng nthers. it shares three fundamental '= and dislecating factnrs; {I} the dual impact ef the cnlnnial and nencnlnnial (unrierdevelnpmentfdependencyfi histnrica] and cnntempnrary prncesses; {2} the enduring presence and defining influence nf Western culture: and [3] the detemtinancy nf capitalist prnductien and distributinn practices. *5 In a recent study, Ella Shehat and Rnbert Stain nffer fnur tentative criteria nf Third Werld cinema: l. A cnre circie nf “Third Wnrldist" films preduced by and fer Third ‘Wnrld penple {nn matter where these penple happen tn be} and adhering tn the principles nf “Third Cinema“; 2. a wider circle nf the cinematic preductiens nf Third Wnrid penples . . . , whether er net the films adhere tn the principles ef Third Cinema and irrespective ef the peried nf their making;

3. anether circle cnnsisting ef films made by First er Secnnd ‘Wnrld penple in suppnrt ef Third Wnrid penples and adhering tn the principles ef Third Cinema: -1-. a final circle, semcwhat anemalnus in status, at nnce "inside" and “nutside,“ cnmprising recent diasperic hybrid films . . . , which bnth build en and inteirngate the cnnventinns ef “Third Cinema.“'*'

Three nf the feur categnries (I, 3 and -ill predicate Third Werld cinema as peliticai and histnrical categnries, while in nne [2], the gengrapl'tical site nf film prnductien is the identifying characteristic. In defining Third Wnrld cinema as a pnlitical and transcentinental preject. Clyde Tayler asserts that:

- = Cit‘). -glc

_.-., - .

-

.

'i

fnirerfnctdry Neres

II

Films beceme Third Werld, in shnrt, by their ftmctien, nnce made, “by their usefulness fer the penple," as Fidel Castre said, “by what they cnntribute tn man [and wemen], by what they cnntribute tn the liberatien and happiness nf man [and wemen]." Yet even thnugh the Third Wnrld is a mental state fer which nn ene heids an nfficial passp-est. it wnuld be wrnng tn empha-

size Third Wnrld cinerna‘s lncal and natinnal prenccupatinns at the expense ef its reselute internatinnalism. The making ef ti Fnvn tiltrgnntsnrfn in lvlnzambicjue by Beb “v'an Liernp, an African American. nr ef Snmbfccngn |{l9'.l2i. abeut Angela. by Cruadainupian Sara lvlaldernr, nr the Ethinpian Haile Gerima‘s Bush ililnnre {l'5tTS], set in Les Angeles, er Crilln Fentecnrvn‘s The Barrie nf Algiers (I965), er the several Latin American and African films created by Cubans, er the many Third ‘Werld films made by Eurnpeans and white Americans-—all suggest the cressfertilizatien nf an embryenic transnatinnal Third Wnrld cinema

mnvement." Paul ‘v‘Ir’illemen’s essay elaberates the “Third Cinema," ceneept described by Tayler, Shnhat and Starn in the brnader cnntext ef the debates abnut Left cultural thenry in the l9SlIls. The essay, derived, irt part, frem the deliberatinns ef a cnnference heated by the Edinburgh lntemafinnal Film Festival in ltitlifi. critically explicates the evnlufien ef the ceneept ef Third Cinema frem the classic Latin A.merican texts tn its refemtulatinn. as a “pregramme fer the peliticai practice nf cinema,“ by Teshnme Gabriel and nthers.“ Willemen links the cultural theeries nf Berteit Brecht and Walter Benjamin tn the Latin Arnerican texts, and calls fer the deplnyment ef Bakhtinian cenecpts tn elaberate l Third Cinema’s challenge te Eurn-American critical theery, and centributinn tn the achievement nf “seciaiist ideals.“ W’illemen’s essay is fellewcd by the “Reselutinns ef the Third Wnrld Film—lvlakers Meeting." a declaratinn made at an lntematinnal cnnference ef Third ‘Werld filmmakers held in Algiers in I973. This dncument remains seminal tn the study and prnductien nf Third Wnrld cinema Amnng the Latin American filntmakers at the cnnference were Femandn Birri, Humberte Ries, Santiage Alvarez, Ierge Silva, and lvlanuel Perez. The resnlufiens nf the three cnmmittees fermed at the cenferenee catalng the majer challenges tn filmmakers in the preductinn and distributinn ef Third Wnrld films, and they detail the mle nf and lncate the filmmaker in the Third Werld’s struggles against nencnlenialism and imperialism. The Reselufinns. perhaps nverly ambitinus, cnnstitutes a tricnntinental erganizing effnrt during the l‘5I'i't}s te establish altemafive and ceunter-hegcmnnic preductienr'cn-preductinn and distributinn venues fer filmmakers in the Third Werld.

-

= Cici. glc

'

11

Mirrheei Ti Merrie

The final essay in part 3 is by Antnnie Skarrneta. In assessing the state ef Chilean cinema in exile, Skarrneta examines the suppertive thnugh preblematic rele ef Eurepe in the prnductien and exhibitien ef Latin American cinema. He asserts that in the aftermath ef the ISTS ceup against the Pepular Unity Gevemment nf Salvadnr Allende, the Chilean filmmakers ferced intn exile became the metivating ferce in the develnpment nf Chilean cinema by gaining access “tn a preper film industry“ in Eurnpe. Thus, Skmneta argues fer the recngnitinn nf Eurepe as a site fer the articulatien ef the New Latin American Cinema, and calls fer the creatinn and deplnyment ef “a distributinn netwerk nf Seuth American [and mere generally Third Werld] cinema en a Pan-Eurnpean level," in "permanent" sites nf exhibitien in defense nf the cuimres and demncratic struggles they represent. Part 4 enneludes the vnlume with essays by B. Ruby Rich and Zuzana lvl. Fick. Theugh these essays nverlap in their acceunts ef the ferrnative develnpment nf the New Latin American Cinema, they address, frem widely different apprnaches. the issues nf the mnvement‘s adaptability, renevatien, and identity addressed in Ana Lnpez‘s essay {see part E]. Rich argues fnr a revisinnist histnry nf the New Latin American Cinema in which spatial and tempnral specificities are distinguished in the study nf the mevement. In discussing the evnlutien frem “exterierity" in the lthitfls, where pnlitical engagementfactien against events is the central metif and rnisnn d'erre nf the New Latin American Cinema, tn “intetinrity" in the l9Stis, where “private life . . . is assigned prinrity . . . [and] the emetiens demand as much cnmmitment, engagement, and actinn, as events did a few decades earlier." and identity. persnnal agency, and sexuality are fnregmunded, Rich examines the films, representative nf this shift, nf Zuzana Amaral. Tizuka ‘ifamaski, Maria Bemberg. Paul Leduc, Jnrge Tnlede. and irnnically, Fernandn Snlanas. And Pick discusses the idea ef a “cnntinental identity." embedied in the New Latin American Cinema, as a challenge tn and critique nf the nntinns nf “pregress" and "develnpment." and as a prnject nf recnvery and “self-definitien" in the Latin American imaginary.

‘rlfherem vnlume 1 fncuses en the centinental develnpment ef the New Latin American Cinema. vnlume 2 cemprises a cemparative apprnach tn natinnal cinema in Latin America. Any discussien ef natinnal cinema. hnwever. must nf necessity cnnsider the ambigueus categeries ef "culture" and "identity," and the sncie-histnrical facters that determine a natinnal cinema’s develnpment.

- = Cit). -glc

_.-., - .

_

.

_

lnrrnrirrcrnry Hares

23

Since the fifteenth century, in the uhiquitnus, thnugh uneven, de-

velnpment nf capitalism as a glnbal system in which internatinnal migratinn and settlement are a part, disfinct multi-racial and multiculmra] fnnnatinns have been fnrged, especially but net enly in the Third werld." “l'vlixed" fermatiens precede celnnialism. In Lafin America. thnugh, they were reeenfigured and racializcd in the cnlnnial

prncess. Hnwever tentative and prnblematic the categnry. race is a defining, thnugh histerically centingent, feature in Latin America in that it is inscribed in a histntical preeess as a sncial fact. Mixed racial!'cultural fnrrnatinns are mnst evident in megalnpelises ef the Third werld. where pepulatien grnups cenverge and cehabitate. A cnuntry like Brazil is exemplary; it is perhaps the mest mixed and "hybrid" nf natinn-states in the werld. Rnbert Stam and Ismail ltlavier maintain, in their essay in part 2 ef this vnlume. that “apart frem the questinn nf class, there are marry ‘Brazils‘—urban and rural. male and female, indigeneus, black, immigrant, and sn ferth. The view ef the nafien as a unitary subject has the effect ef muffling the ‘pelyphnny’ ef sncial and ethnic vnices characteristic nf a heternglet culture." The develnpment nf these "mixed" fnmiatinns, where race, gender, ethnicity, and class intersect, pese cemplex questinns abeut the premises upen which the cenecpts ef "identity" and "culture" are based and understeed-"' Cerrespendingly. the cencept nf the "natinnal" is increasingly unstable, especially given the precesses ef “glnbalizatinn" and an inclusive and hemngenizing lntematinnal media envirnnment. ‘Wlrat censfitutes a natinnal identity and what are a natinn*s “extra-natienal" beundaries. and hnw they reshape nafienal cultures. tr'ansfnrrn and create "new" identities are the subjects ef renewed and critical study that challenge the nnrmative assumptiens en which these categeries traditienally rest.“ In this cnntext, Zuzana Pick peints nut in her essay in vnlume l. that "The experience nf exile . . . has been crucial tn the prnductien ef a new peliticai agency whereby cnmmunity assnciatiens are relecated, cultural specificity is renegntiated, and cultural affiliatinns are recnnstructed. Geegraphic and cultural displacement has fnstered decentered views en identity and natinnality. stressed the dialecfics ef histntical and persnnal circumstance, and validated autnbiegraphy as a reflective site." Hnwever we interpret the abeve cnncepts, Paul Willemen centends, “The issue ef nafienal-cultttral identity arises enly in respense tn a challenge posed by the ether, sn that airy discnurse ef natinnal-cultural itlentiry is always and frem the nutset nppnsitienal, althnugh nnt necessarily cendueive tn pregressive pnsitiens" {see vnlume I}. In cnunterpeint tn the traditinnal discnurses nf identity, Shnhat and Stam have theerized a dynamic mretIel—"]:r-elycentric multicultural-

= Ger. gle

'

i 1

14

Hiclreel I Hzrrrin

ism"—tlrat cenecives nf “idenfity" as a multilayered and nansnatienal cnncept. It drinks and imagines “frem the margins," fiing rninnritarian cenmrunities nnt as “interest grnups" te be “added en" tn a preexisting nucleus but rather as acfive. generative participants at the very cnre ef a shared, cenflictual histnry. . . . [It] rejects a unified. fixed. and essentialist ceneept ef identities {er cemmunities} as censelidated sets nf practices. meanings, and experiences. Rather, it sees identifies as multiple. unstable, histnrieally situated, the preducts ef engeing differentiatien and pnlymerpheus identificatien. . . . [It] gees beyend narrnw definitinns ef identity pnlifics. epening the way fer infermed affiliatinn en the basis ef shared sncial desires and identificafiens. . . . [It] is reciprecal. dialegical; it sees all acts ef verbal er cultural exchange as taking place net between discrete beunded individuals er cultures but rather between permeable, changing individuals and cemmunities.“ Useful, tee. are the authnrs* ferrrrulatien ef natienality . . as partly discursive in nanrre, [that] must take class, gender. and sexuality inte accnunt. must allnw fer racial difference and cultural heterngeneity. and must be dynamic. seeing ‘the natien‘ as an evnlving. imaginary censtrrret rather titan an nriginary essence."1‘ Their critical rewnrking nf the cnncepts ef identity and natinnality. in cnnnmt tn racialistfnatinnalist discnttrses, is relevant tn the study ef the culturallristerical develnpment ef Latin America. and te the analysis ef the thematics and representatinnal strategies ef the New Lafin American Cinema. Their medel alsn intersects and frames, within brnader histnrical and cultural categnries. the mere recent writings in culnnal criticism abeut black identifies and diasperic culturetsi.“ The relatienship between cinema a.rrd natienhned is alsn a pmblematic and cnntested issue. especially amnng filmmakers in the Third Werld. Wlrat cerrsitutes a “nafienal cinema." in censideratien ef the centinuirtg underdevelepment and dependency ef the Third Werld and the internatienal precesses ef glebalizatinn under "late" capitalism. is ef ideelngical impnrtance tn the practices ef Third ‘Werld filmmakers in general, and tn the New Latin American Cinema mevernent in particular- Ana Ldpez (see vnlume I) elabnrates this impnrtant aspect and ebjcctive ef the mevement: The New Lafin American Cinema fits in with nafienal cinema prnjects because the issue ef hnw te define. censhtrct. and pepularize nafienal cinemas has always been nne ef its primary cen-

= Cit‘) glc

.

'

lrnrednctnry Hares

H

cems. Altheugh it has net always been discussed as such, the New Lafin American Cinema pnsits the cinema as a respense tn

and an acrivater nf a different kind nf natienhned er subject pesifien ef natienality than the nne spensered by dentinarrt cultural fnrces- The geal has been tn develnp tlrrnugh the cinema {and ether cultural practices] a different kind ef natinnal and hemispheric cnnscinusness by systematically attempting tn transferrn the functinn ef the natinnal cinerna in snciety and the place nf the spectater in the natinnal cinema. Rey Annes has distinguished twn categeries nf natinnal cinema: nne that is cnmnrercial and financed by lncal capital that perferms a largely entertainment functinn fer lncal audiences, and the ether that addresses “the demands ef a natinnal culture."“ Paul Willemen, in a recent and critical review ef ltdanthia lI.’Iiawara’s bnelt en Afiican cinema. claims that: “A ‘natinnal’ cinema is a cinema that addresses—directly er indirectly. and regardless nf whn pays the bills—the specific sncinhistnrical cenfiguratiens nbtaining within natien states. This means that a nafienal cinema must be able te engage with cultural and histntical spet:ificitieS."f'5 And Andrew Higsnn distinguishes between twn variants ef natinnal cinema: First, there is the pnssibiiity ef defining natinnal cinema in ecn— nnmic terms, establishing a cnnceptual cnrrespnndence between the temrs "natinnal cinema" and “the dnmestic film industry," and therefnre being cencemed with such questinns as: where are these films made. and by whem? ‘whn ewns and centrnls the industrial infrastructures, the prnductien cnmpanies, the disnibutnrs and the exhibitien circuits? Secnnd, there is the pnssibiiity ef a text-based apprnach tn natinnal cinema. Here the key questinns be=-cnme: what are these films abeut? De they share a cnmmen style er werld view? Tn what extent are they engaged in “explnring, questinning and censtructing a netien ef natienhned in the films themselves artd in the cnnscinusness nf the viewE]_l|‘lI1?I";l'

Tngether, these analytical descriptinns ef “natinnal cinema" imply that its defining characteristic is the cultural and histnricai specificities nf the natien frem which it emerges and develeps. lvinrenver, Arrnes and ‘Willemen cnncur that a natinnal cinema can be partly censtituted by a cemmercial sectnr, while all three authnrs seem tn agree that a natinnal cinema, tn be natinnal, must perfnrm an impnrtant sncial (and transfnrmatienai] functinn in snciety. ln. arguably. its mnst revnletinn-

--

= Cit). -glc

_.-.,

.! 7 -- .

Ed

il-iicirrrel T. Merlin

ary, transparent and pepular fnrrn. a natinnal cinema, tn qunte Rey Armes: . . . can be summarized in terms nf the fnur general principles underlying the fnrrnatien nf the Salvadnrean Film Institute: tn respend tn the interests nf the werking class artd peasants by prnviding them with a cinematic instrument nf expressinn; tn preduce films that will publicize the penple‘s struggle; tn cnnuibute tn raising the level ef peliticai awareness ef bnth the masses artd the penples and gevemments ef the werld cenceming the struggle; tn cembat disinfnrrrratien and tn cnntribute tn the reerdering ef the internatienal inferntatinn netwnrk. Always.

i the aim is tn fnrge new bends between filmmakers and the penple—the filmmakers then beceme nne with the penple. and the L penple beceme the true authnrs nf their nwn natinnal cinema.“ The essays. declaratinns. and interviews in this vnlume are differentiated and grnuped by natien in the twn reginns under study—the iviiddlei'Central Americai'Caribbean basin and Seuth America. Because this apprnach encnmpasses the specificities nf time and space. it facilitates the cemparative study nf the develnpment nf the New Latin American Cinema in the cnntext nf larger cultural and peliticai prncesses within a natinnal framewnrk. This methnd nf nrganizatinn alsn invites cnmparisnns between the mnvement's develnpment in prei’revnlutinnary capitalist and pestrevnlutinnary snciaiist natien-states in Latin America. in part l, the natinnal cinemas nf lviexicn l:ll'tlII Cuba are studied. alnng with the emergent {natinnal} cinemas nf Nicaragua and El Salvadnr, fellewcd by arr essay en the film practices ef Puertn

Ricart wnmen ‘r-'ItIIEt]-r"iTli'i‘tl‘t'i.‘EtliLI;'li'S. Part 2 cnnsists ef essays en the natinnal cinemas nf Brazil, Chile. Argentina. and Bnlivia. Pent. and Ecuadnr [the last three cnuntries are grnuped tngether and discussed in nne essay}. As was nnted earlier, and as the essays in this vnlume substantiate, cinematic traditiens have net develeped autnnnmeusly. spnntanenusly er evenly in Latin America tfner in ndter reginns nf the Third werld}. Similarly, the representatinn nf natinnal cinemas in the vnlume is uneven. Brazil. Argentina. Cuba. and Chile are given prnminence because ef their impnrtance tn the ferrnatinn and develnpment ef the

New Latin American Cinema. lviexican cinema. because nf the state's near tntal cnntrnl nf film prnductien. has tended tn serve state pnlicy rather titan aesthetic prngrarhs. The essays extend my ccmmettts abeut

the histntical impnrtance nf “natinnaIism" in the develnpment nf the mnvement, the cultural and pelitical effects ef exile en the filnrmaker.

= Ctr. -glc

_.-., - .'

-

.

lnrrecirrcrary Narcr

21'

hnw ce-preducdens financed abread influence filrrurraldng, and ether current issues.“ I cnriclude widt a quete frem Julianne Burtnn whn, in assessing the first twenty-five years ef dte mnvement, writes that: “dte mnst cnmpelling and significartt aspect ef dte New Ladn American Cinema mnvement, as it has evnlved ever dte past quarter-century. has net been merely its ability tn give expressinn tn new fnr'ms and new centents. but abeve all its capacity tn create altemafive medes nf prnductien, censumptien, and receptinn—ranging frem die enly apparently atavisfic receurse. tn artisanal medes, tn the anficipatinn nf mere secialized industrial nnes."-if‘ Given die widening inequality and peverty in the centinent, can we anticipate that Latin American filmmakers will return tn nr apprnximate die cine “denuncia," “testimenie." and “didacticn" mndels ef pe-

liticai cinema prnminent in the l9titis tn nppese die persistence ef underclevelnpment artd dependency in dte pest-Cnld War l99tJs‘l

Itletae I. See Rey Armes's critical study. Tirirrl llferid Fiim ll-faking and tire West [Berl-teley: University ef Califemia Press. I937}. lfi3-I'll‘-.

2. Alnag with Arme.s*s study cited in nnte l. see Allen L. Well. Tire Latin Inrage in American Film [Les Angeles: UCLA Latin Arnericarr Center Publicatiens, I91-‘Ti, "id-S3: Brazilian Ci.-rcnta, ed- Randal iebnsen and Ftnbert Stam [East Brunswick, NI: Asseciatcd University Presacs, I932}, IT"-I'll}; Inhn ltling, Magical Reels.‘ A Histerfy ef Cinema in Latin America [New "r"erk: Verse. |99t]}, T—fi4; and Ierge A. Schnitman, Film lndrrsrries in Latin America [l"~lerwnnd, NI: Ablex, l9S-=l]. ll—3-ti. -=1-9-5-‘l, Tl'—S3. 91-95. 3. See die select biblingraphy ef dris vnlume fer readings abeut Lafin America's film practices artd traditiens. 4. See Armes, Titirtf Werld Film ibfniring anci tire West. I'i'I'l—lST. 5. Rnbert Stam. “Tltird werld Cinema." Ceiiege Cearrsc Files. mend-

graph nn. 5. ed. Pamela Erens [University Film and Viden Assnciatinn. n.d.i. ti. These writings in translatien are better knewn tn and mere widely cir-

culated amnrrg readers. Many ether essays and rnatrifestnes by Latin Antericans drat are part nf the New Latin American Cirterna*s cnrpus nf critical writings are largely unpublished in English. Amnng drem are: Sabre Raymrrncin tSlc_'r'.rer. Deciaracidn dei Cnmird dc Cineastas [Cemitc dc Cineastas dc America Latina]; Sintesis argrrrncnral dc ins films iiei Gnrpe Ukanrau: Mamjfcste per rim cinema pepular [Nelsen Pereira des Santesjt: Cine c imaginacidn peiiticct [Lenn Hirszrnan]: Diet arias dc cine nacienai [Geralde Sartre,

Caries Diegnes. Annalee labnr. Jeaqaim Fedrn de Andradei: Cinc c imaginacidrt peeirica [Ruy Guerra}: El nrrcve cine celenririane [Cite Duran, lviarie lvli-

nintti. Caries Alvarez. Ierge Silva. Luis Alfredn Sanchez, lvlarta Rndriguezi: Le desn-resarede, el erpacin real ciei suede americane [lvliguel Littinl; Una

= Cit). -glc

_.-., - .

_

IS

Michael T. A-:i'artirr

Cincmaicca para cl Tcrccr i'd'rm.tln[Eduarde Terra}: Printer Cenqrcse Latineamericane dc Cincthtas irrdcpendientcs prnrnevide per cl Satire n trav.-i.r dc tn departamenrn de Cine-Arte; Cenrtiraciciin dei Cemitri dc Cineastas dc Anrérica Latina." ilcselncidn tic la Fecleracidn Partafricana dc Cineastas y cl Cemitd dc Cineastas dc Amdrica Larirta; and Acre firrtdacinrral y estattttas dc

in Fandacidrr dci Nacve Cine Lntineanrcricane. amnng ndrers. Fer a publicatien dtat includes the abeve writings and nthers in Spanish. see Hejas D Cine." Testimenins y Dacnmentes dei Aiaevn Cine Latineamericann [Mexice: Cen-

seje Nacinnai dc Reeursns. Universidad Autnnnnta de Puebla. littlfii. T. Screen S. rnpean

Julianne Burten, “Marginal Cinemas and Mainstre-arn Cridcai Thenry." Iii, nn. 3-i- [I935]: 4. Selanas a.rrd Getine distinguish between Eurepeart cemmercial and Euauteur cinemas. The latter, “art cinema," is viewed by die audrers as

preferable tn the Hnllywnnd attd Eurnpean iilm industtim. but it. ten. is deterrrrined by cemmercial interests. 9. See Peter Rist*s essay. “The Decumentary Impulse and Third Cinema

Tltenry in Latin America: An Inneductinn." CincActinrt, nn- Iii [I939]: diltil. It]. Fer a discussien nf dris impnrtant essay, see Armes, Third I-Fnrid Fiim it-faking an.-:i the ll-fest. 9"i—99. ll. See Julia Lesage’s Prelngue tn Temas Cruticrrez Alea‘s The I»"iewer's

lI1'iaiccric[Havana: lnsri Marti Publishing Hnuse, I933], i1-lti. I3. Rist, “The Dncumentary Impulse." dl. I3. Alea, Tire lt'iewer'.r Dialectic. IS.

I-t. Ana M. Laipet. “At die Limits nf lilncumentary: Hypertextual Transfermadnn and dte New Latin American Cinema," The Serial Eiecnmentary in Latin Arnerica, ed. Julianne Burtnn [Pittsburgh: University ef Pittsburgh Press. I999}, dd?--IIDS. I5. Fer a detailed explanaden ef dresc facters, see A.r1nes, Third llinrld Film itrlaiting and the West. 9-49. lfi. Ella Shnhat and Rnbert Stam, Unrhirrking Enreccntrism: hirtlttlt:*alturalism and the Media [New ‘fntk: Rnutledgc. I994}, 33.

1?. Clyde Tayler. “Tl:tird Wnrid Cinema: Cine Strtrgglc. Many Fnrms." Jump Cat: Hnllywnnd. Pelitics and Certnter Cinema, ed. Peter Steven [blew

‘fnrk: Praegcr. I935]. 332-333IS. Fer example, see Wille-men's and Gabriel's essays in flttestierrs cf Third Cinema, ed. Jim Pines and Paul Willemen [Lnndnn: BFI, l9S9]r.

19. Mixed fnrrriatinrrs are alsn martifest in First Werld states. where Third ‘Wnrld penple are defined as “minnrides" tireugh drey may be amnng dte nu-

merical “majnrides" in dte Third werld. Fer example, the racial and ethnic ferrnatinns drat have evnlved in Eurepe were ferged largely by Tltird Wnrld immigrarrts whn have histnrieally served as a snurce nf cheap iabnr in Eurn-

pean metrnpnlises in dte pnst ‘Nntld ‘rliar ll perind. Tl}. Crreup identities—racial. edrnic, er religieus-—a.re rendered mnst fluid and tentative in met:r'npelitarr sites and in the urbanized areas nf die Third

= Cit). -glc

_.-., - .

-

.

Intiredt-tctarjp Na-res

2'9

werld, especially atneng elite and intellectual strata, where traditiu-nal culture

and gteup assnciatiens are mast prehlematic. 21. Dn the questien ef what cnnstitutes a nafienal identitjr, see the recent we-til; ef Gregery iusdanis, “Beyond Hatienal Culture'?," hanndary 2 22, nc-. l

{I995}: 13-till 22. Sheliat and Stam, Unthinhing Enracentrism, 43-49. 23. Ihid., 236. 24. Sec, fat‘ example, Stuart Hall, “Wliat ls This ‘El-lack‘ in Hlacit. Pepuiat Culttu'e'i'," Saciai Justice Ii}, nns. l—2 {I993}: l[lil—l14; and Paul Gilrey, The Eiaci: i-itia.ntic.' Mademity and flaahie Cansciaaenese (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, I993]. 25. See Artnes, Third H-‘arid Fiirn Mairing and the West, ti5—’iE.

Zti. Paul Witlernen, “The Making at an .Ii'|..fi“lt.'1tt.t'l tZ‘inen1a," Transitian, ne. SE {I992}: 1415. 2?. ittndrew Higsnn, “The Eence-pt ef Piatienal Cinema," Screen Iitl, ne. 4 [l§|'li‘EtJ: 3ti23. eiintes, Third Warid Fiirn Making and the West, IET. 29‘. Published research en exile includes: Zuzana M. Pick, The New Latin itmerican =l'I'ine.-na: A Carttinentai Prefect (Austin: University at‘ Texas. I993). l5?—ltil; Eatlfleen Newman, “hlatienal Cinema after Eilehaliaatien: Fernanda 5e1anas‘s St-tr and the Exiled 1"~latien," in Mediating T1-t"-|'.'-1' ll-iarids, ed. Jehn

King, Ana M- Lepea and Manuel hlvarade (Lenden: BFI, 19933. 242-257; Ahid Med Hende, “The Cinema ef Exile," in Fihn cit Paiitics in the Third Warid, ed. Inhn ll H. lllewrting; [New Yerlc: Autenemedia, 195?), 'i[l'—'l't'i.

3|}. This quete is taken frem the abstract at Eturten’s essay in vnlume I.

= Cit'i- -glc

_.-., - .

-

.

_

D‘§“‘i‘“' “F (300316

I] ' " If s

untueasriiiil iierdicerean

?

Part I Theorizing Political] Aesthetic Trajectories

(iii Sic

_

D‘§“‘i‘“' “F (300316

I] ' " If s

untueasriiiil iierdicerean

Towards a Third Cinema Netes and Experiences fer the Develepment ef a Cinema at Liheratien in the Third Werld Fernanda Selahas and Octavia Getine

- . . we must discuss, we mnst invent . . Frantt Fanen

lust a shert time age it weuld have seemed lilce a Quixetic adventure in the celeniaed, neeceleniaed, er even the imperialist natiens themselves te make any attempt te create fiirns ef deceleniaatien that turned their baclt en er actively nppesed the System. Until recently, film had been synenyrneus with spectacle er entertainment: in a ward. it was ene mere censarner geed. at best, films succeeded in heating witness tn the decay ef heurgeeis values and testifying tn sncial injustice. as a mle, films enly dealt with effect, never with cause; it was cinema ef mystificatien er anti-histnricism. lt was .rar_eln'.t value cin-

ema. Caught up in these cenditiens, films, the mnst valuable teel ef cemmunicatien nf eur times, were destined te satisfy enly the idea legical and ecenemic interests ef the ewners ef the film industry. the lerds ef the werld film marl-:et, the great majerity ef whem were frem the United States. Was it pessihle te everceme this situatinn? Haw ceuld the prehlem ef turning nut liberating films be appreached when casts came te Michael Chanan. cd., Twenty-Five Fears ef New Latin American Cinenm- Lendan: British Film institute, liiilfi, pp- 1?-2?- First published in Tricentinental (Havana,

Cuba]. By |:ermissien nf the editer. Michael Chanan-

= Citir -glc

ii

_.-., - .

_

3-=l

Fernanda Selanas and tZ'lctevt'e tSett't1e

several theusand dellars and the distributinn and exhibitien channels were in the hands ef the enemy? Hew ceuld the centinuity ef werl: be guaranteed‘? Hew cnuld the public be reached“-5' Hew ceuld Systemimpesed repressien and censership be vanquished? These questienst which cnuld be multiplied in all directiens. led and still lead many penple te skepticism er ratienaliaatinn: “revelutienary cinema cannet exist befere the revelutinn“; “revelutienary films have been pessihle enly in the liberated ceuntries"; “witheut the suppert ef revelutienary peliticai pewer, revelutienary cinema er art is impessihle." The mistake was due tn taking the same apprnach te reality and films as did the be-urgeeisie. The medals c-f prnductien, distributinn, and exhibitien centinued te be these ef Hellyweed precisely because, in ideelegy and pelitics, films had net yet beceme the vehicle fer a clearly drawn differentiatien between beurgecis ideelegy and pelitics. A refertnist pelicy. as manifested in dialegue with the adversary, in ceexistence, and in the relegatien ef natienal centradictiens te these between twe suppesedly unique blecs—the- Ll.S.S.R. and the U.S.t"t.—was and is unable te preduce anything but a cinema within die System itself. At best, it can be the “_t'Jregre.rsive” vvfng ef Esta.-bii.rhment cinema. when

all is said and dene, such cinema was deemed te wait until the werld cenfiict was reselved peacefully in faver ef secialism in erder te change qualitatively. The mest daring attempts ef these filmmakers whe streve te cenquer the fnrtress ef nfficial cinema ended, as leanLuc C-redard clequently put it, with the filmmal-ters themselves “trapped inside the fertress.“ But the questiens that were recently raised appeared prnmising; they arese frem a new histurical situatien tn which the filmmaker, as is eften the case with the educated strata ef eur ceuntties, was rather a late-cemer: ten years ef the Cuban Revelutien, the Vietnamese stmggle, artd the develnpment cf a wnrldwide liberatien mevement whese meving ferce is te be feund in the Third wane cnuntries. The e.ristence ef masses en the weridwide revelatienar_v plane was the stti:-stantiel fact witheut which these eaestiens cettld net have been pesed. ht new histerical situatien and a new man been in the precess ef the antiimperialist struggle demanded a new, revelutienary attitude frem the filmmakers ef the werld. The questien ef whether er net militant cinema was pessihle befere the revelutien began te be replaced, at least within small grnups, by the questien cf whether er net such a cinema

was necessary te centriintte te the ,eesst'ht'lity ef revelutien. an affirmative answer was the starting peint fer the first attempts te channel the precess ef seeking pessibilities in numereus ceuntries. Examples are hlewsreel, a U-S. New Left film greup, the cinegiemali ef the Italian student mevement. the films made by the Etats Generate: du Cinenta

= Cit‘). -glc

_.-., - .

-

.

Tewardsa Third Cinema

35

Franpais, and these ef the British and Japanese student mevements, all a centinuatien and deepening ef die werk ef a leris lvens er a Chris Marker. Let it suffice te ebserve the films ef a Santiage etlvatea

in Cuba, er the cinema being develeped by different filmmakers in ‘the hemeland ef all," as Belivar weuld say. as they seek a revelutienary Latin stmerican cinema. A prefeund debate en the rele ef intellectuals and artists befere liberatien is teday enriching the perspectives ef intellectual werk all ever the werld. I-lewever, dtis debate escillates between twn peles: ene which prepeses te relegate all intellectual werk capacity te a specifically pelifical er pfllilical-H1ili[3!jl functinn, denying perspectives te all artistic activity widt the idea that such activity must ineluctahly be abserbed by dte System, and the ether which maintains an inner duality ef the intellectual: en the ene hand, the “werk ef art," “the privilege ef beauty,“ an art and a beauty which are net necessarily beund te the needs ef the revelutienary pelitical prncess. and. en the ether. a pnlifical cemmitment which generally eensists in signing certain attti-imperialist manifestes. In practice, this peint ef view means the separatien efpeiitics and art. This pelarity rests, as we see it, en twe emissiens: first. the cenceptien ef cult|.u'e, science, art, and cinema as t._tnivecal and universal terms, and, secend, an insufficiently clear idea ef the fact that the rev-

elutien dues net begin with the taking ef peliticai pewet frem impenalism and the beurgeeisie, but rather begins at the mement when the masses sense the need fer change and their intellectual vanguards beEH-[T5 study and carry nut this change threugh activities en different

fiunts. Culture, art, science, and cinema always respend te cenfiicting class interests. In the neecelenial situatien twe cnncepts ef culture, art, science, and cinema cempete: that ef the rulers and that ef the natien. and this situatien will centinue. as leng as the nafienal ceneept is net identified with that ef the rulers. as leng as the status ef celeny er semi-celeny centinues itt feree. Mereever, the duality will be everceme and will reach a single and universal categery enly when the best values ef man emerge frem prescriptien te achieve hegemeny, when the liberatien ef man is universal. ln the meantime. there exist ear culture and their culuire, ettr cinema and their cinema. Because cur culture is an impulse tewat'ds ematicipatien, it will remain in existenfi until etnancipatien is a reality: a culture ef suhversien which will carry with it an art. a science, and a cinema efsuhversien. The lack ef awareness in regard te these dualities generally leads the intellectual te deal with artistic and scientific expressiens as they were “universally cenceived“ by the classes that mle the werld. at

‘

_|'._; __1:_;

-

.

_

S15

Fernande Selanas and tjlcta via Eetine

hest intreducing seme cerrectien inte these expressiens. We have net gene deeply eneugh inte develeping a revelutienary theatre. architecture, medicine, psychelegy, and cinema; inte develeping a culture by endfer us- The intellectual takes each ef these fertns ef expressien as a unit te be cerrected frem within the erpressien itseifl and net frem withettt. with its ewn new metheds and medeis.

an astrenaut er a Ranger mebilires all the scientific reseurces ef imperialism- Psychelegists, decters, peliticians. secielegists, mathematicians, and even artists are threwn inte die study ef everything that serves, frem the vantage peint ef difierent specialities, the preparatien ef an erbital fiight er the massacre nf 'v'ietnamese; in the leng run. all ef these specialities are equally empleyed te satisfy the needs ef imperialism. In Buenes hires the army eradicates villas miseria {urban shanty tewns] and in their place puts up “strategic hamlets“ with tewn planning aimed at facilitating military interventien when the time cemes. The revelutienary erganiaatiens lack specialized frents net enly in their medicine, engineering, psychelegy, and an--but alse in ear ewn revelutienary engineering, psychelegy, art, and cinema- in erder te be effective, all these fields must recegniae the prierities ef each stage: these required by the struggle fer pewer er these demanded by the already victerieus revelutien. Examples: creating a pelitical sensitivity te the need te undenake a pelitical-military struggle in erder te take pewer: develeping a medicine te serve the needs ef cembat in tural er urban aenes: ce-erdinating energies te achieve a ll] millien ten sugar harvest as they attempted in Cuba; er elaberating an architecture, a city planning, that will be able te withstand the massive air raids that imperialism can launch at any time. The specific strengthening _ef each speciality and field suberdinate te cetlective prierities can fill the empty spaces caused by the snuggle fer liberatien and can delineate with greatest efficacy the rele ef the intellectual in eur time. lt is evident that revelutienary mass—level culture and awareness can enly be achieved after the taking ef pelitical pewer, but it is ne less true that the use ef scientific and artistic means, tegether with pelitical-tnilitary means, prepares the terrain fer the revelutien te beceme reality and facilitates the snlutien ef the prebiems that will arise with the taking ef pewer. The intellectual must find threugh his actien the field in which he cart ratienally perfnrm the mest efficient werk. Clnce the frent has been determined, his next task is te find eut within that frent exactly what is the enemy*s strengheld and where and hew he must depley his ferces. It is in this harsh and dramatic daily search that a culture ef dte revelutien will be able te emerge, the basis which will nurture. beginning right new, the new ntan exemplified by Che—net man in

= Citir -glc

_.-., - .

-

.

Tewards e Third Cinema

37

the abstract, net the “liberatien ef man," hut anether man, capable ef arising frem the ashes nf the eld, alienated man that we are and which the new man will destrey—by starting te steke the fire teday. The anti—imperialist struggle ef the peeplcs ef the Third werld and ef their equivalents inside the imperialist ceuntries cnnstitutes teday the axis ef the werld revelutien. _Third cinema is. in eur epinien, the cinema that recegrtises in that struggle the ntest gigantic cultural, sci-

entific, and artistic nmnifestetien ef eur time. the great pessibility ef censtructing a liberated persenality with each penple as the starting peint—in a werd, the decelenitatien ef culture. The culturet including the cinema. ef a neecelenialiaed ceuntry is just the expressinn ef an everall dependence that generates medeis and values hem frem the needs ef imperialist expansien. ln erder te impese itself, nencnlenialism needs te cenvince the peeple ef a dependent ceuntry ef their ewn inferierity. Seener er later, the inferier man recegniaes Man with a capital M; this recegnitien means the destructien ef his defenses- If yeu want te be a man, says the eppresser. yeu have te he like me, speak my language, deny yettr ewn being, trartsfemr ynurself inte me. ilts

early as the l'lth century the Jesuit missienaries preclaimed the aptitude ef the [Seuth iltmerican] native fer cepying Eurepean werks ef art. Cepyist, translater, interpreter, at best a spectater, the neeceleniali.-ted intellectual will always be enceuraged te refuse te assume his creative pessibilities. lnhibitiens, upreetedness, escapism, cultural cesmepelitarrism, artistic imitatien, me-taphysicm exhaustien, betrayal ef ceuntry—all find fertile seil in which te grew.‘ Culture becemes bilingual. . . . net due te dte use ef twe languages but because ef the cenjuncture ef twe cultural pattems ef thinlting. Elne is natinnal, that ef the penple, and the edrer is estranging, that ef the classes suberdinated te eutside ferces. The admiratien that the upper classes express fer the U.S. er Eurepe is the highest expressien ef their subjectien. llilidr the celenialiratien ef the upper classes the culnrre ef imperialism indirectly intreduces amnng the masses knewledge which cannet be supervised.’ lust as they are net masters ef the land upen which they walk, the peecelenialiaed peeple are net masters ef the ideas that envelep them. Ft knewledge ef natienal reality presuppeses geing inte the web ef lies atrd cenfusien that arise frem dependence. The intellectual is

= Cit'r- -glc

_.-., - .

-

.

3-ll

Fernende Selanas and tfilctavie Eetine

ebliged te refrain frem spentaneeus theught; if he dees drink, he generally runs the risk ef deing se in French er English--never in the language ef a culture ef his ewn which, like the precess ef natinnal and secial liberatien, is still hazy and incipient. Every piece ef data. every ceneept that fieats areund us, is part ef a fraruewerk ef mirages that is difficult te take apart. The native beurgeeisie ef the pen cities such as Buenes hires. and their respective intellectual elites, censtituted, frem the very etigins ef eur histnry, the trarrsmissien belt ef neecelenial penetratien- Behind such watchwerds as “Civilizatien er barbatism,“ ma.nufactured in hrgentina by Eurepeanizing liberalism, was the attempt te impese a civilizatien fully in keeping with the needs ef imperialist expatrsien and the desire te destrey the resistance ef the natinnal masses, which were successively called the "rabble," a “bunch ef blacks.“ and “seelegical detritus“ in eur ceuntry and “the unwashed herdes“ in Bnlivia. In this way the ideelegists ef the semiceuntries, past masters in “the play rrf big werds, with an implacable, detailed, and rustic universalism,“i' served as spekesmen ef these fellewers ef Disraeli whn intelligently pm-claimed; “I prefer the rights ef the English te the rights ef man.“ The middle secters were and are the best recipients ef cultural neecelenialism. Their ambivalent class cenditien. their buffer pesitien hetween secial pelarities, and their brnader pessibilities ef access te r-iviiieetien effer imperialism a base ef secial suppert which has attained censiderable impertance in seme Latin American ceuntries. If in an epenly celenial situatien culturm penetratien is the cemplement ef a fereign army ef eccupatien. during certain stages this penetratien assumes majer prierity. It serves te institutienalize and give a nemral appearance te dependence. The main ebjcctive ef this cultural deferrnatien is te keep the peeple frem realizing their neecelenializted pesitien and aspiring te change it. In this way educatienal celenizatien is an effective substitute fer the celenial pelice.‘ Mass cenununicatiens tend te cemplete the destructien ef a natienal awareness and ef a cetlective subjectivity en the way te enlightenment, a destmctien which begins as seen as the child has access tn these media, the educatien and culture ef the ruling classes. In Argentina, Efi televisien channels; ene millien televisien sets: mere than SI] radie statiens; hundreds ef newspapers, periedicals. and magazines; and theusands ef recerds, films, etc., jein their acculturating rele ef the celenizatien ef taste and censcieusness te the precess ef neecelenial educatien which begins in dte university. “Mass cemmunica-

= Ctr. -glc

_.-., - .

-

.

Tewards a Third Cinrrrna

39'

tiens are mere effective fer neecelenialism than napalm. ‘ihllrat is real, true, and ratienal is te be feund en the margin ef the law, just as are dre peeple. ‘rlielence, crime, and destructien ceme te be Peace, Etrder, and l"~lerrnality.“5 Trttth, then, anteunts te subversian. Any fnrm nf

expressien er cemmunicatien that tries te shew natienal reality is suirversiert.

Cultural penetratien. educatienal celenizatien. and mass cemmunicatiens all jein ferces teday in a desperate attempt tn abserb, neutralize, er eliminate expressien that respends te an attempt at decelenizatien. bleecelenialism makes a setieus attempt te castrate, te digest, the cultural femrs that arise beyend the beunds ef its ewn aims. Attempts are made te temeve fmm them precisely what makes them effective and dangereus; in shen, it uies te depeliticize them. Clr, re put it anether way, te separate the cultural manifestatien frem the fight fer natinnal independence. Ideas such as “Beauty in itself is revelutienary“ and “fitll new cinema is revelutienary“ are idealistic aspiratiens that de net tench the neecelenial cenditien, since they centinue te cenceive ef cinema, art, atrd beauty as universal abstractierrs and net m an integral part ef the natienal precesses ef decelenizatienany attempt, ne matter hew virulent, which dees net serve Le rnebilize, agitate, and peliticize secters ef the peeple, te arm them ratienally and perceptibly. in ene way er anether, fer the stmggle—is received with indifference er even with pleasure. ‘ilirulence, nencenfemrism. plain rebellieusness. and discentent are just se many mere preducts en the capitalist market: drey are censumer geeds. This is especially uue in a situatien where the beurgeeisie is in need ef a daily dese efsheclt and exciting elements efcentreiled vielence*'-—-that is, vielence which abserptien by dte System tums inte pure sttidency. Examples are the werks ef a secialist-tinged painting and sculpture which are greedily seught after by the new beurgeeisie te decerate their apat1ments and mmsiens; plays full ef anger and avant-gardism which are neisily applauded by the ruling classes; the literature ef “pregressive“ writers cencemed with semantics and man en the margin ef time and space, which gives an air ef demncratic breadmindedness te the System*s publishing heuses and magazines: and the cinema ef “challenge,” ef “ar'gument,“ premeted by the distributien menepelies and launched by the big cemmercial cutlets. In reality the area ef pennitted pretest ef the System is much greater than the System is willing te admit. This gives the artists the illusien that they are acting “against the system“ by geing beyend certain narrew limits; they de net realize that even anti-

, Cit-r. 31¢

- .

-ill

Fernunde Selanas and tilctavie C-'etine

System art can be abserbed and utilized by the System, as bnth a brake and a necessary self-cerrectieni Lacking an awareness ef hnw re utilize what is eurs fer eur true liheratien—in a werd, lacking pelitt'cizatien—all ef these “pre-

gressive" altematives ceme te ferm the leftist wing ef the System, the impmvement ef its cultural preducts. They will be deemed re carry eur the best werk en the left that the tight is able te accept teday and will thus enly serve the survival ef the latter- “Itestere werds, dramatic actiens, and images tn the places where they can carry nut a revelutienary mle, where they will be useful, where they will beceme weapens in the struggle."*' lnset1 the werk as an eriginal fact in the precess ef liberatien, place it first at the service ef life itself. ahead ef art: disselve aesthetics in the life ef seciety: enly in this way, as Fa-

nen said, can decelenizatien beceme pessihle and culture, cinema, and heauty—at least, what is ef greatest impertance te us—beceme eur ctilttrre. eurfilms, and eur sert.te ef beauty.

The histerical perspectives ef Latin America and ef the majerlty ef the ceuntries under imperialist deminatien are headed net tewards a lessening ef repressien but tewards arr increase. We are heading net fer beurgeeis—demecratic regimes but fer dictaterial ferms ef gevemment. The stnrggles fer demecratic freedems, instead ef seizing cencessiens frem the System, meve it te cut dawn en them. given its narrew margin fer maneuvering. The beurgeeis—demecratic facade caved in seme time age. The cycle epened during the last century in Latin America with the first attempts at self-affirmatien ef a natienal beurgeeisie differentiated frem the metrepelis [examples are lFtnsas* federalism in Argentina, the Lepez and Francia regimes in Paraguay, and these ef Bengide and Balmaceda in Chile] with a traditien that has crrntinued well inte eur century: natienal-beurgeeis, natinnal-pepular, and demecratic-been geeis attempts were made by Cardenas, ‘trigeyen, Haya de la Terre, ‘llargas, Aguirre Cerda. Pc-ten. and Arbenz. But as far as revelutienary prespects are cencemed, the cycle has definitely been cempleted. The lines allewing fer the deepening ef the histerical attempt nf each cf these experiences teday pass threugh the secters that understand the centinent‘s situatien as ene ef war and that are preparing, under the ferce ef circumstances, te make that regien the Vietnam ef the ceming decade- A war in which natienal liberatien can enly succeed when it is simultaneeusly pestulated as secial liberatlen—secialism as the enly valid perspective ef any natienal liberatien precess.

.

Q,-;,_ 81¢

'

Tewards a Third Cinenra

sl-I

At this time in Latin America there is reem fer neither passivity net innecence. The intell_ec_tual's cemmimtent is measured in temrs ef risks as wEll“aF.s.-_whrds and ideas", what h_e dees te further the gause ef libetjatien is jwhatceunts. The werket whe gees en strike atrd thus risks lesing his jeb er even his life, the student whe jenpardizes his career. the militant whe keeps silent under terture: each by his er her actien cemmits us te semething much mere impnrtant than a vague gesture ef selidarityfii In a situatien in which dte “state ef law“ is replaced by the “state ef facts,“ the intellectual, whe is ene mere werlter, functiening en a cultural frent, must beceme increasingly radicalized re aveid denial ef self and te carry eut what is expected ef him in eur times. The impetence ef all refermist cnncepts has already been expesed sufficiently, net enly in pelitics but alse in culture and films—ar1d especially in the latter, whese hi.ttery is that ef imperialist damirtatien—rnainly Fanhee.

While, during the early histery {er the prelristery] ef the cinema, _it_ was pesgible te speak ef a Crerman. an Italian, er a Swedish cinema clearly differentiated and cerrespending te specific natinnal characteristics, teday such differences have disappeared. The berders were wiped eut aleng with the expansien ef I-l.S. imperialism and the film medel that is impesed: Heliyweed mevies. In eur times it is hard te find a film within the field ef cemmercial cinema, including what is knewn as “auther's cinema,“ in beth the capitalist and secialist ceuntries, that manages tn aveid the mndels ef Hellywfl-ed pictures. The

latter have such a fast held that menumental werks such as Benderchuk‘s lller and Peace fiurn the U.S.S-R- are alse menumental examples ef the submissien te all prepesitiens impesed by the Ll.S. mevie industry (structure, language, etc.) and, censequently, te its cnncepts. The placing ef the cinema within l_.l.S. medels, even in the femral aspect, in language, leads te the adeptien ef the ideelngical ferms that gave rise te precisely that language and he ether. Even the apprepriatien ef medels which appear te be enly technical, industrial, scientific, etc., leads te a cencepmal dependency, due te the fact that the cinema is an industry. but differs frem ether industries in that it has been created and ergatrized in erder te generate certain ideelegies. The 35rnnr camera. 24 frames per secend, arc lights. and a cemmercial place ef exhibitien fer audiences were cenceived net te graruiteusly transmit any ideelegy, but te satisfy. in the first place. the cultural and surplus value needs ef a specrjic ideelegy, ef a specific werld-view: that ef LES. finance capital. The mechanistic takeever ef a cinema cenceived as a shew te be exhibited in large theatres with a standard duratien, hermetic sauc-

-

= Cit‘). -glc

_.-.,

-

.

42

Fernande Selanas and E-‘ctavie Cletine

-

tures that are b-em and die en the semen. satisfies, tn be sure, the cemmercial interests ef the preductien grnups, but it atse leads te the ahr-erptien efferrns ef the beurgeeis werld-view which are the centinuatien ef liith century art. ef beurgeeis art: man is accepted enly as a passive atrd censuming ebject; rather than having his ability te rnarke histery recegnized, he is enly permitted te read histery, centetnplate

it, listen te it, and underge it. The cinema as a spectacle aimed at a digesting ehject is the highest peint that can ll-‘e reached by beurgeeis

filmmalring. The werld, experience, and dte histeric precess are enclesed within the frame ef a painting, the stage ef a theater, and the mevie screen; man is viewed as a censumer ef ideelegy. and net as the creater ef ideelegy. This netien is the starting peint fer the wentlerful interplay ef beurgeeis philesephy and the ebtaining ef surplus value. The result is a cinema studied by metivatienal analysts, secielegists and psychelegists, by the endless researchers ef the dreams and frusttatiens ef the masses, all aimed at selling mevie-life, reality as it is cenceived by the ruling classes. The first altemative te this type ef cinema. which we ceuld call the first cinema. arese with the se- called “auther‘s cinema,“ “expressinn cinema,“ “neuvelie vague, " “cinema nave," er, cenventienally, the secend cinema. This altemative signified a step ferwar'd inasmuch as it demanded that the filmmaker be free te express himself in nenstandard language and inasmuch as it was an attempt at cultural decele-nizatien. But such attempts have already reached, er are abeut tn reach, the euter limits ef what the system pemrits. The secend cinema filmmalrer has remained “trapped inside the fertress" as Gedard put it, er is en his way te beceming trapped. The search fer a market ef 2t"ltl,llllll meviegeers in Argentina, a figure that is suppesed te cever dte cests ef an independent lecal preductien. the prepesal ef develeping a mechanism ef industrial preductien parallel te that ef the System but which weuld be distributed by the System accerding te its ewn nnrms, the snuggle te better the laws pretecting the cinema and replacing “bad efficials" by “less bad.“ etc., is a search lacking in viable prespects, unless yeu censider viable the prespect ef beceming institutienalized as “the yeuthful. angry wing ef seciety“—tlrat is, ef neecelenialized er capitalist seciety. Iteal altematives differing frem these effered by the System are enly pessihle if ene ef twe requirements is fulfilled: making films that the System cannet assimilate and which are jbreign ta its needs, er making films that directly and explicitly set eut te fight the System.

Helmet ef these requirements fits within the altematives that are still effered by the secend cinema. but they can be feund in the revelutien-

= Cit‘-r. -glc

_.-., - .

-

.

'i

Tewards a Third Cinema

43

ary epening tewards a cinema eutside and against the System, in it

cinema ef liberatien: the third cinema. Clne ef the mest effective jebs dene by neecelenialism is its cutting eff ef intellectual secters, especially artists, frem natinnal reality by lining them up behind “universal art and medels.“ It has been very cemmen fer intellectuals and artists te be feund at the tail end ef pepular snuggle, when they have net actually taken up pesitiens against it. The secial layers which have made the greatest centributien tn the building ef a natinnal culture -[understeed as an impulse tewards decelenizatien) have net been precisely the enlightened elites but rather the mest expleited atrd uncivilized secters. Pepular erganizatiens have very rightly distrusted the "intellectual" and the "artist." Wlten they have net been epenly used by the beurgeeisie er imperialism. they have cenainly been their indirect reels; mest ef them did net ge beyend speuting a pnlicy in faver ef “peace and demecracy,“ fearful ef anything that had a natienal ring te it, afi'aid ef centaminating art with pelitics and the artists with the revelutienary militant. They thus tended te ebscure the imrer causes determining neecelenialized seciety and placed in the feregreund the euter causes, which, while “they are the cenditien fer change. can never be the basis fer change":’“ in Argentina drey replaced the struggle against imperialism and the native eligarchy widt the struggle ef demecracy against fascism, suppressing the fundamental centradictien ef a neecelenialized ceuntry and replacing it with “a centradictien that was a cepy ef the werldwide centradictien."" This cutting eff ef the intellectual artd artistic secters frem the precesses ef natienal liberatien—whicb, ameng ether things, helps us te understand the limitatlens in which drese precesses have been unfelding—teday tends te disappear tn the extent that artists and intellectuals are beginning tn discever the impessibility cf desnuying the enemy witheut first jeining in a battle fer their cemmen interests. The artist is beginning te feel the insufficiency ef his nencenfemrism and individual rebellien. And the revelutienary erganizatiens, in tum, are discevering the vacuums that die struggle fer pewer creates in the cultural sphere. The preblems ef filmmaking. the ideelngical limitatlens ef a filnurraker in a neecelenialized ceuntt'y, etc., have thus far censtituted ebjcctive facters in the lack ef anentien paid te the cinema by the peeple*s erganizatiens. l"'lews]_;tt-1[.rers artd edrer printed matter, pesters and wall prepaganda. speeches and ether verbal ferms ef infnnrratien, enlightenment, and peliticizatien are still the main means ef cemmunicatien between the erganizatiens and the vanguard layers ef the masses- But the new pelitical pesitiens ef seme filmmakers and the subsequent appearance ef films useful fer liberatien have permit.

.

H ‘nil

.__. I. .

_

I

4-4

Fernnride Srrlanas and {I-lctavie Getine

ted certain pelitical vanguards te discever the impertance ef mevies. This impertance is te be feund in the specific meaning ef films as a femr ef cemmunicatien and because ef their particular characteris-

tics, characteristics that allew them te draw audiences ef different erigins, many ef them peeple whe might net respend faverably te the anneuncement ef a pelitical speech. Films effer an effective pretext fer gathering an audience, in additien te the ideelngical message drey centain. The capacity fer synthesis and the penetratien ef the film image. the pessibilities effered by the living decument, and naked reality, atrd the pewer ef enlightenment ef audlevisual means make the film far mere effective than any ether teel ef cemmunicatien. It is hardly necessary te peint eut that these films which achieve an intelligent use ef the pessibilities ef the image, adequate desage ef cnncepts. language and structure that flew naturally frem each theme, and ceunterpeints ef audlevisual narratien achieve effective results in the peliticiaatinn and mebllizatien ef cadres and even in werk with the masses. where this is pessihle.

The students whe raised barricades en the Avenida ill de Julie in Mentevidee after the shewing ef La here de les hernes i The Hear ef the Furrracesl, the grewing demand fer films such as these made by Santiage Alvarez arrd the Cuban decumentary film mnvement, and the debates and meetings that take place alter the undergreund er semipublic shewlngs ef third cinema films are the beginning ef a twisting and difficult mad being travelled in the censumer secieties by the mass erganizatiens ttfinegiernali liireri in Italy, Eengakuren decumentaties in lapan. etc.j|. Fer the first time in Latin America, erganizatiens are ready and willing te empley films fer pelitical-cultural ends: the Chilean Partide Secialista prevides its cadres with revelutienary film material, while Argentine revelutienary Perenist and nen-Perenist greups are taking an interest in deing likewise. Mereever, CISPAAAL ttllrganizatien ef Selidatity ef the Peeple ef Africa, Asia and Latin America] is participating in the preductien and disttibutien ef films that cnntribute te the anti-imperialist struggle. The revelutienary erganizatiens are discevering the need fer cadres whe. ameng ether things, knew hew te handle a film camera. tape recerders, and prnjecters in the mest effective way pessihle. The struggle te seize pewer frem the enemy is the meeting greund ef the pelitical and artistic variguards engaged in a cemmen task which is enriching te heth. Seme ef the circumstances that delayed the use ef films as a revelutienary teel until a shert time age were lack ef equipment. technical difficulties, the cempulsery speeializatinn ef each phase ef werk, and high cests. The advances that have taken place within each specializa-

= Cit‘). -glc

_.-., - .

-

.

Tewards a Third Cirrenta

45

tien; the simplificatien ef mevie cameras and tape recerders: imprevements in the medium itself, such as rapid film that can be shet in nerrnal light; autematic light meters; impreved audlevisual synchrenizatien; and the spread ef knew-hew by means ef specialized magazines widt large circulatiens and even threugh nenspecialized media, have helped te demystify filrmnalting and divest it ef that almest magic aura that made it seem that films were enly within the reach ef “artists.” “geniuses.” and “the privileged." Filmmaking is increasingly within the reach ef larger secial layers. Chris Marker experimented in France widt greups ef werkers whem he pmvided with limm equipment and seme basic instnrctien in its handling- The geal was te have the werker film his way ef leaking at the werld, just as if he were writing it. This has epened up unheard-ef prespects fer the cinema; abeve all, a new canceptien effilmnmking and the significance ef art

in eur times. Imperialism and capitalism. whether in the censumer seciety er in the neecelenialized ceunuy, veil everydring behind a screen ef images and appearances. The image ef reality is mere impettant than reality itself. lt is a werld peepled with fantasies and phantems in which what is hideeus is clethed in beauty, while beauty is disguised as the hideeus. [tn the ene hand, fantasy, the imaginary beurgeeis universe replete with cemfert, equilibrium, sweet reasen, erder, efficiency, and the pessibility te “be semeene.“ And, en the ether, the phantems, we the lazy, we dte indelent and underdeveleped. we whe cause diserder. ‘Wlren a neecelenialized persen accepts his situatien, he becemes a Crungha Din, a traiter at the service ef the celenialist, an Uncle Tem, a class and racial renegade, er a feel, the easy-geing servant and bumpkin; but, when he refuses te accept his situatien ef eppressien, then he turns inte a resentful savage, a cannibal. These whe lese sleep frem fear ef the hungry. these whe cemprise the System, see the revelutienary as a bandit, rebber. and rapist: the first battle waged against them is thus net en a pelitical plane, but rather in the peliee centext ef law, mrests, etc. The mere expleited a man is, the mere he is placed en a plane ef insignificance. The mere he resists. the mere he is viewed as a beast. This can be seen in Africa Addie. made by the fascist Jacepetti: the African savages, killer animals, wallew in abject atrarchy nnce drey escape fmm white pretectien. Tarzan died, and in his place were hem Lumumbas and Lebegulas, Hkemes, and the Madaimbatnutes, and this is semething that neecelenialism cannet fergive. Fmrtasy has been replaced by phantems and man is tumed inte an extra whe dies se Jacepetti can cemfettably film his executien. l make the revelutien: therefnre l exist. This is the starting peint fer the disappearance ef fantasy and phantem te make way fer living

= Cit‘-r. -glc

_.-., - .

-

.

4fi

Fernanda Srrlrrnas and -t'.l'ctavie Carine

human beings. The cinema ef the revelutien is at the same time ene cf destructien and censtructien: destmctien ef the image that neecelenialism has created ef itself and nf us, and censtructien ef a threb-

bing, living reality which recaptures truth in any ef its expressiensThe restltutien ef things re their real place and meaning is an eminently subversive fact beth in the neecelenial situatien and in the censumer secieties. In the femrer, the seeming ambiguity er pseudeebjectivity in newspapers. literature. etc.. and the relative freedem ef the peep|e's erganizatiens te previde their ewn infermatien cease te exist. giving way te evert resttictien. when it is a questien ef televisien and radie, the twe mest impnrtant System-centrnlled er menepel-

ized cemmunicatiens media- Last yeat*s May events in France are quite explicit en this peint. In a werld where the unreal mics, artistic expressinn is sheved aleng the channels rrf fantasy, fictinn, language in cede, sign language,

and messages whispered between the lines. Art is cut eff frem the cencrete facts—which, item the neecelenialist standpeint, are accusatery testimenies—te tum back en itself, strutting abeut in a werld ef abstractiens and phantems, where it becemes "timeless" and histery-

less. Vietnam can be mentiened, but enly far frem Vietnam: Latin America can be mentiened, but enly far eneugh away frem the centinent te be effective, in places where it is depeliticieed and where it dees net lead te actien-

The cinema knewn as decumentary, with all the vastness that the ceneept has teday, frem educatienal films te the recenstmctien ef a fact rrr a histerical event, is perhaps the main basis ef revrrlutirrn:_=rry

filmmaking. Every image that rlecuments, bears witness te, refutes er deepens the truth ef a situatien is semething mere than a film image ef purely artistic fact; it becemes semething which the System finds incligestible.

Testimeny abeut a natienal reality is alse an inestimable means ef dialegue and kttewledge en the werld plane. He internatienalist ferrn cf struggle can be carried eut successfully if there is net a mutual exchange ef experiences ameng the penple, if the peeple de net succeed

in breaking eut ef the Balkaniratien en the intematienal. centinental. and natinnal planes which imperialism is striving te maintain. There is nu knewledge ef a reality as leng as that reality is net acted upen. its lang as its transfermarien is net begun en all frents ef

struggle. The well-knewn quete frem Marx deserves censtant repetitien: it is net .tu_filicient re interpret the werld; it is new e euestien ef transferrning itWith such an attitude as his starting peint, it remains te the filmt maker te discever his ewn language. a language which will arise frem

I

~

Tewards a Third Cinema

4'?

a militant and transfemring werld-view attd fmm dre theme being dealt with. Here it may well be painted eut that certain peliticm cadres still maintain eld degmatic pesitiens, which ask the artist er filmmaker te previde an apnlegetic view ef reality. ene which is mare in line with wishjitl thinking than with what actually is. Such pesitiens, which at bettem mask a lack ef cenfidence in the pessibilities af reality itself, have in certain cases led te the use ef film language as a mere idealized illustratien ef a fact. te the desire te temeve reality's deep centradictiens, its dialectic richness. which is precisely dte kind ef depth which can give a film beauty and effectiveness. The reality ef the revelutienary precesses all ever the werld, in spite ef their cenfused and negative aspects. pessesses a deminant line, a synthesis which is se rich and stimulating that it dees net need te be schematized widt partial er sectarian views. Parttphlet films. didactic films, repert films. essay films. witnessbearing films~—any militant femr ef expressien is valid, attd it weuld be absurd te lay dawn a set ef aesthetic werk nerms. Be receptive ta all that the peeple have ta effer, and a_fi"er them the best; er, as Che

put it, respect the peeple by giving them quality. This is a geed thing te keep in mind in view af these tendencies which are always latent in the revelutienary artist te lewer the level ef investigatien and the language ef a theme, in a kind ef neepepulism, dawn te levels which. while they may be these upen which the masses meve, de net help them ta get rid ef the stumbling blacks left by imperialism. The effectiveness ef the best films ef militant cinema shew that sncial layers censidered backward are able te capture the exact meaning ef an asseciatien ef images. an effect ef staging. and airy linguistic experimentatien placed widrin dte centext ef a given idea. Furthermere, revelutienary cinema is net fundamentally ene which illusn-ates, decuments, er passively establishes a situatien: rather, it attempts ta intervene in the situatien as an element praviding thrust er rectrficatien. Te put it anether way, it prevides discavery threugh trangfarrrtatian. The differences that exist between ene and anether liberatien prncess make it impessible te lay dawn supp-esedly universal nertns. A cinema which in the censumer seciety dees net attain the level ef the reality in which it meves can play a stimulating rele in an underdeveleped ceunuy, just as a revelutienary cinema in the neecelenial situatien will net necessarily be revelutienary if it is mechanically taken te the metrepelitan ceuntry. Teaching the handling ef guns cmr be revelutienary where there are petentially er explicitly viable leaders ready te threw themselves inte the struggle te take pewer, but ceases te be revelutienary where the masses still lack sufficient awareness ef their situatien er where they

= Cit‘-t -glc

_.-., - .

-

.

4S

'“~.'t

Fernanda Selanas and Octavia tllietina

have already learned te handle guns. Thus, a cinema which insists upen dre denunciatien ef dte ejfects ef neecelenial pnlicy is caught up in a refemtist game if dte censcieusness ef the masses has already assimilated such knewledge: then the revelutienary thing is te examine the causes, te investigate the ways ef erganizing and arming fer the change. That is, imperialism can spenser films that fight illiteracy, and such pictures will enly be inscribed within the centemperaty need ef imperialist pelicy, but, in centrast, the making ef such films in Cuba after the uiumph ef the ltevelutian wm clearly revelutienary. Altheugh their starting peint was just the fact ef teaching, reading and writing. they had a geal which was radically different frem that ef imperialism: the training af peeple fer liberatien, net fer subjectien. The medel ef the perfect werk ef art, the fully reunded film suuc— tured accerding te the metrics impesed by beurgeeis culture, its theareticians and critics, has served te inhibit the filrrurraker in the dependent ceuntries, especially when he has attempted te erect similar mndels in a reality which ajjfered him neither the culture, the tech-

niques, nar the mast primary elements far success. The culture ef the metrepelis kept the age-eld secrets that had given life te its medels; the uanspesitien ef the latter tn the neecelenial reality was always a mechatrism ef alienatien, since it was net pessihle far the artist af the

dependent ceuntry ta ahserlr, in a few years, the secrets af u culture and seciety elaherated threugh the centuries in cempletely diijferent histerical circumstances. The attempt in the sphere nf filmmaking tn

“alt

match the pictures ef the mling ceunnies generally ends in failure, given the existence ef twe disparate histerical realities. And such unsuccessful attemptsrlead te feelings ef frustratien and inferierity. Beth these feelings arise in the first place frem the fear ef taking risks aleng cempletely new reads which are almest a tatal denial ef “their cinema." A fear ef recegnizing the particularities and limitatlens ef dependency in erder te discever the pessibilities inherent in that situatian, by finding ways ef averceming it which wauld af necessity he eriginal. The existence af a revelutienary cinema is incenceivable witheut the censtant and methedical exercise ef practice. search. and experimentatien. It even means cemmitting the new filmmaker ta take chances en the unkrrewn, te leap inte space at times, expesing himself te failure as dees the guerrilla whe travels aleng paths that he himself epens up with machete blews- The pnssibiiity ef discevering and inventing film ferms and structures that serve a mere prefeund visien ef eur reality resides in the ability te place eneself an the eutside limits ef the familiar. te make ene‘s way amid censtant dangers.

= Ctr. -glc

_.-., - .

-

.

Tewards a Third Cinema

45'

Cur time is ene ef hypedresis rather than ef thesis, a time ef werks in pregress—unfinished. unerdered, vielent werks made with dte camera in ene hand atrd a reek in the ether. Such werks cannet be assessed accerding te the traditienal tlreeretical and critical catrens. The ideas fer eur film theery and criticism will ceme te life threugh irrltibitien-remeving practice and experimentatien. “lslnewledge begins widt practice. After acquiring thenretical knewledge threugh practice, it is necessary te retum ta practice.'“i Clnce he has embarked upen this practice, dte revelutienary filmmaker will have te everceme ceuntless ebstacles; he will experience dte leneliness ef these whe aspire te the praise ef the System's premetien media enly te find that these media are clesed te him. As Gedard wnuld say, he will cease te be a bicycle champien te beceme an anenymeus bicycle rider, ‘Vietnarnese-style, submerged in a cruel and prelenged war". But he will alse discever that there is a receptive audience that leeks upen his werk as semething ef its ewn existence. and that is ready te defend him in a way that it wnuld never de with any werld bicycle champien. In this leng war, with the catnera as eur rifie, we de in fact meve inte a guerrilla activity. This is why the werk cf a jilm-guerrilla greup is gevemed by strict disciplinary nernrs as te beth werk metheds and security. A revelutienary film greup is in the same situatien as a guerrilla unit: it cannet grew strung witheut military smrctures and cemmand cnncepts. The greup exists as a netwark af camplementery respensilrilities, as the sum and synthesis af abilities, inasmuch as it aperates harmenically with a leadership that centralires planning

werk and maintains its cantinuity. Experience shews that it is net easy te maintain the cehesien ef a greup when it is bembarded by the System and its chain ef accemplices frequently disguised as “pregressives,“ when there are ne lnunediate atrd spectacular euter lncentives and the members must underge the discemferts and tensiens ef werk that is dene undergmund and distributed clandestinely- Many abarrdan their respcnsibilities because they underestimate them er be-

cause drey measure them with values apprepriate te System cinema and net undergreund cinema. The birth ef intemal cenflicts is a reality present in any greup, whether er net it pessesses idcelegical maturity. The lack ef awareness ef such an inner centlict en the psychelegical er persenality plane, etc.. die lack ef maturity in dealing with preblems ef relatienships, at times leads te ill feeling and rivalries that in tum cause real clashes geing beyend idcelegical er ebjcctive differences. All ef this means that a basic cenditien is an awareness nf the pnnblems ef interpersenal relatinnships, leadership and areas ef

= Cit‘). -glc

_.-., - .

-

5l]

Femnnde Salaries rand‘ Ucmvie Gcrine

cnmpetence. What is needed is te speak clearly, marl-1 eff werlt areas. assign respensibiiities and take en the jeb as a rignreus militancy. Guerrilla lilmmaiting preletarianiaes the film wnrlter attd breal.-ts "vi dewn the intellectual aristecracy that tlte beurgeeisie grants te its fellewers. In a werd, it deem.-srerires. The filrnrrtaiter's tie with reality makes him mere a |;:-an cf his peeple. Vanguard layers and even masses participate cellectively in the wnrlt when tltey realiae that it is the centinuity nf their daily struggle. La here dc les Frames shews hew a film can be made in hnstile circumstances when it has the suppert and cellaberatien ef militants and cadres frem the peeple. The revelutienary filmmalter acts with a radically new visien nf the rele ef the preducer, team-wnrlt, teels, details, etc. Abeve all, he supplies himself at all levels in nrder te preduce his films. he equips himself at all levels. he learns hnw te handle the manifnld techniques ef his craft. His mnst valuable pessessiens are the teels ef his trade, which fnrm part and parcel cf his need te cemmunicate. The camera is the inexhaustible erprnprinter sf image-weapens; the prejectnr, a gar: that can shear 2-sfremes per seccnal. Each member nf the greup sheuld be familiar, at least in a general way. with dte equipment being used: he must be prepared tn replace anether in any ef the phases nf preductien. The myth ef irreplaceable technicians must be espleded. The whale greup must grant great impertance te the miner details nf the preductien and the security measures needed te prntect it. A lack cf feresight which in eenventinttal filmmalting wnuld gn unneticed can render virtually useless weelts er menths bf werk. And a failure in guerrilla cinema, just as in the guerrilla struggle itself, can mean the less ef a werl-; er a cemplete change cf plans. “in a guenilla struggle the ceneept nf failure is present a theusand times ever, and victery a myth that enly a revelutienary can dream."'1‘ Every member cf the greup must have an ability te tahe care ef details, discipline, speed, and, abeve all, the willingness tn everceme the weaknesses ef cemfert, eld habits, and the wh-ale climate nf pseudenerrnality behind which the warfare ef everyday life is hidden. Each film is a different eperatinn, a different jnb requiring variatien in methods in erder tn cenfuse er refrain frem alerting the enemy. especially since the precessing labnratnries are still in his hands. The success ef the werk depends tn a great extent en the greupls ability te remain silent. en im permanent wariness, a cenditien that is difficult te achieve in a situatien in which apparently nething is happening and the filmmaker has been accustemed te telling all a.|td sundry abeut everything that he’s deing because the beurgeeisie has trained him precisely en such a basis ef prestige and premetien. The

= Citit -glc

_.-, - .

-

.

Tel-vrrrdse Third Cinema

5I

watchwerds “censtant vigilance, censtant warieess. censtant mebility" have prefeund validity fer guerrilla cinema. ‘feu have te give the appearance ef werking en varieus prejects, split up the material, put it tegether, take it apart,- cenfuse. neutralise. and threw eff the track. All ef this is necessary as leng as the greup deesn*t have its ewn pmcessing equipment, ne matter hew rudimentary, and tltere remain certain pessibilities in the traditienal laberateries. Greap-level ce-eperatien between different ceuntries can serve te assure the cempletien ef a film er the esecutien ef certain phases ef werk that may net be pessihle in the ceuntry ef erigin. Te this sheuld be added the need fer a filing center fer materials te be used by the different greups and the perspective ef ceerdinatien, en a centinentwide er even werldwide scale, ef the centinuity ef werk in each ceuntry: pcriedic regienal er intematienal gatherings te exchange esperience. centrihutiens, jeint planning ef werk. etc. at least in the earliest stages the revelutienary filmmaker and the werk greups will be the seie preducers ef their films. They must bear the resperisibility ef finding ways te facilitate the centinuity ef werk. Guerrilla cinema still deesrft have eneugh esperience te set dewn standards in this area; what experience there is has shewn, abeve all, the ability re rrtrtke n'.se ef the cencrete situatien cf each ceuntry. Hut,

regardless ef what these situatiens may be, the preparatien ef a film cannet be undertaken witheut a parallel study ef its future audience artd, censequently, a plan te recever the financial investment- Here. ence again, the need arises fer clescr ties between pelitical and artistic vanguards, since this alse serves fer the jeint study ef ferms ef preductien, eshibitien, and centinuity. A guerrilla film can he aimed enly at the distributien mechanisms previded by the revelutienary erganizatiens, including these invented er discevered by the filntrnakers themselves. Preductien. distributien, and ecenemic pessibilities fer survival must ferm part ef a single strategy. The selutien ef the preblems faced in each ef these areas will enceurage ether peeple te jein in dte werk ef guerrilla filmmaking. which will enlarge its ranks and thus make it less vulnerable. The distributien ef guerrilla films in Latin America is still in swaddling clethes while System reprisals are already a legalized fact. Suffice it te nete in Argentina the raids that have eccurred during seme shewings and the recent film suppressien law ef a clearly fascist character; in Email the ever-increasing restrictiens placed upen the mest militant cemrades ef Eirteme Neve; attd in Venezuela the banning ef Le here dc les hernes; ever almest all the centinent censership prevents any pessibility ef public distributien.

= Cit‘). -glc

_.-, - .

-

.

52

Femande Selanas earl‘ flcte via {Patina

Witheut revelutienary films and a public that asks fer dtem, any attempt te epen up new ways ef disuibutien weuld be deemed te failure. But beth ef these already esist in Latin America. The appearance ef these films epened up a read which in seme ceuntries, such as Argentina, eccurs threugh shewings in apartments and heuses te audiences ef never mere than 25 peeple; in etlter ceuntries, such as Chile. films are shewn in parishes, universities, er cultural centers {ef which there are fewer every day}; and, in the case ef Llruguay, shewings were given in ll-*lentevidee"s biggest mevie theatre te an audience cf 2,509 peeple. whe filled the theatre and made every shewing an impassiened anti-imperialist event. But the pmspects en the centinental plane indicate that the pnssibiiity fer the centinuity ef a revelutienary cinema rests upen the strengthening ef rigemusly undergreund base structures. Practice implies mistakes and failures.“ Same cemrades will let themselves be carried away by the success and impunity with which they present the first shewings and will tend te relat security measures, while ethers will ge in the eppesite directien ef escessive precautiens er fearfulness, te such an eittent that distributien remains circumscribed, limited te a few greups ef friends. Elnly cencrete esperience in each ceuntry will demenstrate which are the best metheds there. which de net always lend themselves te applicatien in ether situatiens. In seme places it will be pessihle te build infrastructures cennected te pelitical, student, werker, and ether erganizatiens, while in ethers it will be mere suitable te sell prints te erganizatiens which will take charge ef ebtaining the funds necessary te pay fer each print (the cest ef the print plus a small margin}. This methed, wherever pessihle. weuld appear te be the mest viable, because it pemtits the decentraliaatien ef distributien; makes pessihle a mere pmfeund pelitical use ef the film; and permits the recevery, threugh the sale ef mere prints, ef the funds invested in the preductien. It is ttue that in many ceuntries the erganizatiens still are net fully aware ef the impertance ef this werk. er. if they are, may lack the means te undertake it. In such cases ether metheds can be used: the delivery ef prints te enceurage distributien and a hes-effice cut te the erganisers ef each shewing, etc. The ideal geal te be achieved weuld be pmducing and distributing guenilla films with funds ebtained frem esprepriatiens frem the beurgeeisie—that is, the beurgeeisie weuld he financing guerrilla cinema with a hit cf the surplus value that it gets frem the peeple. But. as leng as the geal is ne mere than a middle- er leng—range aspiratien, the alternatives epen te revelutienary cinema te recever preductien and distributien cests are te seme estent similar te dtese ebtained fer

= Cit‘). -glc

_.-, - .

-

.

Tcnvarris a Thirti Cinema

53

cenventienal cinenta: every spectater sheuld pay the same ameunt as he pays te see System cinema. Financing. subsidizing, equipping, and supperting revelutienary cinema are pelitical respensibilities fer ergartizatiens and militants. A film can be made, but if its distributien dees net allew fer the recevery ef the cests. it will be difficult er impessible te make a secend film. The lfimm film circuits in Eurepe {2t},[ltl[l eshibitien centers in Sweden, 3tl,l.'.ltltl in France. etc.) are net the best esample fer the neecelenialized ceuntries. but they are nevertheless a cemplementary seurce fer fund raising, especially in a situatien in which such circuits can play an impertant rele in publicizing the struggles in the Third wens, increasingly related as they are te these unfelding in the metrepelitan ceuntries. A film en the Venezuelan guerrillas will say mere te a Eurepean public than twenty e:-tplanatery pamphlets, and the satne is true fer us with a film en the lviay events in France er the Berkeley, U,S.A., student struggle. A Guerrilla Films lntematinnal? And why net? [sn‘t it true that a kind ef new internatienal is arising threugh the Third werld struggles; threugh GSPAAAL and the revelutienary vanguards ef the censumer secieties‘? A guerrilla cinema, at this stage still within the reach ef limited layers ef the pepulatien, is, nevertheless, the enly cinema cf the masses pessihle teday, since it is the enly ene invelved with the interests, aspiratiens, and prespects ef the vast majerity ef the peeple. Every impertant film preduced by a revelutienary cinema will be, esplicitly, er net, a natinnal event cf the nuzsses.

This cinema af the masses, which is prevented frem reaching beyend the secters representing the masses, prevekes with each shewing, as in a revelutienary military incursien, a liberated space. a siecaleuizerl territety. The shewing can be tumed inte a kind ef pelitical event, which, accerding te Fanen, ceuld be “a liturgical act, a privileged eccasien fer human beings te hear and be heard." lviilitattt cinema must be able te eztract the infinity ef new pessibilities that epen up fer it frem the cenditiens ef prescriptien impesed by the System, The attempt te everceme neecelenial eppressien calls fer the inventien ef ferms ef cemmunicatien; it epens up the pessibility. Befere and during the making ef La hera ale les harnas we tried eut varieus metheds fer the distributien cf revelutienary cinema—the little that we had made up te then. Each shewing fer militants, middle-level cadres, activists, werkcts. attd university students becamewitheut eur having set eurselves this aim beferehand—a kind ef enlarged cell meeting ef which the films were a part but net the mest

= Cit'.i- -glc

_.-, - .

-

.

S-=l

Fernaruzie .5-'alan,a.r and tjilctavia {Feline

impertant facter. We thus discevered a new facet ef cinema: the partiripatian ef peeple whe, until then, were censidered .s_tJectatar.r.

At times, security reasens ebliged us te try te disselve the greup ef participants as seen as the shewing was ever, and we realized that the distributien ef that kind ef film had little meaning if it was net cemplemented by the patticipatieu ef the cenuades, if a debate was net epened en the themes suggested by the films. We alse discevered that every cenirade whe attended such shewings did se with full awareness that he was infringing the System‘s laws and eitpesing his persenal security te eventual repressien. This persen was ne lenger a spectater: en the centrary, frem the mement he decided te attend the shewing, frem the mement he lined himself up an this sirle by talting risks and centributing his living esperience te the meeting, he became an acter, a mere imp-ertant pretagenist than these whe appeared in the films. Such a persen was seeking ether cemmitted peeple like himself while he, in turn, becarne cemmitted te them. The spectater made way fer the acter, whe seught hituself in ethers.

Outside this space which the films mementarily helped te liberate. there was netlting but selitude, nencemmunicatien, distmst, and fear; within the freed space the situatien turned everyene inte accemplices ef the act that was unfelding. The debates arese spentaneeusly. As we gained in ezperience, we iucerperated inte the shewing varieus elements {a raise en scene] te reinferce the themes ef the films, the climate ef the shewing, the “disinhibiting" ef the participants, and the dialegue: recerded music er peems. sculpture and paintings. pesters. a pregram directer whe chaired the debate and presented the film and the cemrades whe were speaking, a glass ef wine, a few ureter.“ etc. We realized that we had at hand three very valuable facters: ll The participant cemratie. the man-acter-accemplice whe respended te the summens; 2] The free space where that man espressed his cencerns and ideas, became peliticized, and started te free himself; and 3] The film, impertant enly as a detenater er pretest. We cencluded frem these data that a film ceuld be much mere effective if it were fully aware ef dtese facters and teek en the task ef suherdinating its ewn ferm, structure, language, and prepesitiens te that act and te these acters—te put it anether way. if it seught its ewn liheratien in its sahartiinatian ta anal insertian in ethers, the principal

pretagenists cf life. With the cerrect utilizatien ef the time that dtat greup ef acter-persenages effered us with their diverse histeries, the

= Cit‘). -glc

_.-, - .

-

.

Tetverdsa Third‘ Chremu

55

use ef the space effered by certain cemrades, and ef the films firemselves, it was necessary ta try ta trattrfamt time, energy, and tvarl:

inte freedem-giving energy. In this way dte idea began te grew ef structuring what we decided te call the film act, the film actien, ene ef the ferms which we believe assumes great impertance in affirrning the line ef a third cinema. A cinema whese first experiment is te be feund, perhaps en a rather shaky level in the secend and third parts ef La here tie les hernes if “Acre para la liheracien "; abeve all, starting with “La resisterrcia“ and "Vielencia y lilreracien"}. Cemrades [we said at the start ef “Acte para la liberacien"], this is net just a film shewing, ner is it a shew; rather, it is, abeve all a lv'lEE‘l‘lI"ltI‘|——3]'l act ef anti-imperialist unity; this is a place enly fer these whe feel identified with this struggle, because here there is ne re-em fer spectaters er fer accemplices ef the enemy; here there is teem enly fer the authers and pretagenists ef the precess which the film attempts te bear wimess te and te deepen. The film is dte pretext fer dialegue, fer the seeking and finding ef wills. It is a repert dtat we place befere yeu fer yeur censideratien, te be debated after the shewing. The cenclusiens [we said at anetlter peint in the secend part] at which yeu may arrive as the real authers and pretagenists ef this histery are impnrtant The experiences and cenclusiens that we have assembled have a relative werth; they are ef use te the extent that dtey are useful te yeu, whe are the present and future ef liberatien. Hut mest imperuutt ef all is the actien that may arise frem dtese cenclusiens, dte unity en the basis ef the facts. This is why the film steps here; it epens eut te yeu se dtat yeu can centinue it The film act means an epen-ended film; it is essentially a way ef learning. The first step in the precess ef krtewledge is the first centact with the firings ef the eutside werld, the stage cf sensatiens [in a film, the living fresca cf image art-ti saunrl]. The secend step is

dte synthesizing ef the data peevided by the sensatiens; their erdering and elaberatien; the stage ef cencepts, judgements, epiniens, and deductiens [in the film, the annauncer, the repertings, the tltldactics. er the rtarratar whe leads the prejectien act]. And then cemes the third stage. that ef knewledge. The active rele ef

turewledge is expressed net enly in the active leap frem sensery te ratienal lmewledge, but, and what is even mere impertant, in the leap frem ratienal knewledge te r'evelutienary practice . . . The practice ef the transfermatien cf the werld . . . This, in

= Cit.i- -glc

_.-, - .

_

515

Fennrndrt .Fa-lanes and {'l'cta via tTFett'na

general terms, is dte dialectical materialist theery ef the unity ef knewledge and actien"‘ [in the prejectien ef the film act, the ptarticlptcttlan cf the cemrades, the actien prepesals that arise, and the actiens themselves that will tahe place later].

lvlereever, each prejectien ef a film act presuppeses a difierent settittg, since the space where it taltes place, the materials that ge te make it up facters-participants). and the histeric time in which it talces place are never the same. This means that the result ef each pmjectien act will depend en these whe erganize it, en these whe participate in it, and en the time and place; the pessibility ef intreducing variatiens, additiens, and changes is unlimited. The screening ef a film act will always express in ene way er anether the histerical situatien in which it takes place; its perspectives are net exhausted in the struggle fer pewer but will instead centinue after the taking ef pewer te strengthen the revelutien. The man ef the third cinema, be it guerrilla cinema er a film act. with the infinite categeries that they centain (film letter, film peem, film essay, film pamphlet, film repert, etc.}, abeve all ceunters the film industry ef a cinema ef characters with ene ef themes, that ef individuals with that ef masses. that ef the auther with that ef the eperative ggeup, ene ef neecelenial misinferrnatien with ene ef inferrnatien. ene ef escape with ene that recaptures the truth, that ef passivity with that ef aggressiens. Te an institutienalized cinema, it cnunterpuses a guerrilla cinema; te mevies as shews, it eppeses a film act er actien", te a cinema ef destructien, ene that is bnth destructive and censtructive; te a cinema made fer the eld kind nf human being, fer them, it eppeses a cinema fit far a new hind af human lreing, fer what each

ene ef us has the pessihility cf hecamingThe decelenizatien ef the filmmaker and ef films will be simultaneeus acts te the extent that each centributes te cellective decelenizatien. The battle begins witheut, against the enemy whe attacks us, but alsn within, against the ideas and medels ef the enemy te he feund in-

side each ene sf us- [Jestructien and censtructien. Decelenizing actien rescues with its practice the purest and mest vital impulses. lt eppeses te the celenializatien ef minds the revelutien ef censcieusness. The werld is scrutinized. unravelled, rediscnvered- Peeple are witness te a censtant astenishment, a kind ef secend birth. They recever their early simplicity. their capacity fer adventure; their lethargic capacity fer indignatien cemes te life. Freeing a ferbidden truth means setting free the pessibility ef indignatien and subversien- Elur truth. that ef the new man whe builds himself by getting rid ef all dte defects that still weigh him dewn. is a

I

~

Tewards a Third Cinema

ST

bemb ef inexhaustible pewer and, at the sam-e time. the enly real passihility ef life. Within this attempt, the revelutienary filmmaker ventures with his suhversive ahservatian. sensibility, intaginatien, and realizatien. The great themes-—the histery ef the ceuntry, leve mid unleve between cembatartts, the efferts ef a peeple whe are awakening—all this is rebern befere dte lens ef dte decelenized camera. The filnunalrer feels fer the first time. He discevers that, within the System, nething fits, while eutside ef and against the System, evetytlting

fits, because everything remains te be dene. ‘1v'hat appeared yesterday as a prepesterc-us adventure, as we said at the beginning, is pesed teday as an inescapable need and passihilityThus far. we have effered ideas and werking prepesitiens, which are the sketch ef a hypethesis arising frem eur persenal experience and which will have achieved semething pesitive even if they de ne mere than serve te epen a heated dialegue en the new revelutienary film prespects. The vacuums existing in the artistic and scientific frents ef dte revelutien are sufficiently well knewn se that dte adversary will net try te apprepriate them, while we are still unable te de se. Wlry films and net seme ether ferm cf artistic cenununicatien? If we cheese films as the center ef eur prepesitiens and debate, it is because drat is eur werk frent and because the birtlt ttf a third cirtemcr

means, at least fer us, the mast impnrtant revelutienary artistic event ef eur times. Translatien fmm Cineaste revised by Julianne Burtnn and Editer HDIES l. The Hear cf the Fumacer—-Ncacelanialism and vielence. 2. Juan lese Hernandez Arregui, Imperialism and Culture. 3. Rene Eavaleta lvlercade, Bnlivia.’ Cirawth af the Natiaaal Cancept-

4. The Hear cf the Furnaces. 5- lbid. ti. Elbserve the new custem ef seme greups ef the upper beurgeeisie frem lteme artd Paris whe spend their weekends travelling te Saigen te get a clese-up view ef the vietceng effensive. T- Irwin Silber, "‘U.S.A.: The Alienatien ef Culture," Tricentinental lfl.

S. The ergarrizatien ‘vanguard Artists ef Argentina‘ll- The Heur e_,f the Furnaces. ll]. lvlae Tse-lung, {la Practice. ll. Redelfe Fuigress, The Preletariat and Natianal llevalurian-

I2. lvlae Tse-rung. ep. cit_ 13. Elie Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare.

= Cit‘). -glc

_.-._, - .

-

.

SS

Fernanda .'lia-lattes and til‘-t‘tat't'rt -E-"etine

l4. The raiding ef a Buenes Aires unien and the arrest ef dezens ef persens resulting frem a had cheice ef prejectien site and the large number ef peeple invited. 15. A traditienal Argentine herb tea. hierha mate.

ta- lvlae Tse-lung, ep. cit-

t-

= - Ce. glc

-,

,§,.'" . ,- ,,...,

An Esthetie et Hunger Glauber Flecha

Dispensing widt dte infermative intreductien se characteristic ef discussiens abeut Latin America, I prefer te examine the relatienship between eur culture and "civilized" culture in brnader terms than these ef the Eurepean ebserver. Thus. while Latin America laments its general misery, the fereign enleeker cultivates dte taste ef that misery. net as a tragic symptem, but merely as an esthetic ebject within his field ef interest. The Latin American neither cemmunicates his real misery te the “civilized” Eurepean, ner dees the Eurepean truly cemprehend the misery ef the Latin American. This is dte fundamental situatien ef the arts in Bruit teday: many distertiens. especially the femtal exeticism that vulgarizes se-cial preblems, have preveked a series ef misunderstandings that invelve net enly art but alse pelitics. Fer dte Eumpean ebserver the precess ef artistic creatinn in the underdeveleped werld is ef interest enly insefar as it satisfies a nestalgia fer primitivism- This primitivism is generally presented as a hybrid femr. disguised under the belated heritage ef the “civilized werld." a heritage pe-erly understeed since it is impesed by celenial cenditiening. Latin America remains, undeniably, a celeny, and what dist-inguishes yesterday's celenialism frem teday’s celenial-

ism is merely the mere pelished fenn ef the celenizer and the mere subtle ferms ef these whe are preparing future deminatien- The internatienal preblem ef Latin America is still a case ef merely exchanging Randal leltnsen and Hebert Stam, eds., illrarilian Cinema- l"-ll: Asseciatcd Univer-

sity Presses. I932, pp. as-rt. Ely permissien ef the publisher-

= Cit-it. -glc

5“

_.-._, - .

