Jahsira Williams

I really enjoyed this film. The way Guzman uses filmic techniques through framing, lighting, and dissolves to further support the narrative was beautiful. It was equally inspiring for him to be able to reflect on his earlier film that changed the world in a way. One of our auditors was talking about how a person can have significant impact in their personal life, but limited impact in the larger society. For the most part I agree, but it really is a wonderful, rare thing to witness an artist who is capable of doing both. I saw myself in the students that Guzman depicts in this film. Before the screening many have a studious and arrogant, but harmless, stance of on the dictatorship. However, after the viewing, the editing completely slows down and lets us see the total shock, grief, and pain many students have to grapple with. It really speaks to the power of filmmaking and being a force of truth in the world. On one level, Guzman bravely made The Battle of Chile. The film reaches success internationally, and Guzman could have stayed in Paris. Then, on another level, he fights for it to be shown in Chile where it’s most important to be seen. Within this film, all of these layers are colliding and it’s a sight to see.

Today in class, we watched  Chile, The Obstinate Memory, which explored themes like memory, history, and the preservation of both. I like how the documentary showed how people in Chile are still dealing with the painful memories of the dictatorship under Pinochet, especially the violence and disappearances that occurred during that time. The film shows how some people want to forget the past, while others believe it’s important to remember to seek justice and avoid repeating the same mistakes. The film did a great job at highlighting how memory can be a powerful tool for healing and understanding, even when the truth is difficult to face.

This week in class we watched Patricio Guzman’s Chile, La Memoria Obstinada from 1997. The film was made when Guzman first came back to his home country of Chile after being exiled for more than 2 decades, 8 years after Pinochet’s dictatorship ended. What struck me the most was the interviews with younger people in universities and schools. It was very emotional and shocking to see that these young people did not know much about the official history of their country, as the ban on media and censorship lasted throughout the dictatorship and lingered after the return to presidential democracy. Their reactions to La Batalla de Chile made me wonder if the trilogy has even really been screened officially with a long running period in Chilean movie theaters, or if the film is ever shown or discussed in Chilean universities and/or high schools now in the present day. I was also stunned by the dissolves and cuts that Guzman uses throughout his documentary to show the comparison between the past and present of a nation still dealing with the repercussions of fascism and extreme  human rights violations. 

I found the film “The Battle of Chile: Part 1” interesting in how it explored several important themes like the tension between democracy and dictatorship. I like how it portrays President Salvador Allende’s attempt to create a peaceful socialist government and the challenges he faced by the wealthy elite, the military, and foreign powers like the United States. Another prevalent theme is the class struggle between the working class who supports the Allende reforms and the upper class fears of losing power. This film also highlights media manipulation and political polarization, showing how deeply divided the country became. 

I really enjoyed this film Guzmans work captured a historical record on how fragile democracy is in the face of corrupted governments. Guzmans use of cinema verte really immerses viewers in the action especially when the crew was going around asking locals which side they want to win the election. This approach made me feel more like I had a choice in choosing how I analyze the film and the lack of obvious bias in the film makes it more enjoyable to watch. The film isn’t over edited making it feel more like a documentary, informative and emotionally compelling. This film doesn’t shy away from showing the strikes, violence, and escalating rhetoric between the pro- and anti- Allende groups that contributed to the collapse of political discourse.

Watching the way the Chilean people fought for a just government is extremely moving. While the film narrates and has footage of the protests, as a viewer you feel that the voices of the people in this fight are prioritized in the film. Viewers get to hear their experiences, their struggles, and thus understand how their opinions are shaped by these factors. Paired with the narration providing historical context, the actions unfolding in front of our eyes are in constant communication with what we are hearing. I also really appreciate the handheld nature of this documentary. We are rarely still, always on the move— an accurate representation of the Chilean people fighting for a better government. They are not passive subjects, so the camera should not be passive either.

-KM

What was most striking for me when watching part 1 of the Battle of Chile was how close the production was to a lot of the political turmoil at this point in Chile’s history. It’s eerie how we can mirror the political divide from then to now and see we’re not far off from the past. The documentary itself is significant in showing how the United States time and time again across all three filmmakers’ works is highlighted as a brute militant force that impedes on Latin America. It helps to inform those who don’t understand how Chile has gotten to where it had with real life first hand accounts as everything shifts into a dictatorship. The mixing of different materials for archival purposes and the live reaction at the time to what was unfolding makes sense as to why the documentary has been revered as one of the best ever made.

“The Battle of Chile Part 1” stands as a seminal documentary that captures the turbulent political landscape of Chile during its final years of fragile democracy. The film focuses on the period leading up to the coup against President Salvador Allende, documenting the hopes and inevitable despair of a nation caught between the promise of democratic reform and the harsh reality of political polarization. In this first part, the film provides an unflinching look at how Chile’s democratic institutions were increasingly challenged by both internal conflicts and external pressures, painting a picture of a government striving to preserve a democratic experiment in the face of economic and social crises.

From a formal perspective, the editing style of “The Battle of Chile Part 1” is both rigorous and visceral. Patricio Guzmán employs rapid montage sequences, intercutting closely with long, lingering shots that capture the raw emotion of street protests, political rallies, and confrontations between citizens and state forces. This dynamic editing not only conveys the intensity of the political struggle but also reflects the fragmented nature of Chilean society at that time—each cut a fragment of the larger narrative of resistance and disintegration. Guzmán’s direction is marked by its journalistic precision and poetic urgency; he allows the reality on screen to speak for itself while subtly shaping a narrative that is at once informative and powerfully emotive.

What makes this film particularly compelling is its dual focus: on one hand, it is a political chronicle that examines how democracy in Chile was undermined by escalating tensions and institutional collapse, and on the other, it is a deeply personal meditation on the cost of political engagement. The film’s aesthetic choices—its raw, almost guerrilla-style cinematography combined with an editing rhythm that mirrors the heartbeat of a nation in turmoil—invite viewers to experience the lived reality of political upheaval. It remains a critical work, not only for its historical documentation but also for its unflinching analysis of the fragility and resilience of democracy under pressure.

-Amyy

One of the most profound pieces of non fiction cinema I have seen. Haunting look at the progression of the fall of the Chilean government. The failures of democracy. The narration here is not overbearing nor opinionated , leaving room for words to be spoken by Chilean people. The narrator simply provides historical context for the film’s audience. An attempt to suffocate the working class, leaving them divided. The final sequence is imprinted into my mind for eternity. Chilling and haunting, staring into the barrel of a gun.

Terra em Transe, a key film of Cinema Novo by Glauber Rocha, explores political turmoil and ideological struggles in Latin America through a fictional crisis that reflects real-world revolutionary conflicts. With its fragmented storytelling and striking black-and-white visuals, the film captures the tension between authoritarian control and the fight for freedom. Rather than offering clear answers, Terra em Transe immerses viewers in the chaos of power, corruption, and mass manipulation, forcing them to question the true cost of revolution. Its themes of political instability, propaganda, and populist tactics remain highly relevant today, mirroring modern struggles with misinformation and control. Rocha’s experimental approach not only challenges traditional narratives but also highlights cinema’s role in provoking thought and resisting oppression.