cIn La hora, then, the film’s mandate is not simply for the pueblo to resist, but for the people to fight to the death if necessary. The film constructs an active spectator who is expected to join the fight and pursue the revolution to its ultimate consequences. We should remember that La hora was often screened clandestinely at union meetings or for groups of militants. Its parts did not have to be shown in order and could be tailored to address the particular needs and debates of the day. Moreover, the film included ample space (chapter and part divisions) that allowed viewers to take breaks to discuss the ideas presented. Its pedagogical goals were clear. While these pedagogical goals are also present in Memoria del saqueo, Solanas’s rhetoric,
…show more content…
But Solanas’s 2004 film also departs from Third Cinema in important ways, not the least of which is the director’s pervasive presence as narrator, interviewer, and character—something that would have been unthinkable in Third Cinema (in a formal sense), one of whose goals was, precisely, to challenge European and American (bourgeois) authorial …show more content…
Neoliberalism is the many-tentacled enemy, but it does not affect everyone in the same way, nor does it inspire equally vigorous forms of resistance or engagement among those affected. María Belén Ciancio reminds us of this when she writes: “Solanas does not distinguish among the jobless, investors, grandmothers, mothers, and children of the disappeared, retired people, and rural women. There is no people as a unified whole; rather there is a collection of multiple ‘becomings’ whose political futures are growing apart.” The film thus leaves us teetering on a precipice. While it denounces—in Third Cinema style—the oppression of the poor by the rich, it falls short of the ambitions of La hora insofar as it never manages to articulate a programmatic alternative around which to unite these diverse
But Solanas’s 2004 film also departs from Third Cinema in important ways, not the least of which is the director’s pervasive presence as narrator, interviewer, and character—something that would have been unthinkable in Third Cinema (in a formal sense), one of whose goals was, precisely, to challenge European and American (bourgeois) authorial …show more content…
Neoliberalism is the many-tentacled enemy, but it does not affect everyone in the same way, nor does it inspire equally vigorous forms of resistance or engagement among those affected. María Belén Ciancio reminds us of this when she writes: “Solanas does not distinguish among the jobless, investors, grandmothers, mothers, and children of the disappeared, retired people, and rural women. There is no people as a unified whole; rather there is a collection of multiple ‘becomings’ whose political futures are growing apart.” The film thus leaves us teetering on a precipice. While it denounces—in Third Cinema style—the oppression of the poor by the rich, it falls short of the ambitions of La hora insofar as it never manages to articulate a programmatic alternative around which to unite these diverse