-

.

till

Glauher lleclra

celenizers. Ctur pessihle liberatien will prebably ceme, tlrerefere. in the ferm ef a new dependency. This ecenemic and pelitical cenclitiening has led us te philesephical weakness and impetence that engenders sterility when censcieus and hysteria when uncenscieus. It is fer this reasen that the hunger ef Latin America is net simply art alarming symptem: it is the essence ef eur seciety. There resides the tragic ct-riginality e-f Cinema l"'~leve in re-

latien te werld cinema- Ctur eriginality is eur hunger and eur greatest misery is that this hunger is felt but net intellectually understeed. ‘We understand the hunger that the Eurepean and dte majerity ef Brazilians have net understeed. Fer the Eurepean it is a strange trepical surrealism. Fer the Brazilian it is a natinnal shame. He dees net eat, but he is ashamed te say se: and yet. he dees net knew where this hunger cemes frem. We kt1ew—since we made dtese sad. ugly films, these screaming, desperate films where reasen dees net always prevail —-that this hunger will net be cured by mederate gevemmental refertns attd that dte cleak ef tecluticeler cannet hide. but enly aggravates, its turners. Therefere. enly a culture ef hunger, wealtening it-s ewn structures, can surpass itself qualitatively; the mest neble cultural manifestatien ef hunger is vielence. Cinema Heve shews that the nemtal behavier ef the starving is vielence; artd the vielence ef the starving is net primitive. ls Fabiane [in Barren Lives] primitive‘? Is Antile [in Cianga Zurrtlra] primitive‘? ls

Cerisce [in lilaclr Gad, White Der-til] primitive‘? ls the weman in Perle des Caixas primitive‘? Fmm Cinema ll-leve it sheuld be learned that an estl'tetic ef vielence, befere being primitive, is revelutienary. lt is the initial mement when the celenizer becemes aware ef dte celenized. Ctnly when cenfrented with vielence dees the celenizer understand. threugh herrer, the strength ef the culture he expleits. As leng as drey de net take up arms, the celenized remain slaves; a first peliceman had te die fer the French te beceme aware ef the AlgeriansFrem a metal pesitien this vielence is net filled with hatred just as it is net linked te the eld celenizing humanism. The leve that this vielence encnmpasses is as bmtal as the vielence itself because it is net a leve ef cemplacency er centemplatien but rather ef actien and transfermatien. The time has leng passed since Cinema ltleve had te justify its existence- Cinema l"~lt;tve is art engeing precess ef expletratien that is

making eur thinking clearer. freeing us frem the debilitating delirium ef hunger. Cinema hleve cannet develnp effectively while it remains marginal te the ecenemic and cultural precess ef dte Latin A-mericu centinent- Cinema Have is a phenemenen ef new peeples everywhere

= Cit). -glc

_.-._,__,,_ - .

-

An Esthetie nj“Huttger

fit

artd net a privilege ef Brazil. Wlierever ene finds filmmakers prepared te film dte u'uth mid eppese the hypecrisy and repressien ef intellectual censership there is the living spirit ef Cinema l"-leve; wherever

filmrrtakers, ef whatever age er backgreuud. place their cameras and their prefessien in dte service ef the great causes ef eur time tltere is the spirit ef Cinema hleve. This is the defirtitien ef the mevement and threugh this definitien Cinema Have sets itself apart frttttt the cum-

mercial industry because the cemmitment ef Industrial Cinema is tn untrt.ttlt and expleitatien. The ecenentic and industrial integratien ef Cinema hleve depends en the freedem ef Latin America. Cinema Neve devetes itself entirely te this freedem, in its ewn name, and in the name cf all its participants. frem the mest ignerant te the mest talented, frem the weakest te the strengest. lt is dtis ethical questien that will be reflected in eur werk, in the way we film a persen er a heuse,

in the details that we cheese, in the meral that we cheese te teach. Cinema hleve is net ene film but an evelving cemplex ef films that will ultimately make the public aware ef its ewn misery. blew "t’erk, lvlilan, Hie de Janeire January, l'.3l65 Translated by Randal Jehnsen and Bumes Hellymart

= Cit-it. -glc

_.-._, - .

-

.

Prehlems ef Ferm and Centent in Flevelutienary Cinema Jnrge Senjines

l'-levelutienaty cinema must seek beauty net as an end but as a means. This prepesitien implies a dialectical interrelatien between beauty artd cinemals ebjectives, which must be currectly aligned in erder te pre-

duce an effective werk. If that interrelatien is missing, we end up with a pamphlet, fer example, which may well be perfect in its preclamatien but which is schematic and crude in its ferm. The lack ef a ceherent creative ferm reduces its effectiveness, destreys the ideelngical dynamic ef the centent and merely iecates fer us what is en the surface, the superficialities, witheut giving us arty ef the essence, the humanity, the leve: categeries that can enly issue fmm a sensitive and respensive means ef expressien, capable ef revealing the truth.

Cellective Wttrl-t lilevelutienary cinema is in the precess ef femratien. Certain cenceptiens abeut art that beurgeeis ideelegy has deeply instilled in these artists whe have been fertned within dte parameters ef westem culture are net se easily er quickly changed- hlevertlteless, we think it is a

precess that will succeed in purging itself tlueugh centact with the peeple, by integrating them inte the creative precess. by elucidating the aims ef pepular art. and by leaving eff with individualistic pesitiens. Teday there are many greup efferts and cellective films, and, lurgc Sanjintlrs and the Ukantau Greup, Tlreaty dz Practice af a Cinema with the Pea-pie. CT: Curhstene Press, I939, pp- SS-53. First published in teartia y p-rrictica

dc un cine junta ul puehlti. lvlexice: Sigle veintiune Fdlteres. llitiltl. By permissien ef the publisher.

= Cit). -glc

'51

_.-._,__,,_ - .

-

Prahiems ajfFarm and Carttertt in lilevalutlanaty Cinenra

153

what is very impertant, there is the participatien cf the peeple whe act, whe ceme ferward, whe create directly, detennining the ferm ef the film in a pmcess where the immutable script is disappearing er where the dialegue, during the act ef filming, spentarteeusly issues frem the peeple themselves and frem their predigieus capacity. Life begins te be expressed in all its pewer and truth, As we already maintained in an article en this questien. revelutienary cinema cannet be anything but cellective in its mest cemplete phase. since the revelutien is cellective. Pepular cinema. in which the fundamental pretaganist will be the peeple, will develep individual histeries when these have meaning fer the cellective, when these serve dte peeple‘s understanding. rather than that ef ene individual, and when they are integrated inte the histery ef the cellective as a whele. The individual here must give way te the pepular here—numereus. quantitative—and, in the precess ef elabemtien, this pepular hem will net enly be the intemal metive ef the film but its qualitative driving ferce: participant and creater.

Language A film abeut the peeple made by a screenwriter isn‘t the same as a film made. by the peeple threugh a screenwriter, inasmuch m the interpreter and translater ef that peeple becemes their expressive vehicle. was a change in the relatiens ef creatinn cemes a change in the centent and, in parallel, a change in the fertn. In revelutienary cinema, the final preduct will always be the result ef individual abilities erganized teward ene same end, where the spirit and life-breath ef a whele peeple. and net just the preblems ef ene man alene, is captured and transmitted. Tire preblems ef the individual, which assume everblewn prepertiens in beurgeeis smiety, are reselved within revelutienary seciety dtreugh the precess ef cenfrenting the preblems ef seciety as a whele. and are reduced te a nermal level because their selutiens are enceuntered in the ceurse ef being integrated inte revelutienary seciety: where the aleneness that causes all psychelegical neureses disappears ferever. Tlte leving er apathetic treatment by a filmmaker ef an ebject er ef men becemes evident in his werk, mecking his sense ef being in cenuel. Wltat the filntrnaker thinks and feels is manifested in the expressive means he cheeses te use. His selectien ef language ferms reveals his attitude and, therefere. a film tells us net enly semething abeut the subject it treats but alse semething abeut the filmmaker. Wlren we shet Bleed ef the Candar with the peasants in the remete cemmunity ef Fiaata, eur purpese deep dewn--theugh we desired te

= Cit). -glc

_.-._, - .

-

.

-ti-til

Jnrge Sanjin-tls

cenu'ibutc pelitically with eur werk by dene-uncing the gringes and shewing a secial pictrae ef Belivimt reality—was te achieve recegrtitien fer eur abilities. There‘s ne denying it, just as we can't deny that during the filming eur relatienship with the peasant acters was still a

vertical ene. We were empleying a ferrrtal treatment that led us re select scenes accerding te eur persenal likes, witheut taking inte acceunt their cemmunicability er their cultural meaning. Scripts had te be memerizetl and repeated exactly. Theugh dte seundtrack played an

impenant mle in the reselutien ef certain sequences, we didn’t give impertmtce te the needs ef the viewer, fer whem we said we were making that film, whe required clear. visual images and whe later cemplained when the film was shewn. T'hmtks te the cenfrentatien ef eur films widt the peeple, thanks te dteir criticisms, suggestiens. advice, pretests and cenfusiens due te eur misunderstanding ef the ideelngical relatienship between ferm and cnntent, we were slewly distilling a language and incerperating the creativity ef the peeple themselves, whese netable expressive attd interpretative abilities demenstrate a sensibility that is pure. free ef stereetypes and alienatiens. Wltile filming The Caurage af the Peeple, many scenes were shet in the same place as the events discussed with the actual pretagenists ef dtese histerical acceunts we were recenstructing, with dtese whe at bettem had mere ef a claim en deciding hew things eught te be recenstructed than we did. Cm the ether hand, they were interpreting things with a ferce t‘-tl'l-El cenvictien that was unattainable by a prefessienal acter. These cempaheres wanted net enly te transmit their experiences with the intensity they pessessed, but they knew what were the mest impertartt pelitical ebjectives ef the film mid, therefere, their pmticipatien breught te it a fresh militmrcy. They pessessed a elem censcieusness ef hew the film was te serve, spreading its denunciatien

ef the hue facts tlrreugheut the ceunuy, and they were prepared te make use ef it as they weuld a weapen. We, the cempenents with the film equipment, became the instruments ef the peeple whe were expressing themselves and fighting tltreugh eur medium! The dialegue was drawn frem dteir precise memery ef dte events, er else becmne the expressien ef their theughts abeut the events, as in The Principal Enemy. The peasants used the scenes te liberate their repressed veice, and drey teld the judge er buss in the film what they really wanted te say abeut the truth. Cinematic reality mtd actual reality are interweven mid merge as ene. lhlltat is artificial has te de with mere extrmteeus facters, but threuglt dte revealing, creative actiens ef the peeple the cinematic reenactment meshes with actual reality.

= Cit-it. glc

.

Pratt-lems af Farm and Cantent in Re vaiuttartary Cirrema

Elli

When we decided te use sequence shets in eur latest films, we were spurred en by the surging demands ef the centent. We had te use shets that integrated the pm1icipatien ef the viewer. Jumping right away te clese-ups ef the assassin—in The Principal Enemy—in the crewdcd plaza where the pepular tribunal was held didn’t serve eur purpeses. because the surprise that is always preduced by directly cutting te a clese-up was eppesed te what we were trying te develep in the sequence shets, which was te engage the participatien ef the viewer by means ef the intemal pewer ef the peeple*s cellective pmticipatien. The simple mevement ef the camera interpreted differing peints ef view, the dramatic demands ef the viewer that weuld enable him te quit being a viewer se as te beceme an actual participant. Dccasienally die sequence shets weuld lead us inte a clese-up, sparing what distance is in fact pessihle in dte appreach, er else weuld epen up the field between sheulders and heads in erder te bring us physically cleser te see and listen. Te cut te a big clese-up is te brutally impese the viewpeint ef the filmmaker, his ewn interpretatien ef reality, en the viewer. Te meve fmm a general shet with ether peeple in it te a cleseup has a different meaning, embedies a different attitude, which is mere ceherent with what is taking place, with the actual centent. While filming The Principal Enemy, we eften felt cempelled te break with this kind ef treatment because ef purely teclmical limitatiens; failures in the seund equipment threugh nveruse, neise frem the "blimp," er the catitera‘s neise filter hampered eur sheeting in sequences, mtl we had te break the filming up inte pmts. Alse, the high degree ef imprevisatien that gees aleng with pepular participatien made it difficult te cenceptualize successive cuts with any degree ef centinuity. Semehew, theugh, that experience was fer us tetally justified, because the whele precess ef making the film became, simultaneeusly, a rich pmcess ef discevering new elements (at least they were new te us}. lt was a tetally different scheel ef cinema than the ene in which we had leartted eur ABCs, mid we were eften amazed by what was taking place befere eur very eyes! Put anether way, there is the subjective treatment ef things that gees hand-in-hand with the needs and attitudes ef a certain individualist cinema as eppesed te an ebjective, nenpsychelegical. senseral treatment that facilitates the participatien mid needs ef a pepular cinemaThe presence ef a cellective pretagenist. rather than art individual pretagenist, inferms the ebjcctive treatment and distance needed te engage the viewer in refiectien. hlet enly did the search fer an ideelegical ceherenee help cenvince us ef the need te de away with the individual pretagenist—t.he here and fecus ef every stery in eur

= Cit-ii. -glc

_.-._, - .

-

bfi

Ierge Sanjiires

culture—but alse eur ebservatien ef the primerdial and essential characteristics ef indigeneus American culture. Indians, tlueugh their secial traditiens. tend te cenceive ef themselves first as integral members ef the greup, and then as iselated individuals. Their way ef living is net individualistic. They understmid reality as the cemplex integmtien ef everything and everyene, and they act en the basis ef this understanding very naturally, since it is mi insepmable part ef their werld view. At first it is bewildering te understand what it memis te think ef eneself in this way, because it is a whele ether way ef thinking and invelves a dialectic eppesite te that ef individualism. T'he individualist exists alene and abeve everytliing mid everyene; the Indimi, en the ether hmid, exists selely in interactien with everything and everyene. Wlien that equilibrium is upset. the Indimi becemes diseriented mtd nething makes any sense. The great Penivian pelitical thinker, lvlat"it-iitegui, referring te cnncepts ef freedem, said that the lndian is never less free than when he is alene. I remember an interview we recently filmed where a peasant was demmiding the presence ef his cc.-mpaiieras frem the cemmunity se that he ceuld feel cenfident and cemfertable abeut what he was saying. Exactly the reverse weuld happen with an erdinary citizen, whe weuld want te be alene in erder ta feel secure! In revelutienary art we always enceunter the stylistic mark ef a peeple and the life-breath ef a pepular culture dial embraces a whele cemmunity ef men and wemen, with their particular way ef thinking and cenceiving reality. and their leve ef life. its aim is te arrive at the truth threugh beauty, mid this is what differentiates it fmm beurgeeis art, where beauty is pursued even at the cest ef lying. By ebserving and incerperating pepular culture inte eur werk, we will be able te fully develnp the language ef a liberating art!

Dlstrlbutien et Ftevelutienary cinema The distributien ef revelutienary films cnnstitutes a majer preblem and raises questiens that require urgent selving. lvlilitarit anti-imperialist films are the ebject cf special persecutien and censure in dte majerity ef ceuntries where their purpese is mest likely te be fulfilled. This situatien has greatly disceuraged whemever deesn’t view the werk ef a revelutienary filmmaker as being dene simply when the werk ef filming and editing is dene, that the preblems ef disuibutien are preblems ef realizatiea that cannet be dismissed because ef the immediate impessibility ef re-selving them; sintilmiy a film must net cease te exist because it may be impessible tn disnibute it at that precise pelitical mement. Frem the mement the

= Citi. -glc

_.-._, - .

-

.

Priililems .rij|"Fririn and tfnntent in t'-i'evrilutiena.ty Cinema

I5?

preblems ef ene deminated ceunuy beceme the preblems ef ether deminated ceuntries, that pretext is invalidated. ‘tve must remember that die pelitical dynamic ef eur ceuntries, at least the majerity ef them. is censtanlly changing. and that the ebb mid fiew ef the intemal centradictiens ef each ceuntry creates faverable perieds when dtese films can be widely disuibuted. It is a matter then ef struggle! And in the snuggle yeu must knew when mid where te sheet. mid when te keep yeur head dewn in the trenchesTe censer eurselves, te disguise eur film’s centent, te symbelize dtem, is te fall inte eppertunism and inte eperatiens dmigereusly usehil te the enemy, whe well knews hew tn manipulate materials that de net cenfrent it head-en te its advantage. A nue revelutienary film has the right te exist, mid the necessity ef distributing it is implicit in its essence. ltevelutienaries teday can fight the same enertues wherever they are- Naturally, they ceuld wage this snuggle under bener cenditiens threugh the enemy‘s ewn centrelled memis ef cemmunicatien, but when this isnlt pessible they must take up anether pesitien en the battlefield, which is the werld expleited by imperialism. What cannet be telerated is remaining in Paris, cemfertably vegetating. ltevelutienaries den‘t have vacatiens ner dees the revelutien take a break. tilewadays revelutienary films can be seen in many Eurepean ceuntries generally threugh seme televisien netwerks er in specialized mevie theaters. This disuibutien, as well as screenings at frequent film festivals, reaches viewers whe cmi be classified grassa niada inte twe greups: the passive viewer and censumer ef culture er entertainment whe is in the majerity, and that ether viewer whese attitude tewards this cinema is censistent with his advanced thinking and whe extracts inferrnatien te be used in the fermatien ef new ideas mid cencepts‘tltle believe this last type ef viewer is each day beceming mere numereus in Eurepe, and. therefnre, the distributien ef eur films in Eurepe is justified [ene ceuld alsn justify this distributien en the basis ef the ecenemic suppert it previded, which memit selling cepies te televisien netwerks and mevie theaters, even theugh filmmakers in nemly every instance received next te netlting frem these dealings}ht dte United States, in the very bewels ef the imperialist enemy, revelutienmy cinema is being disuibuted. lvlany films are shewn by universities and pregtessive ergartizatiens, shedding light en the preblems ef eur peeples and shewing the real werkings ef the system, the auucities it cemmits against the werld it subjugates. This has resulted in a deepening ef selidarity with eur peeples mid a strengthening cf the anti-imperialist struggle raised by pregtessive hlerth American secters whe are well-acquainted with the expleitatien, the dehumani-

= Cit-‘i. -glc

_.-._, - .

-

-ES

.iarg-t‘ ..‘fart_,iittitl-t

zatien, the racism in the U.S.. all ef which me alse caused by capitmist ideelegy. hlevertlteless, we Latin American filmmakers are mainly interested in distributing eur cinema in eur ceuntries, whether they be eur ewn er eur brether ceuntries. We have said that this task is very difficult mid alse dangereus: Cmles Alvarez, dte screenwriter ef What is Demecracy?, was jailed aleng with his cetnpsfttlera by the Celembian

military. accused ef subversien fer his cinematic werk! ‘vvalter Achegm' was detained and tertured in Uruguay; Felix Cniimez, ef the Lllf.tEtmau C-rreup in Belivia, spent clese te lll menths in a cencentratieu catrtp fer having in his pessessien a case centaining preps fer eur film The Ceurage ef the Peepie. Antenie Eguine. directer ef phetegraphy fer the same film, was mrested and detained fer l5 days, during pretests by university students and bread pregtessive secters, fer the effense ef having in his pessessien a cepy ef The Ceurage ef the Peeple. Filmmakers and acters en the left have been imprisened by Pinechet. and teday we still knew nething ef their fate! A geed part ef the mest cenunitted Latin American filnunakers have been pmhibited frem returning te their ceuntries. But, despite the persecutien mid repressien, Latin American cinema centinues te be preduced and. in seme ceuntries, there exists a tn.te effervescence that will quickly bear fmit in new values mid new experiences. The circulatien ef Latin American films, theugh restricted, has never been stepped, and it is even increasing where cenditiens are faverable. in Venezuela, Celembia, Panama. Peru. Ecuader. lvlexice. film festivals have been ergmiized mid Latin American cinema is widely distributed. In Venezuela artd Panama drey even held festivals fer Cuban cinema. What is mainly lacking in these ceuntries where distributien is pessible is a mere systematic and erganized effert te censistently bring dtis cinema te the peeple. This is why the present Ecuaderian experience, which we will talk abeut in ruure detail, is se imp-ertartt-

ln Belivia, befere dte emineus eutbreak ef fascism, the films ef the Ukmnau C-rreup were widely distributed. Bleed cf the Cender was seen by clese te 25t},tltIltIt peeple! "'iVe weren't satisfied with its disnibutien thrc-ugh the cenventienal cemmercial channels, se the film was breught te the ceuntryside using a pertable generater and equipment in erder te screen it in villages that were witheut elecuicity. The result was uplifting: the film centributed te the eusting ef the Peace Cerps ef yerraui imperialism. because it caused a stir and led te the fermatien ef university and nfficial cenimissiens that studied its suspect activities and thus called fer its expulsien. in Chile, befere mid during dte gevemment ef the Pepular Unity, eur films were being distributed threugh cemmercial channels. as well

I

_|'._§

-

,

_

t

Prehfems efFarm and Centent in ilevelutianery Cinema

till‘

m being shewn in facteries mid in the ceuntryside. In Argentina, there have been interesting distributing experiences by erganizatiens like the Cinema Liberatien tllreup which distributed its materials widely ameng the werkers. B-ight new, in the present pelitical mement, we think Ecuader is where ene ef the mest interesting pelitical experiences ef anti-imperialist cinema is taking place. At the mement. films such as What is Etemecrecyf, Cerre Pelade, The Hear ef the Furnaces, Campehere President, l"t't]'l~lt', Revalutien, That’s the Way it ls, Bleed bf the Cen-

der, The Cettrage cf the Peeple, and The Principal Enemy, have been widely distributed in the universities and werker‘s centers. Fer reasens ef cultural identity mid the fact that the peeple ef Ecuader face the same preblems as the rest ef Latin Americans, serue ef these films have reached a surprising number ef viewers: in twe and a half menths The Ceurege ef the Peeple was seen mid discussed by nemiy =t[l,[ltItl] werkers in die mea ef Quite alenel Based en statistics we cellected and taking inte acceunt the werk ef distributing era films ameng the peasants in the ceuntryside, we calculate that in just ene year appreximmely 34l].lI'Il] werkers. peasants and students came te see the films ef eur greup. We feel very pleased mid preud dist eur

films have reached se rnaiiy peeple in a ceuntry as small as Ecuader. This fact is in large part due te the efferts ef the Cinema Department ef the Central University, te the enthusiasm ef the cempaheres ef the Cinema Club ef the lslatienal Pelytechriic Scheel. Beth irtstitutiens have eencentrated their werk in the mass—based erganizatiens and in the trade uniens, but they have alse breught films inte the interier ef the ceuntry mid te the ceuntryside. Either utiiversities, trade uniens mid peasant ergmiizatiens, as well as priests cemmitted te truly helping the pe-er, are alse epenly distributing this material with mi intensity that is remarkable. In the case ef the films by the l-ikamau Crreup, it is pessihle that facters ef cultural identity, like the fact that Quechua is speken in pmts ef the films, greatly influence their being accepted

and widely tiisuibuted. Hnwever, we tliirtk this is due ehiefiy te an identificatien with the secie-pelitical dilemma that these films cenfrent. The discussiens and interviews we had with viewers were characteristic: they either insisted en dteir identity with the preblems ef

Belivia and Ecuader, er they simply didn't give any impertmice te the questien ef natienality in the film and discussed it as semething in its ewn right. We me geing te cenclude this article by citing the epiniens ef werkers and peasmtts whe are actually seeing mid demmiding te see these films, but first we want te call attentien te the Ecuadeiimi experience and call fer cinema te be immediately bmught te the peeple in

= Citli glc

.

Til

Jorge Sonjituis

those countries where it's possible to do so- The attitude and practices of movie theaters and institutions that show dtese materials must change, in onder to transform the static movie houses devoted to sterile pleasure. contrary to the memting ot" this cinema, by using portahle equipment that can be set up in factories anti in communities. initiating a dialogue with the people that benefits hoth the viewers and those showing the lilmi because that relationship will change during the process of interaction itself, and also because a give—and-take ettchattge of infottttation will he facilitated. Translated hy Richard Schaaf

- = Ct‘). -glc

_.-._; - .

-

.

For an Imperfect Cinema Julio Garcia Espinuse

Nowadays perfect cinema—technica|ly and artistically masterful—is almost always reactionary cinema. The major temptation facing Eubm cinema at this time—when it is achieving its objective of becoming a cinema of quality, one which is culturally meaningful within the revolutionary prucess—is precisely that of transforrning itself into a perfect cinema. The “boom” of Latin American cinema—with Brazil and Cuba in the forefront, according to the applause and approval of the European intelligentsia—is similar, in the present moment, to the one of which the Latin American novel had previously been the exclusive benefactor. Wlty do they applaud us? There is no doubt that a certain standard of quality has been reached. Doubtless. there is a certain political upportunism, a certain mutual instrttmentality. But without doubt there is also something more. Why should we worry about their accolades? lsn’t the goal of public recognition a part of the rules of the artistic game? Wlten it comes to artistic culture, isn't European recognition equivalent to worldwide recognition? lIloesn’t it serve art and our peoples as well when works produced by underdeveloped nations obtain such recognition? Although it may seem curious. it is necessary to clarify the fact that this disquiet is not solely motivated by ethical concerns. As a matter of fact. the motivation is for the most part aesthetic, if indeed it is possible to draw such an arbitrary dividing linlt between the two Michael Chanan. cd-, Twenty--Five l’e.nr.t of New Latin Ametdcun Cinemo. London:

British Film Institute. It-‘H3. pp. 23-33. By permission of the editor-

= Cit‘). -glc

i‘

_.-._, - .

-

.

T2

.-‘alto Enrota Espinosa

terms. ‘Mien we aslt ourselves why it is we who are the film directors and not the others. that is to say, the spectators, the question does not stem from an exclusively ethical concern. We ltnow that we are filmmalters because we have been part of a minority which has had the time and the circumstances needed to develop, within itself, an artistic culture; and because the material resources of film technology are limited and therefore available to some. not to all. But what happens if the future holds the universaliaatiun of college level instruction. if economic and social development reduce the hours in the worlt day, if the evolution of film technology [there are already signs in evidence]

maltes it possible that this technology ceases being the privilege of a small few? Wltat happens if the development of video-tape solves the problem of inevitably limited laboratory capacity, if television systems with their potential for "projecting" independently of the central studio render the ad intinitttm construction of movie theatres suddenly superfluous? What happens then is not only an act of social justice—the possibility for everyone to maite films—but also a fact of extreme importance for artistic culture: the possibility of recovering, without any ltind of complexes or guilt feelings, the true meaning of artistic activity. Then we will be able to understand that art is one of manltind’s “impa.|'tial" or “uncummitte-d"‘ activities- That art is not work. and that the artist is not in the strict sense a wurlter. The feeling that this is so. and the impossibility of nanslating it into practice, constitutes the agony and at the same time the “pharisee-ism" of all contemporary art. ln fact. the two tendencies exist: t.hose who pretend to produce cinema as an "uncommitted" activity and those who pretend to justify it as a “committed” activity. Both find themselves in a blind alley. Anyone engaged in an artistic activity aslts himself at a given moment what is the meaning uf whatever he is doing. The simple fact that this anxiety arises demonstrates that factors exist to motivate it— factors which, in turn, indicate that art does not develop freely. Those who persist in denying art a specific meaning feel the moral weight of their egoism. Those who, on the other hartd, pretend to attribute one to it buy off their bad conscience with social generosity. lt maltes no difference that the mediators tcritics, theoreticians, etc.) try to justify certain cases. For the contemporary artist. the mediator is lilte an aspirin, a tranquiilizer. Lil-te a pill, he only temporarily gets rid of the headache. The sure thing, however, is that art, lilte a capricious little devil, continues to show its face sporadically in no matter which tendency. Ho doubt it is easier to define art by what it is not than by what it is, assuming that one can tall-t about closed definitions not just for art

= Cit‘). -glc

_.-._, - .

-

.

For on frnpetfrct Cinema

T?-

but for any of life's activities. The spirit of eontratiiction penneates everything now- Nothing. and nobody lets himself be imprisoned in a picture frame. no matter how gilded. lt is possible that art gives us a vision of society or of human nature and that. at the satne time, it cannot he defined as a vision of society or of human nature- lt is possible

that a certain narcissism of consciousness—in recognizing in oneself a little historical. sociological. psychological. philosophical consciousness-is implicit in aesthetic pleasure, and at the same time that this sensation is not sufficient in itself to explain aesthetic pleasurels it not much closer to the nature of art to conceive of it as having its own cognitive power? In other words. by saying that art is not the “illustration” of ideas which cart also be expressed through philoso-— phy, sociology. psychology- Every artist*s desire to express the inexpressible is nothing more than the desire to express the vision of a theme in terms that are inexpressiblc through other than artistic means. Perhaps the cognitive power of art is like the power of a game for a child. Perhaps aesthetic pleasure lies in sensing the functionality {without a specific goal} of our intelligence and our own sensitivity. Art can stimulate, in general, the creative function of man. lt can function m constant stimulus towmd adopting an attitude of change with regard to life. But. as opposed to science. it enriches us in such a way that its results are not specific and cannot be applied to anything in particular. It is for dtis reason that we can call it an "impartial" or “uncommitted” activity, and can say that art is not strictly speaking a “job,” and that the artist is perhaps the least intellectual of all intellectuals. Wlty then does the artist feel the need to justify himself as a “worker,” as an “intellectual,” as a “professional.” as a disciplined and organised man. like any other individual who performs a productive task? Why dues he feel the need to exaggerate the importance of his activity? Why does he feel the need to have critics {mediators} to justify him, to defend him, to interpret him? Why does he speak proudly of “my critics"? Why does he find it necessary to make transcendental declarations. as if he were the true interpreter of society and of mankind? Why does he pretend to consider himself critic and conscience of society when {although these objectives can he implicit or even explicit in certain circumstances] in a truly revolutionary society all of us—that is to say. the people as a whole-—should exercise those functions? And why. on the other hand, does dte artist see himself forced to limit these objectives, these attitudes, these characteristics? Why

does he at the same time set up these limitations as necessary to prevent his work from being transformed into a “tract” or a sociological essay? What is behind such pharisee-ism? Why protect oneself and

Cit-‘it. -gle

._.-., - .-

-

.

T-it

..l'r.tlio Gorein Espinosa

seek recognition as a (revolutionary. it must be understood) political attd scientific worker, yet not be prepared to rttn the same risks? The problem is a complex one. Basically, it is neither a matter of opportttnism nor cowardice. A true artist is prepared to run any risk as lung as he is certain that his work will not cease to be an artistic expression. The only risk which he will not accept is that of endangering the artistic quality of his work. There are also those who accept and defend the “impartial” function of art. These people claim to be more consistent. They opt for dte bitterness of a closed world in the hope that tomorrow history will justify them. But the fact is that even today not everyone can enjoy the lvlona Lisa. These people should have fewer contradictions; they should be less alienated, but in fact it is not so, even though such an attitude gives them the possibility of an alibi which is more productive on a personal level. in general they sense dte sterility of their "purity" or drey dedicate themselves to waging corrosive battles. but always on the defensive. They can even, in a reverse operation, reject their interest in finding tranquillity, harmony, a certain compensation in the work of art. expressing instead disequilibrium, chaos, and tmeertainty which also becomes the ubjeefive of "impartial" art. Wlrat is it, then, which makes it impossible to practice art as an "impartial" activity? Wily is dtis particular situation today more sensitive than ever? From the beginning of the world as we know it, that is m say, since the world was divided into classes. this situation has been latent. if it has grown sharper today it is precisely because today the possibility of transcending it is coming into view. Hot tlueugh a prise de conscience. not through the expressed determination of any particular artist, but because reality itself has begun to reveal symptoms (not at all utopianjt which indicate that “in the future there will no longer be painters. but rather men who, among other things, dedicate themselves to painting" {Marx}. There can be no “impartial” or "uncommitted" art, there can be no new and genuine qualitative jump in art, unless dte concept and the reality of the "elite" is done away with once and for all. Three factors incline us toward optinrism: the development of science. the social presence of the masses, attd the revolutionary potential in the contemporary world. All tlu*ee are without hierarchical order, all three are interrelated. Why is science feared? Why are people afraid that art might be crushed under the obvious productivity and utility of science? Why this inferiority complex? It is u'ue that today we read a good essay with much greater pleasure titan a novel. ‘Why do we keep repeating then, horrified, that the world is becoming more mercenary. more util-

= Cit‘). -gle

_.-._, - .

-

For on fnrpetjfeer Cirten-tn

T5

itarian. more materialistic? ls it not really marvelous that the development of science, sociology, anthropology, psychology. is contributing to the "purification" of art? The appearance, thanks to science. of expressive media like photography and film made a greater "purification" of painting and the theatre possible without invalidating them artistically in the least. [Zloesn’t modern-day science render anachronistic so much “artistic” analysis of the human soul? lJoesn’t contemporary science allow us to free ourselves from so many fraudulent films. concealed behind what has been called the world of poetry? ‘tliith the advance of science, art has nothing to lose; on dte contrary, it has a whole world to gain. What. then, are we so afraid of? Science

ships art bare and it seems that it is not easy to go naked through the sheets. The real tragedy of the contemporary artist lies in the impossibility of practicing art as a minority activity. It is said—and correctly—tltat art cannot exercise its attraction without the co-operation of the subject. But what catt be done so that the audience stops being an object and transforms itself into the subject? The development of science. of technology. of the most advanced social theory attd practice. has made possible as never before the active presence of the masses in social life. In the realm of artistic life, there are more spectators now than at arty other moment in history. This is the first stage in the abolition of "elites." The task currently at hand is to find out if dte conditions which will enable spectators to transform themselves into agents—not merely more active spectators, but genuine cu-authors—are beginning to exist. The task at hand is to ask ourselves whether art is really an activity restricted to specialists. whether it is, through extra-human design, the option of a chosen few or a possibility for everyoneHow can we trust the perspectives and possibilities of art simply to dte education of the people as a mass of spectators? Taste as defined by "high culture," once it is "overdone," is normally passed on to the rest of society as leftovent to be devoured and ruminated over by those who were not invited to the feast. This eternal spiral has today become a vicious circle as well. "i.I.‘amp" and its attitude toward everything outdated is an attempt to rescue dtese leftovers and to lessen the distance between high culture and dte people. But the difference lies in the fact that camp rescues it as an aesthetic value. while for the people the values involved continue to be ethical ones. lvlust the revolutionmy present and the revolutionary fumre inevitably have "its" artists and “its” intellectuals, just as the bourgeoisie had "theirs"? Surely the truly revolutionary position, from now on, is to contribute to overcoming these elitist concepts and practices, rather

= Cit‘). -glc

_.-._, - .

-

.

Tfi

Jrrfio Gnrcfe Espinosa

than pursuing ed erernunt the "mtistic quality” of dte work. The new outlook for artistic culture is no longer that everyone must share the taste of a few, but that all can he creators of that culture. Art has always been a universal necessity: what it has not been is an option for all under equal conditions. Parallel to refined art. popular art has had a simultaneous but independent existence. Popular art has absolutely nothing to do with what is called mass art. Popular art needs and consequently tends to develop the personal, individual taste of a people. On the other hand, mass art for art for the masses}, requires the people to have no taste. It will only be genuine when it is actually the masses who create it, since at present it is art produced by a few for the masses. Cirotowski says that today’s theatre should be a minority art fomr because mass art can be achieved through cinema. This is not true. Perhaps film is the most elitist of all the contemporary arts. Film today. no matter where. is made by a small minority for the masses. Perhaps film will be the an fomr which takes the longest time to reach the hands of the masses, when we understand mass art as popular art. art created by the masses. Currently, as Hauser points out. mass art is art produced by a minority in order to satisfy the demand of a public reduced to the sole role of spectator and consumer. Popular art has always been created by the least leanted sector of society, yet this “uncultured” sector has managed to conserve pmfoundly cultured characteristics of art. Cine of the most important of these is the fact that the creators are at the satne time the spectators and vice versa. Between those who produce and those who consume. no sharp line of demarcation exists. Cultivated art, in our era. has also attained this situation. Modem art's great dose of freedom is nothing more than dte conquest of a new interlocutor: the artist himself. For dtis reason it is useless to suain oneself stnrggling for the substitution of the masses as a new artd potential spectator for the bourgeoisie. This situation, maintained by popular art, adopted by cultivated art, must he dissolved and become the heritage of all. This and no other must be the great objective of an authentically revolutionary artistic culture. Popular art preserved another even more important culmral characteristic: it is carried out as but another life activity. With cultivated art, the reverse is tnre; it is pursued as a unique, specific activity, as a personal achievement. This is the cruel price of having had to maintain artistic activity at the expense of its inexistence among the people. Hasn't the attempt to realise himself on the edge of society proved to be too painful a restriction for the artist and for art itself? To posit art as a sect. as a society within society. as the promised land

r Goa-git

- 4 . :

For an imperffer-t Ciueruu

Tl

where we can fleetingly fulfill ourselves for a brief instant—doesn‘t dtis create the illusion that self-realization on the level of consciousness also implies self-realization on the level of existence? lsn*t this patently obvious in contemporary circumstances? The essential lesson of popular art is that it is carried out as a life activity: man must not fulfill himself as an artist but fully; the artist must not seek fulfillment as an artist but as a human being. In the modern world, principally in developed capitalist nations and in those counuies engaged in a revolutionary process, there are alarming symptoms, obvious signs of an imminent change. The possibilities for overcoming dtis traditional dissociation are beginning to arise. These symptoms are not a product of consciousness but of reality itself. A large part of the struggle waged in modem art has been, in fact. to "demo-cratize" art. What other goal is entailed in combating

the limitations of taste. museum art. and the demarcation lines between the creator and the public? "t'fl'tat is considered beauty today, and where is it found? Cm Campbell soup labels, in a garbage can lid. in gadgets? Even the etemal value of a work of art is today being questioned. What else could be the meaning of those sculptures, seen in recent exhibitions, made of blocks of ice which melt away while dte public looks at them? lsn’t dtis—more than the disappemance of art—the attempt to make the spectator disappear? Don't those painters who entrust a portion of the execution of their work to just anyone. rather than to dteir disciples, exhibit an eagemess to jump over the barricade of “elitist” an? El-oesn’t the same attitude exist among composers whose works allow their perfomters ample liberty? There's a widespread tendency in modem art to make the spectator participate ever more fully. If he pmticipates to a greater and greater degree. where will the process end up? lsn’t dte logical outcome—or shouldnlt it in fact be—that he will cease being a spectator altogether? This simultaneously represents a tendency toward collectivism and toward individualism. Ctnce we admit the possibility of universal participation. aren‘t we also admitting the individual creative potential which we all have? lsn*t Cirutowski mistaken when he asserts that today‘s theatre should be dedicated to an elite? lsn*t it rather the reverse: that the theaoe of poveny in fact requires the highest refinement? lt is l-he theatre which has no need for secondary values: costumes. scenery. make-up. even a stage. Isn‘t this an indication that material conditions are reduced to a minimum and that. from this point of view. dte possibility of making theatre is within everyune‘s reach? And doesn't the fact that the theatre has art increasingly smaller public mean that conditions are beginning to ripen for it to transform itself into a true mass theatre? Perhaps the tragedy of the

= Cit). -glc

_.-._,__,-_ - .'

-

TB

Julio Uurcio Espinosa

theatre lies in the fact that it has reached this point in its evolution too soon. Wlren we look toward Europe. we wring our hands. We see that the old culture is totally incapable of providing answers to the problems of art. The fact is that Europe can no longer respond in a traditional manner but at the same time finds it equally difficult to respond in a manner that is radically new. Europe is no longer capable of giving the world a new “ism”: neither is it in a position to put an end to “isms” once and for all. So we think that our moment has come. that at last the underdeveloped can deck themselves out as "men of culture." Here lies our greatest danger and our greatest temptation. This accounts for the upportunism of some on our continent. For, given our technical and scientific backwardness and given the scanty presence of the masses in social life, our continent is still capable of responding in a traditional manner, by reaffirming the concept and the practice of elite art. Perhaps in this case the real motive for the European applause which some of our literary and cinematic works have won is none other dtan a certain nostalgia which we inspire. After all, the European has no other Europe to tttm to. The third factor, the revolution—which is the most important of all --is perhaps present in our counoy as nowhere else. This is our only tn.te chance. The revolution is what furnishes all other altematives. what can supply art entirely new response, what enables us to do away once and for ml with elitist concepts and practices in art. The revolution and the ongoing revolutionary process are the only factors which make the total and free presence of the masses possible——and this will mean the definitive disappearance of the rigid division of labor and of a society divided into sectors and classes. For us, then, the revolution is the highest expression of culture because it will abolish artistic culture as a fragmentary human activity. Current responses to this inevitable futttre. this incontestable prospect. can be as numerous as the countries on our continent. Because characteristics and achieved levels are not dte same, each art form, every artistic manifestation, must find its own expression. What should be the response of the Cuban cinema in particular? Paradoxically. we think it will be a new poetics, not a new culmral policy. A poetics whose one goal will be to commit suicide. to disappear as such. We know, however, that in fact other artistic conceptions will continue to exist among us. just as small mral landholdings artd religion continue to exist. Dn the level of culmral policy we are faced widt a serious problem: the film school. Is it right to continue developing a handful of film specialists? It seems inevitable for dte present, but what will be the

r Goa-git

- - . :

For on Imperfect Cinema

?'l|'

etemal quarry that we continue to mine: dte students in Arts and Letters at dte Lbtiversity? But shouldn‘t we begin to consider right now whether that school should have a limited lifespan? Wltat end do we pursue there—a reserve corps of future artists? Dr a specialized future

public? We should be asking ourselves whether we can do something now to abolish this division between artistic and scientific culture. ‘Wlrat constitutes in fact the true prestige of artistic culture. attd how did it come about that tltis prestige was allowed to appropriate the whole concept of culture? Perhaps it is based on the enonnous prestige which the spirit has always enjoyed at the expense of dte body. Ha:-tn‘t artistic culture always been seen as the spiritual part of society while scientific culture is seen as its body? The traditional rejection of the bu-dy. of material life, is due in part to the concept that things of the spirit are more elevated, more elegant, serious, and profound. Can‘t we, here attd now, begin doing something to put art end to this artificial distinction? We should understartd from here on in that the body and the things of the b-ody are also elegant. and that material life is beautiful as well. We should understand that. in fact. the soul is contained in the body just as the spirit is contained in material life. just as—to speak in strictly artistic terrns—the essence is cuntained in the surface and the content in the fonn. We should endeavor to see that our future students. and therefore our future filrmnakers, will themselves be scientists, sociologists, physicians, economists, agricultural engineers, etc., without of course ceasing to be filmmakers. And. at the same time. we should have the same aim for our most outstanding workers. the workers who achieve the best results in temts of political and intellectual formation. We cannot develop the taste of the masses as long as the division between the two cultures continues to exist, nor as long as the masses are not the real masters of the means of artistic production. The revolution has liberated us as art artistic sector. It is only logical that we contribute to dte liberation of the private means of artistic production. A new poetics for the cinema will. above all. be a "partisan" and "committed" poetics. a "committed" art. a consciously and resolutely "committed" cinema—that is to say. an "imperfect" cinema. An "impartial" or "uncommitted" one, as a complete aesthetic activity, will only be possible when it is the people who make art. But today art must assimilate its quota of work so that work cart assimilate its quota of art. The motto of this imperfect cinema [which there*s no need to invent, since it already exists) is. as Cllauber Rocha would say, “‘-i'v'e are not interested in the problems of neurosis: we are interested in the problems of lucidity." Art no longer has use for the neurotic and his

- Cit).-glc

-

-

,

Ell

Julie Garcia Espinosa

problems, altltuugh the neurotic continues to need art—as a concemed object, a relief, an alibi or, as Freud would say, as a sublimation of his problems. A neurotic can produce art. but art has no reason to produce neurotics. It has been traditionally believed that dte concents of art were not to be found in the sane but in dte sick, not in the nomtal but in the abnomtal, not in tltose who struggle but in those who weep. not in lucid minds but in neurotic ones. Imperfect cinema is changing this way of seeing the question. We have more faith in the sick man than in the healthy one because his lrudt is purged by suffering. However, there is no need for suffering to be synonymous widt artistic elegance. There is still a trend in modern art—-undoubtedly related to Christian tradition—which identifies seriousness widt suffering. The specter of lvlarguerite Gautier still haunts artistic endeavor in our day. Clnly in the person who suffers do we perceive elegance, gravity, even beauty: only in him do we recognize dte possibility of authenticity, seriousness. sincerity. imperfect cinema must put an end to dtis tradition. Imperfect cinema finds a new audience in those who struggle, and it finds its themes in their problems. For imperfect cinema, "lucid" people are the ones who think and feel and exist in a world which they can change; in spite of all the problems and difficulties. drey are convinced that drey can transform it in a revolutionary way. Imperfect cinema dterefore has no need to struggle to create an "audience." -[in the contrary, it can be said that at present a greater audience exists for this kind of cinema than dtere are filmmakers able to supply that audience. ‘lliltat does dtis new interlocutor require of us--an art full of moral examples worthy of imitation? Ho. lvlarr is more of a creator than an innovator. Besides, he should be the one to give n.r moral examples. He might ask us for a fuller. more complete work. aimed—in a separate or co-ordinated fashion—at the intelligence, dte emotions, dte powers of intuition. Should he ask us for a cinema of denunciation? "r'es and no. Ho, if the denunciation is directed toward dte otlters, if it is conceived that those who are not struggling might sympathise with us and increase their awareness. Yes. if the denunciation acts as information, as testimony, as another combat weapon for those engaged in the stmggle. Why denounce imperialism to show one more time that it is evil? ‘What‘s the use if those now fighting are fighting primarily against imperialism? We can denounce imperialism. but should strive to do it as a way of proposing concrete battles. A film which denounces, to those who struggle, the evil deeds of an official who must be brought to justice would be an excellent example of this kind of film-denunciation.

- Cit-it. -glc

,

-

For on fmpeqfeer Cinentn

El

We maintain that imperfect cinema must above all show die pmcess which generates the problems. it is tltus the opposite of a cinema principally dedicated to celebrating results. the opposite of a self-sufficient and contemplative cinema. the opposite of a cinema which "beautifully illustrates" ideas or concepts which we already possess. {The narcissistic posmre has nothing to do with those who snuggle.) To show a process is not exactly equivalent to anmyzing it. To analyze, in the traditional sense of the word, always implies a closed prior judgment. To analyze a problem is to show the problem (not the process} penneated with judgments which the analysis itself generates a priori- To analyze is to block off from the outset any possibility for analysis on the part of the interlocutor. To show the process of a problem. on dte other hattd, is to submit it to judgment without pronouncing the verdict. There is a style of news reporting which puts more emphasis on the commentary than on the news item. There is another kind of reporting which presents the news and evaluates it through the arrangement of the item on the page or by its position in the paper. To show dte process of a problem is like showing the very development of the news item. without commentary: it is like showing the multifaced evolution of a piece of information without evaluating it. The subjective element is the selection of dte problem, conditioned as it is by the interest of the audience—which is the subject. The objective element is showing the process—which is the object. lmperfect cinema is an answer, but it is also a question which will discover its own answers in the course of its development. imperfect cinema can make use of dte documentary or the fictional mode, or botlt. it can use whatever genre, or all genres. it can use cinema m a pluralistic art form or as a specialized foon of expression. These questions are indifferent to it, since they do not represent its real altematives or problems. and much less its real goals. These are not the battles or the polemics it is interested in sparking. imperfect cinema can also be enjoyable, both for the maker and for its new audience. Those who struggle do not struggle on the edge of life, but in dte midst of it. Snuggle is life artd vice versa. Eine does not snuggle in order to live "later on.” The struggle requires organization—tite organization of life. Even in the most extreme phase, that of total and direct war, the organization of life is equivalent to the organization of the stmggle- And in life. as in the struggle. dtere i:-.=. everything. including enjoyment. lmperfect cinema can enjoy itself despite everything which conspires to negate enjoyment. irnpe-rfect cinema rejects exhibitionism in both (literal) senses of the word, the narcissistic and dte commercial {getting shown in estab-

- Cit).-gin

-

-

,

H1

Julio Cr-‘or-cf-::t Espinosa

lished theatres and circuits}. It should be remembered that the death of the star-system tumed out to be a positive thing for art. There is no reason to doubt that the disappearance of the director as star will offer similar prospects. Imperfect cinema must start work now, in co-operation widt sociologists, revolutionary leaders. psychologists. economists, etc. Furthermore, imperfect cinema rejects whatever services criticism has to offer and considers the function of mediators and intermediaries anachronisticlmperfect cinema is no longer interested in quality or technique. It can be created equally well with a lvlitcheil or witlt an llmm camera, in a studio or in a guerrilla camp in the middle of the jungle. imperfect cinema is no longer interested in predetemtined taste. and much less in “good taste." it is not quality which it seeks in an artist*s workThe only thing it is interested in is how an artist responds to the following question: What are you doing in order to overcome the barrier of the "cultured" elite audience which up to now has conditioned the form of your work? The filmmaker who subscribes to this new poetics shtruld not have personal self-realization as his object- From now on he should also have another activity. He should place his role as revolutionary or aspiring revolutionmy above all else. in a word. he should try to fulfill himself as a man and not just as an artist. Imperfect cinema cannot lose sight of the fact that its essential goal as a new poetics is to disappear. lt is no longer a matter of replacing one school widt another, one "ism" with another. poetry with anti-poetry, but of tnrly letting a thousand different fiowers bloom. The future lies with folk art. But let us no longer display folk art with demagogic pride. with a celebrative air. Let us exhibit it instead as a crtrci denunciation. as a painful testimony to tlte level at which the peoples of the world have been forced to limit their artistic creativity. The future, without doubt, will be widt

folk art. but then there will be no need to call it that, because nobody and nothing will any longer be able to paralyze again the creative spirit of the people. Art will not disappear into nothingness: it will disappear into everything. Translated by Julianne Burton

ltlote l. Lint: or-tit-idnd eiesinreresndu in the original.

Cill

--t"--|

t ~j-.1--"1

Meditations on Imperfect Cinema. . .

Fifteen Years Later Julio Gareth Espinosa

Some years ago, around 1969, when we finally began to accomplish films that were well-made and coherent. I wanted to do some thinking aloud, widt the idea of stimulating an interttal discussion about the danger of tuming out well-made films which went no further, and didn't develop more substantial changes within existing dramatttrgy. As I had always believed that new content requhes new forms, l put this analysis into the essay entitled “For an imperfect Cinetna.""

lvlany people thought it was about making bad films. In truth. the essay allowed people to think this because to some extent the-re are indeed times when a documentary on what's going on in El Salvador or Guatemala. although badly made. can be more important from a cultural point of view than a film which is. as we used to say. wellmade. But dtis wasn't the only issue. I have to confess that perhaps we also had a sensation of impotence in the face of large-scale tech-

nology. the whole technical development involved in cinema made with lots of resources. But at the basis of the question there was a dilemma: either you tried to make an artistic cinema. estranged from a

public which had the potential for substantially changing reality. and these films would then be sent to the cinematheques and become part of an anthology of great films; or you made films which posed, let's say. the denunciation of a reality disguised by aesthetics, and which finally spoke to our exposed innards. And I have always thought that the spectator ends up not irritated but enjoying the aesthetic pleasure Screen, vol- Eh, nos. 3-4, I935. pp- "il3-§h=l- By permission of the publisher and

Michael Chanan.

- Cir-"r. -glc

ii

,

-

il-rl

Julio Gnrcizr Espinosa

offered by fiIms—I‘m really talking about fictional cinema—which denounce particular situations. There are a great number of war films widt pretensions of denouncing war which at the same time are great spectacles of war; and in dte end the spectacle is what you enjoy about them. Bo to speak clearly: art is essentially a disinterested activity. but if we're in a phase when we have to express interests, then let"s do it openly and not continue to camouflage it. And therefore, if art is substantially a disinterested activity and we’re obliged to do it in an interested way, it becomes an imperfect art- In essence. this is how I use the word imperfect. And this I think isn't just an ethical matter. but also aesthetic. This is what I posed at the end of the ‘fills, and personally I think it still applies. For myself, if I had dte chance of producing cinema, I'd carry on doing it with facts rather than words, and this is the path I'd try to follow. I am inclined to say that we have dtree key pmblems. The problem of the addressee: nearly always we make films for an addressee, that‘s to say, a public, that isn't the one that is participating in the changes. or isn't even potentially able to do so. That's to say, it*s a public that has no awareness yet, to whom we address our products. hoping that it will become conscious and participate with dtesewho are making changes. And it has always seemed to me more effective. if this unaware public should become aware. to dedicate our production to those who are indeed struggling. who are indeed in the course of producing changes. I think that by defining this addressee pmperly, it improves the chances of a much more consequential dramattlrgy.

Then there was the question of quality. Wltat exactly is quality? And what is modemity in the cinema? When we talk about life, we can certainty talk about. say. the quality of a city, say F'aris. This is not a city which can serve us well as a model for what cities have to be like, neither Paris, nor blew ‘fork. nor any overdeveloped city. But I might well find the quality of a city like Hanoi much more to the point: I cart find in the midst of all the imperfections of a city like Hanoi. more elements of quality in terms of human beings than what we used to think of as the qualities of Paris or blew ‘fork. I believe it is similar in the case of the qualities of cinema, in relation to contemporaneity and authenticity: that of producing an image without makeup that is nonetheless more attractive. I think that the attitude of going to the realities is what produces modemity and contemporaneity in the cinema. Wltat does it mean for a film to be modem? Elften it's modem because of its photography, or its montage, its rhytlun-—-I mean exactly what gives a film modernity. And I think that the path we're travelling is the search for modernity which goes beyond the theme of

r Go-git

- - -

hfedfmtionr on fmpe-‘feet Cinerne

B5

the film. And I believe dtis is a path which has to become ever more consequential.

There are also other problems which greatly affect this search for what I called imperfect cinema—and this includes what I have called the economy of waste. basically created above all by the great countries of developed capitalism. which try to incite us to unnecessary consumption. Bo much so that in recent meetings with Latin American filnunakers, we‘ve seen that the problem is no lortger whether we're socialist or capitalist. That*s to say, on the one hand are the capitalists and they*re able to stay capitalist as long as they consume what is produced by dte world centers of capitalism. Hut when dtese underdeveloped countries wattt to produce for themselves as well. then they won’t let them be capitalist. And this is a system which carries with it a great waste’ of resources, of labor power and primary materials. I drink that one of dte most rigorous means we should use to analyze works of art, in this case of cinema, is the question of up to what point a work of art contributes towards eliminating the culmre of waste.

Our countries. that is. the underdeveloped countries. aspire to one day leaving underdevelopment behind; but in spite of planting the idea of a new ecunontic order, these countries cannot aspire to reach the level of the most highly developed countries of the capitalist world. They will never reach this level because dtis level can only be occupied by so many millions of people in the world. It carmot be art answer for all the inhabitants of the globe. ‘fer dtere are people who have suffered great scarcities who think that this is the goal they have to reach. ‘rlfiten we talk about a new ecunotnic order. we have to accompany it with a new cultural order, of a new position towards a culture which cart help to create a mentality that will tnrly understand what the new economic order memis, which is not the artificially high levels of consumption of the developed counoies of capitalism. And this is also. to my understanding, part of the idea to which I gave the confusing name of imperfect cinemaTransiated by lvlichael Chanan

Hote I. See the preceding essay in this volume.

- Cit-‘rt -glc

,

-

Cinema and Underdevelepment Fernande Eiirri

The fellewing answers sheuld all he understand and very cencretely se. as cencemed with a suh-cinemategraphy, tltat cf Argentina and the regien cf underdesfelcp-ed Latin Ftmetica cf which it is a part. Furthermere, they reflect the peint ef view nf a film directer frem a capitalist and neecelenialist ceuntry; the eppesite pale frem the situatien in Cuba.

What I-(ind at Cinema Dues Argentina Need? What lslintl at Cinema De the Underdeveleped Peoples at Latin America Heed? A cinema which develcps LhemA cinema which brings them censcieusness. which awakens censcieusness; which clarifies matters; which strengthens the revelutienary censcieusness ef these ameng them whn already pessess this; which fires them; which disturbs. wcrries. shcclss and wealsens these whe have a “had ccnscience." a reactienary censcieusness; which defines prefiles cf natienal. Latin American identity: which is authentic; which is anti--c-ligarchic and ariti-beurgeeis at the natinnal level. and anti-celenial and anti-imp-erialist at the internatienal level; which is pm-peeple; and anti-anti-peeple; which helps the passage frem underdeaelepment tn develnpment, frem suh-stemach tn stcmach; fr-am subMiehaei Ehanan, |:d;; Tn-enr_1s-Five Fears sf .I‘sI'ew Latin American Cinema- Lcutda-n: British Film Institute; I933; pp. '5'-‘-11. B3-' permissien pf the editnt-

- Cici. -glc

is

.

-

Cinema and Un-n’ern'evefapIment

HT

culture te culture. frem sub-happiness te happiness; frem sub-life te life. Clur purpese is tn create a new persen. a new seciety, a new histery and therefnre a new art and a new cinema. Urgently. And with the raw material cf a reality which is little and badly understand: that ef the underdevelep-ed ceuntries ef Latin America (er; if yeu prefer the euphemism favered by the Drganisatinn nf American States; the develeping ceuntries nf Lafin America). Understandinger; rather; misunderstanding—ef these ceuntries has always ceme abeut by applying analytical schemes impesed hy fereign cnlenialists er their lncal henchmen {whese particular mentality has defenned such ideas even further).

What itinel at Cinema Bees Argentina Have at the Mement? fine widt a selid industrial traditinn; whese Gelden Age was in the 3t'}s and 4l]s {Lucas Demare‘s La Guerra -Ganena, fer example). It cenquered the markets ef Latin America; then prestituted itself under Perenism; befere recnvering ence again; culturally speaking, under the guidance ef Terre It-lilssen. during the se—called "revelutien ef liberatien" {actually a milita.ry dictatership]. lt then evnlved inte an independent mevement in which the left began te play a rele. This develnpment enincided with Frendi.=.:i’s rise te pewer in 19151-2. when mere than fifteen new feature directers and many mere directers ef sherts teek dteir places in the natinnal cinema. After the l‘-H52 frana'r'sasa, hewever; and during the previsinnal presidency ef Guide. such independent efferts turned in en themselves. and “dependent" prnductien be-came deminant ence again. Duly ene independent film was made, lvlanuel Antin‘s Le-.s verterabfes tarfas; the very epiteme ef alienatien.

The preblem is that cinema is a cultural preduct. a preduct ef the superstructure. Se it is subject te all the sup-erstructure’s distertiens. In the case nf cinema these are exacerbated further than in the ether arts due in its nature as an industrial art. In ceuntries like curs. which are in the threes ef incipient industrialiaatien, pelitical shacks make this cenditien chrenic. Fnrthermere. cinema is a language- A language. like nthers. which enables centrnunicatien and e:-tpressien at beth the mass and persnnal levels. Here as well things get eut ef balance as beurgeeis attitudeswhieh are either reactienary er; at best. liberal and always sub-cultural —typically give mest attentien te the “cinema ef espressien." This cinema [typified by Terre Hilssnn] is set in eppesitien te "cnrntner—

- GL1.-SIC

-

-

,

EH

Fentanaisr B!|'rrt'

cial" cinema {such as that ef Amaderi. Demare er Tynaire}. At its height. in 1955. this eppesifien became a veritable battle within the structures ef beurgeeis culture. *‘Expressien" wen—and new where are we’? Wlrat and whe is te benefit frem such “expressinn” ta la Terre hlilssen. Kehen. Kuhn. Antini? The navel ef Buddha? “Cemntercial" cinema has wen its audience by any methnd geing; er mere precisely. the werst metlteds geing. We cannet suppert it. The “cinema ef expressinn" uses the best metheds. and seems the mass audience. We cannet suppert it either. tltnce again. the centradictien between art and industry is reselved very badly. except fer the “select” minerity which makes up the audience ef the “cinema ef expressinn.” fer whem such a selutien is perfectly satisfactery. We have already peinted eut that cinema manifests the eulttual and ecenemic values ef snciety's superstructure. Neither its generic lack ef culture net its ecenemic precarieusness precludes it frem dtese categeries. Argentina. Latin America. 1953: a beurgeeis superstructure. senu-celenial and underdeveleped. In cinema. therefnre. expresses these cenditiens. censeieusly er uncenscieusly if it favers them. always censeieusly if it is against. This is the fact ef the matter. and there is ne way mend it. like it er net. and whether er net we care te recegniae it. It is nne wherever yeu leek. frem Lucas Demare and Terre hlilssen, m representatives ef these in faver, te the shert filmmakers Etliva and Fisherman. new directers whe have declared themselves against. Fer the first greup. these whe are censeieusly er uncenscieusly in faver ef the existing erder ef things. ne preblem arises. The supersn'ucture keeps them. pampers them. and gives them nfficial credits, prizes. nafienal exhibitien. “Argentinian Film Weeks" abread, internatienal festivals. travel as representatives ef natinnal culmre. and press ceverage ef their triumphs and suppesed niumphs (in its lncal newspapers an anxieus but finally negative Eurepean crificism transferms a failure inte “a pelemical and very wertlty film." as happened with Antftfs Les venerarhfes t'aa'as in Cannes in l!§l"fi3. tit‘ l'~lilssen's Hemenaje

a la he-ra ale la siesta in Venice in i952). The superstructure serves them. when all is said and dene. as a pedestal. A fragile eneugh ped-

estal fer etemal glery. yeu may admenish us. Certainly; hut meanwhile. dewn here; in the here-and-new. it keeps them able te preduce films. The enly preblems dtese directers have ever had te face have ceme frem persnnal rivalry er. at werst. frem the irratienal infractien ef seme ultrarnentane meral tabee [as in the case ef Beatriz: Guide. fer example} te de with sex er vielence. never frem any "pelitical" effense. Sueh sins were rapidly fnrgiven. like these ef prodigal chilrlren.

- Cit). -gin

,

-

Cinenra an-rt‘ Underrfeveieprncnt

B9

when frem 195? enwards new and independent currents began te appear in eur natienal cinema. pursuing net expressinn but ideas. Amnng these representing these currents were Murda. Feldman. Martfnea Suarez. Alventesa. the Institute ef Cinemategraphy at the hiatienal University ef the Literal. secters ef the Asseciatien ef Shert Film Directers. Cinema Werksheps. the Asseciatien ef Experimental Cinema. the Hucleus Cinema Club. Cinecririea magaaine. the writer ef this article.

Given 111is Sltuatien. Haw and Why Was the

Institute at Einemategraphy at the Hatienai University at the Literal Farmed"? Teday the Institute ef Cinemategraphy is a material fact. But in 1955 it was enly an idea. This idea was hem at a time when Argentinian einernategraphy

was disintegrating. beth culturally and industrially. It affirmed a geal and a methed. The geal was realism. The methed was training based in theer"y and practice. Te lecate this geal histerically, remember that the deminant characteristic ef Argentinian cinema at that time was precisely its “unrealism." This was true ef beth its extremes. The eppertunism ef the numereus hex-effice hits [such as these ef the main studie Argentina Sene Films. er the Demare-Pendal l5tt'es Despnes dei siiencie. er cnancnar-in cemedies} and the evasiveness ef the few “intellectualiaed" films {TrnTe I"-lilsst'rn's Ln casa def angef. Ayala‘s Er‘ jefe} made

the cinemategraphic images ef the ceuntry they presented te audiences equally unreal and alien. Pepular and art cinema were falsely made eut te be irrecencilahle eppesites. when what were actually being discussed were “cerrunercial" attd “elitist” cinema. Ciut ebjecfive was a realism which weuld transcend this tendentieus duality. In it we were jeined by ether nen-cinematic greups all ef whem shared the aspiratien tewards an art which weuld be simultaneeusly pepular and ef high quality. Te lecate eur methnd histericaily. remember that the natienal cinema industry had always been feunded en the purest empiricism. usually manifest in a frustrating degree ef imprevisatien. Remember alse that at dtis time there was net even a plan fer a blatienal Film Scheel. despite the inclusien cf the idea in the 195? Decree Law ti-2 (it was net carried threugh). The teaching facilities which did exist made ne impact en the industry itself. much less en public epinien.

- Ger. -gin

.

-

lit]

Fenrande Eirri

We sheuld be wary ef schematic generaliaatien. fer there were exceptiens which pteved the rule and we must give credit te the significant pesitive mements en the curve ef the eld natinnal cinema (such as Marie $effici's Frisieneres a'e fa tierra. er Huge del Carril‘s Las aguas bajan tnrbias]. Hut any ebjcctive analysis must finally lead te the general negative cenclnsien recerded here. The geal and methed I have described. these ef a realist cinemategraphy and a theeretice-practical training. came tegether pelemically in the [lecumentary Scheel at Santa Fe. They did se m a simultaneeusly critical and censtructive centribntien—er censtntctively critical. if yeu prefer—te natienal cinema. and as a respense te a need fer natinnal transfennatien which we believe exists threugheut Latin America. given the centieent*s cemmen cenditien ef underdevelepmentIt was these artistic principles which inspired eur werk frem Tire err. the lnstirute‘s first film ef secial inquiry. te Les inuna'aa'es. eur first fictienal feature. which synthesized eur experience. Cln the way we alse made Les dill cnarrer. a decumentary which was banned and whese prints and negative were cenfiscated under the l‘-J59 Decree 4965. which was passed by previsienal President Guide te suppress “insurtectienary activities." This banning and cenfiscatien remain in

ferce te the present day. Les innndaries synthesizes the experience ef the Institute. enlarging its scepe and giving it its fullest expressinn hetlt prefessienally and as entertainment. in the best senses ef these temrs- Fer these reasens. and because it answers te the feunding intentiens ef the Santa Fe Decumentary Scheel. beth experimental and academic. this film bears the respensibility ef being eur mevement*s manifeste. carried ferth under the banner ef a natienal cinemategraphy which is “realist. critical and pepular."

What Are the Future Perspectives fer Latin American Cinema‘? Seen frem the general perspective ef develepments in cinema. and given that this is an Argentinian film. a Latin American film. the mest imp-ertant thing right new if we are te ensure such a future is that the film sheuld be seen. In ether wnrcls. the mest impnrtant thing is exhibitien and distributien. The starting peint fer this statement is the fact that eur films are net seen by the public. er are enly seen with extreme difficulty. This happens—and we deneunce the fact—net because ef the films themselves er eur public. but because the films are systematically beycetted by beth natienal and intematienal distributers and exhihiters. whe are linked te the anti—natienai and celenial interests ttf fereign preduc-

t Ge-glc

- 4 . .

Cincatn and Underrfeyelapmear

9|

ers. abeve all these ef l'~ierth American cinema and the menepeiy it has impesed en us. Elf abeut Still films shewn in l'.§l't52. 3i}lIi were in English. and mest ef them It-lertlt Americatt. while seme 3i] were Argentinian. An additienal fact: Latin America has a petential market ef Elli] millien spectatem. mere than eneugh te previde a natural market fer eur films. It weuld save us the effert ef speradic entry inte ether markets. and the eutlay ef hard currency which is being drained away in imperting mediecre fereign films. The urgent need. and enly firm selutien. must therefnre be te guarantee the disntbutien and exhibifien ef natienally preduced films in each ef eur ceuntries individually. and in Latin America as a wheleThis must ceme abeut threugh gevemment actien. The precedures may be different. but in the same way that a gevemment can cancel an eii centract se. fer the sa.me reasens ef dte secial geed and widt the same autherity. that satne gevernment can and sheuld regulate the prejudicial cultural and ecenemic expleitatien that cemes with the uncentrelled fiew ef fereign films inte its te1Titery. Exhibiters and distributers justify their perrnanent ble-cking ef natienally preduced films

by appealing te the spectater‘s right te cheese what films he er she wishes te see. But dtis free-market sephism emits ene small detail: that fer an audience te cheese a film. it mnst first be exhibited. which generally dees net happen with nafienal films. er dees se enly in appalling cenditiens. State aid. bank credits. and prises are alse means ef stimulating the develnpment ef Latin American cinema. se leng as infiatien is aveided by making ticket-receipts the basis ef the systemFilm must be funded by its audience- As well as maintaining financial health. the fact that the audience pays fer its tickets cenfimts its interest in the film. attd keeps filmmakers cenunitted te their audience. Such a selutien must be cemplemented by a reductien in nen-esseetial industrial cests. We rnust have lew-cest preducfien. This may net previde an everall er perrnanent selutien but it is at the very least the beginning ef a selutien in current circumstances. If it is valid fer independent preductien in develeped ceuntries. it is even mere se in underdeveleped ceuntries. Such a ferrnula weuld pretect the independent preducer frem the fiuctuatiens ef recevering capital in a market where inceme frem natienally preduced films is uncertain. Furtltermere. a mere rapid recevery ef preductien cests weuld allew the pessibility ef centinueus investment in new preductiens. Lew cests weuld alse allew participatien by nen-state capital. which weuld free the filrtunaker ef all. er almest all. dependence en nfficial credits. which restrict freedem. and always bring with them censership and self—censership. This kind ef preducfien alse renews expressive

- Gt).-gin

-

-

.

‘ii-‘E

.Fernantfn lil'irri'

creativity. because it requires the replacement ef the traditienal crew by a mere functienal methed ef eperatien. adapted te the actual cenditiens ef filming. Such a cenceptien and practice ef making films net

with the reseurces ene weuld like but with these which are pessible. will detennine a new kind ef language. hepefully even a new style. the fmit ttf cenvergent ecenemic and cultural necessity. We Latin American filmmakers must transfertn all such technical limitatlens inte new expressive pessibilities. if we are net te remain paralyze by them.

In the same way. the mement has ceme net enly te eblige the "cemmercial" circuits te carry natienal filrns. but alse te set up “independent” circuits in trade uniens. scheels. neighberheed assnciatiens. sperts centers and in the ceunuyside threugh mebile prejectien units- A circuit hased in existing grass-rents erganizatiens. where

films can be shewn which. because they are epenly didactic [er decumentary} er ideelegically pregtessive. ceme up against the greatest resistance frem “cemmercial” disttibuters and exhihiters.

Fer What Audience De ‘feu ‘reurseli Mal-re Films? Having set aside any residual netiens ef “art fer att‘s sake." and cemmitted eurselves te “useful” creatinn. we find eur intentien ef the last few years. that ef making films net fer eurselves but fer the audience. is ne lengcr eneugh. Fellewing eur mest recent experience. which was eur first with a fictienal feature shewn in a stt—ealled "erdinary"

er “cemmercial” audience. we can ne lengcr put eff defining the audience—er. mere precisely. the ciass ef audience. in the ecenemic and histerical sense ef the ter|n—fer whem we are making eur films. ‘We'll net delay the answer. "tl‘-~'e- are making eur films fer a werking-class audience. beth urban and rural- This is eur mest fundamental

purpese. Let us spell it eut very clearly. We are interested in making eur future films eniy if they reach a werking-class and peasant audience. an audience made up ef werkers fmm the existing industrial

belts ef eur great cities. the urban and suburban preletariat in areas ef newer industrializatien. and peasants. small farmers and herdsmen en beth small immigrant famts and large estates belenging te the eligarchy {where film. if it speaks the pceple's ewn language. can be a means ef culture ef unequalled impact. given existing rates ef literacy}. Then. having made this clear. let us add that we alse wish te reach sectiens ef the petty beurgeeisie and even ef the beurgeeisie preper [the se-—called “natinnal beurgeeisie"). including them in the

audience fer this new cinema which seeks te awaken censcieusness. and which is directed tewards spectaters whe me epen te being en-

Cllil

._|'--|

-:1; -1."-1

Cinema and Uruiensiet-eiupmenr

‘ill

lightened and alse te werking eut matters fer themselves in a new light. But I atn talking abeut Argentina as it is new. where there is ne such cinema and ne natinnal cinema te stimulate the gathering tegether ef such an audience. a.nd where even if such a cinema did exist there weuld be newhere te shew it. As fer the rest ef Lafin America. we weuld say fi'em what we knew ef it that the audience which interests us—l sheuld say. which preeceupies us--will be made up ef the same sectiens ef the pepulatien everywhere. depending en variatiens in the degree ef backward-

ness er develnpment in each ceuntry. er whether it is deminated by an agricultural and rural ecenemy. er is in the precess ef industrializafien. Te cenjure away any fetishes which may make this prepesal seem utepian. we weuld recall that the audience which already sees eut “natinnal iilms"—which are se seemed by the beurgeeisie and enly accepted with reservatiens by the petty-beurgeeisie—is in its great majerity already made up cf the kinds ef peeple we have described. Eiut there is an urgent need here fer large-scale market research. cemplete with tables and secial statistics. Even in eur ceuntry we still lack such research. It must be ene ef the prinrity tasks ef the

CLAC [Latin American Cinemategraphy Centre} as it decuments. analyzes and plans film preductien.

What Is the Ftevclutienary Functlen ci Cinema in Latin America? Underdevelepment is a hard fact in Latin America. It is an ecenemic and statistical fact. hie inventien ef the left. the tenn is used as a matter ef ceurse by “nfficial” interttatiena] erganizatiens. such as the UH.

er Latin American bedies. such as the CA5 er the EC-LA. in their plans and reperts. They have he alternative. The cause ef underdevelepment is alse well knewn: celenialism. beth extemal and internal. The cinema ef eur ceuntries shares the same general characteristics ef this superstructure. ef this kind ef seciety. and presents us widt a false image ef beth seciety and eur peeple. Indeed. it presents ne real image ef eur peeple at all. but cenceals them. Se. the first pesitive step is te previde such an image. This is the first functinn ef decumentary. Hew can decumentary previde this image‘? Hy shewing hew reality is. and in ne ether way. This is the revelutienary functien ef secial decumentary and realist. critical and pepular cinema in Latin America. Hy testifying. crifically. te this reality—te dtis sub-reality. this

- Cit).-gin

.-.._.; -

-

.

El-tl

Fernanrfa Birri

misery—-cinema refuses it. it rejects it. It deneunces. judges. criticizes and decensnucts it. Because it shews rrtatters as they irtefutably are. and net as we weuld like them te be [er as. in geed er bad faith. ethers weuld like te make us believe them te be). As the ether side ef the cein ef this “negatien." realist cinema alse affirtns the pesitive values in eur secieties: die peeple‘s values. Their reserves ef strength. dteir labers. their jeys. their struggle. their dreams. The result—and rnefivafien—ef secial decumentary and realist cinema? hlnewledge and censcieusness; we repeat: the awakening ef the censcieusness ef reality. The pesing ef preblems. Change: frem sublife te life. Cencinsien: te cenfrent reality widt a camera attd te decument it. filming realistically. filnting critically. filming underdevelepment with the epfic ef the peeple. Fer the altemafive. a cinema which makes itself the accemplice ef underdevelepment. is sub-cinema. Translated by lvlalcelm Cead

- Ge -gle

-

Fer a Natienalist. Realist. Critical

and Pepular Cinema Fernancte Bini

The new Latin American cinema. which we centinue te call "new" in ertt-er te exercise any pessihle regressien. is new abeut 25 years eld. It was bem in Cuba with El niegana by Crarcia Espinesa. Crutienez Alea. Alfrede Cruevara and lese lviassip; in Brazil with Nelsen Pereira des Santes; and in Argentina with the Decumentary Film Scheel ef Santa Fe. Semething I always like te remember is that it was bem witheut any kind ef. iet"s say. cenfabulatien between us. but because

it was in the air. We can new understand it with great clarity. thanks te semething the Italians call it senne a't' pet. that is. the sign that cemes afterwards. seeing histery threugh the ether end ef the telescepe. It was bern because in that mement. in the middle ef the ‘Sills. in different places in Latin America. a generatien ef filnunakers was grewing up whe wanted te previde a reply te seme ef the preblems ef the mement. and whe breught with them mere questiens than answers. They were questiens that came frem an histerical necessity. a

necessity in the histery ef eur penples: in the histery ef penple awakening with great strength te the censcieusness ef eccupying their place in histery. a place denied us fer se many years. a place which. ence and fer all. as the title ef dte beautiful Nicaraguan film has it. is a place ef bread and dignity. These twe ideas. I believe. explain semething ef the tensien eut ef which the new Latin Ameticatt cinema was created and metivated. when we were ttern. nething was clear and reselved; we had he

recipes ef prefabricated fermulae. What we did knew was that in Screen. vel. Ifi. nes. 3-4. I935. pp. ll'li|'—fi'l. By pertrtissiert ef the publisher-

-

"- _ L|

ti . -'- lc

‘Eli |

-

Pfi

Fernanrfa Hirri

seme ways this centinent was se rich. se cemplex. se centradictery. se cearse. se exaltant in ether ways. that it was a centinent that was net reflected in the images preduced by the tluee majer Latin American cinemas. the enly enes that existed: the Ivlexican. the Brazilian and the .-=lu:gentinian cinemas. This new cinema was bem with twn er three keys te cemprehensien. analysis. interpretatien and expressinn- What were they‘? I remember that when Tire ere came eut in lilfifi. it was accempanied by a shert manifeste arguing fer a natinnal. realist and critical cinema. These were the three keys which in ene way er anether uied thenretically te illustrate a cencrete ferrnulatien. the film that was Tire ere. Frem Tire ere we passed te Les innnrriarfes. which is already a fictienal film theugh with a decumentary base—and this is anether censtatrt in the new Latin American cinema. that is. the decumentary suppert. A characteristic that has been pregressively accentuated is the tr’ mpture with traditienal genres: with what is traditienally understeed by decumentary: with what is traditienally understeed er understandable as narrative. Nelsen Pereira des Santes had always werked in narrative cinema. But apart frem being the first attempt ef this kind at Santa Fe. Les inrtrtrfarfas was an attempt te achieve a greater diffusien ef the film ebject. tn explere the pnssibiiity ef mere extensive cemmunicatien by the film with its public. And in that sense. the nat'rative ceusuttctien has a much greater pewer ef cenununicatien. and can embrace a much wider herizen than the decumentary. Narrative cinema adds te the three previeus keys the new key ef the pepular. In this way. the tlreeretical pestulate which accempanied eur werk was the call fer a natienal. realist and crifical cinema. but. additienally. it was intrinsically related te a feurth. the pepular. which is te say. it tried te interpret. express and cemmunicate with the peeple. J. This is alse related te anether tendency which the new Latin American cinema has always had. which is its aspiratien te being an active cinema. What dees this mean? It means that in the last instance it is a cinema which is generated within the reality. becemes cencrete en a screen and frem this screen retums te reality. aspiring te transfemr it. This is the fundamental idea. Clver the years I have eften asked myself what ceuld be a cemmen denettunater fer the new Latin American cinema. if I had te give a brief definitien. I weuld say that it‘s a cinema which cerrespends te what I called and centinued te call a pectics ef the transfermatien ef reality. That‘s te say. that it generates a creative energy which threugh cinema aspires te medify the reality upen which it is prejected. We applied this ceneept te decumentary as much as narrative. te shert as well as medium and leng films. and

- Cit).-gin

-

-

.

Fer a Alnrienalist. Realist. Criticaiarr-rt Pap-aicr Cinema

Eli‘

new we're applying it alse te televisien. te which we are new equally dedicating eur ferces. In this ceneept ef a peetics ef the transfermatien ef reality it is necessary. ameng ether things. te have ne abyss between life and the screen. Federice Crarcia Leeea ence intreduced Fable Neruda very beautifully at the University ef lvladrid. many years age. befere I936. when Pable wasn't yet fully Fable. I remember that Fedetice said that Fable was a peet—and he weuld have wanted te say this ef eur cinemacleser te bleed than te ink. clescr te death than philesephy. and whe carried in his bleed—and I weuld say this is true ef eur celluleid-— that grain ef madness witheut which it's net werth living. In shert. the cinema that started te be made 25 years age was a utepia. and new dtis cinema exists and has a cenfinental dimensien. This is an impertarrt datum. It is the enly cinema in the histery ef cinema that expresses a centinent in all the diversity ef its culmral-histerical cennetatiens but which. at the same time. belengs te an ecenemic infrastrecttrre which perpetuates its se-called underdevelepment. and which places us face te face with cemmen and shared preblems ef existence. In this sense. then. it seems te me that the characterizatiens we*re trying te develnp ef an active cinema fer an active spectater—a spectater whe deesn’t censume passively as if merely digesting celluleid —-alse has anether aspect: that it*s a cinema ef and fer liberatien. fer ecenemic. pelitical and cultural liberatien. and alse the liberatien ef the image. which is te say. ef dte imaginatien. This alse seems te me a characteristic ef the new Latin American cinema. present in its erigins. and ceurse ef develnpment. deepening and clarifying with daily practice. And we feel this liberatien ef the image te be valid in the face ef the successive crises threugh which the new Latin American cinema has passed. It was reflected in the Havana Film Festival in 1931. when we cenducted a seminar en cinema and pectic imaginatien. This cinema. theugh it has te de abeve all widt reality and has te intervene in dte real in erder te transferm it. caruret de witheut the werd peetic and the creative energy which the werd centains. It is intrinsic in dte need te expand eur herizens. it is like the tensien ef an arrew in flight tewards a target it has net yet reached. That is the new

pectic-pelitical cinema which is being preduced in Latin America; and anether indicatien ef the crisis that is manifest in this Fifth Havana Festival [I934]. Crisis is a werd which manifestly seme peeple den"t at all like because it means abeve all change. Certainly. if the change is tewards eld age. senility. arteriescleresis. ene can understand . . . if the change is frem life te death. ebvieusly dtis crisis is fatal. But if the crisis is the first cry ef the baby at its birth. er the rupture er

- Cit).-gin

.-.._.; -

-

.

I

9'3

Fernana'e Birri

laceratien ef an adelescent whe is beginning te pese the big questiens which perhaps have ne answer. the big inseiuble questiens. then it's very pesitive because itls a crisis ef grewth and a crisis ef maturatien. Translated by lvlichacl Chanan

l‘

(39%

~._.|"- |

- 1'

Seme Notes en the Cencept cf a “Third Cinema“ Octavia Getine

1. Antecedents 'I1re first reference te the ceneept ef a “Third Cinema“ appeared in the Cuban film jeumal Cine cabana in lvtarch ef 1969. in an interview with members ef the Argentine Cine Liberacian greup. At that time. the greup maintained that “there is a grewing need fer a “Third Cinema." ene that weuld net fall inte the trap ef trying te engage in a dialegue with these whe have ne interest in deing se. It weuld be a cinema ef aggressien. a cinema that weuld put an end te the irrafienality that has ceme befere it; an agir cinema This dees net mean that filmmakers sheuld take en exclusively peliticai er revelutienary themes. but that their films weuld thereughly explere all aspecm ef life in Latin America teday. . . - This cinenta. revelutienary in betlt its femrulatien and its censcieusness. weuld invent a new cinemategraphic language. in erder te create a new censcieusness and a new secial reality.“

A few menths later. in Etcreber l9ti9. die article “Tewards a Third Cinema: Netes and Experiences Regarding the Develepment ef a Liberatien Cinema in the Third Werld‘* {see the essay in dtis velume by Selanas and C-retine] appeared in the jeumal Tricentinentai. published by Ct5PA.A.AL in Paris. ‘Witlr these netes. the gmup hazarded a few theeretical definitinns ef a Third Cinema*s ebjectives and methedelTim Eiartutrd. ed.; Argentine Cinema- Terente: Nightweed E-ditiens. I936. pp. 99-

res. Reprinted with rcvisiens. Ctriginally published as “Algunas abs-ervacicner. sabre cl cenccpte del *Tercer Cine”' in flrletas sabre cine argentine y lntfnaamericana. lvlertice: Edimedies. I934-

- Cit‘). -glc

“

,

-

lfllll

Clctavie Cetinn

egy. Certain ambiguities remained in this ferrnulatien ef the theery. hewever. se these were clarified during the Latin American Filmmakers‘ Cenference held in lvlifia del l"v‘lttI. Chile. with the Puhlicatien ef

the article "it-"lilitant Cinema. an Intemal Categery ef Third Cinema." These publicatiens had a significant effect en yeung filmmakers. net enly in Latin America and the Third werld but alse in the develeped ceuntries. including the United States. Canada. France and Italy. and they were reprinted in beeks and specialized jeumals. Frem that time en. Cine Liheracirin as a greup did net return te these themes. Its principal members—Femande Selanas. Crerarde ‘v'alleje. and the auther ef these netes—did. htrwever. centinue te discuss them in articles. interviews and debates published in specialised jeurnals areund the werld.

It was essential that i nete these antecedents in erder fer me te analyze-—in a previsery and strictly persenal manner—-—the value these theeries en the Third Cinema. elaberated ll] years age. may have tedayi

The Natianat Canterrt as the Generatar ct‘ Tirecry and Practice The attempt te create a Third Cinema in Argentina was beund up in eur ewn particular histerical and pelitical circumstances. marked during the last years ef the l9ells by increasing levels ef erganizatien and mebllizatien within the pepular resistance mevements. Greater cehesien between the middle and werking classes alse develeped during this peried ef military rule. culminating in l9'i3 with the reseunding electeral victery ef the Frente Jnsticiaiista ale Liberacirin. led by the Perenist meverrrent and supperled by every pregtessive secter in the ceuntry.

The practical werk ef Cine Liheracidn was thus cenditiened by the sinrultaneeus grewth ef natienal resistance mevements and the campaign te demecratize the ceuntry. This situatien basically defined the ericntatien and theeries ef the greup. The language ef the films preduced by members ef the greup was similarly infermed by the pelitical reality ef Argentina. In eppesitien re the prevailing netien ef an auterrr cinema. we develeped this netien ef it Third Cinema. an agit cinema. tit cinema made cellectivelyfi We didn’t fully realize at the

time the extent te which the Argentine reality ef the late l9filis defined the centent and the femt ef eur werk and its parallel theeretical claberatien. In tum. eur werk was destined te centribute te the develnpment and the liberatien ef eur ceuntry. as well as te certain debates in film circles. This is net te deny whatever universal value certain aspects ef the theery may have; it is werth emphmizing. hewever. that

Ge. -gle

'-

-=.;.

Same Hates an the Can-ee_ar ajfa “Tiriral Cr'nema "

ll]l

the value ef theeries such as dtese is always dependent en the terrain in which the praxis is carried eut. Any attempt te censider an ideelegical censtruct universal weuld be erreneeus witheut censideratien ef dte natienal centext at its reet.

Practice as the Generatcr at Thecry In erder te understand fully the ideas behind Third Cinema. we must nete that its tlteeretical cempenent arese after. and net befere. the practical werk ef making films: that is te say. after the preductien and distributien ef La hara tile‘ ias hernas {The Hcttr ef the Furrracesj. di-

rected by Selanas. which was begun in 19645 and finished in I963. Beth Selanas and myself. while making dtis film. amassed a censiderable arneunt ef theeretieal material. It was fer eur ewn use. as reflectiens en eur engeing practical werk. It was this material that we drew upen when we develeped the theeries which were published between l9ti9 and l9Tl. It is difficult te imagine the subsequent intematienal expesure ef these theeries had the film net existed. It was enly tltreugh the existence ef the film that we were able te refute the criticism ef dtese whe eppesed eur theeries. With this film. we demenstrated fer the first time first it was pessible te preduce and distribute a film in a nen-liberated ceuntry with the specific aim ef centributing te the pelitical precess ef liberatien. Te de this. we had te develep a different way ef using film than that which had existed until that fime.l' It thus remains difficult even teday re separate the ceneept ef Third Cinema frem the film La hare de ias harnas. a demenstratien ef the interdependence ef tlteery and practice. It is this practice wluch sheuld be the principal fecus ef analysis teday as it stimulated. even determined. the kinds ef theeries we put ferward ll) years age.

The Sacisi Canterrt as rttieeiiatar The preductien and distributien ef La hare tie ias harnas was pessihle. as I have already neted. because ef dte streng effensive ef a pepular resistance mevement against a military gevemment in full retreat. This eppesitien mevement. basically led by the Perenist party. had a streng natienal traditien and erganizatienai structure threugh the trade uniens and en the lecal cenrrnunity level. This facilitated the disuibutien ef alternative films threugh decenaalized parallel circuits which weuld have been impessible te maintain under different pnlifical circumstances. Even se. the ceutinuatien ef this practice required a

thenretical base capable ef guiding its develepmentAnether facter wluch sheuld be neted in this discussien ef the theeries ef the Third Cinema mevement is the secial backgreund ef

- Cit).-glc

-

-

.

l[l2

t'J'ctavr'a Cetina

the filmmakers in the Cine Liaerar-ian greup-‘ By the mid-l9fifis. as the “develepmentalist" ecenemic pelieics ef the military rulers prevcd disastreus. the increasingly impeverished middle class began te seek a way eut ef the impasse in any manner available te them. During this same peried. the well-erganized werking class frustrated several attempts te subvert certain fundamental demecratic institutiens in the

Argentine pelitical pmcess- It was alse a time when events abread. particularly the Cuban revelutien. were having an effect in Argentina. This revelutien was being idealized. even by the middle class. as a

universal medel ef pelitical erganizatien fer Latin America. Naturally the werking class. hardened by decades ef struggle in which it was the principal—and eften selitary—pretagenist. experienced this peried differently than the middle class. Histerically. the werking class exercised a hegemeny en the precess ef natinnal libera-

tien. The middle class ceuld enly hepe te jein this revelutienary precess. frem which it had previeusly kept its distance at every critical histerical juncture.

La irara rte ias narnas. and the ether films made by Cine Liberar-ian. must be analyzed in this eentext. that ef middle class intellectuals caught up in insurrectienary mebilizatiens; influenced by the

cultural and pelitical traditiens ef the werking class mevement but still embedying centradictiens inherited frem the nee-celenizatien ef Argentina-

Fer my part. I believe that we tee were net free ef this dynamicCine Liireracirin was. befere anything else. eur fusien as intellectuals

with the reality ef the werking class. This determined the tentative and incenclusive nature ef eur prepesals. “Until new.“ we emphasized in “Tewards a Third Cinema." “we have put ferward practical prepesals but enly leese ideas-just a sketch ef the hypethescs which were bent ef eur first film. La irnra tie t'a.s harrras. We thus den*t pretend

te present them as a seie er exclusive medel but enly as ideas which may be useful in the debate ever the use ef film in nen-liberated ceuntries."

E. Tl'lB T|1B'Df'jt' and Practice Di Third Cinema

in Argentina We can identify three principal stages in the werk nf the Cine Liberti-

cian greup: i] that nf the greup’s fermatinn and initial activities as part ef the

resistance against the Argentine military gevemments ef C-tngania. Lcvingsten. and Lanusse;

Ge. -gle

'-

- -It}

Senre Netese-n the C'encepr -uf-n "Third Cinema"

l'|I!

ii] that cf its epen ceilaberatiun with the demecratic and pepular gevemment in pewer in l9T3—?4, until the death cf President Periin;

iii) that uf its withdrawal inte a new iuriu cf resistance, which is the current stage, the stage cf e:-tile.

The First Stage: 1966-t9?d.~'?1 This first stage cf the grcup's activities is delineated, apprcntimately, by the years llilfib and l9T[h"Tl. This was t.he peried when the wnrlt

with the greatest internatienal impact was preduced. I refer here primarily te the film Le here iie les he-me.r, directed by Selanas and en which l wurlted as cu-authcr: this film established the base frem which the greup weuld wcrlt, beth within Argentina and abread. when the film was finished, we began the ether, nc less impnrtant task uf setting up parallel distributien circuits fur the film tlueugh uade uniens and cemmunity and Perenist ‘r'c-uth urganiaatic-ns. During this peried yeung filnunalters began tc crganiee, tegether with Perenist activists and ether prcgressive greups, giving rise tn testimcnial films and dccumentaries abeut what was happening in Argentina at the time. The natienal trade unien CGT [Eenfederacidn General ele Trabajadures], fur example, put cut the uewsreel Cinemfen-nes ale la CGT ale ier ergeniines at this time. As we-rle prugressed an the practical levels cf preductien and distributien, the greup published its three majer thenretical pieces: “La culttua nacic-nal, el cine, y La narn cie ies he-mes" [“hlatiunal Culture, Cinema, and The Huur bf the Furnaces," Fernant;lc- Ecnlanas and [teta-

vic Getine, Cine cnhnne nc. 5fn'5?, Havana, l'-itarch I969}; “Hacia un tercer cine“ {“Tewards a Third Cinema," Selanas and Getina, Trienniinentel nu. l3. EISPAAAL, Paris, Uctcber 1969]: and “Cine militante: una categuria intema del tercer cine" lf"l‘-wlilitant Cinema, an Internal Categury Bf Third Cinema," Selanas and Getine, minted-

graph, ‘vifia del Pvtar, l9'7l). The greup alse published material in the peiifldicals Netns tie Cine Liberncidn and Sabres as cniittrn y libera-

cidn. The latter was published by a united frent cf visual artists, students and pelitical activists with ebjectives similar tu eur ewn. We alse made litms threugheut this peried, at" ceurse, which were always barred fmm cunventiunal distributien circuits. It was cnly threugh the pepular erganizatiens that we were able tn distribute them.

