As an Argentinian, I agree with many of your comments. Although, the main local critique has been erasing the role of the Alfonsin’s government to make it happen, with all the trade offs involved in the process. As you well mention, it was a rough, complicated process and not a work of a lone wolf prosecutor that reluctantly becomes the hero.
I apologize for what will be an extremely long comment, but it might address some of the issues you raise. My father (a militant himself in the 70s) wrote a biography of one of the indicted, and in it he made what I still think are some very acute points about the intrinsic, in a sense unavoidable contradictions and, ultimately, dishonesties of the simple human rights narrative underpinning the trials. The post-dictatorship narrative contained necessarily a significant element of dissembling about what had actually happened, and I suspect this problem would reveal itself even in cultural products less heavy-handed than, I see, this movie (haven't seen it, tho' fan of director). Translation follows (and again, I apologies for its length).
" The element of civil legitimacy of the trials was intense and deeply-felt not only because of the kind of atrocities that had been committed, but also because ideologically the proceedings were carried out under a doctrine of human rights that was itself the result of the military defeat of the guerrillas–of the transformation of the former insurgent into a citizen and of the former student or worker into a voter. The doctrine of human rights had been a powerful weapon against the military regime, but carried within itself a kind of postwar failsafe in that it simultaneously sought to institute a code of morals that effectively outlawed the use of mass violence or armed struggle. The feats of former guerrillas, the aims and militancy of the disappeared could receive the sympathy and nostalgia of family members or human rights activists, but between the two groups a symbolic death had taken place that made it impossible to think in the old terms. The insurgents, having disappeared physically, now disappeared a second time: they were stripped of their individual political identity as militants and reduced to their identity as human beings.
(…)
The trials had however a slightly farcical element, not least in that accusers and accused knew each other extensively from their joint membership in the Argentine social elites. The trial’s paradox lay in that it judged the hangmen of the Proceso, but not those who designed its economic and political policies–the military chiefs rather than the economic and political beneficiaries of what they had done. A proper Nuremberg would have required the triumph of the enemy side, but in Argentina the only victory against the Armed Forces was won by the British Army. This was why the Argentine establishment could only allow a trial that accused the military corporation of having outstayed its original welcome, of targeting members of the elite rather than the subversives they were tasked with destroying, and finally of its putting Argentina on the verge of “jumping the map” out of its geopolitical place in the West as a last-ditch effort to rescue its disastrous Falklands adventure.
The dictatorship was not under trial for being dictatorial, but rather because of its attempt to free itself from the control of its traditional masters in the civilian establishment. The institutions of the military were not placed on trial, but rather the decentralization and devolution of repressive activities that had led–by the formation of semi-autonomous “task forces” and the consequent fractal subdivision of the country into successive paramilitary fiefdoms–to the dissolution of the military’s own chain of command and its existence as a regular army under the control of the civilian ruling class. It could be said that what Alfonsín’s government was putting under trial was the Armed Forces' deviation from their own institutional norms.
(…)
The concept of “State terrorism”, like that of human rights, created more questions than answered and threatened repeatedly to expose the contradictory and problematic nature of the trials. The idea of the State presupposes a specific juridical order that is antithetical to the practice of terrorism. “State terrorism” was conceptually an oxymoron, since the State is defined by the socially legitimate administration of violence, while terrorism is called such precisely because it is violence that lacks this legitimacy.
When a State engages in terrorism, when it sets aside its own legitimate repressive institutions in favor of clandestine terror, autonomous task forces, disappearances and similar “Night and Fog” tactics, this necessarily means that the State has ceased to exist as such and is become a mere administrative superstructure dissociated from the competitive terrorist groups that now represent real power in the land. The prosecutor, by using the expression “State terrorism,” exposed the problematic nature of what was being judged and should have led to the realization that what happened between 1976 and 1983 had been in fact the disintegration of the State, the Armed Forces, and all other legitimate repressive institutions.
