| Mexican Film |
Index for Mexican |
Website Links For Mexican |
Information AboutMexican Film |
|
In essence, the Porfirian cinema can be divided into two groups. The first being Documentary Film s based on the daily routines of ordinary Mexican people, such as films capturing people on their Sunday walks and leaving church. In addition, the activities of well-known public figures were also documented. The second group focused on extraordinary current events that were informative in nature. An example of the former is the film entitled Viaje a Yucatán (1906) by Salvador Toscana Barragán, a young engineer student who was the first Mexican to open a movie salon and to make films of real-life events. The film was based on one of Porfirio Diaz ’s journey from Mexico City to Yucatán . The latter is illustrated in the film entitled ''Guananjuato'' (1905-1906), which was based on the Guanajuanto floods. Despite the rather narrow criteria that these films are categorized under, the filming techniques used by their filmmakers initiated the development of a national film style. Initially, Mexican films were characterized by their simplicity and lack of narrative presentation; however, the ''Guananjuato'' film went beyond the traditional one-take model, in that a sets of eight moving scenes were taken. In comparison, the realistic depiction of the events surrounding Toscana’s film, ''Viaje a Yucatan'' (1906), which was “constructed as a linear chronology of the trip, which served as a narrative thread organizing the brief story from beginning to end”(65), was attributed with initiating the process of which the Mexican newsreel began to distinguish itself from foreign models. Although, the most ambitious film of this time was ''La entrevista Diaz-Taft'' (The Diaz-Taft Meeting) produced in October of 1908 by the Alva brothers (Eduardo, Guillermo, and Salvador). These filmmakers took an additional step towards developing a national newsreel style by intending to narrate two parallel stories. Although, circumstances prevented them from filming the events, their efforts are indicative of the steps taken towards the development of a national style. The period of Madero’s reign (1911-1913) may be described as the “golden age” for Mexican cinema in the sense that cinematographers documented real events and informed the public, in an impartial manner. In addition, the popularity that cinema had experienced in the early 1900s continued to grow and by 1911 fourteen movie houses were erected from the year prior. Another factor that contributed to the growing popularity of Mexican cinema was the arrival of Contingents of the Revolutionary peasants in the capital, all of whom were anxious to experience the thrill of cinema. Furthermore, it was during this period that the documentary techniques were mastered as is evident in the Alva brother’s production entitled ''Revolución orozquista'' (1912). The film was shot in the camps of the rebel and federal forces during the battle between General Huerta and the leader Pascual Orozco. According to Paulo Paranaguá “the cameramen did not favor either side and limited themselves to observing events: they would attempt to show the public ‘the truth.’” (Paranaguá 68-69). However, despite the relative advancement of cinema during this period, the moralistic and paternalist ideology of Madero led to his campaign to save the lower classes from immorality through censorship. Hence, in late September and early October of 1911, city council members appointed additional movie house inspectors, whose wages would be paid by the exhibitioners. Furthermore, the head of the Entertainment Commission, proposed the implementation of pre-censorship; however, Victoriano Huerta’s coup d’état in February 1913, prevented the move to legislate pre-censorship. Although Huerta’s reign (1913-1914) was brief, the cinema experienced significant changes within this period such as the further establishment of censorship and a shift away from documentary films to entertainment films. The Alva brothers’ production of ''Aniversario del fallecimineto de la suegra de Enhart'' (The Anniversary of the Death of Enhart’s Mother-in-Law, May 1913) is indicative of the change in the aim of Mexican cinematographers. The fictitious nature of this film indicates that it was created solely for the amusement of the audience rather then to inform them. In regards to censorship, the Huerta government imposed a moral and political decree of censorship in approximately June 1913. This decree was imposed a few days after convencionista soldiers shot at the screen during a viewing of ''El aguila y la serpiente''. The decree stated that films that showed the following were prohibited: “views representing crimes, if they do not include punishment of the guilty parties, views which directly or indirectly insult an authority or person, morality or good manners, provoke a crime or offence, or in any way disturb the public order (Mora 70).” As a result of the limitations placed on film content as well as the radicalization of the parties involved in the armed conflicts, cameramen and producers began to display their opinion through the films they produced. For instance, favoritism towards the Zapatistas was illustrated in the film ''Sangre Hermana'' (Sister Blood, 1914). Due to the sensational content of this film, it is evident that the producers had no interest in displaying the events in such a way that the audience could come to their own conclusions. By 1916 the Revolutionary documentaries had disappeared from the theatres and only reappeared in exceptional circumstances such as the assassination of Zapata (1919) and Villa (1923). However, the documentaries based on their lives were reflective of a more historical interest rather then a contemporary one. The cinematic productions of this period were reflective of the Italians style ''film d’art'', which were fiction-based melodramas. The film ''La Luz'' (The Light, Ezequiel Carrasco, 1917) was the first film that attempted to adopt this style, even though it was viewed as a plagiarism of Piero Fosco’s ''Il Fuoco''. Paranaguá attributes the influence that the Italian had on the Mexican cinema with the similarities between the situations of both countries. Both countries were in a state of chaos and disorder- there was a war in Italy and a