The Second Stage: isri-tern This stage. which saw eur wurlt having fewer intematienal repercus-

siuns, led instead tc cur films really taking rent in natinnal life. We ran the risl-: cf having eur films censc-red and began tc matte films

- Gt).-glc

-

-

,

lfl-tl

flcte vie Getine

intended fer cemmercial release threugh nermal distributien channels. The first film te de this was Crerarde "v'alleje‘s Er‘ enmine nncie in rnnerre dei Vieje Renter (Did lvlan Reales‘ Read te Death, l97fl). l made El‘ fnntiiinr [The Relative, l"5I'T3) and Selanas made Les ntjer tie Fierre {The Children ef Fierre, begun in 1972 and finished in I93‘? in exile}. Similar films, made eutside eur greup but frem the same “liberatien cinema" perspective, sheuld be neted as well. especially Uperncidn nnesaere lfipfiratien Massacre. l9'T2l by Jerge Cedrdn. hluiuereus shert films were made in regienal centers threugheut the ceuntry. In Tucuman, fer example, Valleje made Testinrcnies tnt'umrrnes and later Tertitnenies rte in reeenstrncciein, which were screened en the regienal televisien netwerlt eperated by the university ef that prevince. This new apprnach required us te fermulate new ideas in eur written material as well. The magazine Cine y Liirereeie-in appeared in l9'i2 and reflected the pepular resistance which by then was peised te take pewer. It was alse during this peried that we made twe impertant decumentaries in lvladrid with Perdn fer the Perenist mevement, Aett-tefieucidn _neiitt'ctt y dectrinnriu burn in rerun del pester {Pelitical and Theeretical Renewal Tewards the Taking ef Fewer] and Le revelneitin jnstieiniistu [The Justicialist [Perenist] Revelutien}. In erder te distribute these films, we used—and expanded—the parallel circuits we had develeped fer Le here de ins nernes. The demand fer these twe films, particularly the latter, in fact surpassed the demand fer eur earlier film, and we made mere than 51] ltimm cepies ef Ln revelucitfin jnsticielistn. This deuble-edged preductien strategy, with seme films aimed at cemmercial audiences and ethers made fer the parallel circuits, was accempanied by the erganiaatien ef filmmakers, and net enly activists but ethers frem the mainstream ef the industry whe were being peliticised by events ef the day. At this time, eur greup was cumpesed ef filmmakers, critics, acters, independent preducers. shert filmmakers, technicians and film werlters united by the pressing need te develep a preject ef natienal liberatien. beth fer the ceunuy and fer its cinema. '1-lv'ith the liberatien ef the ceuntry in 1973 we were able te take part in the fertuulatien ef new peticies in the film industry. It was during this peried that I was asked te head the film classificatien beard, a taslt I shared with all these cencemed with the real develnpment ef eur film industry? It did net take leng befere the greup's werk in this peried was denuunced. by the extreme Left befere anyene else, whe accused us ef being “uppertunists" and “bureaucrats.” Afterwards the extreme Right jeined in with different but undeubtedly mere ferceful arguments. As

l Ge-glc

- - -.

-iidnte Neter an the Ce-ncept nfn “T.ltirn' Cinema"

ll]5

far as the Left is cencemed. there were seme extreme tendencies at werk in the ceuntry at that time, which had little pepular suppert. Their leaders cenfused tactics with strategy and the means with the end. Their film activity they called “guerrilla cinema,” which apprepriated eur theeries ef several years earlier and adepted them as a degmatic bible. They saw in c-ur werk a suppesed retreat inte pre-

gevemment pmpaganda, net distinguishing between suppert fer a gevemment elected by Tflfie ef the penple and suppert fer the armed ferces. This ultra-Left effensive. launched in erder tu create ebstacles te the demecratic precess. attempted te initiate a “pepular revelutienary war” which actually led te the creatien ef minuscule ghetteiaed greups as alienated fmm the natienal will as were the paramilitary greups ef the far Right.”

The Third Stage: rereFrem 19?-4 en, after the death ef Perdn, the pelitical preject that the majerity ef the peeple had set in metiun a year earlier began tn falter.

The imperialist effensive, visible in the events arcund us in Llmguay.

Eelivia and Chile." ceincided with this weakening, which unfelded rapidly. It became ciear that the ferce and cehesien cf the pepular mevements in these ceuntries—and in Argentina—were net as stmng as we had imagined. ln additien, the internatienal selidarity prentised us by these whe make revelutienary chatter a way ef life failed te materialize, this aid cerning enly after eur defeat and te the benefit ef the military gevemment.“

We are new living in a time when the repressien is se severe that we can't make films either abeve greund er undergreund. Te speak ef a “guerrilla cinema,” fer example, weuld be absurd. Te attempt te make that kind ef cinema in Argentina teday weuld undermine the pesitien bf the werking classes rather than strengthen it. Cine Libera-

cidrt thus abandened the use ef “guerrilla” tactics, which te eur mind had validity during the pepular effensive but ceased te de se after l973. It was precisely during this latter peried that “militant cinema,” at least that ferm ef it practiced by us, in fact deepened its militancy by invelving itself in the everyday pelitical tasks ef the masses. reneuncing all ferms ef vanguardism which were eutside the newly created demecratic precess.

As we had established during the earlier stage cf eur werk, we prefer te err with the peeple rather than te take the “cerrect line” witheut them- lt was net a ceincidence. then. that just as we launched Le here tie les fiernes the erthedex lvlarxist Left, in Paris and Buenes Aires, jeined the Right and attacked eur pesitien. We were “pepulist“ and “fascist” te the fermer yet “subversive” and “cemmuuist" te the latter.

- Cit).-glc

-

-

,

lllfr

-I5|'t'tnvitt Getinn

Beth greups used essentially the same intimidatien tactics. differing enly in their cheice ef adjectives te describe us. The change in eur practical ceurse during this peried medified eur tlteeretical pesitiens, althengh these were nut set eut in written fenn as they were during the earlier stage. Instead, we streve te realise seme ef the ideas we had femtulated earlier, particularly eur search fer a new film language capable ttf expressing eur secial reality with

mere insight and riger. This entail-ed epening up tn new genres and styles which ceuld net be classified as decumentary films- We wanted te centribute te the decelenizatien ef eur ceuntry*s mevie screens and thus put an end te the cultural and ecenemic dependency ef eur film industry. We thus entered inte a peried ef critical revisien and self criticism. Te de se in the realm ef practice seems te me the best methnd. in that the self criticism is censtantly being verified by the cencrete rendering ef ideas, ideas that are always tied te the necessities ef the natinnal reality and te questiens ef pelitical strategy. Translated by Timedty Elamard

HDIBS l. This article was written in the late llilllls while the auther was in exile in Peru and when Argentina was ruled by its bleediest military dictatership ever, which net enly suppressed radical filmmaking but virtually dismantled the cemmercial film industry [trans.]. E. in Cine i.iiiernet'dn's schema, “First Cinema” was the classical cinema ef Hellywe-u-ti and Westem Eurepe; “Secend Cinema” was the untettr cinema which sprang up in these same centers in the early ltlfitls; and “Third Cinema” was a radical liberatien cinema preduced in the Third Werld and marked net enly by different aesthetic and pelitical cencerns but by its challenge te the very system ef cemmercial film preductien and censumptien [trans-]. 3. Net enly was Ln ltnrn de ins irernnr seen semi-clandcstinely threugh a netwerk ef trade uniens and activist greups, as the auther mentiens belew, but it was structured in a way te generate audience discussien in an attempt te render the lilm-viewing experience less passive [trans.]. 4. Selanas, fer example, was an extremely successful directer ef shert advertising films in the early llidlls and as late as tsss had attempted te make a fictien film in the mainstream ef the film industry [trans]5. The classificatien beard was a cemmittee ef censers appeinted frem infiuential interest greups like the church, the military, “metal defense“ greups. etc. Getine revamped the appeintment precedure te include trade uniens, academics and the general public as ameng these greups representedFer a brief peried—until F"ert'.in‘s death in 1'5‘?-1 and Cetine‘s subsequent replacement by a fanatical censer—ne films ether than pernegraphy were cut er

(ill

._|"--|

- ='Y—i'I--i-.'"l

-5'rnne Afutes en-t the Curt-t'ept uftt "Third Cinerntt"

Ill?

banned and the classificatien system was revised te include warnings uf such things as uvert racism alnngside the usual mural eautinns [trans.|. ti. The film greup Cretinu is referring te here is that knewn as Cine Grape rte in Base, whese principal figure was I-itaymundu Gleyaer- The greup made the film Les rruiderer {The Traiters}, abeut the betrayal nf Perunism by strung-arm reactienary u'ade unien besses--Pernnisttt was always an untenable and cnntradictnry alliance uf Left- and Right-wing elements—iu IEIT4. Crleyxer was abducted by a partunilitary death squad in lififi and is cuunted ameng the cnuntry‘s “disappeared” {trans.].

7- There were military ceups in Eelivia in 19?] and in Chile and Uruguay in l9‘i3 [trans.]. Ii- Eietiue is referring tn the seemingly inexplicable curdiality between the l_l.S.S.Ii'.. and the Argentine military regime, which was engaged in a bnttal campaign against dnmestic agents uf “intematienal cummunism” [u'ans.l.

(ill

._|"--|

1|;-.1."-1

The Views-r’s Dialectic Temas Gutierrez Atea

lntrnductien Twenty years after taking pewer, the Revelutien has left behind its must spectacular muments. Back in these days uur shaken land effered an image, an unusual and ene-time-enly image: that incredible caravan accumpanying Fidel as he arrived in Havana, the bearded rebels, the deves, the vertige ef all the transfurmatiuns. the exudus uf the traittrrs and timnreus enes, the henchmen’s trials, and the enemy*s immediate respense and, as fur us, we experienced the natienaliaatiuns, the daily radicaliratierr ef the revelutienary precess felluwed by the armed cunfrentatiuus, the sabetages, the cuunterrevelutien in the Escambray muuntains, the Hay ef Figs invasien and the Clctuber Missile Crisis. Thuse events in themselves evidently revealed the prefeund changes eccurring at a pace nubudy ceuld have fereseen. Fer cinema, it was almest sufficient just tu recurd events, te capture directly surne fragment uf reality, and simply reflect the geings—cn in the streets. These images prejecterl en the scteen turned eut tu be interesting, revealing and spectacular.‘

In dtese circumstances, stimulated er, rather. pressured by everchanging reality, Cuban cinema emerged as ene mere facet ef reality within the Revulutiun. Directers teamed te make films while un the ge and played their instruments “by ear” like eld-time musicians. Tnnttis Gtltierrer. Alea, Tire 'lr'iewer's Dinfertic. Havana, Cuba: Jnse Marti Publish-

ing Heuse, tsss. pp. ts-4|. By permissien nf the Agencla Literaria Latinuamericana-

r c;-as -glc

ls

.

The l-"iewer'.t Dialectic

l{I'5l'

They interested viewers mere by what they shewed than by hew they shewed it. In these first years Cuban cinema put the emphasis un the decumentary gcrue and little by little, as a result ef censistent practice, it acquired its ewn physingnumy and dynamism which have enabled it re stand with renewed ferce. beside mnre develeped film styles which are nlder but alse mure “tired.” blew all ef that has beceme part nf nur histnry; nut censistent revulutiunary develnpment carries us inevitably teward a precess uf maturatien. nf reflectinn. and analysis nf nur accumulated experiences. The cu1Tent stage nf instiurtinnaliaatinn we are living threugh is pessihle enly because it is bmed en the high degree uf pelitical awareness which nur penple have attained as a result nf years nf incessant fighting. Hut this stage alsn requires the masses‘ active, increased participatien in the building ef a new snciety. Increasingly, a greater and greater respunsibility falls nn the masses and, fur that reasen, we can nu lengcr let the public merely cling enthusiastically and spnntanenusly tn the Ftevnlutinn and its leaders and. tn the extent that the gevemment passes en its tasks tn the penple. the mmses have tn develnp ways uf understanding preblems. nf strengthening their ideelngical cnherence and nf reaffinning daily the principles which give life tn the Revulutien. Everyday events uccur new in a different way. The images nf the Revnlutinn have beceme erdinary, familiar. In seme ways we are

canying nut transfurmatiuns that are even mere prefeund than earlier nnes. but they are net as “apparent” new nnr are they immediately visible tu the ebserver. These changes, ur transfurmatiuns, are nut as surprising nnr dn the penple respend tn them nuly with applause er with an expressinn uf suppert. We ne lenger crave the same kind ef spectacular transfunnatinns as we did fifteen nr twenty years age. Cuban cinema cnnfrnuts that new and different way nf thinking abeut what secial pmcesscs are geing tn held fer us because eur film draws its strength fmm Cuban reality and endeavnts, amnng nther things, tn express it. Thus we find it ne lengcr sufficient just te take the cameras nut tn the street and capture fragments nf that reality. This can still be a legitimate way nf filmmaking. but enly when, and if, the filmmaker kttuws hew tn select these aspects which. in clese interrelatiun. uffer a meaningful image er reality, which serves the film as a peint uf bnth departure and arrival. The filnunaker is immersed in a cemplex milieu, the prufnund meaning ef which dues nut lie nn its surface. If filmmakers want te express their werld cuherently, and at the same time respend tn the demands their werld places en them. they sheuld nut ge eut anrred with just a camera and their sensibiiity but alsn with

- Cit).-gle

.-,._; -

-

,

ill]

Tanrrir Gutierre: Alea

suiid thenretical judgment. They need tn be able tn interpret and traitsmit richly and authentically reality*s image. Furthemrnre. in mnments nf relative détente, capitalism and secialism air their stnrggle. abeve all. nn an ideelngical level and. en that level, film plays a relevant rule beth as a mass medium, in terms nf diffusiun, and as a medium nf artistic expressinn. The level nf cnmplexity at which the ideelngical struggle unfulds makes demands nn filtrmtakers tn everceme cempletely nut nnly the spnntaneity ef the first y% ef the revelutienary triumph but alsn the dangers inherent in a tendency tn schematiac. Filmmakers may fall inte this trap if they have net nrganically assimilated the mnst advanced trends, the mnst rcvnlutinnary nnes, the mnst in vugue, especially these which speak tn the sncial functinn which the cinematic shnw eught tn fulfill. That is, filmmakers create cultural preducts which may attain mass diffusiun and which manipulate expressive reseurces that have a certain effectiveness. Film nnt nnly entertains and infnrms. it alsn shapes taste, intellectual judgment and states ef cnnscinusness. If filmmakers fully assume their ewn sncial and histerical respensibilities, they will ceme face tn face with the inevitable need tn prnmute the thenretical develnpment nf dteir artistic practice. We understand what cinema‘s sncial functinn sheuld be in Cuba in these times: lt shnuld cnntribute in the mnst effective way pessihle tn elevating viewer’s revelutinnmy cnnscinusness Md tn anning them fer the ideelngical struggle which they have tn wage against all kinds nf reaetinnary tendencies and it sheuld alse cnntribute tn their enjnyment nf life. . . . With this much in mind, we want tn establish what might be the highest level which film—as a shnw—cnuld reach in fulfilling this functinn. Thus, we ask eurselves tn what degree a certain type nf shew can cause the viewers tn acquire a new secie-pelitical awareness and a censistent actien therenf. We alsn wnnder what that new awareness and actien cnnsists ef that sheuld be generated in spectaters nnce they have stepped being spectaters, that is. when viewers leave the mevie theater and enceunter ence again that nther reality, their sncial and individual life. their day-tn-day life. Capitalist cinema, when reduced tn its state as a cummndity, rarely uies tn give answers tn dtese questiens. Cln the nther hand {and fnr nther reasens} snciaiist cinema has net nrdinarily fully met that demand- Hevertheless, finding eurselves in the midst nf the Revnlutinn, and at this particular stage nf building secialism, we shnuld be able tn establish the premises nf a cinema which wnuld be genuinely and integrally revelutienary, active, mnbiliaing, stimulating, and—censequently-—pnpuiar.

l Gus-git

- - . t

The lr'ietver'.r Dialectic

IlI

The expressive pessibilities nf the cinematic shew are inexhaustible: tn find them and prnduce them is a peet’s task. But nn that peint, fer the time being. dtis analysis can gn nu further. fur I am nnt fncusing nn film’s purely aesthetic aspects but, rather, uying tn discever in the relatinn which film establishes nver and nver again between the shew and the spectater the laws which gnvem this relatinn and the pessibilities within dtese laws fer develeping a secially preductive cinema.

“Pnputar" Film and Penple’s Fllrn Elf all the arts, film is censidered the mnst pepular. blevertheless, this has nnt always been the case- Fer a leng time, cnnfusinn reigned as tn whether film was an art nr nnt and that cnnfusinn cnntinues tn exist areund film's pepular nature. Teday it cart still be said that cinema is marked by its class eriginDuring its shnrt histnry, it has had mnments nf rebellinn, searching and authentic success as an expressinn ef the mnst revelutienary tendencies. hlevertheless. tn a large extent, cinema centinues tn be the mest natural incaruatinn nf the petty beurgeeis spirit which enceuraged cinema at its birth mnre than eighty years agn. At that time, capitalism was entering its imperialist phase. In the beginning, the mndest inventien ef a machine made tn capture and reprnduce reality's meving images was nu mnre than an ingeninus tny used at fairs where spectaters cnuld let themselves he uanspnrtcd tn the farthest reaches nf the wnrld withnut meving frem their seats. Very seen the tny left the fairgrnund but that dues nut mean tn say that it achieved a mere dignified and respectable status. It develeped intn a real shew-business industry and began tn mass pmduce a kind nf merchandise able tn satisfy the tastes and tn enceurage the aspiratiens nf a snciety deminated by a beurgeeisie which extended its pewer intn every cnmer nf the wnrld. Frnm the beginning. cinema develeped alnng twn parallel paths: “true” dncumentatien nf certain aspects nf reality and, nu the ether hand, the pursuit nf magic fascinatien. Film has always muvcd between these twn pnles: dncurnentary and fictinn. 'v"ery snnn cinema became “pepular,” nut in the sense that it was an expressinn nf the peuple—nf the sectnrs mnst nppressed and mnst expleited by an alienating system nf pmductinn—but, rather, in the sense that it cnuld attract a heterngenenus public, the majerity. avid fur illusinns. Perhaps mere than any ether medium nf artistic expressinn, cinema cartnnt get rid nf its state as a cnmmndity; the cemmercial success it achieves pushes it nu tn vertiginnus develnpment. It has beceme a

- Cit).-gle

.-,._-5 -

-

,

I I2

Temds" Gutierrez Alec

eemple:-t and cestly industry and it has had te invent all ltinds ef fermulae and recipes in erder that the shew it effers pleases the breadest public; huge audiences are what cinema depends en fer its very survival. Therefere it was cinema‘s state as a cemmedity and its "pepular" nature—mere than the fact that it was a medium still in its infant stage—-that prevelted the resistance which ertisted in circles that paid uneenditienal reverence te “cultured” art; they did net want te elevate cinema te the categery ef true art. Art and the peeple didn’t get aleng. Then there were these whe theught that cinema, te be art. sheuld translate the mmter we-rlts frem universal culture and therefere many pretentieus, gilded, heavy and rheteric werlts, which had nething te

dc with the emerging film language, were filmed. Aside frem these deteurs. cinema censtituted a human activity which fulfilled better than ethers a fundamental necessity fer enjeyment. In film practice, as it directed itself fundamentally teward that ebjective, film language began te mature and discever ettpressive pessibilities which enabled cinema te achieve an aesthetic assessment altheugh witheut intending te de se. Hellyweed cinema, with its pragmatic sense. develeped furthest in that directien. lt was the mest vital and the richest in technical and expressive disceveries. As bf the beginning ef this century. it develeped different genres—cemedies, westems, gangster films, histerical superpreductiens. meledramas»-—which rapidly became “classics-” That is te say, the genres censelidated themselves as feirnal medels and reached a high level ef develepment; at the same time. they became empty stereetypes. They were the mest effective eztpressien ef a culture ef the mmses as a functien ef passive censumers, ef centemplating and heartbrelten spectaters. while reality demands actien frem them and, at the same time. eliminates all pessibilities fer that actien. Cinema can create genuine ghests, images ef lights and shadews which cannet be captured. It is lilte a shared dream. It has been the majer vehicle used te enceurage viewers‘ fmse illusiens and te serve as a refuge fer viewers. It acts as a substitute fer that reality in which the spectaters are ltept fmm develeping humanly. and which. as a sert ef cempeesatien, allews them te daydream. Film equipment and the means ef film preductien were invented and created in the interests ef beurgeeis tastes and needs. Film rapidly became the mest cencrete manifestatien ef the beurgeeis spirit, in ebjectifying its dreams. Clearly, fer the beurgeeisie, film did net represent an er-ttensien ef werk, ner ef scheel, ner ef daily life with its many tensiens; it was neither a femtal ceremeny ner a pelitical disceurse. The first thing burdened spectaters leaked fer in cinema was

t Ge-git’

- - . t

TI-‘le l-"t'ewer's Dielectric

I I3

gratificatien and relaxatien te eccupy their leisure time. Surely. mest cinematic preductien rarely went beyend the mest vulgar levels ef cemmunicating with the public. The impertant thing was hew much meney ceuld be ebtained with the preduct and net te cenceni fer high artistic quality. lrt the l92[ls the Eurepean avairt-gartle alse made its incursien inte filimnaking and left behind a few werks which explered a vast range ef expressive pessibilities. Hut that wm a vain attempt te rescue film frem the vulgarity te which cemmercialism had cendemned it. it ceuld net put dewn reets- Hewever, thanks te a few exceptienal werks. that mevement was net cempletely sterile. But it wasn't until the creatien ef Seviet film that the art werld began te efficially accept the evidence that net just a new language had been hem but alse a new art. This was because ef the theeretical preecctipatien ef the Seviet directers and the practical suppert given te the new medium. ‘Tlellective art per excellence. destined fer the masses." it was called then- Seviet cinema attained a real cleseness te the mevement ef radical secial transfermatien which was taking place. It was a cellective art because it cembined diverse individuals‘ experience and because it drew neurishment frem artistic practice in ether media as a functien ef a new art, a specifically different art, which became definitely accepted as such. It was destined fer the masses, and pepular, because it expressed the interests. aspiratiens and values ef bread secters ef the pepulatien which at that time were carrying histery enward. That first mement ef Seviet cinema left a deep imprint en all filmmaking that was te fellew and, teday, the mest medem filmmaking centinues te drink frem its feuntains and neurish itself frem that cinema‘s expleratiens, experiments and theeretical achievements which still have net been cempletely tapped. The first years ef seund-track filmmaking ceincitled with the capitalist ecenemic crisis ef I929. Cinema censelidated itself as an audievisual medium and the preductien apparatus became se cemplex that fer a leng time, it was neither pessible te preduce films eutside the big industry ner te side-step that industry's interests. In spite ef that, in the 30s. the U.S. film industry preduced a few werks with a critical visien ef seciety and the times. These films maintained all the cenventiens ef an established and purified medium, but they alse demenstrated an authentic realism in dealing with impertant centemperaty

themes. This cinema, which speke abeut secial cenfliets afflicting everyene, arese at a faverable time. but very seen veered tewards cemplacent refertnism. These were the years ef the Hays Cede.’ alse knewn as the cede ef prepriety, an instrument fer censership and prepaganda which respend-ed te the interests ef big finance capital and

- Cit). -yglc

,

-

l l-4

Tentttr Gttti-elrree dice

which indicated the narrew ideelegical straits which l..l.5. cinema weuld traverse fer a leng time. Teward the end ef werld ‘War ll. with weunds still epen and under pelitically faverable circumstances, Italiait nee-realist cinema emerged. ‘Hitli all its pelitical and ideelegical limitatlens, it was a living, fecund mevement insefar as it went the reute ef an authentically pepular cinema. In the heat ef the pest-war peried in France. a "new-wave” ef yeung directers appeared whe threw themselves impetueusly inte revelutienieing filmmaking witheut geing beyend the limits ef the petty beurgeeis werld. Amnng them, E‘-tedard stands eut as the great destreyer ef beurgeeis cinema. Taking Brecht as his peint ef departure —and the Hew Left as his peint ef anival—he tried te make revelutien en the screen. His genius, inventiveness, imaginatien, and clumsy aggressiveness gave him a privileged place ameng the “damned” filmmakers. He managed te make anti-beurgeeis cinema but he ceuld net make pceple's cinema. hletewerthy epigenes like Jean-lvlarie Straub, admirable fer his almest religieus asceticism, have already inst.itutienalised that pesitien and seme think they are making a revelutien in the superstructure witheut needing te shalte up the base . . . Anether phenemenen inscribed in these searches fer a revelutienary fihrimaking practice is that cinema called “parallel,” “marginal” er “alternative.” This cinema has emerged in the last few years due te the develnpment ef teclrutelegy and equipment which permit the preductien ef relatively cheap films. It lies within the reach ef small, independent greups and revelutienary militants- In this cinema. revelutienary ideelegy is epenly put ferth. It is a pelitical cinema which sheuld serve te mebilixe the masses and channel them teward revelutien. As a revelutienary practice it has been effective within the narrew litnits in which it eperates but it cannet reach large numbers, net enly because cf the pelitical ebstacles it enceunter:-t withitt the dis-

tributien and exhibitien system, but alse because ef its style. lvlest peeple centinue te prefer the mere pelished preduct which the big industry effers them. In the capitalist werld—and in a geed part ef the secialist werldthe public is cenditiened by specific cenventiens ef film language, by fermulae and genres. which are dtese ef beurgeeis cemmercial filmmaking. This ecctus se eften that we can say that cinenta. as a preduct eriginating frem the beurgeeisie, almest always has respended better te capitalism*s interests than te secialism‘s. te beurgeeis interests mere than te preletarian enes, te a censumer seciety‘s interests mere than re a revelutienary seciety*s interests, te alienatien mere

- Cit). -glc

,

-

The 'v’|'ewer’s Dialectic

H5

than te nen-alienatien, te hypecrisy and lies mere than te dte prefeund truth . . . Pepular cinema, in spite ef its many netable expeneitts, and few exceptienal phenemena. has net always been able frilly te fuse revelutiena|'y ideelegy with mass acceptance. As fer us, we caimet accept simple numerical criteria te determine the essence ef a peeple‘s cinema. Clearly, in the final analysis, when we talk abeut the breed masses, we mean the peeple. Hut such a criteiien is se wide and se vague that it becemes impessible te apply any kind ef value judgment te it. The number ef inhabitants in a ceuntry, er any secter ef a ceuntry, is ne m-ere than a greup as a whele, which censidered as such, ahstractiy, is meaningless. If we want te find seme kind ef cencrete criterien ef what pepular means it is necessary te knew what these peeple represent, net just in terms ef gee-graphical lecatien, but alse in tenrts ef the histerical mement and dteir specific class. It is necessary te distinguish within that bread greup which greups—the bread masses—best incarnate, censeieusly er uncenscieusly, the lines ef ferce which shape histerical develepment er, in ether werds, meve tewards the incessant ltetterntent cf living cenditiens en this planet. And if the criterien fer determining pepular accepts as its basis that distinctien, we can say that its essence lies in what weuld be the best thing fer these bread masses, i.e., that which best suits their mest vital interests. It is hue that shert-term interests semetimes ebscure the leng-term enes, and that ene may eften lese sight ef ene‘s final ebjectives. Te be mere precise: pepular eught te respend net enly te immediate interests [expressed in the need te enjey eneself, re play, te abanden eneself te the mement, te elude . . .} but alse re basic needs and te the final ebjcctive: transferming reality and bettering humankind. Therefere, when I speak abeut pepular film, l am net referring te a cinema which is simply accepted by the cemmunity. but rather te a cinema which else expresses the peeple’s mest prefeund and authentic interests and respends te these interests. In aecerdance with this criterien [and we must keep in mind that in a class seciety, cinema caimet step being an instrument ef dte deminant class), an authentically pepular cinema, that is, a peeple‘s cinema can be fully develeped enly in a seciety where the peeple’s interests ceincide with the state‘s interests; that is, in a secialist seciety. During the censtructien cf secialism, when the preleta.riat has net yet disappeared as a class exercising its pewer tlueugh a cemplex state apparatus antl differences persist between city and ceuntryside, between intellectual and manual werk, when mercantile relatiens have net yet disappeared, and aleng with them certain manifestatiens—

- Cit). -glc

,

-

I 1h

Tet-nrir Gutierrez Alert

censcieus er uncenscieus—ef beurgeeis ideelegy ter. even werse, petty-beurgeeis ideelegltl, when there is still an insufficient material base re depend en and, abeve all, when imperialism still exists semewhere in the werld, art*s secial firnctien acquires very specific shadings in keeping with the mest urgent needs and ebjectives, the mest immediate tasks peeple set fer themselves when they begin te feel ewners -ef their destiny and werk fer its fulfillment? In this case. art’s

functien is re centribute te the best enjeyment ef life. at the aesthetic level, and it dees this net by effering a ludicreus parenthesis in the middle ef everyday reality but by ertrichirrg that very reality. At the

cegnitive level. it centributes te a mere prefeund cemprehensien ef the werld. This helps viewers develep criteria censistent with the path traced by seciety. Etn the ideelegical level, finally, art alse centributes re reaftirming the new seciery’s values and, censequently. te fighting fer its preservatien and develepment. If it is true that at this stage the ideelegical level is given prierity, its effectiveness here stands in direct relatinn te the effectiveness ef the aesthetic and cegnitive levelI will try re establish which appreaches might be apprepriate fer cinema. as ene ef art"s specific manifestatiens, te be able te meve teward these ebjectives.

Frem Film Shaw in Its Purest Benae te the

“ftinema ei ltleae" As with literature, film has preceeded re establish certain basic genres accerding te the expressive needs ef each specific material. ln the

same way that we have jeumalism—magaxines and newspapers—fictienal literature and essays with ml their variety and shadings. all their ewn reseurces and characteristics, in film we have newsreels, sherts and feature-length films. Superficially we can peint eut aflinities between newsreels and daily jeumalism, between sherts and certain kinds ef articles and reperts—the kind which usually appear in magazines and between feature-length films and fictienal literature. especially nevels. er—and we see this mere and mere—the essay. Hut these similarities are rather ebvieus at first glance. C-if mere interest is te define seme peculiarities ef the basic cinematic genres and te underline the fact that. as alse happens in literature. this divisien is cenventienal. and the frentiers which separate them de net hinder the interchange ef expressive reseurces and their ewn specific elements. blewsreels effer primarily direct repertage ef centemperary events; certain events with a specific significance are selected by the carrrera and prejected en the screen te infernr us abeut what is happening in the werld. fine usually dees net receive a prefeund analysis ei these

- Gt).-glc

.-,._-, -

-

,

The Viewer’: Dialectic

I Ill

events" significance but because ef dteir very selectien and fernr ei presentatien pelitical criteria artd, ebvieusly, ideelegy are manifest. First ef all. because ef the emphasis en infemtatien. the newsreel‘s validity is shert-lived. hlevertheless, and at secend glance, dtese newsreels censtinrte a bedy ef material that is testimeny te an cpech, and the impertance ef which is net always predictable. That is. these newsreels can acquire increased histerical value and censtitute the raw materials fer analytic re-elaberatien at a later date. Such a deuble functien turns the newsreel inte a mest impertarrt pelitical insnument. The emphasis here lies in its ideelegical [pelitical] and cegnitive aspects. The aesthetic aspect is suberdinate te them, which is net te say that it dees net exist er cannet--er sheuld net-—play a decisive rele in the greater er lesser efficacy ef the ether twe aspects.

The shert film effers mere variants. It cmi be a primarily infermstive repert. It can be a decumentary in which the events—images and seunds—hreught te the screen are net captured directly frem a real-

life event but, rather, creatively elaberated by the dhecter te emphasise a deeper meaning widt an analytic ebjective- Here the cegnitive aspect taltes primacy. Alse, the shert film may include fictienal werks —little cinematic peems. the narratien ef a shert stery. etc. It is generally 1l]—-=ltlIl minutes leng; that length presuppeses a mere elaberated

stmcture than the newsreel and mere cemplexity in nearing a theme. Censequently, the ferm allews the Iilmmalter te ge inte greater depth

in terms ef beth inferrnatien artd analysis. Thus, its eperatien-its transcendency—is breader. and the aesthetic aspect usually takes en a certain significance. The feature film is usually fictien. The plets are cempletely fabricated accerding te a precenceived idea and develeped en the basis ef dramatic principles. All this cenespends re an established cenventien, which can be either a suppert er a hindrance re the best and mest ceherent cencretien ef the idea which will serve as peint ef departure.

Ctn the ether ha.rtd, in Cuba, we have extensively develeped a type ef feature-lengtlt decumentary in which real-life events are recreated er shewn exactly as they are captured by the camera at the mement ef their eccurrence. These events are arranged in such a way that they functien as elements ef a cemplex sutrcture, threugh which the film can effer a mere prefeund analysis ef seme aspect ef reality. In additien, news repertage can be turned inte a feature-length film. but that femrat is used infrequently and is generally determined by the exceptienal impertance ef the events registered by the camera which en the screen are re-erdered se as re facilitate viewers* better understanding ef them.

r Ge-git

- - . t

1 IE

Tetnris Gtttierres Alert

In Cuba, nermal mevie theater pregramming eensists ef a newsreel. a shert decumentary [er repertage] and a fictien feanrre. Thus, the basic genres. distinct but cemplementary. are seen in ene sitting. Viewers can experience varieus levels ef merltattan which bring them claser ta er farther away frem reality and which can effer them a hetter understanding ef reality. This game ei appreximatiens, preduced tlueugh seeing varieus genres at ene screening. dees net always have the greatest ceherenee ner achieve the greatest level ef ”preductiviry.” because they are films made independently ef each ether which may pessibly be cennected a pasteriari. hlevertlreless, this pessibility ef cennectiens threws light en what ceuld be achieved here, even if we are censidering just the framewerk ef a single film, in the elaberatien ef which the filnmraker has kept in mind this whele bread range ef levels ef appreximating reality. I want re fecus en that genre which best answers the ceneept cf “shew” and which censtitutes the basic preduct in any cinema: the feature fictien film. First. I want te put aside a very specific genre: educatienal film. Even when eperating with the same elements and reseurces as “shew”-film, educatienal films are erganized in terrns ef a special functien: re cemplement, amplify. er illustrate. in a direct manner. classreem teaching. Tirey are like textbeeks but net a substitute fer them- A student’s attitude vis-a-vis educatienal film is radically different fmm the spectater cenfrenting “shew”-film. Classreem teaching demands ef students a censcieus effert, ene directed teward acquiring specific knewledge. In centrast. spectaters ge re “shew”-film in dteir leisure time re relax. te seek diversien. fer entertainment. and re enjey themselves . . . and if viewers de leam semething. it is ef a different nature and dees net censtitute the viewers" primary metivatienblew then. witheut departing frem the framewerlt ef “shew”-film, and mere specifically fictienal film, we can find varieus eptiens in the emphasis. accerding te the fi|m’s cenditien as a shew er as a vehicle ef ideas. We must keep in mind. ef ceurse, that always, re seme extent. the shew remains a bearer ef ideelegy. The superficial interpretatien ef the thesis which helds that the functien ef cinema—ef art in general—in eur seciety is te pmvide “aesthetic enjeyment” at dte same time as “raising the peeple‘s cultural level” has again and again led seme te premete additive feminlae in which the “secial” cnntent (that, which is censidered te be the educatienal aspect. creater ef a revelutienary censcieusness artd alse. at times. the simple diffusien ef a slegan] must be inneduced in an attractive fartn. er. in ether werds. ademed. garnished in such a way as te satisfy the censumers' tastes. It weuld be semething like preducing

- Grit.-glc

.-,-.__-; -

-

,

,

The Viewer‘: lJr'alectic

I lil

a sert ef ideelegical pap fer easy digestien. CI-bvieusly. it is enly a simplistic selutien which censiders femr and centenr as twe separate ingredients which yeu can mix in prepertien. accerding te seme ideal recipe. Furtltermere. dtis attinrde censiders the spectater a passive entity. Such a perspective can enly lead re bureaucratiaing artistic activity. lr dees ner have anything te de widt a dialectical understanding ef the precess ef an erganic integratien ef ferm and centent. in which beth aspects are indisselubly united and. at the same time as they eppese each ether, they interpenetrate each etlter. even te the peint where they ca.rr take ever each erher‘s functiens in that reciprecal interplay. That is. we are dealing widt a cemplex and rich precess ef centradictiens and pessibilities fer develepment. in which the fermal. aesthetic and emetienal aspects, en the ene hand. and the rltematic.

educatienal and ratienal aspects. en the ether. reveal certain affinities but alse their ewn peculiarities. The diverse medalities ef their muitral interactien tfte the degree re which that interactien is erganic. censistent with the premises which generate it} give rise re varieus levels ef “preductivity” tin terms ef functienality. effectiveness and frrlfillmenr ef assigned functiens . . .} in the werk"s relatien te the spectater. Later en. I will effer sertre censideratiens abeut the relatien between the cinematic shew and the spectater. and try re untangle certain mechanisms threugh which that relatien taltes place. Fer the time being. I enly wish re peint eut that these varieus levels ef preductivity --er funcrienality—which the shew may previde and which derive primarily frem the marurer in which the emphasis is disuihuted ameng the abeve mentiened aspects are net excluding levels. Tltat is re say

cinema. especially fictien film. is basically a shew. Its functien as a shew in the purest sense. is te entertain. distract and effer an enjeymenr that cemes frem represenratien. Represented are actiens. situariens and diverse things which have as their peint ef departure reality —in its breadesr sense. These things censrirrrre a fictien. anether different. new reality which will enrich er expand the reality which has been already established er knewn up re this peint. Simple shew is healthy re the extent that it dees net ebstruct viewers‘ spiritual develepment. But, ene cannet ferget that in dte midst ef a seciety immersed in class struggle. the recrearienal spirit which enlivens the shew tends semcwhat re reinferce dte established values, whatever drey are. since the shew serves generally as an escape valve in the face ef preblems and tensiens generated by a centlicting reality. Ar this level what is emphasized is the emetienal aspect in generalThus shew, in its purest sense. just seeks re generate emetiens in the spectater and re previde sensery pleasure. as. fer instance, a sperts event dees. We sheuld net view this with mistrust except when super-

- Gt).-glc

.-,._-5 - -

,

l II]

Tan-ta-s Gutierre: Alert

ficiality becemes stupidity. when happiness becemes friveliry. when healthy ereticism becemes pemegraphy. when. under the guise ef simple entertainment. shew becemes a vehicle fer affirrning beurgeeis cultural traits. and when—censcieusly er uncenscieusly—ir incarnates beurgeeis ideelegy. Thar is. even “entertainment” films, which apparenrly “say nething” and are seemingly simple censumer ebjects. ceuld alse fulfill the elemental functien ef spiritually enriching the spectater if they did net. te use a ceined expressien, centain “ideelegical deviarienism.” The ceneept ef censumprien in a capitalist seciety is net— and sheuld net be—the same as in a secialist ene. But if we want re ge further. if we want film re he geed fer semething mere {er fer the same thing. but mere prefeundly}. if we want it re fulfill its functien mere perfectly (aesthetic, secial. etltical. ideelegical . . .1. we eught re guarantee that it censtitutes a facter in spectaters‘ develepment. Film will be mere fruitful re the extent that it pushes spectaters reward a mere pmfeund understanding ef reality and censequently. re the extent that it helps viewers live mere actively and incites them re step being mere spectaters in the face ef reality. Te de this. film eught re appeal net enly re emetien and feeling but alse re reasen and intellect. In this case. beth instances eught re exist indisselubly united. in such a way that they ceme re preveke, as Pascal said. aurhenric “shudderings a.rtd shal-rings ef reasen.” Thus. it is ner a questien ef arr emetien re which ene can add a dese ef reasen. ideas. er “centent.” Rather, it is emetien tied re the tIll.li'rI‘tIlI-'E.'.l']|t ef semething, re the ratienal cemprehensien ef seme aspect ef reality. Such emetien is qualitatively different frem that which a simple shew will elicit (suspense. the chases. terrer. sentimental situariens, ercj]. altheugh it might well be reinferced er impeded by these. Ctn the ether hand. when cinema. in the well-inrentiened precess ef shaping its ebjecrives—re aptly fulfill its secial funcrien—neglecrs re fulfill its functien as shew a.|rd appeals exclusively re reasen {re the viewers‘ intellectual efferts} it nericeably reduces its effectiveness because it disregards ene ef its essential aspects: enjeymenr. The develepment ef art is expressed net enly in a successive change in its functiens accerding re the varieus secial fermatiens which generate art threugheut histery, but alse as an enrichment and a greater cemplexity ef the reseurces which arr has at its dispesal. Frem the magician cave artist re the artist ef the scientific era, the ehjet a"art has taken en varieus successive functiens: an i1'IsIt‘l]I'l'I-eftl re deminate natural ferces. an instrument fer ene class re denrinate anether. fer affimring an idea. fer cemmunicaring, fer self-awareness. fer develeping a critical censcieusness. fer celebratien. fer evading reality. fer cempeesatien, er fer simple aesthetic enjeyment. . - . In every

- Cit).-glc

-

-

,

The 'v'ietver'.t Dialeetie

III

histerieal mement the aeeent is plaeed en ene er anether ef these funetiens and the ethers are rejeeted. Nevertheless, we must net ferget that all ef tltese ftmetiens fenn ene single hedy ef aeeumulated experienee anti. eut ef all ef them. seme valuable element endures whieh will enrieh the ethers. The varieus levels ef eemprehensien (er ef interpretatien} ef an artistie werlt heeeme superimposed and express art’s aeeumulatien ef multiple functiens ever the euurse ef histery. Thus. a eave artist is present in all true art. and if he was never effeetive eneugh te attraet real hiseu, eertaiuly he was ahle te mehiliae the hunters. Suggestien eeutiuues te eperate with greater er lesser sueeess. aeeerriing te the ape-eifie eireumstanees ef eaeh partieular werlt. That is hew se many artistie werlts eperate when they prefigure vietery ever an enemy and exalt a warrier's hereism. Hut the eeurse ef histery has given us anetlter type ef artist whe werlts as well threugh reasen. threugh understanding and whe. in speeifie eireumstanees. fully attains his ehjeetive. The varieus funetiens whieh art has fulfilled have enriehed artistie aetivity with new expressive reseurces.

The magnifieent arsenal ef reseurees aeeumulated threugheut histery whieh eentemperary art has at its dispesal permits it te fully exereise its funetiens at all levels ef eemprehensieu, suggestien and enjeyment.

Shaw and Fteality: The Extraerdinary

and the Everyday Regarding tltese films whieh are usually seen en televisien and whieh mature speetaters may feel uneemfertahle with and find meaningless heeause they eannut eeherently relate the films te the eemplex images ef the werld whieh they have fermed during their livesi peeple may well aslt, “ii-that dees this have te tie with reality?" A ehild might answer with anether questien. *‘Well. isn*t it just a mevie?" The questiens remain pending, ef eeurse. It weuld he a hard taslt te explain te a ehild hew, fer mature peeple, the sphere ef reality is eenstantly artieulated in mere detail in ene’s mind, and hew seme things are left hehind. it happens in sueh a way that an atiult‘s image ef the werld eemes te he very different frem a ehild‘s. lvlature adults lteep disearding mere er less apparent layers ef reality, in erder te draw eleser and eieser te its essenee. They discriminate and assess reaiity’s different aspeets as a eensequenee ef an ever deeper understanding ef reality. That is why a mature persen prehahly feels dissatisfied vis-a-vis sueh a film. But, en the ether hand, the ehild*s questien dees net allew fer a quiels, superfieial respense. Certainly a film is ene thing and reality is anether. We eannet ferget that these are the rules ef the game. Elf

- Gt).-gle

.-2,; -

-

,

I12

Temds Gutierrez riled

ceurse, film and reality are net—cannet be—cempletely diverced frem each ether. A film ferms part ef reality. Like all man's werlcs in-

cluded in the field ef art, film is a manifestatien ef secial censcieusness and alse censtitutes a refiectien ef realityWith regard te cinema, there exists a cenditien which can be deceptive. The signs which cinematic language empleys are ne mere than images ef separate aspects ef reality itself. It is net a questien cf celers, lines, seunds, textures and ferms, but ef ebjects, perseus, situatiens, gestures, and expressiens . . . which, freed frem their usual, everyday cennetatien, take en a new meaning within the cnntext ef fictien. Film thus captures images ef iselated aspects ef reality. It is net a simple, mechanical cepy. It dees net capture reality itself. in all its breadth and depth. Hewever. cinema can reach greater depth attd generaliaatien by establishing new relatiens ameng these images ef iselated aspects. Thereby, these aspects take en new meaning—a meaning net cempletely alien te them, and can be mere prefeund and mere revealing—upen cennecting themselves te ether aspects and preducing sheclts and assnciatiens which in reality are dilute and epaque because ef their high degree ef cemplexity and because ef day-te-day reutine. Here we may find the beginnings ef a revealing eperatien-—beund te reach an ever-grewing degree ef cemplexity and richness—which is specific te cinema because it is a language neurished by reality and which refiects reality thmugh images ef real ebjects which can actually be seen and heard as if it were a large erdering and serting-eut mirrer. Such a way ef leeking at reality threugh fictien effers spectaters the pessibility ef appreciating, enjeying. and better understanding reality. But that must net ceafuse us. Cinematic realism dees net lie in its alleged ability te capture reality “just like it is" [which is “just like it appears te be"), but rather lies in its ability te reveal, threugh asseciatiens and cennectiens between varieus iselated aspects ef reality—that is te say. threugh creating a “new reality"—deeper, mere essential layers ef reality itself. Therefere. we can establish a difference between the ebjcctive reality which the werld effers us—life in its bmadest sense——and the image ef reality which cinema effers us within the narrew frame ef the screen. Due weuld be genuine reality: the ether, fictien.

New l weuld like te elab-t:-rate ea hew the cinematic shew effers viewers an image ef reality which belengs te the sphere ef fictien, the imaginary, the unreal. in this sense it stands in relative eppesitien te the very reality it belengs te. Elf ceurse. the sphere ef the real. in its breadest sense, includes secial life and all man's cultural manifesta-

» Ge-git

- - -.

The Viewer‘: llielelwr

I 23

tiens. Therefere. it encempasses the sphere ef fictien itself. ef shew— as a cultural ebject. But. evidently, in fact. it is really a questien ef twe different spheres. each with its ewn peculiarities, which can be characterised net enly as twe aspects ef reality, but as twe H'tl!t'.'-'mEHl'.5‘ in the pmcess ef appreximatien te its essence. Shew can be cenceived as a mediatien in the precess ef grasping reality- The mement ef the shew cerrespends te the mement ef abstractien in the precess ef understanding. The artistic shew inserts itself te the sphere ef everyday reality {the sphere ef what is centinueus, stable and relatively calm . . .] as alt extraerdinary mement, as a rupture. It is eppesed te daily life as an unreality. an etlter-reality, insefar as it meves and relates te the spectater en art ideal plane. {in this being ideal —separatien frem everyday life —it expresses its unusual and extraerdiaary character. Therefere. shew is net eppesed te the typical. but rather it can incamate the typical as it is a selective precess and an exacerbatien ef eutstattdiugsignificant—traits ef reality.) We cannet say. hewever. that it is an extensien ef (daily) reality but, rather, that it is always an extensien ef [the artists‘ and the viewers‘) subjective reality te the extent that it ebjectifies man*s ideelegical and emetienal centent. Cinema can draw viewers cleser te reality witheut giving up its cenditien ef unreality. ftctien, and ether-reahty as leng as it lays dewn a bridge te reality se that viewers can retum laden with experiences and stimelatien. The sum ef experience and infermatiett which viewers gain en the basis ef this relatien may net ge beyend tl1at—mere er less active sensery leve|—, but can alse bring abeut in viewers, ence they have stepped being viewers we are facing that ether aspect ef reality [the viewers‘ ewn life. their daily reality]. a series ef reasenings, judgments. ideas and thus a better cemprehensien ef reality itself and an adaptatien ef their behavier. ef their practical activity. The spectater's respense fellews the mement ef the shew; is a result ef the shew . . J‘

The mest secially preductive shew surely cannet be ene which limits itself te being a mere er less precise {“truthfel,“ servile . . ._j| refiectien ef reality just as reality effers itself in its immediacy. That weuld be ne mere than a duplicatien ef the image we already have ef reality, a redundancy. in shert and, as such. weuld lack interest. We ceuld hardly say that it is a shew. If we claim that the shew. that which manifests itself threugh what we call fictien. is intreduced as a mement ef rupture, ef disturbance in the ntidst ef daily reality. and in this sense eppeses it and negates it, we must establish very clearly what this negatieu ef reality eught te censist ef se that it becemes secially preductive.

- Gt).-glc

.-,._; -

-

,

I24

Temris Gntiérree .-lice

There is a stery ef a painter. Chinese fer all we knew, whe enee painted a beautiful lattdscape in which yeu ceuld see meuntains. rivers. trees . . . rendered with se much grace. in accerdance with the dictates ef his imaginatien. that all a viewer needed was te hear the birds* sengs and feel the wind pass between the trees te cemplete the illusien ef standing in frent ef a real landscape and net a picture. The painter. ence finished. steed there enraptured centemplatieg the landscape which had fiewed frem his head artd hands. . . . He was in such ecstasy that he began te walk teward the picture and feel cempletely enveleped by the landscape. He walked ameng the trees. fellewed the ceurse ef the fiver. and withdrew furtlter and further inte the meuntains until he disappeared teward the heri:-zenA great finale fer a creative artist. prebably. But similar experiences ef aesthetic ecstasy fer any viewers eught te he cenditiened se that they de net lese dteir way back and se that they can retum te reality beth spiritually enriched and stimulated se as te live better in it. Fer that reasen. whatever the landscape ef the Chinese painter effers with all ef its mysterieus charm, it represents the abselute negatien ef reality and tltus [keeping te the plane ef metapher] death er insanity. A shew which exercises this kind ef fascinatien fer the spectater can be characterised as a “metaphysical negatien" ef reality. Tltat is, a negatien which tries te abelish reality threuglt an act ef evasien. Cf ceurse. ner weuld this be the mest secially preductive kind ef shew. Hut. fer a leng time new. that has been the ideal kind ef shew fer a class which is essentially hypecritical and impetent. but which has been capable ef inventing the mest sephisticated justificatien mechanisms te try te hide frem itself the mest prefeund levels ef reality which it cannet—er dees net want—te change. Hut that is net the case in a seciety which is rebuilding itself en a new basis, whese ebjective is tn eliminate all vestiges ef expleitatien ef man by man. which demands all its members‘ active participatien and censequently the develepment ef each persen‘s secial censcieusness. Metaphysical negatieu. which tries te abelish reality threugh an act ef evasien. eppeses dialectical negatien, which aims te transferm reality tl'treugh revelutienary practice. As Engels said. “Negatien in dialectics dees net mean simply saying ne, er declaring that semething dees net exist. er destreying it in any way ene likes?“ Furtlter en he says, . . tlterefere. every kind ef thing has its characteristic kind er way ef being negated. ef being negated in such a way that it gives rise te a develepment. and it is just the same with every kind ef cenceptien er idea."" Therefere. a shew which is secially preductive will be that which negates daily reality (the false crystallised values ef daily er

t ct»,-51¢

e e .

The lr'ietver'.r Dialectic

115

erdinary censcieusness} and at the same time establishes the premises ef its ewn negatien; that is, its negatien as a substitute fer reality er an ebject ef centemplatien. It is net effered as a simple means ef escape er censelatien fer a burdened spectater. ratlter. it prepitiates the viewers‘ return te the ether reality—that which pushed them mementarily te relate themselves te the shew. te beceme abserbed. te enjeyi te play. . - . They sheuld net retum cemplacent. tranquil. empty. were eut, and inert; rather, they sheuld be stimulated and aimed fer practical actien. This means that shew must censtitute a facter in the develepment. threugh enjeyment, ef the spectaters‘ censcieusness. ln deing that, it meves them frem remaining simple. passive tcentemplative) spectaters in the face ef reality.

The Centemplative and the Active Speetater Shew is essentially a phenemenen intended fer centemplatien. Peeple, reduced mementarily te the cenditien ef spectaters. centemplate a peculiar phenemenen. the characteristic traits ef which aim at the unusual. the remarkable. the exceptienal. the eut ef the erdinary. Certain real phenemena—natnral er secial phenemena—can indeed manifest themselves spectacularly: natural ferces unleashed. grandiese landscapes, wars. mass dentenstratiens- . . . They censtitute a shew

insefar as they breals dewn the habitual image we have ef reality.

They effer an unfamiliar image. a magnified and revealing ene, te the peeple centemplating them—the spectaters. And just as reality can manifest itself spectacularly. se tee can real shew, the kind peeple previde fer themselves in play er in artistic expressien, be mere er less spectacular in the degree te which it distances itself frem. er draws cleser te, daily reality. But in any case. shew exists as such en behalf ef the spectater. Hy definitien spectaters are peeple whe cen-

template and whese cenditien is determined net just by the characteristics er the phenemenen, but rather by the pesitien which they as individuals {subjects} eccupy in relatien te it. Peeple can be acters er spectaters in the face ef the same phenemenen. [lees this mean that the spectater is a passive being‘? ln a general sense, net enly all knewledge but the entire cemplex ef interests and values which make up censcieusness is shaped and develeped, beth secie-histerically and individually, threugh a precess which ltas as its peint ef departure the mement ef centemplatien {sensery censcieusness} and culminatien in the mement ef ratienal er theeretical censcieusness. We can say. therefere, that the cenditien ef being spectater, as a mement in the precess ef the subjeet‘s apprepriating er

1

- Gt).-glc

.-,._; -

-

,

I Eh

Teruris Gutierrez flied

interieri:-;ing—a reality which includes, ef ceurse, the cultural sphere as a preduct ef specific human activity—is fundamental. But clearly. centemplatien itself dees net censist ef a simple. passive apprepriatien by the individual: it respends te a human need tct impreve living cenditiens and already bears within it a certain activity. This activity can be greater er lesser depending net enly en subjects and their secial and histerical lecus, hut alse—and this is what we want te emphasiee—en the peculiarities ef the centemplated ebject, and en hew these can censtitute a stimulus fer unleashing in the viewers anether kind ef activity, a censecjuential actien beyend the shew.

When l refer te “centemplative" spectaters, I mean enes whe de net nteve beyend the passive-centemplative level; inasmuch as “active” spectaters. taking the mement ef live centemplatien as their peint ef departure. weuld be these whe generate a precess ef critically understanding reality (including, ef ceurse. the shew itself l and censequently. a practical. transferming actien. "v'iewers leaking at a shew are faced with the preduct ef a creative precess ef a fictitieus image which alse stemmed frem the rutist’s act ef live centemplatien ef ebjective reality. Titus a shew can be directly centemplated as an ebject in itself, as a preduct ef practical human activity. But viewers can alse refer te the mere er less ebjective centent reflected by the shew. which functiens as a mediatien in the precess ef understanding reality. When a relatien takes place enly at the first level. that is. when shew is centemplated merely as an ebject in itself and nething mere, “cc-ntemplative" spectaters can satisfy their need fer enjeyment and aesthetic pleasure. but their activity. expressed fundamentally in accepting er rejecting the shew. dees net ge beyend the cultural plane. Here the cultural plane is effered te peeple as a simple censumer ebject. and any reference te the secial reality that cenditiens it is reduced te an affirmatien ef its values er. in ether cases, te a cemplacent “critir:|ue." in capitalist seciety, the typical censumer film shew is the light cnmedy er meledrama- it has invariably had a “happy ending" and has previded, and te a certain degree centinues te previde. a rather efficient ideelegical weapen te premete and eenselidate cenfermism ameng large secters ef the pepulatien. First. there is a plet. In its numereus situatiens we are made te feel that the stable values ef seciety are threatened. via the hem whe incarnates these values, which. en an ideelegical plane. make up his physiegnemy. That is te say, these are the values which {peeple almest never understand why this happens) have beceme sacred ideas and ebjects ef wership and veueratien

Cill

._|"--|

.'=":1'-1-.1-."-1

The 'v"iet-ver'.r Dialectic

I21‘

[hemeland as an abstract netien. private preperty. religien. and generally all that which censtitutes beurgeeis merality}. In the end these values are saved, and we leave the mevie theater with the sensatien that all is well. that there is ne need te change anything. Cine veil after anether has been drawn ever the reality that prevents peeple frem being happy and ferces them te turn what ceuld be an amusing gatue, a healthy entertainment, inte an attempt at evasien nnte which the in-

dividual. trapp-ed in a web ef relatiens preventing him frem lmewing

and hilly develeping himself. hurls himself. Shew. as a refuge in the face ef a hestile reality cannet but cellaberate with all the facters which sustain such a reality te the extent that it acts as a pacifier, an escape valve, and cenditiens the centemplative spectater vis-it-vis reality. The mechanism is tee ebvieus and nansparent and has been deneunced all tee eften? lvlany selutiens have been suggested fer such an irritating situatien, which inv-et'L'-t the mle ef the spectater-subject submitting him te the sad cenditien ef ebject. The “happy ending"s" discredit, in the midst ef a reality whese mete appearance vielently dispreved the resy image seld te peeple, led te the use ef ether mere sephisticated mechanisms. The mest spectacular ene, surely, has been the “happening.” where the game with the spectater is taken te a level which is presumably cerresive fer an alienating and repressive seciety. l"-let enly dees the happening give spectaters an eppertunity te participate. but it even drags them in against their will and invelves them in “prevecative" and "subversive" actiens. But all this gees en. ef ceurse. clearly within the shew where anything cart happen attd many things can be vielated. Wliat prevails is the unusual, the unexpected, the surprise, and the exhibitienism. . . . Furthermere, it can be as useful as a ritual which helps te shape a specific behavier. Generally, it can be very funny, especially fer these whe can afferd te just leek at things frem abeve because undeubtedly that weuld give them a certain kind ef relief fer. in spite ef the happening's seemingly trttculent and disquieting appearance. it is an ingenieus expedient, which in the final analysis helps te preleng the situatien. net te change anything; in ether werds. te just sit and wait while these helew teach seme kind ef an agreement. In cinematic shew, ef ceurse. there is ne reem fer this kind ef means te facilitate er preveke spectaters’ “participatien” en the basis ef unpredictability. hlevertlteless, the preblem ef spectaters‘ participa-

tien still persists. it demands a selutien that is within—-er better, based en—the cinematic shew itself, which reveals hew simplistically this preblem has eften been appreached. The first thing tltis uneasiness teveals is semething we frequently ferget but which nevertheless may be art axiematic tmth: the respense ene wants te rtrease tn the

r Ge.-git

- - -.

llll

Terrrris Gutierrez Alec

spectater is net enly that which is elicited daring tire slrew, but else titer which is elicited vis-tit-vis reality. That is te say. what is ftrndamental is real participatien. net illusery participatien. During perieds cf relative stability in a class seciety. there is minimal individual secial participatien. In nne way er anetlter. threugh physical. mural er ideelegical ceercien. the individual’s activity takes place mainly within the framewerk cf the direct preductien ef ntaterial geeds. which mestly serve te meet the expleiting class* needs. lndividual actien eutside this framewerk is illusery. Hewever. at these times when the class snuggle is exacerbated. the level ef peeple*s general participatien grews. At the same time, a leap eccurs in the develepment ef secial censcieusness. In these mements cf mpture—extraerdinary mements—spectacular events eccur within secial reality, and when faced with them. individuals take a stand in keeping with their ewn interests. Witheut a deubt. it is abeve all in these circumstances that we see revealed what tlrime Cesaire referred te as the “sterile attitude ef a spectater.“ Reality demands that peeple take sides when faced with it. and that demand is fundamental te the relatienship between man and the werld at all times threugheut histery. If we censistently assume as a principle that “the werld dees net satisfy mart, se he decides te change it threugh his activity.“'=" we must remember that man’s activity, that tfing ef sides which becemes practical. transferming actien. is cenditiened by the type ef secial relatiens existing at any given mement. And in eur case. in a seciety where we are building secialism, reality alse demands partisan activity and a grewing level ef secial participatien frem all these individuals whe make up this seciety. This precess is enly pessihle if accempanied by a parallel develepment in secial censcieusness. The cinematic shew falls within that pmcess insefar as it refiects a tendency ef the secial censcieusness which invelves the spectaters themselves and insefar as it can affect t.he spectaters as a stimulus. but alse as an ebstacle, fer censequent actien. rind when l speak abrrut censequent actien, I am referring te this specific type ef participatien. histnrieally and secially cenditiened. a cencrete participatien which implies peeple's adequate respense te the preblems ef secial reality, especially these ef an ideelegical and pelitical nature. What this is abeut. then, is stimulating and charuteling spectaters te act in the directien nf histerical mevement. aleng the path ef seciety's develepment. Te preveke such a respense in the spectater it is necessary, as a first cenditien. that reality‘s preblems be presented in the shew. that cencems be expressed and transmitted. that questiens be pesed. That is te say. it is necessary te have an “epen” shew.

- Ge -gle

.

The l-fiel-vcr's Diulertic

12'?

But the ceneept cf “epenness“ is tee bread; it is present at every level where the artistic werk eperates. Hy itself, epenness dees net guarantee the spectater‘s censequent participatien. In the case ef an epen shew presenting cencems that are net enly aestltetic—as a seurce cf active enjeyment—but rather cenceptual and ideelegical, it becemes {witheut ceasing te be a grtrne in the sense that every shew is} a setieus eperatitrn because it trruches ett underlying levels Elf

reality. hlevertheless te achieve the greatest efficacy and functienality. it is net eneugh fer a werk te be epen

in the sense trf indeterminate. The

werk itself must bear these premises which can bring the spectater te discem reality. That is te say, it must push spectaters inte the path ef truth, inte ceming te what can be called a dialectical censcieusness

abeut reality- Then it ceuld eperate as a real “guide fer actien." Elne sheuld net cenfuse epenness with ambiguity. incensistency. eclecticism, arbitrariness . . . ‘What can the artist base himself en in erder te cenceive a shew which weuld net just pese preblems but weuld alse shew viewers the read they eught te take in erder te discever fer themselves a higher level ef discemment? llndeubtedly. here art must make use ef the instruments develeped by science fer research: art must apply all methedelegical reseurces at hand and all it cart gain frem infermatien tlteery, linguistics, psychelegy, sncielegy, etc. Shnw, insefar as it becemes the negative pele ef the reality—fictien relatienship. must develep an apt strategy fer each circumstance. We must net ferget that. in practice, spectaters cannet be censidered absu-actiens, but. rather, peeple whn are histnrieally and secially cenditiened, in this way, the shew must address itself first ef all te cencrete spectaters tn whem it must unfeld its eperative petential te the fullest. Translated by Julia Lesage HDIES I. Fatricie Cuamdn. in netes he wmte befere making llertle e_t" Chile. said at that timc—-the menths which preceded the fascist ceup—he never weuld have made a fictienal film widt acters reciting a text. because reality it-

self. which was unfelding befere his very eyes. was changing tremendeuslyIn times ef secial cenvulsien, reality leses its everyday character. and everything which happens is extraerdiaary. new. unique . . . The dynamics ef

change. the trends ef develepment. the essence are manifested mere directly and clearly titan in mements ef relative calm. Fer that reasen. it atu'acts eur attentien and in that sense we can say it is spectacular. Surely. the best thing te de is te try te capture these mements in their purest state—decumentary— and te leave the re-elaberatien ef these elements reality effers fer a time

- Ge -glc

.

I ill]

Tetnris Gutierrez .-tllerr

when reality unfelds witlteut any apparent disturbance. Then fictien is a medium. art ideal instrument. with which te penetrate reaIity's essenceE. This fanteus cede sets ferth. ameng ether things, that film “builds character. develeps right ideals, inculcates cerrect principles. and all this in attractive stery ferm." Regardless ef any discrepancy frem the “right ideals" and “cerrect principles" which this revealing decument tried te premete. it is interesting te see hew it reserts te the mest puerile mechanism—that spectaters “held up fer admiratien high types ef characters." ‘rlrlitheut a deubt. that mechanism is the ene which best reveals rcaetienary attitudes, because its enly purpese is te meld an idealised and cemplaisant image ef reality. {Meley. R.. Tire Hrtys tItjj‘ir:e, “Cede te Gevem the Making ef Talking. 5ynchrenieed and Silent Metien Pictures,“ blew "r!'erk: Iilebbs-Merrill. Ce., I945. p. 246}. 3. in the thesis abeut artistic and literary culture centained in the Flutefenna Pregrrrmritir-rt rlel Pnrtirie Crrtnrtnistrr de Crrise iHavana: Ed. BUR. l'El'l't5. p- Elli} we can read, “Se-elalist seciety calls fer art and literature which. while prnviding aesthetic enjeyment. centribute te raising the peeple‘s cultural level. An extremely creative climate. which impels tr.rt and Iitcrttture's pregtess as the legitimate aspiratien ef werking peeple. must be achieved. rltrt and literature will premete the highest values. enrich eur pceple's lives and participate actively in shaping the cemmunist persenality-“ 4. Certainly, T"v' has breught inte the heme the mest spectacular intages ef reality. Fer example. I thinlt abeut art average tlrmerican drinking beer while watching televisien and seeing Saigerfs peliee chief put a bullet threugh the skull ef a prisener in full public view. and all ef this in celer. Therefere. the representrrtien ef dtese mements has te adjust te new circumstances. Elut the mest impnrtant thing is that an act se pewerful, se unusual. se naked. ence it is screened as shew—that is te say, ence its centemplatien is made available te the viewers—is feund te have netably reduced its petenrial as a generater ef a censequent reactien in practice. Prebably. the surprise weuld make the viewer jump up frem his chair, but fellewing that, he weuld ge te the refrigeratur te epen up anether beet, which weuld make him sleep seundly. After all, dtese events have beceme little by little everyday facts ef life- What weuld we have te de te meve this viewer? lt is net eneugh that the shew be real—arrd that it might he happening at the very mement that ene leeks at it—te generate a “preductive” reactien in the spectater- Fer that it weuld be necessary, pessibly, te resert te mere sephisticated mechanisms. 5. Engels, F., .4.-rti-ljttlrring, Mescew: Fereign Languages Publishing Heuse, rsss. p. I94. I5. liriri., p. 195. 'l'. Etrecbr said: “The beurgeeis passes beyend. in the tlteater, the thresheld ef anether werld which has ne relatien at all tn daily life. It enjeys there a kind ef venal emetien in a ferm ef a drunkenness which eliminates tltettght and judgment“ {Created in ‘tr’. F-Lletz. Hertelt Brecht. Buenes Aires: La Mandragera. I959. p. I3-E‘-1.

GD"

._|"--|

--: -3--1."-r

Tlre l-fietver‘.-r Itialecrtc

Iiil

ll. “And mest ef all beware. even in theught. ef assuming the sterile attitude ef the spectater. fer life is net a spectacle, a sea ef griefs is net a prescenium. a man whe waits is net a dancing bear . . ." [Cesaire. Aime. Ceirier rr"rtn retenr nu pays rnrtel, Editiens Presence Africaine, Paris, IRTI, p. til}. 9. Lenin. "ll'.l.. Currrternes filesrijices. Havana: Editera Pelitica. l9ft4. p. IDS.

-

Ctr gle

.__.-.,

. ,- .¢.-

Cl ' " I f e

D‘i“‘l'*“ ‘it’ (299315

uutveastiif brrdlcntearrr

art). Continental Development: Socio hlstorl ‘ ‘cal Contexts and odes of Production] Consumption

Ctr y_t___lt;‘

Cl ' " I f e

D‘i“‘l'*“ ‘it’ (299315

uutveastiif brrdlcntearrr

An “Other” History The New Latin American Cinema Ana M. tripe:

The netien cf Latin rtrmerica exceeds all natienaiisms. There is a cemmen preblem: misery. There is a cemmen ebjective: the ecenemic, pelitical. and cultural freedem te make a Latin American cinema. An engaged. didactic. epic, revelutienary cinema. A cinema witheut frentiers. with a cemmen language and cemmen preblems. Glauher Recha, ltevelnprre rle Cinema Neva

Ely l'I-.l55—5?'. filmmaking in Latin America had suffered irreparable reverses. In Brasil, the bankruptcy ef the Hellyweed-medeled "v'era Crux studies in 1954 had pmven that art industrial structure and capitaliaatien were net sufficient te guarantee the develepment cf a Eraeilian cinema. Frem I955 te l';I-IIST, preductien figures hevered between 25 and 35 films per year and censisted primarily ef chuncirruius made in Rie de Janeire fer demestic censumprien-‘ In Argentina. the ceup rl'e'tet that eusted Peren in I954 alse dismantled all state pretectien ef the cinema and paralyzed an already waning industry. Altheugh Argentine preductien had tepped 5|] films per year in the late lEI4lIls and early lllfiils, by I95? annual preductien had drepped te I5 films. In Chile, the meribund state enterprise fer the cinema. Chile Films. struggled fer survival and mtly ene er twe nalterlictrl Histrrry F.'euietv, ne. 4|. ll-l'Ell'~, pp. '93-1 lfr. Hy permissien ef the publisher.

-

T Q|l-._)- L

135

|'5. . . Ir_

-

'

I

rss

Ana st. Lupe:

tional films were preduced per year- In Cuba, a disastreus trend of Cuban-Mexican ce-pmductlons weund down and national production almost disappeared- Bolivia had never recovered from the advent of the seund cinema and had released no national films since I933. By l'£lt5il~t5‘5l. although total production figures for most Latin American nations were not much greater. a treruendous difference in the nature of filmmaking artd filmic reception wm evident? In Argentina. the efforts of Femando Bini at the [locumentary School of Santa Fe had challenged the otherwise prevalent industrial mede of filmmaking. and ether radicalized young filmmakers had taken the cinema —ct-rnceived of as a tool for demystification and revolution—under-

ground. in Brazil. the innovative Cinema Hove mevement emerged from the ashes of the failed industrial efforts of "v'era Cm: to revitalizte the Brazilian cinema. In the decade following the uiumph of the revolution in 1955!. Cuba became the first Latin American nation where it was possible to constrrrct a new cinematic culture on a national scale by reorganizing all aspects of the cinematic experience- In Chile, the national cinema was already synonymous with Pepular Llnity atrtl the Allende political experiment.‘ In Bolivia. yeung filmmakers like lorge Banjines challenged the hegemony of the state film-

making apparatus and subverted its principles to produce a cinema for the majerity Indian population of the nation. ln all Latin American nations. the lftbfis were years of cultural and political effervescence. and the cinema—cenceived of as an aesthetic, cultural. and political.-‘ideological phenemenen-—was self-consciously inurrersed in the maelstrom of popular and intellectual debates. In Brazil. Argentina, Chile. Cuba. and Bolivia cine clubs, film societies. film magazines, and museum exhibitions mobilised an active interest

in national film culture and amateur filmmaking as committed activities. Throughout the continent-—in nations as radically different as Argentina. Bolivia. and Cuba—the cinema‘s role in society artd its relationship to the continent's struggle for liberation were redefined in the late l".l5lIts and llttirtts. By l".-ittifi or I969, the cinema of Latin America could rightly be called the blew Latin American Cinema, a parr-Latin American cinematic mevement dedicated to the people of the continent and their struggles for cultural. political, and economic autonomyBy comparison to the standard or dominant cinematic mevements and national cinemas, the New Latin American Cinema is peculiar: a marginal, politicized. often clandestine cinematic practice that has managed to give expression to new forms artd contents; to create alternative medes of production, consumption, and reception; to produce great box office hits as well as utterly clandestine films; and, in short,

- Ctr. -glc

.

-

An "t'Jtlr-er" History

I3?

to change the social function of the cinema in Latin America. It is a challenge to scholars because it spans a somewhat nebulous 25- to litiyear period l_frem the late l95tls to the present], at least a dozen countries [which teday include the Central American nations), and every genre or cinematic mode of production. while maintaining a tenacious. albeit often problematic. unity. lt is a “movement.” but one much larger than airy of the cinematic practices usually studied under this category, and one more unified than the intematienal modemist or avmrt-garde cinemas. Unlike other “new cinema" postwar movements {such as Italian bleorealism, the French blew Wave. the blew Crerman Cinema], its unity is not linuted to the desire for nationalist expression and differentiation from the Hollywood “pleasure machine." Furthemtore. the blew Latin American Cinema is a political cinema conttrtitted to praxis artd to the sociopolitical investigation and transfomration of the underdevelopment that characterizes Latin America. It is thus one that cannot be properly understood irt isolation fmm political, social, economic, cultural. and aesthetic forcesThe nature of the movernent itself, then, demands that the analyst rethink the categories which are nomtally utilized to construct film historical discourses. Telling and analyzing the development of this mevement entail much more than providing a list of “first films" and dates and identifying the “great men and women" artd the “nations” behind them. If we cannot pin the movement down to a nation, to a hard-and-fast periodization, to the artisuy of individual rrnrerrr.r, er to a general dominant aesthetic, then we have to begin by investigating other altemative-s for structuring history if it is going to explain as well as trace the specificity of dtis cinemaln this essay, I will pmvide an analysis of the historical development of the blew Latin American Cinema. My primary concem is to analyze the difficulties involved in the historical study of this cinema and my focus will be upon the complex network of determinants that catalyzed the movement's emergence and. later, its efforts to achieve pan-Latin American unity. In this process, I will also account for a number of specific problems related to the nature of the cinema in Latin America and its internatienal position: the problems of influence. pan-Latin Americanism and nationalism, dependence and independence. “otherness” and cultural domination and hegemony- This essay addresses recent debates among Latin American filmmakers and aruong scholars of Latin American film that have questioned the status {and even the very existence} of the blew Latin American CinemaQuestions such as “ls the blew Latin American Cinema dead'I'“ “Has it ever existed?“ have echoed in places as disparate as the intematienal

r Ge.-git

- - . l

lfiil

Anu M. Ldpez

Festival of blew Latin American Cinema in Havana {annually}, the Edinburgh Film Festival t'l'§itS5‘,t, the Second blew Latin American Cinema Festival in lowa {I936}. and the pages of countless jeumals. Some have argued that the blew Latin American Cinema as a movement is best defined in political terms: the movement coheres and exists because it is the cinematic elaboration of radical left aspirations for Latin America. As such, it represents a radical “break” from existing cinematic practices. tltthenr have argued that the blew Latin American Cinema is a "fiction" and that the national cinema movements that make up the blew Latin American Cinema are far too disparate to be discussed as a coherent "movement." In this essay. altltough affimting the existence and continued political viability of the blew Latin American Cinema, l present a different way of defining the movement that takes into account its historical evolution from and its transformation of national and intematienal cinematic practices.

‘-Alhat is the blew Latin American Cinema? The tertn represents an attempt to impose unity on a number of diverse cinematic practices; a political move to create an nrder out of disorder and to emphasize similarities rather than differences. It acquires its cultural and political currency re-ueactively, as it is used to redefine and value contestarienal cinematic movements that emerged independently in different countries. l..lnlike other “ncw" cinemas in Europe, the blew Latin American Cinema is not traceable to a “miracle year" [like I959 for the French blew Wave} or to a single manifesto [like the Ctberhausen document for dte blew Genrran Cinema}. It emerged slowly. its difference from other practices beceming gradually more prenounced, its goals coalescing throughout the l'5lt5I]s and 'l[ls- As terms go, it is a critical handle fraught with as many tlefinitional inconsistencies as the French "blew ‘rlv'ave" or the "blew" Crerruan Cinema. Etut unlike these other critical categories which self-desnucted as the different concerns of their practitioners hecarrre evident in their third and fourth films, the appropriateness and cultural currency of the term “blew Latin American Cinema" has continued to grow, so much so that today the term seems to have beceme completely institutionalized. Fifteen years ago we could speak of a “Tltird Cinema." an “Imperfect Cinema" or a “Cinema of Hunger," but today these terrns have become practically obsolete and are subsumed under the far more powerful and empowering “blew Latin American Cinema.“ When the term is used today it always implies a socio-political atti-

tude that constitutes the principal source of unity for these films and

C-or -gle

-

-.-

An “t.'Ilttrer" History

I39

practices. That attitude can be summarized as a desire to change the social function of the cinema, to trartsfonu the Latin American cinema into an instrument of change and of consciousness-raising or ceercientizacitin. Always conceived of as a challenge to the hegemony of the Hollywood import and foreign control of cinematic institutions and as an active agent in the pmcess of cultural decolonization, the blew Latin American Cinema is not just a filmmaking mevement; it is a social practice intimately related to other movements snuggling for the socio-cultural, political, and economic autonomy of Latin America? And it is a social practice that revels in the diversity and multiplicity of its efforts to create an "other" cinema with “other” social effects as a prerequisite of its principal goal to reveal and analyze the "reality," the underdevelopment and national characteristics, that decades of dependency have concealed.“ In the lll'5tls a confiuence of factors gave rise to conditions that would set the stage for the emergence of the blew Latin American Cinema as a movement. Politically, dtese were tempestuous years characterized by the rise of nationalism and rrrilitancy. Massive political changes took place throughout the continent: the bogotazo in Colombia in I949. the unfinished workers’ revolution in Bolivia in 195?. liberal refomts in Cruatemala in l€l54 which pmvolred l_l.5. interventien. the suicide of the populist Brazilian President ‘Vargas in 1954, the military overthrow of Argentine President Peren in i955, and, most significantly. the guerrilla war in Cuba which led to the establishment of a socialist regime in I959. ln the reset. the continued success of the Cuban revolution served as a central inspiration for social change and the rise of guerrilla and radical-left movements tltroughout the continent. With the mobilization of the middle classes in support of sweeping socio-political changes. this political tumtoil was translated into a kind of cultural effervescence which. when linked to the traditionally engage position of Latin American intellectuals and the growing student activism of the period. set dte stage for broad cultural changes which decisively affected dte cinemaFimt of all, the context of filmic reception—of exhibition and consumption--began to change. The emergence of cine clubs, specialized film publications, film societies, and film festivals irt the l'll5[ls and early lilt'i[ls led to a different awareness of the cultural significance of the cinerrta- Altltough most of these organizations and activities were spurred by an interest in the burgeoning Eumpean art cinema. this interest served to shifi attention away fmm the Hollywood model to altemative practices such as Italian bleorealism. in fact. in the context of production—tlte second realm to be considered here—bleorealism

r Ge.-git

- - -.

l-Ill]

Ann M. Ldpe:

was a revelatien te these struggling te create natienal cinemas irr the

face ef underdevelepment and the failures ef industrial efferts. In the classical sense nf the terrn, bleerealisrn censtituted an epistemelegical break fer internatienal filmmal-ting by representing the fermerly unrepresented.‘ It esplicitly rejected the Hnllywnnd mede ef yprnductien with its inw budgets, nen-acters and lecatien sheeting; demanded an awareness ef the links between einematie preductien and espressien; and upheld. in Ressellini's werds. “a meral pesitien frnm which tn lnel: at the werld." And it wm yeung Latin American filmmalters such as Femantie Birri in Argentina, Nelsen Pereira des Santns in Brazil, and Julie Garcia Espinesa and Temas Gutierrez Alea in Cuba, whe had either trained at the Centre Eiperimentale di Rema-— the birthplace ef l‘*ieereaIism—er whe had been strengly influenced by the mevement, whe preduced the films that are cited as the precursers ef the New Latin American Cinema: Birri’s Tire era (1956-t5[l], des Santes‘ Rie Qaerente Greer {I955} and Alea and Espinesa's El’ Megane (195-1}. Exhibiting a shared cencem fer representatinnal authenticity and a rejectinn nf the Hnllywnnd mede nf preductien in faver ef mere artisanal femrs. these films were nevertheless part ef natinnal rather than pan-Latin American efferts te change the secial pesitien ef the cinema.

Hew de these independent. natienalistic cinematic mevements beceme the blew Latin American Cinema? Twe histeriegraphical issues must be addressed befere addressing this questien: influence (and its relatienship tn cinemas striving fer difference and "etherness") and natienalism. Influence is generally theught ef as the eppesite trf eriginality and

difference. the mest desirable traits fer identifying the specificity ef cinematic practices. The film histerianfcritic always struggles te establish the difference between the ebject nf study and ether practices.” Tn a large e:-ttent, film schelarship‘s fascinatien with the identificatien ef eppesitinnal film practices-—be they the film nnir, the wemen‘s film, the structural ayant garde. er the New Latin American Cinema—must be seen as an effect ef eur interest in discentinnity as a pregtessive strategy that can be cnntrasted tn an assumed standard. fixed. and centinueus histery er institutien—specifically, the Hnllywnnd cinema. In the centest ef the New Latin American Cinema. eur centemperary interest in difference, when cembined with this cine-ma"s ewn discursive reinfercement ef its status as an “ether” and the criticsi ewn pelitical cemmitment, has led many te eyerleelt the essential functien ef influ-

- Gt).-gle

.-,._; -

-

,

An "Ether" Hist-nry

ldl

ences in the precess ef ferging a blew Latin American Cinema frem disparate and gengraphically distant natinnal cinemas. And yet ene ef the mnst telling and defining characteristics nf that cinema has been its ability te transfetm and imprevise upen ertisting mndels ef cinematic preductien. Altheugh distinct in style. functien and metivatien frem the Eurepean mevements, the streng natinnal cinemas nf Braail, Argentina and Cuba in the early ‘nits were indeed develeped in the cnntertt ef the cinematic innnvatinns that had emerged fmm Eurepe and in the cnntest nf each natinn‘s unique cinematic histeries. "1 Their “nth-cmess" is predicated en their inseparability frnm and their relatienship tn the deminant, fnr it is in the nature ef cultural preductien in dependent natiens always tn be caught in a struggle fnr self-definitien." Thus when we leelt at the influence ef I”~leerealism—er the French blew ‘Wave er the Snviet cinema—en the develepment nf the New Latin American Cinema, it is net te deny that cinema nriginality, nthemess, er a pelitical viability that is specific te its relatienship with Latin American sncial structures, but tn claim fer that cinema a special status as a particular ltind nf trarrsferrnatinnal practice. The issue ef natienalism and the New Latin American Cinema is related tn the questien ef influences. ln fact, if it were nnt fnr the phenemenen ef influence, the New Latin American Cinema ceuld nnt pessibly be theught nf as a mnvement, fer it is the reciprecal and cellaberative influences ameng different natinnal [and natienalistic] mevements that gives rise te this cinema. It is particularly impnrtant, fer ertample, te censider the influence nf Cuba and the Cuban cinema en the develnpment ef the blew Latin American Cinema as a mnvement. l l 3] The cnncept a natienal eirretrtadias been much discussed in Latin America. even theug e“w'_-::Tfthese natiens have been able tn establish natinnal cinematic industries. The cinema as a natinnal necessity has never been a cencem nf Hnllywnnd, even thnugh classic Hnllywnnd films may indeed turn nn the screw ef natinnal identity, as Philip Rnsen hm recently argued. ‘I But in Latin America, the impertance ef natienality in me cinema has been a hntly debated issue almest since the birth nf the cinema." In the face nf what has always been perceived m the deminating and stifling presence ef ether cultures and ideelegies. the cinema was identified early en as a crucial site fer the utepian assertinn nf a cellective unity identified as the natien. The New Latin American Cinema fits in with natinnal cinema pmjects because the issue nf hnw te define, censtruct, and pnpulariae natinnal cinemas has always been ene ef its primary cencems. Altheugh it has net always been discussed as such, the blew Latin American

- Cit). -glc

,

-

142

Ann tr. Lzipes

Cinema pnsits the cinema as a respense te and an activatnr nf a different kind nf natienhned er subject pesitien nf natienality than the nne spensered by deminant cultural ferces. The geal has been te develep threugh the cinema {and ether cultural practices) a different kind nf l natinnal and hemispheric censcieusness by systematically attempting tn transfenn the functinn ef the natinnal cinema in snciety and the place ef the spectater in the natinnal cinema. As Cuban filmmaker! thenrist Temes Gutierrez Alea has argued, the geal is te premete a _;r-spectater that "ceases te be a spectater in the real wnrld and that cnnfrnnts reality net as a given but as a pmcess in which nne can have an active rnle.""‘ The films nf the blew Latin American Cinema, ranging frem de-cumentaries like Fer Primers Vet l_Fer the First Time, 195?,

Cuba, Clctavin Cnrtazarjr. Ln Hera ale ins Hnrnns [The Hear cf the Fnmnees, lflflfl, Argentina, Femandn Selanas and _Gctavie Getinn], and Ln Estelle ale Chile [The Barrie cf Chile, l9'l'3—'r"fl, Chile, Patricie Guzman and the Equipe Tercer Afre cellective} tn fictien films such as Mernerins del Snbdesnrreffe {Merneries cf Underrfevelepment, 1955-ll.

Cuba, Tnmas Gutierrez Alea}, El Chncni ale Nnhaelrnrn [The Jackal sf Nehaelrere, lihi-E-9, Chile, lvliguel Littin] and El Cnrnje del Fnebfe [The Cnnrnge sf the Feepie, Belivia, lElTl} censistently cem-

plicate the prntecels necessary fer their receptien, mitting decumentary and fictienal medes ef representatinn in nrder tn alter the signifying werk nf the cinema and thereby engage their audiences at different levels.“ A different cencept nf natienalism and natienhned in the cinema lies at the heart ef the New Latin American Cinema‘s attempts te change the sncial functinn ef the cinema in Latin America. The prncesses whereby natinnal cinemas begin te eshibit andler articulate the principles nf the blew Latin American Cinema are cnmples and dependent upen mutually determining relatienships ameng a series nf sncin-pelitical, cultural. and cinematic changes. l shall briefly nutline seme nf these changing relatienships in Argentina as an illustratien nf the mechanics ef the precess nf redefining the desire fer a natinnal cinema—a precess that was alsn taking place in Brazil and in Cuba {albeit fer different reasens and talting different fenrrs in eaeh cnuntry). IV Altheugh the Argentine cinema already had a leng histery befere werld War ll, the natinnal industry was unable tn recever frem a crippling war-time decline even nnder the prntectinnist pelicies ef the pepulist gevemment nf Juan Peren.“ The Cinema Law ef H5?-alse

» Ge-glc

- - -.

An “E.l't.F|er" Hi.rretjy

I43

knewn as the Decretn Ley ea-st and in feree until l9?3—did net serve as a stimulus fer the industrial develnpment nf the natinnal cinema, but it had ene pesitive side-effect. By prnviding as much as 5|] per cent ef the pmductinn cests ef natinnal preductiens, it allewed directers tn beceme their nwn preducers and stimulated a series nf independent prnductinns that seemed tn change the physiegnemy nf the Argentine cinema by reintreducing natienm characters.“ Leepeldn Terre hiilssnn, fer ertample, managed tn set up his ewn prnductien cempany t_l-'-‘rnduccienes Angel], tn retain cemplete artistictfinancial centrel nf his films, and te beceme the first Eurepean-style, selfertpressive eartear ef the Argentine cinema. At the ether end ef the spectrum. filmmakerfpreducer Femandn Ayala, teek the cinema en as a medium fer sncial criticism and analysis by adapting films frem cnntempnrary critical-realist Argentine literanrre and bringing tn the screen tepics mat had previeusly been censidered tabee. Stimulated by the intellectualized cinema ef Terre biilssnn and preveked by the secial criticism ef Ayala, yeung cine-clabistns teek advantage ef the general industrial decline tn apply fer state-guaranteed preductien leans and tn debut their first features in 1959-l9'til. The principal filmmakers that emerged in this peried were Simnn Feldman, lese A. lvfartinez Suerez, lvlanuel Antfn, David lese lichen. Redelfe Kuhn, anti Lautarn lvlunia. with the esceptien ef Murtia. dtese yeung cine-astes adepted the cinema as a vehicle nf persnnal expressinn. Sharing the spirit ef the *"r"nung Turks" ef the Neavefle l»"ngtte in France, their films were narratively esperimental, persnnal, and cesmnpnlitan and esplnited the streets nf Buenes Aires as lecales fer almest autebiegraphical self-expressinn." Altheugh the Nuevn title ceheres as the preduct ef a specific Argentine histerical cnnjuncture {delimited by the pelitical eptimism nf the middle classes under President Frendizi, the state‘s film subsidy pregram. and the grewth ef cinema culture}, it is net a traditienal cinematic mevement that ezthibits many similarities in styles andtnr themes. Rather, the ceherenee nf the Nrtevn title lies primarily in its class pesitinns and ambivalences, fer it was (with the pessible e:tceptien ef lvlunia} an intellectualized cinema designed fer a small. elitist, Buenes Aires audience and its majer achievement was te bring tn the screen and assert, with the technical fluidity nf the Eurepean cinema, the werld-view and individualistic ertperiences ef the Buenes Aires middle—class. Altheugh deeply influential, the Nneve Din was net abie tn transfnrm the Argentine cinema nr te beceme the Argentine cinema. Frem an ecenemic perspective, the Nuevn Clln was nnt a cemmercial success in Argentina and Argentina*s pesitien in the intematienal market

i Ge-glc

- - -.

ltl-4

Ann tl-f. Ltitsr-3

precluded the extensive espertatien ef mest ef its films. Pelitically, the everthrnw ef President Frnndi:-.i in I963, the factinnalized military gevemment ef tasz-es. and the ineffectual civilian rule ef President Illia frem l'§.ll51 until lass. alse crippled the burgeening mevement

[and the hepes ef the beurgeeisie]. Altheugh the Nerve title was fermally and thematically innevative, it did net attempt tn change the ecenemic base ef film preductien, distributien, and exhibitien arrd

was. therefnre. unable tn survive the cnnstraints ef a small and clesed market stnrggling te generate prefits. Furthermere, its thematic cencems—inscril:red within the ctrsmepelitarr, middle-class prel:-lematic cf

Buenes Aires—-failed tn generate a natinnal charactertidentificatinn that was appealing te the majerity ef the primarily werking-class Argentine film—geirrg public.