When real power became coterminous with the physical power exerted over a given geographical space, when this power was wielded by heterogeneous task forces consisting of officers of varying ranks and paramilitary civilians, then this necessarily meant that the chain of command had been irretrievably broken and central authority had a purely subordinate influence as a mere source of cover and legitimacy for the work of repression. The expression “I am the master of of life and death in this zone,” heard by different prisoners in different concentration camps, revealed exactly this destruction of the the chain of command and, more generally, the dissolution of the Argentine State. '
Sorry for disrespectful and insulting answers to your post by my con-nationals. I would like to make you aware that in spite of the Juicio a las Juntas is almos 40 years over, is still a very sensitive and politically hotted contested topic y current Argentine politics. You may see that things were not close at those trial as you may check in the corresponding entry in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_the_Juntas As new events were happening as late as 2015-16 (at least) and being that the Supreme Court overthrowed "Leyes the Obediencia Debida y Punto Final" in 2006 when President Nestor Kirchner was in power, current politics is permeated by this past events and further more contested and debated after society got strongly polarized between "Kircheneristas and other peronist groups allied to it" and a rising right wing coalition. Nestor Kirchener death in 2010 non withstanding did not stop this dynamic as his wife Cristina Kirchner was two times President of Argentina and is currently its Vicepresident. So, in a heated polarized society this events are not "past" events, but currently hotted debated and present events. Hope this long review helps you to understand some reactions to your post, in which I mostly agree. Regards,
Thanks for your comments. Honestly, I did not realize how politically charged the topic was because my original Tweet was just a vert simple disappointment w/ the movie. Nothing speciall. But since I got so many comments I thought I had to explain my point of view in greater detail. I am very appreciate of the importance of the events and possibly of international significance of having the trials better known, but this (as I I write) does not deal w/ the quality of the movie. In any case, thank you for your clarification and for bringing things more up-to-date (incl. Kirchner).
No sabía que ud era crítico de cine, siga con la economía que parece que de eso sabe , el cine es arte y entretenimiento y el cine comercial está destinado a un público masivo, se atreve a criticar a Spielberg, seguramente el tipo que mejor articula el cine para mayorías con una excelente calidad fílmica, para llegar a millones de personas, ud dedíquese a los cine-club donde se juntan 50 personas a hacer sesudos análisis críticos de películas que no ve nadie
The same Q as I just addressed above. Does the fact that Spilberg's films are seen by millions mean that he is a great director & will stay an influence in history? It is doubtful. Stephen Kings books are read by millions too. Is he a new Tolstoy or Flaubert? (I agree too that the other extreme: 50 people in a cine club is not a great solution either. It is elitism w/o a public.)
Feb 1, 2023·edited Feb 1, 2023Liked by Branko Milanovic
I could somehow recognize the faults presented by you about the quality of the film as an artistic product in itself, but in your argument there is an important flaw: both the call from Moreno Ocampo's mother and the scene with the handkerchiefs are made documented history. And in that sense, Argentina's history may be improbable, or even incomprehensible to a foreign spectator, but that does not mean that the facts stop being such. On the other hand, it is necessary to clarify that even among the upper and upper middle classes that supported the 1976-83 dictatorship, knowledge of the atrocities committed by the de facto government was extremely superficial, either by concealment or by denial. And it is thus that a first-person testimony from an innocent victim could achieve such a change of opinion. It's not about "good" or "bad" families; these are people who did not want to know and were faced with the harshest truth. This, and many other situations throughout the film, are widely known by the Argentine public, the main addressee of the film, so it is not necessary to place too much emphasis on the personalities of the villains in the case; they have already been widely covered in all kinds of media, history books, movies, textbooks and many other supports. So, for the average Argentine, there are a series of references that are not necessary. And it is possible that for the foreign viewer the lack of them affects the perceived quality of the final product. But I repeat: that is not the final recipient of Argentina, 1985. The questions mentioned are, like many other unanswered questions, destined to reopen a historical debate that should not have been silenced. That is the virtue of the film for the Argentine public. For others, it may be just another courtroom drama of which there are thousands.
