The Wild Bunch

It was a really long film and I didn’t like it much at the beginning but it kind of grew on me. Close to the end of the movie, I was quite attached to the Wild Bunch and their emotions. However, it was also because of this attachment that I was frustrated, shocked and disappointed to see them leaving Angel there with the Mexicans. I had a mix feeling towards the situation. One side of me knew that it wouldn’t make sense for the whole gang to go down, while the other side of me thought “how could they have just abandoned their ‘comrade’?” However, I think they redeemed themselves at the end by taking on the suicidal mission of rescuing Angel. I was touched when the four of them marched towards their suicidal mission (at this point I already forgot they were the bad guys and I really shouldn’t be touched by their violent actions). Although overall, the movie was a bit too violent for my liking, I thought it was quite realistic and at times necessary for the message and the image that it tries to portray and deliver. I had a mix feeling about the ending of the film. I was especially bothered to see Angel being tortured like that.

To be honest, I didn’t pay much attention to how they treated the women. The women were so neglected I thought the director purposely portrayed it in such a way to emphasize that the movie was about men and the historical background. The readings really helped me appreciate the movie more. If I hadn’t read the articles, I probably wouldn’t have thought as highly of the film. I like the analogies that it draws – character analogies, historical event analogies, etc.

I also really like the long pause of silence when they shot the Mexican leader. I thought it created powerful tension. I even held my breath for a bit when it happened.

Que viva Mexico

Esta película es muy diferente que las otras que hemos visto en la clase. Mi primera impresión de la película es que es muy pictórica. Las primeras escenas consisten de imágenes quietas que son casi como fotografías y no son solamente fotos pero fotos aterradoras.

Hay varias escenas que ocurren más tarde en la película también que parecen como fotos por ejemplo, hay este hombre que monta a caballo (se echa a caballo?), los tres hombres que están de pie sobre el monte con el cielo detrás de ellos, etc.
Algo que captura mi atención es que hay dos estilos distintos dentro de la película. Hay una parte que es más documental y real mientras hay otra que es más novelada y arreglada. El principio y el fin de la película parecen mucha más natural y real cuando el resto parecen más arreglada. Por lo tanto, como Alyssa, me sorprendo un poco porque al principio de la película, el hombre menciona que la mayoría de la película consiste de documental y poco de acting.

Sin embargo, me gusta la parte de actuación. Pienso que es muy bien hecho considerando el límite de tecnología y la omisión de palabras. La película incluye mucha detalle de la vida mexicana en aquel tiempo: los estilos de vestir, estilos de beber, estilos de vivir, etc. Siento mal para las mujeres porque tienen que trabajar tanto para obtener la vida que quiere mientras los hombres no hacen mucho. Las mujeres tienen que trabajan desde niñez para tener su collar de oro cuando los hombres se relajan en las hamacas (or so it seems).

Me gusta cómo los mexicanos perciben la muerte. Ellos no tienen miedo de la muerte desemejante a norteamericanos y asiáticos. En Taiwan, la palabra muerte es un tabú que es mejor no la mencionamos.

Batalla en el cielo

This movie is really difficult to understand. There are several scenes that I have not yet figured out what they mean or even what happened. I think I am going to watch the movie a second time to fully grasp what’s going on. It is challenging to analyze the film without a good understanding of it, but I’m going to try.

The movie is rather slow compare to the other movies that we’ve seen. Marcos, the main character, does not express much emotion. Actually, most of the characters in the movie express little emotion. They barely conversed with each other and even when Marcos hugged his wife, the whole action was as though it was in slow motion too. This slow motion creates a heavy and overwhelming atmosphere. I have never been to Mexico so I am not sure if it is a realistic portrayal of the place. However I was always under the impression that Mexico City is busy and crowded where people move at a fast pace?! That being said, I am not suggesting that the characters are completely indifferent. They show their emotion in more discrete ways.

I couldn’t figure out how the last scene played into the murder of Ana. If Marcos loved Ana, why would he kill her instead of turning himself in? When he told her that he was going to be away, she did not seem too concerned or bothered by it; perhaps it was why he decided to kill her instead of turning himself in?! Marcos seemed to care much more about Ana than how much Ana cared about him. When he picked her up from the airport, she was focused on talking on the phone rather than having a conversation with him. He also seriously considered turning himself in because that was what Ana said.

And here are a couple questions that I have:

At the end of the movie, what happened to Marcos? Did he die?

The last scene with him and Ana, when did it happen? Before Ana went away? Before they had sex? After they had sex? I just can’t fully comprehend their relationship…

Mecanica Nacional

Wow. This movie really gives me mixed feelings. On the one hand I don’t like how it’s very chaotic and incoherent at some parts, on the other it might just be reflecting what Mexico City was really like at that time. It is chaotic since there were so many people and cars involved. The background noises sometimes made it difficult to hear what the main characters were saying.