Hewever. in the margins nf the Naevn title, anether greup was ertperimenting with a different kind ef filmmming at the Institute Cinemategrrificn and the De-cumentary Film Scheel nf the Universidad del Literal in the prevince nf Santa Fe. Here. Femandn Birri, a graduate ef the Centre Sp-erimentale in Iteme, prepesed that what Argentina needed was net a “new” cinema, but a new Argentine cinema: It's tr matter ef a natinnal temtt dc t'ent'iencie [censcieusness

raising]. nf a take-nver ef eur ceuntry. This is what I prepese tn the Argentines: that they nccupy Argentina. that they capture her spiritually and materially- - . - I am net interested in prep-esing

an aesthetic defense ef reality andter realism. What interests me is that the cinema be geed fer semething, and fer that semething te be ef help in censtructing eur reality.” Against the blandness ef the cemmercial cinema and the elitism ef the Nneve (lite. ass pmpnsed a pepular cinema that wnuld decument previeusly unrepresented aspects ef natinnal reality and that ceuld be accepted by larger segments ef the pepulatien; a cinema which addressed the nen—elites ef Argentina. This cinema was net te be based en autebiegraphy, intuitien, er lived experience, but en the systematic ebservatien and study ef the phenemenen being filmed. What Birri called fer as a “natinnal” cinema was a realist cinema with secial cemmitments and aspiratiens. Altheugh neither Ilini ner the Institute were highly preductive in abselute tetTns, their werk reverberated

deeply within Argentina and. later, threugheut all ef Latin America?“ Altheugh these cinematic activities and esperiments in Argentina are articulated ertclusively within the natienal sphere and are net yet

linked te a New Latin American Cinema mnvement, they serve as an example ef the transfnrmatiens ef "natienalism" and "natinnal" cin-

C-e- -glc

'-

An “-Other" Hirterjy

I45

ema that were necessary fnr the develepment ef that pan-Latin American cnnscieusness. Similar transfnnrratiens were taking place in this peried in Cuba and in Brazil. Beth the Cinema hleve mevement and the Cuban revelutienary cinema emerge as efferts te affimt a different kind ef natinnal censcieusness and te redefine the rele ef the natinnal cinema in snciety. The natinnal is the tuming peint ef these cinematic discnurses in Argentina, Brazil, and Cuba and ef the blew Latin American Cinema as a whele. but the mevement is alse related te the natinnal at anether. mere cemplert, level. Even theugh glnbal capitalism is eften identified with ecenemic intematinnalizatien and dte need tn transferm all the citizens ef the werld inte equm censumem nf manufactured geeds. we must be careful net te assume that any te:-ttual. histnricm, er inte11e:-ttual e:-tpressinn nf natienalism in the cinema cnnstitutes a rejectien nf that capitalist deminatien.“ Capitalism is alse a system based en the cenunedificatien and iselatien ef all ertperience, en the breakdewn ef esperience inte discrete {and marketable} units ameng which we must certainly include the creatien and maintenance nf underdeveleped natiens serving the purpnses ef this system. Furthermere, dependence eperates threugh internal as well as estemal ferces and the natinnal tfer, as it is cemmenly called in this instance, beurgeeis natienalism} may be articulated in the service ef these smne ferces ef internatienal capitalism. It is precisely as a mevement that stresses a particular set ef natienalist pesitiens and that articulates these pesitiens acmss a terrain much brnader than the natinnal sphere that the New Latin American Cinema acquires its revelutienary cultural significance. It dees net just represent a natinnal cultural respense te the specific ferces ef develepment and underdevelepment ef a particular natien state, but an attempt tn incerperate the impnnaece ef the natinnal within the necessarily pan-Latin American nature ef any such class-cultural stmggle. In erder tn eutline the develnpment ef the blew Latin American Cinema, it is necessary tn analyze the precess whereby a number nf natinnal cinemas threugheut the centinent cealesced inte the blew Latin American Cinema. Hew dees the Latin Americanism ef the Hew Latin American Cinema emerge‘? In what centertts‘? Given what incentives er metivatiens? Hew is it fnstered and preserved? ‘if Having established their ewn identity against the cemmercial preducts that preceded them, agmnst the Hnllywe-e-d cinema, and in relatien tn the mere pregtessive strands ef the Eumpean cinema, the natinnal

- Gt).-glc

-

-

,

,

I-“lb

Ann M. L-ripe;

mevements ef Argentina. Brazil. and Cuba began te tum tewards the Latin American centinent and, finally, began te take netice ef each ether. This is net tn imply that the cinentenevistes in Brazil, the nneveer'iste.r and Femandn Hirri in Argentina, and the filmmakers ef the

lCAlC {the Institute Cubann de Arte y lndustria Cinemategreficns} in Cuba did net knew nf ene anether's e:-tistence prier te the mid-ltietls. But until the early lilells there had been few systematic efferts tn establish cinematic ertchanges and, mest impertmttly, the filmmakers themselves had net be-gun te think ef their werk in relatinn te ether Latin American filmmaking, ner had they begun te cenceive ef their everall culturm prejects as esceeding the limits ef their natinnal herders. This cinematic iselatien was as marked in Brazil and Argentina

as it was in Cuba, where the lCAlC tieveted mest ef its energies tn preducing a didactic natinnal cinema first [primarily dncumentaries) with scarce reseurces and eztperienced persennel." Wlren the precess ef cinematic ertchange began, it slewly changed the nature ef the cinema that was preduced in each ceuntry. It was nn lnnger just a questien ef preveking a natinnal tense tie rencienrie ef underdevelepment threugh the critical realism nf arr engaged etttenr: that tente tie cnnciencin became mere and mere a Latin American prinrity that in-

cluded the natinnal but seught te be ef Latin American censequence as well. The individual prejects and geals ef natinnal cinemas always remained distinct and clearly identifiable. But the natinnal became centestualized and articulated in relatien te a "pepular" and a “pelitical” that esceeded the beundaries ef esclusively natinnal cencems and increasingly became Latin American. The first articulatiens ef the New Latin American Cinema prnject teek place as a result nf a series ef intematienal meetings that began

in the early It-lefls. Films frem a number nf Latin American natiens had participated in the majer intematienal film festivals (Cannes, ‘v'enicc. etc.l, but few ceuntries had been simultaneeusly represented at any ene festival and, mest significantly. there had been little discussien ef the specific pmblems ef the cinema in Latin America. Film festivals held in Latin America itself had, until the tssnt, been deveted tn the Eurepean art cinema rather than regienal preductiens. Altheugh LTruguay's Festival lnterrtacienal de Cine De-cumental 't"

E:-tperimental [lntematinnal Decumentary and Ettperimental Film Festival) spensered by S-UDRE lthe Eadie-Electric Brnadcasting Sncietyl had already served as an impnrtant ferttm fer Latin American films. its emphasis en the decumentary had semcwhat limited the scepe ef its influence. It must be nnted, hewever. that the I953 SGDRE festival, featuring British decumentary filmmaker .lnhn Griersen as guest ef hener and

GD"

._|"--|

--:-1--1."-1

An "either “ Histery

ist?

the phete-repertage werk ef Femandn Birri and the Decumentary Sc-heel ef Santa Fe, was an impnrtant precurser fer the blew Latin American Cinema because the first pan-Latin American asseciatien ef film preducers and directers t_'Pl5l_Il]AL-—Predueteres y Realizadnres Independientes de America Latina} was created there as an eutceme ef discussiens ameng filmmakers. Albeit shert-lived, this ergarrizatien pinneered by calling fer increased ceeperatien and cellaberatien ameng independent Latin American filmmakers (and included ameng its members, filmmakers blelsen Pereira des Santes [Brazil], Panicie Itiaulen [Belivia], Leepelde Terre blilssen, and Simnn Feidman [Argentina1ft.“ Hnwever, the first sustained enceunters be-tween diverse Latin American filmmakers teek place en fereign seil. in a series ef festivals spensered in Italy by a Jesuit cultural greup dedicated tn strengthening the relatienship between the “blew” atrd "ere" werlds. At the third ef these events, the l9fiE Festival ef Latin American Cinema in Sestri Levante, a large and diverse greup nf film directers, critics, and preducers (including Alfrede Guevara [Cuba], Redelfe Itiehn [Argentina], Glauber Recha, and Walter da Silveira [Brazil]) were able te meet and discuss the firtnre ef the cinema in Latin America and the cellective respensibilities and geals ef each natien, filmmaker, and critic. In the resnlutiens drawn up at this meeting, fnllnwing a panel discussien chaired by Edgar Merin and entitled “The Cinema as an Ertpressien ef Latin American Reality," the participants agreed te “cendenrn the culntral and cinematic iselatien preveked by the fereign centrnl ef film prnductien and exhibitien" atrd te werk tn establish a base fer cellaberatien ameng the different Latin American natinnal cinemas and cultures.“ This Sestri Levante festival thus served te situate the filmmaking prejects and preblems ef individual natiens in the centertt nf the entire hemisphere and it furthertnere allewed fer impertant centacts te he established ameng filmmakers werking in markedly different natinnal cinematic cenjuncnrres.“ Twn years after the impetus nf Sestri Levante. the Cine Club ef Uruguay spensered a festival featuring the independent cinemas ef the Seuthem Cene ceunnies, but the Latin American spirit was net efficially reinveked as such until the ts-er liifia del lvlar Festival and the first “Encuentrn de Cineastas Latineamericanes" (Meeting ef Latin American Filmmakers]. The activities ef this festival. altheugh spensered by a small snciety ef amateur filmmakers and eriginally designed te increase teutism te this resert area ef Chile, were te resnnate fer the nest decade as the events that previded the impents fer the blew Latitr American Cinema rnnvement.

i Ge-glc

- - -.

Isl-E

Arte rlrf. Leer:

By the I96? Festival, the premise ef Sestri Levante had already begun tn be realized: there were already a censiderahle nurnber ef Latin American films te watch, discuss, and attempt tn distribute. It had beceme apparent that filmmakers ceuld indeed begin te talk abeut a "I"-lew Latin American Cinema" that exceeded the beundaries ef

each individual natien and cealesced as a larger and far mere pewerful entity. Furthennnre, the films that ceuld be shewn already exceeded the preducts ef "natinnal" mevements [in Cuba, Brazil, and Argentina} and included the werks ef filmmakers werking in relative iselatien in ceuntries as diverse as Uruguay and Belivia {respectively represented by lvlarie Handler's Caries uses] and Jnrge Sanjines* Rertefncitin [tset]r. The "v'iiia festival alse previded the stimulus fer the creatien ef a

Latin American Center fer blew Cinema and the Cinemateca del Tercer lvlunde in lvlentevidee. Altheugh shert-lived, the Center and the Cinemateca played a cnrcial rele in the develepment ef altemative distributien systems and ef cleser werking relatienships amnng Latin American filmmakers thmugh pieneering cellaberatiens, cress-natienal exchanges. experiments with altemative exhibitien strategies, and—in lite‘-Pt—the publicatien ef a jeumal--Cine del Tercer Manda —emphasizing Latin American Ctppesitienal filmmaking rather than a single natinnal cinema. In rstn, Cine Caeene published a repert ef this first meeting ef Latin American filmmakers which preclaimed a new selidarity and the "birth" ef the blew Latin American Cinema: Despite the diversity ef its creaters. its natienalities, and its medes ef expressien, there exists in Latin America a cinema strengly eppesed te the denaturalizing marks ef yankee imperialism and its Latin American branches. This is a cinema that is strengly tied tn the aspiratiens and needs trf its peeple, a cinema that has effered a number ef preefs nf its very serieus prefessienal and artistic cemmitments.” Ftecngnizing the impertance ef this first meeting ef Latin American filmmakers, the Cubans heralded it as a “first step" in the cellaberative precess nf creating a cinema fer Latin American liberatien. And in fact. what was perceived as the mest impertant effect nf the Vina meeting was its demenstratien ef the unity ef purpese nf the blew Latin American Cinema.“ This unity ef purpese was again displayed at the 1963 Secend lvleeting ef Latin American filmmakers which teek place in bwlerida {Venezuela}. under the auspices ef the Centre de Cine Dncumental at

GD"

._|"--|

--:-1--1."-1

An "t'Jt.lr-er" Hirrery

I-19

the Llniversidad de les Andes, alnngside dte first lvluestra de Cine Dncumental Latinearnericane. Seme nf the mest influential films nf what was already recngnized as the blew Latin American Cinema were screened at this festival: Femandn Selanas and Dctavie Getine‘s Le Here tie les Henres (I963, Argentina), lvlarie HandIer’s Me Gnsten les Estndientes (I953, Llruguay], btlarta Rodriguez and Ierge Silvals

Chirceles nsss. Celembial, and Gctavie Certdzar*s Per Frintere Vet east. Cuba}. Different avenues fer film practices, different alternatives fer a cinema ef and against underdevelepment widen the blew Latin American Cinema were already established and weuld be further develeped. Frem fictien tn decumentary, fi'em sherts te feature-length films, frem clandestine preductiens tn the pmducts ef an already established industry—all these eptiens were exercised, debated, and evaluated in the cnntext ef the cinematictculturatlpelitical needs nf individual natiens and in the cnntext ef the blew Latin American Cinema‘s prnject fer Latin American selidarity and liberatien. In the resnlutiens drawn up at this meeting, the fnllnwing definitien ef the mevement was prepesed: A cinema cnnunitted te natinnal reality; a cinema which rejects all evasive and defennative fermulas and indifference and ignerance. in erder te cenfrent the prnblematic ef the secielegical, pelitical, ecenemic, and cultural pmcesses which each ceuntry. accerding tn its particular situatien and characteristics, is living thmugh: a cinema which creates werks permeated by realism. whether they be fictienal er decumentary, simple testimenies, prefeund analyses, er agitatienal reels. A cinema bem in impessible cenditiens. because ef the infinite passiee ef its authers. as an act ef faith. An act ef faith that must net enly everceme material preblems ef preductien, but which must alse stntggle against preblems ef interpretatien, the cemprehensien ef new

cnntents, and the femtal elaberatiens ef these cnntents. A cinema that even when preduced enceunters anether ebstacle: finding new and apprepriate distributinrrtexhibitien channels se that the films can be seen and tnrly accnmplish their ebjectives.“ At this and the several meetings that we-re held in subsequent years (‘tins del lvlar in 1969, lvlericla in l'.il?fl and 197?, Caracas in 19?] and I974} dte different pmjects ef the blew Latin American Cinema were censelidated and implemented and the mevement and its practitieners gained strength and selidarity. Frem this peint nn. it was nn lnnger a questien ef wnrlting tn establish a blew Latin American Cinema, fer that cinema was already “un acte irreversible." an irreversible

- Gt).-gin

-

-

,

l5El'

Ann M. L-d-pet

fact ef histery. as Julie Garcia Espinesa weuld later herald at the epening nf the I'll lntematinnal Festival ef the blew Latin American Cinema in Havana {ltlll2).="‘

VI In the peried I953 te I973 it was fairly easy te discem what was and what was net part ef this cinematic mevement. The films ef the blew Latin American Cinema were revelutienary, explicitly pelitical, called fer an end te underdevelepment. peverty, eppressien, hunger, expleitatien, illiteracy, and ignerance. lvlany, like the pewerful Argentine film-essay The Hear ef the Fnrneces, teek en the medium as an explicit pelitical instrument, and insisted that the cinema sheuld and ceuld be used as a “gun” in the struggle fer the pelitical and ecenemic independence ef Latin America {fer example, the films ef lvlarie Handler in Uruguay er ef Santiage Alvarez in Cuba}. Clthers, in the fictienal demain, teek en the cinema as a vehicle fer entertainment, but transfermed and demystified its standard parameters: Lucie (I969, Cuba, Humberte Selas], Le Tierre Freinetide {The

Premised Lend, l9l'3-4, Chile, lvliguel Littin]. Antenie des Alerter t'l'Elt5ll. Brazil, Glauber Rncha]. They were films which shewed Latin Americans the faces ef their penples and the preblems ef their natiens, that celebrated natinnal characteristics and pepular culture. that seught te centribute te the end ef all the shared ills ef the centinentThey were realist, histerical, inventive films that teek up the margins nf traditienal filmic practices as their ewn terrain, that subverted and decensnucted the traditienal distinctinns and categeries ef the deminant cinema tn tell "ether" steries, tn shew "ether" facts. Frem the decumentaries‘ explicit call te arms te the fictien films‘ analysis and retliscevery ef natinnal histery, the films ef the blew Latin American Cinema asserted a utnpian dream ef centinental cellectivity, the dream nf lese lvIarti’s “l"~luestra America" in cinematic ferm.

In less hyperbelic terms, it is perhaps simpler te identify the blew Latin American Cinema by clarifying what it did net include. With the exceptien ef Cuban films, in dtis peried the blew Latin American Cinema did net include industrial films, er any film that relied nn the stntctures and strategies nf the deminant secter in their preductien metheds. aesthetics. distributien. er in their relatienship tn audiences. These were independent films, marginal cinemas en the fringes ef existing industries (Argentina, Brazil, tvlexice} er artisanal practices in natiens witheut a develeped natinnal cinematic infrastructure (Chile, Uruguay, Belivia, etc}.

i Ge--glc

- - .

An “G‘trl|er" Hirtety

l5l

Cuba was and is a case apart. At the time the enly secialist natien nf Latin America. its films have always been seen as cenuibuting tn the blew Lafin American Cinema prnject. In fact, the Cubans have been insmimental in pmmetlng the idea aird—-tlrreugh extensive cellaberative an-angements—the very existence ef the blew Latin American Cinema preject. The rele Cuba has played in festering the blew Latin American Cinema has yet te be fully detailed: a listing nf cepreductiens and Lafin American exhibitiens and distributien agreements is net eneugh te explain the influential mle ef the ICAIC and the Cuban Revelutien itself tlrrnugheut the centinent. Fer example, in the lflflfls, dte annual lntematinnal Festival ef blew Latin American Cinema has beceme a mecca fer Latin American filmmakers. preducers, and distributers whe travel te Havana te simultaneeusly engage in film “business” and theeretical seminars. Hnwever, what must be clarified is that the blew Latin Ametican Cinema is far fitem being simply a Cuban “censtruct.” The desire fer diis cinema—exemplified in the Cinema bleve and in the blueva Clla, fer example—beth predates and exceeds the beundaries ef Cuba's influence and the natinnal prierities nf its ewn cinema. It is impnrtant te emphasize die impessibilily and the ebdurate cnntinued viability ef the blew Latin American Cinema prnject in the late l9'l[I-s and ‘Bits. In this peried, Latin America was beset by a wave nf repressive regimes, military ceups el'eiet, failed secialist experiments and revelutienary efferts, balleening fereign debts, and werseiiing ecenemic cenditiens. l'v'lilitar'y ceups tin, fer example, Chile [I975]. Uruguay [l‘il'l3]. and Argentina [I97-I51] and leng-term repressive military regimes destabilized the blew Latin American Cinema prnject within many natiens. ltr the early lilflfls, the secial premise ef the lileills seemed tn exist enly in the ashes ef revelutienary efferts te change the centinental erder ef firings. The blew Latin American Cinema, eften ferced inte exile er silenced by censership and repressien at a natinnal level, assumed an increasingly pair-Latin American character. as is well evidenced by dte Chilean and Argentine cinemas in exileBut the blew Latin American Cinema was simultaneeusly challenged by anether pmblem. Fmm a practical standpeint, the blew Latin American Cinema prnject seems antithetical tn the industrializatinn ef cinematic preductien.“ A cinema designed tn subvert. demystify. and challenge the deminant cinema, cenunen-sensical develepmental assumptiens, and pelitical givens is marginal almest by definitien and net particularly cencemed with cenunercial imperatives. Hnwever, a desire fer a different kind ef industrializatinn ef the cin-

- Citji. -gin

,

-

I 51

Arie rtrf. Ldpet

ema has alse been a censtant cencem ef the blew Latin Arrrericarr Cinema. Te make the natinnal cinema streng, tn enceurage sustained pmductien, tn maintain and raise pepular interest in the cinema: dtese are all cencems ef the blew Latin American Cinema that cannet be addressed frem the nrargins, but that demand discussien in the cnntext nf mainstream natinnal cinematic prnductien, state pretectien ef the natienm cinema, and that cinema’s cnnrrnercial er pepular petential. Thus, in these natiens with a develeped (er develeping) cinematic infi'astructure, the blew Latin American Cinema, in its search fer ways te beceme a pepular cinema, gradually feund itself incnrperated inte mainstreain—albeit senrewhat medified—cemmercial eperatiens. When cembined with pelitical pressures. this trend tewards industrial practices altered the namre ef the blew Latin American Cinema preject. Sn, fer example, in Brazil, we must take inte acceunt the hegemenic pewer ef the state erganism fer the cinema, Embrafilme; in Argentina. the recent redemecratizatien has alse made pessihle the grewth ef the industrial filmmaking secter and the prnductien ef a number ef significant and very successful films; and in Cuba. altheugh still a case apart, the lengevity ef ICAIC as the state apparatus fer the cinema has alse meant that the Cuban cinema is air nfficial {radier than a marginal} cinema with rather different natinnal imperatives. Teday it is nn lengcr as easy te distinguish what is and what is net part ef the blew Latin .Aiirerican Cinema prnject as it was in I963. De the ene hand, the ideals and practices nf die blew Latin American Cinema have beceme the nnrin fer the centinent. Even filnunakers werking within different nafienal industrial secters have a different censcieusness ef their petential secial effect and pelitical geals and exhibit their cencems accerding tn the eptiens available in their specific pnlitical-secial cenjunctures. But en dte edier hand, there are censtant claims {frem within, but especially frem eutside the mevement) that, in fact. the blew Latin American Cinema is finished; that its specificity has disappeared: er, as Chilean filmmaker Patricie Guzman claimed at a reund table discussien at the Havana Festival nf littlti, that it repeats itself, with the implicatien that it has ceased tn have a special utility er serve a secial functien: It seems that we are still eperating based en the premises ef the sixties even drnugh we are entering the decade ef the eighties. In certain ways. seme ef eur werks are twenty years tee late.“

Hewever. the changes in the blew Latin American Cinema since I9-ell have, indeed, been significant: the range ef eptiens had grewn,

- Citji. -yglc

,

-

An "Greer" Histery

I53

the range ef secial functiens this cinema has been asked te play has changed. Here we must censider the impertarrt differences between a cinema ef resistance in exile [Chilei, an eflicial cinema in Cuba. a revelutien-in-transitien cinema in blicaragua, a cinema struggling fer a revelutien in Salvadnr. a prete-industrial cinema in Argentina and Brazil. We must alsn censider that as a result nf impmved pair-Latin American relatiens [in the cinematic realm), cn-preductiens are increasingly cemmen. Ce-preductiens pmvide the financial reseurces necessary fer larger scale preductiens, but drey alse make the definitien ef the "natienality" ef many films pmblematic. {Fer example, Chilean directer lvliguel Littinls Alsine y ei Cender [1933] was shet in blicaragua with the fiill ce-nperatien nf the state film erganism [lblCIblE], with funding and technical assistance frem lvlexice. Cesta Itica, and Cuba.) Furthermere, the intreductien ef videe has increased access te the media and, as a result in many natiens videe preductien has taken ever the eppesitinnal spaces eccupied by the cinema in the early litefls. lf, indeed. the blew Latin America Cinema “repeats itself." then we must analyze the terms ef these repetitiens. Dees it repeat itself thematically, stylistically, in its calls fer specific kinds ef actiens, in its fenns ef expressien, in its cemmltments? Seme ef these “repetitinns," weuld seem tn be unaveidable fer a cemmined cinema, edicts questienable. But whelesale assertiens ef a lack ef accemplishment in the blew Latin American Cinema must be challenged with the centinued grewth ef filrrunaking tlrreughnnt the centinent, with the centinued cellaberative ventures ameng Latin American filnunakers and pmducers, with the increasing impertairce ef the Havana Film Festival as the number ef participating natiens and films increases annually. with the efferts ef the Cenunlttee ef Latin American filtrenmters and the recently femied Feundatien ef Latin American Filmmakers and Third werld Film Scheel {lecated in Cuba] te centinue develeping and festering the fi.tmre ef a pepular cinema ef and fer Latin America. In light ef these transfertnatiens, te claim that the blew Latin American Cinema is dead—a cerellary ef the claim that it repeats itself—is tn deny the mevement the ability te adapt tn changing cenditiens. The blew Latin American Cinema is, fer the mest part, ne lengcr necessarily a marginal cinema. But dtis dees net mean that it has given up its pelitics. Rather than prnclaim its death, what seems mere apprepriate is te call fer an analysis nf hew it has changed. fer clese srrrdies nf its expressive and secial strategies and cemmierrents.

i Ge--glc

- - .

I 5-ll

Ana M. Ltipec

Nntes Research fer this essay was made pessible. in pan. by research grants frem the lvlcllen Feundatien and the Reger Stenc Thayer Center fer Latin American Studies at Tulane University and the kindness ef die staff ef the Cuban cincmatheque in Havana.

I. Clnmchadas are light musical cemedies, a unique Brazilian film genre. that were the mainstay ef Hie de laniere preducers between l9-ll] and tsen. Fer mere infemiatien abeut Brazilian film preductien in this peried, see Flandal Jehnsen and Hebert Starn, eds., Brazilian Cr'ne.rna (East Brunswick l'-l.l, 1952}1- Argentina. -lfl feature films fer rsss and -ill fer I969; Brazil, 54 fer l9till and 53 fer l9f:-9; Chile, 5 each year; Cuba, 5 each year: and Belivia, nene in rsss and 2 in l9l’i9. See Ierge A. Schnitman, Filrn lndustries in Latin Arnerira: E-‘ependenc_v ene’ Develeptnent (bleiweed, I"-ll, I954} fer data fer Argentina, Brazil, Chile. and Belivia; and Anure Agramnnte, Crenelegia del Cine Calrann (Havana, l9tit'.il fer Cuban data. 5. Altheugh Salvadnr Allende did net beceme president ef Chile until l9Tll, when his tlnidecl Pepnler cnalitien wen the natinnal electiens, Allende and his pelitical platfemi had leng been a facter in Chilean pelitical life. ln fact, in I953 Allende and the FBAP party had almest wen the natinnal electiens. -il- “Third Cinema“ was the term used by Argentine radical filmmakers Femandn Selanas and Clctavie Gctine le distinguish their cinematic practice frem the “first cinema" (industrial filmmaking} and the “secend cinema“ (entenrt'.rt cinema privileging the directer). Sec their Cine. culmre y e'e.rcet'enizacidn (Buenes Aires, I973). The temr “Imperfect Cinema" was ceined by Cuban filmmaker-theerist Julie Garcia Espinesa as part ef an argument pmpesing that technical “perfectien“ need net be the central preeccupatien ef Latin American filmmakers. See his Per ttn cine irn_ner;l"ecte (Caracas, l9'r'3}. Brazilian filmmaker Glauber Ftecha is respensible fer pmpesing the term “cinema ef hunger" te describe what the films ef Latin America sheuld eniphasize: the centinent‘s underdevelepment and its metapheiic and real “hungers." See his “An Esthetie ef Hunger" reprinted in translatien in Jehnsen and Stam, Brazilian Cinema, ti-S—Tl. 5. The names and films that ceuld be cited here are tee numereus, althnugh special mentinn must be made ef individuals like Humberte htlaure in Brazil: “El blege" Ferreyra and blarie Seffici in Argentina; Enrique Diaz Quezada in Cuba; Luis Castille in Belivia: El “Indie” Ferndridet in ll-lexice; and Pedre Sienna and Salvadnr Giambastini in Chile. ti. It is impnrtant te nnte that the struggle against dependency in Latin America—in the cinematic realm as well as in ether areas~has always had twe frents: first, the struggle against extemal centrel, deminatien, and influence: secend, the struggle against the intemal ferces that ally themselvescenscieusly er net—witlr fereign interests. ll. As lilebert ltlelker argues in his The Altering E_ve (blew Turk. 1933]-

GD"

._|"--|

--:-1--1."-i

an "tJrir-er"Hisr-urjv

155

E. lvflaurice Scherer and Franceis Truffaut, “Entre-tien avec Reberte Ressellini," Caiiiers a'n Cinema 3? (July, 195-4], cited by David Uverby, “intreductien,” Springtime in iraly t[Handem, C-nnn., I975}, l"51. Influenced by centemperaty crisis theught in theery [the thenretical tendency that—stemtning frem Fnucault, Althusser artd ethers—searches fnr and valarizes gaps, brealts, and discantinuities in nrder te reject tl're linearity and teleelngy ni traditienal centinueus histeries], film sehelarship ef the last

decades has eften seemed tn prnject inte the film practices that censtitute its "ebject" its nwn theeretical and practical desires. ltl, Fer a detailed analysis nf this precess, see my Tire New Latin American Cinema, inrtbcnnting, University nf lllinnis Pressll. l am referring here tn the debate ameng Julianne Burtnn, Teshnme tlabriel, and ethers in the pages bi Screen, l"-les. 3i'4 {I935} and He. l (I936). The debate eentered en the relatienship between “first werld“ tl1enry and criticism and “third werld" cinema. Altheugh bnth sides emphasized the need tn preserve the “athemess" nf third-werld cinema, nne side argued fer the imp-nssibility bf deing this witheut theery while the ether fcrcused en the inap-

prepriateness ei the thenretical structures ei the develeped werld fer this ebject nf study. I2. Philip Resen, “Securing the Histnrical: Histnringraphy and the Classical Cinema,“ Cinema Hisraries. Cinema Praeiices [Les Angeles, 1934}, IT34I3. See my “A Shnrt Histnry nf Latin American Film I-Iisteries," University Film and Pidea nssaeiarian ,iarirnai 3?, l"~ln. l {I955}, 55-69. The impnrtance nf the issue bf the natinnal in cinema discnurses in Brazil has been traced by Maria Rita Galvan and Jean~Claude Bemardet, Crlrrerna: Repercussaes ern cairn tie eca idealagica [As iiieias tie “m:rcianai" e “papaiar" na pensamenia einemaragrafiea hrasiieiraj [San Paula, 1933]. 14- Tamas Ciutietres: Alea, Dialecrica riei Espeeraiier (Havana, l'Ei'.I'2], 5?. I5. See my “At the Limits nf lllncementaryr Teatual Translbrrnatien and the Hew Latin American Cinema," in Julianne Burten, ed., Dacnmentary Strategies." Sacierfw'iiiealag_vi'ifistarj.~ in Latin .i'-l.rne.r1'ean Dacirmentaries, l'5"5tl— 1935, University ni Pittsburgh Press, IPPU, -‘H13-31. lb. The reasens fer the cnllapse nf the Argentine industry during werld War Il are tea cnmplert tn elaberate fully here. Suffice it tn say that Argentina's "neutrality" during the war and its subsequent trade preblems, ceupled with an internal laclt ni directien and wealt capitalisatien, breught the nncesuecessfirl industry tn an almest cemplete standstill, Fer further data see Dnmingn di hiribil:-1, Histaria del Cine Argentina {Buenes Aires, 1959] and 5t'Jl1t'tiT_t'nnt‘t, Fiim irtriasiries irt Latin America-

Ii, The mest netable directers whe became preducers were Leepelde Terre Hilssen and Femandn Ayala, Fer further details, see my "Unleashing the Margins: Argentine Cinema, lEi'545—l'5"iti,*' in lehn King, ed., iIl'e,rsier: nrgenrine Cinema, fnrtlrcnming by the hlatienal Film Theater and the British

Film institute,

- Ge glc

=

1515

Ana M. Lsipet

13. Amnng the Naeva Cla films premiered in 1959-I51 were: Sim-tin Feldman‘s Ei Negacidn {I959} and Les tie in Mesa itl {I96-I3]; lcsé lvlartines 311-iiretls E1 Crari: (1933) and Dar ia Cara (1932); htlanuel Antin‘s Carla a i'|:iami:i (1931) and La Cifra irrrpar 119151}; David Jttse l{=n1ien*s Prisinneras tie rate Nacite {19ti{i) and Tre.r Feces Ana (1951); and, Les Javenes Fiejas (19151) and Les incanstantes {I933}. Less interested in esplering the eesmepelitsnism cf Buenes Aires, Lautare lv1urtia‘s first twn films, Shanha (1915-I3} and Aiias Cardeiira

{I951}, almest censtituted a "rural" cinema because ei their fecus en the underprivileged rather than the privileged living within Buenes Aires itself.

I9. Femandn Birri, “Hace una esperieneia einemategr-sfiea," La Eseneia Dactimenrai a‘e Santa Fe [Santa Fe, 1934], 1'1‘.

Ed. Cit‘ the lnstitut-n*s prejects, the best lmewn are the mid-length secial decunientary Tire are and the feature-length "fictien" Les inaniiadas. Hnw-

ever, Hi|Ti‘s thenretical and pelitical prepesitiens are se censenant with what was being expressed in ether parts nf Latin America that he is eften refen'ed tn as the "father" nf the New Latin American cinema. 21. See, far eitample, Annand l'vIatt.elart's discussien in his “Intreducti-en," Carnmanicatian and Ciass .'.itraggie.' i. Capiraiisnr, imperialism {Hew ‘fnrlt. 1919], 5'1‘-Ti}. 22. Fer a detailed histnry nf the develnpment ef the ICAIC and the Cuban revelutienary cinema, see lvlichael Chanan, Tire Cniran image {Hlnc.-ntingtnn, lndiarra, 19315}. .33. 3-ee Juliarute l3iu'tnn, “Cinema,” Cambridge Hisrary af Latin i"-irneriea, Val. 4, 193?. 24. “III Eitpasicidn de Cine Latinaraerieane," Cine Ciiiiana F, H9153], E35. Additinnal infermatien abeut the 3-estri Levante festival was ebtained frem Lennel lvlagin Hinejesa, "La Crisis: Camp-nnente inseparable de la Vida; Entrevista can lvianuel Perez Paredes," Cine Ciihana 133 {I931}, 29-45 and frem teats ni the festival proceedings in the archives ef the Cinemateca de Cuba, Havana, Cuba. Eh. “'~.-‘ins del tvlar y e1 l"~lt1evn Cine Latinarnericairn," Cine Caitarta 4343-44 (1937), 3.

3?- See, '*E'.:-itrsctes cle una Enrrevista can Alfrede Guevara Ptiblieada en Eehemia 31 l'vIara:r l9\5'i," Cine Cabana 42-43-44 H931"). 14?.

33- “Editerial: El Desafin del Heuve Cine," Cine ai Din ti (1953), 2. 29. Julia Crarcla Espinesa, “Senses an Actn In'eversible," Cine Ctihana 1115 {I933}, 334!]. Cinematic industrializatinn entails net enly eittensive capitalieatinn and prnductien en a grand scale, but alsn the establishmment nf distributinn and eithibitien circuits threugh which tn reach the mass audience necessary tn reenup ensts and generate prefits. Abnve all, an industrialised cinema is a mainstream cinema, that is, a cinema that is part and parcel af a snciety's deminant ideelegy and nnt ene that can easily subvert andinr demystify that snciety's givens. 31. Patricin Ciusman, “Cine Latinnarnericann: Eztiiin, crisis y fittnrn," Cine Crihana 99 [I931].

Film Artisans and Film Industries in Latin America, 1956-1980 Theoretical and Critical Implications oi

Variations in Modes of Filmic Production and Consumption Julianne Barton Foreword A decade ago, when the quest for “revolutionary” cinema was at its height and the theorists‘ call for a "materialist" cinema at its most insistent, a French film jeumal of some prominence on the left declared that bourgeois cinema would never be genuinely threatened “until films are produced which say everything about themselves: their economy and their means of production?" Part I of the monumental documentary trilogy, The Battle of Chile (1915-1979), ends with scenes from the abortive military coup ot June 1993, “dress rehearsal" for September's successful takeover. Along the streets of downtown Santiago, incongruously, people run in

the direction of the camera, scrambling for shelter. Searching beyond them, the lens locates and eooms in on a tanlc surrounded by military personne1—a surreal object on that all-too-ordinary streetcomer. Cme soldier, pistol in hand, loo-its directly at the camera for an instant, raises his gun, turns away, then abruptly tums haelt again, arm estended. The image wavers, sccms to lose its asis and, after a momentary vertiginous blur, goes blank. The cameraman has apparently filmed his own sttmrriary execution at the hands of the Chilean armed forces. ‘What image could say more about itself and its “means of production" than that its recording cost the recorder his life? Tet to recog"t|r'orl-ting Paper:-:, bio. 1133- Latrn American Program, "r1r'oodrow Wilson lntematinnal

Center for Scholars, Smithsoriian Institution- Washington. [‘.I-C-. rest. pp.1—25. By penrrissiort of the publisher.

- GL9-"315

ljl

I":-.=5= '

'

.

153

,.I'nlianne Elnrinn

niise this is to be simultaneously wrenehed from sheltered security

within the “closed world“ of the film-test and ejected into the chaotic and threatening {because even less completely ltnotvable] realm of

history, politics, social contest. Who was the victim’? Did he really die? "th'hy'?*'* In its overprescriptive estremism. Cinethique"s formula for revolutionary filmmairing is no more ideologically defensible than the illusionist imperative which requires a film to conceal everything about itself and its means of production. The blindspot of "modernist" criticism, hased as it is on a restrictive definition of materiality, lies in the failure to recognise that “saying everything" about the process of production of an artifact within the artifact itself threatens to obliterate that artifact*s potential relationship to any referent outside itself. Con-

tent is increasingly displaced by the contentlessness of self-reflertivity in a potentially infinite regression. ‘fer the ultimate sterility of the estremist demand that film “say everything about itself and its means of production“ neither cancels out the importance of some filmmakers‘ commitment to saying samething about the means of production of the film test within the film test, nor does it obviate the potential va|idity—even necessity—of a line of critical inquiry which taltes the material and social conditions of film's elaboration as its point of departure. As a corrective to an immanent reading which, in so scrtrpulously walling-off the test from

its surroundings. betrays its own origins in an idealised "art for art"s this critical-methodological esploration will endeavor to steer equally clear of the inverted peril, materiality for materia|ity's sake-

Latin American Filmmakers on Latin American Film: A Descriptive Montage At the New Latin American Cinema festival in lvlerida. Venezuela in l9o3—an event which marked the continent-wide takeoff of this politically-committed film movement with premiers of such documentaries as Fernando Solanas‘ and Octavio C-retino‘s The Hear of the Furnaces {Argentina, 1953], lvlario Handler’s f Lil:e .'i'Iaa'enrs l_'_l.lruguay, 19133},

Jorge 3i|va and lvlarta Rodriguez‘ The Hriclcrnalrers (Colombia, 19133}, and Carols Alvarez’ Araira (Colombia, l9t53fi3—the following characterisation of the fledgling movement was put forth: A cinema which is committed to national reality. A cinema which rejects all evasive and deformative formulas, along with indifference and ignorance, in order to confront the compler: of sociological, political, economic, and cultural problems which

Film Artisans and Film lnalttstries in Latin America

I59‘

each country, according to its particular situation and characteristics, is living through. A cinema which creates works that errude realism, whether they be fictional or documentary: simple testimony, pmfeund analysis, or agitatienal tools. A cinema bom in impossible conditions of production, brought forth by an act of faith and the infinite patience of its authors." fine year later, the makers of the epic documentary The flatrr af the Fttrnaces, proponents of a "third" cinema in opposition to Hollywood ("first cinema") and European-style at-nettrism (“second cinema"), defined their project in the following terms: Countering a cinema of characters with one of themes, a cinema of individuals with one of masses, an atttettr-dominated cinema with one created by an operative group, a cinema of neocolonial

misinformation with one of information, a cinema of escapewith one that recaptures the truth, a cinema of passivity with

one of aggression. To an instimtienalized cinema. [the dtird cinema] counterposes a guerrilla cinema; to movies as spectacles, it

proposes a film-act or irction; to a cinema of desmrction, one that is both destructive and constructive: to a cinema made by and for the old kind of human beings, a cinema fit for a new kind af htanan heing, far what each ane af its has the potential ta l.‘-'ecame.5

In 1969, Cuban filmmaker and theorist Julio Crarcia Espinosa proposed an "imperfect cinema" based on a "new poetics . . . whose true goal will be . . . to disappear as such," a cinema of "process" rather than "analysis" which cultivates a plurality of forms and does not disdain film's natural vocation to entenain."~" As pan of the polemic generated by his essay, he wrote in 1992: Until now, we have viewed the cinema as a means of reflecting

reality, without realizing that cinema in itself is a reality, with its own history, conventions, and traditions- Cinema can only be

constructed on the ashes of what already esists. lvloreover, to make a new cinema is, in fact, to reveal the process of destruc-

tion of the one that came before. . . . We have to make a spectacle out of the destruction of the spectacle. This process cannot be individual. . . . What is needed is to perform this process jointly with the viewer.l

In l9'lt], Brazilian feature filmmaker Criauber Rocha, assessing the accomplishments of the Cinema hlovo movement in a U-3. film journal, concluded that "The great contribution of Cinema hlovo is to

t Go.-glc

- - -. :

lfifl

Julianne Ht-trrart

change the old structure and to permit complete freedom and development of the director as his own producer and distributor?“ As the 1973s progressed, various filmmakers and groups developed more specific and differentiated practices- In 1973, the Bolivian Llltamau Crroup. under the direction of Jorge Sanjines. evaluated and criticized their own cinematic trajectory from films of "effects" [denunciation], to films of "causes" (analysis), to a new kind of interactlonal cinema /_which would recapture the Bolivian peoples’ historical past while at the same time becoming itself a component in determining the future ll‘ shape of that history. This goal, the filmmakers realised, prcsupposed a transformation on the level of film form:

Since ours was a cinema which sought to develop parallel to historical evolution, but which also sought to influence the historical process and to estract its constitutive elements, it could no longer confine itself to conventional fonns and structures. Such content demanded a complementary form which would break traditional molds. . . . If it was absolutely necessary to work with reality and the truth, manipulating live, evetytlay his-

tory. it was for the same reasons absolutely necessary to find forms which would not detract from or betray their content-"

ln contrast, Argentina's clandestine Cine rle la Base collective, accustomed to working in the documentary mode, began esperimenting with fictional forms in the belief that narrative cinema was more ac-

cessible to their target audience, the working class, and that fictional film offered a greater potential for synthesis and subjective. personalized analysis. ln their stylistic cspcrimentation, they subordinated formal means to desired political ends: Clur goal is to intervene on a very concrete level in the political relations of the Argentine process with a brand of cinema which we define as militant and class-based. We build this cinema based on the needs of the people's social and political organizations. Ciurs will consequently be a more utilitarian cinema than that of the bourgeoisie. "1

Finally. as one last fragment in this collage of participant observations on the goals, characteristics, and functions of the New Latin American Cinema, we quote Cuban director~Tomas Cruti_errez Alea‘s _ belief in the importance of realizing the “social functii-in“Ht_rii"‘_i:_iHr5rma: “equipping the spectator with critical insights into reality, to the erttent that he ceases to be a spectator and feels moved to actively participate in the process of daily reality. In other words [what is needed ate] not

t Go.-git

- - -. :

Film Artisatts anti Film lndustries in Latin America

I61

only works which help to interpret the world, but which also help to transfomr it."“ ' This assemblage of impressions, however inevitably arbitrary, touches upon several crucial issues which will receive more sustained and systematic attention in the pages which follow: issues dealing with realism [the concepts of reality, history, and chmrge; of realism and antithetical forms; of the relationship between representation in the text and the complex contextual reality outside of it}; issues of pluralism versus prescriptivism in cinematic genre, style, language, and foon; the relationship between films of the developed world and films of the dependent sector {cultural nationalism, cultural colonialism): the material conditions of production and reception and the potential for transforming them; the possibilities for

collaborative rather than individualized creativity and for extending that collaboration beyond the sphere of the producers and into the sphere of the consumers.

Healiem and "Reality": A Direct or a Mediated Ftelaticnahip‘? lt is obvious from the string of quotations above that, like Brecht in the theater, militant Latin American filmmakers began fmm the premise that film w:ts___a vehicle for apprehending the realworld in order to change itflii contemporary"critical thiiuglit. however, theiconcept of “thi=.iTeiil.",tis highly problematic. ‘ih"|tile use of the notion among Latin A“rrteric'a"n filnunakers hm undergone a cenain evolution, it hm never been the target of as much suspicion as it has among critical circles in

developed Wcstenr countries, where “rank empirlcism" is as unwelcome as bad manners. The problem deserves consideration on its own merits, and for the light it sheds on other differences in concept and

practice between the underdeveloped and the developed sectorspractitioners of “practical theory" on the one hand, mid theoreticians of "theoretical practice" on the other.

Femando Birri, founder of the first documentary film school in Latin America [La Escuela lliocumental de Santa Fe, Argentina, in 1956} begins the book which chronicles that seminal experience quoting Chilean poet Pablo ltleruda: l speak of things that exist. Crod save me from inventing things while I'm singing!“ At that time, Birri believed that cenain techniques in and of themselves--specifically documentary realism—provided fire means of

- Cit).-glc

-

-

,

163

Julianne tillnrtan

discovering reality and correcting the distortions imposed by economic, political, and cultural dependency. The documentary vision. he maintained, was the trae vision: "how reality is; it cannot be otherwise."‘l According to Birri, "the Documentary Film School of Santa Fe was bom as a realist response to historical circumstances and conditions which were also realist-"'" For many other Latin American filmmakers as well. especially at the inception of the movement, a commitment to lilrn as an agent of social change in the real world

translated into the obvious equivalent of fomral realism. As British feminist and film theorist Christine Crledhill aptly observes, Realism in [the] general sense is the first recourse of any oppressed group wishing to combat the ideology promulgated by the media in the interests of hegemonic power. Dnce an oppressed gmup becomes aware of its cultural as well as political oppression, and identifies oppressive myths and stereotypes, - . it becomes the concern of that group to explore the oppression

of such images and replace their falsity, lies, deception and escapist illusion with reality and the truth." She goes on to identify some problematic aspects of this uncritical embracing of realist fenns. "Realism" as a femtal modality in film involves a complex interplay of technical _ar_1gl___l1t.jr1_1an r_nedia_ti-ans; "the

|;g:'g[" therefore cannot simply be discovered but has to be constructed in order to be conveyed. Since "reality" is not after all a self-evident given, there is no simple alternative reality to fill the gap left by the displacement of the "false" reality which is being denounced, so the counter or altetrrative reality ["troe" reality} must also be constructed

in this second sense. Fifteen years after Birri and his students shot the "first social sur-

vey film" made in Latin Amcrica—Tire cite [Toss lvle a Dime, 1953] —a team of Chilean filmmakers began meeting to develop a methodology for a documentary on the broadest possible scale: a "survey" of the political, economic, social, and cultural configuration within their nation as it struggled to make the first "legal and democratic" transition to socialism. That the epistemology of documentary realism had, by this subsequent historical moment, become irmrremrtrably more problematic is evident from the fact that the Eattipa Tercer Aha spent two months analyzing existing approaches to'El"oEhinefitai¥_t"rl—rlnmaking and fortnulating their own composite methodology. They

opted for a syn_t_hetic method precisely because they recognized that social and political "reality" could no longer be captured by simply

t Go.-git

- - -.

Film Artisans anti Film lnrittstries t'n Latin America

163

aiming a camera and shooting, given that "too many events result from many invisible processes which culminate very often in an external event of little or no historical rclevance."'" This acknowledgment of componenm of the real which are not immediately manifest is a crucial step in developing more nuanced. complex. and functional notions of the relationship between film and the world outside it which it simultaneously purpons to apprehend and to transform. Fraoco—Swiss filmmaker lean-Luc Crodard‘s famous dictum"Bourgeois filmmakers focus on the reflections of reality. We are concemed with the reality of the ref1ection.""—clearly inspired in Benoit Brecht’s "metarealistic" devices to denaturalize and rapture die process of representation, stands as a kind of rallying cry for a whole generation of "modernist" filmmakers, critics, and theoreticians who. according to a growing number of writers, betrayed the motivating spirit behind Brechtian aesthetics. Sylvia Harvey summarizes the crux of this difference in her imponarrt book May ‘db’ and Film Crtltttre: Like the modemist filnunakers, Brecht certainly places an emphasis on the fact of representation. and on the problems entailed in the selection of cenain means of representation. lint this emphasis is made only in terms of a tension which exists between the fact of representation and "that which is represented." Wltat is preserved is a sense of something antsirie af and beyond the fact of representation, . - . a social reality to which the representation refers.“ _ ' “ -'-__

__

I

._

—

-I-I

Among Latin American filnunakers who have also drawn inspiration from Brecht, the transformative impulse linking fonnal strategies to potential changes in the world beyond the film—text has been much more urgently conserved. As Dctavio t3etino observed recently in assessing oppositional film practice in Argentina: Ciiven the smog of falsehood and equivocation which invades every last pore of a dependent nation. in our countries the representation of multiple and contradictory facets of whatever reality requires research, study and first-hand knowledge. But such activities in tum require a social practice oriented toward positively__transforming that reality which one aspires to ll-hrflciw. Without this commitment, it will prove difficult if not impossible to achieve genuine first-hand kr|owledge.'"

- Cit).-glc

-

-

,

I64

Julianne lttrrran

The liluaicn of Fteailty Verauc the Fteallty ct illusion

'9’ til‘

,., 3i .-""'

This split between the "immanent" and the "extemal"—between those for whom the film-text constitutes the only universe of discourse and (theoretical) action, and those who maintain that transit between the real world and the text and back again is not only possible btit'c§sEirial and inevitablc—rep|icates itself in several critical and theoretical issues which recur in the following pages. It is, in fact, pivotal to the central project of this essay: the postulation of a critical methodology based on "modes of filmic production and consumption" defined nat as exclusively immanent to the film-text but as originating in and exerting an impact upon the world outside it. Marc Zimmerman, a literary critic and theorist, expresses the dilemma as between a linguisticsderived epistemology based on Ferdinand Saussure and the notion of exchange, and a lvlarxist epistemology rooted in production. "At stake, then," he summarizes, "is the issue of whether the world is to be conceived in teons of a metabolism between thought and reality or between thought and sign . . . and, at the extreme. whether reality includes, or is nothing more than, a system of communication or of signs."f"

To acknowledge that representation jtjevitablyalso interpretation -partial, selective. mediated, imperi"Ect—E not necessarily to conclude that representation is inevitably false or futile. The difference between these two positions is. in the last analysis, not so much an epistemological or intellectual as an ideological or political one. The obsession with film‘s suspect nature as an inherently "illusionist" mode and the bypostatization of the relations within the text as the only possible object of analysis correlate all too neatly with the kind of relativizing critical agnosticism of a critic like Roland Banhes who, for all his brilliance and political savvy, failed to see that the doctrine of infinite polysemousness (the meanings of a text can never be fixed] in fact assumes a hegemonic position even as it pretends to abdicate one. Duly if one is prepared to renounce one‘s stake in the social issues addressed by die tflilm) text can one afford to maintain that no reading is "privileged," that is, more compelling, effective. or real than any other- To take refuge in the inviolability of the text, in the janissance of its "infinite productivity," cloaking oneself in "the myth of the purity of etemal becoming," to use Jonathan Culler*s apt phrase, is to attempt to live outside history. Dnly those fully secure in the status qua can pemrit themselves the luxury of such an illusion. Among Latin American political filmmakers, the price of participation has been abandoning such illusions.

-Cio---glc

, - - ..

,

Fiim ,-itrrisrtrts and Fifm ireftesrries ii: Lerin America

1155

“Revolutionary Cinema": An Idea Wheae Time Has Passed‘? As I undertake the fellewing assessment ef twe decades ef eppesitienal Latin American filmmaking practice, I am painfully aware that the issue ef defining revelutienary cinema is net the huming questien it was a few years age—in Eurepe and Herth America at least. There is a certain histerical ireny in trying tn address this preblem at a time when three net unrelated phenemena are ebvieus: first, films frem the Third waaa are less fashienable in the metrepelitan ceuntries than they were a few years age; secend, film preductien itself, in many Latin American ceuntries at least, has been censiderably curtailed;

and, finally, the artificiality ef the “Third werld" as a pelitical and ideelegical censtnict, even within the seciaiist secter, has been rnade patently clear by recent events in Africa and Asia. Traditienally, the attempt te define a revelu_tm|;1al:y..cinema has escillated between the twe peles ef ferrnal analysis and the articulatien ef esplieit___ce_nlent. This attempt te definspievelutienaiy cinema en the basis ef the fenns and relatienships immanent in the film-test itself has met with duhieus success and has been te a large estent abandened by beurgeeis film critics net enly because ef changing histerical circumstances, but alse, and mere impertant, because ef a basic miscenceptien in the enterprise itself. The preject ef defining a phenemenen described by a signifier i[“revelutienary“} which denetes sweeping transferrnatiens ef pewer relatienships in seciety is deemed tn failure if it insists en invielate testual self-sufficiency and the estraneeusness ef the larger secial centest eut ef which the film is generated and te which it is directed. Te try te “revelutienise the means ef representatinn" er te verify that achievement, intertestually and witheut receurse te estratestual referents and recepters—hewever fre— quently it may have been attempted-—is an undertai-ting deemed te failure. The capacity ef the “cuiture industry” te ertprepriate. ce-ept. and neutralise subversive er petentially revelutienary themes is neterieus and needs ne further ampiificatien here. The eeeptability ef femt is a mere cemplex issue; hut, at the risli: ef gressly eversimplifying, the preblem might be briefly discussed in the fellewing temts. Since ferne esist in histery, they alse evulve. In fact, the very essence ef fertn evelutien seems te hinge en a rather pendular escillatien between peles ef classicism and esperimentatinn in which the “new” is in anether sense simply the “different” in a precess which seems uiti~ mately censtr'ained te repeat varlatiens ef itself, renewed but seldem cempletely deflected by eeeasienai medificatiens frem eutside dtis

-Ce.--gle

, - - .,

,

lfifi

.l'uh'a.I'|rte Ht-r.r'i'r.Irr

pendular swing. lvlany Latin American filmmakers have insisted upen the dialectical unity ef cnntent and ferm while tending te view the lat-

ter as a functien ef the fnmier. As Arrnande Reffe, editer cf the ‘tiens eeuelan film jeumal Cine Elf dih, cap-resses it, “Fenn is centent transferming itself inte fnrm.*'i' We have but te recegnise dte l'ustnncai and practical impessibilily ef sui generis fermal innnvatien and the lack cf any guarantees against its enlistment in the service ef a less-than-altruistic master befere acknewledging that, as the custcdian ef the "revelutienary" essence ef art, ferm is virtnaliy as pessimistic as centent. Armand lvlattelart, a leading cemmunicatiens theerist whe, prier tn the 1973 ceup d'etat, had lived and werked in Chile fer several years. argues n prepes ef that esperience that “blew ferms, new centents. even new media are net eneugh. The new centent ef a new means ef cemmunicatien must be tied te a new secial practice."ii if beth fe and centent have been prevcd msimilable by late capita|ism’s all-deveuring drive tn centain expressiens ef dissent. precess is the nne cempenent element ef the cultural artifact that has pmved itself less palatable, as recent experiments with “p-artial" versiens ef werkers’

centrel in advanced capitalist factery preductien have indicated. Precess, er _pr'c|t'tice, is accessible threugh an investigatien ef the secial. histerical. pelitical, and ecenemic cnntext ef the film in the ceurse ef its elaberatien and receptien and, mere specificmly, threugh the analysis nf the medes and relatiens ef filmic preductien. distributien. and eshibitien as the mnst prentising teel fer articulating the dialectical relatienship between test and cnntest.

Tewards a Centertual Criticism:

The Prasls Dnnnectinn The estent tn which the centestualieing impulse lies at the very feundatien cf the Hew Latin American Cinema is ebvieus frem Femandn Hirri*s assertien that “What was needed was a scheel which weuld

centbine the basics ef filmmaking with the basics nf secinlegy, histe-~1'y, gengraphy, and pelitics, because the real undertaking was a quest fer natinnal identity. . . .""-'4' lt is thus net surprising that Latin American filmmakers have censistently. if semetimes enly implicitly. called fer a mere centestualieing kind ef criticism. Accerding tn Venezuelan filmmaker .lacebe Eerges, “if this cinema ferms a part ef that precess ef breaking eff fmm the pattems ef dependency, its stage ef definitien

cerrespends te the stage nf that precess. Thus. its cenceptualisatien cannet be understeed escept tn the degree that ene perceives the (histerical] mevement which gives it femt and cnntest."i“ Brazilian film-

-Ci¢;i.3lc

_

-

-.

,

Filrn Artisans aria‘ Fiinr frlzfristrrics in Latin America

lfi'i'

maker Leen Hirszman effers a cernplementary admenitien: “The critic, if sihe wishes tn truly understand Third werld cinema, must keep in mind that die material cenditiens nf preductien esert a determining influence nn the fnrm."i5 Leading Brazilian critic Jean-Claude Bemardet stipulates that “The material ef the film must net mask the eriginal secial situatien which gave it birth,“ but, en the cnntrary, make it manifest. He cites the early decumentary Aruanria {Linduarte hierenha, 1959), shnt in the Brazilian l'-lertheast under particularly precarieus cenditiens, as having “succeeded in cenveying the csprcssive petential nf an aesthetic which assemes the peverty ef its ewn means as fully as [it assumes] that cf the film’s pmtagnnists.“'i“ Jaccbe

Berges has declared that “Third wane cinema is neither a fenn ner a style but an attitude."ii Because that unifying attitude realizes itself at the level ef actual pra"-tis—a prasis censistent with and petentially capable ef transferming dte werld which the filmmakers simultaneeusly depict and address—enc essential mic ef the critic is te previde entry inte that centezt and discem the cempenents ef the filnunakers‘ censtitutive practice. The impertance cf this rele is perhaps particularly apparent tn a critic frem the metrepelitan secter whese primary schnlarly-critical fecus has been en the emerging cinema nf the Third werld. The inevitable sense nf diserientatien at the absence nf a cemmen cultural greund translates inte the search fer a cere nf centcztualizatien suffi-

cient te the task ef making the film under study accessible in anether cultural cnntest. Altheugh films can be transferred te ether secial, histerical, pelitical, class, and cultural centests, the act cf abstracting them frem their eriginal centczt necessarily subjects them te a certain

inevitable rcificatien. They cease tn be a precess in erder tn (appearm tel beceme simply a preduct. Their nature as the intersectien nf dynamic histerical and secial ferces and persnnalities cedes tn the appearancc ef a static, particular-ized. “crystalized ebject ef centemplatien, a repreducible and hence immutable cemmedity. The mnst censtructivc and meaningful critical relatienship te the traditien nf eppesitinnal filmmaking in Latin America seems tn me tc censist in the investigatien and articulatien nf the range ef altemative medes ef preductien and censumptien develeped in diverse circumstances ever the past twe decades in all their variety and specificity. H Basic tn this critical ambitien is the belief that the transfermatien nf

relatiens ef preductien and censumptinn which particular Latin American films have catalyzed in their eriginal secial. histerical, gengraphical, and pelitical centestisl and ef which they are themselves the preduct, is semehew inscribed within them at the level ef femr and cnntent—thnugh net, hnwever, in any mechanical, autematically

-Ce.-glc

, - - ..

,

-

i

lfifi

.it-rliarrnc Hanan

perceptible, er cempletely knnwable way. Althnngh these inscriptiens

are selective, incnnsistent, perhaps centradictery. at times invisible. and resistant re quantificatinn er schematizatien, the task nf the critic must include the attempt tn demenstrate hew interacting centeatual

facters impact upen the film test itself and the interpretatien nf that test at a given pnint cf receptien tcngnizant that the latter is alsn a preduct ef interacting centestual facters}. it is net a matter nf substituting erttrinsic fer intrinsic (immanent) criticism. but rather nf allewing the estrinsic tn illuminate the intrinsic

T

by recnnstituting pan ef the precess by which the estrinsic eriginally infermed the intrinsic. This effert is bnth mntivated and validated by the general recngnitinn that the creatinn ef a film is in mest circumstances a mere secialized and csternalizcd—in shnrt, krtnrvabie—phe-

|-'

nnmenen than the creatien ef a piece ef fictinn, fer example, nr a

--

painting. The peint is net tn attempt te censtitute a single “ebjective test“ but tn argue that a film's cnntestual envirnnment at the time nf preductien is relevant te any histnrieally sensitive subsequent interpretatien ef that tcst‘s cnntent, ferm, and functinn.

Tewards A Theery et Artistic Preductinn: The Preeursers In "The Authnr as Prnducer,“ nne nf the few charting essays intn this unmappecl territery, Walter Benjamin called fer a refnrmulatien ef the questien: net “hnw dnes a werk nf art stand in relatinn ta the relatinnships ef prnductien nf a perind," but “hnw dees it stand in them'3'"i“ Benjamin draws a distinctien between attitude and actual practice. Tire fermer p-esitien can be deduced frem the centent ef the werk; the lat-

ter can enly be verified threugh knewledge nf the actual precess nf creatinn, threugh what Benjamin calls "technique"-—bnth the aesthetics ifnrmjl and the actual technical [and sncial] means by which the werk is preduced. Benjamin ebservcs that “the place ef an intellectual in the class

struggle can enly be determined. er better. chesen. en the basis ef his pesitien in the precess ef preductien.“i‘°' Believing with lvlarrr that ma-

terial cnnditiens determine censcieusness and net vice versa. Benjamin insists that a writer {artist} must esp-eriencc his selidarity with the prelctariat net merely ideelegically, but as a prndaccr. He credits Brecht with claberating the cnnccpt ef “functienal transfermatien“ i_[im_funkrienierang]:

- . dc net simply transmit the apparatus nf

preductien witheut simultaneeusly changing it tn the ma:-rimum estent pnssible in the directien nf secialism.“1'“ Benjamin effers twn criteria fer determining the “esemplary character" nf a preductien {i.e., prn-

'

: 1

‘

-:1-r-1---'--i

Film Art|'.ra.Ir.r and Fiim industries in Latin America

Id?

ductive pmcess nr pmductivc apparatus}: first, that it lead ether pmducts tn itself and, secendly. that it “present them with an impmved apparatus fnr dteir nse."i" "And," he adds, in a challenge which reveals the link between preductien and the medes ef pemeptien {nne which Cuban theerist Julie Ciarcia Espinesa will echn twe decades later}, “the apparatus is better tn the degree that . . . it is capable ef 8 making ce-werkers eut nf madam er spectaters?“ In erder tn “nperatienalize" Benjamin's ceneept nf the anther {nr filmmaker] as preducer, it is clear that the critic mnst estend his nr her energies inte the related fields ef ecenemic and secial histery and. abeve all, secinlegy. In Marxism ane’ Literature, Raymund Williams esplains that. "As sn eften, the twe deminant tendencies nf beurgeeis cultural studies—the secinlegy nf the reduced but esplicit ‘seciety’ and the aesthetics ef the esclnded secial remade as a specialized ‘art* —suppnrt and ratify each ether in a significant divisien ef labeur. It is this divisien nnw ratified by cnnfident disciplines which a secinlegy nf culture has tn everceme atrd supersede. insisting en what is always a whele and cennected material pmcess."-“ A drird and final snurce ef inspiratien and endnrsement cemes fmm the werk nf a Latin American theetist. In ta prednccidn simirril— ice: Teerfa y mctndn en seciein_gr'e rfei arte (1979), the Argentine secielegist Héster Crarcia Canclini, writing fmm his lvlesican esile,

prepeses a secinlegy nf art based en tlie secial relatiens nf art as a symbel-making prncess. “Art.” he maintains, “net enly represents relatiens ef pmdnctinn; it realizes them."“ He cnnclndes his investigatien inte the Practice nf the plastic arts in Argentina during the l'.?-‘fills with the assertien that “Changes in the werks themselves are mere intelligible when interpreted as part nf the transfermatien ef secial relatiens ameng the members ef the artistic field. The censequencc ef this secinlegical affinnatiee fer artistic practice is ebvieus: as much as a cemples ef images never befem seen. creating a new art requires anether way ef pmducing dtese images and nf understanding them: generating a new mede ef relatienships between human heings-"“

Dut et the “Absent Center" and inte the Breach The present essay is an attempt tn lecate and fill the “absent center““' ef a theeretical discnurse which increasingly calls fer. but te date has net succeeded in, preducing a sustained and systematic analysis ef the “medes ef cultural pmductien." The geal is te redeem fer film criticism dre secial and material nature ef artistic activity: tn argue why the style. fenns. and cnntent nf a filmwerk merit censideratien as preducts ef a specific secial practice and ertpressiens. ameng erirer

- Ctr. glc

_

-

l'.I"[l

Jniiantie Burden

tirirrgs, nf an artist*s sncial rclatirrns- My “data field" derives frem a

quarter century nf pelitically-cemmitted Latin American film practice —tl1e mnst sustained, cencerted, and at the same time varied effert in werld film histery tn pmduce a revelutienary cinema in all senses nf the term. Like ltaymnnd Williams, I am interested in these peints in the histery nf art when creative practice becemes stmggle. “The active stmggle fer new censcieusness thmugh new relatienships“-“ is a phrase which aptly defines the New Latin American Cinema mnvement.

Tewards e werking Eletinitien at lttedes et Prnductien in Film In centemperaty critical parlance, “prnductinrr“ can refer te the matcrial er technnlegicai apparatus. te erganizatienal infrastmctnres, tn the secial relatiens which censtitute and are censtituted by the fi1m-artifact, nr re its “self-preductien as a chain nf significatinns."-1“ Centempnrary film theery and criticism have cenccntrated their attentien virtually exclusively en three nf these feur meanings. The study ef the

signifying practices witirin the text, directly indebted tn strncturalism and semietics and enly indirectly influenced by lvlarxist theught {primarily threugh Lnuis A]thusser"s idinsyncratic reading ef Capital}. has tended tn cnnccntrate en articulating the ideelegical dimensinn nf the film-text. {The mest extreme cmbediment nf this tendency nccurs nnt in film but in the literary theery nf Pierre lvtachercy, whn argues that “l.he text prnduces itself—unfnl-:is and activates its multiple lines

nf meaning witheut cenfnrrnity te *intentinn.' pre-given narrative medel, er external rea|ity.“"_i-"'=" F‘-‘arallel tn this celebratinn nf immanence, them has been a marked interest in film technelngy, eften referred tn as “the materlal apparatus.“ largely mntivated by the petential functien ef this apparatus as a bearer ef ideelegy. This line nf inquir'y's ability te pestulate the relevance ef phennmena extemal tn the film-text an the film—text is largely dependent en hew the cen-

cept ef ideelegy is understeed. A disprnpertienately smaller ameunt nf research, mest ef it histerical rather than secinlegical in nature, has

taken the erganizatienal infrastmcture ef the film industry as its ebject —nntably in studies ef the Hellywnn-d studie system. Such studies are seldem infnrrned by any cnncept ef a mutually infinential dynamic between the film prnduct, the erganizatienal structure in which it is preduced, the nrganizatinn suncture in which it is cnnsumed, and the larger secial cnntext. ln nrder tn integrate the dynamics ef sncial relatiens and ether extratextual phennmena inte the ceneept nf artistic prnductien. it is

=Cir)..3lt-1'

..

,

Fitm .*lr'rr'a'a|.rts and FHm Industries in Let.-'11 Ame-we

I TI

therefnre neeessary te abanden the humanists‘ realm and ta malte eamp instead with the seeinlegists and pe-litieal scientists ameng whem “medes bf preductien" in the eenerete se-eibeeenemie sense is. at present. very mueh at the eenter bf diseeurse—-eenstituting, in faet, a hntly enntested terrain.

Baelt tn the Sauree: Hlariea Dnneept at Medea at Freduetien Mars states in Capital: Whatever the seeial ferm bf preductien. laborers and the means ef prnductien always remain faetnrs nf it. . . . Fer prnductien ta ge an at all they must unite. The speeitie manner in whieh this unien is aeeemplished distinguishes the different ecenemic epeehs bf the strueture uf seciety frem ene artntl1er.‘*“

In the eapitalist made bf preductien, the enly enneeptually and analytieally develeped mede examined in l'vIar:t's werk, he stipulates that "the separatien e-f the free werker frem his means nf preductien is the starting-peint given."‘“ Elne bf his mest suggestive passages en the general tapie nf pre-duetian and eausumptinn, frem the Grfindrisse, direetly addresses the questien nf artistie preductien and farmulates a dialeetieal interactien between pre-duetien and eensumptien: Preduetien nat enly supplies a material fer the need but it alse supplies a need far the material. As seen as ennsumptinn emerges frem its initial state bf natural erudity and immediaey —and, if it remained at that stage this wnuld mean that prnductien itself had been arrested there—it becemes mediated as a drive by the ebject. The need whieh eensumptien feels fer the abjeet is ereated by the perceptien ef it. The e-bjeet nf art-—lil-te every ether preduet—ereates a publie whieh is sensitive te a.rt and enjeys beauty. Preduetinn thus net nnly ereates an nbjeet fer the subjeet, but alse a subject fer the nbjeet. Thust preductien preduees eansumptinn If 1] by ereating the material fer it; {2} by determining the manner ef ennsumpti-an; {3} by ereating the pre-duets initially peaited by it as nbjeets, in the fenn bf needs felt by the eensumer. It thus pru-duees the ebjeet ef etinsumptien. the manner bf eensumptinn, and the metive ef eensumptien. Ce-nsumptie-n liltewise preduees the predueer‘s inelinatien by beeltening tn him as an aim~determining need.“ Thus, fer lvlars, "prnductien, disuibutien, eitehange and eensurnptitin" eenstitute "members bf a tntality, distinetinns within a unity."‘“

-Cb.--gle

I - - .4

,

IT2

Jeliatnte Burtnn

Dut frem the Seurea: ltlarx Interpreted Amnng secial scientists. the ceneept ef medes ef preductien is epen te dispute en beth the level ef theeretical elaberatien artd that ef practical applicatien: what are the nencapitalist medes ef preductien and

in what secieties de they exist er have they existed? The “Asiatic mede" is a case in peint. ‘While seme secial scientists ge abeut empleying the ceneept as the basis ef their analysis cf specific secieties. ethers insist that there is net new ner ever was any such mede ef preductien. Either alleged medes ef preductien. "ceined" subsequent te l'vIarx—the celenial mede. the lineage mede. the celenial slavery mede. etc.~—are jest as subject te having their existence called inte questien as seen as they are identified. Arneng the varieus medes-ef-preductien theerists. 1 have feund Jehn IS. TayIer‘s werlt the mest useful. In Frem Medemitatinn re _j+.

Hades cf Preductien.‘ A Critique ef the Seciefegies elf Devcleprrlertt and Urtderdcvefepmertt. he ties the entire p-reblematie te questiens

ef dependency and "transitienal secial fermatiens" in the Third Werld. Tayler rejects the secielegies ef develepment and underdevelepment as "teleelegical and eceneniistic." arguing instead fer using the discnurse ef histerical materialism te analyze Third werld reality "as a secial ferrnatien which is deminated by an articulatien ef twe medes ef prednctien—a capitalist and a nen-capitalist mede —in which the fermer is. er is beceming increasingly. deminant ever the ether."** Tayler distinguishes three histerical perietls in the develepment ef

capitalismls penetratien ef the nencapitalist werld: the expert ef mer"ii chant capital, cemmedity expert. and the expert ef finance capital. Imperialism as such enly eccurs with the latter phase. The degree te which capitalism is actually cempliciteus in maintaining precapitalist divisiens ef laber and relatiens fa thesis which Tayler puts ferth cenvincingly} is epen te general debate. much ef which hinges en such eempeting cenecpts as "articulatien." "dislecatien." "disselutien,“ and "transcendence." Hewever the relatienship between ceexisting capitalist and precapitalist medes is cenceptualizted. the impnrtant peint is that this pestulatien ef twe er mere medes ef preductien whese "interdependence" is a functien ef their eventual incempatibility. epens up a crucial space fer maneuver. as Tayler’s discussien cf the netien ef "dislccatien“ makes clear: Imperialist penetratien intervenes ecenemically. pelitically and ideelegically within these dislecated levels in erder te ensure

-Ce.--glc

I - - ..

,

Film .-trrisnas and Film Inrittstriex in Latin Alncrica

l'i'3

the increasing deminance ef the capitalist mede nf prnductien and te create that resnicted and uneven ferm nf develnpment [characteristic ef Third werld fermatiens]. . . . Yet it is alse the case that the existence nf these dislecatiens. and the effects that imperialist penenatien has upen them in nying. as it were. tn adapt them tn the pelitical and ideelegical repreductive requirements nf a capitalist tttntle nf prnductien. can prnduce—in spe-

cific cenjunctures in the u'ansitinn—the pessibility fnr the emergence ef the precenditiens fer the censtitutinn nf a different mede—a secialist rnntle—nf prnductien.“ Precisely the uncertainty. relativity. and unpredictability ef the precess nf establishing hegemeny nf capitalist nver precapitalist medes nf prnductien acceunts fer the inexnicably related phennmena ef eppressien—either physical [direct vielence] er ideelegical tindirect vielence threugh manipulatinn. "cultural celenizatien." etc.]t—and resistanceagain. either en a direct physical level {land taltenvers, pepular uprisings} er an indirect ideelegical level [pelitical slngans. fer exmtple. er the means nf artistic expressinn]. Tayler grants the indirect means mere weight than the direct: "The ferms ef physical eppressien can establish pre-cenditiens . . . {but] it requires bnth an ideelegical and a pelitical feundatien. a cemmitment tn its adequacy as a superier ferm ef preductien in the idenlegies that structure daily life. and a permanent access te pelitical pewer tn guarantee its perpetuatinn."“*' Amnng the eppesitinnal media in Latin America. film has been the mest eutspnlten. the mest trenchant, and the mnst generalised in challenging the hegemeny ef dependent (er "transitienal"l capitalism en beth the ideelngical and the pelitical levels. Ivlnst significantly. it has alse peserl that challenge en the much mere cnncretixed level nf sncial relatiens in the labnr prncess. access tn the means ef preductien and the means ef distributinn. and apprepriatien nf the surplus ef creative laber. Under the capitalist mede ef prnductien, direct preducers are sepa t rated frem their means ef prnductien and are thus ne lengcr able te maintain themselves thmugh their ewn unmediated laber. Deprived ef agricultural crnps er handicraft preductien nr whatever censtituted the basis nf their prier subsistence. they are left with enly their laber pewer tn sell. In "selling themselves" as the enly pessihle respense tn their severance frem their eriginal means nf prnductien. their relatienship tn their nwn reprnductien becemes mediated by capital [in the fenn nf wages er salary} and by the apprepriater nf the surplus-value which they preduce. the capitalist.

-Ce.--glc

I - - ..

,

1|

|._ ,_ _

174

.l'm'i-rirnrrr Hr-trten

Hangnvera and Harhingera: Dld Artiaanal and New lnduatrial llilndea Tn the degree that they have been cnnscinusly aware nf cnnstituting their films threugh an altemative mede nf preductien. and circulating their films threugh an alternative mede nf censumptinn. many Latin an'filmmakem in the dependent secter have referred tn the *‘attisa11al‘}ilaltl.I‘t’€ nf their wnrlt- The cnnnntatinn nf feudal crafts prnduct iiimnt fnrtnitnus. Under the feudal mede nf preductien. craftspeeple censtituted an exceptien tn the defining criteria in that their relatiens nf prnductien "were nnt marked by relatiens nf ecenemic dnminance."“ Unlilte the feudal peasantry, whn had practical cnntrnl ( ef. but did net nwn. their means nf preductien. feudal artisans enjnyed

beth practical centrel nf the tnnls and materials necessary tn their it prnductien ("real apprepriatien" in lvtarxist terrninnlngyl and actual [er "fnrmal"] ewnership nf the same tnnls and materials. Experiments in en-eperative prnductien and distributinn have represented an inter-

mediate strategy between the atavistic reassertinn nf artisans] mndes and a mnre anticipatnry attempt tn renrganixe the industrial bases nf film prnductien and censnmptinn under the principles nf a secialist rather than capitalist mede nf prnductien. Marx's affirmatinn (already cited] nf the unitary nature bf preduc-

tinn. distributien. and exchange prnvides the thenretical basis fnr pnstulating the categery ef "medes nf filmic cnnsumptinn" as a necessary cemplement tn “medes nf fil‘rmfi1E'ddc en withnut this then-

netical suppert. heTv'éF:'r.'"tl'ic necessiiyTf such a fennulatinn is nbvieus frem enly the mnst elementary grasp nf film as an art ferm which develeped under capitalism and frem the specifi_c nature nf this

if

t1_-sit

cnmmndity 'l|v'i'lltI'l'1__lF_'._ll'lE__hEl'IlID[ll’1l'Bl1lC effspri_ng__ngf ati‘tTl_11Ti5Tf__tt1ar-

riage bctwcen art andindustry. _ ' Ii-_ylvia"'l:l_a;ey nbservesiihat with the develnpment ef cultural prndnctinn as cnmmn-dity prnductien under capitalism and the censequent

(T exchange ef cultural ebjects in the marltctplacc. "the \/ instance nf ruling class cnntrnl lies in the centrel . . .

mnst pewerful nver exchange and distribntinn.""'* Fer the majerity nf eppesitinnal lilrrtmalters in Latin America. this was net a self-evident truth. but had tn be learned the hard way. Filrnmalters first cnncentrated their efferts en reapprn—

priating the means nf prnductien. The victery nf having actually prnduced a finished film was subsequently undercut. if nnt negated. by the difficulties nf guaranteeing that preduct access tn its intended (er tn any} marltet. Filtrttrtalters thus realized that in additien tn preducers tin the traditienal cinematic sense}, they had tn beceme distributers as well- The numereus ebstacles tn the successful eutceme nf this battle

=Cit).v3lt-1'

..

,

Fiim .-'lr'ti.r-that and Film industries in Latin .-irrtericn

l’.T5

prevented the cnmhatants fmm seeing that anether guarded fertress lnnmed en the bnriann: the exhibitien secter. Elnly relatively recently have filmmakers succeeded in penetrating this bastien. finally cegniaant ef dte need tn talte cenunl nf the entire three-part prncess.‘“' Fer the purpnses ef analysis. rather than specifying "medes nf distributinn" and "medes ef exhibitien." it has seemed mere practical tn subsume bnth categeries under the single ferrnulatinu. "medes nf fi en." This categery alse includes dte precess nf receptf which. censistent with "receptien theery" in literature. cnnceives nf the spectater as subject rather than ebject. as active rather than passive er inert. nsssttxt. MODEL km

MODES UF FRUDUCITUH ldt]lIlE5 DP l]lFFlJ5lUlll ltll'Il[l'ES UF 'l".1ll'~l5l.|'l'-lf"l'ltll"l {

MDDE5 DP [ll5TRllil.|'T|tll“l {

l-lEI[lES DF ltECEFlltll'l

MODES DF EI'ZHllilTltll"i

The Fnaalble Veraua the Neeeaaary Seme thenrists wnuld call inte questien the validity nf net nnly the cnncepts nf "medes nf filmic prnductien" and "medes nf filmic censnmptinn“ but the very attempt tn address the medes-nf-preductien questien in any sphere but the susictly ecenemic. Immanuel Wallerstein. fer example. is quite categnrical nn this issue: "Neither individual units ef prnductien ner pelitical er cultural entities may be described as having a mede nf prnductien; enly eennnmies.” That disenrd is se rife amnng sncial scientists is dismaying te a humanist whn leelts tn dtese "mere selid" disciplines fer greater riger and. by tne deubt naive] extensinn. cnnsistency. Shnrt nf abandening the specific practical prnject at hand in erder tn plunge inte the melee currently talting place in the thenretical arena. the altemative tn critical actinn wnuld mean censigning eneself tn spectater status and standing by as cnmpeting thenreticians slug it nut ameng themselves. patiently awaiting the unliltely eventuality that nne might seener er later be declared "the winner." Tn paraphrase Femandn Selanas‘ and Elctavin t.'.ietinn's pesitien en the feasibility nf creating revelutienary cinema prier tn the revelutien. there eventually cemes a peint when the debate as te whether er net a theery ef medes ef artistic preductien is _r1n.rsi-hie must be suberdinated tn censideratien nf whether er net it is necessary. Having cnncluded that it is necessary. and well apprised by new nf dte intricacy nf (seme efl the issues invelved and the fragility ef dte insnuments available tn examine them. let us declare. at the rislt nf wantenly debasing the ceinage. the fellewing? [ll

-Ce.--glc

. - - ..

,

liti

.it.tl'iam|e Barrett ""1 tn-

that the term "medes nf prnductien is here used lnnsely—as is the went nf humanists—tn denete the varieus and variable cempenent precesses nf film prnductien. distributinn. exhibitien. and receptien. and {El that there exists in Latin America a spectrum nf eppesitinnal film practices ranging frnm the artisanal tn the industrial mede wherein bnth peles are cnunterpnsed against the den1in.ant prnductien mechanisms and relatiens within the capitalist mede-

An Art Ferrn Bern under the Elgn et Capital

_j|'

At the end nf the nineteenth century. when filmmalting was in its infancy. the act nf malting a film ceuld be as individualised and private as the cnmpnsitinn nf a symphnny er the sculpting nf a blnclt ef wnnd. In this incipient medium. the artist retained petential centrel nver all aspects ef the creative prncess—frnm the cenceptien ef a theme and selectien ef participants and lncatinn. threugh the actual filming. and including the prncessing. editing. and exhibitien nf the final preduct. Semetimes dtese multiple functiens were shared. but even this nnnperative medel retained basically artisanat ferms ef erganiaatinn. This situatien was. hnwever. extremely shert-lived. As the cemmedity petential nf this nevel curinslty. dtis frivelnus amusement [whese status as an art fnmi wnuld enly be cnnferred by the passage nf time and the impact nf the marltet]. became quicltly apparent. die nrganizatinn nf its prnductien and disseminatinn became prepertienately mere cemplex and fragmented. Technnlegical develepments wnrl-ted tn reinferce dtis increasing divisien nf labnr. as did ecnnnrnic tendencies teward agglnmeratien and cnntrnl nf dte maximum number nf cempenents inherent tn the filnunalting prncess. The structural analegies between the nrganizatinn ef a smdie nr film prnductien cnmpany and an autemnbile manufacturing plant are net cnincidental. but instead testify te the fact that beth prnductien precesses were nrganiaed under and by a capitalist ecnnnmic system. E-nviet decumentarist Dxiga ‘v'ertev was nne nf the first tn peint eut hnw clnsely the develnpment nf the cinema was linlsed tn the develepe ment ef an advanced capitalist mede nf prnductien. "The camera." he nbserved. "hasn*t had a chance. lt was bnm when dtere was nnt a single cnuntry where Capital did nnt reign."5' ‘liertnv succeeded in winning that machine nver tn his nwn and his gnvemmentls purpnses threugh the ltind ef brilliant and innnvative strategies which are in fact dte subject nf a film such as Man with a ll-tnvie Camera- Ctthers express a mnre pessimistic view ef the film medium‘s petential tn serve an altemative fnmt nf secial nrganizatinn nr even cnntribute tn dte prnject nf subverting the ferm under which it was itself cenceived.

- Ciel. gin

_

-

Fiim Artixatts anal Film inri'u.rtris.s in Latin America

I T’?

Stanley Arnnnwita. whn argues this negative pesitien aprnpns ef even the films nf dte Snviet "Eielden Age" in his article. "Film—The Art Fnrm ef Late Capitalism."5l maintains in anether essay nn the labnr precess and the lngic nf capital that "Technnlngy that is develeped within the framewerk nf beurgeeis relatiens nf prnductien is nething but the ebjectiticatinn ef dtese relatiens. and wnuld tend therefnre tn subvert the secialist intentiens nf a snciety that refused tn recegnlae that fnrmulatinn."“ Uthers. believing in dte nelative autnnnmy nf die technnlngical apparatus. wnuld argue vehemently against dte "grnss determinism" nf such an assertien. Threugheut its histnry. dte film medium has always revealed its deuble edge tn anyene whn scnitinixed it. Lilte lvtarx‘s nft-qunted appraisal nf religinn as bnth the highest expressinn nf human aspiratiens and an npiate which dulls these same aspiratiens. film (indeed. all cultural preductien} must be appraised in terms nf its pesitive and negative. cnnstructive and destructive. alienating and liberating effects md petential. Eisenstein saw dtis clearly. His enthusiasm fer art and specifically film as a vehicle fer cultural and pelitical reinfranchisement was cnunterbalanced by his suspicinn nf the "narcntic" effects nf the medium- Amnng the insights in that cnmucnpia nf nbservatinns en the nature nf "Art in the Age nf lvlechanical liteprnductinn" was Benja= min's subtle perceptien that. in additien tn transferming theart ebject itself. the new___tt1ediun1_alsn transfnrrned the viewers‘ attitudes and ferms nf perceptien. encnuraging passive. "disnacted" viewing rather

than a mere active invelvement. Tltus"tlie"apparent "detnecratieatinn" nf the film medium when cempared tn elder art ferms is prnblematic. The petential fer an everexpanding radius ef participatien and access is effectively centained because the new technelngy is "depleyed within a patriarchal. discrlminatery and class system. which bnth nrganixes demands and stigmatizes pepularity."5“ The tendency away frem privatiaatien is kept in check by the cnuntervailing mechanisms ef alienatien. Necessarily and inevitably. any prnject te "revnlutinniae" the film medium. tn cnnvert it tn the needs nf snciety rather than the exigencies ef capital. must develnp ways tn challenge dte alienatien nf the prnducer and the receiver intrinsic tn dte medium as it has been nr ganieed under capitalism. Fer if—as members nf the Frankfurt Schnnl have maintained—science. tecbnnlngy. and the cempenents nf everyday Iife have been increasingly "subsumed" under and transfnrmed by the sign nf capital. art. thnugh certainly net impervinus. is arguably the secter which is mnst resistant tn this prncess. ‘fer. en the ether hand. within the secter nf petential resistance censtituted by artistic prnductien. given its industrial base and its highly develeped require-

-Ce.--glc

. - - ..

,

|| .

r

.llI

J I

-

_l

ITS

Jnliatme Hanan

ments fer technnlngical infrastructure and capital investment. film is the mest vulnerable medium. If the indusnlal side ef its nature explains antl reinfnrces its vulnerability tn simply beceming a passive reprnducer and disseminatnr ef capitalist idenlngies. its artistic dimensinn is the lncus nf its subversive petentialThe range nf chnices invelved in dte selectien nf themes. materials. techniques. styles. kinds nf tecbnnlngy. levels nf cnllabnratinn and participatien. and altematives tn erganized metheds nf prnductien and exchange generates a space fer petentially subversive actien. Fer tn exist and be structured under a late capitalist mede nf prnductien is net necessarily tn replicate it. As Hester Garcia Canclini nbserves. "A fundamental difference. abeve all in capitalist secieties. exists between the general secin-ecenemic structure and the particular secin-ecenemic structure nf the artistic fielti.“l'5 Te actively nppnse existing medes nf prnductien and censumptinn. tn subvert existing structures and invent new enes. is tn bridge the gap between art as imaginary er symbnlic practice and art as sncial practice. "Fantasy" and "reality" beceme united at dte level nf actinn.

The “Uteplan" Element In Artlatlc Practice The divnrce between the imaginary and the real. the subjective and dte ebjective. dte imperfect actuality and the utnpian pessibility. is a cleavage which pervades westem theught. Herbert Ivlarcuse. examining the legacy nf Freud in the light nf Ivlarx and ndter secial thenrists. finds this split at the cnre nf repressive sncial fnrrns- Against the repressive "reality principle" he explnres the liberating petential nf fantasy and utepia: Imaginatinn [phantasy] envisinns the recenciliatinn ef the individual with the whnle. nf desire widt realixatinn. ef happiness with reasen. While this harmeny has been remnved inte utepia by the established reality principle. phantasy insists that it must and can beceme real. that behind the illusien lies lntnwleagc. The truths nf the imaginatinn are first realised when phantasy itself takes ferm. when it creates a universe ef perceptien and cnmprehensinn—a subjective and at the same time ebjective universe. This eccurs in art. . . . The artistic imaginatinn shapes - the "uncnnscinus memery ef the liberatien that failed. nf the 6 premise that was betrayed. . . . Art eppeses tn institutinnalixed _ repressien the "image ef man as a free subject. . . ."“‘ Fer lvlmcuse. then. "art is eppesitien." The eppesitinnal qualities nf the werk nf art. hnwever. are fnr him cenfined tn its ferm. and the

-Ce.--glc

. - - ..

,

Film Artisans and Film fruit-r.rtrlcs in Latin America

I T9

final result is a tragic paradnx: "The very cemmitment nf art tn fenn vitiates the negatieu nf unfreednm in art." Thus. rather than prnviding the basis fnr a genuine liberatien. art at best can enly exercise a dual functinn: "bnth tn nppnse and tn recnncile; bnth tn indict and tn acquit; bnth tn recall the repressed [image nf liberatien] and tn repress it again—'puti lied.‘ "5"" Stanley Arnnnwita. meditating nn the eppesitinnal petential nf the film medium. en the nne hand iecates it at the level nf ferm and. nn the ether. suggests that it is at present defined by and cenfined in "the play nf cnnuadictinns" between the {ultimately futile because unfeasibIe] return tn the "relative autnnnmy nf the artisan mede ef artistic preductien" and an equally untenable resignatinn in the face nf existing prnductien cenditiens as structured by late capitalism.“ But tn return is nnt necessarily tn revert. The "risk ef privileging an anterinr art. nne that cnnespnnds tn handicraft pnnductien."’“' sheuld nnt blind us tn dte cnnstructive. transfnmtative petential nf epting fer and demnnstrating. hnwever micrncnsmically. a less alienated and alienating mede nf artistic prnductien. As Sylvia Harvey cerrectly perceived. a "hangever" frem a prier mede may act as a harbinger nf a firture mede: lust as there is a pessibility that a particular femr nf culmral prnductien may be a "survival." an anachrnnistic hangnver frem the class needs nf an earlier epnch. an alse it is thenretically pessihle fer cultural prnductien tn anticipate future class needs. and tn play a part in the transference nf pelitical hegemeny frem nne class tn anether in advance ef a radical change in the relatiens nf prnductien.“-'

"De-Alienatien" aa a Strategy fer Seelal and Artiatic Tranatermatien In their search fer altematives tn the deminant capitalist mede ef filmic prnductien and censumptinn. Latin American filmmakers nnt enly drew upen past medes. they alse attempted tn anticipate future enes. These attempts tn create cinema under altemative cenditiens have censtituted a kind nf "utnpian" impulse tn live eut. at least in miniature. ether. less alienating sncial fnrrns- The parameters nf this quest have allewed fnr a bread range nf experiments: * a "nne-man" film like lvflarin Handler’s t Litre Students (Uruguay. lEleS}——cnnceived. shet. edited. and {initially} exhibited by its maker. whn enly made nne cepy nf a film which was tn beceme a banner nf dte internatienal student mevement because he theught that

-Ce.--glc

. - - ..

,

I fill

Julianne Burtnn

such a crude and imperfect little shert "wa.s nnt geing tn interest anynnef' * a film schnnl like Femandn Birri‘s Escuela Dncnmental de Santa Fe;

* the semi-clandestine activity nf grnups like Patricin t'iuaman‘s E.-‘rape Tercer Arie in Allcnde's Chile nr Jnrge Sanjines‘ Grape tiltamau in Belivia; * the fully clandestine elaberatien and disseminatinn nf The Hear nf

the Furnaces by a pair ef filmmakers whn suppnrted their efferts tn preduce "guerrilla" cinema by werking in cemmercial publicity; the attempts at preducers‘ cnnperatives erganized by members nf Brazil's Cinema hlnvn mevement and l'v'lexicn‘s hluevn Cine; the attempts at natinnalizatinn nf prnductien. distributinn. and exhibitinn by Chile Films under the Allende gevemment; the creatinn ef the first secialist film industry in the Americas in Cuba.

*

“I

* * -l—-s

r“_' l '-.-

Naturally. this explnsinn nf altemative mndels exerted a marked impact nn the cnntent and the fnrm nf the werks preduced. but these innevatiens are best understn-n-d as the result nf a larger quest tn transfnrrrt the medes nf filmic prnductien and censumptinn. Where the deminant cinema prinritiaed gxchange value. nppnsitinnal filrnrnmters emphasized use values- Where dbuliiidnha-‘til?-rncedures

turned filmmakers intn virtual "piece werkers" er managers. alternative prncedures seught a reintegratien at all levels nf the creative prncess. Where the deminant practices required large amnunts nf capital. a cemplex infrastructure. expensive equipment. studie sets. prefessinnal acters. elaberate systems fnr lighting and camera mevement. prrrfessinnal screenplays. and fixed sheeting schedules. eppesitinnal filmmakers. in Glauber ltncha‘s phrase. simply went nut tn the streets "with a camera in their hands and an idea in their heads." Wltere the stntctures and cnnventinns nf traditienal filnunaking required a passive and secially fragmented audience. relatively heterngenenus and iselated. whn did their viewing in the "ritualized" space nf the cenventinnal mevie theater. their nppnnents seught nrganixatinnal and stylistic ferms tn enceurage audience participatien. respense and feedhack. These included bringing films tn the targeted audiences threugh mebile cinema pmjects nr lbrnm "parallel circuits" which wnuld tem-

If.

perarily apprepriate the cnmmunal space nf schnnls. unien halls. cnmmunity centers. nr public squares. The cemmen thread which links all nf these efferts is the will tn "de-alienate" alienated and alienating sncial relatiens. In the last analysis. all sncial cemmitment and transfermatien is actualised at the level nf individual experience- Latin American filmmakersl attempt tn

I

2

cA A 11 ID"

'8

L.

|

I

:3

_

Il_

—-!

Fffm .#lrrf.rnrr.r and Ffhn frrrfrrsrrrler fr: Lorin .dm-erico

ISI

create a revolutionary cinema toolt as its point of departure not simply the introduction of a new content or the trarrsforrnation of cinematic forms. but the lra.nsformati:Jn_oI _the_s_uhjecti:ee__conrlitions_ of film pro_duction_ and filth viewing. However “unconscious,” uneven, and discontinuous these efforts, they have been consistent with the view that social change has its deepest roots in selfsrealiration and that, fnrthennore, [proto-revolutionary] “subjectivity must have a material basis within the process of production, in the alienation of human labor from itself. . . ."“" The sense of personal integration into a common project and of interpersonal unity generated by a common purpose is apparent in the writings, declarations, and practice of many Latin American filmrnalters. To close with a single esample—Pat1'icio Chicn1an‘s recollections of the esperience of shooting what was to become The Bottle of Chile: We went out to film almost every day. We had a clearly defined worlt plan. We came to be so in tune with one another that in the final months of the filming . . . communication between us on the shoot was virtually reduced to an eschange of glances. We usually ate in the sa.'me factories where we were filming. Elften we would sleep in the tnrclt. There was a great sense of fraternity generated by t.his process, not just because we were . . . all very fond of one another, but also because we understood one another. and ltnew that what we were doing together was of crucial importance. We were all convinced of the relevance of the project, and that was extremely irnportant in binding us together and in helping us to develop a smooth work process. . . . The film was an incomparably intense eztperience for all involved, not just in its historical dimension or for whatever vir— lues it may have as cinema. or because of the fact that we managed to rescue it from the chaos and devastation that followed the coup, but because it was a monumental experience in each of our lives. . . . It marlted us all, forever. Everything else is

merely a figure of speech.“

Notes I. Gerard Leblanc, “Direction,” Cfnéthiqtre l"-lo. 5 [Paris] September— Clctober, 1959 {translated by Susan Bennett) in Screen Render riff.‘ Cinensnf fdcologyfliofirfcr (London: The Society for Education in Film and Television.

l9'T?}, p. IS. 2. The gunshots which caused Argentine Leonardo Heiuricltsorl to lose

control of his camera were. in fact. fatal.