I think its chances of winning an Oscar are very high. But again this is the same problem. Should Oscars or Nobel Prize for Literature etc be given to the most politically useful (important) films and books, or to those that seem to be of high quality (I know that quality is entirely subjective)? In other words, how important is the pedagogical message in judging a work of art? Not at all, or it is all that counts, or somewhere in the middle?
What matters are the cultural competencies of the recipient. It is not the same to see Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk having knowledge of what happened in Word War II than without having it. Sure, everyone knows what happened in WW II. Well, every Argentine knows what happened during the dictatorship. It also applies to Leonardo's The Last Supper or Alighieri's Divine Comedy. If you don't know the context, you can't understand the message.
significant conclusions and elaborated justification of your original tweets.
We, the people, are too anxious to be happy, so we watch cheap Holyshit movies...
Yet, some of us know of cliches used there and mainly in order to make people glorify the Evil Empire and its manifestations (even their planetary plundering wars), so when a messenger such as you come and points out what should have been highlighted and what was just cliche, many people will feel that they are taken out of their comfort zone and will attack you.
Putting the subject matter aside, I share your assessment regarding the narrative structure and devices. More than Spielberg, the movie that came to mind was Brian DePalma’s “The Untouchables” (1987). e.g. a movie about the prosecution of Al Capone.
In the Untouchables, there's the world weary Chicago cop who has to be convinced with great difficulty to take on Capone; when he finally commits he seeks out a young cop at the academy because older hands can’t be trusted; a similarly dynamic plays out in Argentina 1985. In both movies, threats to the family are used as a way of creating dramatic tension and raising the stakes. Those are just a couple examples.
A big advantage that DePalma and David Mamet (the screenwriter) had with their fictionalized history was that it was 60 years in the past. The Capone story had already entered into myth. This allowed them greater liberty with the facts and allowed for a greater emphasis on emotional truth. Argentina 1985 obviously deals with a much more important and timely subject — I thought it had its moments, but that the target audience was probably people more directly impacted by the history.
My thought leaving the theater was that a documentary, first-person narrative might be a better treatment of the subject for an international audience. Although, “Nostalgia de la luz / Nostalgia for the Light” in 2010 may have already covered some of that ground.
Hola, pido disculpas por escribir en español (sé que pueden recurrir al traductor) pero, si bien hablo y escribo en inglés, tengo más vocabulario en mi idioma natal para expresar comentarios más profundos. Lamento las agresiones recibidas y la intolerancia ante un pensamiento diferente. Aún hace falta ejercicio democrático. No obstante, me gustaría compartirle mis refutaciones a sus puntos desarrollados en esta nota sobre Argentina 1985.
El primero, sobre el "héroe reticente", me parece que el mayor valor que tiene ese personaje es que es muy real, dubitativo y frágil hasta el final. Me parece muy humano, que no responde a un estererotipo rígido, sino que va sufriendo una evolución durante la película que en ningún momento se transforma en un héroe de golpe. Siempre está el excepticismo y la duda en él. Su familia no lo alienta desde el primer momento. Su mujer le recuerda su silencio e inacción durante la dictadura, cuando recibía los habeas corpus. No coincido, en fin, con su descripción del héroe reticente porque me parece un personaje muy bien construido, que más que reticente, se lo ve cobarde y hasta cierto punto, un hombre mediocre que le toca una misión histórica.
Con respecto a que es "previsible", se entiende que no está hablando del devenir histórico conocido, pero no coincido tampoco con eso porque, como argentina, lo previsible hubiera sido una visión maniquea de la historia, una mirada idealizada y acá , el foco no está puesto en el juicio sino en el personaje del fiscal y la conducta de la sociedad argentina ante este juicio. Por eso sabemos poco de esos siete "demonios", porque no se necesitaba demonizarlos ni recordar lo que habían hecho. Con el simple testimonio de una mujer que tuvo que limpiar su propia placenta y su tortura, no necesitamos más. Es otro acierto de la película. Me pareció novedoso el foco, frente a la tentación de poder ponerlo en algo más épico, como hubiera hecho Spielberg, citando a un director típico hollywoodense (un genio, también) que usted mismo cita.
