Cocaine Cowboys

In the film, Cocaine Cowboys, Miami in the 1950s and 1960s was a place for seniors to roam the beaches. However, in just a couple of years, Miami would be the most dangerous place in the world due to the influx of immigrants participating in the Medellin drug cartel. In the short years that the drug cartel controlled Miami, the drug trade went through three stages. The first was the initial stages of development- distribution and the loose network that ran the distribution. The second was complete rise of the drug cartel in the 1980s. Finally, the intervention of higher authority on the violence of the cartel lead to the final stage of the drug trade in Miami. While the infiltration of the drug trade in the U.S. came and went rather quickly, drug cartels had been undergoing these stages in the Andean region long before it infiltrated the city of Miami.

Fortune magazine, the cocaine trade is “probably the fastest growing and unquestionably most profitable” in the world (Youngers 120).

In Youngers’s article Collateral Damage, the focus is the effect of U.S. intervention of the drug trade. How was it that the U.S. would interfere in a South American problem? The first stage is development.  The presence of cocaine on American soil originates in the Andean region (Youngers 127). In 1947, a new organization of drug traffickers evolved in the Andean region called “narcoraficantes” (Gootenberg 133). It was in the Andean region that the various groups came together and “invented new tools of the trade” beginning in Peru (Gootenberg 133).  The second stage is the rise of a powerful new force. Once it spread to other South American countries, in 1959, the cocaine drug trade became a more “systematic, growing” process (Gootenberg). Larger organizations sprung up in Latin American countries and soon formed into drug mafias. In Colombia, the infamous Medellin cartel was one of the evolutions. In the development of the drug trade in Miami, the Medellin cartel was fundamental. At the height of the drug trade in 1980s Miami, the decadence of violence was excessive, even more threatening than the notorious Italian mafia.

The final stage is the aftermath. Once violence reached an unprecedented level, governments finally took measures to reduce the influence of their pertinent drug cartels. In Bolivia, the government’s efforts to eradicate the trade worked; however, the eradication, simultaneously, destroyed the local economy (Youngers 125). In Colombia, the drug trade sustained the economy. In the U.S the government developed the “Andean Strategy” (Youngers 129). They increased funding of the local law enforcement and military anti-drug activities both domestically and abroad (Youngers 130). However, U.S. intervention in the international drug trade has given rise to "counter insurgency" with groups such as the FARC in Colombia (Youngers 145). The combined efforts led to the dismantling of the Medellin cartel in the 1990s. However, Youngers phrases it as “like a balloon.” Because squeezing it in one area, causes it to pop up in another area (Youngers 127).

Che

In the 2008 film Che, historically, Ernesto Guevara and Fidel Castro meet in Mexico, in July of 1955. In a private meeting enjoying the balcony air, Ernesto agrees to aid Fidel overthrow the Batista regime. Even though he agrees to join him, Guevara calls him a little crazy. But Ernesto has conditions, that Fidel helps him bring the revolution to Latin American countries. Fidel equally retorts that Che is a little crazy too. A few months later, Guevara sails on a yacht called the “Granma,” heading toward Cuba from Mexico. Had this meeting not occurred that night in Mexico, Guevara would have perhaps never become a Cuban citizen. But before that, he was one of the revolutionaries that brought the political and economical change that inundated the streets of Cuba.

It all began in Mexico. This time for Che, is similar to the silence before a storm. It is a different Guevara than before as a medical student and what he will become- a martyred revolutionary. His biographer describes Che during this time as “disengaged” (Zolov 9). He left Guatemala after a failed attempt for a Guatemalan revolution. Roots for his hatred of American imperialism were stemmed from his experience there. It is there he discovers the “connection between U. S. imperialism and reactionary politics” (Zolov 5). The Guatemalan president, Arbenz, faced the threat of a U.S. invasion, but American leaders explained his resignation as another victory over Communism (Zolov 6). Subsequently, Nixon toured Mexico to increase Latin American sentiment of the U.S. (Zolov 7).  Mexico was now an American ally and an “outlet for U.S. capital,” contradicting the revolutionary ideology that condemned foreign involvement partly responsible for the Mexican revolution just a few decades ago.

This growing anti-U.S. sentiment along with marital discontent led Che to join the revolutionary effort proposed by Fidel Castro. Part one of the Che film focuses on Che’s life as a guerilla fighter. The audience sees him struggle with asthma attacks yet sneak through the jungle and streets of Cuba. He credits victory to the efforts of everyone, not solely him. He believed guerrilla warfare was a people’s warfare so the revolution came from the people.