- GL1. 311.:

_

-

I S2

.-lttiictnrte iiurton

3. Film titles given in English indicate availability through Ll.S. disuibutors: Spanish-language titles indicate films which are not in disnibution here {except in those rare cases when the original title has been retained}. 4. “Editorial.” Cine ni din {Caracas}, 15 {December I963], 2. Unless otherwise specified. all translations are my own and all indications of emphasis in quotations appear in the original. 5. Femando Solanas and Ctctavio Eietino, “Hacia on tercer cine,“ Cine. ctdtarn y descoioninscidn {Euenos Aires: Siglo Iii], IEITSJ, p. SS. h. Julio Garcia Espinosa, “Por on cine imperfecto." Fensnnnento critico (Havana. IEITU}. English translation, “For an Imperfect Cinema." by Julianne Burton in .lttmp.-"Cut: .t'I. Review of Contemporary Cinemn 2|] {May IETIS}, 24Eh. 7. lulio Garcia Espinosa, “Carla a la revista chilena Primer piano," in Una inrogen recorre el mt-undo {l-lavana: Editorial Letras Cubanas, l'§I'i‘5l}, Eti2?. S. Glauber Rocha, in Gordon Hitchens, “i-‘tn Interview with Glauber Rocha," Fiimrno-lzer:-:' i'r'ewsietter, 3:2 {September l'5lTl]}, El. El. Jorge Sanjines, “Cine revoltlcionario: La experiencia boliviana," Cine t_'n.betrto Tfiiii {l‘r-il.l, T.

ll}. Cine dc let Sn.-re declaration, September lit?-tl {Distributed in rnimeo— graphed form at the lvlostra Internationale del I'~luovo Cinema, Pesaro, Italy, September li-"T51ll. Gerardo Chijona, "Gutierrez Ftlea: An Interview," Frdrneworic A Film ..lonrnoi tltlorwich, England} ll] (Spring ISTEIJ, 29- {Reprinted from Cine cuhono 93}. I2. Fernando Birri, Ln Escuela Drtcnmentoi de Santa Fe {Santa Fe, Argentina: Editorial Docrrmento del lnstituto dc Cinematografia de la Universidad 1'"-lacional del Litoral, l"iili-4], p. l-=lI3. fl:-id., p. l3I4. Gustavo lldontiel Pages. “Entrevista a Fernando Birri." fnrdgener {lvlexicofl 5 {February l'5l'Sl]). I5. Christine Crledhill. “Recent Developments in Feminist Criticism," Quarterly Review of Film Studies 3111-{Fall 1'5‘?S,l. 4152lti. Patricio Eirrarndn. “La Eatalla de Chile: El Golpe" {translated by Don Ranvaud}, Fron|ewori:: rl. Fiinr Jonmal ll] {Spring lS?'Jl, 14IT. .learr-Luc Crodard, quoted in Sylvia Harvey, lldny ’t5S and Film Cttitnre {Londonz British Film Institute, ISTS}, p. es. lS. iii-id., p. Tl. For a comprehensive discussion of the problematics of realism, see Terry Lovell, Pictures of Reality: rlestherlcr. Politics ortd Fiensttre {l_.ondon: BFI, l'F'Sfl}. 19'. Uctavio Cretino, Cine _v de,nendenc|'o: El cine en in Argentina {Buenes Airesilsimaz Cine Liberacion, l5".lhilEtTS) {nrimeo], p. STIll. lvlarc Zimmerman, “Exchange and Production: Strucruralist and lvIarxist tltpproaches to Literary Theory,“ Frctxis 4 {l9'.lS",I, I52. El. Ftnrrando Rofte, “Problemas de la elaboraci-tin," Cine tti din Ii {De-

cember I963}. ll

=Cit).t8lc

,

Film Artisans and Filrrr industries in Lotta America

I S3

22. Armand lvlattelart. lltlnss lrledia, ideologies, lrlouvenrent Revolutionoire (Paris: Ed. Antluopos, l9'l4], p. 3S. 23. From a personal interview, December l9'l9. 24. Jacobo Borges, “Cineastas frente al tercer cine: Una encuesta," Cine nl din l4 {ll-lovember l9’r'l], 4. 25. Dsvaldo Capriles, Peran Erminy. Fernando ll..odriguee. “For la linea viva del Cinema l"-lovo: Entrevista con Leon Hirscman." Cine nl din l9 {lvlarch I975]. ll]. 2b. Jean-Claude Berrrardet. “L-e ‘Cinema Hove‘ Bresilicn," in Guy Hennabelle {ed}, Quince nns de cinema mondini {Paris: Editions du Cerf. l9"l.'i], p. 2l}l. 2?. Borges, op. cit., p. 4. 2S. Walter Benjamin, “The Author as Producer," The New Lefi Review 62 {July—August l9?lJ}, S5. 29. llrid.. S9. 3[l. llrid.. S9. 3l. llrid.. 93. 32. ll:-id.. 93. 33. Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature {Gxford University Press, I972], pp. l39—l4lJ. 34. Nestor Garcia Cartclini, Ln produccidn sirnl:v::llicn.' Teoria _v metodo en sociologin del arte {lr-lexlco: Siglo Hill, I929}, p. T3. 35. llria‘.. p. 2S. 3b. A reference to an important article by Terry Lovell, “The Social Relations of Cultural Production: Absent Centre of a Hew Discourse," in Simon Clarlte et al.. Cltre-lllintensiorrul Marxism.‘ Altlrusser and the Politics of Cul-

ture (London: Allison dc Busby, 1939}, pp. rat-ass. 3'l. Williams. op. cit., p. 2J2.

33. Teny Eagleton. “Pierre lvtacherey and the Theory of Literary Productien." The Minnesota Review 5 {Fall l9?5l. I3439. llrid-. J37. 4lJ. llarl lvlarx, Capital Vol. ll, as cited in John G. Taylor, From llrlodernination to ldodes of Prrrduction: A Critique of tire Sociologies of Development end Urtdcrdevelopnrent {Atlantic Highlands, l'~l.J.: Humanities Press, I929}, p. llJ"l.

ttl- Tay1or.ii:-id-. p, rot. 42- liar] lvlarx. Grtlindri-rse: Foundations" of the Critique of Political Economy, translated by l'vlar1in Hicolaus {London, I923}, p- 92. 43- Cited in Aidan Foster-Carter, “The Ivlodes of Production Controversy," l'r'ew l-.e_|Ft Review I13? {January—Febnrary l9'lS}, S944. Taylor, op. cit., pp. l[ll—llJ3. 45. Taylor, op. cit., p. llJ3. 415- Taylor. op. cit., pp. 2315-232. 4'l. David Gartrnan, “lvlarx atrd the Labor Process: Arr Interpretation," Tire insurgent Sociologist lr"lIl:2 S: 3 {Fall l9'lS], llJt3. 4S. Harvey. op. cit., p. 92.

=Cit1r.r8lr..-1'

,

I S4

.lulitt.nne Burton

49. This insight is drawn from a conversation widt Braxiliarr director-ex-

lribitor Gerardo Same and Uruguayan producer-distributor Walter Achugar. Havana, I979. 59. Quoted in Foster-Carter, op. cit., 'l4.

51. Daiga ‘riertov, Articles, journenttr, prejects, quoted in Hennebelle, op. cit., p. 295. 52. Stanley Aronowita, “Film—-The Art Fonrr of Late Capitalism," Social Text l {Winter I929], ll5. 53. Stanley Aronowita, “lvlartx, Braverman and the Logic of Capital," The insurgent Sociologist "v'lIJ:2 St 3 {Fall l9’lS). l3lJ. 54. Tabloid Collective, *‘Gnr"Against lvlass Culture," Tulrloid; A Review of rl-lass Culture and Everyday Life {Stanford, California] l S: 2 {Summer l9SlJ}, l-2. 55. Garcia Carrclini, op. cit., p. ‘l2. 55. Herbert lvlarcuse. Eros nnd Civilisation: A Philosophical inquiry into Freud {Hew "t"orlt: ‘liintage, I955], p. J39. 5?. llrid.. pp. l3l—l32. 5S- Aronowita, “Fi1m—Tl're Art Fortn of Late Capitalism," op. cit., l2'll2S. 59. ll;-id.. l2'l. so. Harvey, up. cit., p. llJ5til. ltlarl lvlarx, cited in Stanley Aronowita, “lvlarx, Bravennarr and the Logic of Capital," op. cit., l3‘i. t'r2. Julianne Burton, Politics and the Documentary in People 's Chile: An interview with Patricio Gurnuln on the Battle of Chile {Somerville, l'vlass.: blew England Free Press, l9'lSl, pp- I2, 33.

I

i

~ r

H-H-H-"jr=~1 -r -j-'"--1

The Economic Condition of Cinema in Latin America Mtchaet Chenan

The intention of this essay is not to provide a guided tour to the film industries of Latin America today, or a comprehensive survey of any ltind. Its propose is to understand the problem. For, lilte everywhere else. the lilm indusuy in Latin America is costly. suffers disproportionate rislts. it is insecure. These problems, which are found in the film indusuies of the metropolis too, tadte on special features in the countries of the Third World. To understand the economics of cinema at all, it is oecessmr to understand the history and mode of operation of the culture industry of which it is a part. To understand the economics of cinema in a Third World continent like Latin America, it is necessary to understand that facet of the culture indusuy which may be properly termed “culmral imperialism." We ltrtcrw that cultural imperialism is not just it phenomenon of the

contemporary world. Before the flooding of the marl-Let with the products of dte transnational entertainments corporations, there was the colonisation of literary taste. for example. the whole process described by the Peruvian Jose Carlos lvlariategui in the last of his epochal Siete ensayos de interpretncirin de in renlidnd Perunnn {Seven Essays of lnterpretntion of Peruvian Reality} of l92S. Cultural imperialism lies in the way in which tirese historical processes are consciously wielded by the imperialist power. As Joseph ltllapper of CBS told the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs in I962, The broadcasting of popular music is not liltely to have any immediate Ahal Gnuhar, cd., Third World Affairs l9S5- London: Third World Foundation,

I9S5. pp. fi't9—'3H9. By permission oi the publisher.

-., '

LILIF

lS5 _

'

I Sh

it-iiclraei Chanan

effect on the audience‘s political auitude, but this lrind of communication nevertheless provides a sort of entryway of ‘Western ideas and westem concepts, even though these concepts may not be explicitly and completely stated at any one particular moment in the communication?“ The process started with the arrival of the connuistadores. As Alejo Carpentier explains in the opening lines of his great historical study of music in Cuba: The degree of riches, vigor and power of resistance of the civilications which the conauistadores discovered in the blew World always detemrined. one way or another, the greater or lesser activity of the European invader in the constnrction of architectural worlts and musical indocuination. When the peoples to be subjugated were already sufficiently strong, intelligent and industrious enough to build a Tenochtitltin or conceive a fortress of Atlanta, the Cluistian bricltlayer and chorister went into action with the greatest diligence, with the mission of the men of war scarcely fulfilled. Clnce the battle of bodies was over, there began the battle of the symbol? The power of the symbol, malte no mistake, is a material power, for though intangible and subject to ambiguity, it has the durability of generations. It operates frequently in the guise of myths, including the modem myths which talze on their paradigmatic fonns in the movies, in the genres of the westem, the gangster movie. the tluiller. the romance. the stories of mgs-to-riches and all the rest. It is possible that the situation of the Hollywood film industry gave it special insight into the ideological needs of imperialism. In any event, as the filmmal-ters mastered the new narrative art, it and they were pressed into telling tales which, in order to fulfill the firnction of a modem mythology, suppressed, as Roland Barthes has put it, the memory of dteir fabrication and origins. The control of this symbolizing, mythologicing faculty, has been as much the object of the Hollywood monopolies as its economic functions, however unconscious and disguised by ideological rationaliaations. {For in Hollywood, as the critic Paul lvlayesburg has somewhere said, conscience doth malte heroes of them all.) In 1945, the U.S. Department of Commerce publication industrial Reference Service {later World Trade in Commodities] reported on the development of a new marl-zet in Cuba:

-Goggle

,

Econorr-rir' Condition oft,'f'r'nerna in Latin .4rnerir.'a

ill?

The marltet potentialities for the sale to amateur users in Cuba of United States motion-picture cameras and projectors are fair. It is estimated that upon temrination of the war about $3.599 worth of lfimm sound projectors and $2.499 worth of silent lfimm projectors can be sold. Sales of Smm motion-picture cameras are expected to be somewhat higher.-" This was the last paragraph in a detailed report that examined prospects for the sale of various kinds of equipment in both the theanical and the non-theatrical marltets. ltlon-theatrical users included schools. the army and navy, commercial users and amateurs. The expected sales were not particularly large, even allowing for the higher value of the dollar at the time. Tet apart fmm the fact that capitalists are miserly and lilte to count every prospective penny. Cuba had been of interest to the United States for some time as a ltind of offshore testing laboratory for uying out new technologies and techniques in the fields of media and communication. Baclt in the mid—l929s. Cuba. together with Puerto Rico, was the birthplace of the now massive communications corporation lTT—the same l'I'l‘ that offered Stm to the CIA to "destabilize" the Popular Unity Govemment in Chile at the beginning of the l9'i9s. ITT was set

up by the sugar IJTDIILSTS Sosthenes and Hemarrd Behn after they aequired a tiny Puerto Rican telephone business in settlement of a bad debt. The company was then built up on the success of the underwater

cable Iinlt drey laid between Havana and lvliami.“ At the same time, radio arrived. The first transmissions in Cuba tools place in I922. Clne of the first stations was owned by the proprietors of a newspaper. Diario de la rldurirta. Cuba quicltly becanre one of Latin America’s most intensely developed broadcasting marlsets. By I939 it had no less than eighty-eight radio stations and about 159,999 receivers. lvlexieo, by comparison. though many times larger, had only 199 stations and no more than 399.999 receivers. Argentina had about l.lm receivers, but only about fifty stations. This gave Argentina the best ratio of sets to inhabitants in Latin America. approximately l:l2. but the Cuba ratio, l:39, was better thmr the lvlexicarr, l:fi-4. The ratio in the U.S.A- at the same time was l:3-5 and in Europe between Izti and l:l l.-" Local capital found entry into certain parts of the culture industry,

while other areas remained the prerogative of foreign capital. because of what we nowadays thinlt of as the problem of software, and the opportunities which this provided. Because of language and national musical idioms and tastes, local entertainment capital had the advantage in the market for radio and records- These two media—whieh are

-Clo.--gle

, - - ..

,

I SS

r'l-'iit'hael Chanan

intimately lin|ted—were also cheaper to enter and to operate than film production after it.s earliest years. Two Cuban commentators mention that after the collapse of international sugar prices in I929. two of the pioneers of the Cuban film business, Santos and Artega, only survived by returning to their earlier activity as circus proprietors, and that after this, local capital preferred to loolt to the new activity of radial‘ As for records. early technology was almost anisanal and easily pemtitted small-scale local production, and remained so for longer than film. What the advent of electrical recording in I925 did was to give the Horth American companies new ways of moving in on the Latin American market, but their control was still necessarily indirect. They built factories for the manufacture of records made by local musicians and produced by local companies who ltnew the marltct. and used radio stations both as their aural shopwindow and to discover new talent-

These media are different from both telephones and cables and from electricity, which in Cuba at the time of the revolution, were 99 per cent in the hands of U.S. companies who owned and controlled them directly, while in the entertainments sector a large part of the

infrastructure belonged to local capital- Throughout Latin America. foreign and transnational companies hold considerable and direct interests in energy. while they control the culture industries often indirectly and without necessarily being involved in local production-

Electricity is a universal energy source requiring powerful and expensive generators as well as a guaranteed constant fuel supply; telephones and cables are first and foremost instruments of communicatirrn for commercial and industrial intelligence and traffic, both na-

tionally and intemationally- The telephone combines this with the appeal of a luxury item for personal use by the same class that uses it commercially and in government and administration, but its general availability in develtrping countries, lilte that of electricity, is always

restricted. The entertainments media. in contrast. are primarily directed to the exploitation of something called consumer leisure time, across the widest possible social spectrum. They aim in developing countries to include the people who don't have electricity and tele-

phones in their homes—or ditln’t. Nowadays, the shanty towns which encircle the cities often do have electricity, and hence television, though they still laclt not only telephones but also a water supply and drainage system.

Every communications technology and each entertainments medium manifests its own peculiarities and idiosyncrasies as a commodity, which vary with the precise conditions of the environment in which they are installed. The telephone everywhere accelerated, in-

= Go-git

..

-

r.

Economic Condition ofCinema r'n Latin .-ll-rnerica

IS9

creased and extended commercial intercourse; but in Cuba it also served to let North American companies rr.rn their Cuban operations not as fully-fledged overseas offices but lilrte local branches. lt made it unnecessary for them to hold large stoclts of raw materials or spare parts when they could get on the telephone and have them rapidly shipped or flown in from mainland depots when they were needed. The same methods are nowadays employed by transnational corporations throughout the world on the much larger scale made possible by computerization, satellite communication, and jet air uansport. The advantages are not only economic: the corporations are also in this way lifted beyond dte control of the comrtries in which their various branches are situated. Even in its simpler form twenty-five years ago in Cuba, the system confronted the revolutionaries with difficult problems when the companies were easily able to operate an embargo on supplies in the attempt to destabilize the new government. But it is also very easy for the major cinema distributors to control supply. There is a history of embargoes they have laid against different countries every time one of them tries to erect barriers against them in order to protect or succor a national film industry. The problem of creating a national film industry has existed since the beginning and to analyse the early development of cinema in Latin America is the best way to tease out what it really consists in. To begin with, early exhibition was substantially an activity of comicos de la legua {itinerant showman} just iilte everywhere else. In most Latin American counnies, however, the geographical spread of film was largely restricted to the reach of dte railways and not far beyond. Along the railway lines. a regular supply of new films from the capital city encouraged permanent cinemas. There was a limited hinterland where travelling showmen found places to set up in, lilte barns and yards, but transport and surface corrununications tluoughout Latin America were underdeveloped and there were vast remote areas which they never visited at all. ln any case, rural populations in Latin America offered very little scope for matting money out of them. There is no reason to suppose that peasant communities would not have been just as receptive to films as urban worlters, only drey existed beyond the cash nexus and were economically mar'ginal. {Their labor was still largely exuacted by dte quasi-feudal means inherited a.r1d evolved from the Spanish Con-quest; there were a few exceptions in places lilte Cuba where dtere was a rural proletariat). The spread of cinema in Latin America was largely due to the intensity of foreigrt exploitation, principally that of dte U.S., but it was accomplished through intermediaries. The emerging pattem of exploi-

-Cicrpgle

_ - -.

I99

ll-iiciurei Ciro-no-It

ration in the film industry did not require that the dominating country actually own the cinemas, it was enough for them to dominate the mentality of the economically dependent “tribe” of creole capitalists. In all Latin American countries, dte cinemas came to be owned by the conmrercial classes, the same local business people who also set up the multitude of small commercial radio stations which spread throughout the continent during dte l939s, following the model of exploitation developed north of the Rio Grande. Film. a new invention, became a major branch of what the Franltfurt sociologists in the l939s, Adomo and the others. identified as the culture industry, financed by entertainment capital. This industry is characteristically imperialistic. dominated by hlorth American interests and closely linlted widt the electrical industry. Even at the beginning. when the technology was still primitive, the expressive means still poor, the infant film business in each counoy was nonetheless only able to satisfy demand with difficulty. and through the lntematinnal character which its trading pattems even then revealed. cinema showed itself a child of late capitalism and the giant elecoic companies in which Lenin saw the paradigmatic form of economic imperialism. So explosively did film catch on that rates of growth were unprecedented. and for several years there was no country able to produce enough for its own home marltet. If the colonieers of Hollywood were able to tum these conditions to their especial advantage, this is because they were the first to obtain the baclting of finance capital. They were late starters. Their entry into international competition was constrained during cinema’s first twenty years or so by dte ravages of the lvlotion Pictures Patents ‘War, in which the companies battled viciously against each other to establish ownership of the industryls patents. But the Patents ‘rllar over. dte process upon which the hlorth American film business then entered rapidly altered the prospects of creole capital more rapidly and radically than it affected the big European film companies. The companies in Europe had been seriously wealtened by the war but they still had an industrial base and national roots. In dte countries of the imperialised periphery these conditions were entirely absent, and the local operators either left the business or rapidly gravitated into exhibition. Distribution concentrated on a small number of companies, principally hlorth American subsidiaries. Production was left to a few advenn|rists, children of the bourgeoisie with a little money to spare and the fancy to matte a movie, or those who found the baelring of calralios lrlarrcos {“white horses"), as the dreauical baclrers ltnown in England as "angels" are called in Latin America.

-Co.-gic

, - - ..

,

.E.It'or|r.r.mr'c Condition of Cinema in Latin America

I9 I

A ltey moment in early cinema history had been when the dealers shifted from selling films to exhibitors to renting them instead. This change-over laid the basis for subsequent marltet domination by the North American distributors. They became the majors because they had understood that control of disnibution was the dominant position in the industry. As the film economist Peter Bachlin has explained: The distributor taltes over the risks of purchasing dte films while the exhibitor only has to rent them; the disttibutor‘s mediation improves economic conditions for the exhibitor by allowing a more rapid change of programs. For the producers, this development signals a growth in the marltet, with films able to reach consumers more rapidly and in greater number. whilst also constituting a ltind of sales guarantee for their films. In general, the dishibutor buys the prints of one or more films from one or more producers ud rents them to numerous exhibitors; in the process he‘s able to extract a sum considerably greater than his co.sLs-l The balance of power thus shifts to the dlsuibutor. But since cinemas in the capitalist system exist to provide not films for audiences, but audiences for films, so exhibitors in turn serve as fodder for the distributors and the producers they are in league with.

The l929s. in the North American film industry, became the period in which dealers-tumed-distributors learnt the triclts of the trade and battled for control of the exhibition marltet with the emerging Hollywood studios, who were trying to extend their own conuol over the industry. It was the period when the peculiarities of the film as a commodity first clearly emerged. The film is consumed in situ, not

through the physical exchange of the object but by an act of symbolic exchange, the exchange of its impression. ‘rllilliam lvlarston Seabury. a ltlorth American film lawyer, explained that “In the picture industry the public may be regarded as the ultimate consumer but in reality the public consumes nothing. It pays an admission price at a theaue from which it taltes away nothing but a mental impression of whatever it has been permitted to see."“‘ Correspondingly, the exchange value of the film is realised not through physical exchange of the object itself, but tlueugh gate money. the price of admission. in this way manifesting its affinity with other forrus of cultural production and entertainment. But if it does not need to pass physically into the hands of the consumer, nor does the film need to pass into the legal ownership of the exhibitor. He need only rent it.

-Co.-gic

, - - ..

,

I92

irficita-ei Cit-nnan

By dtis means, the exhibitor becomes the prey of the ways the distributor's find to manipulate the conditions of rental. “Block booking" and "bIind booking," for example, in which they force exhibitors to take picnrres drey do not want and sometimes have not seen in order to get dte ones drey do want. ltlone-theless, Seabury insists that film is entirely different from the commercial operation of the chain stores with which people began to compare the cinema. Bachlin is in agreement with dtis. It is, he says, “of great importance for the forms of concennation and monopoly wltich arise within the industry. Tire principles of price fixing and ways of dominating the market will be different from those which relate to products which involve only a single act of purchase by the consumer, that is to say, products which disappear from the market In one transaction."“' In Europe, the blorth American distributors found resistance to their various malpracrices. and European counuies during the 1929s progressively erected legal barriers to protect their own film industries, with varying degrees of success. They were barriers of which It was practically impossible to conceive in developing countries- Even had gevemments had the will, what should they try to protect? The only Latin American counuy wltich ever tried it until Cuba, was lvlexico, in dte early 1929a, In revolutionary anger at dte offensive representation of dteir counuy in the Hollywood picture. The U.S. majors had begun to move in on Cuba while World War I was in progress: Paramount was first, in I912. By 19215, Cuba represented 1.25 per cent of U.S. foreign disnibution, according to the tables published in the Film Fear lioolr. It is small in comparison with Europe, where Britain commanded a huge 49 percent and Gamrany came a distant second widt I9 par cent, although several European markets were much smaller than Cuba: Switzerland, Holland, Czecho-

slovakia and Poland were only I per cent each, while Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece represented I per cent batween them. In Latin America, Braztil had 2.5 per cent, lvlexico 2, Panama and Central America 9.25. and Argentina, Uruguay. Paraguay. Chile. Peru. Bolivia and Ecuador, ti per cent between them.” Hone of this made it easier for local producers. The director of a Cuban film of I925 commented that if the film failed commercially even

though the public had applauded it. this was because of the foreign distribution companies who were anxious to prevent the development of Cuban film production." “Foreign” is a euphemism for ltlorth American. How did the distributors achieve this kind of market dominance. from which drey could dictate their will‘? They engaged not only in dte malpractices aheady mentioned. Seabury quotes an independent

-Cicrpgle

_ - -.

Economic Condition of Cinema in Latin America

I93

exhibitor in the U.S. cormrrenting upon the variants of the rental system. complaining that they were designed to provide the distributor with a guarantee plus a percentage, which makes the percentage “excess profit." But dte bigger the surplus profit, dte more invesunant you can atuact. The industry leaders knew dtis perfectly well. According to one spokesman, discussing before an audience at the Harvard Business School in I92-ti the question of “how we are trying to lessen sales resistance in those counuies that want to build up their own indusoies": We are uying to do that by intemationallcing this art, by drawing on old countries for the best talent that they possess in the way of artists. directors and technicians. and bringing these people over to our country. by drawing on their literary talents, taking dteir choicest stories and producing them in our own way,

and sending them baclt into the countries where drey are famous- ln doing that. however, we must always keep in mind the revenue end of it. Gut of every dollar received, about 25 cents still comes out of America and only 25 cents out of all the foreign countries combined. Therefore you must have in mind a picture that will first bring in that very necessary 25 cents and

that secondly will please the other 25 per cent that you want to please. If you please the 25 per cent of foreigners to the detrimant of your home market, you cart see what happens. Di course, dte profit is In that last 25 per cent.“ Dr rather, the surplus profit. This is cardinal, because it is not ordinary but srrrplus profits that attract invesunant capital, and dtis is ultimately how Hollywood came to dominate world cinema. They gleaned a surplus profit fmm the market which gave them the backing of Wall Street. the most substantial and modem fund of investment capital in the world at that time. The result was that the ltlorth American film indusoy underwent in the 1929s a rapid process of vertical integration, in which not only did the production studios and the distributors combine, but they began to acquire their own cinemas. This was to combat the fonnation of circuits among independent exhibitors where booking arrangements were pooled in retaliation against the methods of the renters. But abroad in Latin America the distributors faced no such organized resistance, since the exhibitors had neither dte capital resources nor the bargaining power to fight, and the distributors dterefore had no need to acquire cinemas to break the exhibitors* backs and bully them into submission. They acquired no more than a handftrl in each country, to serve as showcases. Wlren foreign-owned cine-

-Cicrpgle

_ - -.

I94

rlfichael Chr-rrrar-r

mas were taken over in dte Cuban nationallzatlons on I4 Gctober I959, there were no more than eleven of them. The film as a commodity has another peculiarity, which has been observed by the hlorth American economist. Thomas Guback. He points out that the cost of making prints for distribution is an extremely small fraction of the total costs of production, what the industry call the “negative costs." the costs of getting to dte finished negative of the complete film from which the prints are made. Indeed dtis proportion has grown progressively smaller over the course of the history of cine-ma, as production budgets have grown lmger and larger- It means that films can be exported without having to divert the product away from the home market {whereas with many commodities, especially in developing countries, the home market must be deprived in order to he able to export]. In Guback’s words, “The cost of an extra copy is the price of the raw stock, duplicating and processing —incremental costs . . . a motion picture is a commodity one can duplicate indefinitely without substantially adding to the cost of the first unit produced . . . a given film tends to be an infinitely exportabie commodity: prints exported do not affect domestic supplies nor the revenue resulting from domestic exhibition. . . . We can have our film and foreigners can have it too."'l When you add that the United States soon developed into the largest intemal film market in the world at the time, it is clear why it was inesistible. Because it was so big, U.S. producers were able to recover negative costs on the home market alone, and the distributors were therefore able to supply the foreign market at discount prices that undercut foreign producers in their own territories- They also undercut European competitors. Guback does not quite get things right, however. He has an empirical approach which is misleading over the shape of Hollywo-od‘s foreign policy. He somehow thinks that the overseas offensive of the U.S. film industry dates only fmm after World ‘War II, when the contraction of the cinema audience following dte tntmduction of television made foreign revenue increasingly necessary for profitability. He claims that before that. "American films were sold abroad but the resulting rcvenue hardly compared to what the domestic market yielded." This is true, it was 25 per cent. He added that “Foreign revenue was simply an additional increment, extra profit upon which the

American film companies did not depend." But we saw that they depended on it for surplus profit. His conclusion is that “The foreign market did not warrant enough attention to force Hollywood to modify significantly the content of its films to suit tastes abroad, nor to induce the film companies to maintain elaborate overseas organica-

-Co.-gic

, - - ..

,

Ecnnemic Cnnditinn njf Cinema in Ldtili slmerfcc

I95

tinns.""* This is what is misleading: they did nnt have tn. Their methnds were thnse eittniled in the Wnshingtnn F.-1:-.tt‘s declaratinn at the beginning nf the century abnut wanting the territnries acquired frnm the defeated Spanish “because they will nne day hecnme purchasers at nur bargain basements." With the cnming nf snund alsn came a develnpment which, were Guback right. wnuld be rather strange: Hnllywnnd began making films in Spanish. The first was actually an independent prnductien by a successful Cuban actnr. Rene Cardnn. with the title Snmbrns hnhnfiercr tfihndnws cf Hnvnnnl. But then the big Hnllywnnd cnmpanies gut invnlved and spent twn nr three years making Spanish-language versinns nf regular Hnllywnnd mnvies. They were nnt dubbed. fnr this was beyend the technical means which the talldes started with. They were remakes in Spanish, with Spanish-speaking actnrs and a Spanishspeaking directer, hut ntherwise exactly the same. The Big Hnuse. directed by Genrge Hill in 1930 with Wallace Beery and Inhn Gilbert. became El presidin. with Juan de Landa and Titn Davisnn; Tnd Hrnwningls 1931 Dracula with Bela Lugnsi was remade under the same title with Carlns ‘itillarfas and Lupita Tnvar; and there were many nthers.“ They just went in and tnnk nver the sets and the shunting script and did exactly the same thing, nnly in Spanish. These films didn't make mnney directly. They were essentially a sales device fnr seiling the talkies. fnr gnading Lafin Ftmerieart exhibitnrs tn cnnven tn seund. The talkies represented a rnajnr investment by the LLS. film industry, with an intricate histnry nf cnmpetitinn between the studins. which was undertaken in the face nf the tlu'eat nf falling audiences. lt was an investment which Hnllywnnd needed tn recnup as fast as pnssible. It was essential that eithihitnrs ahrnad were rapidly induced tn spend the mnney necessary tn cnnvert their cinemas. ntiierwise the 25 per cent surplus prnfit frnm the fnreign market wnuld begin tn drain away. In the case nf Britain. William Fen: was smart ennugh tn persuade the Gaumnnt circuit intn it by an'anging fnr ES[lm fnr the purpnse tn be subscribed by banks in the City nf Lendnn. A very large pert nf that was the purchase nf equipment frnm the United States. This kind nf finance was much mere difficult tn achieve in Latin America. but the fact that here tnn the cinemas were nwned by lncal capital—thnugh there were very few significant circuitsserved dteir purpnses. lvlaking Spanish-language t'iln1s and putting them intn their shnwcases served tn bully the lncal cinema-nwners tn find the means nr risk gning under. They made these films fnr this purpese as a lnss-leader. and it ceased as snnn as the teclntiques nf re-recnrding were brnught tn the pnint, in the mid-19305. that allnwed

-

_

_

_

|

llilh

."|tl't'r'hael' C-‘tantra

the eriginal prnductien tn be dubbed intn any fereign language required.

These are the techniques by which the Ll-S. film majnrs acquired glnbal dnminartce nver the cinema. and. altheugh mndem develnpments have altered the relatienship between cinema and the rest nf the culture indusny. the result remains a distnrtiun in the infrastructure Lhrnughnut Latin .1‘-ltmerica which impedes the develnpment nf lncal

prnductien. Df cnursc. the precise nature nf the prnblem varies frnm cnuntry tn cnuntry. which brnadly speaking fall inte three grnups. The first cnmprises the three largest cnuntries. lvlexice. Argentina and Brazil. where

the size nf the hnme market allewed indigennus industries tn functinn. These industries are unstable. They have flnurished nnly at intermittent intervals. and have required increasing suppert and privileges frem the state in nrder tn survive- The nther twn grnups are. nn the

nne hand. cnuntries nf the secnnd nrder in size. where nne cnuld imagine a small film industry being able tn functinn under equitable cunditinns but it needs decisive state actinn tn get nne nff the grnund; and. nn the nther. the smallest cnuntries. where everything wnuld

seem tn be against the ideaThe mnst successful attempt within the first grnup tn prnvide state aid is the example nf Brazil and Embraftlme. In Brazil itself. Embrafilme has nftert been the subject uf intense debate. and its histnry de-

serves tn be studied in detail- Suffice it here tn say that it was set up after the military came tn pewer in liitsl as a state film agency mainly intended. at the beginning. as an agency fnr prnmntinn and distributinn nf Brazilian films abrnad. part nf the effert nf the Brazilian military tn create a pnsitive image internatinnally- lts internal rnle evnlved nver a perind nf time as its funds increased. and it develeped systems fur subsidizing distributinn and subscribing advances fnr prnductien. Naturally. it alsn served as a censership agency. lt clearly functiens much mere efficicntly and successfully than in Mexicn. where the in-

dustry has been substantially natinnalized and the state even nwns the principal exhibitien circuits. but under an unwieldy system nf gevemment administratinn subject tn systematic cnrruptinn and the persnnal

favnrs nf the cnuntry‘s president. lt remains true in Brazil. hnwever. that mnre than half the annual prnductien rate nf abnut IBEI features are still the mnst cheaply made cemmercial preduct nf the pumnctinnchndn lrnughly. pnmn-musical} industry nf Siin Paula.

Elf the secnnd grnup. the twn mnst impnrtant examples were the effnrts made by Salvadnr Allende‘s Pepular Unity gevemment in Chile. and the ltfenezuelan ease. which includes the nnvel feature nf direct subsidies tn film authnrs—in effect the directnrs—rather than prnduc-

'

: 1

‘

-:1-t-1---'--i

E-t.'nnnrrtit.' Cnnrfifinn cf Cinema in Larirt .-lltrrteritfa

I9?

ers. Here tnn. systematic study nf dtese nperatinns is needed. “'-" But the mnst interesting example. because the must unexpected. cemes fmm the third grnup. ln 1953. an article appeared in the Havana jnumal Carteles entitled “The pessibilities nf a film indusu'y in Cuba: cnnsideratinns."'l The central questien which dte article raised was "Is the heme market sufficient tn sustain a film industry'i"" The authnr. Clscar Pinn Santns. began his answer by pninting nut that the average Cuban expenditure at die cinema nver the years 1943-5? was 9.? per cent nf the natinnal inceme. m against 0.5 per cent in the United States. fl-lis figures differ frem thnse cnvering the same perind given in l9fill by Franciscn lvlnta. frnm which an even higher average expenditure nf {L9 per cent can be derived.}'f There were fifteen penple fnr every cinema seat in Cuba. which had nn film prnductien nf its nwn tn spealt nf. while in lvfexicn and Brazil. with substantial industries pmducing. in their best

years. as many as a hundred features a year. there were eighteen and twenty-five respectively. The fact was. said Finn Santns. that the Cuban market simply wasn*t big ennugh. even if they did spend mnre nn cinema thart in the Mecca nf the nnrth. The tntal average inceme fnr a

film exhibited in Cuba he estimated at snme 2-fi.ll(ltl pesns. Ctut nf this sum. fnr a Cuban film. abeut l5.t5I]fl pesns went tn dte distributnr. abeut t5.3{lfl tn the prnducer. and dte rest tn dte exhibitnr. Was it pnssible tn make films nu this little mnney? bln way. Again the figures which lvlnta gives are a bit different. but he is talking abeut imp-nrted films. fnr which. he repnrted. the rnyalty was said tn be t-til per cent. altheugh nnly half this sum actumly left the cnuntry after varinus deducfinns. [In 1954. 'lt'art'et}' rep-nrted that a new tax threatened the LES. film industry in Cuba. a Ell per cent levy nn tnp nf the existing 3 per cent they had previeusly always managed tn avnid. The article mentinned that Cuba rated as a 3 millien dnllar market fnr the l.l.S. cnmpanies." Finn Santns’s figures gave the exhibitnrs‘ share at lfi per cent; lvfnta estimated Ell per cent tn the exhibitnrs. But even this difference isn‘t material. The peint was that unless a very much higher sum—dnuble nr even mnre—went back tn the prnducer. nnt even a cheaply made film cnuld recnup its cnst. Even the 33 per cent which the cnmmissinn established by Prin effectively granted against lnsses was insufficient. It cnuld nnly really serve as a subsidy tn atuuct fereign. mainly lvlexican. en-prnductien. What chances then fnr dte prnject nf the Cuban revnlutinnaries in I959 tn establish a film institute tn create a natinnal film industry"? lb‘-"l‘tat cheek they had. if they thnught they cnuld malty create a film industry that wnuldn't need cnnstant and ennrrnnus subsidy! Cnuld a develeping cnunn'y afferd such luxuries? The answer is that this line

-Cictgle

_ - -.

l9S

Hfchtiel Chanan

nf reasnning nnly applies under capitalist cenditiens: cunditinns in which the middlemen. the disuibutnrs. and the retailers. the exhihiters. rake nff dte prnfits befnre anything gets back tn the prnducer. The prnvisinns that were made in the decree by which the Cuban film institute ICAIC {Institute Cubann de Arte y Indusuia Cinematngraficns} was set up. envisinned and empuwered it tn intervene in nrder tn alter these cnnditinns. nnt nnly as a prnductinn hnuse but alsn as bnth distributnr and exhibitnr. knnwing that unless they indeed were altered. films preduced in Cuba wnuld never stand a chance--the same prnvisinns that have nnw been made in blicaragua. tnn. Elf cnurse ICAIC has needed subsidy. Net. hnwever. because they dnn't make ennugh mnney at the Cuban b-na nffice. They dn sn semetimes very rapidly. In 197?. El hrigadfrta attracted 2 millinn penple. almnst half the pnpulatinn nf Havana. in the space nf its first six-week ntn in seven cinemas; Retrata de Teresa attracted 25lIl.I'Il'UIll in nnly twn weeks. Time and again. their nwn films have made mnre than eneugh mnney at the bnx nffice tn cnver the ensts nf prnductinn—except fnr nne thing: the pmblem nf fnreign exchange. The exclusinn nf Cuban films frem many parts nf the fnreign market prevents them eaming ennugh freely exchangeable currency entirely tn cnver dte inevitable fnreign casts nf the enterprise. Twn. abeve all: the cnsts nf purchasing films fnr distributinn. and. in nrder tn make their nwn. thnse nf the indust'ry"s mnst mnnnpnlized resnurce: film stnclt-. cf which there are nu mnre than half a dnzen manufacturing cnmpanies in the wnrld. Same nf the fnreign exchange ICAIC needs is saved by trade agreements with snciaiist cnuntries which supply abnut sill per cent nf the new films distributed annually; and by dte expedient nf purchasing fihn stuck fnr distributinn cnpies nf their nwn films fmm East Cierrrtany. They wnuld prefer tn shnnt their films nn Bastmancnlnr. which the l..T.S. blnckade makes it difficult and expensive fnr them tn nbtmn. sn they generally shnnt instead nn Fuji. but this still requires fnreign exchange. ICAIC. fnr much nf its existence. has been financed accnrding tn what secialist ecnnnmic planning calls the system nf central budgeting. Prnfitability plays nn rnle in dtis system in dte evaluatinn nf the enterprise. which instead receives a pre-arranged sum; and in which any net incnme is retumed tn the treasury fi'nrr| which central budgeting funds are allncated. In recent years ICAIC‘s annual prnductien budget has stnnd at ‘if millien pesns. In nther wards. its entire prnductinn prngram. which has averaged nut arnund dtree nr fnur featurelength mnvies every year. mnre than ferry dncumentaries. a dnzen er sn cmnnns and the weekly newsreel. all dtis is accnmplished an less

-Ce.--gle

I - - ..

,

Eenatrrrtic Cnaditinrrr cfCirt-ern-n in Latin America

199

than the cnst nf a single big-budget mnvie in Hnllywnnd. nr under half the cnst nf quite a few individual blnckbusters. Since the peculiarities nf the film industry alsn apply within sncialist ecnnnmies. ICAIC*s financial system includes special arrangements. Apart frnm the cinemateca and a small circuit nf first—rttn hnuses nf its nwn. the cemmercial cinemas are mn. since the instigatiun cf the system nf Pepular Pnwer in the mid-l9?[ls. by the lncal administratinns. which alse run such things as shnps and petrnl statinns. Bax nffice earnings pay fnr running the cinemas and fur renting the films frnm l.CAIC‘s disuibutien wing. The net takings gn back tn the central bank. The system cnuld he imprnved. but has clearly shewn that it wnrks. lntemally. the cnsts nf prnductien are recevered frnm the hnme market successfully eneugh. Twn nther facters cnntribute tn keeping prnductinn cnsts dnwn. bnth nf them the fruits nf the Bevnlutinn in the relatiens nf pmduetinn. Clue is that the ecnnnmics nf the star system nn lnnger exert any influence. Since the Revnlutiun has established cnntrnl nver inflatinn and ratiunalized salaries and wages. there is nn lengcr pressure tn keep puning up the pay nf actnrs and the specialized technical persnnnel-—a majer facter in the cnnstantly increasing cnsts uf prnductien in the capitalist film indusuies. At the same time. the plan fnr ICAIC tn beceme a fully equipped prnductien hnuse envisaged and accnmplished the eliminatinn nf the different individual cnmpanies which buy and sell each nther their services and facilities in every capitalist film industry. each nne raking nff its nwn prnfit in the prncess. Under such a system again the cnsts tend upwards. prnductinn is risky. emplnyment uncertain. In ICAIC teday. where abeut a thnusand penple are empleyed in prnductien. such uncenainty. which was always wnrse in Cuba because prnductien was underdevelnped and fragile. has became a thing nf the past.

Hntea l. Qucted in Herbert Schiller. Mass Carurrrtrniearfan.r and American Era-

ptre. E-nstnu: Beacna. 1931. p. tfitd. 2. Alejn Carpentier. La rruisica en Crrba. Havana: Editnrial Letras Cubanas. 1939. p. l'.f. 3. Hathan III. Gnlden. “Pnstwar market putentialities fnr mntinn picture equipment in Cuba." in industrial Reference Service. Washingtnn DC: l..l.S. [l'e[1at1rncntnfCnmmerce. August l9-A3. "v'nl. 3 Part 3. l'~ln. T. 4. See Anthnny Sampsnn. The Snvereign State: The Secret Hisrary cf HT. Lendnn: Cnrnnet. I93-=l3. Figures extrapnlated frem ‘rlfarren Erygart. Rasffa at art rtdverrf.rfng Medium. blew "t"nrk: l'vIcC|raw Hill. 1939. pp- 331-33.

-Cngle

,

2I]3

Michael‘ Chanan

ti. ftnlandn Diaz f-tndriguez a|1d Lazarn Buria Pt‘-ires. “Un case de cnlnnisacidn cinematngrafica." Caimdn Barbuda [S3], December l9’l'3. T‘. Peter Bachlin. Histaire Ecanantiarie du Cinema. Fads: La Hnuvelle Editinn. I942. p. 2l. S. William lvlarstnn Seabury. The Fuhiic aria‘ the ll-fnrinn Picture hierartry. Hew ‘fnrk: lvlacmillan. l92fi. P- 399. Bachlin. ep. cit.. p. l2T. ll]. Seabury. apt cits P. 3S3. ll. Qunted in Agrantnnte. Cranalagia del cirre cabana. Havana: Edicinnes ICAIC. l9fi-b. p. 42.

12. “Disuibuting the preduct" in J. P. Kennedy t[ed-l. The Stnry cf the Fihn. A. W. Shaw dr Ce., I922. pp. 223-2-fl. l3. The inrerrtarinnai Film fndustrfv. Blnnmingtnn: Indiana University Press. l9fi9. pp- 3'-—SI4. iirid.. p. 3. I3. See Emilin Garcia Ftiera. Histnria dncuntental del cine nrexicann f"v'nl. ll. l'vlexicn City: Edicinnes Era. l91fi9. lfi. See. nn Chile. lvlichael Chanan l_'ed.). Chilean Cinema. Lnndnn: Brit-

ish Film lnstitute. 1915l2. Clscar Finn Santns. “Las pesibilidades de una indust.ria cinematngrtIfica en Cuba: cnttsideracinns.“ Cartefes {Havana}. 3l'.l hlnvember l95S.

ts. Franciscn fvfnta. “I2 aspeetns ecnnnmicns de la cinematngrafta cabana." Lanes de Revuiucidn {Havana}. ti February l91fil. l9. “Cuba tax in new vexatinn." 'lt'arr'ety [Hew Turk]. 2? January l93t-'l.

2

LID"

|I

:

_

ll_

|

--l

j

Rediscovering Documentary Cultural Cnntext and lntentinnality Michael Chanarr

Fnr mnre than twenty-five years a new cinema has been develeping in Latin America. carving nut spaces fer itself even under the mnst inimical circumstances. a cinema devnted tn the denunciatien nf misery and the celebratinn nf pretest. When these diverse films first began tn arrive in Eurepe and l"*-lnrth America in the l9fiUs. they challenged

many nf the nnmts nf established film narrative. unequivncally annnuncing the existence ef a new avant-garde in werld cinema: hlelsnn Pereira dns Santns and Crlauber Rncha in Brazil. Tnmas Crutierrez Alea and Humberte Snlas in Cuba. lvfiguel Littin in Chile. Jnrge Sanjines in Bnlivia. and many nthers. Amnng these films were several eye-epening dncumentaries. Frem Cuba. a number nf explnsive shnrt films by Santiage Alvarez—amnng them New (191.35) and LBJ fl9fifl]t. with their biting satire and sense nf urgency—seemed tn reinvent the ceneept nf agit-prep. Frem Uruguay .1’vlarin_l-_l_andler*_s Me gustan lns estudiantes [J Like Students. 196?). anether mndest masterpiece nf agit-pmp. captured dte explnsive energy nf the natinnal student mevement. Frnm Argentina. a mammnth fnur-hnur film in three pans. La hera tie ins hurries f The Hr:-ur cf the Frrrrtaces. l9l5S}, made by Femandn Selanas and Uctavin Getinn. de-

scribed by its makers as “an act nf liberatien." caused a sensatinn at its Eurepean premiere in Pesarn. Italy. Frem Cnlnmbia. Chircaies Julianne Bunnn. ed.. The Sacial flucurrtenrtary in Latin rtmerit-a. Pittsburgh. PA:

University nf Pittsburgh F'rcss. l99tl. pp. 31-47. A versierr nf this essay first uppeared in lvfichael Chanarrs The Cuban image- Lnndnn: BF]. l9S5. By pcrrnissinl'l nf the publisher.

A Ctr git?

- r r .

292

Michael Chanan

trflritrirmahersl by Jnrge Silva and lvlarta Rndrfguez. extended ethrtngraphy intn systematic pelitical analysis. These were nnly iselated examples nf a grewing mass nf films and filmmakers thrnughnut Latin America. In this burgeening mevement that wnuld beceme knewn as the blew Latin American Cinema. dncumentary held a central pesitien. Part nf the nriginality nf numereus fictinn films derived frnm their incnrpnratinn nf dncumentary techniques and styles. The questien has been asked whether all this activity really amnunts tn an artistic mnvemerrt. whether dtese characteristics are cnncrete and specific ennugh tn give a sense nf unity tn the extremely diverse ways in which they are empleyed. This is a questien. hnwever. as much abeut dte ferms nf cultural develnpment in Latin America as ab-nut cinema per se. First nf all. nnt all artistic mevements have

the same kind nf lngic. There are significant differences amnng. fnr example. impressinnism. fauvism. futurism. surrealism. and sn fnrdt. Secnnd. we sheuld nnt assume that artistic mevements wnrk the same way in Latin America. Africa. nr Asia. ls it nnt pessihle that the basic cnncepts nf cultural histnry enlisted tn identify bread cultural mnvemcnts like Renaissance humanism. classicism. nr mndemism are quintessentially Eurepean? The blew Latin American Cinema. whether nr nnt it is thnught nf as a mevement. cenainly pessesses a bewildering diversity cf styles and ferms. Cuban filmmakers are given tn nbserve that the idea nf sncialist realism is an empty nne if it can be taken tn include bnth a Bnndarchuk and a Tarknvsky. What shnuld we say nf the cnntrast between Rncha and dns Santns. nr Sanjines and Antnnin Equine. his fnrmer cameraman? Ctr between the vastly different werks nf nther directers? What dc Latin American filmmakers mean by the hlew Latin American Cinema. a temr they themselves eften greet with suspicinn? Is it. perhaps a piece nf bravura? The paradigmatic rele nf dncumentary cinema can shed light nn these cemplex questiens. hlnwhere can dncumentary's impnrtance be nbserved mnre vividly than in Cuba. As a kind nf testing labnratnry fnr the New Latin American Cinema. Cuba has preduced the mnst fascinating and cnntradictnry findings. Befnre the l959 revnlutinn.

Cuba had been a leading Latin American prnducer nf cemmercial radin and televisinn and a leading censumer cf Hnllywnnd mevies. The chrnnic absence nr distnninn nf images uf natinnal life in films befere I959 helps explain why dncumentary wnuld carry such weight in Cuba's pestrevnlutinnary film prnductien. The histerical mnment nf the Cuban revnlutinn was alsn. by cnincidence. a peried uf aesthetic revelutien in dncumentary cinema. Within

-Ce.-gle

I - - ..

,

ii'edi.rca-verirtg flacurnertrury

293

dte space nf a few years. lfimm. previeusly regarded as a substandard fnrrnat like Smm ur half-inch videe teday. became viable. Technical develepments. inspired by the needs nf space technnlngy as well as televisien. stimulated the prnductien nf high-quality lfimm cameras light eneugh tn be raised an the shnulder and equipped widt fast lenses and film stncks that reduced cr even eliminated the need far artificial lighting. Pnrtable tape recnrders and imprnved micrnphnnes previded synchrnnnus snund. allewing the snund technician a mnbiiity cummensurate tn that nf the camera uperatnr. hln lnnger ferced tn shunt with bulky 35mm equipment that resnicted them tn studins nr

prepared lncatinns. dncumentarists felt as if rebnm. Hew-style dncumentary filtnmakers sprung up nn bnth sides nf the Atlantic. In Eu- tr’ rnpe the style became knnwn as cinema verite. in the United States as direct cinema.

The cnncepts and practices nf dncumentary film gn back tn the l92[ls attd three develepments in particular: the appearance nf a small avant-garde mevement in Eurepean cinema; the werk nf a maverick filmmaker cf Irish descent in hlnrth America. Ruben Flaherty: and the creatinn nf a revnlutinnary film industry in Snviet Russia which included the agit-prnp nf Dziga ‘tiennv and dte cunu*-ades nf the KinnTrain. These develepments were censelidated in Britain during the l93lls at the t'.3PCI Film Unit under the leadership nf Inhn Crriersnn. With the cnming nf seund. dncumentarists had respnnded at first with mnre imaginatinn than was characteristic nf nther branches nf cinema. The rich principles nf mnntage develeped in the l92lls were 1.applied. within the technnlngical limitatinns nf early snund systems. tn the cnnsnuctinn nf dte seund neck. But the cumbersnme equipment and the narrative and ideelngical requirements nf the cemmercial film industry cnnstrained and even strait-jacketed the develnpment nf the fnrm. The message nf the spnnsnr was required tn dnntinate. directly er indirectly. the premgatives nf imaginatien. Duly dte special cnnditiens nf the Secnnd ‘llliurld ‘rliar kept a small space upen fer aesthetic explnratirm by a few gifted prnpagandists like Britain*s Humphrey Jennings. Fnr dte mnst part. hnwever. dte dncumentary was free tn develnp l nnly within the beunds nf a cnnventiunal sense r:-f realism that had becnme pretty well established by the end nf the l93t'ls. ldenlngically cnnsnlidated in the pnstwar peried. this is the basis nf the aesthetic wltich was then inherited by televisien. a style many filnunakers felt excessively cnnfining. Griersen had argued fer a cnncept nf dncumentary as a didactic and secial mther than a pnetic and individual fnrm. within which the image was tn be empleyed fur its status as a plain. authentic recurd nf

-Ce.--gle

I - - ..

,

2l3-tl

it-rfichaef -Chanan

the actual- This aesthetic was based nn a thnrnughly empiricist philesephy that clnsely cnrrespnnded tn certain practices in jeurnalism. Theugh Griersen didn't put it this way himself. he wanted the decumentarist te regard the nenfictienal image as an authentic decument nf sncial reality ttn be filmed as artistically as nne likes but with apprnpriate discretinn) in rather the same way that jnumalists take dncuments like parliamentary repnns er the swem statements ef witnesses as autheritative and unimpeachable versiens ef events. Fur the jeurnalist actually tn believe the authnrity nf such dncuments. hnwever. is

plainly naive. and tends tn cause preblems. On similar grnunds. the aesthetic that treats the authenticity ef the film image uncritically can be called naive realism. There is an antagnnistic tensien. a centradictien. between the material capacity nf the carrtera tn make a recnrd nf a segment nf the real werld. and the way in which this capacity cemes tn be treated. which the decumentary revelutien at the end nf the l93lls bnth expesed and intensified. The censtraints ef 35mm encnuraged decumentarlsts tn resert tn filming reenactments accnrding tn the rules that had been develeped in

cnmmercial cinema fer the fictienal narrative. adding an explanatnry cemmentary. The rise nf cemmcntary reduced large chunks ef the image te the status uf mere illustratien. and in the face ef dte demands nf the sp-nnsnr. the ideals that inspired the first finwering nf the sncial

dncumentary new disselved. The best decumentaries in the pnstwar years mestly teek the shape ef individual pectic essays by directers like Geerges Franju and Alain Resnais. lt wnuld he natural tn suppese that the Cubans eagerly funk up the

revelutien in dncumentary eccurring at the same mement as their nwn pelitical and sncial revelutien. Watching the decumentaries ef the reve|utinn‘s early years. hewever. ene rapidly discevers that this was net the case. Snmetimes. indeed. the styles and ferms nf cinema verite are

mnst nnticeable by virtue nf their absence- fine reasen is that the first task nf the new film institute. ICAIC. was tn set up eperatiens in 35mm. By the time this was accnmplished. the U.S. bleckadc had been impesed and there were ne lengcr funds available fer develeping ltimm. Cine is tempted tn ask. wnuld it have been any different if

there had been’? Examinatinn nf the evidence bnth nn and nff screen leads te the cenclnsien that it weuld nnt.‘ The rapid expansien ef ICAIC‘s decumentary eutput. frem fnur films in l939 tn twenty-nne the fnllnwing year and fnrty in i955.

makes it a hnpeless task tn attempt tn survey these films individually witheut lnel-ring fer a way tn catcgnrizc them. This exercise is fmught with the mest themy preblems. Any system ef classificatien is liable tn backfire. threugh impnsing a cenceptual scheme fnreign tn the ma-

=Cit).r3lt.-1'

..

.

Rediscevering Dncuntenrary

2[l3

terial it is trying tn classify- Cautinn therefnre urges that we leek first at systems nf classificatien the Cubans dtemselves have empleyed. In an interview published in l97l. Julie Garcia Espinesa was asked hnw nnnfictinn eutput wm classified.‘ He cited fnur categeries: pepularizing decumentaries {dncumentales tie riivulgacidrr]. scientific subjects fnr pepular censumptinn. newsreels. and carteens. These divisiens cnrrespnnd tn the way prnductien in ICAIC was erganized. The first is a general categery; the secend refers tn specifically didactic films. [A department fnr didactic decumentaries was set up in I969. and thnugh the catalegue classificatien under this heading came tn an end in I926. dte types ef films it included centinued tn be made. There was alsn a series entitled Pepular Encyclnpedia fnr which thirty-ene films were preduced during I961-l962.}l The last twn categeries refer tn the departments nf newsreel and animatinn headed by Santiage Alvarez artd Juan Padrdn. respectively. which centinued tn functinn as separate units within ICAIC threugh the l9S[ls because their specific erganizatienal requirements remained distinct. Clearly these categeries dn nnt have any great aesthetic relevance. It wnuld be mnre useful tn leek fer a system nf classificatien accnrding tn subject nr theme. which might at least tell us semething abeut the relative weight the Cubans have given tn different fields nf interest and cnuld alsn serve as a starting peint fer mnre detailed analysis. A

greup nf students under lvlarin Piedra. using ICAIC‘s nwn Cuban-assembled cnmputer. have analyzed the institute*s dncumentary eutput nver the years 1939-I932.‘ Using thirty-three categnries. they made a simple cnunt nf the numbers in nine bread thematic grnups. and arrived at the fnllnwing percentages: werking-clms themes (renratica sncial-ehreral: 24.22 artistic nr cultural tepics: 26.33 lntematinnal tepics: 13.23 didactic tepics: 13.43 educatienal tepics: 7.33 histerical tepics: 6.33 spnrts: 3.63 pmblems in the cnnstructinn ef snciaiist seciety: 4.32 nther: 3.l9 This kind nf typnlngy. thnugh it seems tn effer a fair guide tn the range nf subjects treated by Cuban dncumentary. is nnt a satisfactnry classificatien system because it gives nn idea nf stylistic variety. Certain films elude cnnfinement tn a single categery: many films fall under nne heading er anether nnly ambigunusly er irrcnmpletely.

-Cln.--gle

. - - ..

,

266

Michael Chanan

Themes that are less eften treated are nnt necessarily less impnrtant. Finally. seme films reveal the extent nf their impnnance nnly nver time. like the mndest six-minute mnntage experiment made by Santiage Alvarez in I926 called llinw. widely regarded as a classic nf sncial pretest.

Annther questien raised by this classificatien system invelves defining exactly what a didactic film is. Within a set nf terrns referring tn subject areas. dte categery seems anemalnus. fer it deiimits nnt sn much subject as treatrnent. It really belengs tn a different set nf terrns altngether. the set which rather than dealing widt subject maner. identifies the intentinn with which the film is made. Theugh it dees nnt censtitute a systematic classificatien scheme. the categnrizatinn nf dncumentary accnrding tn intentinn represents the way dncumentary is theught nf in Latin America. because it arises directly frem the cenditiens under which filnunakers at the receiving end nf imperialism have tn eperate. These terms are far mnre aesthetically cnmpelling than the previeus schema. In additien tn cine iiitlticticn. they include: cine celcl:-rntivcr—celebratinnal cinema cine tie cnntlrate-—the cnmbat film cine .-.'ienuncia—the pretest film

cine encuesra-—~investigative dncumentary cine ensayn-—the film essay

cine cine tnry cine

re_t:ter:ta_.ie-—t*epnrtagc fnverlaps with cine encuesta} rescate--films that “rescue” aspects nf natinnal nr regienal hisnr culture testirnenic-—the testimenial film

This list is neither exhaustive ner definitive. There is nn single snurce frem which it is drawn- These are nnly the mnst frequently used nf a

series nf terms that eccur acrnss the whele range nf literature abeut Cuban and radical Latin American film. writings that express the prenccupatinns and ebjectives nf the Hew Latin American Cinema mevement. They can be feund in film jnumals frem seveml cnuntries. including Peru {Hahlernax tie Cine]. Venezuela {Cine al Dill]. Chile

{Printer Plane]. lvlexicn {Gctuhre}. and Cuba [Cine Cubann]. tn cite nnly the mnst impnrtantThe distinctive feature nf all the terms listed is precisely their intentinnal character. They indicate a variety nf purpnses: tn teach. tn nffer testimeny. tn dennunce. tn investigate. tn bring histnry alive. tn celebrate revelutienary achievement. tn previde space fnr refiectien. tn repnrt. tn express selidarity. tn militate fnr a cause. These are all

needs nf revelutienary struggle. bnth befere and after the cnnquest nf

-Cngle

,

Re-a't'sc-nvering flecnfltertmtty

HIT

pewer, when they beceme part ef the precess ef censelidating, deepening. and eittending tlte revelutien. An unsympathetic critic fmm the metrepelis weuld quite liltely dismiss the entire list widt a single term: prepaganda. Heurgeeis ideelegies have always equated prepaganda with mere rheteric, the selective use ef evidence te persuade. (Ch, as a Cambridge prefesser ence put it, “a branch ef the art ef lying which eensists in very nearly deceiving yeur friends while net quite deceiving yeur enemies") Prepaganda and didacticism are usually censidered incempatible. Every revelutienary aesthetic finds this a false and mendacieus antinemy. Revelutienary prepaganda is the creative use ef demenstratien and eztample te teach revelutienary principles, attd ef dialectical argument te tnebiliee intelligence teward self-liberatien. It seeits—and when it hits its target it gets—an active net a passive respense frem the spectater. As the Argentinian lilmmalters Femandn Selanas and Uctavie Eietine put it, “Revelutienary cinema dees net illustrate, decument er establish a situatien passively; it attempts instead te intervene in that situatien as a way ef pmviding impetus tewards its cett'ectiea."i There is ebvieusly a didactic element in this, but there's a difference: the aim ef teaching is net immediately te inspire actien, but te impart dte means fer the acquisitien ef mere and better knewledge upen which actien may be premised. Accerdingly, Lhere’s a practical difference in revelutienary aesthetics, tee, between the prepaganda film and the didactic film.

Ten years befere Selanas and Eietine made The Hear cf the Farneces, anether Argentinian, Femandn Birri. sct up the film scheel at dte Llniversidad del Literal in his native Santa Fe. He based the idea ef the ltind ef cinema he was aiming fer en twe main seurces: Italian neerealism, and the idea ef the secial decumentary asseciated with Iehn Griersen. Beth precedents are cenventienally deminated by a naive realist aesthetic, se it is net surprising te find Celembian filmtnalter Jnrge Silva saying in an interview a few years later. “At the inceptien ef the militant film mevement, it was said that the essential thing was simply te capture reality and nething mere, and te malte reality manifest. Afterwards this fennulatien began te seem insufficient."” Hewever, it was net as if Hin'i er anyene else invelved meant dtese paradigms te be accepted uncritically. The way Birri saw it, te apply the humanistic ideas behind neerealism and the secial decumentary te the centeitt ef underdevelepment immediately gave them a dialectical edge. In an interview in Cine Cabana in l*.i"t'i3, he esplained the functien ef the decumentary in Latin America by means ef a play en the werd mniern'avelepntent—in Spanish, sainissarrelle. In eppesitien te

-Ce.--glc

, - - ..

,

illltl

llr.|'ir'hriei Cilrerten

the false images ef Latin American cemmercial cinema, decumentary was called te present an image ef authentic reality as it was and ceuld net in all censcieuce etherwise be shewn. It weuld thus hear critical witness by shewing itself te be a subreaiity [sahrcuiidud], that is te say, a reality suppressed artd full ef misfertune. In deing this. says Birri, “it denies it [reality as cenventienally depicted]. lt disewns it,

judges it, criticizes it, dissects it: because it shews things as they irrefutably arc. net as we weuld lilte them te he (er hew they weuld have us, in geed er bad faith, believe that they are]-." At the saute time. “as a balance te this functien ef negatien, realist cinema fulfills anether. ene ef affirnring the pesitive values in the seciety: the values ef the peeple, their reserves ef strength, their labers, their jeys, their stmggles, their dreams." Hence the metivatien and the censequence ef the secial decumentary, says Birri, is knewledge ef reality and the grasp ef awareness ef it—reme dc rencienrie in Spanish, prise tic censcieuce in French. twltat Brecht wanted his theater te be.) Birri summarizes: “Preblematic: The change frem sub-life te life.“ In practical tertns: “Te place eneself in frent ef the reality with a camera and film this reality, film it critically, film underdevelepment with a pepular eptic-" Otherwise, yeu get a cinema that becemes the accemplice ef underdevelepment. which is te say, a subcinema rfsuiicine, lilte salarieserrel'le].i

This is net just a play upen werds. Implicit in Birri‘s appreach is an idea that has cente te be asseciated with ene ef the leading thinlters ef the philesephy ef liberatien in Latin America and the Third wean generally, the Brazilian educater Faule Freire. namely. the idea ef ceircienricecirin {censcientiratien}. Freire‘s philesephical arguments draw en Hegelian philesephy and esistentialism as well as radical Christianity. but he's thereughly materialist in his understanding ef secial reality; what he prepeses is a philesephy ef prattis. He argues that self-knewledge is pessihle enly because human beings a.re able te gain ebjective distance frem the werld in which they live, and “enly beings whe can reflect upen the fact that they are determined are capable ef freeing themselves?“ In censequettce, drey beceme capable ef acting upen the werld re transferm it, and threugh understanding the significance ef human actien upen ebjective reality, censcieusness taltes en a critical and dialectical ferm. It is never, says Freire. “a mere refleetien ef, but refleetien upen, material rea|ity-""‘ In the same way, Birri wants te say that the decumentary film is the preductien ef images that are net a simple refiectien ef reality, but beceme in the film-act a refleetien upen it--first by the filmmakers and then fer the audience. This is clearly net dte pesitien ef a naive realist. But it‘s net the pesitien ef an idealist either- It can best be called critical realism.

=CiD.»glE’

..

,

Reel'isrrtverirtg Der'-H‘-l'1"il entn-F]-'

Em

A film may thus brealt threugh the culture ef sit'ence—Ft'eire's

term fer the cenditien ef ignerance. pelitical pewerlessness, laclt ef means ef expressien, bacl-twardness. misery—in sh-art, dehumanieatien ef the pepular masses. It can pnemete the recegnitien ef the cenditiens in which the peeple live and hew they are cenditiened, and can semetimes even seem te give them their veice. In this way it succers eencientistrcitin, which is viable. says Freire. enly “because human censcieusness, altlteugh cenditiened, can recegniae that it is cenditiened-“‘“ Hence the pessibility ef pepular censcieusness whese emergence is, if net an everceming ef the culture ef silence, at least the entry ef the masses inte the histerical precess. The pewer elite ef the mling classes are extremely sensitive te dtis precess. Their ewn ferm ef censcieusness develeps as an attempt te lteep pace with it. There is always an intimate relatienship between the ruler and the ruled {as in Hegel between master and slave}. “In a strttcture ef deminatien, the silence ef the pepular masses weuld net esist but fer the pewer eiites whe silence them; ner weuld there be a pewer elite witheut the masses," says Freire. “Just as there is a mement ef surprise ameng the masses when they begin te see what they did net see befere, there is a eerrespending surprise ameng the elites in pewer when they find themselves unmasl-ted by the masses.““ The censcientieus decumenta.rist is beund te serve as a witness in this precess ef twefeld unveiling, as Freire calls it, which prevekes arrsieties in beth the masses and the pewer elite: in deing se the very idea ef the secial decumentary is transfermed- Fer in this transitienal precess, says Freire, centradictiens ceme te the surface and increasingly prevelte cenflict. The masses hecerne an:-tieus te everceme the silence in which they seem always te have ettisled; the elite becemes

mere and mere anttieus te maintain the status que- As the lines ef eenfliet beceme mere sharply etched, the centradictiens ef dependency ceme inte fecus, and “greups ef intellectuals and students, whe themselves belting te the privileged elite, seelt te beceme engaged in seeial reality," critically rejecting imperted schema and prefabricated selutiens. “The arts gradually cease te be the mere espressien ef the easy life ef the affluent beurgeeisie and begin te find their inspiratien in the hard life ef the peeple- Peets begin te write abeut mere than their lest leves, and even the theme ef lest leve becemes less maudlin, mere ebjective and lyrical. They speal-t new ef the field hand and the werlter net as abstract and metaphysical cencepts, but as cencrete peeple with cencrete lives-"" Since the middle fifties, frlnunal-ters have been in the ferefrent ef this precess in Latin America, beginning with the seeial decumentary and meving en te esplere a whele range ef militant medes ef filmmal-ting.

'

: 1

‘

-:1-t-1---'--r

1 l El

Micheei Chanan

Cine temnrenin. er testimenial cinema, is anether central categery, ene with twe distinct strands. fine ef them is well represented by the lvlesican decumentarist Eduarde Ivialdenade, feunder in lfifit? ef a greup which teek the term itself as its name: t'Iirttpe Cine Testimenie. Accerding te lvlaldenade, cine tesrimnnin is cencemed te- put einema at the service ef secial greups which lack access te the means ef mass cemmunicatien, in erder te make their peint ef view public. In the precess, he says, the film cellttbttrates in tlte cencientianciriin r.rf the

greup cencemed. At the same time, the filmmal-:er*s awareness is directed tewards the precess ef the film. The precess ef sheeting becemes ene ef investigatien and discevery which reaches, he believes, its final and highest stage in the editing. The film thus embedies "the aesthetic appreach te cencierrrisecitirr.“‘-‘ The style which attracted lvialdenade as mest apprepriate te these purpeses was that ef direct cinema. “We’re net interested in prepagandistic decumentary werk." he said, “because we find it very bering. Her are we interested in fictienal filmmaking with big stars and big screens- Instead, what we’re after is a kind ef direct cinema, a way ef making films quickly like cinema verite, which seeks te film events in the flesh, with the peeple whe are the pretagenists ef real r.rccutTences. This type ef cinema tries te pcncnate reality, te find dte intemal and estemal centradictiens in erder finally te discever the meaning behind things.“ He centinues: Elbservatien and analysis are the hmis fer this kind ef film making, beth as dte means ef capturing reality and ef finding the particular dialectical interpretatien in each instance. We de net wish te impese eur blueprints er mental categeries tm reality. Te de this weuld enly mean that eur films weuld heceme tracts. And that weuld be meaningless when cempared te the standards ef truth and interpretatien te which the peeple being filmed are expesed. The basis ef eur films is eur persnnal testimeny, se we have te respect what peeple think abeut their ewn circumstances. De we want te knew hew the subjects ef the film live and hew they

think‘? Then we have te let the facts speak fer themselves.“ Altheugh lvlaldenade falls back inte the language ef empirical subjecrivism, it"s net as if these ideas are these ef naive realism any mere than Bin-i‘s, enly that the fermulatien is careless. At the same time, it may appear that in distancing the aims ef the greup frem prepaganda and in disparaging the film-tract, Ivlaldenade is esplaining the pesitien ef filmmakers whe were net party militants. There are, hewever, a

,

Rediscuvefiug Decruueurury

It l

geed many filmmakers in Latin America whe, theugh they are indeed party militants, weuld substantially agree with lvlaldenade. They weuld agree with the search fer a dialectical interpretatien ef reality, with the reluctance te impese alien blueprints and mental categeries en the pepular classes, and with dte need te respect what peeple think abeut their ewn circumstances. Abeve all, Latin American filnunakers frem acress a bmad spectrum ef pelitical affiliatiens weuld agree that in cenfrenting the mling elite. a film has te stmggle against standards ef truth that are ne truth at all. The ether strand ef cine restimenia is literary in erigin and particularly streng in Cuba. The earliest paradigms are feund in the literature tie cnrnpmtu (“campaign literature") ef the rrineteenth-century Cuban wars ef independence: the memeirs, ehrenieles, and diaries ef stetime Cidmee, lvlanuel de Cespedes. Jese Marti, and ethers. These are the acceunts ef participants writing in the heat and haste ef events. aware ef their necessarily partial but privileged perspective. Che Cruevara fullewed the same imperatives in his acceunts ef the Cuban revelutienary war in the l95l}s and the Helivian campaign ef the lfififls. Cuban decumentarist ‘r"icter Casaus has traced this testimenial genre threugh Cuban jnumalists ef dte l'jt3fis, particularly Fable de la Terriente Brau."' Numereus writers ef the l'ElT[ts and l'5.lBlIls—the Argentinian Redelfe Walsh, the Salvadnrean Fteque Dalten, the Urugttayan Eduarde Galeane, the hlicaraguan Ctmar Cabeeas——centinne te cultivate the gerue. Filmmakers have alse develeped dteir ewn testimenial subgenres, accerding te Casaus. The ICAIC newsreel was the first ef dtese because its character as a week-by-week chrenicle is net a simple piecemeal recurd ef the events but, under the guidance ef Santiage Alvarez, be-came their interpretative analysis. It is ebvieusly essential te the idea ef the testimenial that it cenvey a sense ef lived histery. This means, in cinema, that the camera is net te be a passive witness. The newsreel lemnred hew te insert itself inte the events it recerded by breaking the cenventienal stmcture ef the newsreel ferm and cnnverting itself inte a laberatery fer the develepment ef filmic language. This influenced the whele field ef decumentary, with its already ebvieus affinities te testimenial litemture. Casaus specifies fnur characteristics ef cine testirr-rc-nie: first, rapid and fiertible filming ef unfelding reality witheut subjecting it te a preplatrned narrative mise-en-scene; secend, cheesing themes ef bread natienal impnnance; third, empleying an audacieus and intuitive style ef mnntage, cf which the eutstarrding espenent is Santiage Alvarez: and last, using directly filmed interviews beth fer the narrative functiens they are able te fulfill and because they previde the means ef

-Ce.--glc

, - - ..

,

I I1

Michael Chanan

bringing pepular speech te the screen. [This was the last ef Casaus's feur principles actually te be incerperated inte the Cuban decumentary, since the Cubans initially lacked the technical capacity fer direct

seund filming-) Wlrat Casaus seems re be arguing is that the vecatien ef decumentary is testimenial, theugh in a sense this is an a prieri argument that cannet explain the different kinds cf film which have appeared- At the same time. the Cubans have given a great deal ef theught te the questien ef cine riicirictica, a femr that becemes particularly impertant after a revelutien reaches pewer. What changes in einema with the accessian te pewer is net just that militant filmmakers are ne lengcr ferced te werk clandestinely er semiclandestinely, but that the whele emphasis ef their art is altered. The tasks fer which films are intended qualitatively shift, and newhere is this mere marked than in the scepe that epens up fer didactic cinema. As Faster Vega explained in an article

dating frem l'E'l"il} entitled “lTIidactic Cinema and Tactics." when ICAIC set up a didactic films department in lfibfi. dealing with a whele range ef scientific and technical subjects, net all the necessary cenditiens fer such a prnject existed, “but it wasnit pessihle te wait

fer them; . . . the demands ef a revelutien which alters the dynamic ef histery in all its dimensiens leave ne altemative.""" ICAIC recegniaed that it was necessary te create a whele new batch ef filmmakers witheut having the time te give them preper training. They weuld have te

leam en the jeb, jumping in at the deep end. The didactic film has te beceme didactic in mere ways than ene: the films weuld educate their makers in the precess ef attempting te educate their audiences. What the filmmaker has te learn takes en a deuble aspect—there is the sub-

ject en which the film is te be made, and at the same time, learning hew te make this kind ef film. Ferrnally speaking, these are twe separate functiens, but in the circumstances they get cempletely inter-

twined. {Tine riiiidriica thus becemes a paradigm fer new ways ef thinking abeut film. 'Ihe new decumentary becemes the essential training greund in Cuban cinema because the filmmaker has tn learn trr treat reality by

engaging with the peeple the film is fer- Cine diiidctica teaches that the value ef cemmunicatien is ef parameunt cencern because the film weuld achieve nething if it didn't succeed in its primary functien. which is instructien t in the hr-ettdest sense]. This theme was taken up

in a paper presented jeintly te the hlatienal Cengress ef Culture and Educatien in ti-‘Tl by Jerge Fraga, Estrella I-‘antin, and Julie Garcia Espinesa, “Teward a [Jefinitien ef the Didactic Decumentary."'l The authers discuss the idea rrf the didactic decumentary in light ef

the preeccupatiens that had been animating their werk ever the pre-

-Ceglc

,

liediteaverhtg Drtctrmente-",‘-'

II 3

vieus decade. Their line ef argument is itself eminently didactic. lvluch ef what they say is philesephically greunded in the analysis ef cemmedity fetishism and alienatien, but they appeal in equal measure te mere accessible cnncepts and ideas. They argue that a cultural heritage disterted by imperialism preduces a way ef thinking that perceives things in a disseciated way, that sees things enly as results, witheut grasping the precesses first create them. Llnderrleveleped thinking cemes te be mled by a sense ef centingency and fatalismt which harkens back te the magical {but the magical new shem ef mest ef its previeus cultural legitimacy}. They ebserve, “After twelve years ef revelutien, we still find exmnples ef this way ef thinking even in eur ewn cemmunicatiens media, mestly medelled after the tendency te exalt results and emit the precess which led up te these results.""‘ But, they centinue, cinema pessesses the very qumities needed net enly te cemmunicate knewledge and skills effectively, but alse te educate fer a ratienal, cencrete, and dialectical way ef tlrinking—because it is capable ef repreducing reality in metien and therefere ef demenstrating precesses and, further, because it's capable ef revealing relatierrshlps between elements that ceme frem the mest dissimilar cenditiens ef time and place. Utilitarian cenceptiens ef the didactic decumentary limit its petential: the result is sterile and alristerical. Capitalist cinema cenventienally deals with the preblem ef the genre‘s dryness by adding enticements te the treatment ef the film, sugarceating the pill—a technique knewn frem advertising as “the snare." Advertising "appeals te stimuli which have nething te de with the nature ef the preduct in erder te create mere demand fer it er stimulate the censumer‘s interest: sex, desire fer recegnitien and prestige, fear ef feelings ef iuferierity—anyrhing apart frem cencrete demenstratien ef the actual preperties ef the ebject." This mentality that thinks enly in terms ef selling becemes all-pervasive, and everything, including ideas and feelings, is reduced te bundles ef exchange values. Te fall in with all this was ebvieusly hardly acceptable. The didactic decumentary, they argue, must break ence and fer all with this retregressive traditien; it must link itself widt the urgency ef its subjects and themes. The femtal techniques empleyed “must be derived fmm the theme and put at its service. It*s the eld meral demand fer unity between ferrn and centent.""i Faster "v'ega's acceunt ef the didactic film has the same meral emphasis, and his arguments are similarly built en an histerical materialist analysis. The secieecenemic transfermatien created by the revelutien, he explains, has prepelled the newly literate peasant frem the Middle Ages inte the secend half ef the twentieth century where

-Cicrtglc

_ - -.

I I4

Mithaei Chanan

he becemes an eperater ef tracters and agricultural machinery. This accelerated passage threugh multiple stages ef develepment invelved in the sudden acquisitien ef the preducts ef medem science and technelegy. requires a qualitative leap in the precess ef mass educatien. Tlte didactic film must be tmnsfemted accerdingly, threwing eff the melds ef the femr as it eriginated in the develeped ceuntries and geing in search ef the eriginality that arises frem very different secialist pattems ef develepment. The filmmaker must acquire new perspectives artd seek a different filmic language than the archetypes ef the decumentary traditien. The didactic film must be seen as a new aesthetic categery in which the artist and the pedagegue meet. Many ef the principles evelved in the ceurse ef develepment ef the secial decumentary in the new Latin American cinema. particularly in Cuba, have streng parallels with pesitiens that have been taken up within radical film practices in Eurepe and Herth America ever the same peried. The "v'eneauelan critic Raul Beceyre is effectively speaking fer betlt when he writes that “ene ef the initial tasks ef lnew cinemas‘ all ever the werld has been te destrey certain nerms ef grammatical censtructien- - . . A cinema which aspires te establish new ties with the spectaters er which intends te medify the rele which spectaters assign themselves. ceuld net centinue te use the femtal structures [ef what preceded it]-"1" But in certain respects the radical film cultures ef the metrepelis and ef Latin America think rather differently. Beth weuld agree abeut naive realism. As the French art critic Pierre Frarrcastel wrete in I95]: Wlrat appears en the screen. which eur sensibility werks en, is net reality but a sign. The great errnr which has regularly been cemmitted is te embark upen the study ef film as if the spectacle ef cinema placed us in the presence ef a deuble ef reality. It sheuld never be fergetten that film is censtituted by images, that is te say. ebjects which are fragmentary, limited and fieeting. like all ebjects. Wltat materialiaes en the screen is neither reality, ner the image cenceived in the brain ef the film maker. ner the image which ferms itself in eur ewn brain, but a sign in the preper sense trf the term.“

But what is a sign in the preper sense ef the term? This is where tlte treuhle begins. Fellewing Saussure, the feunder ef medem linguistics, as interpreted by structuralists ef varieus disciplines, a streng crnrent within the new radical film tlteery in the metmpelis has ceme tn re-

-Cie.-glc

, - - .-

.

Jtecllscaverarg ilacarnenrary

Eli

gard the sign as a very peculiar kind ef symbel. As Fredric lamesen has written: The philesephical suggestien behind all this is that it is net se much the individual werd er sentence [er image in the case ef film] that “stands fer“ er “reflects” the individual ebject er event in the real werld, but rather that the entire system ef signs . - . lies parallel te reality itself; that it is the tetality ef systematic language, in ether werds, which is artalegeus te whatever ergartiaed stnictures exist in the werld ef reality, and that eur understanding preeeeds frem ene whele er Gestalt te the ether. rather than en a ene-te-ene basis. But, ef ceurse, it is eneugh te present the pmblem in these terms, fer the whele netien ef reality itself te beceme suddenly preblematical.F The netien ef reality itself becemes preblematical, hewever, in quite a different way in cultures that bear dte imprint ef underdevelepment because the whele cencept ef truth is different. Truth, in the structuralist system, says Iatnesen, becemes a semcwhat redundant idea. as it must when there is nething te which it cart be urtprehlematically referred. An image in a film. therefere. is net te be theught ef as truthful because it pictures semething real. even theugh the autematic mechanism ef the camera weuld lead us te believe that there must indeed be seme element ef truth in this. Instead, it is said te yield meaning enly because it stands in a certain relatienship te the ether images threugh which it is-—se te speak--refracted. The treuhle is that the result ef this way ef thinking in aesthetic practice is eften a superficial and rigid fermalism. In any radical film practice irt the underdevelnped werld, ntttlr is far mere immediate and material. It is net simply a questien ef the accuracy er fullness ef fit ef the image te what it pictures, since everyene lutews that this cart never be cemplete. litather, truth lies in the relatienship with the audience. in the film's mede ef address, because the meaning ef what is shewn depends en the viewer’s pesitien. This recegnitien has alse been ef great cencem te radical film tlreerists in the metrepelis. The new Latin American filmmakers, hewever. have been werried less abeut the way the filmic disceurse pesitiens the spectater, and mther mere abeut whether it adequately recegniaes where the spectater is already. This emphasis requires a mere censcieus pelitical pesitien en the part ef the filmmaker. The biggest difference is in the practice ef cultural pelitics—er. mere precisely. the cultural—pelitical field within which the filnunalrer intervenes. In dte metrepelis, there is little te step the film “texts.” the

-Cicrtglc

_ - -.

I lfi

Michael Clurrran

“discnurses” ef cinema, frem beceming disseciated ebjects in tltemselves. Fer the new cinema in Latin America. in centrast, “the filmmaker becemes mere and mere invelved in the precess ef dte masses“ and “the film must beceme art auxiliary part ef this whele fermative precess."ii' This dialectic pmmetes a very different attitude teward beth the idea mid the criteria ef truth. net because the masses are seen as repesiteries ef truth in the mechanistic mamter ef la-ty lvlarxism, te berrew Sartre’s phrase, but because the filmmaker is invelved in a pmcess ef cancientisacirin in which n'uth undergees redefinitien. The philesephy ef liberatien helds this te be an inherent petential ef underdevelepment. That is why the new cinema in Latin America. and particularly in Cuba, cannet be preperly understeed widteut grasping, acress the divide ef cultural imperialism, the radically different ways in which eppesitinnal cinema pesitiens beth the viewer and the filmmaker. HUME l. The reasens fer this are examined at lengtlt in dte beek frem which these paragraphs are talten. In the paragraphs that fellew, I present senre t:-f the findings. Z. Julie Garcia Espinesa. “El cine decumental cubane," Pensanrienta eririca. ne- -fill {luly l9?tl}, Sl—S’i'. 3. Teday films fer strictly educatienal use are made primarily by the film sectien ef the lvlinistry ef Educatien, while a range ef military irrstructienal films and televisien pregrams are made by the film sectien uf the armed ferces-tl. lltlarie Piedra. “El decumental euhane a mil caracte-res per minute,“ Cine ctthane. ne. IIJS r[l'll'S-tlfl, 43-495. Femande Selanas and Gctavie Getine, “Hacia un tercer cine." Trienntinental, ne. I3 {Gcteber I969]; TPI. in Selanas and Gctine, Cine. culture y descalanitacirin {lvlexiee City: Sigle ‘veintiune Editeres, lillfil. An English translatien by lvlichael Chanan and Julianne Burten, “Tewards a Third Cinema," appears in Twenty-Five Fears af the New Latin American Cinema, ed. Chanan [Lnndnn: British Film Institute and Channel Feur Televisien, 1933], pp- lT—2'l. See part l ef this velume fer the cemplete text ef dtis essay. fi- Interview with Ierge Silva and lvlarta Hedriguea by Andres Caicede and Luis Gspina, Gja ai cine, ne. l {I97-‘ll, 35-43. An excerpted nanslatien appears in Cinema and Serial Change in Latin Anterica: Canversatians with Filn-unalters, ed- Julianne Burtnn (Austin: University ef Texas Press, l'5lSrfi}. ‘If. “Cinema and Underdevclepment, An Interview with Femandn Cine cuhann, nes. 41-tl-4 [If-'fi3l, I-it-El; translated in Twenty-Five Fears af the New Latin American Cinema, ed. Chanan, pp- ll-ll S. Paule Freire, Cultural Actian far Freeainnr {Harmeadswnrth Middlesex: Penguin, I972}, p. 51.

-Ceglc

.

Rediscevcttng Dacthnentatjv

El?

'9. Ibid., p. 53. ltl. Ibid., p. 54.

Il- Ibid., p. filiII. Ibid., p. tirfi. I3. Interview with Eduarde lvlaldenade by Andres dc Luna and Susana Chaurand. Citre cine, ne- I5 lApril-June I975]; unpublished translatien by Julianne Burten. I4. Ibid. l5. 'v"icter Casaus, “El genere testimenie en el cine cubane," Cine ertlrana. ne. llll [I932]. llr‘-F25.

lti. Faster Vega. “El decumental ditlactice y la tactics.“ Fenra.-nienra crftice, ne. 42 {July l"-Tl'fi}, 99—lfi3. l"l. Fraga. Pantin, Garcia Espinesa. “El cine didactice,“ Cine rultana, nes.

as-re, translated as “Teward a Detinitien er‘ the Didactic Decumentary,“ in Latin Atnerican Film llfalrers and the Third‘ Citren-ta, ed. Encarta Pick fCIttawa: Carleten University Film Studies Pregram, l*il'lS], p. Elli]. IS. Ibid-, p- E-tlfi. lll. Ibid. Ell. Ftarlil El-eceyre, Cine y palltica (Caracas: Direccidn General dc Culture. l'il'lfih ll ET. El. Pien'e Francastel, “Espace et Illusien," Revue lnternatienale rie Filmeiagie 2. ne. 5 flllf-l,l. 22- Fredric Jarrtesen, The Frisan-Heuse cf Laugrrnge rjPttneeterr. l"~lJ-: Ptinceten University Press, I972], pp. 32-33.

23- Interview with Ierge Silva and lvlarta litedriguex.

=Cit1r.-gle

.

_

["i'i‘i'ii it (590813

Cl ' '- If c

unrvsasfifiipritrrrrriricaresn

Part 3 Transcontinental Articulations

C-itt gjlt’

_

i"i'i‘i'ii it (590813

Cl ' '- If c

unrvsasfifiipritrrrrriricaresn

The Third Cinema Question Netes and Fteflectiens Frfitil Willemen

In l'i|'Sti, fer its fertieth anniversary, the Edinburgh intematienal Film Festival tEIFF] bested a tlrree-day cenferenee erganized by Jim Pines, June Givanni and myself, addressing the idea ttf a Third Cinema and its relevance te centemperaty film culture.‘ Frevieus gatherings had

been held in Lenden and in lvlanchester te premete black film- and videe-makers, but these events had cencentrated en the presentatien ef that intematienal secter’s achievements and had addressed the mest immediately pressing erganizatienal and ecenemic questiens facing the practitieners invelved.

In line with its traditienal emphasis en the expleratien ef cultural issues. the E.lFF set eut te raise a different set ef questiens, described in the festival pregram beeklet in the fellewing terms: ‘Witlt the majer pelitical and ecenemic changes experienced in beth the Eure-American sphere and in the se-called Third werld since the late ills. the issue ef cultural specificity {the need te knew which specific secial-histerical precesses are at werk in the generatirrn ef cultural preducts) and the questien ef hew precisely secial existence eve-rdeterrnines cultural practices have taken en a new and crucial impnrtance. The cemplexity ef the shifting dynamics between intra- and inter-natienal differences and pewer relatiens has shewn simple meclels af class deminatien at hrrme and imperialism abread te be tetally inadequate. .lim Fines and Paul Willemen. eds., ljuestians ajf 'l"hira' Cinema. Lenden: British Film Institute, lS|'ElSl, pp. I-2'9. By perrnissien ef the publisher.

.__ '

221 I

:

'

'

.

r

|

222

Paul Wilienten

In additien, the blatantly ethnecentric aspects ef “ills cultural theery have develeped inte crippling handicaps which under dte pressure ef current pelitical and ecenemic pelicies have caused Eure-American cultural theery te stagnate er, werse, te degenerate inte either a naively sentimental leftism including its Third Werldist variant. er inte “pest—medemism,“ with its centradictery thrust tewards a pre-industrial nestalgia and tewards bringing cultural-educatienal practice in line with dte needs ef a market ecenemy and the ennepreneurial ideelegies it requires. Cultural activists eutside the white Eure-American sphere, while taking nete ef 'lfls theery and its genuine achievements, have centinued their ewn werk threugheut this peried, fennulating beth in practice and in theery—-in se far as these can be separated—a sephisticated appreach te questiens ef deminatienl suberdinatinn, centertpertphery and. abeve all, resistancet'hegetT|eny. This werk is ef fundamental impertance teday. net enly because ef its ability te unbleck the dead-ends ef "ills cultural theeries, but alse and primarily because it epens eut ente new practices ef cinema: a cinema ne lengcr captivated by the mirrers ef deminanceiindependence er cemmercetart. but greunded in an understanding ef the dialectical relatienship between secial existence and cultural practice. The Edinburgh Cenference will address the relevance and the implicatiens ef such a netien ef Third Cinema-

The EIFF seemed the apprepriate place fer such an arnbitieus undertaking te initiate a fundamental critique ef current Eurepean appreaches te “pepular culture“ by prepesing that the netien ef Third Cinema is far mere relevant te centemperaty cultural issues than any ferm ef pest-strtrctural er any etlter kind ef “pest-“ tlteery. The implied pelemical pesitien in the way the cenferenee was set up had a deuble tlutrst: by tuming te Third Cinema as a petential way ferward, the cenferenee implied that left cultural theery in the U.l'~".'.. and in the U.S. has beceme a serieus handicap in that it has beceme hype-critically eppertunist {fer example, the preliferatien ef attempts te validate the mest debilitating femts ef censumerism, with academics cynically extelling the virtues ef the stunted preducts ef cultural as well as pelitical defeat} er has degenerated inte a cematese repetitien ef “ills decenst-ructivist rituals. The turn te Third Cinema with all its Latin

American cennetatiens alse repeated a gesture which had preved extremely preductive in the early ills: then a detemrined and systematic injectien ef “fereign” cultural theeries ranging frem Altlrusser te Brecht, frem Ece te the Snviet Ferrnalists and fmm Lacan te Saussure

had prevcd capable ef reanimating the petrified bedy ef English cul-

-Cie.-glc

, - - ..

.

The Thircl Cinertia Qeestien

213

rural criticism. Faced widt a relapse intn a state ef suspended animatien er wnrse. a reverting te “left laberism“ ef the mest parechially pepulist type (see. fer example, the ideelegy ef “the cemmunity“ in current cultural discnurses}, the cenferenee was designed te draw attentien te different, nen-English appreaches tn cultural pelitics. lvlainly because the preductivity and genuine achievements ef British cultural criticism in the lifts must be seen as stenuning fmm a salutary anti-Englishness and because the current degeneratien ef cultural theery cerrelates exactly with the abarrdenment ef a critical rejectien ef English ferms ef cultural pepulism. the tum te Third Cinema can be seen as a rejectien ef parechialism as well as a critical engagement with the pesitive aspects ef ‘ills tlteery. The pelitical-cultural trends ef the Sfis have demenstrated the need fer a drastic reappraisal ef the terms in which radical practice had been cenceived in the "ills: questiens ef gender a-rrd ef cultural identity received new infleetiens, and traditienal netiens ef class-detenrtined identity were seen te be as inadequate as the ferms nf syndicalist struggle that cenespended te them. Seme ef the issues raised at the Edinburgh cenferenee. such as the questiens ef Brechtian cinema and ef cultural identity, received a new urgency but were new pesed in a different cnntext where net the radical white intelligentsia but the militant black cultural practitieners censtituted the cutting edge ef cultural pelitics artd innevatien. Their temrs ef reference were derived frem a wide variety ef seurces and included Tlfls theeries ef subjectivity and lvlarxism in additien te the werk ef Fanen, C. L. It. James. black American writers a.rtd activists, Latin American and African filmmakers, West India.tt. Pakistani and Indian cultural traditiens and intellectuals, etc. The cultural practices greunded in these—-frem an English peint ef view—“ether" currents. tegetlter with the impact ef a whele series ef physical acts ef cellective self—defense and resistance. effer the best chance yet te challenge and break dewn the mling English ideelegy, described se vividly in all its suffecating decrepitude in Tem hlairn’s classic essay. “The English Literary intelligentsia" thananas. ne. 3, l'il'lI5_'t. The netien ef Third Cinema {and mest emphatically net Third werld Cinema} was selected as the central ceneept fer a cenferenee in Edinburgh in I936, partly te re-pese the questien ef the relatiens between the cultural and the pelitical. and partly te discuss whether there is indeed a kind ef intematienal cinematic traditien which exceeds the limits ef beth dte natienal-indusnrial cinemas and these ef Eure-American as well as English cultural theeriesThe latter censideratien is still very much a hypethesis relating te the emergence en an intematienal scale ef a kind ef cinema te which the familiar realism vs medemism er pest-medemism debates are

-Ce.-glc

, - - ..