La escena del pañuelo de esa madre fue real, está la foto en los diarios y el resto...es una ficción. Esa imagen coreográfica no me parece un golpe bajo, sino una elección estética para mostrar que las madres nunca se sacaron el pañuelo desde 1977, ni aún bajo la amenaza de armas apuntándoles a metros. Toda ficción tiene sus reglas, no se puede pedir que sea un documental.
Y, finalmente, ante las dos preguntas que la película no se hace y usted plantea en su nota ( ¿cuáles son los fundamentos sociales de toda dictadura y cuáles son las difíciles decisiones que la gente debe tomar bajo un sistema cruel? ), tampoco concuerdo con usted. Acá, en Argentina, la película fue vista por miles y miles de familias, generaciones que no tenían idea de lo que había sucedido y, justamente, esas preguntas nacieron en los más jóvenes luego de ver la película. También en aquellos que fuimos adolescentes en aquel momento del juicio y hoy somos padres de adolescentes. La película llevó a hacernos esas preguntas y creo que el alegato final del fiscal (protagonista de la película), si bien es muy largo (eso sí me pareció demasiado), da también la respuesta: Nunca más. Esa es la respuesta que el pueblo argentino tuvo luego de conocer los crímenes en aquel momento y de rememorar ahora esos hechos, luego de la pelicula.
Sentí la necesidad de responder con mucho respeto a sus puntos, porque yo también le veo defectos a la película, pero justamente esos puntos que usted marca no lo son. Al contrario, creo que tiene muchos aciertos en su narración y su foco. Le veo defectos en escenas que no agregan significado, en que el final se alargó, se tendría que haber terminado en el alegato. En algunos personajes que están de más. En fin, temas narrativos de carácter cinematográfico, y que es una mirada muy subejtiva. También, me hubiera gustado más una presencia más clara del presidente Alfonsín, ya que su decisión política y su valentía en aquel momento fue lo que permitió que este juicio ejemplar se hiciera.
Disculpas por el extenso mensaje, creo que el tema de su artículo de opinión abre un debate muy interesante.
Branko, I would highly recommend, in my view a much better Argentinian movie about the coup itself. The movie is called Kamchatka. Ricardo Darin also plays the main protagonist. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320042/
Te escribo en castellano Lei tu comentario y como argentino.y entusiasta de nuestro cine ,tenes toda la razon Lo mismo pense del."Secteto de tus ojos " El cine rs un negocio que los tanques de Hollywood lo an arruinado y drsbastaron el cine de la mayoria de los paises Nosotros tuvimos directores como Torres Rios o Torres Nilson que algun pecado tuvo
Cómo Argentina de 65 años que atravesó ese período y el origen de los años de plomo, puedo de irle respetuosamente, que es una excelente mirada sobre un hecho histórico. No es un documental, es una película y como tal debe verse. No le falta el respeto a nada, menos al dolor. Por favor no me obligue a decirle que como comentarista de cine es un buen economista. Saludos
As an Argentinian, I agree with many of your comments. Although, the main local critique has been erasing the role of the Alfonsin’s government to make it happen, with all the trade offs involved in the process. As you well mention, it was a rough, complicated process and not a work of a lone wolf prosecutor that reluctantly becomes the hero.
Here a great article between a jurist and the producer about the storyline decisions made: https://seul.ar/argentina-1985-gargarella-llinas/
The producers actively tried to create a heroic storyline, instead of representing the complexities of the process in a deep fashion
I apologize for what will be an extremely long comment, but it might address some of the issues you raise. My father (a militant himself in the 70s) wrote a biography of one of the indicted, and in it he made what I still think are some very acute points about the intrinsic, in a sense unavoidable contradictions and, ultimately, dishonesties of the simple human rights narrative underpinning the trials. The post-dictatorship narrative contained necessarily a significant element of dissembling about what had actually happened, and I suspect this problem would reveal itself even in cultural products less heavy-handed than, I see, this movie (haven't seen it, tho' fan of director). Translation follows (and again, I apologies for its length).