By the time Cuba is liberated from Batista, Che had fully developed thoughts on the American imperialism. In his message to the Tricontinental, he expresses the consequences of American imperialism in North and South Korea and Vietnam. His final judgment was that U.S. imperialism was “guilty of aggression” whose “crimes are enormous and cover the whole world.” His solution: a socialist revolution in the countries that the U.S. extracts resources from, and not just any socialist revolution. To Che, the only effective political change could be brought about only through a violent revolution led by people capable of emancipating those who could not emancipate themselves (Drinot 14). El Che died in 1967, bringing revolution to those who could not emancipate themselves.

Diarios de Motocicleta

“Que te pasa?” Alberto asks his che, Ernesto, as he looks out to the leper colony across the river that segregates them. Wanting to spend his birthday with the leper colony, he swims across the deep river and miraculously makes it to the other side. Many times, the audience sees the pensive eyes of Ernesto, played by Gael Garcia Bernal. These are the moments that captivate Ernesto and change the young medical student to a guerilla revolutionary. The Motorcycle Diaries is 2004 film inspired from Guevara’s writings traveling through South America with his close friend, Alberto Granado. What the film shows is the start of their journey across Argentina, Chile, Peru, and ends with their separation in Venezuela where Granado continues his scientific track and Ernesto on the road to revolutionary politics.

The implication of political and social injustices in South America changed the course of Ernesto’s life. These injustices gave Che a reason to become what he became; however, a character like Guevara would naturally take much of this into his platform as Eduardo Elena analyzes. Was it unusual that medical student Guevara deviate from his conventional life? To those who are not aware of his early life, the life of a revolutionary is uncharacteristic. However, Che was from a family that did not have a permanent setting. As a child, he heard stories from his grandmother of her father’s experience living in America during the gold rush (Elena 4). In his childhood, the traveling mindset was instilled in the young Guevara through either adventurer books to hikes to bicycling through unknown lands (Elena 4). Seeing the “unknown Latin America” was the utmost important priority for the young explorer. According to Elena, his non-conformist mindset set the method for his travel. He refused to travel as a common tourist, only exposed to the “symbolically important places.”

His strong opposition for traveling as a common tourist was influenced by the political surroundings around Che. His trip was an adventure, but an adventure is mostly an escapist act from a seeming reality. Although Guevara was indifferent to Juan Peron’s regime, the regime and its venues reminded Che of a façade that a government creates for its people (Elena 6). He wanted to see these places through the lives of "the sick, prisoners in jail, and ordinary pedestrians” (Elena 7). In fact, they make many stops that are unconventional such as their stay in the leper colony. Guevara remains loyal to his unconventional and anti-conformist ways, which only continued to grow stronger as he travels. In the film, he refuses to wear gloves upon his visit to the leper colony believing it is purely symbolic of a need for separation.

 In the film, once Alberto and Ernesto lose their bike, they resemble any pedestrian walking through. They begin the journey as fun-loving youth, but many ventures in Peru change Che’s motives. Characteristically reading, Ciro Alegria’s Broad and Alien is the World enlightens Che about Indian groups. (Drinot 7).  The future revolutionary mindset leaks out when he responds to Alberto’s plan at a bloodless Tupac-Amaru revolution. To Che, the socio-economic status of Indian families forced on by the elite classes “barely recognize the humanity” of this group (9). The mistreatment of Indian groups, American imperialism, and false face imposed by Latin American dictators all influenced Guevara’s transformation.

After his birthday speech of a united America, Granado facially expresses that he has noticed a change in Guevara. Indeed, the young Che was changed. Drinot best summarizes Guevara’s final views after his trek across South America as a man who believed that the only effective political change was “through violent revolution led by people capable of emancipation those who could not emancipate themselves.”

Que Viva Mexico

Sergei M. Eisenstein was an extraordinary Russian director famous for films such as Battleship Potemkin and October. These films were patriotic films, consequently it was established that he could recreate a Russian atmosphere in his films. In 1930, he began work on Que Viva Mexico!, a montage of Mexico’s history and prospective future. How would he translate his passion into a patriotic Mexican film? As a foreigner, he had several limitations, but he managed to make this historical masterpiece by incorporating unconventional film styles. His vision captured a unified Mexico and a patriotic Mexican heritage.

Eisenstein never finished his masterpiece due to political reasons. It is possible that no one will see his true completed vision. But what remained convey his purpose- to use montage to expose the relations between the political and personal individual (Robe 18). The film is divided into six episodes, each chronologically representing a history of the people of Mexico.