.

E14

Paul Willem-en

simply irrelevant, at least in dte ferms te which westem critics have beceme accustemed. This trend is net unprecedented, but it appears re be gaining strength. Cine ef its mere readily nnticeable characteristics seems te be the adeptien ef a histerically analytic yet culturally specific mede ef cinematic disceurse, perhaps best exemplified by Ames Gitai‘s werk, Cinema Actien's Racinante, Angelepeules‘ Travelling Players, the filnts ef Seuleyman Cisse, Haile Gerima and Clusmane Sembene, ltumar Shahani*s Maya Datpan and Tarang, Theuring and Engsntim‘s Escape Reute ta Marseilles, the werk trf Safi Faye, the re-

cent films ef 't"ussif Chahine, Edward Yang's Taipei .5'tary, Chen It'.aige‘s Yeliaw Earth, dte werk ef Allen Fang, the twe black British films Hanrlswarth .'-iangs and fie Passian cf Remembrance. the Braailian films ef Jeaquim Pedre de Andrade artd Carles Heichenbach, etc. The masters ef this grewing but still threatened current cart be identified as hlelsen Pereira des Santns, Ctusmane Sembene and Ititwik Ghatak, each sunmting up and refemrulating the enceunter ef diverse cultural traditiens inte new, pelitically as well as cinematically illuminating types ef filmic disceurse, critical ef. yet firmly anchered in, their respective secial-histerical situatiens. Each ef them refused re eppese a simplistic netien ef natienal identity er ef cultural authenticity te the values ef celenial er imperial predaters. Instead, they started fmm a recegnitien ef the many-layeredness ef their ewn cultural-histerical ferntatiens, with each layer being shaped by cemplex cennectiens between intra- as well as inter-natienal ferces and traditiens. In this way. the three cited filmmakers exemplify a way ef inhabiting ene‘s culture which is neither myepically natienalist ner evasively cesmepelitan. Their film werk is net particularly exemplary in the sense ef displaying stylistically innevative devices te be imitated by ethers whe wish te aveid appearing eutdated. Gn the centrruy, it is their way ef inhabiting their culmres. their grasp ef the relatiens between dte cultural and the secial, which feunded the search fer a cinematic disceurse able te cenvey their sense ef a “diagnestic understanding” (te berrew a happy phrase frem litaymend lhiilliarns} ef the simatien in which they werked and te which their werk was primarily addressed.

Third Cinema: Part I The netien ef a Third Cinema was first advanced as a rallying cry in the late fills in Latin America and has recently been taken up again in the wake ef Teshnme Gabriel’s be-ek Thirri Cinema in the Tlrirri l»'r'arla'-—-The Aesthetics cf Liberatien {l9'S-2]. As an idea. its irrnnediate inspiratien was reeted in the Cuban Itevelutien fl‘-159} and in Brazil's

-Ce.--glc

, - - ..

,

The Third‘ Cirrema -fluestian

225

Cinema bleve, where Glauber Recha previded an impetus with the publicatien ef a passienate pelemic entitled “The Aesfltetics ef Hunger” {er “The Aesrltetics ef "it'ielence“: .l-itevisra Civiiizactia Brasileira ne- 3. July rsss; reprinted in part l ef this velume}. But as lvlichael Chanan reminded us in his intreductien te Twenty-five Years a_.f the New Latin American Cinenra {British Film Institute atrd Charmel 4, l9'S3','l, even at that stage the elaberatien ef an aesthetic felt tn be apprepriate te cenditiens in Latin America drew en the ideals ef such far frem revelutienary currents as Italian nee-realism and Griersen‘s netien ef the secial decumentary. as we-ll as en varieus kinds ef lirlarxist aesthetics. Wlrat is becenring clearer new is that the varieus manifestes and pelemics arguing fer a Third Cinema fused a number ef Eurepean. Seviet and Latin American ideas abeut cultural practice inte a new, mere pewerful {in the sense that it was able te cenceptualize the cennectiens between mere areas ef secie-cultural life than centemperaty Eumpean aesthetic ideelegies} pregram fer the pelitical practice ef cinema. Twe particular aspects ef nee-realism artd ef the Grierserrian appreach may have recnmmended themselves re the many Lafin American intellectuals whe studied in Eurepe. which included such influential figures as Femandn Birri, Temes Gutierrez Alea and Julie Garcia Espinesa, whe all studied at the Centre Sperimenrale in RemeFirstly, betlt nee-realism and the British decumentary were examples ef an artisanal. relatively lew-cest cinema werking with a mixture ef public and private funds, enabling directers te werk in a different way and en a different ecenemic scale frem that required by Hellyweed

and its varieus natienal-industrial rivals. Sectrndly, centtary te the unifying and hemngenizing werk ef mainstream industrial cinemas. this artisanal cinema allewed, at least in principle and semetimes in practice, a mere fecused address ef dte “natinnal,” revealing divisiens artd stratificatiens within a natienal ferrnatien, ranging fmm regienal dialects te class and pelitical antagenisms. What the Latin Americans appear te have picked up en was the petential fer different cinematic practices effered by the Eurepean examples, rather titan dteir actual trajecteries and philesnphies. Censequently, they did nnt fellew the evelutien ef nee-realism inte Eurepean art—heuse cinema. ner the relentless trek ef dte British decumentary via ‘Needfall inte the geeey humanism ef T‘v' plays artd serials, while debased ferms ef the Griersenian decumentary, lacking that genre's acute sense ef aestltetic stylieatien. survive in stunted ferms in the backwaters ef the British state-funded videe secter. Thc temr Third Cinema was launched by the Argentinian filmmakers Femande Selanas and the Spanish-bern Gctavie Getine. whe had

-Ce.--glc

, - - ..

,

rte

Paul Wtlieaten

made La Hera ale las Harries {l9'fiS'] and published “Hacia un Tercer Cine” {“Tewards a Third Cinema.” Tricanrinenral ne- I3. Clcteber I969: reprinted in part l ef this velume). This was fellewcd by the Cuban Julie Garcia Espinesa‘s classic avant-gardist manifeste, “Fer an Imperfect Cinema” {written in tees and published in Cine Cabana ne. seat. l!il'T{l; reprinted in part l ef this vnlume]. which argued fer an end re the divisien between art and life and therefere between prefcssienal, full-time intellectuals such as filmmakers er critics and “the peeple.” This utnpian text, fereshadewing pelicies advecated during the Chinese Cultural llevelutinn, was fellewcd by numereus writings beth in Latin America and in pest-eh Eurepe, in which netiens ef Third Cinema, Third werld Cinema and Revelutienary Cinema tended te get lumped tegether te the peint where they became synenymeus. Simultaneeusly. in hlerth Africa. a number ef texts appeared advecating appmaches similar te the enes eutlined in the Latin American texts: in rs-er-s, in Caire, a few critics and cineastes published the manifeste “Jarnaat as Cinima al jadida” {“lvlevement ef the New Cinema”), and in lvlerecce the jeumal Cinema -i. feunded by l"~leur— dine Sail, alse published Third Cinema arguments. As Ferid Beughedir painted eut, ether manifestes fellewed in the early ‘ills: “Cinima al Eiadil” {“Altenrative Cinema”), published in I972 en behalf ef a number ef Arab cineastes in the Egyptian jeumal At-Tartar the “First lvlanifeste fer a Palestinian Cinema” in ll-l'.i'2. issued at the Damascus Festival: and the “Secend lvlanifeste” issued later that year at the Carthage Festival, etc. Hewever, what seems te have happened with the public receptien ef these manifestes is that a number ef cmcial distinctinns, eften enly marginally present in feunding texts written under the pressures ef urgent necessity, were everltr-eked- Firstly, the attl.hers ef the classic

manifestes. cellected by Chanan in Twenty-_iive Years af the New Latin American Cinema, fercefully state their eppesitien te a sleganized cinema ef emetienal manipulatien. Any cinema that seeks tn smtrther theught. including a cinema that relies nn advertising tech-

niques. is reundly cendemned. Sanjines even accuses such strategies ef geing against revelutienary merality. In ether werds, a cinema that invites belief and adherence rather than premeting a critical understanding nf secial dynamics is regarded as werse than useless. All authers. fmm Birri te Espinesa and even the mystically inclined Glauber Recha, stress the need fer a cinema ef lucidity. The widely expressed antagnnism tewards prefessienal intellectuals is in fact an eppesitien te celenial and imperialist intellectuals, and this antagnnism is never used te devalue the need fer the mest lucid pessihle critical intelligence re be depleyed as an abselutely necessary pan ef making films.

-Cie.-glc

, - - ..

.

The Thirrzl Cinenta Qrrestian

12?

‘Nhat is at stake here is the yeking tegetlter ef the cegnitive and the emetive aspects ef the cinema. As Espinesa put it, this cinema is addressed “in a separate er ce-erdinated fashien at the intelligence, the emetiens. the pewers ef intuitien.” A majer lessen te be teamed frem these manifestes is that they censistenfly wam against drifting inte anti-intellecmalism er, werse. sheddy intellectualism, emphasizing the need tn leam. ‘What drey de cendenm is a particular kind ef middleclass intellectual, net intellectual activity per se. The intellectuals cendentned are enly these whese “expertise has usually been a service rendered, artd seld, te the central autlrerity ef seciety," as Edward Sa-id put it in The Writer, the Te-rt, and the Critic {l_.enden, Faber &

Faber, I934, p- 2}. Secendly, the manifestes refuse te prescribe an aesthetics. The authers breadly agree abeut which aesthetic ferms are net apprepriate er are even damaging, but they alse refuse tn identify a particulm fermal strategy as the enly way te achieve the activatien ef a revelutienary censcieusness. Fellewing Brecht, whe vigemusly pretested against the attempt re elevate the use ef “distartciatien devices” inte an ebligatery precedure, the Latin Americans insisted en the legitimacy nf any precedure which was likely te achieve the desired results. i.e. an analytically infenned understanding ef the secial fermatinn artd hew te change it in a secialist directien. In Espinesa*s werds: “Imperfect cinema can make use ef the decumentary er the fictienal mede, er beth. lt can use whatever genre. er all genres . . . It can use cinema as a pluralistic art femr er as a specialized femr ef expressinn.” Selanas and Getine talk abeut “the infinite categeries” ef Third Cinema, artd Sanjines nnted that the ferrns ef Itevelutienary Cinema must change as the relatiens between “anther” and peeple change in particular circumstances. There are ne general prescriptiens edter than negative enes in the sense that cenain mads have been explered and feund te be dead ends er traps. Glauber Itecha ence recalled Nelsen Pereira des Santns queting a line frem a Fertuguese peet: “I den*t knew where l‘m geing, but I knew yeu can‘t get there that way.” Gne ef the main differences between Third Cinema and the Eumpean netien ef ceunter-cinema is dtis awareness ef dte histerical variability ef the necessary aesthetic strategies te be adepted. ‘Nlratever the explanatien—and the weight ef the medemist traditien in the arts may be a crucial facter here--and regardless ef the pelitical intentiens invelved, the netien nf cnunrer-cinema tends te cenjure up a prescriptive aesthetics: te de the eppesite ef what deminant cinema dees. Hence the descriptive definitien ef deminant cinema will dictate the prescriptive definitien ef ceunter-cinema. The prepenents ef Third Cinema were just as hestile te deminant cinemas but refused te let the

-Ce.-glc

, - - ..

.

SIS

Peal Wttiemen

industrially and ideelegically denrinant cinemas dictate the terms in which they were te be eppesed. Te be fair. the twe main U-l'~'I.. ceunter-cinema thenrists, Peter ‘Nellen and Claire Jehnsten, never argued that the strategies and characteristics ef ceunter-cinema sheuld be canenixed and frexen inte a prescriptive aesthetics. They painted te the impertance ef cinematic strategies designed re explere what deminant regimes ef significatien were unable te deal with. Theirs was a pelitics ef decenstmctien. net an aesthetics ef decenstnrctien. The difference is werth nnting- A pelitics ef decensuuctien insists en the need te nppnse particular institutienally deminant regimes ef making particular kinds ef sense. excluding er marginalixing ethers- An aesthetics ef decenstructien preceeds frem the traumatic discevery that language is net a hemngeneeus. self-sufficient system. Allen Wltite put it mest succinctly in an essay en “Bakhtin. Secielinguistics and Decensnuctien” {in The Theary cf Reading, ed- Frartk Gleversrnith, Sussex, l9S=l, pp. 13S-9}: enly fer these whe identify language as such with Saussurearr langue dees it appear paradexical and impessible that dispersal, dtjjferance, lacks. absence. traces and all the medes ef radical heteregeneity sheuld be there at the heart ef discnurses which pretend te be cemplete. lvluch ef the time. decenstructien is rediscevering in texts, with a kind ef bemused fascinatien. all the indices ef hetereglessia which Saussure excluded frem censideratien in his ewn medel. by censigning them te the trashcan ef prtrale. Te discever that ratienality {the legic ef the signified} may be subverted by writing itself {the legic ef the signifier} seems te put the “whele ‘Nestem episteme” inte jeepardy, but is in fact a fairly trivial business. Tlre pelitics ef decenstructien, tlten, insists en the need te say semetlting different: art aesthetics ef decenstmctien disselves inte endlessly repeated difference-games, i.e. inte the ‘ltfarietal Thesis, as lvleaghan lvierris ence put it. lslevertheless, even a pelitics ef decensuuctien is circumscribed by its attentien te the limits ef deminant regimes ef significatien. whereas the Third Cinema pnlemicists aveided that trap—adrnittedly at the price ef rather urrltelpfully hemegeniaing “deminartt cinenta” itself, a mistake later cerrected by hlelsen Pereira des Santes* Ci‘ Amuleta rle Clgurn and Na Estrada .--in l=’ia'a, shewing what can be dene with a selective redepleyment ef the deminant cinema's generic elements while refusing te reduce the films te. er te imprisen them in. that “varietal” relatienship. Des Santns’ films de net “quete” elements

-Ce.--glc

, - - ..

,

The Third Cinema fiuestian

129'

ef dte derrrinartt cinenra in erder re previde a nestalgic updating ef a kind ef cinema new asseciated with the past; he prepeses instead a transfermatien ef cinema which refuses te jettisen all the cempenents and aspects ef that “eld” deminant cinema merely because they fermed part ef an unacceptable cinematic regime. Tlrirdly. and mest impertantly, the Latin Americans based dteir netien ef Third Cinema en art appreach te the relatiens between significatien and dte se-cial. They advecated a practice ef cinema which, altheugh cenditiened by and tailered te the situatiens prevailing in Latin America, cartnet be limited te that centinent alene, ner fer that matter te the Third ‘Nerld. hewever it is defined. The classic manifestes are fairly ambigueus en this peint, making rather cursery references ttr Asian and African cinemas as well as tn the werk ef Chris

1‘-darker er Jeris Ivens. The clear, theugh net eften explicitly stated, implicatien is that altheugh Third Cinema is discussed in relatien tn Latin America, the authers ef the manifestes see it as an attittrde applicable anywhere. In Cine‘mActian ne. l, Selanas teek the eppertunity te clarify the issue. It is werth queting him at seme length since he cerrects many miscenceptiens that have accrued te the netien ef Third Cinema: First cinema expresses imperialist, capitalist, beurgeeis ideas. Big menepeiy capital finances big spectacle cinema as well as autherial and infertnatienal cinema. Any cinemategraphic expressinn . . . liltely te respend te the aspiratiens ef big capital. I call first cinema. Gut definitien ef secend cinema is all that expresses the aspiratiens ef the middle stratum, the petit beurgeeisie. . . . Secnnd cinema is eften nilrilistic, mystificatery. It mns in circles. It is cut eff frem reality. In the secend cinema, just as in the first cinema. yeu can find decumentaries. pelitical and militant cinema. Se—called auther cinema eften belengs in the sec-

end cinema, but betlt geed and bad autlters may be feund in the first artd in the third cinemas as well. Fer us, third cinema is the expressinn ef a new culture and ef secial changes. Generally speaking, Third Cinema gives an acceunt ef reality and histery. It is alse linked with natinnal culture - . . It is the way the werld is cenceptualized and nnt the genre ner the explicitly pelitical character ef a film which makes it beleng re Third Cinema . . . Third Cinema is an epen categery. unfinished, incemplete. It is a research categery. It is a demecratic, natinnal. pepular cinemaThird Cinema is alse an experimental cinema, but it is net practiced in the selitude ef ene’s heme er in a laberatery because it cenducts research inte cenmtunicatien. What is required is te

-Ce.-glc

, - - ..

.

I3l]

Fatti ll-fillernen

make that Third Cinema gain space, everywhere, in all its ferms . . . But it must be stressed that there are 3|‘-i different kinds ef Third Cinema. {Reprinted in L'influence rlu traisieme cinema titans le mantle. ed. by CinemActian. l9T'I-L}

Gf ceurse, these definitinns beg a great many questiens, the mest immediate ene being that ef the viewers: is it pessihle te see a First Cinema film in a Third Cinema way? In Eurepe. mest Third Cinema preducts have definitely been censumed in a Secnnd Cinema way, bracketing the pelitics in faver ef an appreciatien ef the autherial artisu'y. A pessimist might argue that the deeper a film is anchered in its secial situatien, the mnre likely it is that it will be “secendarized”

when viewed elsewhere er at a different time unless the viewers are prepared te interest themselves precisely in the particularities ef the secie-cultural nexus addressed, which is still a very rare eccurrence. Anether peint ef interest is that the categeries are net aligned with Marxist netiens ef class, presumably since all filmmakers weuld then have te be seen as middle-class entrepreneurs, which is indeed what they arc. even when making films clandestinely. Espinesa tackled that preblem by arguing that ne filmmaker sheuld be a full-time prefessienal. Instead Selanas aligns First, Secnnd and Third Cinemas wiflr three secial strata: the beurgeeisie, the petit beurgeeisie and the peeple, the latter including indusuial werkers, small and landless peasants. the unempleyed. the lumpenpreletariat. snrdents. etc. As a categery, “the peeple” seems re be used as a catch-all term designating all whe are left after the beurgeeisie and mest nf the petit beurgeeisie have been deducted. This gives Third Cinema a basically negative definitien. lvlereever, if First Cinema was a capitalisr-industrial—imperialist cinema and Secnnd Cinema an individualist-petit beurgeeis er unhappily capitalist ene, Third Cinema is definitely presented as a secialist cinema. But the pessibility ef an anti-capitalist cinema drawing inspiratien fmm precapitalist. feudal nestalgia is net taken inte acceunt. l‘~leither did the authers ef the manifestes always aveid attributing an essentially revnlutientuy censcieusness tn “the peeple.” the eppressed. As if the experience ef eppressien itself did net alse have ideelegically darttaging effects, which is why a cinema ef lucidity is such an essential prerequisite fer a secialist cultural

practice. Tlre manifestes alse emit any mentien ef art aristecracy, as if that class simply didn’t ceunt in the cultural cenfiguratien- ‘While this may be true te a large extent in Latin America, it is mest certainly a handicap when censidering Asian ceuntries, net te mentien Eurepean enes er the African secial stratificatiens. Mereever, neither ethnic ner gen-

-Cie.-glc

, - - ..

.

The T-ltirtif Cinema Questien

231

der divisiens are acknewledged in any ef the nranifesres, which cenfuses matters still fiirther. These aspects ef the Third Cinema texts de reinferce the impressien drat it was a netien develeped by Latin Americans fer Latin Americans and that the general applicability ef the appreach was added as an afterdteught. Hewever, even theugh in this respect Third Cinema is net exactly defined with precisien, twe characteristics must be singled eut as especially useful and ef lasting value. Cine is the insistence en its flexibility, its status as research and experimentatien, a cinema ferever in need ef adaptatien tn the shifting dynamics at werk in secial struggles. Because it is part ef censtantly changing secial precesses, that cinema cannet but change with them. making an all-encempassing definitien impessible and even undesirable. The secend useful aspect fellews frem this fundamental flexibility: the enly stable thing abeut Third Cinema is its attempt re speak a secially pertinent discnurse which beth the mainstream and the autherial cinemas exclude frem their regimes ef significatien. Third Cinema seeks te articulate a different set ef aspiratiens eut ef the raw materials previded by the culture. its traditiens. art fenns etc., the cemplex interactiens and cendensatiens ef which shape the “natinnal” cultural space inhabited by the filmmakers as well as their audiences.

Lineagea The Latin American manifestes must alse be seen in the cnntext ef lvlarxist er lvlarxist-inspired cultural theeries in general. where they mark a significant additienal cunent with linkages passing beth threugh Cuba and threugh Italy. as well as develeping hemegrewn traditiens ef secialist and avant-gardist theught. The mest direct cennectiens in this respect, fer a Eumpean reader, are with German cultural theery ef the l93lis. with Brecht and alse with Benjamin. Tlte relatien with Brecht has been referred te earlier and may seem ebvieus. but the Benjamin cennectien is less well knewn. Susan Buck-lvless, ene ef the mest perceptive and best infermed cemmentatnrs en Benjamin’s werk, drew attentien te his statement abeut histery writing which, mutatis mutanrlis, alsn applies te cinematic disceurses and evekes the relatienship which Selanas and Getine pesited between filmmaldng and the centext within which filmmakers werk. In her essay “The Flfineur. the Sandwichman and the Wliere: The Pelitics ef Lettering" {in New German Critique, ne- 39, l9Sti_l. she queted Benjamin: “The events surreunding the histerian and in which he takes part will underlie his presentatien like a text written in invisible ink.” Similarly, underlining phrases fmm the F'a.rsagcnwer.lr, she

-Ceglc

.

E-3-I

Paul I-it-filleirren

described a mede ef inhabiting ene‘s culture which cemes clese te the ideas put ferward in the manifestes. except that Benjamin uses a characteristic metapher te sum up the appreach: in the face ef “the wind ef histery. [. . .1 thinking means setting sails. Hew they are set is the impertant thing. What fer ethers are digressiens are fer me the data that determine my ceurse-” But this ceurse is precaiieus- Te cut the lines that have traditienally anchered lvlarxist discnurse in preductien and sail eff inte the dreamy waters ef censumprien is tn risk, pelitically. mnning agreund. {New German Critique, ep. cit., p. ltfi.) Criticising the evecatien ef emetien witheut praviding the knewledge that ceuld change the situatien. Benjamin‘s theery en dialectical images. altheugh net mentiened in the manifestes, is present in their margins as they stress the relatiens with the viewer as being the preductive site ef cinematic significatien. Paraphrasing Susan Bucklvlnrss. ene ceuld say that ence “the sails are set,” it is net within the cinematic discnurse but in the spaces between the referential werld it cunjures up and the real that the cegnitive precess is prepe-lled. Finally, in a direct parallelism with the aspiratiens ef the Latin American cineastes. Benjamin wrete that he saw his werk as ene ef educating “the image-creating medium within us te see dimcnsienally, sterenscepically. inte the depths ef the histerical shade.” Perhaps these echees rif Benjamin can he explained by the fact that ”lt is in Benja-

min*s werk nf the l93fis that the hidden dialectic between avant-garde art and the utnpian hepe fer an emancipatery mass culture can be grasped alive fer the last time,” accerding te Andreas Huyssen in the best brink tr-i date en centemperaty cultural dynamics, Afler the Great Llirtide {Indiana University Press, llilfifi, p. lfi). He sheuld have added:

in the West, because the werk resurfaced and centinued in Latin America and in lndia in the fills, altheugh in medified ferms. In fact. the lineage gees back tn the Seviet avant-gardcs. Espinesa echries Begdanc-v*s insistence that art practices must address the “nrganizatinn rif emritirin and tlreught-” Recha*s vielently emetienal werk echries Tretyaknv‘s reliance en sheck te alter the psyche ef the recipient ef art. The Latin Americans‘ emphasis en lucidity echees Brecht‘s crinfidence in the emancipatery pewer ef reasen, semething he shared with many Snviet artists allied te Lunacharsky's Cemn1issariat ef the Enlightenment and their “geal te ferge a new unity ef art and life by creating a new art and a new life" {ihitl., p. ll’) in ene and

the same mevement- There are. then, clear centinuities mnning frem

=Cie.-glc

.

The Third Cinema Questien

213

the Seviet artists via Tretyattev te Recha, via Brecht te Selanas and via Benjamin te . . . E. Said? Hewever. it weuld be misleading te everleelt the differences hetween the Brecht-Benjamin nesus and the Latin American manifestes. In the displacement ef the pelitical-cultural avant-garde frem Eurepe lu Latin America, seme themes fell by the wayside while ethers were

medified. Technelegical utepianisru was the first casualty, as evidenced by Espinesa’s netien ef a technulngically, as well as financial-

ly, peer cinema as being the mest effective way ferward fer artists eppesed te the Hellywe-ed—deminated censcieusness industries. The receurse tu peer technelegy {e.g., hlaclt. and white ldrnm handheld camera techniques as eppesed te studie technelegy, etc.) had beceme a necessity net enly in Latin America but fer all these whe wished

{and still wish] te centest the industrial cine1na‘s deminatien. Secnndly, cempared te the Snviet and German secialist avant-gardes, the Latin Americans put an estraerdinary, almest desperate stress en the need fer lucidity in the struggle fer a renewed attempt te integrate art and life. It is easy te see hew changes that had ceme aheut since the Iitlls ceuld give rise te a feeling ef desperatien in this respect. As Andreas Huyssen put it: The legitimate place cf a cultural avant-garde which ence carried with it the utnpian hepe fer an emancipatery mass culture under secialism has been preempted by the rise ef mass mediated culture and its supp-erting industries and institutiens. It

was the culture industry, net the avant-garde, which succeeded in transferming everyday life in the ."~ltItth century. And yet—the utepian hepes ef the histerical avant-garde are preserved, even theugh in disterted ferrn, in this system ef secendary expleitatien euphernistically called mass culture. t_ihid., p. I5) The Latin American, Asian and African filmmakers were. and te a large estent still are, caught between the centradictiens ef technelegiaed mass culture tits need te activate emancipatery wishes in erder te redirect er defuse them by invelting an array cf pleasures and erganising them in such a way that the deminant pleasures beceme asseciated with censervative er individualist gratifrcatiens} and the need te de-

velep a different lcind ef mass culture while heing denied the financial, technelegical and institutienal suppert te de se- Since the culture industry has beceme e:-ttremely adept at erchestrating ernetienality while deliberately atrephying the desire fer understanding and intellectuality, it makes sense fer the Latin Arnerican avant-gardes te

=Clt).l3lt-1'

.1

,

It-t

Paul l-l»'t'il'.tvtt.t=rt

emphasise lucidity and the cegnitive aspects ef cultural werlt, thus reversing the hierarchy between the cegnitive and the emetive, while ef ceurse maintaining the need tu invelve beth-

The third main difference is due te twe absences in Latin America. The absence ef a pewerful fascist culture with its aestheticiaatien ef pelitics, as esemplifted in hlaai Germany. In Latin America, pelitical pewer has been wielded in mere naltedly repressive ways. perhaps he-

cause the pepulist ideelegies required by natienal-fascist regimes ceuld never be successfully passed eff as a demestic aspiratien: imperialist ferces were tee ebvieusly in play fer that strategy te werlt. The secend absence is the esperience cf Stalinismls riger-eus suberdinatien

ef cultural werlters te the requirements ef the elite ef the Party bureaucracy. Whatev'er ceuld be said ef Cuba's cultural pelicies, the effervescence ef Euba’s cinema in the efis was such a welcc-me cuntrast te the cinemas nf ether “existing secialisms" that the shertcemings ef

prevailing lvlarsist theeries ef culture were net a majer issue fer Latin American cultural practitieners. The Allende peried in Chile enly reinferced this eptimism fer a while. Cnnsequently the Latin Americans were better able te recennect with the emancipatery drive ef Ellis and fills cultural theery than their Eurepean ceunterparts. whe had been traumatised by the esperience ef Werld War Twe and by the degeneraticm c-f the ence revered Snviet regime. Fer them, the dangers inherent in the avant-garde rheteric abeut the fusien ef art and life were all tee apparent. lt teelt the Latin Americans‘ refermulatiens under different circumstances, and in the centest ef a wave ef successful independence struggles, te put the questitm baclt en the pelitical-cul-

tural agenda. Their emphasis en lucidity alse functiened pesitively in that respect as a warning against suberdinating the critical-cegnitive dimensiens ef cultural werl-: te the emetive-uttrpian harnessing cf pep-

ular aspiratiens te a {necessarily} centrally dictated strategy ef a pelitical party l if that party is at all serieus abeut gaining pewer}. Finally, the Latin Americans alse pieneered, alnngside their filmmalsing wtrrlt, a “Third Cinema" critical practice which preceeded

frem the same impulses tewards “histerical lucidity," semething which the Eurepcans never achieved as far as cinema wasfis cencemed. hint enly did dte cineastes write manifestes, they alse engaged in a critical recenstructien ef their cinematic histeries- In cnnjunctien with them. histerian-critics such as Paule Emilie Salles Gemes and Jean-Claude Bemadet in Brazil censistently werltcd tewards a type ef criticism that seught tn understand individual tests and centempnrary trends in filmmaking in relatien te the histerical precesses, institutiens and struggles trem which these tests and currents received their femtative impulses. lt teelt lengcr fer these critical practices te travel te

'

‘

,;

:2

-

..- ._ [-4

The Illrirsf Cinema Q‘:-testfctrt

E35

Eurepe than it teel-t the films. Elnly recently, and indirectly, has the critical equivalent ef Third Cinema gained greund in dte West and, net surprisingly, it is mainly [but net esclusively: see fer instance lvleaghan l'vlerris en Crncndiie Dundee in Arr di Terr, ne. 15} practiced by critics and theerlsts whe themselves try re recennect with as well as estend aspects ef 3l]s Crerman cultural theeries: fer esample, the werlt ef Fredric lamesen, Eric Rentschler, Miriam Hansen, writers asseciated widt the U.5.-based jeumal New Gerrrtcrrr Critique, the writings ef Alesander Kluge. in Britain, the werlt en British and Irish cinema published by the Ireland-based Jehn Hill and the werlt ef Peter Wellen ceme te mind, aleng with Claire .lehnsten‘s essay en Mneve. as all tee rare esamples. Perhaps fittingly, this return te critical theery went tegether with a rediscevery ef the massive impertattce ef a Snviet theeretician‘s leng neglected werlt: dtat ef lvtilthail Balthtin.

Third Cinema: Part ll Recently, Teshnme Ctabriel refermulated seme ef the Third Cinema theses, peinting eut that “Third Cinema includes an infinity ef subjects and styles as varied as the lives ef the peeple it pertrays . . . [its] principal characteristic is really net sn much where it is made, er even whe maltes it, but, rather, the ideelegy it espeuscs and the censcieusness it displays." Altheugh still cenfining it defscte tn sn-called Third werld ceuntries, nearly always everleelting Asia {which may be due te the difficulty ef ebtaining prints fnr study rather than te eversightl, Gabriel's unambigueus affirmatien that Third Cinema can be praised anywhere epens dte way tewards a different cenceptualiaatien nf Third Cinema and its centemp-c-rm; relevance. Instead ef Epstein’s netien ef “phetegenie" er difference theery [the “varietal thesis"l, which are theeries ef censumptien, Third Cinema refers tn preductien, and its cetTe:-spending theery ef censnmptinn weuld then be Hal-thtin's

theery nf reading, including its emphases en inner speech and the prefcundly sncial aspects cf discnurse.

Hnwever, perhaps because nf his cemmitted intematienalism, Crabriel risl.-ts centradicting himself by net facing head en the questien ef the natic-nal, If Third Cinema is as varied as the lives trf the peeple it

pertrays {I wnuld prefer tn say: as varied as the secial precesses it inhabits), it must fellew that it espeuscs natitmally specific ferms, since the lives nf peeple are gevemed and circumscribed by histeries and institutiens made “natienally specific" by the very e:-tistence ef the beundaries framing the terrain where a particular gevemment’s writ runs, by dte legal and educatienal systems in place there, etc.

-Ce.--glc

, - - ..

,

ass

Peal Wiliernett

hlevertheless, Gabriel alse wrete Tewtrrtir ti Critical Theer_v pf Thirtf Wnrld Filrrrs in which Third Cinema and genuine Third Werld cinema espressive ef Third werld needs are equated. Wltetlter er net China, India er Seuth Herea can meaningfully be regarded as Third werld areas, Gabriel's essay raises anntlter setieus preblem: is it tiredretically pessible te find a unifying aesthetic fer nen-Eure-Americart cinemas‘? If the answer is "yes" as his etherwise stimulating analyses tend tn suggest, then Third Cinema is undeubtedly net nearly as varied as the lives ef the peeple it pertrays. But, geing ene step further, the way Gabriel seeics te substantiate the argument fer a unifying aesthetic leads tn twe cenflicting results. Firstly, and in spite nf the stated centrary intentien, Third Cinema is ence mere defined in terms ef its difference frem Eure-American cinema, thus implicitly using Hnllyweed and its natienal-industrial rivals as the yardstick against which tn measure the ether‘s etbemess. Secendly, Gabriel demenstrates alse that dte varieus nen-Eure-American cinematic regimes erganize time and space in their ewn specific ways. That is te say, using a Balditinian term, nen-Eure-American cinema is characterized by a different chrenetepe. In his study ef Balthtin's werk. Tavetan Tederev defined the cluenetepe as “the set ef distinctive features ef time and space within each literary genre" {Mikhail Bchhtirt: The Diniegicnl Principle, lvlanchester University Press, 1934, p. S3}. Balthtin himself was a little less restrictive. He talked abeut an image ef “histerical time cendensed in space" [Speech Genres dc Gther Late E.rsey.r. University ef Tesas Press, I936, p. 49) and ef dte ability te see tirrre, te rend time, in the spatial whele nf the werld and, en dte ether hand, te perceive the filling ef space net as an immebile backgreund, a given that is cempleted ence and fer all. but as an emerging whele, an event—this is the ability te read in everything sighs that shew time in its ceurse, beginning with nature and ending with human custems and ideas {all the way te abstract cenecpts] . . . The werlt ef the seeing eye jeins here with the mest cemples theught precesses. {ibid., p. 24} Censcquently, chrenetepes are time-space articulatiens characteristic ef particular, histc:-rically detemrined cenceptiens cf the relatiens

between the human, the secial and the natural werld, i.e. ways ef cenceptualirting secial esistence. Gabriel*s argument that a different chrenetepe determines the narrative images and rhythms ef nen-EureAmerican cinemas is cenvincing. Hewever, his analysis steps shert ef specifying hew, fer instance. the chrenetepe ef Ghatak’s films, with

-Ce.-glc

, - - ..

,

The l'h|'rti Cinentrr Qnestinn

23?

their intricate interweaving ef histerical, bingraphical, natural and emetienal tempnral rhythms, nnt tn mentien musical and speech rhythms, in spaces tiisrupted by edges and beundaries themselves cnndensing histerical and symbnlic meanings, differs frem lnaquirn Pedre de Anclracle’s telescnping nf histerical, allegerical and fantasy times in

fl Hnntent dc Putt Hrnsii, er the representatinn ef histerical time in terms nf the relatien between linear-evential time and cyclical-ritual time in a space divided accnrding tn varieties nf sacred-prnfane nppnsitinns, as in E-embene‘s Cetitin. Secnndly, the chrenetepes nf neither the first nnr the secend cinemas are as hemegeneeus as Gabriel's argument [and the use nf the tertn Butte-American in dtese netes) weuld suggest. Chantal Alterman and Bette Gnrden*s films each in dteir nwn way depley space-time werlds at variance widt deminant Eure-American cinemas. Similarly, seme ef lvlarin Bava"s herrer films eperate within the cenfines ef fantasy time and legic {in which the narrative is prepelled by dte werking threugh ef a single, highly cnndensed but basically static fantasy structure}, whereas Ringer Cerman’s werk is marked by the imbricatien ef sacred-ritual and prefane-linear time structures, altheugh bnth tend tn use space in very similar ways. Then there is the questien ef the differences between the chrenetepes nf “cnmmercial” Indian cinemas and these nf Japanese, Hnllywnnd nr

Latin American enes. In additien, there appear tn be marl-ted differences between black British and black American films in spite nf their shared eppesitien tn Hnllywnnd. These differences relate mnre tn the varying relatiens between these films and their respective “best” cinemas, a relatienship that alse infnmrs the differences between British and American independent-pelitical cinemas in general. Fer esample, the black British cinema can be seen as erganizing time-space relatiens differently frem bnth deminant and esperimental—independent British cinemas, and this cemples differentiatien frem its immediate industrial-sncial-cultural cnntest is a mere pertinent tjeverldetermining precess than, fer e-sample, arty reference tn black African cinemas.

lvlnrenver, within the black British cinema there are further impnrtant distinctinns tn be made between films drawing en Asian and nn Caribbean cultural discnurses and histeries. Gabrle|’s hemngeniaatinn nf the Third Cinema clunnntepe inte a single aesthetic “family” is thus premature, altheugh the artalysis nf

the differentiatien between Eure-American cinema and its "nther" cnnstitutes the necessary first step in this pelitically indispensable and urgent task nf espelling the E.urn-American cenceptiens nf cinema frem the center nf film histnry and critical theery. The difficulties ef such a prnject are nnt tn be underestimated, as is demenstrated by the censistent shnrthand usage nf the terrrt Eure-American in this discus-

-Cin.--glc

, - - .,

,

235

Perri Wiilemen

sinn: readers nf these netes are beund tn have seme idea ef what is meant by that terrn, while a distinctinn between Islamic and Buddhist cinemas is likely tn be received with puaalement. altheugh it is in all prnhability a pertinent distinctien tn make.

The natinnal Cine impnrtant factnr which prngrams Gabriel's premature rehnmngeniaatien ef Third Cinema, after his insistence nn its infinite variability, is his principled but cnstly avnidance nf the natinnal questien. The effectiveness with which the natinnal secie-cultural fnrrnatinns deter-

mine particular signifying practices is nnt addressed. Admittedly. dte natinnal questien itself has a different weight in varieus parts nf the glnbe, but the ferced as well m the elective intcmatinnalism nf cinema —espccially nf a cinema with inadequately develeped industrial infrastructures—tends tn bracket natinnal-cultural issues tee quickly. And yet if any cinema is determinedly “natinnal,” even "regienal," in its address and aspiratiens, it is Third Cinema. Since Hnllywnnd established its deminance in the wnrld market, frnm l9l9 enwards, the call fer a cinema rented in natinnal cultures has been repeated in a variety nf ways, perhaps mest vncally by natinnal bnurgenisies cynically invnking dte “natinnal culture" in nrder tn get the state tn help them mennpnlir-'.e the dnmestic market. Initially, these calls tnnk the fnrrn nf arguments fnr an autherial cinema, within a natinnal industry if pnssible, eutside ef its institutiens if necessary. The split between a natinnal-deminant cinema cnmpeting with Hnllywnnd and a natinnal autherial cinema—which alsn esisted within Hnllywnnd, as Selanas acknewledged has been mirrnred in the split between a pelitically nriented militant cinema nppnsing mainstream entertainment cinema and a persnnal-esperimental cinema np-

pnsing the literariness ef auther-cinema, even if these categeries tended tn nverlap at times. These nritrnr-divisinns have develeped since the mid-Ttls, each giving rise tn its nwn institutiens but nene being able tn challenge the industrial-pelitical dnminatinn nf Hnllywnnd. At best. seme cnuntries {especially in Asia] have managed tn prevent Hnllywnnd frem destrnying their lncal film indusny, but even these cnuntries failed tn make a significant intematienal impact. The pnst-Wnrld War Twn era up tn I975 [the Vietnamese victnry nver the I,l.S.l has been characterized by intense struggles nver “natinnal” film cultures, and has seen the rise nf autherial cinemas while the deminant industrial cinemas’ ideelngical and ecenemic functiens within natinnal as well as in intematienal capitalist structures began tn shift tewards televisinn. In cnuntries witheut advanced film preductien sec-

-Cin.--glc

, - - .,

,

The Third Cinema flttestinrt

239

ters, the questien ef the natinnal was alse and immediately a pelitical questien, i.e. the questien nf natinnal liberatien and the right tn speak in nne’s nwn cultural idinms. But altheugh these questiens are fairly recent enes as far as cinema is cencemed, they had been rehearsed fer nver a century in relatien tn literature. the fine arts, theatre. music, etc. In fact. the West invented natienalism. initially in the fnrrn ef imperialism as natinn-states estended their dnminatinn nver nthers, creating at nne and the same time the hegemnnic sense nf the “natinnal culture" and the "preblem" ef natinnal identity fer the celnniaed territnries. The issue nf natinnal-cultural identity arises nnly in respense tn a challenge pesed by the nther, sn that arty discnurse nf natinnal-cultural identity is always and frem the nutset nppnsitienal, altheugh net necessarily cendueive tn pregtessive pesitiens. This helds true fer the cnlnniaing natien as well as fnr the cnlnnized nnerjs) it calls inte being. The respnnses tn this reciprecal but antagnnistic fermatinn ef identities fall inte three types. The first nptinn is tn identify with the deminant and deminating

culture, which is easy fnr the meuepelitan intelligentsia such as the infameus Themas lvlacaulay, whe disguised armed and ecenemic ferce under the clnak ef cultural superinrity. This nptinn is less cemfertable fnr the cnlnniaed intelligentsia whn may aspire tn the begemnnic culture but can never really beleng tn it. Hewever, the rewards fnr such an aspiratien are sufficiently attractive fnr many nf them tn pursue it with vignr: there is the premise ef advancement under celenial rule and nf beceming dte “natinnal” leadership tn which a retreating celeniaer will wish tn bequeath pewer. The secend nptinn is tn develnp the antagnnistic sense nf natinnal identity by seeking tn recennect with traditiens that get lest er were displaced er distnrted by cnlnnial rule er by the impact nf Western industrial-military pewer. In spite ef the undnubted mebiliaing pewer ef such natinnal-pepulist ideelegies, this nptinn presents censiderable difficulties and dangers. The main enes derive frem the need te reinvent traditinns, tn cenjure up an image nf pre—cnlnnial innncence and authenticity, since the natinnal-cultural identity must by detinitinu be feunded en what has been suppressed er disterted. The result is mestly a nestalgia fer a pre-cnlnnial seciety which in fact never esisted, full nf idyllic villages and cnmmunities peepled by “authentic” {read felklnric} innecents in teuch with the “reai" values perverted by imperialism er. in the mnst naive versinns. perverted by technnlngy. Alternatively, particular aspects nf snme culture are selected and elevated intn essentialiaed symbels nf the natinnal identity: the lncal answer tn imperialism's stereetypes- lvlirrering impetialism*s practices,

-Ce.-glc

, - - ..

,

241.]

Fatal Wfllemen

such effnrts mestly wind up presenting previeusly esisting relatiens nf dnminatinn and subnrdinatinn as the "natural" state nf things. And then. ef ceurse. there are the pelitical mnnstrnsities that eccur when such idealised and essentialiaed netiens ef natinnal identity achieve seme kind nf pewer: fer esample, the whelesale massacres ef "nthers," the "nthers" required tn define dte “natinnal identity" and tn functinn as scapegnats fnr the fact that the “nriginal idyllic esistence" still seems as far away as ever. African and Asian as well as Latin American intelligentsia have negntiated these preblems fnr a very lung time and have ceme up with a variety nf selutiens. amnng which are Third Wnrldist types nf internatienalism (the displacement frem natinnal identity tn centinental identity), the cnntrnlled misture ef feudalism and advanced capitalism practiced in lapan, the displacement nf the natinnal tn the racial [blegritude. fer esamplel. etc- In the secend half nf the ltlth century, hnwever, tegether with the widespread struggles fnr natinnal liberatien and independence, a different apprnach has gained strength. Altheugh eften still riddled with residues nf backward-innlrjng idealiaatinns nf what the “eriginal” culture must have been like h-efnre the impact ef

Westem rapacinusness, this third nptinn refused beth natinnal chauvinism and identilicatinn with the aggressnr in faver ef a mnre cemples view nl' sncial fnrrnatinns and their dynamics, including the fraught relatienship with the West- As the l'v'lnruccan Zaghlnul lvlursy put it: *‘Whether we try te refute it, liberate eurselves frem it er assent tn it . . . the ‘West is here with us as a prime fact, and ignnrance nr imperfect knewledge nf it has a nullifying effect nn all serinus reflectinn and genuinely artistic espressien" {tldein Trenul.-: in Aesthetics and

the Sciences nfrtrt. ed. lvl. Dufrenne. blew ‘tnrk. l9i'9. p. dlllIt is nne nf the cententinns nf these netes that the eppesite helds true as well: Asian, African and Latin American cultures are with us as a fact and ignnrance nf them has an equally nullifying effect en all serinus reltectinn . . . in the West. While the beurgeeis natienalist intellectuals nf the liberated cnuntries talked abeut effecting a synthesis nf East and West nr nf hlnrth and Seuth in nrder tn fnrge a new hegemeny. militant intellectuals rejected that illusien and npted fnr a rheteric ef beceming: the natinnal culture weuld emerge frem a struggle waged by the esisting penple and net by the idealised figment ef a ruralist fantasy. It is in this precess nf stmggle that the intellectuals wnuld find a rele. In that centest, liberatien did nnt refer tn the freeing nf seme previeusly esisting but tempnrarily suppressed state nf culture. Gn the cnntrary, pelitical and ecenemic liberatien weuld be a necessary precnnditinn fnr the emergence nf a pepular culture. a peint mest cegently made by Selanas when he stressed the esperimen-

=Cin.,3lc

,

The Third Cinern-rt tluestinn

2»-tl

tal nature ef Third Cinema. In each ease, the specific circumstances ef the cnuntry invelved—its pre-celenial as well as celenial histery, etc. —weuld determine the particular shape and dynamics nf the culture nnce it has been freed tn evelve accerding te its nwn needs and aspiratiens. Cnnsequently, the questien ef the natinnal became net brelevant but secnndary: the primary task was tn address the esisting situatien in all its eften cnntradictnry and cnnfusing intricacy with the masimum lucidity. The espressien ef cultural and natinnal identity as well as persnnal identity wnuld be an inevitable by-preduct in the sense that a discnurse abeut and addressing particular sncial precesses weuld necessarily bear the imprint ef dtese precesses in the %e way that any discnurse bears dte imprint ef these it addresses, alnng with the traces ef the fnverldetemtining ferces that shape it. Cultural identity nn lnnger precedes the discnurse as semething tn be recevered: it is by trying tn put an understanding ef dte multifarieus secial-histerical precesses at werk in a given situatien inte discnurse that the natinnal-culttrral—pepular identity begins tn find a veice. Traditinntsl can nn lnnger be seen as sacred cnws: seme are tn be criticized, ethers tn be mebiliaed er inflected—-an attitude esemplified by Sembene’s and Cisse‘s werk. hlatienalist selidarity thus gives way tn the need fnr critical lucidity which becemes the intellectual's special task. Hisiher centributien becemes the previsien nf a critical understanding likely te assist dte struggles at hand. As Lnuis Althusser put it in a letter te Regis Debray: “[Intellectua.ls] are entrusted by the penple in arms with the guardianship and estensien ef scientifc knewledge. They must fulfill this ruissinn widt dte utmest care, fnllnwing in the feetsteps ef lvlars, whn was cnnvinced dtat nething was mere impnrtant fnr the struggles nf the werkers mevements and these waging these struggles than the mest prefeund and accurate letnwledge" [in Debray, A Critique ef.-ttrns, Penguin, 197?, p. 215?}. Edward Said fermulated it in this way: “The histnry ef theught, te say nething ef pelitical mevements, is estravagantly illustrative ef hnw the dictum ‘selidarity befere criticism‘ means the end ef criticism." And he went nn tn say: “Even in the very midst nf a battle in which ene is unmistakably en ene side against attether, dtere sheuld be criticism, because dtere mu.st be critical cnnscinusness if there are te be issues, preblems, values, even lives te be fnught fnr" [The Wnrid. the Test. and the Critic, Lenden, Faber St Faber, l9S4, p. Ell}. Se altheugh the natinnal may indeed nnt be the mest impnrtant issue. tn skip the questien nf the natinnal and slide directly tewards an

internatienal aesthetic alse eliminates the defining characteristics nf Third Cinema itself: the aim nf rendering a particular secial situatien

-Ce.-glc

, - - ..

,

242

Putri' Wiflenren

intelligible tn these engaged in a struggle tn change it in a secialist directien.

That the questien nf dte natinnal cannet be divnrced frem the questinn nf Third Cinema is alse evident frem an esample which mest Third Cinema thenrists tend tn nverlnek in spite nf the striking similarities presented by it: the cultural practice advecated at Santiniketan in India in the Ztls and Lifts. The Ttrgnre-feunded institutinn in Bengal develeped an aesthetic nn the interface between nature and culture,

unifying the Janus-faced relatienship nf the artist tn bnth under the terms ef the “envirnnment” and the “living traditien.“ It saw culture

as layered inte regienal specificities while insisting en a critical internatienalism. In Geeta Kapurls wnrds: As an artist, lélabindranatlfs cenmtirment te the living traditien came first and fnremest threugh his creative chnices, tlueugh his werking the great range nf artistic fnrrns [. . .] as fnr esample his use as a peer ef Llpanishadic verse, Baul sengs and felk lullabies. At the strme time he enjeined his cnlleagues tn resist spiritual and aesthetic t as fnr that matter pelitical} cndificatien nf fnmis en any rigid natinnal er ethnic grnunds. tn epen themselves nut tn the werld art mevements, thus enlivening their nwn practice and making it internatinnally viable and centemperary. lln ll’. G. Stthrnrnnnynh. Lalit lfala Akademi, blew Delhi. l9ST, p- I7} She added: “This after all wnuld he the best test ef a living traditien." At Santiniketan, a cencerted attempt was made tn nrganiae the liberating effects nf such an ericntatien tewards the cnmplesities nf a

centemperaty “envirnnment” and ef vernacular vecabulary and skills inte a cnherent aesthetic appreach which was deeply embedded in the Indian natinnal independence mevement. The pelitical and dte cultural were fused inte a radical curriculum in which students at Santiniketan were intreduced tn craftsmen at werk; they were encnuraged te rewnrk traditienal materials and techniques and the ebjects prnduced were eshibited and seld in lncal fairs [an equivalent nf the eshibitien practices asseciated with Third Cinema and its screenings at infnmtal pepular gatherings as well as in student milieu and in radical institutiens] with the hepe ef recycling the taste and skills ef craftsmen—artists intn the urban middle-class milieu with the yeung artist fnnrting a deuble link- A new lndian sensibility was te be hyprnthesiaed, created, designed - - . [Pepular art] inclined them tn visual narratives [derived frnm the

-Ce.--glc

, - - .,

,

The Third Cinema Qrrestinn

143

great myths as well as frem tribal fables], tn hybrid figural icnnngraphy artd swift stylistic abbreviatinns. {ibid, p. IS) Summing up the pedagngic apprnach nf blandalal Bese, “the mnst cnurageeus mist ef dte natienalist peried," Geeta lttapur emphasizes that this censtituted a practice nf images derived frem pepular seurces serving pelitical-pepulist purpnses with a radical effect nn bnth" {ibid., p. I9}. The dialngic relatien widt the pepular, the stress nn the vernacular, the deuble reference tn beth the regienal and the intema-

tienal, the hybridizatinn practices, the receurse tn the mnst inespensive means nf artistic prnductien, dte prnject nf creating a new natinnal culture, all these features recur in the writings nf the Third Cinema pelemicists. In additien, the Cuban as well as the Indian varieties nf this current were deeply embedded in anti-imperialist snuggles fnr natinnal-cultural as well as pelitical and ecenemic autnnnmy. This sheuld net, ef ceurse, ebscure the differences between Santiniketan and the Latin Americans, the mest ebvieus nf which are the latter"s evertly lvtarsist apprnach and the fact that the pelitical practice nf a capital-intensive, inherently "medem" mass-media technnlngy such as cinema required a drastic recnnceptualizatinn nf the nature ef the dialegue with the pepular. lvtnrenver, Santiniltetan is nnt the nnly antecedent ef Third Cinema in this respect: the Brazilian theatrical and literary avant-gardes nf the Ellis, especially these asseciated with Clswald de Andrade. the Pau Brasil and the Antlrrepefagia manifestes, cnme tn mind, as dn the lvlesican muralists in the 3fls, etc., all ef which address similar sets nf tensinns and cenuadictinns. In that re-

gard. the references tn Italian nee-realism and te Griersen in the manifestes cannet be taken at face value. They functinn as a symptnm. The Eurepean reference is then a symptnm nf the preductive cultural hybridizatien inherent in the pesitien frem which the Latin American cineastes spealt, rather than functiening as a designatinn nf nrigins. Finally, the absence in that centest ef references tn Jean Iltnuch alsn speaks vnlumes. I-tench is a reference fer African filnunakers as eppesed tn Latin American enes, escept fnr the rather jnkey allusiens in the Brazilian cnmedy Ladrees ale Cinema {I977}. His absence frem the classic Third Cinema manifestes thus eperates as a marker ef the marginalizatien ef African cinemas by dte Latin Americans at the time, The argument that it might have been nverlnnked because nf Rnuch*s ethnegraphic rather than esplicitly pelitical discnurse wnuld

nnt be very cnnvincing, since Griersenian seeial demecracy and its admiratien fnr snnngly centralized {but benevnlentl state authnrity dees figure in the tests in spite nf its dubinus pelitics. lvterenver.

-Ce.-glc

, - - ..

,

2-Il-fl

Paul‘ Wiflemen

Rnuch can be seen as a mest intriguing father figure fer Third Cinema, mere se than Ivcns er Ivlarkcr, since it is widt Mai an nnir {i952} that he invented an African Third Cinema style nf filmmalting—and that precisely bccattsc nf the dialngic relatinn set up between Rnuch and his main prntagnnist. “Rnbinsnn" {i.e. Gumarnu Ganda}, which structures the filntic precess, its stylistic aspects aleng widt its fictien [see fer esample the peints made by Jim Hillier in Cahiers rfrt Cinerna, vnl. 2, Lenden, Reutledge St Regan Pault"[-lritish Film Institute, l9Sti. pp. 223-25}. It is significant that Reuch‘s film atrd the emergence nf a Third Cinema in Africa date back tn the very year in which Ghana becarue the first African natien-state tn gain independence frnre its celenizing pewer.

Bakhfln Fer the theeretical elaberatien ef the interplay between utterances and their sncie-histerical settingljsl, the mnst useful inspiratien available tn date is the wnrk ef lvlikhail Bakhtin. In particular, his cnncepts ef dialegue, ntherness and the cltrenetnpe previde preductive ways in which Teshnme Gabriel's pinneering werk might be built upen, allewing us te rctlrirtl-: the whele issue ef cultural pelitics in the prncess. Altheugh Baklrtin dees nnt directly address the questien ef the natinnal, he is very much cnncerrred with the issue nf sncie-histerical specificity. His discussien ef discursive genres eutlines the way he peses the preblem: The werk is nriented, first, tewards its E. . .1 recipients, atrd tewards certain cenditiens nf perfnrmance and perceptien. Secnnd, the werk is nriented tewards life, frem the inside, se tn speak, by its thematic centent. {. . .] Every genre has its metheds, its ways ef seeing and understanding reality, and these metheds are its esclusive characteristic. The artist must learn tn see reality tltrnugh dte eyes nf the genre. [. . .] The field nf representatinn changes frnm genre tn genre [. . .] it delineates itself differently

as space and time. This field is always specific. (Qunted in T. Tndernv, np. cit-, pp. 32-3]

Baithtin then gees en tn make anether link by defining genre as a fragment ef cellective memery: Cultural and literary traditiens [. . .] are preserved attd centinue tn live, net in the subjective memery nf the individum ner in seme cellective "psyche." but in the ebjective ferms nf culture itself. [. . .] In this sense, they are intersubjective and interindlvidual, and therefnre sncial. [. . .] The individual memery ef

-Ce.-glc

, - - ..

,

The Trl|t'ra' Cirretrra rfltaestinn

245

creative individuals almest dees net ceme inte play. {Qunted in T. Tndernv, np. cit., p. S5} Bakhtin"s translaters, bingraphers and cnnunentaters, I'll. Clark and lvl. Hnlquist, emphasise the prnsimity nf such an appreach tn cultural traditien tn Baldttin*s cenccpt nf dte cltrenntnpe: In each place and peried a different set nf time.-‘space categeries ebtained, and what it meant tn be human was in a large measure determined by dtese categnries. The Greeks saw time as cyclical, fnr esample, while the Hebrews assigned greatest value tn the future. {hfiiclrnti llnithtin, Harvard University Press, 19S-=l-, p. 2'r'Sl The cempenent “secialized”:

parts nf discnursesiutterances are themselves

Within the arena nf [. . .1 every utterance an intense cenfiict between nnc‘s nwn and annther‘s werd is being fnught nut. Each werd is a little arena fer the clash ef and criss-crnssing nf differently nriented sncial accents. A werd in the mnuth ef a particulat" individual is a preduct nf dte living interactien nf sncial ferces. {Qunted in Clark and Hnlquist, ep. cit., p. 229} The reasen fnr this is that hle utterance can be attributed tn the speaker esclusively; it is the preduct cf the interactien cf the interlecutnrs, and, breadly speaking, dte preduct ef the whele cemples sncial sitrtarinn in which it has eccurred. {Queted in T. Tndernv, ep. cit., p. 3|], eriginal emphases} Baldttin gees se far as tn characterize individual utterances as certiders in which echn a multiplicity nf vnices, a cnrridnr shaped by dte interactien, whether direct er indirect, delayed nr anticipated, between interlecutnrs, sn that what is actively unspnkcn er what is simply, silently assumed, eserts as effective a deterntining ferce upen the discnurse as the speaker’s prnject. In additien te the interlecutnrs and tn the sncial situatien--itself alive with remembered. half-remembered. anticipated and tempnrarily dnmtant discnurses-—-there is the e.chn ef the generic whele that resnunds in every werd that functiens within it. Hnwever. Bakhtin*s plurivncal cultural spaces de nnt present seme

-Cnglc

,

2-=1-15

Pnuf ll-fiilemen

egalitarian jcstle cf intersecting vnices cf the type that decenstnuctive netiens nf interlestuality evulte. fin the cnntrary:

lust as [sncial diversity] is cnnstrained by the rules impesed by the single state, the diversity t:-f discnurses is feught against by the aspiratien. cerrelative tn all pewer, tn institute a cemmen language. [- . .] The cemmen language is never given but in fact always erdained. and at every mement uf the life cf the language it is eppesed tn genuine heternlegy. {Tndernv, up. cit., p. 5?) Cultural specificity is thus never a clesed. static terrain: it is never a systemic whele lilte a cede: Culture cannet he enclc-scd widtin itself as semething ready made. The unity ef a particular culture is an epen unity [in which] lie immense semantic pessibilities that have remained undisclused, unrecognized. and unutiliaed. [Speech {Fenres cl: Other Lute Essays, pp. 5-15)

The clear implicatien here is that just as there is a hierarchy impesed upen the diversity cf discnurses. the institutienaliaed eitercisc cf pewer bears upen which semantic pessibilities shall remain unreccgnised er unutiliaed. In the case nf cinema, this means that sncial pewer has its wc-rd tn say in what ltind c-f discnurses are made as well as in hnw peeple read them- The silence nf the eppressed may be an active fnrrn ef resistance. a refusal. It may alse be the result cf a secially induced incapacity tc activate certain registers cf meaning, dte e:-tercise uf secial pewer having succeeded in bleclting access te a number nf semantic pessibilities. it is impnrtant tn stress this particular effect ef power, since it is eften nvcrlculted by penple whc study the way ccnsurners use preducts cf the cultural industries: questiens cf pleasure are eften emphasised at the eitpense nf an eitaminatien cf the stunting and restrictive effects nf deminant discursive regimes which cnnstantly repeat the mling cut nf certain types cf maiting 5-ETl.'ii-E.

Having sltetched the parameters cf a pessihle typulegy nf the dynamics shaping cultural fcrmaticns. Balthtin maltes sci-me particularly challenging peints with far-reaching implicatiens. especially fer the cemmunity-nriented pepulist tendencies currently deminant ameng left cultural practitinners in the U.I-L as well as in the Li.S.. In a shert jcurnalistic piece he warned:

-Goggle

,

The Third Cinemn Questinri

E4?

In nur enthusiasm fnr specificatinn we have ignnred questiens nf the intercnnnectinn and interdependence nf varinus areas nf culture; we have frequently fnrgntten that dte beundaries nf these areas are nnt absnlute. that in varinus epnchs they have been drawn in varinus ways; and we have nnt talten intn accnunt that the mnst intense and prnductive life nf culture taltes place nn the bnundaries nf its individual me-as and nnt in places where these areas have becnme enclnsed in their nwn specificity. {Speech Genres. p. 2] This warning helps tn e:-tplain the sterility nf classic mndernist pnsitinns but alsn. and mnre impnrtantly. nf attempts tn enclnse cultural practices within class nr ethnic nr gender specificities. This pnint is develnped intn a fully fledged critique nf practices that advncate identificatien between the intellectual-artist and “the penple" nr any nther sncial grnuping. In l]'l-E. fnllnwing quntatinn. Halthtin refers tn attempts tn understand “fnreign cultures." but his remarlts apply with equal fnrce and pertinence tn sncial suata ntlter than nne*s nwn. regmdless nf whether these strata are defined in terrns nf class. ethnicity nr gen-

der. Etalditin wrnte: There eitists a very strnng. but nne-sided and thus untrustwnrthy idea that in nrder better tn understand a fnreign culture. nne must enter intn it. fnrgetting nne"s nwn. and view the wnrld thrnugh the eyes nf this fnreign culture. [. . .] Df cnurse. dte pnssibiiity nf seeing the wnrld threugh its eyes is a necessary part nf the prncess nf understanding it; but if this were the nnly aspect [. . .] it wnuld merely be duplicatien and wnuld nnt entail anything enriching. Creative nnderstnnding dnes nnt rennunce itself. its nwn place and time. its nwn culture; and it fnrgets nnthing. in nrder tn understand. it is immensely impnrtant fnr the persen whn understands tn be lncnted nnrside the nbject nf his nr her creative understanding-—in time. in space. in culture. In the realm nf culture. nutsideness is a mnst pnwerliul factnr in understanding. [. . .] We raise new questiens fnr a fnreign culture. nnes that it did nnt raise fnr itself; we seelr answers tn nur nwn questinns in it; and the fnreign culture respnnds tn us by revealing tn us its new aspects and new semantic depths. Withnut nne's nwn questiens nne cannnt creatively understand anything nther nr fnreign. Such a dialngic enceunter nf twn cultures dnes nnt result in merging nr mi:-ting. Each retains in nwn unity and upen tntality. but they are mutually enriched. {Speech Genres. pp. ti-7}

-Cngglc

,

243

Paul‘ ll-fitlenven

One must be "nther" nneself if anything is tn be teamed abnut the meanings nf limits. nr bnrderlines; nf the areas where “the mnst intense and preductive life nf culture taltes place." Trinh T. Ivfinh-ha. in an equally prnvncative intrnductinn tn a special issue nf Disennrse {nn. E. I936-T}. echnes lElald1tin‘s cnncem with the prnductivity nf ntherness: Clthemess has its nwn laws and interdictinns. [. . .] And difference in this cnntext undermines nppnsitinn as well as separatism. I'-Ieither a claim fnr special ueatment. nnr a return tn an authentic cnre (the "unspoiled" Real Dtlier). it acltnnwledges in each nf its meves die cnming tegether and drifting apart bnth within and between identityfies. What is at stalte is nnt nnly the hegemeny nf westem cultures. but alsn their identities as unified cultures: in ndter wnrds. the realiaatinn that there is a Third Wnrld in every First wnrld. and vice-versa. {p. 3) Remembering Balthtin‘s pnint about the unequal pnwer relatiens between discnurses. these cnnsideratinns lead us far frnm the pc-st-mndeni nr the multiculturalist free play nf differences. the republican carnival nf vnices. tnwards a pfllitics nf ntherttess as the precnnditinn

fnr any cultural pnlitics. If nutsideness is the prerequisite fnr creative understanding. it alsn fnllnws that nutsideness is a pnsitinn as threatening as it is preductive. Threatening fnr the “insider” whnse limits becnme visible in ways nnt accessible tn himfher: preductive precisely in sn far as structuring limits, hnrianns, bnundaries. becnme visible and available fnr understanding. If we return tn the Latin American manifestes thrnugh the prism nf H-aldttin's thenries. their insistence nn a lucid presentatinn nf sncial fnrces and nf reality. cnupled with the pursuit nf secialist aspiratinns.

can be seen in a snmewhat different light. Viewed frnm dtis perspective. Third Cinema is a cinema neither nf nnr fnr “the penple." nnr is it simply a matter nf expressing nppnsitinn tn imperialism nr tn beurgenis rule. It is a cinema made by intellectuals whn. fnr pelitical and artistic reasnns at nne and the same time. assume their respensibilities as snciaiist intellectuals and seelt tn achieve threugh their wnrlt die prnductien cf sncial intelligibility. lvtnrenver, remembering Edward Said‘s pnint abnut the need fnr criticism. their pursuit nf the creative understanding nf particular sncial realities taltes the fnrrn nf a critical dialegue-—hence the need fnr bntlt lucidity and clnse cnntact with pnpular discnurses and aspiratinns—with a penple itself engaged in bringing abnut sncial change. Theirs is nnt an audience in die Hnllywnnd nr in the televisual sense. where pnpularity is equated with cnn-

-Cin.--glc

I - - ..

,

The Third‘ Cirtenm fluestfnn

211-'3'

sumer satisfactinn and where pleasure is measured in terms nf units nf die lncal currency entered nn the balance sheet. Thehs. lilte Etrecht’s, is a fighting nntinn nf pnpularity. as is clear frnm Selanas’ insistence nn Third Cinema being an experimental cinema engaged in a cnnstant precess nf research. And lil-re Brecht. the Latin Americans reserve dte right tn resert tn any fermal device they deem necessary tn achieve their gnals. as is clear frnm their refusal tn straitjacltet themselves intn a cndified Third Cinema aesthetic. Spealting in the fnrms nf cinema. i.e. mal-ting films. nr in nther genres nf audinvisual discnurse, thus necessarily memis entering intn a dialegue. nnt nnly with dte histerical uses nf these genres—since these discnurses inevitably reverherate in. fnr example. Third Cinema's seund-image articulatiens--but alsn with the pewer relatinns enshrined in thnsc histerical uses nf deminant narrative regimes. alnng widt the entire cultural netwnrlts widiin which the experiences nf malting and viewing are lncated- Third Cinema is mnst emphatically nnt simply cencemed with “letting the nppressed spealt with their nwn vnices": that wnuld be a nne-sided and dterefnre ait untrustwnrthy pnsitinn. Tltnse vnices will nnly spealt the experience nf eppressien. including the debilitating aspects nf that cnnditinn. Third Cinema dnes nnt seelt tn induce guilt in nr tn snlicit sympathy frnm its interlecutnrs. Instead. it addresses the issue nf sncial pewer frnm a criticaI-butcemmitted pnsitinn. aniculating the jnining nf “the intelligence. the emntinns. the pnwers nf intuitinn." as Espinesa put it. sn as tn help achieve sncialist ideals. Because nf the realizatinn nf the sncial nature nf discnurse. the Third Cinema prnject sununnns tn the place nf the viewer secial-histnrical ltnnwledges. rather than art-histntical. narrnwly aesthetic nnes. These latter ltnnwledges wnuld be relevant nnly in sn far as they ferm part nf the particular nexus nf sncin-histnrical precesses addressed. As fnr Third Cinema and nthemess nr nutsideness. it is nn accident but a lngical cnnsequence that a sense nf nnn-belenging. nnn—identity with the culture nne inhabits. whether it be natienally defined. ethnically nr in any nther way. is a precnnditinn fnr “the mnst intense and prnductive aspects nf cultural life." Altheugh that may be ten strnng a fnrrnulatinn since it nbvinusly is pnssible tn be "nther" in snme respects and tn be “in and cf" the culture at the same time. the fact remains dtat it is in dtis disjuncture. in dtis in-between pnsitinn. dtat the prnductien nf sncial intelligibility tluives. at least as far as sncialist cultural practices are cnncerned. The price paid fnr such a pnsitinn is invariably the hnstility nf representatives nf the hegemnnic culttuc. whether these are active apnlngists fnr the mling idenlngies nr merely guilty intellectuals whn hepe tn wash away the taint nf their middle-

-Cin.-glc

I - - ..

,

it

Ifilil

Ptttrf lrlfitleinen

class pnsitinn by abdicating all intellectual respensibilities. But that hnstility is actively tn be welcnmed as an indicatinn that we are nn the right track.

Wliat is at stake. frnm my peint nf view. in the re-acrualiaatinn nf the Third Cinema debates in the Ll.I'-E. in the lltlls. is the cnnvictinn that nutsideness.-’ntherness is the nnly vantage pnint frnm which a viable cultural pnlitics may be cnnducted in the U-l'i..- The negntiatinn nf the preblems invnlved in ntherness as a pnsitinnal necessity is the precnnditinn fnr a critical-cultural practice in Britain. as witnessed by the werlt nf blaclt filmmalters whn new censtitute the mnst intellectually and cinematically irinnvative edge nf British cultural pnlitics. alnng with a few “nthers” such as Cinema Actinn [the malters nf the mnst intelligent film abnut Englishness in the tlils. Rectnrtnte]. lvlarlt ltlarlin twhnse prngrams nn Nicaragua censtitute an example nf Third Cinema's adaptability tn televisual mndes nf discnurse] and snme filmmalters such as Pat Murphy whn mnve between Ireland and the LI.lt.. Wltile the werlt nf these filnunakers seems tn have little in cnmmnn frnm a fnrmal. aesthetic pnint nf view. they nevertheless share a systematic demarcatinn frnm the genres tn which they nstensihly belnng: Burning en Iltusten is as different frnm the prevailing sncial-realist dramas as Territnriex is frnm mndemist-experimental viden- and filmrnal-ting; Rnctnnnte is as different frnm read mnvie rnmances as Anne Devlin is frnm bingraphicai films with strnng. pnlitical hernines. etcIn each case. the difference is nnt generated by a surfeit nf fnrmal innnvatinn nr by the pursuit nf a marltetablc variatinn en a theme. but because the prevailing generic cndificatinns are tnn restrictive fnr the articulatinn nf their sncial-analytical purpnsesTngether with these filmmalting activities. thenretical-critical wnrlt alsn needs tn address its Englishness. its parnchial lirnits. its cthnncentricity and insularity- This requires a particular emphasis tn be given tn “nthemess.” tn the dialegue with unfamiliar cultural practices and u'aditinns. while refusing tn hnmngenise every nnn-Eurn-American culture intn a glnhaliced “nther.” The challenge tn English aspiratiens inwards universality is nnt tn pnse a cnunter-universality but actively tn seelt tn leam abnut as well as prnmnte nther ways nf making sense. When we leam hnw the wnrlt nf Ritwilt Ghatalt. I"-Zumar Shahani nr Carlns Heichenbach is "specific" tn the cultural fnrmatinns that prnduced them. perhaps we will learn tn see better hnw nur hnmegrnwn thenries and films bear the imprint nf an incapacitatingly resnictive Englishness [Americans may substitute their nwn-ness where apprnpriate}. Therefnre. the nntinn nf Third Cinema is relevant tn the U.It1. fnr its exemplificatinn nf an apprnach tn the relatinns between the sncial and the cultural as well as fnr its very “ntherness“ in -the sense nf

-Cin.-glc

I - - ..

,

The 'l".i'ri'rrt' Ct't|e.Irt-rt -Qnesttnn

251

semething it is necessary bnth tn learn frnm and abeut: tn learn frnm Third Cinema filmmalrers and intellectuals while endeavnring tn malte mnre breathing space within the I.l.I=.'L. fnr the emergence nf nthemess as a challenge tn the English Idenlngy. Cnnsequently. my primary aim in drawing attentinn tn the issues which the nntinn nf Third Cinema allnws me tn raise is an attempt tn help change the {film} culture which I inhabit by evnl-ting a histnrical narrative. nf snrts. which is intended tn cnnjure up an anticipated. desirable but necessarily utnpian image nf what a sncialist critical-culrural practice might.-‘sheuld be.

Hnte 1. st vcrsinn nf this essay was published in Frnnrewcnlr nn- ss, 193?.

=Cit).t8lt..-1'

.4

,

Flesnlutinns nf the Third World Filmmakers Meeting Algiers. Dec. 5-14 (1973) Ctneaste (Pamphlet Nn. 1)

The Third wnrld filmmakers meeting. spnnsnred by the Hatinnal Uffice fnr Cinematngraphic Cnrrunerce and Industry -[tJ.l\l.C.I.C.} ad the cultural infnrmatinn center. was he-ld in Algiers frnm December 5-14. lFl?'.'l. The meeting breught tegether filmmakers frnm all areas nf dte Third wnrld fnr the purpese nf discussing cnmmnn preblems and gnals and tn lay the grnundwnrk fnr an nrganizatinn nf third wnrld filmmakers. The filmmakers attending the cnnference nrganiaed themselves intn separate cnmmittees tn discuss the specific areas nf prnductien and distributinn as well as hnw the filnunalrer fits intn dte pnlitical stmggle nf the Third Wnrld. The resnlutinns nf the varinus cnmmittees are published here as they were released in stlgiers. with nnly slight mndificatinns in grammar and spelling.

Cnmmlttee 1: Penples Cinema The Cnmmittee nn Penples Cinema—the rnle nf cinema and filmmakers in the Third wnrld against imperialism and nen—cnlnnialism— censisted nf dte fnllnwing filmmakers and nbservers: Femandn Birri (Argentina); Humberte Rina {Belivia}; Manuel Peres {Cuba}; Jnrge Silva {Cnlnmbiah Jnrge Cedrnn {Argentina}; lvlnussa Illialtite {Republic nf Guinea); Flnra Cinmec [Guinea-Bissau}; lvlnhamed flrbdelwahad tlvlnrnccnl; El Hachmi Cherif tferlgeria]; Larnine lvlerbah Lsdgeria}; This decument was first published by Cineaste Publishers. Ittc.

"' = Ls.) . -31 c

252

..

Rernlnrinrrs nfthe Tlrirtf ll-"nrl'.d' Fifmn-talters Meeting

253

Ivlache Iihaled frltlgerial; Fettar Sid Ali [Algeria]; Bensalah lvlnhamed {erlgeria}; Mesiani tlrbdelhalrjm [Ftlger'ia). Elbservers: Jan Lindquist {Sweden}; Jnsephine {Guinea-Bissau] and Salvatnre Fiscicelli {Italy}. The Cnmmittee met nn December ll. I2 and I3. I973. in Algiers. under the chairmanship nf Lamine lvlerbah. ru the clnse nf its deliberatinns. the Cnmmittee adnpted the fnllnwing analysis. Sn-called "underdevelepment" is first nf all an ecnnnmic phennmennn which has direct repercussinns nn the sncial and cultural secters.

Tn analyze such a phennmennn we must refer tn the dialectics nf the develnpment nf capitalism nn a wnrld scale. Pit a histnrieally determined mnment in its develnpment. capitalism extended itself beyend the framewnrk nf the natinnal Eurepean beundaries and spread—a necessary cnnditinn fnr its grnwth—-tn nther reginns nf the wnrld in which the ferces nf prnductien. being nnly slightly develeped. previded favnrable greund fnr the expansien nf capitalism tltrnugh the existence nf inunense and virgin material resnurces. and available and cheap manpnwer reserves which cnnstituted a new. petential market fnr the prnducts nf capitalist industry. This expansien manifested itself in different reginns. given the pnwer relatinnships, and in different ways: a} Thrnugh direct and tntal cnlnnisatinn implying vinlent invasien and the setting up nf an ecnnnmic and sncial infrastructure which dnes nnt cnrrespnnd tn the real needs nf the penple but serves mnre. nr exclusively. the interests nf the metrepelitan cnuntries: b} In a mnre nr less disguised manner leaving tn dte cnuntries in questien a pretence nf autnnnmy; cl Finally. threugh a system nf dnminatinn nf a new type—nencelnnialism. The result has been that dtese cnuntries underge. nn the nne hand. varying degrees nf develnpment and. nn the nther hand. extremely varied levels nf dependency with respect tn imperialism: dnminatinn. infiuence and pressures. The different fnrms nf explnitatinn and systematic plundering nf the natural reseurces have had grave cnnsequences nn the ecnnnmic. sncial and cultural levels fnr the sn-called “underdevelnped” cnuntries. resulting in the fact that even thnugh these cnuntries are undergning extremely diversified degrees nf develnpment. they face in their struggle fnr independence and sncial prngress a cnmmnn enemy: imperialism which stands in dteir way as the principal nbstacle tn their develnpment. Its cnnsequences can be seen in:

‘

r-1 _.-§:.;_-.j_

_.

|

I54

Cinerrrte

al The articulatien nf the ecenemic secters: imbaiarrce ef develnpment nn the natinnal level with dte creatien ef peles ef ecnnnmic attractien incnmpatible with the develepment nf a prepnrtinnally planned natinnal ecenemy and with the interests ef the pepular masses. thereby giving rise te aenes ef artificial prnsperiry. b] The imbalance en the regienal and centinental levels. thereby revealing tlte detenninatinn nf imperialism tn create aenes ef atu'actinn faverable fer its nwn expansien and wltich are presented as mndels nf develnpment in erder te retard the penples’ struggle fnr real pnlitical and ecenemic independence. The repercussinns en the secial plane are as serinus as they are numereus: they lead tn characteristic impnverishment ef the majerity fer the benefit in the first instance nf the dnminafing ferces and dte natinnal beurgeeisie nf which ene secter is nbjectively interested in independent natinnal develnpment. while anether secter is parasitic and cnmpradnr. the interests nf which are beund tn dtese ef dte dentinating ferces. The differentiatinns and secial inequities have serieusly affected the living standar'd nf the penple. mainly in the rural areas where the exprepriated er impeverished peasants find it impessible tn reinvest en the spnt in nrder te subsist. Reduced in dteir majerity tn self-cnnsumptinn. unempleyment and rural exedus. these facters lead te an intensificatien nf unempleyment and increase under-emplnyment in the urban centers. In erder tn legitimize and strengthen its held ever the ecnnnmics nf the cnlnnised and nee-celnniaed ceuntries. imperialism has receurse tn a systematic enterprise nf deculturafinn and acculturatien ef the peeple ef the Third ‘Werld. That deculturatien cnnsists ef depersenaliaing dteir penples. ef disctediting their culture by presenting it as inferier and ineperative. ef bleel-Ling dteir specific develepment. and nf disfiguring their histery . . . in ether werds. creating an actual cultural vacuum faverable tn a simultaneeus precess ef acculturatien threugh which the dnminatnr endeavnrs tn make his dnminatinn legitimate by intreducing his nwn meral values. his life and theught patterns. his explanatien ef ltistnry: in a werd. his culture. Imperialism. being ebliged tn talte inte acceunt the fact that celnniaed er deminated peeples have their ewn culture and defend it. infiluutes the culture ef dte celenized. entertains relatienships with it and takes nver thnse elements which it believes it can turn tn its faver. This is dnne by using the secial fnrces which they make their ewe. the retregade elements ef this culrure. In this way. the language nf the

‘

i-i _.-§:.;_-§_

_.

|

Rernlutienr cfthe Thr'rrr' l-'l"crrfrt' Filmnrrnlrers Meeting

155

celenized. which is the carrier nf culture. becemes inferier er fnreign; it is used nnly in dte family circle nr in restricted sncial circles. It is nn lengcr. therefnre. a vehicle fnr educatien. culture and science. because in the schnnls the language ef dte celenizer is taught. it being indispensable tn knew it in nrder tn werk. tn subsist and tn assert nneself. Gradually. it infiltrates the sncial and even the family relatienships ef the celenized. Language itself becemes a means ef alienatien. in that the celnnised has a tendency tn practice the language ef the celenizer. while his nwn language. as well as his persenality. his culture and his meral values. beceme fnreign tn him. In the same line nf theught. the secial sciences. such as secinlegy. archaeelngy and ethnelngy. are fnr the mest part in the service nf the

celenizer and the deminant class sn as tn perfect the werk nf alienatien nf the penple thmugh a pseudn-scientific precess which has in fact simply censisted nf a retrnspcctive justificatien fnr the presence nf the cnlnnirter and therefnre ef the new established nrder. This is hnw secinlegical studies have attempted tn explain secial phennmena by fatalistic determinism. fereign tn the censcieuce artd the will ef man. In the ethnelngical field. the enterprise has censisted ef renting in the minds nf the celeniaed prejudices ef racial and nriginal inferierity and cemplexes nf inadequacy fer the mastering nf die varieus acquisitinns ef knewledge and man"s prnductien. Amnng the celnnized peeple. imperialism has endeavered tn play en the pseudnracial and cemmunity differences. giving privilege tn nne nr anether ethnic greuping. as fnr archaeelngy. its rnle in cultural alienatien has centributed tn distnrting histnry by putting emphasis nn the interests and efferts ef research and the excavatinns ef histerical vestiges which justify the definite patemity nf Eumpean civilicatinn sublimated and presented as being etemally superinr te ether civilieatiens whese slightest traces have been buried. Wlrereas. in certain cnuntries. the natinnal culture has centinued tn develep while at the same time being retarded by the deminant ferces. in ether ceuntries. given the leng peried nf direct dnminatinn. it has been marked by discnntinuity which has blnclted it in its specific develnpment. sn that all that remains are traces nf it which are scarcely capable ef serving m a basis fer a real cultural renaissance. unless it is raised tn the present level nf develnpment ef natinnal and intertratinnal preductive ferces. It sheuld be stated. hnwever. that the culture nf the cnleniser. while alienating fire cnlnnized penples. dees the same tn the penples nf the celenizing cnuntries whe are themselves expleited by the capitalist system. Cultural alienafinn presents. therefnre. a dual character--

‘

r-1 _;§:.;_-.1

_.

|

I515

Cinensre

nafienal against the tntality nf the cnlnniced penples. and sncial against the werking classes in the cnlnrriaing ceuntries m well as in the cnlnnized cnuntries. imperialist ecenemic. pnlitical and secial dnnrinatien. in nrder tn subsist and te reinferce itself. takes rent in an ideelegical system articulated threugh varieus channels and mainly threugh cinema which is in a pesitien te influence the majerity ef the pepular masses because its essential impnrtance is at nne and the same time artistic. aesthetic. ecnnnmic and secinlegical. affecting tn a majer degree the training nf the mind. Cinema. alsn being an industry. is subjected tn the same develepment as material preductien within the capitalist system and threugh the very fact that the Hnrth American ecnnnmy is prepnnderant with respect tn werld capitalist prnductien. its cinema becemes prepnnderant as well and succeeds in invading dte screens nf the capitalist wnrld and cnnsequently these ef the Third Werld where it centributes tn hiding inequalities. referring them tn that ideelegy which gnverrrs the werld imperialist system deminated by the United States ef Ftmetica. ‘With the birth nf the natinnal liberatien mnvement, the snuggle fnr independence taltes nn a certain depth implying. en ene hand. the revalnriaatinn ef natinnal cultural heritage in marlting it widt a dynamism made necessary by the develnpment nf centradictiens- Eln the nther hand. the centributien nf pregressive cultural facters bnrrewcd frem the field ef universal culture.

The Flute nt‘ Cinema The rnle ef cinema in this precess cnnsists nf manufacturing films reflecting the ebjective cenditiens in which the strtrggling penples are develeping. i.e.. films which bring abeut disalienatien ef the cnleniaed penples at dte same time as they cnntribute seund and ebjective infermatinn fnr the penples nf the entire wnrld. including the nppressed classes ef the celenizing ceuntries. and place the stnrggle ef dteir penples back in the general cnntext nf the struggle nf the cnuntries and penples ef the Third Wnrld. This requires frem the militant filmmaker a dialectical analysis ef the secie-histnric phenemenen nf celenizatien. Ileciprecally. cinema in the already liberated ceunnies and in the pregressive cnuntries must accnmplish. as their ewn natinnal tasks. active selidarity with the penples and filnunakers nf cnuntries still under cnlenial and nee-cnlnnial dnminatinn and which are struggling fnr their genuine natinnal severeignty. The cnuntries enjeying pnlitical independence and struggling fnr varied develepment are aware nf the fact that the struggle against imperialism en the pelitical. ecnnnmic

‘

-

i-i _;§:.;_-I

.

|

Resniurintrr cf the Third l-l-"nri'ri Fflnunnkerr Meeting

25?

and secial levels is inseparable frem its ideelegical cnntent artd that. censequently. actien must be taken tn seizte frnm imperialism the means tn influence ideelegically. and fnrge new metheds adapted in cnntent and fnrrn tn dte interests nf the snuggle nf their penples. This implies cnntrnl by the penplels state nf all cultural activities and. in respect tn cinema. natinnaliaatinn in the interest nf the masses ef penple: preductien. disuibutien and cnnunercialieatinn. Sn m te make such a pnlicy eperative. it has been seen that the best path requires quantitative and qualitative develnpment nf natinnal preductien capable. with the acquisitien nf films frnm the Third wnrld ceunnies and the pregressive cnuntries. nf swinging the balance nf the pewer relatienship in faver ef using cinenta in the interest nf dre masses. ‘rlfltile infiuencing the general envirnnment. cnnditinns must be created fnr a greater awareness en the part ef the masses. fnr the develnpment nf their critical senses artd varied participatien in the cultural life ef dteir cnuntries. A firm pnlicy based nn principle must be intreduced in this field sn as te eliminate nnce and fer all the films which the fnreign menepelies centinue tn impese upen us either directly nr indirectly and which generate rcaetienary culture and. as a result. drnught pattems in centradictien wil.h the basic chnices nf nur penple. The questien. hnwever. is nnt nne ef separating cinema frnm the everall cultural cnntext which prevails in eur ceuntries. fnr we must censider that. nn the nne hand. the actinn nf cinema is accempanied by that ef edier infermatienal and cultural media. and. en the nther hand. cinema eperates with materials which are drawn frem remity and already existing cultural fnrms nf expressinn in nrder tn functinn and nperate. It is alsn necessary tn be vigilant and eliminate nefarinus actien which the infnrrnatinn media can have and tn purify the fenns nf pepular expressinn tfnlklnre. music. theatre. etc.) and tn mnderrriae drem. The cinema language being thereby linked tn nther culmral fnrms. the develepment ef cinema. while demanding dte raising nf the general cultural level. cnnuibutes tn this task in art efficient way and can even beceme an excellent means fnr the pnlarirtatinn nf the varieus actien fields as well as cultural radiatinn. Films being a sncial act within a histntical reality. it fnllnws that the task nf the Third Wnrld filmmaker is nn lnnger limited tn the malting nf films but is extended te ether fields ef actien such as: articulating. fnstering and making the new films understandable tn the masses nf penple by assnciating himself with the prnmnters nf penplels cinemas. clubs and itinerant film grnups in their dynamic acfien aimed at disalienatinn and sensitiaatinn in faver nf a cinema which satisfies the

‘

i-i _;§:.;_-.1

_.

|

ESE

Cinertrte

interests ef the masses. fer at the same time that the struggle against imperialism and fnr prngress develeps nn the ecnnnmic. sncial and pelitical levels. a greater and greater awareness ef the masses develeps. assnciating cinema in a mnre cencrete way in this struggle. In nther werds. the questien nf knnwing hnw cinema will develnp is linked in a decisive way tn the selutiens which must be previded tn all the pmblems with which nur penples are cnnfmnted and which cinema must face and cnntribute tn resnlving. The task nf dte Third Wnrld filmmaker thereby becemes even mere impnrtant and implies

that the stmggle waged by cinema fnr independence. freedem and prngress must gn. and already gees. hand in hand with the stmggle within and withnut the field nf cinema. but always in alliance with the pepular masses fnr die triumph nf the ideas ef freedem and prngress. In these cenditiens. it becemes ebvieus that the freedem nf expressinn and mevement. the right tn practice cinema and research are essential demands ef the filmmakers nf the Tl'rird Wnrld—freednms artd rights which they have already cemmitted tn invest in the service nf the werking masses against imperialism. celenialism and nee-celnnialism fnr the general emancipatien nf their penples. United and in selidarity against tltmerican imperialism. at the head nf werld imperialism. and direct er indirect aggressnr in ‘v'ietnam. Cambndia. Lans. Palestine. in rlrfrica threugh the intermediary nf NATO. SEATD and CENTU. and in Latin America. hiding itself behind the fascist cnup d‘etat nf the Chilean military junta and the nther nligarchies in pewer. the filmmakers present here in Algiers. certain that they express the epinien nf their filmmaker cemrades nf the Third Werld. cnndemn the interventinns. aggressinns and pressures nf imperialism. cnndemn the persecutirrns tn which the filmmakem nf certain Third Werld ceuntries are subjected and demand the immediate liberatinn nf the filmmakers detained and imprisened and the cessatinn nf measures restricting dteir freedem.

Cemmlttee 2: Prnduetlnrtttie-preductien The Cnmmittee nn F'reductinru'Cn-Preductien. appninted by the General Assembly ef the Third wnrld Filmmakers lvleeting in Algeria. met en December ll. I2 and I3. lEl'i'3. under dte chairmanship nf Dusmane Sembene. The Cnmmittee. which devnted itself tn the prnblems nf film preductien and cn-pmductinn in the Third wnrld ceuntries. included the fnllnwing filmmakers and nbseryers: Dusmane Sembene {Senegal}; Sergie Castilla {Chile}; Sarrtiagn Alvarez {Cuba}; Sebastien Itlainba (Cnngnk lttlamadnu Sidibe thtlali]; Benamar Bakhti ftltlgerialt Hnurredine Tnuasi tftlrlgerial: Hedi Ben Iihelifa {Tunisia}:

‘

i-i _.-5:.

.

|

llesnhrtinru rrjftlse T.'tr'.t'rt' I-I-"r:rrfd' Fflnuvrrrkerzr Heeling

Elli?

lvlnstefa Bnuali {Palestine}: Med Hntttln llrlauritaniajt. Observers: Simnn I-Iartng {Great Britain}. representing the British filmmakers’ uninn. and Then Rnbichet {France}. Humberte Rins ti-krgentirta} pre-

sented an infnrnratien repert tn the Cnmmiuee. The delegates present. after reporting en the natural prnductien and

cn-preductien cenditiens and the nrganisatien ef the cinema industries in their cnuntries. nnted that the rele ef cinertta in the Third wnrld is tn prernnte cultrrre t.lu'eugh films. whi-ch are a weapen as well as a

means ef expressinn fer the develepment ef the awareness ef the peeple. and that the cinema falls witltirr the framewerk nf the class struggle.