" The element of civil legitimacy of the trials was intense and deeply-felt not only because of the kind of atrocities that had been committed, but also because ideologically the proceedings were carried out under a doctrine of human rights that was itself the result of the military defeat of the guerrillas–of the transformation of the former insurgent into a citizen and of the former student or worker into a voter. The doctrine of human rights had been a powerful weapon against the military regime, but carried within itself a kind of postwar failsafe in that it simultaneously sought to institute a code of morals that effectively outlawed the use of mass violence or armed struggle. The feats of former guerrillas, the aims and militancy of the disappeared could receive the sympathy and nostalgia of family members or human rights activists, but between the two groups a symbolic death had taken place that made it impossible to think in the old terms. The insurgents, having disappeared physically, now disappeared a second time: they were stripped of their individual political identity as militants and reduced to their identity as human beings.
(…)
The trials had however a slightly farcical element, not least in that accusers and accused knew each other extensively from their joint membership in the Argentine social elites. The trial’s paradox lay in that it judged the hangmen of the Proceso, but not those who designed its economic and political policies–the military chiefs rather than the economic and political beneficiaries of what they had done. A proper Nuremberg would have required the triumph of the enemy side, but in Argentina the only victory against the Armed Forces was won by the British Army. This was why the Argentine establishment could only allow a trial that accused the military corporation of having outstayed its original welcome, of targeting members of the elite rather than the subversives they were tasked with destroying, and finally of its putting Argentina on the verge of “jumping the map” out of its geopolitical place in the West as a last-ditch effort to rescue its disastrous Falklands adventure.
The dictatorship was not under trial for being dictatorial, but rather because of its attempt to free itself from the control of its traditional masters in the civilian establishment. The institutions of the military were not placed on trial, but rather the decentralization and devolution of repressive activities that had led–by the formation of semi-autonomous “task forces” and the consequent fractal subdivision of the country into successive paramilitary fiefdoms–to the dissolution of the military’s own chain of command and its existence as a regular army under the control of the civilian ruling class. It could be said that what Alfonsín’s government was putting under trial was the Armed Forces' deviation from their own institutional norms.
(…)
The concept of “State terrorism”, like that of human rights, created more questions than answered and threatened repeatedly to expose the contradictory and problematic nature of the trials. The idea of the State presupposes a specific juridical order that is antithetical to the practice of terrorism. “State terrorism” was conceptually an oxymoron, since the State is defined by the socially legitimate administration of violence, while terrorism is called such precisely because it is violence that lacks this legitimacy.
When a State engages in terrorism, when it sets aside its own legitimate repressive institutions in favor of clandestine terror, autonomous task forces, disappearances and similar “Night and Fog” tactics, this necessarily means that the State has ceased to exist as such and is become a mere administrative superstructure dissociated from the competitive terrorist groups that now represent real power in the land. The prosecutor, by using the expression “State terrorism,” exposed the problematic nature of what was being judged and should have led to the realization that what happened between 1976 and 1983 had been in fact the disintegration of the State, the Armed Forces, and all other legitimate repressive institutions.