In the first episode, begins with untouched Mexico lands by European settlers. It is praised because of its narrative montage which has scenes focused on pyramids (Hart 3). The second episode is of a matriarchal society, in which Eisenstein uses visual rhyming; the scene with the image of the necklace is following by a scene of a man in a hammock (3). The third scene, fiesta, displays cultural town life.  The fourth episode, Maguey is closest to classical Hollywood conventions. The fifth, Soldadera, was not shot by Eisenstein (3). The sixth, Day of the Dead, leaves the viewer with a healthy, prospective Mexican future.

His main purpose is exemplified in each episode. The first displays indigenous lifestyle untainted, uninfluenced by the Europeans.  Politically, Techuantepec is a matriarchal society. He shows, using the graphic montage to show how it affects members of the community. Eisenstein then uses the next episode to the show the integrated life of European and indigenous life. The fiesta episode shows a religious ceremony dedicated to the Virgin Mary. Robe implies that it may seem like European assimilation, but there a strong possibility that the townspeople may be worshipping pagan idols. Maguey displays political oppression at the local level by killing off the future of Mexico. He tells this story in an ideational montage. Soldadera and Day of the Dead are tied together because they represent a changing Mexican identity. The unmasking of festival participants, some are skeletons which represent the elite Europeans, while some are young mestizos, who Sergei believed where the future of Mexico. Sergei’s vision was the belief of a “unified artistic vision” of Mexico and belief that the future was in hands of Mexico (4). But his true vision would not be collected until the remaining footage was reconstructed by Grigory Alexandrov (3). The world was not allowed to see his vision, because the Hollywood chose capital rather than art (29). Another factor was that Eisenstein fell out with its financial backer, Upton Sinclair, who would not let Eisenstien edit the material after he left for Russia. An abridgement of Que Viva Mexico! was released under Upton Sinclair; titled Thunder Over Mexico, it was only a segment of Eisenstien’s great vision of Mexico.

Gabriela

Gabriela is a story of seductive young Brazilian who finds love in Nacib, a bar owner in 1920s Brazil. It has all the contents of a soap opera- love, betrayal, murder, and a happy ending. The lives of those characters seem so ridiculous to actually occur; yet in Gabriela, the lives of those characters represent a segment of actual Brazilian life.

The film opens up with the murder of a married woman and her lover. The bar owner did not go to the police but kept it to himself. He did not discuss the issue until he was at the bar amongst the prominent men of the town. They were not alarmed but, nonchalantly, the act itself served as daily gossip. In Brazil, this was a normal occurrence. The film itself was predominantly from a male perspective. The audience learned everything through the discussions at the bar where the town’s most prominent men gathered. The message there is that it’s a traditional man’s world, and this was the way real Brazilians lived their lives. The women were traditionally responsible for raising the family and instilling moral values in society (Caulfield 153).

But from around 1910 to 1940, social roles in Brazil began to change due to the concern of wife killing (Besse 653). It was the job and duty of women to maintain a virtuous lifestyle and family. Because the national interest in these crimes of passion, the blame had to be on the women who had failed to do their job. Failure of providing a morally sound ambience, they caused the violence of men (152).

Vida Policial, a Brazilian magazine, described a chain reaction, the women fail to instill moral values. The female children become promiscuous, and the male children are seduced to produce “degenerate offspring,” inevitably leading to the nation’s ruin (154). In order to present an industrialized nation, they called on men to “police their women” (159). After all, men had a legal right to kill their wife her and her suitor (653). But the movement to civilize Brazilian life led to the protection of women (654). Eventually, wife killing was no longer a right but a crime and was seen as barbaric (660).

In this time, there are conflicts of two ideologies that contain sentiments of a traditional past versus the futuristic idea of a civilized society. In the film, the male and female protagonist fall madly in love and enjoy their time unmarried. She is reluctant to get married, which rebels against the idea of a modern Brazil But due to societal pressures, they marry.  By marrying Nacib, Gabriela becomes valuable property that should not be touched by anyone. Once again, affirming the idea that it is patriarchal, traditional society. However, Gabriela represents the modern Brazilian woman who finds power in her own rebellious nature. She refuses to remain in her shoes and escapes to the circus after a “civilized” poetry reading. She is not traditional by any means. Her rebellion to the monotonous ways of marriage propels her to cheat on Nacib. He also does not follow societal pressures by not killing Gabriela or Tonico.

Ultimately, they remain together but only as couple in love, not as a married couple.

Camila

Why was a romantic tragedy film so successful? Camila (1984) managed to tug the hearts of not only Argentinean audiences but also worldwide audiences, leading to an Oscar nomination. One of the most important features of studying history is being able to recognizing the past and connecting it the present. What audiences in Argentina felt was the similarity between the oppressive government regime then and their own experiences with the military regime. Camila is about a young socialite who elopes with a priest during the struggle between Unitarians and Federalists in 19^th century Argentina. Immediately, there are three conflicts that will keep these two lovers apart. Being a socialite implies that she comes from a prestigious family with a traditional male breadwinner. The second taboo is that her lover is priest, a man that has made a pact of celibacy. Lastly, the political conflict that ultimately resolved itself with the triumph of the dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas, end the journey of these lovers.  Thus, their love fights all forms of paternalistic order- family, church, and state (Stevens).