Censidering: —tlrat the problems ef cinema preductien in the ceuntries efthe Third werld are clnsely linked tn the eennnruic. pnlitical and sncial realities ef each ef tlrern: -—-that. censequently. cinema activity dees net develop in a similar fashien: at in dtese ceurru-les which are waging a liberatien snuggle. bl in dtese eeunuies which have cenquered their pnlitical independence and wltich have feurtded states. c} in these cnuntries which. while being snvercigrt. are struggling tn seize their ecnnnrrric and cultural independence; —tlrat those ceuntries which are waging wars nf liberatien lack a film

infrastructure and specialised cadres and. as a result. their prnductien is Iinrited, achieved in difficult cinetrmstances and very eften is suppnrted by er is depenrlcnt upen speradic initiatives; —that in these cnuntries struggling fnr their ecnnnmic and cultural independence. the principal characteristic is a private infrastructtrrc

which enables them tn realise enly a pnrtinn nf tlteir prnductien within the natinnal territnry. the remainder being hartdled in the capitalist cnuntries; This leads tn an appmciable lnss nf fnreign currency and censiderable delays which impede the develnpment nf an authentic natinnal

preductien. —tlrat in these cnuntries in which the State assumes the respunsibility fer prnductien and incntperates it in its cultural activity. there is. nevertheless. in a majerity nf cases. a lack ef technical and industrial develnpnrerrl in the cinema field and. as a cnnsequence. ptuducfinn remains limitedanddnes nntmanagetncnverthe needs fnr films in these cnrrntries. The natinnal screens. therefnre. are submerged with fnreign preductiens cnming. fnr the mnst part.

frem the capitalist cnuntries. -—tlrat.ifweaddaswellthefacttltatwerldpr0dur:tinnisecnnnmieelly and ideelegically cnntrnlled by these ceunnies and. in

= Ctr gin

2-lift

t'I'r'nenrte

additien. is nf very mediecre quality. nur screens bring in an idenlngical preduct which serves the interests nf the cnlnnisers. creating mnrenver the habit nf seeing films in which lies mid sncial prejudice are the chnice subjects and in which these manufacturers nf individualistic ideelegy censtantly enceurage the habits nf an arbitrary and wasteful censumer snciety; ~—- that ce-preductiens must. first and fnremest. be fnr the cnuntries nf the Third wens. a manifestatien nf anti-imperialist selidarity. altheugh their characteristics may vary and cever different aspects. We de nnt believe in ce-preductiens in which an imperialist cnuntry participates. given the fnllnwing risks: l} the imperialist cnuntry can shed influence threugh prnductien metheds which are fereign tn the realities ef nur ceuntries. E} the examples nf cn-preductiens have given rise tn cases nf prnfit and the cultural and ecnnnmic expleitatien ef eur cnuntries. The participants in the Cnmmittee therefnre cnncluded that it is necessary tn seek jeintly cencrete means tn fester the pmductinn and cn-prnductien nf natinnal films within the Third wnrld cnuntriesIn line with this. a certain number nf recnmmendatinns were unanitrtnusly adnpted:

—te previde the revelutienary filmmakers nf the Third werld with natinnal cinema infrastmctures: — tn put aside the cenceptiens and film prnductien means nf the capitalist cnuntries and tn seek new fenns. taking inte acceunt the authenticity and the realities nf dte ecenemic means and pessibilities nf the Third Wnrld cnuntries; —te develnp natinnal cinema and televisien agreements fnr the benefit ef the prnductien and distributinn nf Third wens films and tn seek such agreements where drey de net exist and tn exchange regular prngrams; —-tn erganize and develnp the teaching nf film techniques. tn welceme the natinnals nf cnuntries in which the training is nnt ensured; —ltr use all the audin-visual means available fnr the pnlitical. ecnnnmic and cultural develepment nf the cnuntries nf the Third Wnrld: —te premete cn-preductiens with independent. revniutinnary filmmakers. while leaving tn each cnuntry the task rrf determining the characteristics ef these preductiens; — tn include in the gevemmental agreements between cnuntries ef the Third wnrld these measures likely tn facilitate cn-preductiens and film exchanges; —in influence the establishment nf ce-preductiens between natinnal erganizatiens nf the Third werld in endeavnring tn have them

= Ctr. -gin

-

hlesnl'utr'nn.r r-If the Third‘ lifnrld Filnttrtnkers Meeting

Zfil

accepted by the gnvemmental and prnfessinnal institutiens nf their respective ceuntries (threugh the infiuence. in particular. nf the acting president nf the nnn-aligned cnuntries. lvlr. Hnuari Bnumediene}; —tn prnpnse the need fnr the creatinn nf an nrganizatinn nf Third wens filmmakers. dte permanent secretariat nf which sheuld be set up in Cuba. While awaiting the creatien nf this nrganizatinn. the UAAV [Uninn nf Audie-Visual Arts nf Algeria] will pmvide a

tempnrary secretariat. The filmmakers will hencefnrdr keep each ntlter infnrrned nf their respective appmaches undertaken within the framewerk ef the FEPACI {Pan-African Federatinn nf Cineastes].

ttnmmtttee 3: Distrlbutlen The Cemmittee in charge ef the distributien nf Third Wnrld films. after cnnsideratinn nf the different remarks nf the members present. prnpnses: the creatien ef an nffice tn be called the Third wnrld Cinema Clffice.

lt will be cnmpnsed nf fnur members including a resident cnnrdinatnr and nne representative per centinent. The Cnmmittee. in reply tn the effer made by Algeria. pmpnses that the permanent headquarters nf the nffice be established in Algiers. The geals ef the nffice will be: I} Tn cnnrdinate efferts fnr the prnductien and distributinn nf Third wnrld films. 2] Tn establish and strengthen existing relatiens between Third wnrld filmmakers and cinema industries by:

aft the editing nf a permanent infnrtnatinn bulletin tfilmegraphy. technical data sheets. etc- in fnur languages: Arabic. English. French

and Spanish. b] making a census nf existing dncumentatien en Third Wtrrld cinema

fnr the elaberatien and distributinn nf a catalegue nn the cinema prnductien nf the cnuntries nf the Third Werld. cl festering ether festivals. film markets and film days en the Third werld level. alnngside the nther existing events. d] the editing ef a general cnmpilatinn ef nfficial einema legislatinn in the Third werld cnuntries (preblems nf censership. distributinn ef film cnpies. cnpyright. custems. etc.}. 3} Tn take these measures required fnr the creatinn nf regienal and centinental nrganizatinn leading tn the creatinn nf a tricnntinental nrganizatinn fnr film distributinn.

= Ctr. -gin

- .

1152

Cinertste

4} Tn prespect the fnreign markets in erder tn secure nther eutlets fnr the preductiens nf the Third werld ceuntries {cnmmercial and nen-cnmmercial tights. T"v" and cassettes). The nffice will apprnach the authnrities nf the DALI. dte Arab League and l_ll‘-IESCD in erder tn ebtain frnm these nrgani:-ratinns financial assistance fnr its functiening. It will alsn apprnach the authnrities ef tlrnse ceuntries having effective cnntrnl nf their cinema industries. i.e.: Algeria. Guinea. Llpper Velta. lvlali. Uganda. Syria and Cuba. as well as nther cnuntries which mturifest a real desire tn snuggle against the imperialist mnnepnly. In additien tn the abnve-mentinned assistance. the eperating budget nf the nffice will be cnmpnsed ef dnnatinns. grants and cnmmissinns nn all transactiens nf Third wnrld films entrusted te dte nffice.

‘

-.I'"-| 1.-"E1 ' ~

—it}-."-I

Eurepe An Indispensable Link in the Prnductinn and Clrcutatien nf Latin American Cinema Antenie Sir.-sirtrreta

ln i971. when the Pepular Unity gevemment nf Salvadnr Allende was

at its suungest in Cltile. the directer. Patricin Cruaman. cenceived the idea fnr the film The Hattie nf Chile. This film was tn place him in the fnrefmnt nf cnntempnrary decumentary filnunakers. It was a film in which cnntempnrary events in Chile were pnrtrayed bnth by and fnr the beneiit nf its chief pmtagenists: the peer ef dte cnuntry. ‘fet. thnugh the pnlitical climate was highly faverable tn his pmject. this talented filmmaker was ferced tn write tn Chris it-darker in France in the fnllnwing terms: “due tn the United States‘ ecnnnmic bleckadc. it cnuld take up tn a year er mere fnr reels nf blank film tn get intn Chile . . . that's why we were thinking ef an altemative methnd fer nbtaining the film. which means that basically we were thinking nf ynu...." I qunte frnm this dramatic letter tn underline frnrn the nutset the undeniable paradex that it was nnly with the exile ef Chile’s talentsbnth nnvices and the established—that Chilean cinema really began tn develnp. Previnusly it had npenrted nn a makeshift. almest candlelit basis. In I931. the magazine Araucaria published an incnmplete list nf I3? films which had been eidrer directed nr written by a Chilean. er which had a Chilean theme. There must be dnrens mnre films since then that cnuld be added te dte list. Accerding tn Alicia "v'ega‘s cnnclusinns in her Re-visien ef Chilean cinema [I979]. this rate suggests Altaf Crauhar. ed-. Third‘ lk'arl'd' Ajffairs I933. Lnndnn: Third Werld Feundatien.

I933. pp. lti'll'—l?2. By permissien ef the publisher.

= Ctr. -glc

as

.-.

_. .

254

Antenie 5'-ft’-til’-ttletrt

that prnductien since the 1'9".-'3 cnup has been deuble that nf the pre~ vinus si:-tty years nf Chilean cinema. This is be-cause it was nnly thrnugh the esile nccasinned by the ceup that Chilean directnrs gained access tn a preper film industry. The facilities effered fnr shnrt films even tn nnvices in Eurepe wnuld have been mete than sufficient tn make full-lengtlt feature films in Chile. In the early days there were limitless reseurces available fnr attempts tn recnnstruct Chile's drama, whnse impact had been felt everywhere. Unfnrtunately, this pnlitical need tn recnnstruct preduced few aesthetically cnnvincing results, ertcept in the case nf tltnse filmmakers whn had already begun a particular wnrk befere their e:-tile. These included the Chiieans, Raul Ftuia

and Miguel Littin, whn with El Chdcrtf De Nnhneltnrn {The Jackal nf Haltueltnrn} and Ln Tierra Premetide [The Prnmised Land) nr Tres Tristes Tigres {Tl'u*ec Trapped Tigers] and Nndie Dijn Nada {Hnhndy Said Anything] had already wnn nver intematinnal criticism b-efnre the ceup nf I973. I feel that nniy these twn Chilean filmmakers merit the stress being put nn filmmaker befere Chilean. It is true that Littin did nnt abandnn his favnrite pnlitical themes, but he began tn expand them with a Latin American literary fantasy clearly related tn Carpen~ tier and Garcia l'v’larquee. It is hardly surprising, dterefnre, dtat twn nf his films are based nn wnrks by these masters: La Wade De Mentief {The Widnw nf Mnntiel} and El Recarsn Def Metndn [The lvleans nf the l'v'leth-ad}. 1 believe that it is precisely this tendency nf Littin tn mythify the everyday, tn regard what is “Chilean” frnm a mnre fantastic pnint nf view, that has cnnsnlidated his name nn dte wnrld scene. By nther means, Raul Ruiz has preduced a bedy nf werk, netably in France, which distinguishes him prnfessinnally. This prnducer widt a versatile and internatienal nutput, ntade films in Chile that were quintessentially Chilean in their psychnlngy, character and language. He has had such great success in Eurepean vanguard circles and amnngst dte mnst sephisticated critics that in I933 he earned the hnnnr nf a special issue nf Centers dir Cinema. ln the preface tn this issue, Serge Tnubiana says semething strange which he accentuates in black letters: “Suddenly each film is a labyrinth, it suggests a game fnr nne tn lnse nne's way [he wants the viewer tn be as great an accnmplice and as lucid as the film}, a stnry which unfnlds infinitely, an npacity peculiar tn the fictinns nf the er-rile-" as far as I knew, all nther Chilean films made by esiles have been linked thematically tn the situatien in Chile befnre and after the cnup, nr tn the fnrtnnes nf the eaile. The latest nf this latter type is El Cnier De Sn Destinn {The Cnlnr nf his Fate) by Jnrge Duran, whn lives in Brazil.

‘

i'i _.-§:.;_-§_

_.

|

Enrr-y:Ie.' Art fndispensnbie Link

I65

Here lies the merit and simultaneeusly, the limitatinn. nf Chilean cinema in esile: with cnnuncndable lnyalty tn an altemative pnlitics nf Chile, it persistently dncuments repressien, the Church’s cnmmunal

wnrk. and images nf pretests nr nf settlers erganizing themselves. while it prnclaims, with snme degree nf wishful thinking, as l see it, the imminent end nf the dictatnrahip- Sn much fnr decumentaries- As regards wnrks nf fictinn, apart frnm a mement in the past when a film by Helvin Sntn, Lineve sc-bre Santiage [Rain nver Santiage} based nn the last days nf Chile up tn and including the cnnp, was circulated [thnugh it received little enthusiastic criticism], I dn nnt believe there have been any Chilean filmmakers whn have achieved recngnitinn beynnd prnfessinnal cinema circles. nr eutside the cnuntry where they live and where dteir films are financed. Films abeut the ertile nf Chileans are usually nf twn types. Seme shnw a] the unwavering desire nf Chileans tn retum tn their cnuntry as snnn as circumstances allnw {eniy partiy verified by reality}; tngether with b) a lack nf adaptatien tn the envirnnment in which they have cnme tn live; yet c} dteir despairing affirtnatinn nf dteir belenging tn Chile lhrnugh a pnlitical rhetnric aimed at dte maintenance nf nnble ideas and utnpias [which same rheteric prevents the read tnwards the utnpias and ideals frnm being passable). All dtis amidst id) the meals and scenery nf their surrnurtdings.

The nthers prefer tn center nn the children's cnnfiicts—thnse whn went intn esile as ynungsters, after a few years learning dte language nr custems nf their hnst cnuntry, and letting themselves be wnn nver by its pessibilities. They came intn cnntact with dte envirnnment [in bnth senses nf being accepted and discriminated against} and intn cnn~ fiict with their patents whn wished their children tn maintain as intense a reiatinnship as their nwn widt their cnuntry nf nrigin. The films which depart frnm this pattern are few and far between.

The Chilean filmmaker in esile is nnw presented with an attractive pessibility: that nf being a filrnrnaker in er-tile in his nwn cnuntry. In cnntempnrary Chile there are in effect certain areas—cullure

amnng them--where there is greater freednm than in nthers. Snme inteilectuals whn have been allewed tn retum frnm e:-tile wnrk in different fields nf film pmductinn- Tlinse nnt dedicated tn publicity depend tntally nn fnreign financing fnr their films. where institutinns such as the Film Enard nf Canada, British televisinn’s Channel Fnur, and Des lilieine Femsehspiel nf West Germany play a decisive rnle. They cnmmissinn films, widtnut any aid frnrn Chilean capital, whnse privileged destinatinn is televisien, primarily in the cnuntry which preduced them, nr nn the cultural and less pepular channels with which the preducing cnuntry has an eschange nr the chance nf a sale.

‘ Cifl

"'| .=5=:.--I ' ~

-|.;--.'-.1

Ififi

miirmie Srbr:im-rele

While nne cannet talk nf cn-prnductien since Chile cnnuibutes almnst nething apart frnm dte crew, the return nf esiled artists, whether permanently nr tempnrarily, is cnntributing tnwards a pnnl nf cinemategraphic skill. Snme Eurepean nr American preductiens empley Chilean prnjectinnists, cameramen and ultimately. assistant directnrs, whn centinue tn accumulate prejects witheut managing tn finance them. This situatien nf returning intn dte midst nf a cnuntry which is full nf cnntradictinns is nf the utmnst interest. Shnrtly after the ceup all filming activity was cnrnpletely suspended. ‘With cinema being snmething essentially frnm the streets, and with cameramen and edier filmmakers having been victims nf the repressien. this new beginning is encnuraging, but its significance is as yet uncertain. Wltile Chile is snme way away frnm demecracy, a measure nf liberalism in its cul-

tural pnlicies can be traced in the attitude nf the gevemment. Here we wnuld have tn specify “tnleranee" tnwards culture, since almest all artists and intellectuals are part nf the eppesitien. Here all the cards are nn the table. Cultural wnrks in Chile. even when the centents are nnt directly pnlitical, signify adherence tn the fraternal and demncratic values that praise the nppnsitinn and criticise the repressiveness and autberitarianism nf the regime. While snme Chilean films reach the public in eirile, such as Littirfs

Vive El Fresie'eate. which attracted Sll per cent ef viewers nn French televisien, the realities ef Chile, dte lack nf mnney and accumulating debts which never get paid, dn nnt gain viewers within the cnuntry. Les Desees Certeeli-"fries iCnnceived Desires} by Cristian Sanchez was praised by snrne critics in the Berlin Fererrri as an exciting film; nn-

bndy. hnwever. saw it in Chile. The Critics‘ Circle which give the awards tn the best preductiens nf the year, despite the film's impact in Eurepe, declared the prize vnid. Twn films were made in Chile in

ltllih: Heehes Censerrierles {accnmplished Facts} by Luis Vera, an esile returned frem Ftnmania. and l"'|leme.rie by Cristian Sanchez. Heither nf the twn achieved a thnusand viewers in nne week cf shewings. and they bad tn be remnved frnm the pregram. Ctnly a patrietic film with plenty nf supp-n-rt thrnugh free teleyisinn prepaganda, El Lllrirne

Greeters {The Last Cabin-Bey} cnuld achieve be:-r-nffice success. The painful truth is that Chilean films lack bnth a public and distributers in Chile- Even the big internatienal successes nf natinnal cinema scare nff the distributers. ln the face nf this evidence it can nn lnnger be surmised that pnlitical censideratiens are the inhibiting factnr. Du the cnntrary, the censnrs have shnwn themselves tn be particularly lenient tewards films preceded by a reputatinn fnr cnntrnversy such as the Argentinian Le Histririe tlfielel (The Clffieial Versinn] by

Puenzn. This film. which links the drama nf a family with the .-:i'ese_ee-

= Gt). -gle

.--,

- .

Eurepe.‘ Arr indispensable Lina

I'll?

recirles {“disappeared"}—a case which has its equivalent in Chile and which even teday is a cnntentinus subject fer the military regime— was shnwn in Chile tn practically empty cinemas. And fnr dtese whn like tn hear the full stnry. let us nnt ferget that The Clfiiciel Fersieu wen die Ctscar fnr Best Fereign Film in l'5tSfi. The film had its premiere in Chile, and the regime was able tn display its dese cf liberalism. In this sense, ene might peint tn the neutralizatinn nf viewers attained after years nf the regime‘s tntal rule nver televisien, where nnt even the slightest nppnsing argument was allewed until the visit nf the Pepe in IEIST. This neutralizatinn was unfnrtunately achieved threugh a cultural pnlicy which reared televisien viewers nn the philnsnphy nf cnnsumptinn—which unleashed a bnnm in the advertising trade—and nn the perceptien nf culture as “healthy entertainment." Thnse whn view wnrks cnnstnicted areund cnntempnrary histnry and its real anguish are nnly dte students. the unwavering pnlitical yeuth, the cinema addicts. Thus Chilean films frnm esile are seen in Chile nnly nu artisan private videes which left-wing culmral clubs shew virtually free nf charge in small rnnms. Clue might thirtk that the situatien nf these films wnuld be different in an lntematinnal ennte:-rt. Llnfnitunately, it is nnt. France, which has been censidering fnr a lnug time hnw tn enceurage I‘~lnrtlt-Seuth dialngue in the area nf culture, recngnized in the persen nf Itditterand

himself die distance between the French viewer and films frnm the Third Wnrld in ltrler-rice in I932: “Elf E-"II-{II fnreign films scheduled fnr French televisien in l'EtSll, almest Etltfi were Ame-rican—and net always the best nues—3lIl Eurepean and lit films were grnuped tegether under the pleasant heading nf "varieus." Ten films tn present an entire half nf the planet: frnm Japan tn Latin America, frnm Afiiea tn Asia.” And films with a great public impact. such as Pbrete by Babencn, an Argentinian eiriled in Brazil, which was seen by up tn l3l],[llllIt penple after its acenlade nf intematienal prizes, are aitnmalnus within Latin American cinema, and nnly slightly vary the nrle: Latin American cinema is net seen in Eurepe, escept in cinema clubs and nn cultural televisien channels in abselutely minimal and insufficient prnpnrtinns. Cnmpared with the increased ertpnsure cf Latin American writers, the filmmakers are knnwn minimally in the afnrementinned circles, little in their cnuntry nf erigin, and nnt at all in the rest nf Latin America. Tltere are furdier relevant er-ramples. Seme Eumpean films widt Latin American subjects. ebvieusly in favnr nf demecracy and strengly critical nf the Chilean regime, nr nf regimes like that nf Chile, are passed by the censnrs. The nest step fnr these films nught

‘

i'i _.-5:.

_.

|

1-fifi

Antenie Slrdrrnete

tn be the finding nf a cinema. With distributers being cemmitted tn intematienal agencies which shnw cnmmercial cinema, hnwever, they dn nnt see why they sheuld risk established business and eventually their nwn "health" and that nf their cinemas by shnwing films which cnnfrnnt the viewer widt his nwn drama and where the criterien nf prnviding entertainment dees nnt take first place. With dte evaperatinn nf the euphnria nver new Brazilian cinema. frnm Glauber Rncha tn Diegues with his successful .ll_ve_. Bye, Brezll. Latin American films have acquired mnre reputatinn than substance in Eurepe and the Ll.S.A., and their viewers. even in the case nf a bnrrnffice success, see themselves as part nf a selidarity mevement with Snuth America. Thus in Britain. accnrding tn Michael Chanan in “The Cinema as a Reality nf the Either,“ dte cinema nf Latin America almest always nccupies a pnlitical pnsitinn and nne with a marginal scepe. The situatinn in the l.l.S.A. is similar, with the aggravating facter indicated by the specialist Julianne Burtnn in “Latin America Yes, Hnllywnnd I'~ln . . “lvly banishment as a critic is the result nf the fragmentatinn and incnherence nf the left wing in my cnuntry. and nu the nther hand refiects the fact that cinema prnductien. which is my business, is nnt very far—reaching-" It is clearly apparent diat the viewer nf this art belengs tn a fir-red minnrity pnlitical circle. Yet. this mndest nutlet is virtually the Latin American filnunakers snle resert. Snuth America. where its nwn cinema has nn market {ertcept in a few instances in dte filmmaker‘s cnuntry nf nrigin], needs Eurnpe. That is tn say. it needs its small Eurepean audience—be they critics, viewers, televisien prngrammers—in nrder tn survive, tn cnnsnlidate er prnject an image in Eurepe nr America, since it is pnintless tn talk ef Africa and Asia. As regards cultural eschange, Peru is equally far frnm Chile as frnm Camernnn. This insufficient number nf viewers and prnmnters nf Latin American cinema, besieged by difficulties in demenstrating tn the Eurepean public a different mentality, a different pnlitical nine {net free frnm pathnsl, different murals and fantasies, new sees its chances threatened as televisien channels are privatized with blithc liberal banality, and the public channels see the time. space and budget fnr the heading “varieus” cut, a result ef the increase in cnnservative pnlitical strength, in which there is nn lack ef the c-dd element nf racism, natienalism and affectinn fnr an art uf leisure. In meetings between Third lilinrld intellectuals and the warm, suppnrtive Etrrcr-pean hnst, the Eurepean usually asks the same questien: “What can be dene?" My practical answer is always die same: [tn nnt prepese utnpian er superhuman tasks. dc nnt be sn fnnlish nr suicidal as tn want tn impese nn a greater number nf viewers a wnrk cf art the

‘ Ci‘-1

"'| .-"Es.--I ' ~

Enrep-e.' .-in lnd'r'spen.seble Link

‘Z59

keys tn which are usually unclear and which tends te give the impressien nf being erretic. Yet drr try tn build tin what has already been

feunded: build bridges acress these spaces ef selidarity. pelitical awareness, cultural unease, where there is a sureness dtat eentrast and cultural dialegue enriches man rather than endangering his cultural identity. A distributinn netwnrk ef Seuth American cinema en a FanEurnpean level ceuld be the first majer step. Hnwever much a Cireek differs frem a Dane. an Englishman frem a Crerman, when these peeple are “nver en this side," art unsteppable flew ef sympathy and dialegue results. Initiatives can be created tn unite municipal, private and state ferces behind the establishment in varieus cities ef cinemarnnms fer the pemtanent shewing nf Third wnrld einema, and this idea can surely he imprnved up-nn‘fer fer me, the questien ‘"w'hat can be dene?" has a direct answer, nnt apparently tied in widt the Third werld, which hnwever is the cenditien by which eur presence in Eurepe may grew. It is this: defend the prngressive and suppnrtive places yeu have earned in public life; remember that the nnly way tn keep a demecracy alive is by strengthening it: resist the eutbursts ef the reactinnaries and inspire yeurselves tn grew and have greater pewer. The fratemal gesture tn the Third Werld and its cinema will be a natural centiuuatien ef the wider and mere urgent mevement in defense ef the culture and demecracy en which they are set. Translated frnm the Spanish by lvlichael J. Creeks

_ __* _

_

D"i'l'*‘“' it (299313

lIt|'iqi|'.al frem

untveasrrr er rvrtcnrean

art 4 New Latin American Cinema Revisited

Ctr yglc

_ __* _

_

D"i'l'*‘“' it (299313

lIt|'iqi|'.al frem

untveasrrr er rvrtcnrean

AnlOther View of New Latin American Cinema a. Ftuhy Flich

Everyday events preceed new in anether way. Tire image ef revelutien

has beceme erdinary. familiar. ln seme ways we’re achieving transfermatiens even mnre prefeund than earlier enes, but enes that aren't se “apparent” new, net immediately visible te dte ebserver. r[. . .] Thus we find it ne lengcr suflicient just tn take cameras eut in the street and

capture fragments ef that reality. t. . .1 The filmmaker is irrunersed in a cemples milieu, the prefeund significance ef which dees net lic en the surface. Temas Crutiarrez Alea, The l»"iewer"s Dialectic‘ The critics ef eur mevement see it with eyes dtat de net cnmprehend

what is geing en in eur mevement. Anything that deesn’t cnrrespnnd te the eld fermulas, they den"t rceegnize as being genuine l"~lew Latin American Cinema. In ether werds, they're trying te impese a medel en us wltich is alien.

lluy Guerra at Femandn Birri. Park City, Utah, I959‘

I The films and filmmakers ef the blew Latin American Cinema mevement have in recent years beceme the victim ef a sterentype. in dtat dte entire histery ef blew Latin American Cinema has ceme te be judged by the yardstick ef its early classics—as drnugh histery were lli*l.S, ne- I3, I991, pp. 5-27. By pennissien ef tlte auther.

L Ger.-glc

-. .

rat

H. Rulry Riel:

static, as thnugh die relatienship nf aesdretics tn pelitics, ence firred, must remain in that same equatien ferever. Because Latin American cinema was able tn penetrate Herth American and Eurepean censcieusness and markets with its ewn particular style and set ef cencems. the temrs ef that debut have centinued te set the standard geveming the interpretatien ef all the werk that has fellewcd. In fact, the l9S[ls have seen a prefeund transfermatien nf that histnry and a marked change in what the "new" Hew Latin American Cinema may be seen te represent, in the peeple whe are creating it, and in the centerrt within which its werks are new being preduced and eshibited.’ Clf ceurse. histery has never really been a matter ef linear prngress mar'ching ever mere efficiently and hemegeneusly teward the herizen. There are refinements. reversals. denials. rebelliens, leaps ferward, regressiens. revivals. and whelly new develepments dtat apt pear te held ne echn ef the pmt whatseever. Befere assessing the present. a retum te the past is in erder. The blew Latin American Cinema had a beginning far mere cemples than usually acknewledged and a develnpment that has in fact been less hegemnnic than perceived. The starting peint is the l95fls, dre pestWerld War II mement in eur glnbal cultural histery. It is in part an ariti-hegemnnic mement, in that it signified a nrpture beth with previeus balances ef pewer and with previeus medes ef representatinn in cinema (with causes at ence ecenemic, philesephical, pelitical. and technnlngical)- At the very least, it predated the LT.S. glnbal ascendaucy that weuld last fer seme Ill] years, right up te dte lEtSDs. Significantly, dris pest-war peried gave rise, in Italy, re nee-realism, which weuld cress ever te Latin America in three steps. The first cressing was made frem Eurepe te Ivie:-rice, when Luis Bunuel went there tn live and werk, and ended up making. ameng ether films, ii.-es elvirlesles. Given its emphasis en the dispessessed, dte “real” life ef the Third Werld, en pictures net pretty eneugh te have made it inte the mevies befere and a camera style fluid eneugh tn match, the film is a pertent ef things te ceme. But Bufiuel wasn't Ivierrican. Despite the shared language between l'vIerrice and Spain, Bufiuel‘s film was net aimed at evelving a natinnal identity er a Latin American aesdretic. lt was, hewever, a ferceful arrneuncemenr, in l'95[t, that nee-realism had arrived ltheugh Bufiuel. ef ceurse, was himself pre-nee-realist in his aesthetic strategies} and ceuld have a rele tn play in Latin American einenta. Tire secend cressing was a reundtrip. [Iluring I952-55, feur yeung Latin Americans travelled te Italy te study at die legendary Centre Sperimentale {Center fer Errperimental Cinemategraphy] at the University ef Heme: Temas Gutierrez Alea, Femandn Birri, Julie Crarcia

‘

-

i-i _.-51.;-j,

.

|

An.-"G'rlrer View af.l"lew Latin American Cinema

ITS

Espinesa. and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Wlren Birri retumed tn Argentina, he feunded the Film Scheel nf Santa Fe, new legendary fer the generatien nf filnmrakers he trained there. When Temas Gutierrez Alea and Julie Garcia Espinesa returned tn Cuba, they cnllaberated en El rrregene. This first werk ef the new Cuban cinema was cempleted in I954 and banned by Batista. In the insurgency peried. Espinesa becarne the head nf “Cine rebeide.""' Beth thus became key participants

in the fashinrring nf a cinema that weuld attempt tn fuse new subjects widt new fnrms and in se deing set a standard fnr the Hew Latin American Cinema mevement. Theugh Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the weuld-be screenwriter, first tumed te literature, in the past few years he has beceme a singular infiuence upen Latin American filmmaking: threugh his rele as head nf die FI"~ICL (Hew Latin American Cinema Feundatien} which eversees the film scheel established in l9St':i in Cuba te train yeung filnmrakers; tltrnugh the screen adaptatiens ef his writings and his ewn screenplays; and, in 193?, drrnugh the screenplays fer the Antares drffciles series ef sis ce-preductiens with Latin American er Spanish filnmrakers fer Spanish televisien, all based en Garcia Marquez steries er ideas. Finally, the d'tird step illusuetes that dte infiuence ef Italian neerealism was nnt limited tn these whe physically jeumeyed tn dte mecca ef Bnme te study with its masters. Nelsen Pereira des Santns, back in Brazil, was part ef a circle that recegnized the impart nf this aesthetic artd pelitical strategy fnr Brazilian cinema. This circle was stimulated by the arrival nf Alberta Cavalcanti. whe espnsed the yeung cinephiles tn nee-realist cinema. Pereira des Santes‘s first shert lilm. Jnvenrnde. was made at the same time as Builuel‘s Mertican debut tpreduced fnr the Brazilian Cerrununist Party, it was lest when sent tn a Eurepean festival] and his first feature, liie sill Degrees, built en the nee-realist errample tn beceme the feunding werk nf einema nave in I955. Pereira des Sarrtes recalls: ‘Withnut neerealism, we wnuld have never started, and I think nn cnuntry widt a weak film ecenemy cnuld have made selfpnrtraying films, were it net fnr that precedent.’ The infiuence nf Italian nee-realism cnincided with pelitical shifts in Latin America: then. as new, aesthetics and pnlitics ceuld nnt be sequestered inte separate arenas. In Brazil, Pereira des Santes’s stance was part ef a larger pnsitinn articulated threugh twe key film industry cenferences (nf I952 and I953]. The grewth ef a cinema defined by its natinnal pesitien, in tum, was made pessihle by the natinrralistic gevemment nf Getrilin Vargas (193745 and l95l—5-ill. nurtured by

‘

i-]_.'f1.

_.

|

-I P -I

P-J |-

I ll

1:

—-.l'_'.-—'h r |.I -

|

_-_-_-|-_|.|

I-_l. -

r.

iI.;l'

_. ',.‘I

1'

I'I' —-._.___ . |.I _l.|.

|

.- '.-'I.

|I|. I III:

II

F

|._|._.

-lI.I| "5.-..| -

|

‘.1"I:If"1'-4"“

"Ff

_ -r 1'1.

. |

I'_|I-I-II .|J-I--.

Is:

-t

I |.-

IT:

.I.=.:-T.

'.TTI'.:f'I!.'

I.'ri7.

T

.r-r.‘-If

'.-‘:I".-- F‘ ""1

re

.'t’!

“'...I..t.1"

"Ll

_|IIIr .|-|.I-I

I."'.|:;'I.‘-

l-I

q. ..dIT_"

-_| J._'I-I

--II-I_—I Il_|-|--|_-I-I

.I¢II1.

'I— _ Ill.

_

:l.F '_-'

11-_I|.—.I.I.|_l.I.|l.

“""-I-

f

1?"

. r-:1

III

,f_-.I'._I'Ir.,

3"“ rte: .:". ..'"."';‘;- ='.1'

_._|I|_

.

r r-.-...

I

-—_fI ;*-| ..l.I|.Iil-l.|.

.-_.."I'I

‘:5 1'.‘ -Ia." I

-j_.':l‘

J-I

-I. | -...:-1|

5' -[:21

‘I _. . .1‘ fir

iII1

i.

.-

j,_7_.':.'I'

_,.-_|. I:I I_.-I--I

Ir ...J.

-P

I

11

I:c.."

r

‘Ir I

j-_I ]|I' I ||-lII-||h.|.I|-l-

-1-I_]_ .|.-\_

:_".'.f""I.__..IIII'_¢

II|

lI':‘_._.II*

J.,lITi_I. ._I.-.I. -L

II1.

_

-I-It l_.-F:-' .|--_.|-

_-- ‘L:

r.i"_I:_.'I.Q.i-

|.-I III|_I

_|. _

II I-I'I_|.._II-

III

l

El ItI -

I

TI

, 4""

“se:. '1". "P s"7::1"e r- It '-.r ';__*:a‘_..s'" -

'..-ti‘

I;,.IfIIfI""I.:.II.IIfI1ti

'I'.r.t '1" Iii--..--‘:1

I--EL:

I'.-I'."..'I.

link:

II|I.F..:.IIT'fl I'.l"

k-IT} .I'I"".I;tZr:TIlIi'_

.-£11-I

c-'.r"r;':t.

:-|I'I.r_-Ill

La,‘-,_:1'

Er:

I16‘ ‘IT

1'.._ItI£'IIlI..:...

.“'.'Z'Tli.l:.lII-r_I.tI

L.’-I..—

.IlIl.'..t..1

T.‘-

'.,rt .-- i.-_r.;r:.-is rt .-"Ir --:;;.sr- e "II 11¢ 'r_-rer 'r' Fertc, ire .'.'*r'.r.- I ':.-'. ‘e e--'.r:". . -Te.-1 ;:tt.=1 ".1 .‘3TI..;I_L .'.'.I;.r; i-tc:---rt :1 .1t.e

.". re 1.-:-r'r".-tr-.. F-' run: I

J

I: 1. I

II

.I-

E -

I

..lII

_

-I

-

_—..| -.|I. |-I:' '1? r|IlI

'.-F‘.-*7‘

r'."'E

1;-'."I.Il-'-Ir .

-

r._;1:.|..| .I |

e

:'.|l_; -II... J _' | .

I

"-r"--at".

.

-

_I-if-‘I

. Pg-| I I-l'l'l'-‘J1

“. '

I.|'-' 1-

F I: I .-

e':'.e*'.r '-".:.;". ':-. ..-. --cl. ::e '.'e'_£2:.—

d

.|II I

1-| II u"ll‘|I

.H'I-|I

't|.'-r!_‘t."- riiiiifi-I1

-1*‘---I.sT--"

-

.-

..IF_.|.I. Tl -|I J-I I-

-I‘

_I|_ II

.'-I

.

I

I

-T -I‘; I

|._-._ . . "Ir . .l '.

-ll.

J

I.'.l _r -.l|-

J:-I. _r_. . -'|-I. .-

_I

.1

III

L

. .|._._ r.

.I

.-";. I.'!" - -s

l.|-

-|I._l-l'E'I-I1.

L.'i-'I:lI-'.|T

ill‘ It.

I|-

I —-I“

III‘

I --: I|._I_ .||.IIl II..r _

'4'

..H ---

-|I

r II-EIII

|

I

:l;

-r

+ i

._1.|_|.._I II -

I

-1-E:-‘I

TI|._'I'..'T'l_.'Il'l_-1

'.J.i-‘I 711$: If iI!-.'.""-I'.I-

-F ——_I|__IlI I --I --II'|I—I ‘I-_I 1 -

_I |

I_.IIIE

'.l.I Ills] IIIII fill‘.

e I .

r-I III

T'.'.:TI._.I_I

.i.L'-‘I-..'.I'.‘lv ti‘-I-Z'i;I

-1- L. J’. H. . ‘I _l.

.I

II:

l'TI.|.'I'I:i_'t1I'.I.L

-..‘I;‘.-

I".-I1 Ir'. TC

:

.II.

IIII .'.-.

ti-I." -‘TI 'iI.ef

II 1.;

-I .|.

I . .|..

-F -.11.

if I_I:fi' :.__'I':-'__t-

- I|I.=;_._-lII|I|I‘I-|.'I'Ii_‘.l..l.l.-';. _

|—II I-1 ;fi'_--i-

I

. II!

Ia; -|IIII.

‘mi-L - -‘J I. I-~I.|'—.

E‘: -I-.

I

I.-cl‘- ..l'.'-.-If‘-T . .-'.' "_‘F

III ||.

{III .

1|.“ I"-II:

s _:.a.:*.-'....=:.'_

:.|.*-I-.-III-" |.I' I '-:1. .|.|

|I-.-I .....-II.

--I -I _'--|...I-I.

I -I:

II-I-11 ---I-I-Ll-i

II-II-II .-1. -

I-—l—|—II.|..--.._-9'

I

-.-

‘ :.:.-st: ;-:::.er-:-.:;-".r.. 1-,: ::e—.;s..se -it ':.e :."-_=-'1"-e

.-".-*.-.=. e-""_:.r.r.r.".=;

*1-.e P.-;.--

II:l.I— .l.l.l 9

II

-.I--

.

:-

., Hgy "r

T |I.|

- __ _;r.--‘;;.-s._ zr.r:—;.e~:-—.resr_'.e:c ."ei.r:~ir'_s cat_. s

'I"l"l-I

;.t i’.-"Tit F.-e"..i..=e '.TI L".-.-: _:r-11',--::_z .:=ie_--.'.-.:r.'.:sl reis-

-. 's.*.rI sf the r.c's ;;.'.erT..s-. Lie: r.'.:gi".t be created "-1- :*_"_::r .1 re:-eI'.r—

-,--.r.ary *.r.r.-.-;r.*- I-reel tie.-.1:-*.'s 5' '-erT..-sect. as ene ni its ti:-r ~t-.'T'..:rai ar.*'.. f‘.-.*.rIe»'l lI’I.'.-"-.lI'I_I_ the fI_I,':-an Filer. i:'.st:1:te- lt is ne .;r:r:~:'.~.ien-.:e

‘her l'.a .brrtat'-'a as r'..>...r.s rs as il'.~'.rI during the peried ef Allerrde's -_:'resiri.-*:r.r.y in r.;-..r.-. "':.-wigh hnr-ired- nf ceurse- tragically- :rfterr_ ner that

.'-.-.=::.tt.=-. -=. !*.rr-";i term as pres.rdent cnincided vrirh a film renaissance in II L-'..'..I~. a=. lrlrr.rnaker=. '-rmght tri implement the ideals etI his gnvernment

er an ire‘-.Ti’rt:lli. level After the ceup nf September ll. l9Ii3. the rnilitary rmrrrrslrarely rte-.rrri;.-ed the university's film equipment and l'.iit'rrrt:rl all the irlnis made by Chile Films in the preceding three year:-. "

in ‘-.lll'l'l. rlic emergence nf the .""~iev. Latin American Cinema cannet he =.r-prrrritcrl frnm the pnlitical events during the peried ef its "rtnerren

rlr-vi-lr.|irrrcrrt"' in the distinct reginns that make up Latin America. ner ran its different tlircctitrn tn-day be separated frnm the pelitical cir-

r-rrrrv~.rant.e~. rrf rrur decade." Fnr a ihlerth American and Eurepean] r-rilrrnl perspective that tends always teward snme fnrrn ef auteurism.

['5'-.--"

"

r_|~._]

._: -| .1} _c._ '-.1

Arrltltlrer View sf ilierv l.en'rr .tti-nericerr Cinema

2??

teward a celebratinn nf individualism artd hereic genius. dte fundamentally pelitical precnnditinns nf cinematic achievement in Latin America may seem beside the peint. But they have been very much the peint tl'treugheut dte histery ef the blew Latin American Cinema mnvement, and centinue tn be teday. lust as Latin American culture is a nerrus between natienalism and regienal ceherenee, and dte blew Latin American Cinema a cressrnads ef aesthetic innevatinn and ideelngical mntivatien, se tee have pelitically-cemmitted filmmakers pesitiened themselves between individufism and identificatien with the pepular secters.

The early years ef the blew Latin American Cinema were characterized by a nee-realist style adapted tn meet Latin American needs and realities. Gbjecting tn the leng-deminant Hnllywnnd style nf studie sheeting and seamlessly cnmpnsed narratives, the artists nf the blew Latin American Cinema immersed themselves in dre eppesite. Freeing the camera frnm its cnnfinement and iselatien, the eye nf this pelitical mevement reamed the streets. Instead nf the custemary replicatien nf the Hnllywnnd studie system, nnnprefessinnal acters replaced the stars. The prenccupatinns nf a leisure class, and the presentatinn nf a sanitized histery. were replaced by the here—and-new, histerical reclamatinns. the lives nf a class that had net seen itself reflected in the cinema. It was an eppesitinnal cinema at every level, self-censeieusly searching nut new ferms fer dte new sentiments ef a Latin American reality just being recevered. It was a cinema dedicated tn decnlnnializatien, at every level including, frequently, that ef cinematic lairguage. A cinema ef necessity, it was different things in different cnuntries: in Cuba. an “imperfect cinema"; in Brazil. an "aesthetics nf hunger"; in Argentina, a “third einema." As the films appeared en U.S. and Eurepean screens, their image was imprinted en the critics whn. just discevering Latin American cinema, wnuld name them classics. Even in the beginning, hewever, the blew Latin A.rnerican Cinema was mnre cnmplert than such a unilateral medel weuld indicate. In Brazil, fer errample, the elequent grittiness nf the nee-realist cinema was paralleled by the barnque mysticism nf Glauber Ftecha lte take just ene eirample). In Cuba, Temas Gutienez Alea was tn make ll»:l'erneries tie selr.-zleserralla, but he had alse made Les rlace siller. a madcap cnmedy. sis years earlier. Ctnly ene year afier La lrara dc les liemes was made in Argentina. Brazilian directer lnaquim Pedre de Andrade made llrfecunarine, a film which drew en a Brazilian visinnary Mndemist nevel tn create a

‘

-

i-i _;§:.;_-I

.

|

its

s. ta-.e_v set.

film that was anti-ratienal. anarchistic. and fantastical in its mi:-r nf felklnric and pep-culture icenngraphyWere this net eneugh, censider the ertample ef Femandn Birri. Fer years, the legendary film Tire dir? was censidered the prime ertample nf the blew Latin American Cinema mevement due tn its unprecedented perueyal ef marginal life ameng the trash-pickers ef Santa Fe and the bnys whe ran aleng the train trestles, risking er suffering an emly death fer a few pennies tnssed by wealthier travellers frnm the eemfnrt nf their railrnad cars. Bini's reputatinn and the birthright ef blew Latin American Cinema rested en this wnrk. Shnrtly after making Tire are, hnwever, Bini made anether film: Les inun.:le.::le.s.‘“ The railrnad mntif reappears, inverted, because this time areund Birri made a cnmedy—a cnmedy aheut the hemeless and dispnssessed- Les inundarlrr.r' is impnrtant because it establishes an initial parallel develnpment intemal tn blew Latin American Cinema that wnuld be unacknewledged in the First ‘llv'nrld receptien tn the mevement‘s new film stmtegies and aesthetic evnlutinns. It testifies tn the _,ieie ele vivre ef a cinematic mevement that became mere acceptable {perhaps mere marketable] when it ceuld be packaged as the testimeny ef victims er the errnticism nf underdevelepment-

Ill Suggesting a redefinitien nf apprepriate subject and style fnr the blew Latin American Cinema nf teday. Latin American filmmakers rightly cnntend that “there is nn aesdretics witheut pelitics." I weuld argue that the reverse is alsn true: each pnlitical mement demands a spegific aesthetic strategy. The l9ilfls have been very different frem theIIlI9fi[ts, and sn are the films. Cunent cencems and strategies are visible in a trin nf key films frem the past [specifically lie negre Angustias finm Merticn in I949. Les inrrnrla.:la.'r frnm Argentina in l9fiE, and De

cierre rnertere frnm Cuba in l9T=='l]. Each film was an annmaly, particularly since twn ef the filmmakers were wnmen. a startling amendment te the virtually all-male panthenn ef die blew Latin American Cinema. Clearly. the prnject ef this article is the cnnstructien ef a revisinnist histery.

In I949, the Me:-rican directer Matilde Landeta made her secend feature film. La rtegre Angnt.t.'r'rr.r".“ This was a cnntradictnry peried fnr

wnmen in Me:-rice: the Cardenas presidency tl93el—l9-ill] was a time ef immense pregressive mevement. land refnrnr. an epening up ef snciety—and the denial ef the vete tn wnmen, due tn Cardenas‘ fear that wnmen weuld represent a reactienary ferce and vete against him. It wnuld he I953 befere wnmen ebtained the right tn vete in Merticn.“

‘ GL3"

."'l'.-"iii! ‘ ~

I|—'

Art-"r'Jrher l-'Iie'vr= e_',fIi'tfew Latin American Cirrerne

1T9

Landeta created a film in which the daughter ef a famnus revelutienary is estracized fer her refusal tn marry and her insistence en maintaining her manly niarinrarlre attributes leng past adnlcscence. After the death nf her father. she becemes a revelutienary in her ewn right. ‘fer the film tums the cedes ef revelutienary cinema upside dewn: the scenes ef hereic actien turn eut nnt tn fit an naturally with a

weman prntagnnist. and the tnre passien and drama nf the film increasingly eccur, nnt between revelutienary fighters and a cnrrupt gevemment, but in the battles between men and wnmen. The film's mest netable banle eccurs in twe parts: a weuld-be rapist‘s assault en rlmgustias, and her later revenge when she captures him and has him castrated [eff-screen}. The greatest stmggle takes place, nnt en a battlefield, but en the field ef emetiens, as Angustias struggles tn differentiate her rele as a weman frem that nf a leader nf men. and seeks tn find a way nut nf the trap in which her purpnrtedly female heart has landed her. Thus, the film’s dramatic line is drawn censistently alnng the greund nf sertuality. as Angustias seeks nver and nver tn recencile cnmpeting gender identities and demands. Apart frnm its prescient attentien tn race and gender. rnles and centradictiens. .-La negra Augr.r.ttias is unusual fnr its ending, which leaves Angustias streng, active, and fighting still after her mementary surrender tn the subjugatien ef rnmantic leve. In an era when Mertican cinema reutinely relegated wnmen tn pesitiens ef subservience—if net tiueugheut the film. tlten certainly in its final scenes—this was a radical break- lf. as lean France has suggested. films such as these {made by El Indie Femandez, et all were key tn a natinnal agenda fnr a family medel within which wnmen were subservient, then Landeta’s film has a landmark pnlitical impertance. She laid the grnundwnrk fnr the Latin American wnmen‘s films nf the l9S[ls, which began tn incnrpnrate wnmen’s snriggles fer identity and autnnnmy as a necessary part nf a tnrly cnntempnrary blew Latin American Cinema. In Argentina in l9t52, when Femarrde Bini was installed in what was in retrnspcct a tempnrary bastien. his film scheel ef Santa Fe, he cenceived Les fnnrttfaclas, mentiened abeve. Tire film's mnst striking feature is BirtiIs insistence en jey, his emphasis nn the vital subjectiv-

ities that characterized the squatter celeny and the family’s bueyant respnnses te its sequence ef reversals. Equally impnrtant is the film's creatien nf particularized characters whn dn nnt se much as stand in fer "types," let alene archetypes, but rather, manifest marked identities, an ertpansien nf individualism rather than a denial nf it. ‘With this film, Birri shiftetl the temrs in which the dnwntrridden nf snciety had been viewed, ertchanging the singular temr nf “the penple" fnr the third-persen plural. persnns, se seldem used rheterically. In this sense.

‘ Ci‘-Il~

"'| .-"Es.--I ' ~

Zfitlil

B. li."iilJ'_t-' fi.".tIr'rft

Bini created the precnnditinns necessary fer the attentien tn subjectivity characteristic ef the blew Latin American Cinema uf the l9S[ls. Mnving as did Birri frem decumentary tn fictien, but in quite a different cnntertt, Cuban directer Sara Gnmez made De cierra menere in 19'."-‘l {due te her death during pest-prnductien and damage tn the negative. the film wasn‘t released until l9'lSl.'3 Tire film mics its peints fermally and ideelegically, using decumentary and fictien against each ether, internrpting its nwn meledrama tu insert an intenide intreducing “a real persen in this mevie" er intercutting a secial wurker‘s smug summatiens widt decumentary fnntage tn delegitimate her. Its stery uf a leve affair between Ynlanda and Marie becemes the stnry ef the cnuple‘s snciecultural fnnnatiens and defnrrnatinns in tertns nf the differences between the beurgeeis class and marginal class, blacks and whites. men and wnmen. nfficial prescriptinrrs and subculturai traditinns—a stery, in shnrt, ef unresnlved centradictiens- In the end. “i’elanda must Ieam hew tn deal respectfully with the children and mnthets in the "marginal" neighberheed where she’s teaching, while Marin must decide whether te espnse an nnregenerate friend whn has cut eut ef his factery jeb tu shack up with a girlfriend, claiming tn be at his mether‘s hnspital bedside. Lung e:-templary fnr its femtal innevatiens. De eierra menera becnmes impnrtant. in the cnntertt nf this everall histnry, fer its challenge——pused in beth psychelegical and esperiential terms—tn ideelegical and secinlegical assumptiens. Game-z systematically refutes iievnlutiunary platitudes and pelitically-cerrect analyses in faver nf depicting the full scepe ef life in the black and “lumpen" neighberheeds she knew sn well- ‘v'irtually the nnly weman ever tn direct a feature film in Cuba. she effers clear critiques ef machismn and the cnnsequences ef male pride. Cembining humer with dncumentary-like errpuse, Gdmez repeats Birrils achievement in claiming the strengths ef bnth. Fecusing en beth race and gender, she fellews Landeta‘s success in initiating a narrative esaminatinn ef beth. Perhaps De cierte merrsre, in its assessment ef preblems neither caused by ner cured by the Bevnlutien. but fast beceming endemic tu its ertistence, is the first “pust-Revnlutienary" Cuban film. ln this sense, it demenstrates an early awareness nf a petential disjunctinn between die pertrayal nf the individual and that ef seciety, with an influential demenstratien that new aesthetic altematives weuld have tn be investigated fer this trajeetery tn centinue. All three l'lln'|s--La rregra Angr.r.ttrIa.s, Las inendadas. lite cierte

rrrancra share a refusal tn attribute “urhemess" tn subjects fennerly masked as suclr, accempanied by a cemmitment te the narrative inscriptiun nf an “nther” selfirnnd, identity, and subjectivity. In this

‘

Gk9~

|'-| _.-52;

‘

.

-._j--_._'-.|

An-"t'.I-lifter I-"leve ajflllerv Latin rlnterlcen Cincnta

ES I

sense. all three share a centempnraneity with eur current cencems that lift them even furdrer nut nf dte histerical mement nf dteir making, in which, at any rate, drey were se anemalnus. each in its ewn vct'y different natiunal and histerical cuntertt. If the peried ef the early blew Latin American Cinema mevement was strengly identified with the reclaiming ef the dispnssessed and with the pertrayal nf the sweep nf histery, in beth ideelegical and felklnric terms—-and if er-tceptinns tn this tendency, like the three mentiened here, were either written eut nf the histeries er perceived as snlitary e:-rceptinns—then it is fitting that the current phase nf the blew Lafin American Cinema sheuld fellew dte lead ef dtese films, tuming away frnm the epic teward the chrenicle. a recnrd uf a time in which nn spectacular events eccur but in which the er-rtraerdinary nature ef dre everyday is allewed tn surface. Its films mark a shift frem “ertteriurity" tn "interierity." In place uf the ertplicitly and predictably pelitical, at dte level uf labnr er agrarian struggles er mass meblliza-

tien, we eften find an attentien tn the implicitly pelitical. at the level uf banality, fantasy, and desire, and a cunespunding shift in aesthetic strategies. Such a shift has alsn, net cuincidentaliy, epened up the field tu wnmen.

The meve frem ertterierity tn interierity helds implicatiens fer eur sense ef individualism and eelleetivity. The new films advance a reclaiming ef the individual (which can held either pregressive er reactienary cnnsequences, as the very ceneept and practice uf

L.-'

individualism canies the petential fnr eitiicr directien}. In teday's blew Latin American Cinema. the eld phrase “the persnnal is pelitical" can almest he heard, murnruiing belnw the surface. Its espressinn. hnwever, is nut a privatized nne at all but very much sncial. pelitical, public. The films nf the blew Latin American Cinema ef the l9S[ls are enl gaged in the creatinn. in cinematic terms, uf what I wnuld tertn a “cellective subjectivity." They are cencemed, nearly ubsessed, with a new fnrrn ef leeking inward dtat effers the pessibility nf a radical break with the past, with an apprnach that can put un the screen, nnw fnr the first time, dte interier wnrld ef persnns whese lives first reached these same screens. in their stage ef snuggle, mere than tlriity i years age. l_ And the reasens fnr such a redirectinn? lust as the earlier develepment uf the mevement had its mnts in the pnlitical climates ef the distinct natien-states that pass fnr a single entity under the misleading term nf Latin America, and which du nevertheless have a centtnun unity in spite nf their different cultures and histeries, sn tee dn the films nf dte l9ilfls reficct the pnlitical circumstances ef the centinent

I Gk)"

it

—r

I

t.-“I

25-I

H. Rm‘-I_v Rich

at the time nf their making. The early llilliils were a time uf sweeping change fer a number ef Latin Americait cnuntries. In Cuba, the Mariel esedus led tu changes and reassessntents. In Argentina. the defeat bf the military in the Ivlalvinas led tn an end uf military rule and a new elected gevemment. In Brazil. the military surrendered pewer threugh a natinnal precess instituting a cunstitutiunal gnvernment. In Uniguay. tee-. the years uf dictatership came te an end. And in ‘Venezuela. the end uf the uil beam shifted seciety frem largesse te shnrtfali. Tu be sure, the demucracies that have sup-erceded military rule in Argentina. Brazil. and Uruguay may well be pseude-dernucracies. unstable and vulnerabie tn beth military and ecenemic pressures. lvlany in the hemisphere are rightly suspicieus ef the U5. agenda behind the electien panacea. Even mere te the peint. the crisis in Latin America teday is mere apt te center an the ecenemic than the gevemrnental. as the fnreign debt becemes a sinister updated narne fnr imperialism. Even se. the l9E{ls were indisputably different frem the l'§l6Ds. and filmn1alters—even these veterans whn centinued tb werlt and preduce films threugheut this brief histery ef the Hew Latin .nrnerican Cinema -demenstrated in their narrative strategies that they ltnew the difference. IV Wlien a dictaturship falls, the peeple beceme great devburers bf culture- They nced tci exercise the hcirrcir. Beatriz Guide"

As pnlitical framewrirlts change. frern anti-fascist tn pest-fascist. fur

esample. an eppesitinnal cinerna inherits the same ebligatinn techange as de the eppesitinnal parties in the electeral secter. ln this new envirnnment. a cinema which turns inward and which begins te enable viewers ta censtruct an alternate relatiunship—nc-t enly with tr their gevemment but with an authentic sense bf self—is an indispensable element in the evelutien bf a new sdciep-elitical envirnnment. Slrigans. pamphlets, and erganizing have been lcey te pelitical change: character, identity, empathy, and. rnust importantly, a sense ef perscrnai agency. new are uf equal impertance te pelitical evelutien. It ceuld perhaps be argued that the demncratic (c-r pseude—deme— cratic} precess has itself beceme the ferernust aesthetic influence en centernperary Hew Latin American Cinema. given its shift in emphasis frem the “revelutienary” te the “revelatury." Just as eppesitinnal peliticai actien demanded ene l-dnd bf cinema. su dees the individual’s epen participatien in a newly-legitimatizecl ferm ef gevemment de-

‘

i-i __-5:

_.

|

Anrftilrher View nfflcw Latin Arrtericen Cinenm

253

mand anether. Tn qunte a yeung Brazilian critic, Jean Earlns "v'elhn, frnm the Jernei db Brnsii: the “aesthetics nf hunger" ef cinema neve has given way tn a “hunger fnr aesthe-tics.“"’ Similarly, an Argentine actress at the wemen*s sympesium nf the lntematinnal Festival ef New Latin American Cinema in Havana in I936 teld nf the ezplnsinn nf new bedy wnrkshnps and bedy-therapy classes then taking place, as peeple tried tn discharge the years nf repressien literally, physically, frnm their bndies. In this same peried, an article appeared in the New Perk Tirrtes detailing the therapy metheds being empleyed tn ease the pain ef the children ef the disappeared, cencluding that the mnst effective therapeutic interventien thus far had been the cnming ef demecracy, because it allewed the telling nf secrets necessary tn drain the pnlitical—and emntinnal—wnunds. The telling ef secrets is an impnrtant theme in recent werks ef the New Latin American Cinema. In Argentina in 193?, the yeung filmmaker Caries Echeverria used the decumentary fnrrn tn try tn dig up secrets that were ne lnnger welcerne in a snciety mnre intent en creating a picture ef se-called nnrmalizatinn. His Irma." {Terrie st‘ heads hnhiern snceriide set nnt tn investigate the case nf nne disappeared yeuth. In the film, a yeung radie jeumalist, alter ege tn the disappeared yeuth. fi'nnts fer the filmmaker as they jeumey threugh Argentine seciety like the mest degged nf detectives. interviewing en camera all the surviving principals nf the eriginal seenarie. The film*s grim lessen is that secrets are nnly liberating te the eztent that they imply snme actien, tn the estent that they are ezamined and net just buried ence again. In this film. hnwever. there is nn happy ending. ne “tnnh" tn he uncevered, nnly a persistent trail ef deceptien and subterfuge leading up tn the pnnre firm! ruling that ensured future immun~ ity fnr the military. Similarly, Eduarde Cnutinhe‘s Twenty Fears After {Cnhrrr Mer-

cnde Per.-:1 merrer, I934] cnuld net functinn witheut the telling nf a majer secret: the identity nf a legendary figure in the histery nf labnr struggles [the widnw nf a martyred unien leader whn has been in hiding under an assumed identity fnr twenty years], whem Ceutinhn and his camera crew traek dewn. Cnutinhe pushes his unearthing nf secrets frnm the publicaliy pnlitical te the familial, finally tracking dewn her children and investigating the emetienal cnnsequences ef the military repressinn that fractured the family. The film was the hit nf the first li‘.ie film festival in I954. and was awarded a standing nvatinn just at the mement nf the transitinn tn demecracy. Significantly, Cnutinhn makes the telling nf private secrets as impnrtant as the public nnes and, in sn deing, reflects the increased emphasis en the persnnal

‘

i'i _.-5:.

_.

|

EH14

B‘. .Fi‘u.by Rich

that is sn central a feature nf the current wave nf New Latin American Cinema. Raul Tnssn's Gerdntnm mises dncumentary with fictien tn espnse anether kind nf secret: the survival nf Indians despite the nfficial preclamatinn in Argentina nf their estinctinn- By describing in visceral detail the incarceratien and interregatinn nf Gernnima a|'td her children in a hnspital fnr the singular sin nf living a nnn-assimilatinnist life marked by Indian custnms, Tnsse makes his pnint that ethnecide is as bad as genecide. He inscribes the private as a sphere nf struggle, particularly since all that is meant by “cultnmI"' is sequestered within the unstable receptacle nf individual identity. The peint is made particularly chilling by twn aspects nf the film: first, the rnle nf Gcrdnima Sande is played by an actress whn is herself a member and

activist nf the same tribe [the lvlapuchesjt tn which Cernnima belnnged: and secend, the seundtrack is cnmpnsed prednminantly nf t]erdnima*s vnice. taped during her interregatinn sessinns by the hnspital persnnnei. Herc. then. psychic alienatien is equated with, and leads tn, death. The uncnvering nf secrets in these films is nne aspect nf the meve teward "interierity." but it is carried further away frnm the cencrete and intn the imaginary by the fictien films nf the decade. In the recent Busi Cnrtes feature, E!’ secrete rte Rrtmettn. the secret tums nnt tn be a quintessentially feminine nne: virginity itself. Based nn a Rnsarin Castelanns stnry, the film charts the cnstly cnllisinn {fnr the weman, nf

ceurse) between the cult nf female virginity and the cult nf male hnnnr. Cnrtes demenstrates tn what e:-ttent wnmen filmmakers can rcwnrltfimagine even the classic scenarins nf family, purity, and re-

venge. It is in the arena nf fictien that the influence nf wnmen directers and feminist ideas regarding behavier, gesture, and pacing, is mnst prnnnunced. lntcrinrity in this sense is nnt a retreat frnm snciety, but an altered fnrrnal engagement- blew sncial nrders mandate a narrative cinema that cnnstructs a new spectater, bnth threugh dc-plnyirtg_p_rnc esses nf identificatien and thmugh the structuring nf new fnrm_a_l_stra_t; cgies; while the first has been mnre widespread than the secend, bnth

may be feund represented in the Hew Latin American Cinema nf the lstfitls. Frnm this perspective, Suzana Amaral‘s Here tin esrretn is a key werk lfsee the interview with Amara] by the editer in vnlume 2}. Her subject may be classically eppesitinnal (stnry nf a dnwntredden Hertheastemer whn cnmes tn the big city and has the life smashed nut nf her} but her treatment ewes nething tn histerical nr secinlegical perspectives:

‘ CI‘-1

"'| .-"Es.--I ' ~

A-Iw"{J'ther ‘t-'r'ew try" t'v'e|-e Lrrrtn .-‘lit-ternsrzm tfinettttt

EH5

‘W'hat*s impnrtant is what’s behind penple, the interier life if. . .) The facts may be impnrtant, but what‘s mnre impnt1ant is what's behind the facts. |[. . .] lvly film shews that pn-nr penple alsn have fantasies, that they, ten, dream and want tn be stars."‘ Her central character in the film. lvlacabea, is a regendered up-date and revisien nf the abeve-mentiened r'rt'nennnr’ma: her inchnate self becemes bnth a metapher and a cencrete representatinn nf Brazil. Fer lvlacabea isn‘t just an anti-hem, she*s virtually an anti-character in a film that Amaral has termed ‘*anti—meledrama." lvlacabea has a ter'ribie jnb that she perferms terribly; marginal nr ezplnitative relatienships with her cn-werkers. rnnmmates. and bnyfriend: a terrnr, awe, attractien and repulsinn nfftn men; and a fearsnme faith in the detritus nf medem censumer cultttre. Amaral ezplicitly critiques the rnle nf mass culture in the lives nf the disenfranchised, shewing. fnr e:-tample. the rush nf lvlacabea and her rnnmmates tn watch the daily relennvetrr threugh the windnw nf a neighbnr‘s adjnining apartment. Similarly, she represents the reality nf lumpen cnnscinusness tltrnugh its mass-media determinant; Ftadin Re-

lnj. a statinn that cnnstantly brnadcasts meaningless infnmtatinn which lvlacabea, its devnted listener, repeats threugheut the film. Amaml uses the film‘s ending [Ivlacabea*s hallucinatinn nf herself at the mnment nf her death—as a telerrnvelrr hernine} tn summarize the effects nf underdevelepment. nencnlenialism. and the mass media. lvlacabea embraces this pep-culture fantasy as her last will and desire, but because nf its very nrigins. such a fantasy can be nnthing nther than nbscene . . . and fatal. Cine scene in the film signifies mnst unambigunusly the distance travelied emntinnally and ldenlngically frnm the early years tn the present: it is the nne in which lvlacabea nrchestrates a mement alene in her rnnm. illicitly, during the day. Lncking herself in, she tums up her belnved radin. swings the sheet nff her bed, and begins tn dance areund the rnnm. It is her first mement nf selitude, prebably unlikely tn recur fnr a hundred years, and itls represented with all the desperate

urgency nf a cemmedity. It is alsn l'vIacabea‘s first mement nf esperiencing the self, the persen whn had never had the lusury nf taking shape befere. Irt her altematinn between feeling and seeing [herself in the mirrnr}, listening and lttzuriating, she presents the audience with a

scene nf victery every bit as glnrinus, as liberating in its implicatiens, as hereic in its triumph, as these reflected in the films nf the l9't5t'ts. This mement nf self-identificatien and self—definitinn. in a space that feels at first like a vacuum fnr its remnval frnm the dnmain nf pseudninfnrmatinn that has permeated lvIacabea*s envirnnment, is emblematic

‘ Ci‘-1

"'| .-"Es.--I ' ~

-r;--..'-.1

IS-I5

H. .Fl'ub_v Rich

nf the new cinematic directien that is beceming sn marked, yet still sn unremarked by First werld critics er audiences. Ctther films made by Latin American wnmen directers in the Ill-‘Sills furdrer strengthen the case fnr seeing emntinnal life as a site nf struggle and identity equal tn these mnre traditienal sites by which the New Latin American Cinema was nnce. and centinues tn be. defined. Tizuka ‘famasaki is an interesting case in peint, fnr her Fdtrfnrrtnrfn [I935] tries mizing dncumentary with fictinn tn get at the emntinns behind events.” Filming at the time that all nf Brazil was debating its transitinn tn a civilian gevemment, "r'amasaki tnnk three actnrs alnng nn all her shnnts nf mass public events and histeric meetings. and managed tn insert her nwn meledrama intn the prnceedings. Her film, which illustrates just hnw cnntradictnry the cedes nf fictien and dncumentary can be frnm nne anether, insists upnn the equality nf private and public. man and weman. the sezual and the pnlitical. Taking this insistence tn the estreme, the film pnsits the planning nf a baby and the planning nf a gevemment as mutually metaphnric. Thus, it may be nn accident that Ivlaria Luisa Bemberg was filming Cnmiln as demecracy came tn Argentina in mid-shnnt. Crrmfln p-nint-

edly redefined the site nf pnlitical struggle as the sezual. in her interpretatien nf the famnus stnry nf an aristncratic yeung weman and a priest. whese lnve affair presented the ultimate challenge tn the repressive patriarchalism nf their day and whese ultimate murder prnved the equatien between sesuality and liberatien inherent in the narrative. By seeing the sesual struggle as nne nn an equal plane with nther kinds nf ideelngical stntggle. Bemberg was able tn include wnmen in the ranks nf hernes and freedem-fighters witheut falling prey tn the centradictiens with which the character nf Angustias. years earlier. in lvlesicn. had tn cnntend. In this case. the radical shift in the area nf inquiry was nnt accempanied by a parallel femtal shift but rather by a dedicatinn tn creating seamless art cinema (lush. transparent. and perfect pcrindicity} in the service nf a new idea. Similarly, Bembergls r'rt'is.r ll-{fury [l9Sfi} situated rebellintt in the

realm nf sesuality. bnth fnr the children nf the aristncrats that a gevemess {played by Julie Christie] is breught tn nversee and fnr the repressed British gnvetness herself. The plnt cencems the selfrealizatinn nf the gnve-mess and the cnming nf age nf her charges, set within the wnrld nf wealthy Anglnphile Argentines nn the eve nf wnrld War ll- The elaberatien nf the girls" sezual identity and the patriarchal mndes nf its repressien are e:-tplicitly made parallel tn the rise nf pernnism by Bemberg’s intercutting nf archival fnntage in the midst nf etherwise flawless art-directien. Fer Bemberg. wnmen are the

‘ Ci‘-1

.I"-I-.-"is.--I ' ~

-rj--..'--1

An-"G'titer View nfrliew Latin Amert'-t'r.r.rt Cinema

ZS?

lynchpin in the engeing battle between repressien and liberatien, a battle which she views atnmistieally as launched inside the family tn esplnde thrnughnut snciety. In this film, then, menstntatinn is trauma, sezual acts invnlve psychic risk. and pernnism is built in the bedrnnms nf the natinn. In lvlezicn at a time when dtere was as yet nn sign nn the hnriznn nf any fracture in the endless fnrtificatinn nf Pltl, the party seemingly swnm tn n.tle the cnuntry ferever, Paul Leduc fractured cinematic traditinns with Frida (l'£lS5}. The film emerged frnm this very traditienal natinnal filmmaking traditien tn call intn questinn its cnmfnrtahle assumptinns, bnth cinematic and ideelngical. Leduc’s film was inspired by the life nf Frida Itlaliln. an artist wbnse reputatinn teday is an accurate indeit nf the difference made by recent feminist schnlarship and the reevaluatinn nf art-histnry hierarchies. This difference, precisely that between the public and private. parallels esactly the shift being described herein frnm the early days nf the New Latin American Cinema mnvement tn the present and is echned interestingly by Leduc‘s nwn evnlutinn frnm the public canvas nf Reed: Mezice insnrgenre If lllllft tn the private nne nf Frittn. Frida Rattle is nnw knnwn fnr a variety nf reasens: revered painter. wife nf Diegn Rivera, victim nf physical disabilities caused by accident, intimate nf Lenn Trntslty, suppnrter nf the Cnmmunist Party, wearer nf Indian cnstumc. cnllectnr nf felk art. lnver nf her nwn sea. Leduc chnse tn eschew nnne nf this and tn suberdinate nn nne part tn the derrrands nf the nther. He fnllnwed the lead taken by sn many histnrians nf submerged “nthers” and relied, nnt nn the nbfuscating tests but, rather, nn what he termed “the histnry nf gnssip" tn cnmpnse the details nf her life- Even mnre radically. he chnse tn reprise I‘-lahlnls cnmrnitment tn the visual, basing his film in image, cnlnr, gesture, and sensuality instead nf the relentless dialegue mnre cnmmnn tn lvlezican cinema. Prnbably the mnst fermally daring nf the recent films here enumerated. Fririrr as a prnject carries a particular ideelngical impnrtance as well. lr~'lahln‘s paintings were lnng ignnred nr undervalued precisely because they represented weman, the bndy, a gendered pain, a psychic split. At a time when pelitically-cerrect art pictured wnrkers {nnt braces nr babies) and when the acceptable scale was massive and public (that is, murals) nnt small and enclnsed, the paintings nf Frida lilahln were deemed tn be dismissed as an eccentric avncatinn, the irrelevant pastime nf an etherwise pelitically-cemmitted persen whn, alas, was bnrn female. Criven the evelutien frnm ezterinrity tn interierity that this article seeks tn describe. Paul Leduc cnuld hardly have

‘

i'i _.-5:.

_.

|

BBB

B. Ruby Rich

chnsen a mnre relevant subject. He is aware nf the implicatiens nf his cheice: “Frida was clesed up in her bedy. in her hnuse, in her studie. In the midst nf all these neises nf her time {the pnlitics. the demnnstratinns, in which she alsn tnnk part], there was her ezpressive silence. Elf images.""“ By accnrding Frida ltlahlnls jeumey inward a place in histnry equal tn dtat nf Jehn Reed‘s jeumey nutward, Leduc cast his hat intn the ring nf a bnld revisinnism cemmitted tn replacing the epic with the chrenicle and tn synthesizing a new sense nf pleasure with the pain that has been present all alnng. Jnrge Tnledn's Vern, made in Brazil later (l'.lS'i'} in the demncratizatinn precess than Bemberg*s films, fits well nntn the trajectnry pinneered by Leduc since it carries the esaminatinn nf sexual identity as pnlitical act even further. Taking as its starting peint the release nf a yeung weman fmm an nrphanagetrefnnu schnnl, Tnledn‘s film traces ‘si'era‘s life backwards and fnrwards as she attempts tn unravel her particular riddle nf gender and reinvent herself. literally, as a man. Her ambitien survives the sadistic prisnn administratnr‘s attempt tn humiliate her and her kind: “I’m cencemed abnut this butch-girl business. - . . Okay, ynu‘re sn butch, let’s see ynur pricks." He tries tn tnpple the standards by setting up dances with a brether institutinn, impnrting real bnys tn dance with the femmes. lvleanwhile, the girls discuss amnng themselves the ambiguity nf life nutside the jeint, where guaranteed butch-girls have been knnwn tn get knncked up. In her tntal iselatien, self—inventinn. alienatien. and hnpelessness. the character nf "v'era {based in part upnn an actual weman whn came nut nf a similar jeint, wrnte pnetry and the stnry nf her life, and killed herself} has much in cnmmnn with the everywnman figure nf lvIacabea. Taking anti-he-rn as hernine. Tnledn anchnrs his tragedy in the details nf gender identity and sesual structuring. It is a drama that is specifically. achingly. female. It is a drama that is cencemed mnst fundamentally. nnt with actinn, but with language itself: at the keybeard nf the wnrd prncessnr, Vera meets a defeat as tntal as she met in the bed. Yet, nnnetheless, Tnledn never quite abandnns metapher, the pnssibiiity that "v'era represents nnt nnly a weman, nnt ezactly a lesbian, nnt just a weman whn wants tn be a man, but perhaps Brazil itself-the cnuntry that emerged sn recently frnm prisnn, unsure nf its identity, fnrmed and defnrrued by its captivity, cast sn adrift in the land nf ebject-chnice that its nwn desires are npaque. unspnkcn. transgressive but unattainable. Fem nrchestrates its erntic tensien sn successfully that finally the struggle fnr gender definitien seems tn the viewer as wnrthy nf respect as arty nther fight in the Latin American struggle fnr self-determinatinn.

‘

i'i _.-5:.

_.

|

rlrn"Ei'tJter I-"let-v rr_,|l'r‘It'et-tr Latin American Cinenta

EBB

‘V We fnught fer the peeple te have a right tn educatien, a right re heusing, a right tn fend, but fnrgnt dtat peeple alsn have el derechn a la alegria, the tight tn jny. Buy fiuerra“

If Paul Leduc can be seen tn have made a film that is nearly the nppnsite nf the nne that first established him in the cannn nf the hlew Latin American Cinema, hew much mnre sn Femandn E. Selanas, auteur nf the classic nf Third Wnrld revelutienary theery, La here rte ins hnrnes, whn went nn tn make, ef all things, musicals: Tangn.r.' El’ e.ril'i.n rte Gardet {I935} and the recent Stir [I937]. In Snr, as in Tnledn‘s film, prisnn plays a central rnle. This time, hnwever, in a thematic strategy that weuld mm tn invert Selanas’ early tenets, he pnsits as the central drama nnt the released man‘s pnlitical re-engagement but hnw atrd whether he'll be able tn reclaim his emetienal life by fnrgiving his wife her infidelity during his years in jail. It is the private life which is assigned prinrity; new dte emetiens demand as much cnm-

mitment, engagement, and actien, as events did a few decades earlier. Selanas thus takes the nntinn nf interierity and nartsfnmrs it intn an

aesthetic. The urban landscape ef Buenes Aires is made artificial, its str'eets a cityscape nf the snul. a theatrical space in which memeries and lnngings cart be enacted. The fihn’s drama is an interier nne made ezterinr. as the prntagnnist passes his leng first night nf freedem debating the figures nf his imagirtatinn en street cnmers suffused with

the mysterieus smeke and fng ef memery. After years nf e:-tile, Selanas was able tn retunr at last tn Argentina tn centinue his filmmaking. Back at the time nf La here rte les iternes, it weuld have been the spirit nf Che nr Perdn that presided nver Argentina. hlnw, widt Stir, it is the spirit nf Caries Crardel—redelent

ef nestalgia, rnmanee. feeling—that Selanas cheeses tn enslnine. The time in jail was matched tn the pnlitical activity that preceded it: the future is tied tn acts ef emetienal resteratinn that can activate dre feelings shut dewn during years nf military rule. Buy tSuen:a, the Brazilian directer whn like Selanas is identified with the early gnlden age nf New Latin American Cinema artd in his case specifically the fnundatinns nf cinema nave, alsn returned frnm leng ezile tn make a musical. His Opera rte ll-t‘aIana're mi:-res rnmarrce and rebellinn, this time in the unlikely setting ef Brecht‘s Tirreepenny Clpera, rescripted fnr the underwnrld nf Bin en the eve nf Wnrld War II and rescnred by Chicn Buarque. Ruy Guerra defends his meve frnm pnst-nee-realism tn musical: “npera is a pnlitical fnrrn." The late lvlaeuel tlctavin Gnrnez wnuld agree. His penultimate film, and Cuba*s

‘

-

t-i _.-51.;-j,

.

|

291]

B. Rt-thy .Fi.'iclt

first musical. Fataktrr. paid hnmage tn the subcultural pnwers nf santerfn with ritual characters whn acted nut the eldest struggles nf all: man versus weman, gnnd versus bad, industry versus slnth, all ceded te signify cnmmentary nn the state nf the Cuban revelutien in the l9Sfis. The cnntempnrary search fnr the meaning ef pleasure and the pleasure nf meaning in a pest-fascist er pest-revelutienary er pnst-ecnnnmic hnnm snciety reaches a suggestive apnthensis in Best Wishes, a recent film by Brazilian directer Teresa Trautman- Here. numereus themes already activated by nther Latin American directers take an even mnre surprising fnrm than the recycling nf the musical: meledrama. nearly snap npera. reclaimed. Like many nf her fellew filmmakers, Trantman cencems herself with the telling ef secrets, the breaking nf prnhibitinn, the speaking nf the unspeakable. Like fellnw Brazilian Tnledn. she situates sesual cnnstructien at the center nf pnlitical life. Best ll-"i.r.lre.r takes a fnrrnulaic pace and structure-—an aristncratic family gathering at its summer estate fnr nne last weekend befnre mnther sells it eff, cemplete with a lnng cathartic night in which secrets are revealed and cnuples realigned—and sneaks ideelngical meaning intn the mitt. She makes esplicit her insistence upen challenging the eld nrder nf pnlitical prierities widt a new gender agenda which cnmbines a transgressively female cnmic sense with an epiphanic revclatinn that disrupts the previeus patriarchal nrder. The film's central family is dedicated tn the memery nf its favnrite sen, a riesaparecide whn vanished during the years nf military rule- When the daughter ef the lifeleng family grnundskeeper. drunk and panicked nver where she and her aged father and adelescent daughter will live after this last night. finally reveals the identity nf her daughter’s father —he tums nut tn be this very same belnved sen, whn had raped her. these many years agn- This is dangernus stuff, mising pnlitical messages inte the genre nf sert cnmedy, but it suggests hnw far the hlew Latin American Cinema has ceme in recnnsideting its nwn issues and histnry frnm new perspectives. Certainly the presence nf wnmen directers where almest nene had ever tread is a factnr in this recnnsideratinrr. If Best‘ Wishes teek the

figure ef the rteseparecirte and insisted nn a revisien nf his idealizetien frnm a gendered perspective, then a recent dramatic dncumentary can be seen tn take a related step—the gendering nf assassinatinn and tenure, threugh the testimeny nf wnmen survivnrsIn Que Berri Te Fer Viva [_l9S'£l}, Brazilian directer Lticia lvlurat fncuses upen a figure that must itself embedy a centradictien in the Latin American cnntest: the figure tin the sense nf the representative as well as the be-dy itselfi nf the weman guerilla fighter whn survives

‘ Ci‘-1

."'l'.-Eli.‘-I ' ~

itttrtliher View efflew Latin American Cinema

Till

martyrdnm tn speak?“ And speak she dees, as the directer interviews a number ef wnmen, femrer militants in the armed struggle against the military dictatnrship. whn’d been captured. jailed, tnrtttred, and managed tn survive “witheut gning crazy." The dncumentary miites direct interview fnntage. usually cenducted nn videntape, with fnntage nf the wnmen cnntezttualized within their daily lives, elder fnntage ef their lives in the peried nf the dictatnrship [semetimes limited tn newspaper headlines nf their capture), heme mevies ef nne nf the wnmen in jail. and the wnmen's reflectinns bnth en that peried and nn cnntempnrary attitudes teward them in pest-military Brazil. Irnnically, this esplicit attempt tn write gender intn the survival narratives is the nne that fails: the use ef an acuess tn address the camera which is varinusly. tntturer. lnver, friend. nr audience. and tn speak the unspnkcn. The unspnken tums eut tn be, as ene surviver puts it during her interview, net the mechanics nf tnrture, which me by nnw sn well lmnwn, but rather the emetienal mechanics nf survival, the literal subjectivity nf the tnrtured. It is the riskier testimeny nf lnve, sert, intimacy, and secial tricety that directer Ivlurat, in a gesture nn deubt nf emetienal identificatien with her subjects, puts intn the mnuth nf a well—knnwn actress tn present tn the audience. thereby avniding the added disappreval that wnuld have met such prnnnuncements by any nnn-fictienal weman. Perhaps it is the acting style tnverwrnught. stagey, arch-irenic) that deems the strategy. but it is just as likely that the very tabnns that Ivlurat seught tn bypass retum nnnetheless tn sabntage the deteur. Fer if the figure nf the weman fighter is always, in patriarchal secieties, an esymnrnn, then the fact nf any wnman’s survival (nnt. Tania—style. her mmryrdnmft becemes a triple centradictien when she is cenverted intn the mnther and. in fact, bases her claim tn sanity and survival upen that same mntberhne-d. As Murat tries tn demniish the very cnnstnrctinns nf myth dtat have been the habitual last reser1 ef reactien tn such figures, she eccasinnally fnunders. He-vertheless, the testimeny ef her subjects speaking almest transparently tn the audience acrnss a wide range nf devices nf attempted distartciatinn meves the viewer with leng-dnrmant inspiratien. Que Bern Te l-"er Viva re-genders the gnerriltera and. in the precess, peses a series nf retreactive questiens tn the histerical cnnstructien nf the male here.

VI An idea abeut the cinema dtat reigned when we began nn this read is teday dead. t_. . .} We need tn lnnk cnllectively teward the future- As cinema becemes an erttinct dinnsaur. lizards and salamanders appear

‘

rt

_.

|

are

s. stay Rich that survive the catastrnphe. Teday, facing tecnnversien and crisis. the respense must he tn include the species. It must derive frnm cellective actien and selidarity- t[. - .]t We have a lnt tn dn. Te survive. "r"'es. Tn survive nnt nnly as filmmakers er videnmakers, but as cultures, as ezemplars nf natinnal dignity. Paul Leduc“ In the lllfifls, natinnal debt is the biggest preblem. I- . .]t It wnuld seem we‘ve gene backwards. as thnugh we haven‘t made any prngress. It may seem that the lilfills were radical, and the l'5I'Slls regressive. tf. . ._'t The danger new is an attempt tn make a “mnre perfect" cinema tn try tn attract a public. Its a danger because pnlitics cannet regress, but cinema can.

Julie Garcia Espinesa“ The cnnference in Bellagin which nccasinned this paper had hardly begun befnre we participants were spending eur spare time, huddled in the library, trying tn translate frnm the Italian papers the news nf the fend rints that had brnken eut in Venezuela. In Venezuela! It shattered all the fnndest sterentypes nf Latin Ameticarr stability. Sn much fnr the vaunted premise nf demecracy, when faced with the itrtematinnal pincers nf ecnnnmic shnrtfall and Il'vIF negntiatinns. hlntinns ef self-detenninatinn had already been crushed, anyway, with FRl’s theft nf the lvlesican electinn just menths befere. Snnn after the Venezuela debacle. Brazil witnessed the murder nf Chice Ivlendes and dte intensificatinn nf the Amaznn crisis. Cuba underwent the disaster nf the Dchna revelatiens [and the nngning. equally serinus. challenge ef its gnvernment‘s seige-like respense tn peresrrnika and giasnest]. and Argentina suffered its nwn feed tints, an unimaginable inflatinn rate. and the electinn nf lvlenem. its cnntempnrary perenist president. The last year nf the decade tumed nut tn be a cestly nne fer the centinent. Within each cnuntry, the ecnnnmics cnnfrnnting film prnductien are disastreus: lncal markets that can ne lengcr retum the investment necessary fnr late-lillills budgets, plans that require intematienal stars and cn-preductien mnney tn get nff dte greund, mevie theaters dtat are clnsing dewn by the hundreds as a cnmbinatinn nf videecassette distributinn and eperating cnsts make them unprnfitable. The lllfitls were a time fnr eptimism regarding the revisien and reinventinn nf the hlew Latin American Cinema in a cnntempnrary guise. The breaking nf tabee and prnhibitinn, the freeing nf the imaginatinn tn fantasy, a respect fnr the mundane and everyday, the intreductien nf humer and music. the cnnstructien nf new narrative strategies. and the recnnsideratinn nf the relatinnslrip tn the audience,

= Cit). -gle

.--,

- .

Ant-‘tlrner v'ien- nfNew Lrttin American Cinema

2'33

have ml cnntributed tn what I’ve identified as the menumental task ef fnrging a new “cellective subjectivity." "While I've chnsen tn interpret these tendencies nptimistically, I cnuld alse make anntlrer peint abeut

the less salutary effects at a certain kind er‘ individualism at the level

l

ef auteur. In u'acing the kind nf strategies that have beceme necessary in the wake ef the declining film ecnnnmics ef Latin America and the less nf self-sufficiency they have breught abeut, I weuld identify as significant the recent alliance be-tween a traditienal, essentially censervative. ferm ef authership and a traditienal. intematienal fnrrn nf ce-preductien. The Arrteres drfirriies was a series, mentiened earlier, based upen ideas nr scripts by Gabriel Garcia Ivlfirquea. utilizing the talents nf netable Lafin American er Spanish filnunakers, and preduced by and fer Spanish televisien. The deal, jnkingly referred tn as the “retum nf the cenquistaders."l'i get terrific ratings en its Spanish breadcast. and has wen linrited festival inclusien as well as theatrical, public televisien and videe release. Seme ef the films are escellent, but there are numereus preblems widt die series, nnt least nf which is the absence ef a single weman directer in the line—up ef filmmakers.“ The very real danger nf such a series is that it tends tn remnve any pnlitical specificity frnm the wnrlts that cnmprlse it. Packaged as a Gabriel Garcia lvlarquez cnmmedity. it falls easily intn the cn-prnductien pattem: the nnvelist is just sletted intn the attractinn slnt in place ef a farueus acter. Just se are the qualities nf individual natinnal cinemas suberdinated te the creatien nf a hnmngennus preduct, nne that eften {and predictably, given its nrisnn ri’etrei valerizes dre nnvelistic qualities nf cinema by valuing the screenplay nver all nther elements. Gbscuring questiens nf intentienality and urgency, Antares rtitiiciies sells itself as a preduct en the marketable den Guhn. lvleanwhile, the dependence nf the entire package upen Garcia lvl:irquez's participatien gives him inerdinate centrel nver the centracting nf principals and the handling nf the neatments.“ The threat nf such packaging under the sign nf a single persenality is that, sheuld its success and the cnncnmitant lack nf financial alternatives lead tn a prnlifetatien. the New Latin American Cinema ceuld enter a barnque phase: histerical subjects wnuld nn lengcr be chnsen fnr their particular ideelngical implicatiens fnr a particular cnuntry at this juncture, cnntempnrary fictienal themes wnuld nn lnnger arise eut ef dte specificity nf an identifiable set nf natinnal circumstances, decumentary wnuld be decisively marginalized and nn lnnger inhabit any place at all, and the very real heteregeneity that has always made “Latin America" itself such a near-fictienal censtruct weuld vanish

‘

i'i _.-§:.;_-:_

_.

|

Ill-=1»

H. Ruby Rich

under the hnmngeneity nf brand-name magic realism flying a multinatienal banner.“ Still, given ecnnnmic ferces arrayed against cinema [and life itself, sh-eer survival] in mnst nf Latin America. it is nnt surprising that mnst filmmakers are grateful that Gabriel Garcia Marquee is cnnuuitted tn film prnductien and that Spanish televisien has seen fit tn bankrell his film ideas. ‘With Spanish televisien recently pnised tn espand this entry intn a large-scale agenda nf cn-preductiens. similar fears regarding the influence nf such Eurepean input must again be weighed against the necessity fer just such marketing and financing strategies if the New Latin American Cinema is tn survive tn the tum nf the century tat least Spanish mnney dnesn‘t demand English as the prnductien language}. Meanwhile, the influence nf the peliticai and ecnnnmic situatien in each Latin American ceuntry centinues te affect its cinema far mnre fercefully and decisively than any cn-preductien deal cnuld ever dream nf. In Argentina, en the eve nf lvlenemls electinn, nnt a single film was in preductien thanks tn the hyper-inflatinn rrvaging the ecnnemy. In Chile, nn the ether hand, in the wake ef the “nn" vete in favnr nf ending Finechet‘s reign, the suength nf its recent cinema is starting tn attract netice at film festivals intematienally. The scheel established by Birri and Garcia Marquez in Cuba already has its nwn victeries and preblems, its ewn student insurrectiens. and the energy nf a new generatien ef filmmakers frem threugheut Latin America. Such a censtantly evelving situatien demands an imprnvisatinnal tiger frem Latin American filmmakers, but equally demands that critics arrd audiences eutside ef Latin America give up their attachment tn nutmnded scales ef value in assessing the cinemas that emerge frnm such cenditiens. Lu lucha centintia, the struggle centinues, but dte site nf the battle and the cheice nf weapens changes by the decade. The blew Latin American Cinema is dead, leng live the Hew Latin American Cinema.

Hntes This essay was cnmmissiencd fer the cnnference “High Culture.iPnpular Culture: l'v'ledia Bepresentatieu nf the Gther" held at the Fteckefeller Fnundatien‘s Bellagin Study and Cenference Center in Bellagin. Italy. Febnrary ET tn lvlarch A, l'5|'S".l. The preceedings ef the cnnference will be published in the ferthceming benk til-'ther ii'epresentntinns.- Crrr.s.r-Cultural Media Threty. ed. by Jehn G. Hanhardt and Steven D. Levine. The eriginal inspiratien fer the essay was the massive retrnspcctive. “The Winds nf Change," erganized by the Tnrnnte Festival nf Festivals in Septembcr Illliti, and the wnmen*s sympesium at the Internatinnal Festival nf New Latin American Cinema in Havana. December ii-JSB. A preliminary versicn

‘ Ci‘-1

.I"-|-.-"5=:.- ' ~

-rj--..'--1

An-ftlltiter l-fiew cfNew Latin American Cinema

1'95

appeared as “After the Revnlutinns: The Hew hlew Latin American Cinema," in the liillage Feice, Fehn.|ary ill, IBST. lvly thanks tn my fellew participants in the Bellagin cnnference fnr their respnnses tn the versinn nf this paper delivered there frnm netes, in particular tn Temtls Gutierrez Alea, Julie Garcia Espinesa, It-lelsen Pereira des Santns, Jean Fratrcn, luart Dnwney, Trinh T. lvlinh-ha and Lnurdes Fertille. Thanks tn Paul Lenti fnr his subsequent careful reading and helpful suggestinns. Finally, thanks tn l"~lnr1'na Iglesias Priete, en-nrganizer nf the cenferenee “Cruzande FrenterasiCrnssing Bnrdcrs," held in hlevcmbcr l9'll'lJ at the Cnlegie dc la

Frnntera hlnrte in Tijuana, lvlesice. fer creating a fnnrrn fer this werk there; and re my ce-participants, especially Resa Linda Fregese. Senia Fritz, Carmen Huacn-ltluzum. Lillian Jimenez. Lillian Libemran and Patricia Vega. fnr their suppert and encnaragement. I. Temas Gutierrez Alea. “The "v'iewet*s Dialectic" in Reviewing Histeries: Selectiens Frem the New Latin America Cinema, ed. Cece Fusce {Buffaln, I"'i‘t': l-lallwalls, IBST}, p. l'l'il. 1. Farrel en New Latin American Cinema, mederated by auther, U.S. Film Festival, Park City, Utah, January 25, IBSB. 3. Recent writing has begun tn take nnte nf dtis evelutien. See, fnr erratuple: the special “ltluevn Cine Latinnamericann“ issue nf Areite (ed. Lisa Davis and Senia Rivera}, lielume Ill I"-In. 31', lllS=l; Fat Aufderheide, “Awake Argen-

tina," Film Cemntenr, April ltlhti. ps. it-55. and “Cultural Demncracy: HenCnmmercial Film [1-istributien in Latin America." Ajlerinrage. Hevember ii-‘lib. p- ll ff; Julianne Burtnn. Cinema and Seciai Change in Latin America.’