When real power became coterminous with the physical power exerted over a given geographical space, when this power was wielded by heterogeneous task forces consisting of officers of varying ranks and paramilitary civilians, then this necessarily meant that the chain of command had been irretrievably broken and central authority had a purely subordinate influence as a mere source of cover and legitimacy for the work of repression. The expression “I am the master of of life and death in this zone,” heard by different prisoners in different concentration camps, revealed exactly this destruction of the the chain of command and, more generally, the dissolution of the Argentine State. '
https://judgingofdistances.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/the-junta-trials-the-second-disappearance-of-the-victims-and-the-real-crime-for-which-the-accused-were-judged/
totally agree
Prof. Branko Milanovic,
Sorry for disrespectful and insulting answers to your post by my con-nationals. I would like to make you aware that in spite of the Juicio a las Juntas is almos 40 years over, is still a very sensitive and politically hotted contested topic y current Argentine politics. You may see that things were not close at those trial as you may check in the corresponding entry in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_the_Juntas As new events were happening as late as 2015-16 (at least) and being that the Supreme Court overthrowed "Leyes the Obediencia Debida y Punto Final" in 2006 when President Nestor Kirchner was in power, current politics is permeated by this past events and further more contested and debated after society got strongly polarized between "Kircheneristas and other peronist groups allied to it" and a rising right wing coalition. Nestor Kirchener death in 2010 non withstanding did not stop this dynamic as his wife Cristina Kirchner was two times President of Argentina and is currently its Vicepresident. So, in a heated polarized society this events are not "past" events, but currently hotted debated and present events. Hope this long review helps you to understand some reactions to your post, in which I mostly agree. Regards,
Thanks for your comments. Honestly, I did not realize how politically charged the topic was because my original Tweet was just a vert simple disappointment w/ the movie. Nothing speciall. But since I got so many comments I thought I had to explain my point of view in greater detail. I am very appreciate of the importance of the events and possibly of international significance of having the trials better known, but this (as I I write) does not deal w/ the quality of the movie. In any case, thank you for your clarification and for bringing things more up-to-date (incl. Kirchner).
In fact I realized that the essential of your critique was of the film being "Hollywodesque". An it is, Let it go
Good comment, Branko.
I grew up in a military dictatorship (Franco’s Spain), and I know how easy is to blank, deny and forget its social support afterwards.
There are other movies about Argentina with deeper insights (for example, Rojo).
However, I enjoyed the movie, and I’d celebrate if it gets the Oscar!
No sabía que ud era crítico de cine, siga con la economía que parece que de eso sabe , el cine es arte y entretenimiento y el cine comercial está destinado a un público masivo, se atreve a criticar a Spielberg, seguramente el tipo que mejor articula el cine para mayorías con una excelente calidad fílmica, para llegar a millones de personas, ud dedíquese a los cine-club donde se juntan 50 personas a hacer sesudos análisis críticos de películas que no ve nadie
The same Q as I just addressed above. Does the fact that Spilberg's films are seen by millions mean that he is a great director & will stay an influence in history? It is doubtful. Stephen Kings books are read by millions too. Is he a new Tolstoy or Flaubert? (I agree too that the other extreme: 50 people in a cine club is not a great solution either. It is elitism w/o a public.)
No entiendo el inglés !
Si no puede responder en inglés no puede entender el espíritu de esta película
I could somehow recognize the faults presented by you about the quality of the film as an artistic product in itself, but in your argument there is an important flaw: both the call from Moreno Ocampo's mother and the scene with the handkerchiefs are made documented history. And in that sense, Argentina's history may be improbable, or even incomprehensible to a foreign spectator, but that does not mean that the facts stop being such. On the other hand, it is necessary to clarify that even among the upper and upper middle classes that supported the 1976-83 dictatorship, knowledge of the atrocities committed by the de facto government was extremely superficial, either by concealment or by denial. And it is thus that a first-person testimony from an innocent victim could achieve such a change of opinion. It's not about "good" or "bad" families; these are people who did not want to know and were faced with the harshest truth. This, and many other situations throughout the film, are widely known by the Argentine public, the main addressee of the film, so it is not necessary to place too much emphasis on the personalities of the villains in the case; they have already been widely covered in all kinds of media, history books, movies, textbooks and many other supports. So, for the average Argentine, there are a series of references that are not necessary. And it is possible that for the foreign viewer the lack of them affects the perceived quality of the final product. But I repeat: that is not the final recipient of Argentina, 1985. The questions mentioned are, like many other unanswered questions, destined to reopen a historical debate that should not have been silenced. That is the virtue of the film for the Argentine public. For others, it may be just another courtroom drama of which there are thousands.
