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