First of all, I was rather bothered by the scene of traffic congestion at the beginning of the movie where everyone shouted at each other. The atmosphere was hostile and unpleasant; made me wonder why they would want to have this kind of “fiesta” often, as part of their life. Secondly, some of the scenes didn’t quite make sense to me; for example, the scene with a couple wearing white who ate from morning to night and from night to morning. I didn’t understand why it was there nor how to make logic sense out of it. I mean, how could that pot of paella lasted so long? Haha. Lastly, there was a scene with the wife running down a hill. When she began to run, the sky was dark, however when she got to the bottom of the hill, it was bright again.

However, despite the little pieces here and there, I thought the whole film gave a strong impression on the Mexican cultural of how the people were very tight and close to each other. They were also very open about the events/incidents that happened in their own families. I was somewhat shocked to find people discussing the death of the grandmother so casually like that. For me, it would have been a lot more private and personal. I think it is interesting that the personal space needed in Canadian culture and Mexican culture is so drastically different.

Moreover, the film reflected machismo vividly and realistically. When I was in Spain, the problem with machismo was also frequently discussed and debated. The film demonstrated how the society accepted such machismo and violence towards women.
I like the realistic takes on Mexican society and its values.

Los Olvidados

Me gusta la película Los Olvidados mucho porque la trama es coherente y credible. Me parece que más realista que Aguila o sol pero al mismo tiempo, Aguila o sol es una comedía. Pienso que la película puede ser un forma de documentary porque los escenario y la mayoría de personajes son reales, no son accesorios. Además, la película refleja muchos problemas que existen en México. Estoy de acuerdo con Winston que, “The difference [between documentary and fiction] is to be found in the mind of the audience”.

La yuxtaposición entre el ciego y el principal de la escuela de granja sirve como un crítico fuerte. Aunque la manera del principal no funcionaba 100%, ya podemos ver el cambio en Pedro. La confianza que el principal tenía de Pedro le daba un sentido de importancia. En lugar de compartir el dinero con Jaibo, Pedro trató de devolver el dinero ah principal. Eso es un cambio significante. También, esta confianza del principal le daba Pedro el coraje a decir el pueblo las criminalidades de Jaibo. Por lo tanto, aunque Pedro fue matado al final, no cambia el hecho que había cambios en las acciones y mentalidad de Pedro. Si tenía más tiempo, podría ser bueno otra vez. Sin embargo, es muy triste que la sociedad que estaba en reforma no tuviera bastante gente como el principal pero pobreza estaba demasiado.

También me sorprende mucho que solamente Jaibo y Pedro son actores porque la situación era tan horrible que tengo un poquito dificultad creyendo que las escenas pasaron (y todavía pasan) en la ciudad de México.

Águila o sol + The Formation of a National Cinema Audience

The Formation of a National Cinema Audience provided a lot of the historical and cultural background that helped me achieve a better understanding of the film Águila o sol. To start off, I would like to point out a few points that I found interesting in the reading. On page 73, it says, “the cinema represented a new point of contact in this hierarchical society … Aurelio de los Reyes invokes an audience scenario that reveals not only that the new invention cut across class divisions, but also that it was a pleasure in which women could legitimately indulge…” Although I am already aware of the influence of media on the society nowadays, I still find it amazing how cinema critically contributed to the merging different social classes in Mexico. On top of merging social classes, it is amazing that cinema also contributed to the gender equality between men and women. In the film Águila o sol, the audience within the film did include more than one social class and female participation was also present. Moreover, I also found “suicide rate and alcoholism was noted to decline in the early decades of the twentieth century, as this pastime became an increasingly popular form of family entertainment” very impressive. I wonder if our cinema today still has this kind of positive influence on us.

In the reading, the author also noted that the most popular comedians were the ones who played “roguish characters embodying elements modeled on the popular audiences” including their “modes of speech, dress and social conduct” (77). This point is evident in the film that we watched in class. When Polito was acting on stage within the movie, he dressed like a lower social class and also talked like a lower class. I did not notice many people from the audience within the film that dressed like him, most of them dressed like middle class, but they were enjoying the show nonetheless. Does it mean that the class distinction between lower and middle class wasn’t that great? Overall I enjoyed the movie, except for some parts where they spoke very fast and I had some difficulty understanding what they were saying.

Hello!

Hello everyone! my name is Yuhan and I am a fourth year student. I study both Spanish and English. I moved to Canada when I was in grade 7. I am taking Spanish because I love to travel. When I was younger, I also wanted to be a translator too. However, now I found it to be more challenging then I had thought lol. I love watching movies!

Hmm, I also go by Andie so if Yuhan is too hard to remember or pronounce, I'll respond to Andie as well.



Cheerio!
Yuhan