And yet he's nominated for an Oscar.
I think its chances of winning an Oscar are very high. But again this is the same problem. Should Oscars or Nobel Prize for Literature etc be given to the most politically useful (important) films and books, or to those that seem to be of high quality (I know that quality is entirely subjective)? In other words, how important is the pedagogical message in judging a work of art? Not at all, or it is all that counts, or somewhere in the middle?
What matters are the cultural competencies of the recipient. It is not the same to see Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk having knowledge of what happened in Word War II than without having it. Sure, everyone knows what happened in WW II. Well, every Argentine knows what happened during the dictatorship. It also applies to Leonardo's The Last Supper or Alighieri's Divine Comedy. If you don't know the context, you can't understand the message.
significant conclusions and elaborated justification of your original tweets.
We, the people, are too anxious to be happy, so we watch cheap Holyshit movies...
Yet, some of us know of cliches used there and mainly in order to make people glorify the Evil Empire and its manifestations (even their planetary plundering wars), so when a messenger such as you come and points out what should have been highlighted and what was just cliche, many people will feel that they are taken out of their comfort zone and will attack you.
Congrats on your analysis.
GN
Putting the subject matter aside, I share your assessment regarding the narrative structure and devices. More than Spielberg, the movie that came to mind was Brian DePalma’s “The Untouchables” (1987). e.g. a movie about the prosecution of Al Capone.
In the Untouchables, there's the world weary Chicago cop who has to be convinced with great difficulty to take on Capone; when he finally commits he seeks out a young cop at the academy because older hands can’t be trusted; a similarly dynamic plays out in Argentina 1985. In both movies, threats to the family are used as a way of creating dramatic tension and raising the stakes. Those are just a couple examples.
A big advantage that DePalma and David Mamet (the screenwriter) had with their fictionalized history was that it was 60 years in the past. The Capone story had already entered into myth. This allowed them greater liberty with the facts and allowed for a greater emphasis on emotional truth. Argentina 1985 obviously deals with a much more important and timely subject — I thought it had its moments, but that the target audience was probably people more directly impacted by the history.
My thought leaving the theater was that a documentary, first-person narrative might be a better treatment of the subject for an international audience. Although, “Nostalgia de la luz / Nostalgia for the Light” in 2010 may have already covered some of that ground.
Hola, pido disculpas por escribir en español (sé que pueden recurrir al traductor) pero, si bien hablo y escribo en inglés, tengo más vocabulario en mi idioma natal para expresar comentarios más profundos. Lamento las agresiones recibidas y la intolerancia ante un pensamiento diferente. Aún hace falta ejercicio democrático. No obstante, me gustaría compartirle mis refutaciones a sus puntos desarrollados en esta nota sobre Argentina 1985.
El primero, sobre el "héroe reticente", me parece que el mayor valor que tiene ese personaje es que es muy real, dubitativo y frágil hasta el final. Me parece muy humano, que no responde a un estererotipo rígido, sino que va sufriendo una evolución durante la película que en ningún momento se transforma en un héroe de golpe. Siempre está el excepticismo y la duda en él. Su familia no lo alienta desde el primer momento. Su mujer le recuerda su silencio e inacción durante la dictadura, cuando recibía los habeas corpus. No coincido, en fin, con su descripción del héroe reticente porque me parece un personaje muy bien construido, que más que reticente, se lo ve cobarde y hasta cierto punto, un hombre mediocre que le toca una misión histórica.
