The Pearl Button by Patricio Guzman was the documentary we watched in class. The documentary followed many of Chile’s backgrounds, including Native cultures, along with highlights of national pride and imperialism. I was struck by the filmmaker Guzman’s openness in showing his biased sort of lens throughout the film. Whenever you watch an old documentary made by a culture different than the one being shown on screen, there are questions. And most of the questions revolve around truth, fiction, and overall, the filmmaking techniques. It can be sleezy and undermine what the culture being shown might have to say. In this case, the culture being shown had few to no members left. This allows it to be an odd feeling situation in which they might not have the means to tell their story. In steps Guzman, who doesn’t shy away from his differences, but instead embraces them and accepts why his culture might be a part of the problem. I also think he does a fantastic job of merging the Native beliefs with some of his own, his own representing a certain Chilean pride the NAtives might not have. All of these factors combined make for not only a wonderful viewing experience, along with an educated one, but also a confusing one. I don’t think you’re supposed to feel 100% certainty in this film, and like I said, it goes back to who delivers this message. Chile is a complicated historical land mass and country as a whole, and the stories being told are incomplete. Guzman finds as much unbiased information as he can, but it is still a story that was lost to history. It’s a cautionary tale that if you don’t protect cultures while they’re still there, then they won’t be able to be remembered appropriately. Only in spurts or not at all.

One of my favorit things that I’ve seen in the last two weeks of watching films from Brazil is the world building that these directors create. I feel so disollutioned from the old Hollywood movies at this time period because it just feels so inorganic. Set design and huge amounts of artifical landscapes take me out of movies. there’s something to be said about movies that are purposly viewed as cinema, some of my favorite directors do that. But the real life locations chosen for black God, White Devil are what make it.. It feels so strong and powerful and since you actually belive they’re in these locations, you feel the tension. You feel the things that they talk and fight about. What I’m most impressed with is the real world feel you’re able to get from Rocha’s movies. It feels like a conscious decision from every Cinema Novo director to create a world that many can see themselves live in.

Cinema Novo was a film movement that originated in Brazil in the 1960s. In class we watched the 2016 documentary on Cinema Novo and I have to say I thought it was interesting. In many ways the documentary was a sort of advertisement for the genre as a whole. I thought the documentarian technique of using old footage of the filmmakers was effective and unique. The story isn’t told by the person who made the film, a la narrator and such. But rather actually told by the people who lived it. Which I believe to be a unqiue experience. You don’t feel swayed either way by the filmmaker, he convinces you that you’re just listeing to a story. I also loved the difference in film styles you see from the people who made the films. quality of camera, exposure, color or not, this documentary did such a fantastic job of adversiting the films in a quick way. A common complaint I have with films is that you can’t see as many as you want, but you’re able to get a glimpse through this film into the broad spectrum of styles these men had. To close you also get such a fantastic sense of community through this experience. You see how close everyone was and I particularly like the scene where one of the memebers of film industry introduces twenty plus other members to the camera.

After watching De Cierta Manera by Sara Gomez, I was left with several points that I enjoyed. I think her half-documentary, half-movie style, did a fantastic job of creating an atmosphere. I think many mediocre movies don’t do a good job of creating a livable and breathable world. Sara Gomez puts you in the minds of not only her main characters in the movie but who they represent in Cuban culture. Since there was such a shift in the ideals of men at the time and a general acceptance of more women’s rights, I think the sadness in the documentary parts from the main actress helps build sentiment for her. The fact that the main actor doesn’t partake in those parts of the movie and is strictly a character of sorts plays well into building a reputation for him. I think my favorite part of the movie was her explaining to him how he changes up acting in front of her versus his buddies. We see this when his friend, who was a boxer, runs into him. He goes from an abusive-sounding jerk to all cool, calm, and collective. When the couple is together, he’s open-minded and willing to dive into his feelings. And I just think the scene of him admitting why he enjoys her despite him not wanting to do so shows you where the main characters are in the movie.

We watched a few different films this past week, but the one I wanted to discuss the most was La hora de los hornos. La hora de los hornos directed by Octavio Getine and Fernando Solanas is an Argentine film from 1971. The film involves many of the struggles and tribulations that the poorer Argentine population faced in their history. What I enjoyed most was the stylistic choices of editing, language, and visual pieces the film used. It feels as if the people made the film and is for the people. In a cinematic experience that involves Native oppression, lower-class struggles, and a general disconnect between the people running the government and its people, there needs to be an easy way of communicating. The editors and people making the film choose a few things to help these points. A quick style of editing involving gunshots and lots of visual stimulation. Verbage that goes slowly and allows for an easy call-to-action understanding. And finally, easy-to-understand imagery that paints a clear picture. There are several examples of this, but the most obvious is the scene of cattle being slaughtered. The editors and directors decided to intercut this with images of white foreign advertisements that cater to importing goods. This is used to make people upset, but it’s easy to digest. For context, Argentina’s population of literate people was not high at this point. By having such clear cut in your face messaging you allow this film to truly be inspiring for those it’s supposed to. A subtle way of making this film was not possible. I always thought this film was supposed to sound like a revolutionist giving a speech to a crowd. Except the crowd gets to be infinitely bigger thanks to this movie.