Maria Luisa Bemberg co-wrote and directed the film. She hardly had to alter any events from the actual story. But what made it successful was Bemberg’s strong presence in the film. It is predominantly resonated in Camila’s personality. Bemberg, a feminist, makes Camila an assertive woman who knows what she wants (Stevens).  Bemberg’s interpretation of this story is essentially that Camila’s independent nature carried her romantic journey against her patriarchal surroundings. Knowing Camila’s personality, the audience notices that Ladislao and Camila’s love is not black and white. Stephen Hart notes that they have each have a view of love that differs from each other, which produces a problem in their relationship.  Their feeling of love is the same because they both consent to eloping. However, their different views of love prevent them from eloping again once they are discovered. Camila’s view of love comes from a rebellious, romanticized way of life, whereas Ladislao has made a pact to the church and God, to dedicate his entire being to a life of servitude. Once they eloped, Camila is living her romantic vision, however, Ladislao is continuous tormented. Is he immediately discard his pact that was, until that point, his life? Bemberg makes Camila’s love stronger to demonstrate that she is the cause of their journey. Therefore, Camila’s defiance in a patriarchal society makes it more offensive to the forms of the order. Were the leaders more upset that it was morally wrong in the eyes of God? Or were they attempting to protect the image of a patriarchal society?

In colonial Latin America, there is this ideology that constitutes the entirety of political life. It is that legitimacy of the state is from God (Dore). Those that ruled the state were the men with wealth and professional status (Dore). But in Camila, even they have to subject to the rules of Rosas. Rosas was born into a wealthy and professional family, but he ran away and became a gaucho. Ironically, with an occupation of the subordinate class, he managed to become ruler of the exploiting classes. But to Rosas, the “true crime” that they committed was defying him, not the church or their families (Stevens). In the film, it is Camila who seduces the priest; therefore she has defied the state, her family, and the church.

The Mission

The Mission fulfilled its purpose as a good story, but nothing more. I liked this story in film form, however, films have to be composed in a certain formula that will maximize profit especially if it is a historical film. Subsequently, I agree with the Saeger’s writings of The Mission that the historicity is subsided for a good story.

His writings explore the film’s ethnocentric point of view. The people responsible for the point of view are the director and screenwriter. The screenwriter, Robert Bolt, is a very accomplished writer. He has to his accreditation, Lawrence of Arabia to his name, but in an analysis of his films, he is criticized for the personal aspects of his protagonists than the broader political context, which is very true for The Mission. Saeger mentions how the Treaty of Madrid is “simplified.” Seeing how that is the cause of conflict for the film, it should have been covered more. But that is a limitation of it being in film form. As European Jesuits, they were given memorably important roles and “dimensional” according to Saeger. I understand the film was about these Jesuits but the entire film served to place them on a pedestal. There was definitely a European superiority complex. The film was set up to have the Guarani as second rate or almost unimportant.

Saeger asks important question such as “Do they need to be westernized?” The film presents to the viewer that Western help is essential because according to it, the Guarani cannot even lead revolt without the help of Jesuits. The historicity is the film could not represent the Guarani more poorly. The film shows the Guarani fulfilling the typical characteristics of indigenous people. They are weak, extremely primitive, cultureless, and simple. Overall, there was a weak presentation of actual Guarani. One thing that bothered me, which is something Saeger mentions, was how one of the girls picks up a violin after the Europeans destroy the mission. After your home is destroyed, would you really pick up a broken musical instrument? Really? Why not food? The film did not even translate their language. The audience had to figure out through their actions what they meant to interpret. This vision of indigenous groups is a typical Eurocentric point of view that has been recorded since Columbus sailed the ocean blue. By the way, Bolt was from the UK, which is in Europe.

I was relieved to read the historic account of the real Guarani. Seager states that the real Guarani were actually more resistant than they were portrayed. As opposed to film Guarani, the real Guarani resisted conversion for decades and they were actually very proud of their culture. They themselves led a revolt against Portuguese-Spanish forces. Maybe it was the Europeans who were less dimensional than the Guarani. After reading the actual account, I definitely did not like the film.

Despite all its flaws concerning historicity, in 1995, the papal committee selected this film to be in the Vatican Film List among 15 films noteworthy for religious significance.