Con respecto a que es "previsible", se entiende que no está hablando del devenir histórico conocido, pero no coincido tampoco con eso porque, como argentina, lo previsible hubiera sido una visión maniquea de la historia, una mirada idealizada y acá , el foco no está puesto en el juicio sino en el personaje del fiscal y la conducta de la sociedad argentina ante este juicio. Por eso sabemos poco de esos siete "demonios", porque no se necesitaba demonizarlos ni recordar lo que habían hecho. Con el simple testimonio de una mujer que tuvo que limpiar su propia placenta y su tortura, no necesitamos más. Es otro acierto de la película. Me pareció novedoso el foco, frente a la tentación de poder ponerlo en algo más épico, como hubiera hecho Spielberg, citando a un director típico hollywoodense (un genio, también) que usted mismo cita.
La escena del pañuelo de esa madre fue real, está la foto en los diarios y el resto...es una ficción. Esa imagen coreográfica no me parece un golpe bajo, sino una elección estética para mostrar que las madres nunca se sacaron el pañuelo desde 1977, ni aún bajo la amenaza de armas apuntándoles a metros. Toda ficción tiene sus reglas, no se puede pedir que sea un documental.
Y, finalmente, ante las dos preguntas que la película no se hace y usted plantea en su nota ( ¿cuáles son los fundamentos sociales de toda dictadura y cuáles son las difíciles decisiones que la gente debe tomar bajo un sistema cruel? ), tampoco concuerdo con usted. Acá, en Argentina, la película fue vista por miles y miles de familias, generaciones que no tenían idea de lo que había sucedido y, justamente, esas preguntas nacieron en los más jóvenes luego de ver la película. También en aquellos que fuimos adolescentes en aquel momento del juicio y hoy somos padres de adolescentes. La película llevó a hacernos esas preguntas y creo que el alegato final del fiscal (protagonista de la película), si bien es muy largo (eso sí me pareció demasiado), da también la respuesta: Nunca más. Esa es la respuesta que el pueblo argentino tuvo luego de conocer los crímenes en aquel momento y de rememorar ahora esos hechos, luego de la pelicula.
Sentí la necesidad de responder con mucho respeto a sus puntos, porque yo también le veo defectos a la película, pero justamente esos puntos que usted marca no lo son. Al contrario, creo que tiene muchos aciertos en su narración y su foco. Le veo defectos en escenas que no agregan significado, en que el final se alargó, se tendría que haber terminado en el alegato. En algunos personajes que están de más. En fin, temas narrativos de carácter cinematográfico, y que es una mirada muy subejtiva. También, me hubiera gustado más una presencia más clara del presidente Alfonsín, ya que su decisión política y su valentía en aquel momento fue lo que permitió que este juicio ejemplar se hiciera.
Disculpas por el extenso mensaje, creo que el tema de su artículo de opinión abre un debate muy interesante.
Saludos cordiales
Teresa Sofía Buscaglia (Periodista)
Coincido en un todo con ud.
ANDATE A VER UN DOCUMENTAL, CONFUNDÍS PELÍCULA CON DOCUMENTAL
Interesting discussion. What do folks think about this one ("Azor") by the way?
https://m.imdb.com/video/vi2893987865/?playlistId=tt11136276&ref_=tt_pr_ov_vi
Branko, I would highly recommend, in my view a much better Argentinian movie about the coup itself. The movie is called Kamchatka. Ricardo Darin also plays the main protagonist. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320042/
Te escribo en castellano Lei tu comentario y como argentino.y entusiasta de nuestro cine ,tenes toda la razon Lo mismo pense del."Secteto de tus ojos " El cine rs un negocio que los tanques de Hollywood lo an arruinado y drsbastaron el cine de la mayoria de los paises Nosotros tuvimos directores como Torres Rios o Torres Nilson que algun pecado tuvo
Cómo Argentina de 65 años que atravesó ese período y el origen de los años de plomo, puedo de irle respetuosamente, que es una excelente mirada sobre un hecho histórico. No es un documental, es una película y como tal debe verse. No le falta el respeto a nada, menos al dolor. Por favor no me obligue a decirle que como comentarista de cine es un buen economista. Saludos
Excelente análisis que comparto 100%
Excelente análisis que comparto 100%