Canversatinnr with Fiintntaiters (Austin: University nf Tesas Press. lilfitijt; my ewn “l"~lew Argentine Cinema" essay in the l.l.S. Film Festival catalegue, Park City, Utah, IBSS: and mnst recently, Latin American Fisiens (ed. Fat Aufderlreide and Leis Fishman}, catalegue cnmmissiencd fnr the Latin American "v'isinns retrnspcctive nrgarrized by Linda Blackaby and Beatriz ‘tiieira ef the hleighbnrhend Filnriliiden F'rnject nf lntematinnal Hnuse, Philadelphia. 4. Julianne Burten, Cinema and Seciai Change in Latin America, chapters 9 and Ill. 5. Luis Elbert, “hlenrealism," in Latin American liisinns, p. 2?. t5. Randal Jehnsen, Cinema Nave Jr" 5 (Austin: Urtiversity nf Tertas Press, I934], p. E.

T. Fer descriptinns ef dtis peried. see Guillerrne Zapiela. “Cinema Under Dictatecship“ in Latin American ltisiens, ps. 33-39 and Richard Feila, "Tlte

Legacy nf Cinema hleve: An Interview was hlelsnn Pereira Des Santns“ in Reviewing Histerie.r.' Seiectinttr Frem New Latin American Cinema, ps. ."ll-— 52. S. E. Btadfnrd Burns. Latin American Cinema t[L.A.: UCLA Latin American Center, I'il'J5l, p. IT. ll. Similarly, the develnpment ef Latin American Cinema in the pest-war peried cannet be separated frem the U.S. embargn ef Argentina during 'tNerld War II, part ef then Secretary nf State Cnruell Hull's everall agenda fer everthrnwing the Argentine gevemment. In I942. allegedly punishing Argentina

‘

rt

_.

|

Thh

E. Ruhy Rich

fnr its neutrality in the war, the U-S. placed an embargn en the shipment ef raw film steck tn the cnuntry. a pnlicy initiated by Nelsen Rncltcfeller‘s Elfficc fnr the Cenrdinatinn nf Inter-Americarr Affairs t_ClAAl and its l'vIetien

Picture Divisinn. Ar the same time. US- interests iinelttding ltnckeietlert hegart investing capital rapidly in Ivlesicn instead. This tactic led tn the decline ef Argentina as the preeminent film prnducer tn the centinent and tn the rise nf I'v'Ierticn as its market cempetitnr. See Tim Barnard, “Pepular Cinema and Pepulist Pnlitics“ in Bamard {ed-}, Argentine Cinema |[Tnrnntn: hlightwnnd Editiens, l'ilSh']|. p. 32-39, and Jehn ltiing, “The Secial and Cultural Cente:-tt“ in The Gardens nf Fariting Path-r: Argentine Cinema ted. Jehn lting and Nissa Tnrrents, The British Film institute, I937}, pp. l—l5. lll- Lnng unseen and lacking any Hnrth American distributien, Les inanriarias was shnwn fer the first time ever with English subtitles at the Tnrnnte Festival nf Festivals and Pacific Film Archive in lElS-h- A ltimm print was struck fnr the Latin American ‘tiisinns series by the I"-leighbnrhend Filnu"v'idee Prejecl. and will he distributed by the lvluscum nf lvledern Art Circulating Film Department after its initial teur. ll. Bern in lill-ii, lvlatilde Landeta was unknnwn in the U.S- and leng ignnred in lvlerticn until “rediscnvered" when she came tn Havana tn attend the wnmcnls sympesium nf l"i-‘Sti, bringing this film under her arm- Fer a full tirenretical discussien ef the film itself. as well as the histnry ef its making and nf Landeta's career, see: Carmen Huacn-l"'-luzum, “lvlatilde Landeta: An Intreductinn tn the "Nerk ef A Pinneer Ivlertican Filrrmraker," Screen. "v'nlume TS hie- 4, Autumn IBST, p- 'l~h—lIl5. Tire unsubtitled film was shnwn fnr the first time in the U.S. in the “Cerrective Cinema" series curated by Tvnnne Rainer and Bcrenice Reynaud at the Cellective fnr Living Cinema in ll‘-‘SS. Ivlarcela Femandez ‘tiielante directed a film en Landeta’s life fnr Ivlesican televisien in 1933. and subsequently published “lvlertican ‘Nnmen Film Directnrs" in liaices afhferica, Isle. h, Dec. l'i'lliT"—Feb, IBSS {Universidad hlacienal Auteunnta dc lvlesice, Ivlezicn City]. IE. See Jean France's Piatting lil"amen.' Gentier and Representatian in Mcrica {blew Turk, Cnlumbia UP, l'i-'S'll] fnr further discussien nf lvlctticn in this peried. Ill- The film was cempleted by Temas Gutierrez Alea, whe had been Gdmez‘s mentnr and has been the mest dedicated champien nf her memery and her ertample. lsl-. hlissa Terrents. “An Interview ‘Nith Beatriz Guide" in The Garden a_,t" Frtrking Paths, np cit., p- 4?.

l5. Thanks tn Jean Luis ‘iiieira fer this citatien. lti- Persnnal interview with auther, Tnrnnte Festival nf Festivals, Septemher lilfih. ll‘- Fer an in-depth analysis nf bnth this film and the Cnutinhe film, see: Julianne Burtnn, “Transitienal States: Creative Cnmplicities with the Real" in titan Marked ta Die: Twenty l"ear.r Later and Patriamaria," .'it'ur.iie_t in Latin American Pepular Culture, ‘tinlume T, IBSS, p. l3ll—l55.

‘

--I"--| - ~

-:=.:-

An-"Cl't-iler View cl-_,|*' New Ltttin Americrtti Cinerrm

29?

IS. Persnnal interview with auther. Tnrnnte Festival cf Festivals, September l9SE|.

19. Persnnal interview with auther, Tcrcntc Festival cf Festivals. September i9SlEi. Ell. The film premiered at the lntematinnal Festival cf 1"-iew Latin Atnerican Cinema in Havarta, December i9S9, where it received a jury prize; its Li.S. premiere teelt place in spring 19911] at the San Franciscn Film Festival.

El. Paul Leduc. “Dincsaurs and Lizards" in Latin American 'i»"r'.r|'t.Inr, p5922. Statement in respense tn this paper. Bellagin, Italy, l9S9, authnr's netes.

23. “The retum cf the cent|nistadtn's" is talten frnm cnmments tn me by Helga Stephenscm, directer tif the Tnrnnte Festival -at" Festivals, as published in my article en the series in the New Peri: Titties in August. l9S9. 24. The 'v'eneaueian film. Un dnminge felt‘: (A Happy Simdeyj, was erigi-

nally slated fnr directien by Fina Tcnes, whe drnpped eut at the picture. repartedly after irrece-ncilable differences with Garcia Marques. 25. This tlu'eat is heightened by Garcia l'vlarque:'s rele as the presiding patriarch at the Fmadacirin, which, with uffices in Havana and Ivle:-ticti City.

has beceme the prime hepe cf Latin American fihn.mal:ers in search ef preductien and cc-prnductien me-rties. 16. I"d argue that it's nnt just cnittcidence that malzes Mimgm en Rama (Miracle in Rental the very beet ef the series. In part due tc the ezttraerdinary

talent cf directer Lisandre Dnque. its success may alse be ascribed tn its being the enly Celtanbian pr-:1-ttlucticn in the series and tl'tus benefitting frem a greunding in the specificity af Garcia i'vIarquea‘s awn culture.

‘ GU"

."'|'.-"E1 ' ~

The New Latin American Cinema A Metiernist Critique ef Medernity Zuzana M. Piclr

The ideelngical agenda e-t" the New Latin American Cinema cannet be detached frnm histerical discc-urses nn regienal identity thrnugh which the specificity cf Latin American cultural practices has been defined. its distinctive prefile as a cinemategraphic mevement is greunded in the idea cf unity within diversity- The mevement develeped histerically within the recegnitien cf dialectic interactiens between reginnal espressi-ans, natinnal prejects, and centinental ideals, thus linlting its prnject te the idea cf Latin America as a histerical entity. This idea nf Latin America, in the wnrds elf lese Luis Ftvellan.

“espresses the censcieusness nt' a cultural unity capable ef estending itself tn the rest nf the cnntinent."' Furthermere, as Angel Rama painted eut, this idea "is feunded en persuasive arguments and suppnrted by cencrete and pewerful unifying ferces. lvlust reside in the past and have prnfc-undly shaped the life cf natiens ranging frnm a cemmen histery te a cnmmnn language and similar me-dels c-f behavier. Etthers are enntemperary. their minnrity status is ccmpensated by significant premise: they react te universal ecenemic and pnlitical impulses brnught abnut by the espansinn c-t" the deminant civiliaati-ans cf the planet": The idea cf a centinental identity emerged as a means cf questiening the p-nsitivist utepias nf prngress that displaced the cnlnnial legacy after Latin American ceuntries ccmstiiitlatetl themselves as medem Frem The Hew Latin American Cinema: A Centinental Frejccl by Zuzana l'vl. Piclt

{Austins University at" Texas Prcssl. pp. lie—l9?. cupyright -ii" I993. By permissien -uf the aulhctr an-d the University bf Tesas Press.

= Cit). -glc

iii

-- ~

The Alew Latin Arnericnn Cinema

I99

natien-states. This nntelegical search fur distinctiveness was based en a sense uf a shmed destiny and a cemmen identity. But, as Rania stated. “undemeath unity, cencrete as a prnject and real as the bases that sustain it. unfulds an intemal diversity that defines the centinent mnre precisely?“ This diversity is made up uf regienal cultures that furm. te quc-te Rama again, “a secend Latin American map rnure accurate and

cencrete than the nfticial.”“ Latin Americans have assumed the histery and envisinned the funtre nf the centinent in the layering uf regienal specificities {these infiected by lecality} and threugh narrative negutiatiens ef natien. class, race [uf which the eitclusien ef native American and African pepulatinns cannet he nverlnelted], and gender. In this way Latin Americans have enduweti themselves with a centinental identity, “a grand histerical narrative" that, as Gerald lvlartin writes, “is the cuntinent’s nwn deminant self-interpretatien.“ This centinental identity has permitted Latin Americans “tn meve beyend the futile limitatiuns ef natinnal identity in the directien uf snme humanistic centinental culture as part uf the glnbal cemmunity uf temurrnw-"*‘* Hy ascertaining the symb-ulic pewer ef centinental natienalism, this identity pruduces a sense nf shared cemmunity dtat recugnises itself within interregienal (and intraregiunal} variatiens, ceuntering state-defined allegiances and differences. Hence, this idea nf Latin America is mere than simply a myth er a utepia. It is a discursive fcnrnatic-n whereby the histery and imaginatinn c-f the centinent can be reclaimed. As a discnurse, this idea eperates beth within thc fleeting memeries c-f the past and the material cuncreteness uf the present. Em the ene hand. this idea has served te articulate regienal autnnnmy and self-detertninatinn, cnuntervailing the histntical failure ef cnuntfies te set up durable pan'L.atin American pnlitical and ecnnnmic urgartiaatiens. Un the ether hand, the idea uf Latin America is greunded in the desire ef self-definitien as well as the struggle fur the cuutrul and autenemy uf culture and identity. This determinatiuu has as much te du with ideelegy as with the characteristic resilience nf cnncepts cf Latin American culture and identity- As Edward Said suggests, “Culture is used tu designate nnt

merely semething te which ene belengs but semething that ene pussesses a|1d, aleng with that prnprietary precess, culture alse designates a bnundary by which the cnncepts ef what is estrinsic er intrinsic tn the culture ceme inte ferceful play."l Frem this perspective. cultural histurians in Latin America have cunsistently seught te discuss identity neither as an apparently ebvieus ner a transparent pesitien uf selfrecngnitinn.

= Gt). -gle

.--,

- .

SUD

Zuzana M. Pici:

If the idea uf Latin America is a censtruct, an imaginative and evelving prnjectinn inct less imagined than the cnmmunities that are represented by it and represent themselves in itl. it is “ene pnssessing

all the institutiunal fnrce and affect cf the real."f The search fur means cf representing natinnal and centinental realities. cellective and individual identity, is the lteywerd that best characterizes the creative and pnlitical prejects cf Latin America. Huwhere is this search mere esplicit than in artistic practices, in visual arts, music. cinema, and literature. lvlaybe a few esamples are in nrder, The Uruguayan painter lusd Gamarra, as Gfiana Baddeley and "v'alerie Fraser peint nut, “cnmbines an ideal image uf the trepical Latin American landscape with an acute awareness ef the ireny cf the parallel histery ef cnnquest, celenizatien and e:-tpluitatinn."" Set within the lusurieus jungle vegetatien are tiny figures cf peeple and ebjects. semetimes narrating an incident. lilte the beheading cf a nun in Frum rite Series cf Masked Aggressians (l9S3l. which refers tn the rape and murder c-f American nuns by the Salva-

dnrean army in l9Sfl. In this painting, the trepical ferest is invulted simultaneeusly as a rnythical and an actual place, the site upen which Eurepe imagined the Americas and the place where Latin America's vielent histnry is still being played nut. Annther esample cf the pewerful effect cf the idea cf Latin America can be feund in Barrucu [l9S9}, a filrn by Paul Leduc that attempts a synthesis cf what Gabriel Garcia Marque: called the “eutsised reality” nf Latin America.'" Etased un Caneierrn harrccn {l9'lrl], a nevella by Aleje Carpentier in which the Cuban writer pays tribute te his lifeleng passien fer music, this fermally ambitieus and cemples film celebnates the syncretism. the cultural cr-uss-fertiliztatien ct“ the Gld wnrld and the Hew Werid. lustapusing high culture and pepular art. indigeneus. Afrn-Caribbean. and Eurepean music, dance. and perfnrmance, the film esplnres the intertestual expressiveness ef the Latin American imaginatien. Mereever, the idiusyncratic distinctiveness ef this cunstruct {the idea cf Latin America]. in regard tu nture discrete fermatiens lilte natiens. is its cempusite character. The natinnal becemes internatienal, superseding—witheut everriding—individuatiun. Te the estent that Latin America is imagined as a “Patria Grande." the mutual and interlnclting awareness inf diversity within a relative cultural hnmngeneity

has {mere eften than net] been cuncurrently inflected by natienalism and intcmatinnalism. Prumeted as a pelemical ubjectiun tn traditienal natienalist ur universalist ideelegies. the idea has histnrieally been a battlefield where natinnal, regienal. and centinental identities are

‘ Cill

"'| .-"Es.--I ' ~

The l"t"e1-|-' Latin American Cinema

SDI

cnntested and renamed. It has been euntinueusly questicned and redefined. Debates abeut natinnal (er, far that matter, centinental} identity have eften revelved areund the values defined either as authentic nr derivative. This dichatamy has tended te ebscure the censcieus acceptance c-f the ambivalent nrigins nf identity, what Hebert Stam calls the “irenic echn" cf Latin American practices, and is suggestive cf the fusien ef Eurepean and Latin American medemism.“ l_I'i ether werds, identity is bnth already avmlable—in the ferm cf histerical traditiens -—and still tc be achieved-—in the ferm nf a medemist brealrt with the past. This de-centered, yet histerical, netien ef identity is reflective and self-reflective. It implies an awareness uf a histnry determined by cnnquest and revelutien, by dependence and autencmy. The cultural cnnscinusness cf natiens and reginns, cemrnunities and classes, languages and representaticns has been furged against state-impesed hegemeny and in resistance. As Carlus Fuentes suggests, “The camplesity at‘ the cultural struggles underlying uur pelitical and ecnnnmic struggles has te tie with unresulved tensiens. semetimes as eld as the cenfiict between pantheisrn and menetheisnt, er as recent as the cenfiict between traditien and mc-dernity.""1 The idea cf Latin America is ubsessed cuncurrently with the past and the present, with narratives crf injustice and pretest. These narratives are essentially medem. They premete discnurses aimed at lucating. identifying, and engaging with cenecpts cf prngress and prejects cf mederniaatien, either te cemmend ur censure them. Ta attach the idea cf Latin America ta mudemity requires a clarificaticn cf what is meant by mndernity. Tu this purp-use, I faver seeing maderrrity in the terms suggested by the lvlesican cultural critic Carlc-s lvlcnsivais. In his address ta the prestigiaus Cale-quie de lnviemu held in lviesicu City in 1992, lvinnsivais remmlted en the inc-dernity {and liberating agency} nf secial and culmral prejects mntivated by criticism, free eitpressicn, and tuierance. Because, as he says, “in the debate af mudernity, demecracy is cenu'al te the renewal c-f the ferms and cuntents cf pelitical and cultural life, and it may be, ur nc-L a barrier against authuritarianism. . . ."” In ether werds, mu-demity is “an inevitable paradigm" that calls farth and centests visiens nf traditien and prngress, and a site that “engenders a sense cf the future, se irrefutable because it is sa unstnppable."l" Frem this perspective, the distinctive effert cf self-definitien that characterizes the blew Latin American Cinema can be seen as a censcieus attempt ta assume the idea ef Latin America as its ideelegical fuundati-nn. lvtnrenver, the mevement has articulated its centinental prnject within a medernist cuntestatiun cf traditien. At its inceptien in

‘

i-i _;§:.;_-.1

_.

|

392

.?.u:an.a M. Ficir

the late l9fiLls, the mevement brelre with the natienal cinemas, such as these ef Argentina and lvie:-rice, that ence deminated Spanish—language preductien- The manifestes and critical essays written by the filmmakers are pelemical—evcn degmatic—in their dismissal ef what the filmmakers called the eial cinemas ef Latin AmericaThrnugh this censcieus rupture with traditienal cinemas, the Hew Latin American Cinema launched a prnject ef cinemategraphic renewal that was defined frem the eutset as revelutienary and anti-imperialist. Thneugh this agenda the mevement asserted the creatien ef new espressive spaces and the rejectien ef traditienal genres. The mevement challenged the hegemeny ef Herth American and Eurepean medels ef cinemategraphic preductien and censumptien, In this way, filmmfiers advecated an eppesitinnal and innevative cinema. As militants and artists, they saw themselves capable ef transfemiing the esisting structures ef filmmaking. In the l91E1tls the mevement"‘s cultural pelitics cenverged {at least threugh its mest militant practices} with left-wing insurrectienal tactics that spread threugheut Latin America after the Cuban Revelutien. As I have written elsewhere, the films ef the mevement called fur “direct pnlitical actien: denttunciug injustice,

misery and espleitatien. analysing itheirl causes and cnnsequences, replacing humanism by vielence."'-“ Cencurrently, the mevement addressed frem the unset centestually specific and distinctive issues. Threugh discussiens generated by filmrnalters in different ceuntries, the mevement debated, as iehn Fling remarlts, “the questien ef the apprepriate filmic language fer particular situatiens: the whele vc:-ted questien ef what was a ‘natienal reality‘; the uneasy relatienship between lilmmalters [largely middle-class intellectuals) and the ‘peeple’ they heped te represent: and the nature ef pepular culturc."'l* In this manner, the mevement furthered critical and reflective appreaches te cultural preductien and representatinn. It sanctiencd an aesthetic capable ef rearticulating itself inte the cellective by brealting hierarchical medes ef address. The films seught te assert new ferms ef dialegue and centest the master narratives ef the status que. Ely bringing tegether ftlmmalters, the mevement enceuraged generatienal and regienal selidarity. It alse stimulated prejects cemmitted te an alternative medemism which, in lvlarshall Herman's werds, “asserlisj the presence and the dignity (if all the penple whe have

been left eut."" Altheugh the anti-imperialist rheteric and the cultural natienalism ef the l9l';i[ls cencealed the term raerienrirjv under the guises ef lvlarxist theeries ef dependency and cultural resistance, the issue ei medernity was net eatraneeus te the blew Latin American Cinema.“ Filmmalters preblematiaerl either threugh their films er their

‘ Cil-1

.r|-.-"5=:.-- ' ~

--.3---.---1

The Alew Latin American Cinema

Brill

writings what has been termed the “disceurse ef present-ness," a disceurse that “taltes inte acceunt its ewn presentness, in erder re find its place, te preneunce its ewn meaning, and te specify the mede ef actien which it is capable ef exercising within this present."'“-' This “disceurse ef present-ness" is crucial te many ef the films ef New Latin Arrrerican Cinema. As filmrualters have seught te insert themselves inte the secial and pelitical spheres, they censeieusly assumed their rele as initiaters ef change. Threugh critical writings and manifestes, they prepesed medes suitable te distinct ferms ef creative and pelitical militancy. Their films served te malte ideelegical pesitiens explicit and te intervene ideelegically in faver ef seeial change threugh aesthetic strategies that linlr interactively the precess ef preductien and the mement ef receptien. Te the extent that a self-declared cemnrunity ef activist filmmakers assumed {tlueugh the werlts ef its members) the rele ef an artistic and pelitical vanguard, the preject ef the New Latin American Cinema suggests cemparisens with greups whese agendas were defined in terms ef cultural natienalism. Ambresie Femet, fer instance, suggests that by the end ef the l9t5[is, the blew Latin American Cinema “has definitely acquired the ericntatien and the physiegnemy which, witheut deubt, will filter threugh dte histery ef Latin American culture as ene ef the mest innevative and astenishing phenemena ef this century. In fact, the enly valid precedent ceuld be feund in the lviexican muralist mevement: the same search fer native re-ets. the same eagerness ef decelenizatien, the sarne will te create a new language that weuld be, in the cnntext ef werld painting, a centemperaty languagefflf This cempariseu sheuld net be talten as a self-serving accelade, but rather as a critical prejectien airned at reclmming, threugh parallelisms, the histerical legacy ef cultural natienalism. Hence, it is useful te recall a statement by [liege Rivera, the mest preminent ef the Mexican muralists, whe wrete: “I had the ambitien te reflect the genuine essential expressien ef the land. I wanted my pictures te mirrer the secial life ef lvlexice as I saw it and threugh the reality and arrangement ef the present, the masses were te be shewn the pessibilities ef the firture. I seught te be . . . a cendenser ef the striving and lenging ef the masses and a transmitter praviding fer the masses a synthesis ef their wishes se as te serve them as an erganizer ei censcieusness and aid dteir secial ergauizatien."il Similarly, I-lebert Stam and Ismail Xavier linlr the medemist-internatienalist inflectiens ef Brazilian uepicalist filrns, such as Macanairna [leaquim Pedre de Andrade. I963) and Red Light Bandit [Begerie Szangarela}, te Gswald de Audrade’s anticelenial metapher

‘

r--1 _;§:.;_-.1

_.

|

S94

Zuzana M. Firzlt

ef “anthrepephagy" defined in the l92i)s. As Stam and Litavier write, trepicalist medemism “was a ltind ef artistic sheclt treatment designed te sabntage a falsely eptimistie natienalism. The trepicalist mlegery presented its diagnesis by mingling the native and the fereign, the fell-tleric and the industrial, dte supermedem and the hyper-archaic, prevelting the aesthetic prejudices ef the middle class audience by feregreunding all that was incengrueus and gretesque in Brazilian seciety?“ The cultural natienalism ef dte blew Latin American Cinema signals au engagement net enly with a centemperaty anti-imperialist rheteric but alse with the histery ef mevements which, in different ceuntries, seught te radicalize cultural practices. It sheuld net cerne as a surprise that practitieners ef the blew Latin American Cinema in the l9ti-lls weuld reinstate the ideals ef cultural natienalism that emerged

in the l92iIis, a peried rrf intense secial and pelitical upheaval. Jean France's cenmrents en Brazil are equally applicable te ether Latin American ceuntries. She has written that cultural life has been characterized by “the tensien between the need fer rents and the urge fer medernity, between dtese whe watrt te stress lecal er regienal characteristics and these whe want Brazil te be in the fnrefmnt ef werld culture?“ Fer instance, the netien ef pepular einema develeped by Latin American filrrnuaiters {as an agent ef change, requiring pelitical cheices and innevative aesthetic eptiens te release pepular creativity] reflects this tensien between u'aditien and medemity. l"~let enly has this pepular {and reflective] cinema recenstructed the subversive pewer ef pepular traditiens and histerical memery. but decenstructed the representatiens and discnurses dtat have limited the self-representatien ef Latin American penples, Thus, the filmmakers ef the New Latin American Cinema have reacted te—but net acquiesced te— hegemnnic discnurses en medemity. Gn the centrary, their radical preject is characterised by the need te engage critically with the issue ei medernity, either as an ideelegy ef prngress er an avant-garde aestheticBy eperating within the dynamic dialectics ef medemity, the mevement has (lilte ether cultural practices in Latin America] cealesced inte fermative impulses—what Rama called impulses rnaa'eia— r:l'eres—greunded in the search fer autenemy, eriginality, and representativity.“ These fermative impulses censtitute precisely the basis upen which the blew Latin American Cinema has petiedically redefined its ideelegical and aesthetic preject. Te assert the autenerny ef cinemategraphic practices, the filnmrakers asseciated with the mevement have identified elements relevant tn

‘

t-i _.-5:.

.

t

Tire New Latin American Cinema

3195

changing culmral, secial, and pelitical cenditiens. They have drawn upen cinemategraphic cnncepts advanced in ether histerical centexts enly te transfemt them. te malte them mere suitable te natienal and centinental realities. Gn the influence ef Italian neerealism, fer in-

stance, Femande Birri has said, “hlee-realism was the cinema dtat discevered amidst the clething and the rheteric ef develepment anether Italy, the Italy ef underdevelepment. It was a cinema ef the humble and the effended which ceuld be readily talren up by filmmalters all ever what has since ceme te be called the third werld.“ii‘ The Hew Latin American Cinema has alse seught te autherize distinct cenceptual framewerl-ts threugh manifestes and critical essays written by its filnrntal-ters. lulie Garcia Espiuesa*s “Fer an Imperfect Cinema," fer instance, has cenuibuted te the eriginality ef the mevement"s agenda. The impessibility ef practicing a.rt as an impartial activity and pepular art cenceived as a dynamically active entity have been revelutienary alternatives that “can supply an entirely new respense [and] enable us te cle away ence and fer all with elitist cencepts and practices in art."ii' lvlereever, the representativity ef the mevement has been validated by the intematienal and centinental circulatien ef the ideas and films asseciated with the blew Latin American Cinema, Altheugh film histerians. critics, and researchers in Latin America and elsewhere are beginning te talte a serieus leelt at the cinemas preduced befere the emergence ef the mevement, the mevement prevails as a referential temr ef Latin American cinemas. As lehu King writes, it “shew[s] that dtere is a nctwerlt ef fermal and inferm.al centacts dtat unites film-malting practices acress and within their natienal diversities?" Te cenfrent the pervasive centradictiens ef pelitical, secial, and ecenemic precesses in Latin America, the mevement reasserted the rele ef cinema as a critically interactive space ef cemmunicatien. Insefar as filmmakers began explering the realities ef their ceuntries, as lviichael Chanan peints eut, they discevered “a subjective werld, made up ef the era] culture that is called fell-tlere, and the amalgam ef religieus and magical beliefs dtat are sustained by the misfertunc and ignnrance ef underdevelepment.“ Rather than ferfeiting the militancy ef the l9tilI}s, filrtunal-ters seught te remap the intricate dialectics ef histery and class struggle, memery and representatinn. Censistently preeccupied with pelitical agency and secial precess, and critical ef the medemizatien tendencies ef natien-states, the filmmalters ef the Hew Latin American Cinema deneunced a medernity based en self-cnnfident premises ef pregress. lvlestly in the l9t5tls, films stressed class snuggle as the enly pessible way eut ef secial injustice. Te restere dte subject inte histery, filmmalters systematically

‘

t-i _;§:.;_-.1

I

_.

t

Iiillli

Zuzana M‘. Pick

addressed in dteir writings natienal identity threugh dte pervading usage ef an all-encempassing netien ef natienal reality. "r'et the films studied in dtis be-ek [Pick. blew Latin American Cinema] (in eentrast re the writings ef Latin American filmmakers} prehlematize the erasure ef regienal, secial, racial, and sexual differences implied by the term natienal reality and privilege subjective and cellective identities as embattled sites ef representatinn and discnurse. In its prnject te rearrange the terms that have served te censtruct natienal identities, the films ef the blew Latin American Cinema expese the evelving, rather than feundatienal, essence ef the natienal- By the l9Sils, fer instance, filmmakers addressing issues ef gender and ethnicity have questinned alristnrical presumptiens and remanric celebratiens ef cultural difference and have freed gender and ethnicity frem their preblematic apprepriatien in natienal allegeties. Gnce armed with a critical agenda. the mevement was capable ef prejecting its histery inte the future. Thrnugh a self-defined identity, as a regienal enterprise, the mevement has been able te persist as a valid pelitical endeavur. Threugheut the l9’Tl]s, fur instance, the

mevement weathered speculatiens abeut an impending cellapsc. As Ana Ltlpez peints nut, “The blew Latin American Cinema, eften ferced inte exile er silenced by censership and repressien at a natienal level, assumed an increasingly pan-Latin American character [see Lepez essay in part l ef this velume.]"i“' Mereever, institutiunal rearrangements and ecenemic grewth were premeting cnmmercial trends that affected natinnal practices prefeundly. But filmmakers alse feund in new institutiunal arrangements the pessibility ef releeating initiatives, previeusly supperted enly by the mevement. inte natienal practices. Their initiatives energized rather than weakened the mevement and the blew Cinema ef Latin America integrated dtese natienal inflectiens inte its supranatienal design. The films ef the l9'.liIls epted fer narrative and aesthetic strategies [semetimes self-reflexive but always critical} capable ef reselving the anachrenisrn ef underdevelepment. lvfereever, the mevement seught te expand its terms ef reference and, rather than narrewing itself by prescriptive definitinns, set eut te disengage its innevatienal geals frem the cenfining dietetic ef the militant l9iiils, The term Third Cinema, fer instance, efien used te describe the pelitics ef Latin American cinemas, was rearticulated tn reflect its eriginal impulse as a critically censcieus and experimentm agency ef significatien. In l9'i'9 Fernanda Ezequiel Snlanm explained again that the Third Cinema “is the way the werld is cenceptualized and net the genre ner the explicitly pelitical character ef a film. . . . Third Cinema is an epen

‘

i-i |_-51;.-.1

_.

t

The New Latin American Cinema

3[l'l'

categery, unfinished, incemplete. It is a research categery. It is a demecratic, natienal, pepular cinema."i“ By the l9li{ls, the blew Latin American Cinema identified much mere clnsely with a medemist aesthetic. ‘Nlrat Femarrde Bini called the “natienalist, realist, critical, and pepular" practices ef the blew Latin American Cinema in the early l9Stls a.re “a peetics ef the transfermatien ef reality . . . [that] generates a creative energy which tlueugh cinema aspires te medify the reality upen which it is prujected."“ At the basis uf this peetics is a critical impulse that can reinvent itself in and threugh the heterngenenus elements and

centradictery discnurses ef a centinent at ence unitary and diverse. The experience uf exile, fer instance, has been crucial te the preductien ef a new pelitical agency whereby cemmunity asseciatierrs are relecated, cultural specificity is renegntiated, and cultural affiliatiens are recenstrrrcted. Geegraphic a.rrd cultural displacement has fnstered decentered views en identity and natienality, stressed the dialectics ef histerical and persnnal circumstance. and validated autubiegraphy as a reflective site. If this aspect is mest preminent in films preduced in exile, it can mse be feund in ether films ef the blew Cinema ef Latin Arnerica which evidence a greater variety uf appmaches te the pelitical. ‘Nlrile the mevement‘s histery prnvides a framewerk fer understanding the ever-fluctuating situatien uf filmmalting practices, its cenceptual agenda prnvides insights inte the dialectics ef representatinn and cultural pelitics in Latin America. As Julianne Burtnn has painted eut. “htlere than the detemrinatien te give expressinn te new ferms and new centents, the mest significant aspect ef eppesitinnal film mevements in the Third ‘Nerld has been their fundamental cumrrrit— ment tu transfenrring existing medes ef film preductien, diffusien and receptien?” The mevement has seught tu integrate culture and pelitics, tu cunstn,rct instances in which cinematic practices intersect with secial change. Therefere, the pelitical and cultural agenda ef dte blew Latin American Cinema has advecated grassreuts femrs uf participatien and supperted film and videe cellectives that seelt te channel the aspiratiens ef secial mevements. The mevement has centributed tn increasing cellaberative ventures between filnunakers frem ceuntries where the survival ef natienally based initiatives has been tlueatened. The mevement’s histerical agency—its capacity uf self-definitiun and self-regulatien—is greunded in a pelitical and aesthetic agenda (rather than dte fermal affinity ef its natienal cempenents]. As a discursive furrnatiun and a cultural practice, the mevement has accummedatecl ideelegical and centextual realignments. Therefere, it is

‘

t-i _.-§:.;_-§_

_.

t

3-lllil

Zuzana till‘. Firit

essential tn understand that the mnvement‘s specificity resides in the cunvergence uf natienally based practices, including the infrastructural changes affecting filmmakers and their practices, with a pan-centinental pmject. insefar as the muvement's unified sense ef purpese has been capable ef centrelling the diversity ef preductien strategies, a flexible {rather than a restrictive] appreach is required te grasp the impact ef infrastructural and erganizatienal changes en dte histerical censcieusness ef the blew Latin American Cinema. This appreach allews an understanding uf hew the mevement’s centinental ericntatien, threugh a precess ef self-definitien, cenuels the eelecticism ef its cinemategraphic practices. But in reactien tu the mevement‘s singular pmcess ef self-definitien, Latin American film histeriatrs and critics have tended te centest a perceived erasure ef eentextual censideratiens-“ blutwithstanding my agreement with the basic premise ef seme ef these criticisms, I weuld argue dtat the blew Latin American Cinema emerges as a site nf struggle between diverging, and semetimes cententieus, precesses ef histerical censtrrrctien. Latin American identity has been shaped by cultural practices that have sanctiencd er cnntested prevalent ferms uf representatiun and secial urganizatien. By autherizing different appreaches re preductien, distributien, and exhibitien, the mevement has endnrsed radical ferms nf filmmalting capable ef revulutiunizing existing secial relatiensBy adepting critical realism and advecating medemist aesthetic eptiens, the films ef the blew Latin American Cinema have served te reinterpret and redefine the place ef film, as a cultural and pelitical practice, within the eften cenuudictery, but always material, realities ef the centinent- in a sense the mevement is representative ef what Redelfe Parada calls the mestizaje r;l'e_J"irtitivn ef Latin America. In ether werds, the mevement eriginates fmm an awareness and a sense ef belenging preduced at that “mement in eur histery when we acquire the netien ef eur werth and in which we decide tn fellew eur ambitiens. ‘Nhen we decide ner tn be imitaturs and fellewers, we begin tu sec the werld in relatien te whe we really are, in relatien te the Americas, as Latin Americans."5'“ Paule Emilia Salles Genres described this precess when he wrete abeut Brazilian cinema: “li'v'e are neither Eurepeans ner blerth Americans. Laclting an eriginal culture. nething is fereign te us because everything is. The painful cnnstructien ef eurselves develeps within the rarefied dialectic ef net being and being semeene else.“3'i‘ Te the extent that this “net being and being semeene else" reasserts the yet untuld and multiple narratives cf cultural identity and natienal

= Grit. -glib

.--,

- .-

Tire New Latin American Cinenra

3'll9

realities, it is the principle upen which Latin Americans have challenged fixed netiens and imagined new utupias. This principle cunfurms te “a sense ef ferever-nut-yet being." as

Bell Gale Chevigny suggests, “which may censtitute an identity in itself?“ lviereever, dtis principle implies critique and renewal and is prefeundly attached te an unfinished experience nf medeniity whereby a yet-re-be-censtructed medernity can be envisinned. As far as the blew Latin American Cinema is cencemed, this principle is exemplified in the mevernent"s characteristic legic: its belief that its ideelegi-

cal pmject remains unfinished, I-tetes l. lese Luis Abellt‘-in, La idea tle Anrtlrica; Grigen y evalt-rcitin tlviadridz

Edicinnes lstrne, l9't2jt. p. 21. 2. Angel Rama, Transcttltrtracidn narrariva en America Latina (lvlexicn City: Sigle Ifill Editeres, 1935], p. 5?. 3. Ibid. -ti. Ibid., p. 53. 5. Gerald lvlartin, Ieameys threugh tire Labyrintir [Lnndnn: "v'erse, I939], p. 9. ti. ll:titl., p. 359. T. Edward W. Said, The ll-"'urla'. tire Text, ann‘ the Critic (Cambridge, l'vIass.: Harvard University Press, 1933], pp. 3-9. S- Andrew Parker, lvlary Busse, Dnris Summer, and Patricia ‘farger, eds., Natinnalisnts anti Sesraalities tjl‘-lew Turk: Flurrtledge, Chapman and Hall. I992), pp. ll—l2. 9. Griana Baddeley atrd ‘rlalerie Fraser, Drawing tlte Line: Art and Caltttral identity in Cantemptnratry Latin America [Lnndnn: llersu, i939}, p- 2-5|-.

Ill- Gabriel Garcia lvisrqnez, "The Selitude uf Latin America." in [Jeris lvleyer, ed-, Lives an the Line.‘ Tire Testimeny af Curttentparary Latin American Aatlrers (Berkeley: University ef Califemia Press, I933} pp. 233-234. ll- P-crbert SI-3111. Subversive Pleastrres- Ealtlrtirt. Cultural Criticism, and

Film tliialtimerez lehns Hepkins University Press. p. I23. l2. Caries Fuentes, Myself with Grlrers [blew Yerk: blectnday Press, l99il]t, p. 2135.

l3- Caries lltlunsivais, “Culture: Tradicidn y luudernidad," Ln Jarnatta, February 2], I992. l-1. Ibid. I5. Zuzana l‘v!I. Pick, cd., Latin American Film Makers and the TI-'ri.n:l Warlrl tfilltttawaz Carleten University, I923}, p. 2. I6. lehrr Hing, Magical fleet-r." A Histury cf Cinema in Latin America (Lenden: "v"ersu, I999], p. 159.

IT. Ivlarshall Bemian, All That ls Sallrf ll-felts inte Air: The Experience cf tifntferrtity t,'l"'-lew ‘ferk: Peguin Becks}, p. 3.

‘

r--1 _.-51

_.

t

3 I'll

Zuzana tit. Fici:

l3. The Latin American left {particularly the ene represented by menelitlric cemmunist parties and lvlarxist-Leninist factiens} refused medernity because medernizatien was presumed and understeed as synenymeus with capitalism and expleitatien. blenetheless, leftist rheteric in the l9tills lucked inte an interpretatien ef medernity which, accerding te lviensivtiis {"Cultura: Tradicien y mu-dcrnidatl," n-p.}, went as fellews: “The revelutien was culture {in abstract er sectarian terms}, traditien {significant because it generated in

the peeple] and medernity, witheut that name, because a revelutienary became. at ence, the vanguard ef humanity-" I9. lviichel Feucault, queted in Gregery iusdanis. Belated r'l-futiernity and Aesthetic Cttltttre: lnventing Natianal Literature tlvlinneapelis: University uf lvlinnesuta Press, I991}. p. xv. 2ll. Ambresie Fumet, Cine, llteratttra, sucietiad [Havana: Editnrial Letas Cabanas, l932l, p. 22. 2]. Bertram I1 Wulfe, Diegu Rivera.‘ His Life and Times, queted in lean France. Tire tl-futiern Caltttre af Latin America.‘ Sari-ety and the Artist {Harmundswurth, England: Penguin Bucks, l9’l3rl, p. 39. 22. Ruben Stam and Ismail Xavier, “Transfermatien ef blatienal Allegery: Brazilian Cinema frem Dictaturship te Redemecratizatien," in Rebert Sklar atrd Charles lvlusser, eds., Resisting Images: Essays en Cinema and Histery {Philadelphia: Temple University Press], p. 29[l. 23. France, The ihladern Culture e_,f Latin America, p. 293. 24. Rama, Transcrtltrtracitin narrative en America Latina, p. I425. Ctueted in Michael Chanan, ed-, Twenty-Fir-e Fears raj‘ the New Latin Arnerican Cine.-rta {Lnndnn: BFl.t'Channel Fnur, I933], p- 2-

26. Julie Garcia Espinesa. “Fer an Imperfect Cinema,“

Julianne

Burten, in lviichael Cltannan, ed-, Twenty-Five l"ears cf tlte New Latin Anteri-

can Cinema {Lnndnn: BFItt'.'-‘hannel Fenr. I933}, p. 31. 2?. Hing, l-fag-t't'al fleets, p. “lb. 23. Chanan, ed., Twenty-Five llears cf the New Latin American Cltrenta, p. 5. 29. Ana Lbpez, “An 'G'tl:rer' Histury: The blew Cinema ef Latin America." in Rubcrt Sklar and Charles lvfusser, eds., Resisting Images: Essays err Cinema and Histury iPhilade-lphia: Temple University Press}, p. 325. 3i]. Queted in ‘Nillemen, “The Third Cinema Questiun: bletcs and Reflectiens,“ Fratnewanlr, ne. 34, p. 9'. translated frem Sulanas‘s “L'influenee du truisiitme cinema dans le mende," which appeared in Ctnentdctian and in Revtte Tiers ii-fantte 2'3, ne. "l9 {.luly—September I929}: I522. 3]. Fernanda Birri, “Fer a blatienalist, Realist, Critical and Pepular Cinema," Screen 23, nes. 3-4 {Ir-'iay—August I933}, p. 9t"i32- Julianne Burten, “lviarginal Cinemas and lviainstream Critical Theery, "Screen 2b, nes. 3-4 {l'tt|ay—August I935}. p. l2.

33- [luring the I937 cenferenee en Latin American cinema. held at the University ef lewa, twe pmminent critics and histurians-Isaac Leif:-n Frias

frem Peru and Ierge Ayala Blance frem l'viexice—explained the inapprepriateness ef the tenn "blew Cinema" re catcgnrizc the cinemategraphic practices

= Gt"-1.-gle

.--,

- .

Tile New Latin American Cinema

3| l

ef Latin America. They reesiled that the terrn hatl histnrieally; lintitet] the entieel appreach tn preductiens refleeting the ideelegical agenda elf the early

manifeststiens ef the mevement. 34- lleherte Parade Lilla, “ltlentitlsutl eulturs] 5r pelitiett,“ Literatnra ehilena: Ereaeian y eritiea [Les Angeles, Matlriti}, ii], nn. H35 [.ianuary—I'vIareh 1936}: '5'—][I.

35. Fttuln Emilie Salles Gemes. "Cinema-1: A Trajectory within Underdevelnprnent," in Itsntlsi Jehnsen and Rnbert Stam, eds., Brazilian Cinema (Austin: Uttiversity ef Texas Press. IEPSS], p. "245. 36. Heil Gale Ehevigny. “Insatiable Unease‘: Melville tut-til Carpentier

and the Seareh far an Ameriesn Hem1eneutie." in Gale tihevigny and Geri Lttgttardie, eds., Reinventing rite Americas: Campararive Studies cf Literature af the Unirea‘ Safes and Spanish Anleriea [Hew ‘ferlt: E:-tmhritlge University Press, 1936}. p. 36.

‘ GU"

."'|'.-"E1 ' ~

_ __* _

_

D"i'*'*‘“' it (299313

lIJ|'igi|'.aI frem

untttesstrt at MICHIGAN

Select Bibliography Atielrnan, Alan. etl. A Guide ta Cttitan Cinema, Pittsburgh: Center fnr Latin American Studies. l9Sl. Agnsta, Diana, anti Patricia Heeten. “Cine Way er A.nether: The Havana Film Festival antl Cnntemperarv Cuban Filtn." Afterimage 22, ne. 2 {I994}: 7-S. Alea, Temas Gutierrez. Memaries cf Unrierrieveiapnrent. New Bruns-

wick, NJ: Rutgers Univecsitjg Press, 19911 I Tire v'ietver's Diaiectic. Havana: lese lvlarti Publishing Hnuse, 1933. Armes, Rev. Third Wnrid Fiim Making anti the West. Herlrelejt. CA: University bf Califemia Press. 1937. Aufderheide, Pat. “Tnrnnte Tiempn." Fiim Camment 22, nn. ti (1956): 45-49. Barnard, Tim. “After the lvIilitat'v: Film in the Seuthem Cene Tetlajt." Review." Latin American Literature and Arts, ne. 45 (1992): 2936. i. etl. Argentine Cinema. Tnrnnte: Highttveecl Editiens, 1935. Berg, Charles Ramirez. Cinema af Saiitraie: A Critiea.-I Stariy aftl-i’e.1rican Fiim, 196.7’-I 933. Austin: University e-F Tesas Press, 1991. Bernaniet, Jean Claude. “A New Actnr: The State." Frameivarir, nn. 23111935}: 4-19. Bruce, C-rraliam. “lvhtsie in Glauber Rn-eha’s Films." Jump Cat, ne-. 22 [l9SEI}: 15-13. Burns, E. Braclintcl, etl. Latin American Cinema: Film aria‘ Histary. Les Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center, 1975. i. “blatienal Itientitv in Argentine Films." Americas 2?, nes. 11-12 [l9'I'5}: ==|—lll. Burten, Julianne. “The Camera as ‘Gun’: Tvvn Decades nf Culmre and Resistance in Latin America," Latin American Perspectives. nn. 115 {l9'?S}: 49—'i'fi. i. "The Hnur bf the Embers: fin the Current Situatien bf Latin American Cinema." Fiinr Ql'.t'.t.IiI"iEil"i]-I‘ 3U, nn. l (l9?fi}: 33-=14. i. The New Latin American Cinema: An Annatateri Bii:iin,grapint, i 9t5tI1—i'9Stl'. hlevv ‘Terlt: Smjtma Press, 1933.

= CllCl~

sis

vi

-.

I

314

Seiect Bihiing-ra,tt-'t}"

I “l5i.evelutienar_v Cuban Cinema." Jump Cut, nn. I9 (1973): ii-ED. I “Sing, the Belaved Ceuntrv: An Interview widt Tizulta Tarnasaiti en Patriantatia." Fiim Quarteriy 4i. ne. 1 [l9li'J]t: 2-9. L, ed. Cinema and Saciai Change in Latin America: Canversatians with Fiitnntaitetzt. Austin: University bf Testes Press, I935. ._...._.. The Saciai Dacumentaqt in Latin America. Pittsburgh. PA:

University nf Pittsburgh Press, l99[l. Burten, Julianne. and Zuzana Piclt. “The Wemen Behind die Catnera.“ Heresies, ne. Iii {I933}: 46-50. Cabral, Amilcar. Return ta the Saurce. Hew Yerl-t: lvlentltljt Review Press, l9?3. Chanan, lvliehael. The Cuban image: Cinema and Cuiturai Faiitics in Cuha. Lenden: British Film Institute and Blnnmingtnn, Il"~l.: Indiana University Press, 1935. __i. ed. Ttventjv-Five Fears cf the New Latin American Cinema. Lenden: British Fiim Institute. I933. ed. Chiiean Cinenta. Lenden: British Film Institute. 197?. “Cinema Have vs. Cultural Celenialism: An Interview with Glauber Re-eha." Cineaste 4, nn. l [l9?l}}: 2-9Cerman, Tanvan. “ltiiearagutfs Independents Clrganizet An Interview widt Fernanda Semarriha, Direeter cf AHCI." Reiease Print 12, nn. h (1959): 5-—Et, l5—-lfi. Crewdus, Crarv and Irwin Silber. “Film in Chile: Art Interview with Miguel Littin." Cineaste -=1. nn. 4 [1971 1: -1-9. Csicserv. Creerge. “Individual Snlutiens: An Interview with Hecter Babenee.“ Fiint Quarterijv 35, ne. I { I932}: 2-15. Cttt, Helen W. A Fiitttagraphy cf the Third Warid,

1935-1933.

lvletuchen, hll: Scarecrnw Press, I935. Desnees. Etimunde. “The Phetegraphic Image ef Underdevelepment." Jutnp Cut, ne. 33 (1933): t59~—itl. Dawning. Jehn D- H.. ed. Fiim and Faiitics in the Third ii-iarid. Hew 't"erlt: Autc-nemedia. 193?Etrstteh, He-ward, and Barbara lvlargnlis. “Film and Revnlutien in Nicaragua: An Interview widt [hlCll"~lE Filn'.tmal~:ers." Cineaste I5. ne. 3 (1959): 27-29. Fanen, Frantz. The Wretched af the Earth. New ‘ferlt: Cireve Press, I964. Faster, David 'Williitrr|. Cantemparatjt Argentine Cinema. lvlisseuri:

University ef lvlissnuri Press, 1992. Felt, Elizabeth, ed. Media and Paiitics in Latin America: The Struggie

far Demacracgv. Lenden: Sage Pubiicatiens, 1933.

‘

i"i_.'£1.

_.

I

Select Rihliagraphgt

315

Fusce, Cece. "Chtresing between Legend and Histerv: An Interview with Carles [J-iegnes." Cineaste 15, ne. 1 i 1936}: 12-14. i. “The Tange cf Esthetics St Pelitics: An Interview with Fernanda Selanas." Cineaste Iti, ne 1-2 {193'i'lS3]: 51-‘-39. ___. “Things Fall Apart: An Interview with Sergie Bianchi.“ Afterimage [January 1991]]: 15-115. i, ed. Reviewing Histaries: Selectians frnm New Latin American Cinema. Bnffaln, l'~l‘r': Hallwalis, 1937. Gabriel. Teshnme. Third Cinema in the Third Warld: The Aesthetics cfLilreraticn. Ann Arber, MI: Ul'vII Research Press, 1932. i. ed. “Cinema Have and Begnnd . . . A Etiscussien with Helsen Pereira des Santns." Emergences, ne. 2 (1993): 49-32. Garcia Tsae, Lee-narde. “Ivle:-tican Tinderhcnt.“ Film Camment ll, nn. 3 (19351: 33-33. Gauhar, Altaf. Third Warld Affairs l9'35. Lenden: Third werld Feundaden,1935. __. Third Wcrld Afiairs I933. Lenden: Third werld Feundatien. 1933. Creergalras, Dan. “Breaking the Blneltade: A Cnnvetsatinn with Cuban Filmmaker Temas Alea.“ Radical America El}, ne. 4 {I933}: 35A4. Creldman, Ilene S. “Behind E‘v"i.1t'_'f|l' Fiewer a Death: Leve, ihlemen and Flewers." Juntp Cut, ne. 33 (1993): 33-33. Crnpta, Udayan. “Isle-n-Realism in Beliva: An Interview with Antenie Equine." Cineaste 9, ne. 2 (1973199): 2-5-29. 59. Hall, Stuart. “Cultural Identity and Cinematic Representatinn." Framewarl: 33 (1939): ii3—3l. Hershfield. Jeanne. “Assimiliatien and identificatien in 1'"-Iichelas Echeverria’s Calreza de Paca.“ Wide Angle 115, nn. 3 (1995): ti-24. Huace-ltiuzum, Carnten. “Matilde Landeta: An Intreductien te the werlt cf a Pinneer lvlezican Film-Ivlalter." Screen 23, ne. 4 (1937): 96-1135. Jehnsen. Randal. Cinema Nave .t 5: Masters af Cantemparary lirazilian Film. Austin, TR: University cf Tesas Press, 1934. The Film industry in Brazil- Pittshnrg, PA: University at‘ Pittsburgh Press, 193?. Jehnsen, Randal, and Rnbert Stam, eds. Brazilian Cinema. East Brunswiclt, HI: Asseciatcd Llniversitv Presses, 1932. Ring, Jehn. Magical Reels: A Histatfv cf Cinema in Latin America. New "t’c-rlt: ‘v'erse, 1991].

Ring, Jehn, Ana M. Lepez. and lvlanuel Alvaradn, eds. Mediating Twn Warids: Cinematic Encaunters in the Americas. Lenden: British Film Institute, 1993.

‘

i'i _.-5:.

_.

I

3 lb

Select Bibliography

Hleinhans, Chuclt. “Afro-Cuban Filmmalting Today: The Other Francisco and Cine Way or Another." The Fan-Africanist. no. 9 (1932): Tl-T9. ltiotz, Liz. “Unofficial Stories: Documentaries by Latinas and Latin American Women." The independent I2, no. 4 (1939): 21-27. Rovacs, I-ilatherine S. “Revolutionary Consciousness and Imperfect Cinematic Forms.“ Humanities in Society 4, no. 1 (1931): Illi112. Levinson, Sandra. Cuha; A View from inside: Short Films hy.-“aheut Cuhan Women- blew "r'orlt: Center for Cuban Studies, I992. Littln, Miguel. “Coming Home." American Film 1 i. no. 4 (1936): 4345. m. “'T'he Nova Republics and the Crisis in Brazilian Cinema." Latin American Research Review 24. no. 1 (1939): 124-139. m. “Jt'ica Do Silva: Se:-t, Politics, and Culture." Jump Cut. no.22 [1931]]: 13-2{l. Lopez. Ana. “The Melodrama in Latin America." Wide Angle T, no. 3 (1935): 5-13. m. “An ‘CIther‘ History: The blew Latin Amerian Cinema." Radical History Review, no. 41 (1933): 93-1115. _____. “The ‘Either’ Isla:nd: Cuban Cinema in E:-tile." Jump Cut, no. 33 (1993): 51-59. l “Through Brazilian Eyes: America.“ Wide Angle I3, no. 2 (1991): 2iJ—3t]. Ldpez. Ana. and Nicholas Peter Humy. “Sergio Giral on Filmmalzing in Cuba.“ Rlaci: Film Review 3. no. 1 [193tit'3?}: 4-ti. Luhr, ltiiilliatn, ed. World Cinema Since J945. Hew ‘forlt: Ungar, 1937. IvIacBean, James Roy.“A Dialogue with Tomas Ciutiérrez Alea on the [Jiaiectics of the Spectator in Hasta Cierto Panto." Film Qruirterly 33, no. 3 (1935): 22-29. _m.Film and Revolution. Bloornington: I19: Indiana University Press, 1925. m. “La Hora de los Homes." Film Ctuarterly 24, no. l i_ 1923}: 31-3'l. Ivlachado, Arlindo. “Inside -[tut and Upside Down-Brazilian Video Groups: TVDU and Cllhar Electronico.“ The independent 14, no. 1 {I991}: 30-33. lvlattelart, Annanrl. Multinational Corporations and the Control of

Culture." The ideological Apparatuses of Imperialism. Brighton: Harvester Press, 1932.

‘

i'i _.-5:.

_.

I

Select Bibliography

3 l'i'

Mongil Echandi, Ines, and Luis Rosario Albert. “Films with a Purpose: A Puerto Rican E:-tperiment in Social Films." The independent {July I937}: II-I4.

Mora, Carl I. Mexican Cinema: Reflections of a Society. i396-I933. Berkeley, CA: University of Califemia Press, 1932: 1939. Myerson, Michael, ed. Memories of -Ilnderdevelopntent: The Revolu-

tionary Films of Cuba. New Torlt: Citossman. 1923. Naficy, Hamid. The Malting of Exile Cultures: lraninn Television in Los Angeles. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. Newman, Iilathleen, ed. iris, no. I3 {I991}. Noriega, Chon A., ed. “Border Crossings: Mertican and Chicano Cinema." Spectator 13, no. 1 {I992}. I Chicanos and Film: Representation and Resistance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, I992. Noriega, Chon A., and Steven Ricci, eds. The Mertican Cinema Project. Austin, Tit: University of Tesas Press, 1994. “Nuevo Cine Latinoamericano-" Arieto 19. no. 37 {I934}. Dltrent, Neil. “At Play in the Fields of the Lord." Cineaste 19, no. I {I992}: 44-4'J. Dsiel, Marlt. “Bye Bye Boredom: Brazilian Cinema Comes of Age." Cineaste 14, no. I {I935}: 3t}-35. Paranagua, Paulo Antonio. “Letter from Cuba to art Uniaitliful Europe: The Political Position of the Cuban Cinema." Fromeworir, no. 33i39 {I992}: 5-2t5. m_. “News from Havana: A Restructuring of the Cuban Cinema." Frameworlt, no. 35 {I933}: 33-1'33. ___. “Pioneers: Women Film-matters in Latin America.“ Frameworlr, no. 37 {I939}: 129-13?. Pena, Richmd. “Nelson Pereira dos Santos: Presentation and Interview." Frameworlr, no. 29 {I935}: 53-T5.

Piclt, Zuzana M. The New Latin American Cinema: A Continental Project. Austin, TH: University of Tertas Press, 1993. __..__. “The Politics of Modernity in Latin America: Memory, Nostalgia and Desire in Harroco.“ CineAction, no. 34 {I994}: 4153. Pines, Jim, and Paul Willemen. eds. Questions of Third Cinema. London: British Film lnstinrte, 1939. Ramirez, John. “El Rrigadista: Style and Politics in a Cuban Film.“ Jump Cut, no. 35 {I990}: 3?-49, 53. Ranucci, Karen. Directory of.F'ilm and lhtleo Production Resources in Latin America and the Caribbean. New "r'orlt: FIVF, 1939. Ranvaud, Don. “Interview with Femando Solanas." Frameworir, no. 1tJ{I9I'9}: 35-33.

‘

i-i |_-5:.

_.

|

313

Setert litilrliogrophy

m. “Interview with Raul Ruiz." Framework, no. ll] {I929}: I313, 22. Resolutions of the Third World Film-Makers Meeting. Algiers, Dec. 5-l-st. New ‘fork: Cineaste, 1923. Reyes Nevares. Beatriz. The Mexican Cinema: interviews with Thirteen Directors. Albuquerque, NM.: University of New Mezico Press. 1923Rocha, Glauber. “History of Cinema Novo.“ Framework, no. 12 {I929}: 19-22. P “Humberto Mauro and the Historical Position of Brazilian Cinema." Frameworlt, no. ll {I929}: 5-3. Sanjinés. Jorge. “"INe Invent a New Language Through Popular Culture.“ Frarneworlr, no. IU {I929}: 3I-33.

Sanjines, Jorge, and the Ukamau Group. Theory rk Practice of a Cinema with the People. Willimantic. CT: Curbstone Press, 1929: 1939. Sauvage, Pierre. “Cine Cubano." Film Comment 3. no. I {I922}: 2431. Schnitman, Jorge A. Film lndustries in Latin America. Norwood, NJ:

Ablert Publishing Corporation, 1934. Shohat, Ella, and Robert Stam. Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media. New "fork: Routledge. 1994. Solanas, Fernando. “Cinema as a Gun: An Interview with Fernando 3oIanos-" Cineaste 3, no. I {I930}: 13-23.

Solano. Claudio. “Brazilian Independents: Some Background Notes.“ Framework, no. 23 {I935}: 125-143. Stam, Robert. “The Fall: Formal Innovation and Radical Critique.“ Jump Cut, no. 22 {I933}: 23-21. __. “Hour of dte Furnaces a|1d dte Two Avant-Crardes." Millenium Film Journal. no. 2.-‘3t9 {I931}-31}: 151-I34. m. “Land in Anguish: Revolutionary Lessons." Jump Cut. nos. 13-11 {I923}: 49-51. I “Samba, Condomblc, Quilomho: Black Performance and Brazilian Cinema." Journal of Ethnic Studies 13. no. 3 {I935}: 5534. m. “Sao Nelson." Film Comment 31. no. I {I995}: 32-33. m. “Slow Fade to Afro: The Black Presence in Brazilian Cinema-“ Film Quarterly 33, no. 2 {I932-33'}: I3—32.

Stam, Robert, and Louise Spence. “Colonialism, Racism, and Representation.“ Screen 24, no. 2 { 1933}: 2-23. Stam, Robert, and Ismail Ravier. “Recent Brazilian Cinema: Allegoryt MetacinemalCarrrival." Film Quarterly 41, no. 3 {I933}: 15-313.

‘

i'i _.-5:.

_.

I

Select Bihliogrophy

319

Steven, Peter, e-d. Jump Cut: Hollywood, Politics and Counier—Cin-

ema. New ‘fork: Praeger. I935. Sttauhhaar, Joseph D. “Television and Video in the Transition from Military to Civilian Rule in Brazil.“ Latin American Research

Review 24, no. I {I939}: I43-I54. Taylor, Anna Marie. “Lucia.” Fiim Quarterly 23, no. 2 { l924l25}: 5352. Trevino, Jesus Salvador. “The New Mertican Cinema.“ Film Quarterly 32, no. 3 {I929}. Tunstall, Jeremy. The Media Are American: Angio—American Media in the World. London: Constable, 1922. Turner, Terence. “Visual Media, Cultural Politics and Anthropological Practice." Tlte independent I4. no. I {I991}: 34-43. Usabel, Gaizka S. dc. The High Noon of American Films in Latin America- Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, I932Vieira, Joao Luiz, and Robert Stam. “Parody S: Marginality: The Case of Brazilian Cinema.“ Framework, no. 23 {I935}: 23-49. Weber, Devra. “Revolutionary Film in El Salvador Today." Jump Cut. no. 33 {I933}: 92-99. ‘Nest, Dennis, and Joan M. ‘West. “Alice in a Cuban Wonderland: An Interview with Daniel Diaz Torres." Cineaste 23, no. I {I993}: 24-22. _ “Conversation with Marta Rodriguez.“ Jump Cut, no. 33 {I993}: 39-44, 19. ____.._. “Reconciling Entertainment and Thought: An Interview with Julio Garcia Espinosa.“ Cineaste 13. no. I-2 {l932l33}: 23-23, 39. I “Slavery and Cinema in Cuba: The Case of Crutiérrez Alea’-.t"s The last Supper." The Western Journal of Black Studies 3, no. 2 {I929}: I23-I33. ___. “Strawberry and Chocolate, Ice Cream and Tolerance: Interviews with Tomas Gutiérrez Alea and Juan Carlos Tabio." Cineaste 21, nos. I-2 {I995}: I3-23. Will, David. “Interview with Diego Risquez." Framework. nos. 23-22 {I935}: 122-131. Wilson, David. “Venceremosl Aspects of Latin American Political Cinema." Sight and Sound 41. no. 3 {I922}: 122-131. ‘Noll. Allen L. The Latin image in American Film. Lros Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center, I922. Wood, Robin. “Notes for the Exploration of Hermosillo.“ CineAction, no. 5 {I933}: 32-33.

‘

i"i _.-§:.;_

_.

I

_ __* _

_

D'i'“:ii' it (299313

lI1|'igi|'.alircm

uutvesstrt or vttcutosu

Contributors Tomas Gutiérrez Alea. recently deceased. was a Cuban film director and a founding member of the lnstituto Cubann de Arte e industria Clnentatogrdjicos {ICAIC}. He directed numerous documentary and fiction films, among tltetn Esta tierra nuestra {I959}; Historias do la

Revolucicin {I933}; Muerte al invasor {I931}: La rrurerte de un butacrata {I933}: Memorias del subdesarrollo {I933}: La ultima cena { I923}; Hasta cierto punto {I934}; and most recently, Strawberry and Chocolate {I993}. In I933 he published a book of essays. Dialectica del espectador.

Femando Birri is a painter, poet and tilmmaker, and the founder of the Documentary Film School ot" Santa Fe in Argentina. Among his documentaries are Tire die {[931]}; La pampa gringo {I933}; Los inundados

{I932}; and Drg {I923}. In I933 Birri was appointed director of the Escuela tie Cine y Television in Cuba. Julianne Burton is professor of literature at the University oi’ California at Santa Cruz. She is a central protagonist in the development of English-language scholarship of Latin American film and in the promotion ot' Latin American cinema in the U.S. Her most recent publications include The Social Documentary in Latin America {I993} and Cinema and Social Change in Latin America: Conversations with Filmmakers

{I933}. Michael Chanan is a filmmaker and writer. He co-directed El Solvador—Portrait of a Liberated Zone I I931} and directed dte documentary New Cinema ofLatin America {I933}. I-lis most recent publications include monographs on Chilean cinema and on Santiago Alvarez {BFI}, and The Cuban image: Cinema arui Cultural Politics in Cuba {BFI}, Julio Garcia Espinosa is a Cuban filmmaker, writer and founding member of ICAIC. He was named director of the Cuhart Film Institute in I931. Among his films are El meigano {I954}; Tercer nturtdo, tercera

guerra mundial {I933}; and Son o no son. Dctavio Getine is the recipient of a Case dc lm Americas literary award. He returned to Argentina alter die restoration of democracy in

r Cir). 31¢

. .

322

Contributors

the mid-l93{ls and served as director of the National Film Institute between I939 and 19913. He has authored several books on Argentine and Latin American film, most recently Cine y dependencia {Buenes Aires: Puntosur, I990}. He also co-directed {widt Fernando Solanas} La hora de los hornos. Ana M. Lripez is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at Tulane University. She is co—editor {with John Ring and Manuel Alvarado} of Mediating Two Worlds: Cinematic Encounters in the Americas {BFI, I993}, and author of The New Latin American Clnetnr;'.' A Continental Project {I993}.

Michael T. Martin is a professor in the Department of Africans Studies and co-director of the African American Film Institute at ‘Wayne State University. He is co-editor of Studies of Development and Change in the Modern World {I939}, and editor of Cinemas of the I-llack Diaspora: Diversity, Dependence and Clppositiortality {I995}. He has also directed and co-produced {with Ruben Shepard} the awardwinning feature documentary on Nicaragua. in the Absence of Peace {I939}. Zuzana M. Piclrt is an associate professor of film studies at Carleton University. Among her publications are Latin American Film Makers and the Third Cinema {I923} and The New Latin American Cinema: A Continental Project {I993}B, Ruby Rich served as director of dte Electronic Media and Film Program of the New York State Council on the Arts. She is a visiting professor in film studies at the University of Califemia, Berkeley. Her essays on Latin American cinema appear frequently in film and cultural studies jnumals. Glauber Rocha was a founding member of Cinema Novo. His films include Barravento {I932}: Black Clad, White Devil {I934}; Antdnio

Dos Morres{1933}; and Clarot {I923}. Jorge Sarrjintis is a Bolivian film director. He has worked with the pioneering Bolivian film collective, Grupo Ukamau. Films he collaborated on include The Blood of the Condor {I939}; The Courage of the People { I921}: and The Principal Enemy { 1924}. Antonio Sltdrnteta is a writer and filmmaker living in Europe. He was cultural editor of the Chilean magazines Ercllla, Ahora and La Quinta Rueda between I932 and I923. He has written andtor directed such films as La Victoria; Permlso de Residencia: and Si Vivieramos Ju.ntos.

‘

i'i _.-5:.

.

I

Corrtrr'butors

323

Fernando Solanas is an Argentine filmmaker whose works include La hora de los hornos {co-directed widt Gctavio Getino, I933}; The Look oftltherst and Tangos: The Exile of Gardel {I935}.

Paul Willemen is a film scholar and author of Looks and Friction: Essays in Cultural Studies and Film Theory {I994}; editor of The Films of Amos Ciitai {I994}; and co-editor {vvitll Jirn Pines} ct Questions of

Third Cinema {I939}.

‘ GL2"

."'l'.-"iii. ‘ ~

_ __* _

_

["i'“:ii' it (299313

lIr|'igi|'.aI frcm

uurvesstrt or vtrcutosu

Index Abdelhakim, Meziani, 253

Abdelwahad, I‘-rlohametiz. 252 Achugitt, Walter. 33 Ackerman, Chantal. 232 Actuoliaacidn politlca y dactrinaria para la toma del poder. See Political and Theoretical

Renewal Towards the Taking oj' Power Ad-orrto, Theodor W., I93 Africa Addio, 45 Agit cinema, 99-133. See also Third Cinema

Allende, Salvador. 22, 233, 223

Alsino y e1 condor. I53 Alternative Cinema. See Cininra al Eadil Althusser, Louis, I23, 222 Alvarez, Carlos, 33, I53 Alvarez, Santiago, 21, 35, 44, I53, 231, 235, 233, 211, 253

Amaral. 2utana. 22, 234 Amores dlfliciles, 293 Anne Devlin, 253 Anthropofagia manifesto, 243 Antin, Manuel, 32, I43 Antonio dos mortes, I53 Arah League, 232 A raucaria, 233

Argentina Sone Films, 39 Armes, Roy, 25 Aronowitz, Startley, I22, I29 Aruarrda, I32 Asalto, I53 Association of Errperimental Cinema, 39

Association of Short Film Directors, 39

= Cit). -git?

At-Taria. 223 Auteur cinctntt: 42, I33; auteurism, I59, 223

Ayala, Fernando, I43 Bahenco, Hector, 232 Bakhti, Benamar, 253 Balthtin. Mikhail, 21, 235-33, 24451 Barren Lives, 33 Barthes. Roland, I34, I33 Rattle of Algiers, The. 21 Battle oj" Chile. The. I42, I52, I33, l31n. 2, 233, 223 Bava, Mario, 232 Bay of Pigs, I33 Bemberg, Maria, 22, 233, 233

Benjamin, Walter, 21, 133-39, 122. 231-33 Bemardet, Jean-Claude, I32, 234

Best Wishes, 293 Rig House, The. I95 Birri. Femando. I2, 21, I33, I43. I44, I43. I42. I53n. 23, I31. I33, 133, 232-3, 225, 223, 252, 223. 225. 223-33, 294, 335, 332 Elaclt C-'od, White Devil, 33 Blood of the Condor, 33, 33-39 Borges, Jacobo. I33, I32

Bouali. lvlostefa. 259 Boughedir, Ferid, 223 BrechL Bertolt. 21. I14. l33n. 2. I33, I33, 233, 222, 222, 231, 233, 249 Sriclurrahers, The, I53, 232 Bttfiuel, Luis, 224, 225 Hunting an illusion, 253

|_

__-_ .-.

Ii

_ I

t

. ,_ —l"_..| -I

I

inde.r

323

Burton,Jnlitu1nc, I2, 19, 22, 233,

Cine Liberacien, I3, 99-133, 132,

332 Rush Mama. 21 Rye, Eye, Brazil, 233

135, l33n. 2 Cinema: Argentina, 33-52, 33-92. I32-3, I42-45. l55n. I3. 29593n. 9: Cuba, 23-32, I33-I l. I12. l33n. 3, 151, I92-99; development of documentary form in, 232-2, 211-14; typologies of documentary in. 235-3 Cinema and Llnderdevelopment: I2; terrt, 33-94 Cinema as an Erpression of Reality, The, I42

Cobra rnarcado para morrer. See Twenty Tears After Cahiers du Cinema, 234 Contila. 233 Cardon, Rene, I95 Carlos, I43 Carpentier, Alejo, 133, 234 Carteles, I92

Casaus, Victor, 211 Castille, Sergio, 253

Cinentt-Iction, 229

Castro, Fidel, 21, I33, 223

Cinema Liberation Group, 39

Cavalcanti, Alberto, 225 Ceddo, 232

Cinemonovistas, I4-3 Cinemateca del Tercer Ivluntlc. I43 Cinema Novo. 12, 51. 33-31. I33. I45, I51, I59-33, 133, 225, 233, 239 Cinema 3, 223 Cine restirnonio, 23, 22, 213-11 Cine y Liberacirin, I34

Cedren. Jorge, 134, 252 Centro de Cine Documental, I43 Centro Sperimentale di Re-nra. I43, I44, 225, 224 Cerro Pelado, 39 Cesaire, Aime, 13ln. 3 Chahine, Vussif, 224 Chanan, Michael, I9-23, 233, 335 Chanchada: 39, 135, 154n. I: pornochanchada, 193 Cltannel Fottr, 235 Cherif, El Hachimi, 252 Children of Fierro, The, I34 Chircales. 149 Chronotope. See Bakhtin, Mikhail Cine al dia, 133,233 Cine-clubistas, I43 Cine Club of Un.|guay, I42 Cinecritica, 39 Cine Cubano. 99. I33. I43, 233. 223 Cine de la Ease collective, 133 Cine del Tercer Mundo, I43 Cine diddctico, 23, 22, 233, 212 Cinegiorrrale libre, 34, 44 Cine Cirupo do la Base, 132n. 3 Cinein_for'rnes de la CGTde los argentinos, I33

= Co. -gle

Cinirrtd al Hddil, 223

Cisse, Seuleyntan, 224, 241 Committee of Latin American

Filmmakers, I53 Compariero President, 39 Concientizacien, 139. 233-I3, 213 Confederacien General dc Trabajadores {CGT}, I33 Cormtur, Roger, 232 Cortazar, Gctavio, 142, 149 Cortes, Busi, 234 Courage of the People. The. 34, I53 39, I42 Coutinl-re, Eduardo, 233 Culture: under ncocolonialism, 32-

43: cinema under neecelenialism, 41-42, 45 Da Silveira, ‘Nalter, 142

Des I-ileine Fernsehspiel, 235 De Andrade. Joaquim Pedro, 224, 232, 222, 333

- |-.| -_.-I1;

-

.

-. ._'- -__'-.|

index

De Andrade, Gswald, 243, 333 Debray, Regis, 241 De cierta manero, 223, 233 Decree Law 49. 35, 93

Uecrec Law 32, 39 Uecreto Lcy 32-52. 143 Detnare. Lucas, 32, 33 Despues del silencio, 39 Diakite, Moussa, 252 Diawara, Manthia, 25 Diegues, Carlos, 233 Documentary Film School of Santa Fe, 13, 93, 95, 13-3, 144, I42, 131-32, I33 Dos Santos, Nelson Pereira, 95, 93. I43, I42, 231, 224, 222, 223*-29.

225 Dracula, I95 Durirn, Jorge, 234

322

Engels, Frederick, 124 Equino, Antonio, 232 Equipo Tercer Aiio Collective, I42, 132-33 Escape Route to Marseilles, 224

Escuela Documental dc Santa Fe. See Documentary Film School of Santa Fe Estetica tie Ia violencia. See An Esthetic of Hunger An Esthetic oj'Hunger: 12; tertt, 59-31 Etats Generous du Cinema Frangois, 34-35 Fanon, Frantz, I2, 33, 53, 223 Faye, Sali, 224 Feldman, Simon, I43, I42 Fernendez, El Indie, 229

Festival lntemacionnl dc Cine Echcverria, Carlos, 233

Eco, Umberto. 222 Economic Comrrtission for Latin America {ECLA}, 93 Edinburgh Intemational Film Festival {EIFF}, 21, 133, 221-23 Eisenstein, Sergei, I22 El brigadista, I93 El camino hacia la muerre del Viejo Reales. See Gld Man Reales‘ Road to Death El Chacal de Nahueltoro. See The Jackal o_fNahueltoro El color de su destirro, 234 El coraje del pueblo. See Tire Courage of the People El familiar. See The Relatives El jeje, 39 El megano, 95, I43, 225 El presidio, 195 El recurso del metodo, 234 El secreto de Romelia, 234 El riltimo grumete, 233 Embrafilme, 193 Encuentro dc Cineastart Latinamericanos, I42

= Cit). -git?

Documental ‘I’ Errperimental. I43 Festival of Latin American Cinema {Sestri Levante}, 142-43 Film Board of Canada, 235 First Manifesto for a Palestinian Cinema.‘ 223:, Second Manifesto, 223 Flaherty, Robert, 233 For a Nationalist, Realist, Critical and Popular Cinem.-:r: 12:, tczt, 95-93 For an imperfect Cinema: IT; test,

21-32

Focnet, Ambrosio. 333 Forum {Berlin}, 233 Foundation of Latin American Filmmakers, 153 Franco, Jean, 229 Franju, Georges, 234 Frankfurt School, 122, 193 French New Wave, I32, I43 Frente Justicialista de Liberacirin. I33 Freire, Paulo, 233-9 Freud, Sigmund, 33, 123 Frida, 232

I

| _ ___.-Ii

_

1

,. ,_ -.1--_..| I-I

I

tndes

323

Frondizazo, 32 Fuentes, Carlos, 331

Gabriel, Teshorne: 21, 224; critique of his work on third cinema, 235-44 Ganga Zomba, 33 Garcia Canclini, Nestor, I39, 123 Garcia Espinosa, Julio, I2-13, 95. I43, I53, I59, I39, 225, 223, 222, 232, 224-25, 292, 335

Garcia Lorca. Federico, 92 Garcia Marquez, Gabriel, 234, 225. 293-94, 292nn. 24, 25, 23 Getimtl. Haile, 21, 224

Gerenima, 234 Getine, Cr-ctavio, I2, I33, I42, I53.

I33, 125, 231, 232, 225, 222. 223. See also Solanas, Fernando Ghatak, Ritwik, 224, 233, 253 Critai. Ames, 224 Gledhill, Christine, 132 Gleyzer, Raymundo, I32n. 3 Godard, Jean-Luc. 34, 49, I I4, I33 Gem-ca. Felirr, 33 Gemez, Flora, 252 Geme:-'., Manuel Gctavie, 239-93 Gemez, Sara, 233

Gonion, Bette. 232 GPG Film Unit, 233

Griersen, John, 143, 2113-4, 232, 225, 243

Grupo Cine Testimonio, 213 Grupo Tercer Aiio, I33

Guerra. Ruy, 223. 239 Guevara, Alfredo, 95, 142 Guevara, Che, 33, 42, 211, 239 Guido, Beatriz, 33, 232 Gutierrez Alea. Tomes. 12, 95. I43, I42, I33, 231, 225. 223.

Handler, Mario, I43, I49, I53, 153, 129,231 Handsworth Songs, 224 Harvey, Sylvia, I24, I29 Hays Co-tire, I13. l33n. 2 Hechos consumados, 233 Hegemony: U.S. in Latin America,

133-93: prcductiontco pro-tluctiorrldisttibution under. 253-32: rele of militant cinema

under, 253-53: under eoionialismtneccoloniatism, 2.5353 Higson, Andrew, 25 Hirszman, Leon, I32 i-iomenaje a Ia hora de la siesta, 33 Hondo, Med, 259 Hora do estrela. 234-33 Hour of the Furnaces, The: 44, 51. 39, 131, 132, I33, I34, I35. l33n. 3, I42, I49, I53, I53. I59. I33, 231, 232, 223, 223, 222. 239: production of, 53, 53-52

Identity, 23-24, 23nn. 19. zu i Like Students, 149, I53, 129-33, 231 Imperfect cinema: 222. See also For an imperfect Cinema and Meditations on inrperjfect Cinenta - - . Fifreen Tears Later I]"'-lCIl"slE, I53

industrial Reference Service, 13332 Institute of Cinematography, 39 Instituto Cinentatografico, I44 Instituto Cubann de Arte y

lndustria Cinemategraticos

224, 222 Guzman, Patricio, 129n. I. I42. I33, 131,233

{ICAIC}, I41, I43, I52, 193-99, 234, 21 1, 223 lntematinnal Festival of the New Latin American Cinema: 92, I51,

Hablemos do Cine. 233

233: the IV. 153 Ivcns, Jeris, 35, 229, 244

= Cit). -git?

. |_

__.--

Ii

_

1

,. ,_ -.1--_..| I-I

I

Index

Jackal afhiahaehara. T'he, I43.

Efi-4 Jamaar as Cininea aijadida. 2215 James. C. L. R.. 223 Iarneaan. Fredric. 215. E35 Jahnsten. Claire. 223. 235 Jarnai a'a Brash‘. IE3 Juan.‘ Carna ri nada hahiera .raeea'ia'a. E33 Jirrrierniier Revaiarian, The. 194 Hahla. Frida. 237-35 Eiaige. Chen. 224 I-ilainba. Sebastien, 253 Haulen, Patricia. 14?

I-'Lhale|;l, Maehe, 253 Khelifa. Hedi Ben. 253 Hing. Jehn. 392. 395 Hahn. Radalfa. I4? Hanan. David Jase. I43 Kuhn. Radalfe. i-13, I4? La haraiia cie Chiie. See The Barrie af Chiie Laean, Jaeques. 222 La eara del angei. E9 Laeiraes a'e einema, 243 La Gaerra ILT-aaeha, 3‘? La hirraria afiieiai. See The {Iifieiai

329

Liaeve rahre Santiage. 265 Lapez. Ana M-. 15-19. 22. 24., 396 Lea cleaen:-_: eaneebidea. 21.56 Lee Iii? eaarrae. 9!] La: h-{far a'e Fierra. See The Children af Fierra

Les inanaaaas. 919. 915. ETE. ET9. 139. 29i5n. 19 Lar aividaaar. 21'4Lae Iraiaares. l9‘?n. I5 Lee venerahiee radar. JET. EB .[.aefa. l5[l

Maeherey. Piene, U9 Maeimahna, ET?-TE. 235, 393 Maiclanada. Eduarde. 210-I]

Malderar. Sara, 2] Man with a Marie Camera. 1715

Manzuse. HerherL we-ea Mariategui. Jase Carlee. fifi. IE5 Marker. Chris. 35. 45. 229. 244. 2-I53 Marti, Jase. I59. El] Martinez Suarez. Jase A... I43 Mara. liar]. T4. lfifi. IT]. [T-'-I. ITT. ITS. 24] Maaaip. Jnae. 95 Maltlelari. Armand. 1-I55 Maya Darpan, E24

Star]:

La hara ae has harnar. See The Ham‘ af the Farnaeer Landeta. Matilde, TIE. 29fin. ll La negra Angustias. T15»-BU La revaharhin jirariaiaiisra. See The

Ja.ra'eiai'|'.a' Revaiarian La.r agaar hajan Iarhiar, 9|]

Lea daee aillas, 2?? La Iierra pramerida. See The Pramired Lana‘ Latin American Center far New

Cinema. I43 La w'aa'a a'e .|'lcl'ani'r'ei'. E54 Ledue. Paul. 22. 23?. 233. E92. 399 Littin, Miguel, I42, 15!]. 153. EDI. E154. 2&6

. G13. -311.3

Mediraliane an Imperfect Cinema . . - Fifieen Fears Later: 13; te:-it. B3-35

Me gnrian fee esrachanres. See I Lihe Stadems

il-femarias a‘ei aahdeearraiia. See Meniariee af Unaerde veiap-men: Memarier af Unrierdeveiapmenr. 142, 2?? Merbah. Lamine, 251 Minh-ha. Trinh T.. 2113 Mias Mary, 2315'-HT

"Mined" fermatiens. 23 Mahamad. Bensalah. 253 Mansivaja. Carlee. 3191 Marin. Edgar, 14?

. .—-_|-|-.-~.--

—

I

I

'

'-

index

331]

Maventent af the New Cinertia- See Jatnaat tat Cininta at _iaa'itia Muestra lie Cine Decumental Latineatncricane: I49: a reselutien ef. I49 Murat. Lilcia. 199-91 Murphy. Fat. 159 Muriia. Lautate. I43 Nailie tl't_'ja naiia. "264 Ha esttatla tla vista. 123 Hatienal cinema: types ef. 24-26; facters tletertttining. E.'iEl—44 I"~|atiena1 identity: censtituents ef. 23-14 Hatienal Clffice fer Cinernategraphic Cernmcrce and Industry ICIHCIC}. 251 Nentesie. 266 itiearealisnt: Italian. 13?. I39. 146. 141. 125. 275 1'~letutla. Pahle. 9?. 161 New German Cinema. 13'? New German Critique. 236 Hew Latin American Cinema: censtituerns ef. 133-39; centreuersgt aheut designatinn ef. 31E1—11n. 33; emergence ef. E74Ti New Latin American Cinema Feundatien {F1"~1CL1. T75 Newsreel. 34 1'"-Ierenha. Linduartc. I6? Natas tie Cine Liheraeian. I99 ithtaueiie Iiagae. 149 New. E61. 2116 Hueleus Cinema Club. 39 Naeea Elia. I9. 143-44. I51. 156a. IE Naenaaiistas. I46 Naeva Cine. IE6 E1 Amulete tie Clgum. 229 Clcteher Missile Crisis. 19$ Dctahre. E’-96 ilfiicial .5-‘tarjs. The. E66-6'?

= Ce. -gle

Cl‘ Hat-nem tie Pan Bratil. E3? if-"lei Man Reaies' Raati ta Death. II14

Dperaeian rnasaere. See {Jperatian Massacre Dpera tie Halanara. EH9 flliperatien Massacre. I114 C‘ Pave Cilrganizatie. II

Ctrgaitizatien ei African Unity [DALI]. 262 Ctrgaiiizatien ef American States [CA5]. 3?. 93 Clrganizatien ef F-elitlarity ef the Peeples ef Africa. Asia and Latin Arnerica IDSPAAAL1. 44. 53. 99

Fadren. Juan. 295 Pan-African Federatien ef Cineastes iFE.F-‘AC11. 261 Partitia Saeiaiista. 44 Pas.-tien afliememhranee. The. E24 Patahin, 2'96!

Patriantaiia. 196 Pan Brazil manifeste. 243 Perez. Manuel. El. E52 Peranisnt. HT. 1194

Piclt. Zuzana. M.. E2. 23 Piedra. lttlarie. 2115 Pirate. 261' Pelitieal anti Theeretieai Renewal Tewards the Ttthittg af Parser. 194 Pentecente. 'C|i11e. E1 Pepular art. ?6—Ti Pepular Unity Cievemment. 22. 69. I36. I54n. 3. IE1]. IE7‘. 196.163 Parprintera net. I42. 149 Parta a'a.r Cairas. 66 Par an cine impetfecta. See Far an im_aetfect Cinema PEI. 2191'. 292 Primer Plane. 296 Principal Enemy. The. 64-65. 69 Prisaneres tie ia tierra. 9'9

- I

I 3»

_

|

|_ - -_._

1niies Prrrhlerns af Parrn and Cantent in Revaiatienarv Cinerna: tettt. 6229

Preduccienes Angel. 143 Preducteres 3' Realiaadcres Independientes dc America Latina KFRIDAL]. I4’? Prarniseti Lanai The. I59. 264 Que hem te ver viva. 299-91

331

Sanjines. Ierge. 1'1‘. 136. 14S. 161}. IS1}. 2111. 292. 226. 222 Sartre. Jean-Paul. 216 Saussure. Ferdinand de. 164. 214. 222. 22S Secnnd Meeting ef Latin American Filmmakers (Mcridaj. 14S-49 Sembene. Uusmanc. 224. 23?. 241. 21’:-S Shahani. Samar. 224. 259

Shnhat. Ella. See Stam. I-tehert Eadie-Elecuic Breadcasnng Secietv iSC1DRE). 146 Red Light Bandit. 3113 Reed.‘ ntettica insurgents. 2ST Reichenhach. Carles. 224. H6 Reiatives. The. I114 Resnais. Alain. 2{14 Resaitrtians cf the Third '1'1'aria' Fiimrrtahers Meeting.‘ 21; teat. 252-62 Retrate sic Terctta, 195 Revaiucidn. I43

Rich. B. Ruhv: thematic dernarcatiens in develepment ef Hew Latin American cinema mevement ef I9St]s. 22 Ric Qaarenta Gratis. 14{1. 225 Ries. Humberte. 21. 262. 269 Rivera. Diege. 2S2. 3113 Recha.tZ31auher. 1'1. '19. I35. 142. If-[1, If-4n. 4. 159. 1S1}. 2111. 2132 225. 226. 233. 26S. 222 Rrteinantti 224. 2511

Redriquez. Marta. 149. 153. 292

Relic. Annande. 166 Ressellini. I-tetzrerte. 1411 Reuclt. Jean. 243-44 Ruiz. Raul. 264

Said. Edward. 222. 241, 24S. 299 Sa't1. hleurdine. 226 Salles tlietnes. Paul Emilie. 234. 3[1S Satrrhinanga. 21 Sanchez. Cristian. 266

= Ce. -gle

Sid Ali. Fettar. 253 Sidibe. Mamadeu. 2513 Silva. Ierge. 21. 149. 153. 2112. 2112. 25S Sltarmeta. Antenie. 22 Sahres sle cttitara }' liheracidn. 1113 Secialist realistn. 262 Sefiici. Marie. 91] Selanas. Femandn: 1'1‘. 11111. 1111. III13. 142. 15S. 1'15. 2111.2-112. 225. 222. 229-39. 233. 249. 226. 239. 396-T; first and secend

cinemas. 42: recent thematic changes in his titms. 22; thirti cinema. 43-5'1 Seids. Humberte. I59. 291 Sanihras haharieras. 195 Sense Nates an the Cancept cf a “Third Cinema IS; test. 9'9ll]? Sete. Helvie. 265 Seviet cinema. I13. 141 Seviet Fertnalists. 222 Statn. Rehert: 21. 31]]. 3133-4:, Brazil as a hybrid femiatien. 23; his definitien ef Third Werld

aesthetic. 1'1‘: pelvccntric multiculturalism. 23-24; tvpeiegv cf Third werld cinemas. 211 Sat’. 2S9

Szangarela. Ftegeiie. 3113 Taipai Stnry, 224 Tangas: Ei e.riIia tie Garriei. 2S9

|'-|-_-I:

'

|

-i|_'--_._'-.|

Index

332

Tarang. 224

Twenty Tears tlfter. 2S3-S4

Tarknvsky. Andrei. 2122

Tayler. Clyde. 21]-21 Tayler. Jehn G. Territaries. 256 Testitnanies de la recanstntccidn. 194 Testitnanias ttrcarnanas. 164 Third Cinenra: 21. 154n. 4. 2TT:

antecedents ei. 99-11111; elements ei. 43-E-T. tilt]-2; lineages ef. 231-35; dte natienal questien. 23S-44; erigins ef netien ef. 224-31 Third werld Film Scheel. 153 Threepenny {Ta-era. 2S9. See aisa Brecht. Be-rtelt Tire die. 91]. 96. 149. 162. 2TS

Tederev. Tzvetan. 236 Tnlede. Ierge. 22. 2SS. 2S9 Terre Hilssen. Leepelde. ST. 143. 14? Tess hie a Dime. See Tire did Tesse. Raiil. 2S4 Teuazi. Ptleutredine. 25S

Ultantau Eirnup. 69. 69. 1613. 139 Unidad Papaiar. See Pepular Unity Gevennnent

Unien ei Audie-visual Arts ei Algeria {L1AA‘tt}. 261 United Hatiens {U14}. 93

‘ttan Lietep. Hebert. 2] "v"a]1eje. Gcrarde. 1131]. 1114 Vega. Alicia. 263 ‘ttega. Faster. 213 I-"era. 233 ‘v"eta. Luis. 266 ‘Jertev. Dziga. 1T6. 2133 'lt'iewer's Dialectic. The." 1S;te:-tt. 1{1S-31 ‘Jillarfas. Caries. 195 ‘v'iiia del Mar Festival. 14T Fina ei presidente. 266 What is Den-racracy.'-’. 6S. 69 ‘fliillenien. Paul. 21. 23. 25 Williams. Raymend. 169. 1T1]. 224

Teuhiana. Serge. 264

tttetten. Peter. 22S

Tevar. Lupita. 195 Tewards a Third Cinerna: IT; test. 33-5S

Iitiavier. lsrnail. See Starn. Rehert

Trantman. Tercte. 291}

‘iamaslti. Tizuka 22. 2S6

Travelling Piayers. 224 Tres triste tigres. 264 Tricantinental. 99. 1113. 226

‘fang. Edward. 224 lieiiaw Earth. 224

Tretslty. Lean. 2S'1'

= Cit). -3113‘

t_

__.-2

Ii

_

t

,. ._ -.t--_..| I-I

I

Bnelss in the Cnntempnrary Film and Televisinn Series Cinerna and Hi.rtc-ry. by Mare Ferre. translated by btaemi Crreene. 19SS

Gerrnrtny an Fiim: Theme and Cantent in the Cinema af the Federai Republic cf Gerrnany. by Hans Crunther Fflaum. translated by Richard C. Helt and Reland Richter. 19911 Canadian Dreanrs

and American Cantrai: The Paiiticai Ecanamy cf the Canadian Fiim industry. by Manjunath Fendalsur. I999 irnitatians cf i.t]“e: A Reader an Fiinr and Teievisian tldeiadratna. edited by Marcia Landy. 1991 Bertat'ucci's 191919.’ A Narrative and Histaricai Anaiysis. by Ruben

Burgeyne. 1991 h-'itchcach's Rereieased Fihns: Fram Rape ta Vertiga. edited by Walter Raubicbeck and Walter Srebniclt. 1991 Star Tarts.‘ image and Perfarnrance in Fiim and Teievisien. edited by Jeremy Cr. Butler. 1991 Sex in the Head: I/isians cf Femininity and Fihrt in D. H. Lawrence.

by Linda Ruth Williams. 1993 Dreams cf Charts. Visians cf Drder: Understanding the American

ttvant-garde Cinema. by James Petersen. 1994 Fuii cf Secrets: Criticai Appreaches ta Twin Peaks. edited by David Lavery. 1994 The Radicai Faces cf Gednra‘ and Bertaiucci. by ‘feseia Leshitzlty. 1995 The End: Narratian and Ciesure in the Cinema. by Richard Isleupert. 1995

‘

t-i _.-5:.

_.

t

Cierrnart Cinerna: Texts in Cente.rt. by Marc Silberrnan. I995

Cinemas af the Staci: Diaspara: Diversity. Dependence. and Genesitian. edited by Michael T. Martin. 1995 The Cinema af Biim Wanders: image. Narrative. and the Pastmaderrt Canditian. edited by Reger Ceeiz and Creed Cremiinden. 1996 New Latin American Cinema E2 vats. ,1. edited by Michael T. Martin. 199?

‘ L29-l~

."'|'.-"ii

' ~