revolution in Mexico (Paranaguá 70). Once again censorship was re-established on October 1st 1919. Films, which illustrated acts of immortality or induced sympathy for the criminal, were prohibited. The Obregόn regime (1920-1924) is known for its contributions to the field of academics. Jόse Vasconcelos was the central promoter of academics throughout Mexico. Although his efforts were more concentrated on the muralist movement of this period he did promote pedagogical through film. The state sponsored films through the Ministries of War and Marines, Education, and Agriculture and Development. In essence, the film was utilized as a pedagogical tool. The Ministry of Education sponsored the greatest number of films among the three Ministries. These films consisted of documentations of their activities and produced their own newsreel. The Ministry of Agriculture produced scientific and educational films, such as ethnographic films produced by the archeologist Manuel Gamio in the Teotihuacán Valley (1921-1922). In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture attempted to produce scientific films based on laboratory research of the Mexican flora and Fauna; however, their research was interrupted by the Adolofo de la Huerta’s 1923 rebellion. Government budget had to be trimmed as a result of the rebellion and cinematographic departments of the Ministry of Education and Agriculture were cut. By 1924, narrative films were at an all time low since 1917. Film pioneers’ aspiration to develop a national film industry that possessed its own distinguishable character (which they had achieved in many ways as was evident in the films produced between 1917 and 1920 of which contained the seeds of the sound cinema’s themes, archetypes and attitudes) had been temporarily crushed not only by the consolidation of U.S. cinematic presence in Mexico during the 1920s, but by the lack of support by Vasconcelos to stimulate producers to develop narrative films. This period, commonly referred to as the Maximato years (1925-1930) is not exceptionally significant to Mexican films due to the relatively stagnant position of the film industry. American films and film industry continued to dominate the Mexican market, which resulted in a change of public taste for American goods such as films, clothes etc. The tendency of Mexican filmmakers to turn away from producing films that reflected the social and political problems that begun in the Carranza period continued. There was some attempt to carry on the Obregόn government’s promotion of culture, and cultural integration. Despite the failure of Mexican cinema in the 20s, it was no less important to the development of the national cinema. With the introduction of film in the late 1920s, Mexican cinema once again flourished due to its ability to successfully integrate the national and linguistic traditions of their Hispanic counterpart. Warner Bros. introduced sound cinema to Mexico as a means of maintaining its hold on the Mexican market; however, this worked to American film companies’ disadvantage because they failed to address the linguistic and cultural specifications of the Latin American audience. The first sound film ''Santa'' (1931) produced in Mexico by native filmmakers was quite successful. Most of the films in the 1930s were highly nationalistic, both in style and contents. Stylistically many of the filmmakers were influenced by the work of Sergei Eisenstein, a Soviet director who worked in Mexico during the late 1930s and was attributed with initiating the development of an aesthetic of nationalism. His film ''ﺃQue viva México!'' (1930), is a visual encapsulation of the Mexican land, people, art, and post-revolutionary culture. Through this film, Eisenstein and his followers attempted to evoke Mexico’s essence through shots of the landscape and the native people. Directors of Indigenous films further exalted “Mexicanness” by portraying indigenous customs and practices, local dances, and nationalistic music, which resulted in a sort of tourist image of Mexico, but was also very nationalistic in nature. Indigenous characters in Mexican films were attributed with the same noble characteristics as non-indigenous such as dignity, honesty, courage, and physical strength. By glorifying the indigenous people, the filmmakers promoted a sense of national identity and pride through their attempts to identify the masses with the Indigenous peoples by stressing shared characteristics and experiences. Most of the indigenist films of the 1930s were melodramas that portrayed the Indian as a noble savage who attempted to live in harmony but were constantly being exploited by outside authorities. For instance, in the film Janitzio, the main indigenous character who fished for a living is jailed for complaining about an outsider, Manuel who fixes the selling price of fish. The Revolution made a strong reappearance in cinema during the 1930s, but not as impartial documentaries. These films supported the cultural nationalism by glorifying the revolutionary fighter and revolutionary ideals. Two highly significant films on the revolution were ''El compadre Mendoza'' (Godfather Mendoza, 1993) and ''Vámonos con Pancho Villa'' (Let’s Go With Pancho Villa, 1935), produced by Fernando de Fuentas. His trilogy on the Revolution, which also included the film ''Allá en el Rancho Grande'' (Over there on a Big Ranch, 1935), were considered his most objective and realistic films. Despite that these films rejected the idealized depiction of the Revolution, the film ''Vámonos con Pancho Villa'' was saved by a government subsidy. Anne Doremus attributes government support of the production of this film as well as other because of their nationalistic nature. In essence, they provided a sort of catharsis for those who were disappointed by the results of the revolution in regards to the unfulfilled revolutionary ideals. In addition, films (particularly ''El compadre Mendoza'' and ''Vámonos con Pancho Villa'') portrayed the Revolution in far more favorable light than novels by centering the plot on the heroic peasant fighter, who symbolizes the true revolutionary spirit. By recognizing the lower classes as the genuine heroes of the Revolution, filmmakers instill a sense of national pride and identity.-- 11:49, 15 April 2006 (EDT) Return to Mexican Revolution |