Nonureva Really Surprised!

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

etsiomnes I think any analysis of this film should take into account the context in which it was released. In Argentina in the late 60's there were tremendous injustices inflicted upon the people. Argentina's teenage industry was being undermined by the unrestricted entrance of foreign capitals and products. Factories started to "rationalize" the personnel, workshops were closing, unable to compete with the multinationals that were landing in our fragile economy. This was not new at all for a country which has not yet fulfilled his economic independence, but the signs of underdevelopment were getting more and more evident in a country which has historically considered himself more European than Latin American. Whatisworse, democracy has become an utopia in a country where its major party was banned, and the minority parties which were allowed to rise in power after limb-democratic elections were quickly overthrown by the constant military coups. Argentina lived from 55-83 in a virtual State of Siege where all political activities related to the major party (Peronist Party)were fiercely persecuted. These regime did not hesitate to assassinate and imprisoned popular activists. So the Argentine people arrived to a sideways in those years. Either stay silent and tolerate the injustice, or raise their voice in protest. To raise the voice in those times involved persecution and most probably, death. So there was a new choice to make. Either protest and get killed or to protest and defend oneself. Argentine people were not thirst for blood, they were sick of injustice and were willing to fight for a better existence. The film is not a call for violence, it is a call for understanding, a call for conscience. the movie is the voice of the silent workers fed up with treason and exploitation.

Edgar Soberon Torchia Argentinean Fernando Ezequiel Solanas and Spaniard Octavio Getino were two outstanding activists of Latin American cinema. They took different routes (Getino was the philosopher, writing about cinema, economy and politics), but in the 1960s they collaborated on one of the most important manifestos of the "New Latin American cinema", known as "Towards a Third Cinema", and together they made "The Hour of the Furnaces: Notes and Testimonies on Neocolonialism, Violence and Liberation", one of the major works of Latin American documentalism, which they defined as a "cine-act" to inform, beyond the entertainment factor. If one of the three parts that comprise this work has to be seen, "Neocolonialismo y violencia" (running 90 minutes) is the key part and the mandatory section for the specialist to see. This first part is a document with particular annotations, tinted with manichean, dogmatic or contradictory position, inherent to its Peronist proclivity; a document created in a very specific time, when several Latin American countries were living moments of intense political, cultural and social unrest, in their struggles against imperialism. However, it is as striking today as it was in 1968, because of its stylistic devices, recurring to Brecht's alienation effect and the audience's interaction (in some points of parts two and three, intertitles ask to stop the projector and start the debate), but above everything else, because of its lucid approach to neocolonialism in Latin America through a methodical analysis of a particular national history, including the complicity of local oligarchies. This is also the documentary that ends with a long shot of the lifeless face of Ernesto "Che" Guevara filling the screen.

kingtanichi I was shown the first segment of this film in a lecture on Latin American Cinema, and afterwards I was given the accompanying political manifesto in which Solanas reiterates his revolutionary philosophy. Whatever you make of the politics, it is admirable how he has so artfully expressed the same anti-imperialist messages in the very different mediums of cinema and literature. The economic and cultural colonization to which the West has subjected Argentina, and the craven cooperation of a mindlessly Europeanized elite are both harped upon; first with the skillful editing of interviews and documentary footage, and then simply with expertly chosen words. In both cases the goal was to ferret out the ultimate causes, rather than merely bemoan the effects -- namely chronic underdevelopment and immense poverty and human misery.This relatively cold description misses the point, however. The real strength of the first segment of this film is its unbelievable emotional power. It is a fire and brimstone tirade against the state of Argentina, with the explicit goal of stirring up revolutionary aggression against those whom Solanas and his cadre deem most immediately responsible. Everything is either extremely kinetic editing, emotionally charged narration, or carefully selected cinema verite footage of police and military brutality, urban and rural poverty, or the plight of indigenous peoples -- all accompanied by explanatory titles cards which literally surge forward at the viewer. The movie is a virtuoso experience of emotional manipulation at its most sophisticated, going so far as to climax with a rapid montage of shots of youth mindlessly milling around record stores edited to the sound of machine gun fire. Inevitably, reality soon sets back in. One hesitates to apply words like "one-sided" or "biased" to a film like this. This is no Michael Moore spiel, or one of the numerous liberal exposes that criticize American culture from within -- it is nothing less than a late 60s revolutionary call to arms; a militant document aimed at combating the repression of a very real authoritarianism. As such, it's more fruitful to critique the direction it wishes to lead than the relative truth of the world-view it puts forth. For this, one can find no better crystallization than the film's coda. This is simply a minute-long close-up of the lifeless face Che Guevara -- Argentina's ultimate revolutionary gazing at us from beyond the grave, perhaps inviting others to follow his example. This is not a blind fetishization of him on the basis of Alberto Korda's great photograph, but a valorization of his revolutionary Stalinism, which Solanas's manifesto agrees with in labeling "Peace" and "Democracy" reformist cop-outs on true social justice. This sort of thing is the real stumbling block to viewing the film today, when the ferment of the 60s is past and the new face of Argentinian cinema is the likes of Nine Queens. Today, for all but fanatics, the film is merely a fascinating socio-historical document.

littlesiddie First of all, I must say I only saw the first part of this film which lasts about 90 minutes. According to the people who were presenting it, the first part is the most accessible to modern, non-Argentine viewers.This film is a lengthy diatribe against the smothering influence of European powers in Argentine cultural and economic life. The anger of the film makers was very effectively expressed by the film's rapid fire pacing, its fiery narration and its harsh, thundering soundtrack. The soundtrack was the strongest element, and its relentless pounding really drove the film maker's points home.This film seemed less like a documentary than a filmed version of a revolutionary pamphlet. The single mindedness of the views expressed and the solution proposed, namely violent revolt, seemed immature and insufficiently reasoned. The views expressed seemed more inspired by bloody minded hatred for outside meddlers than sympathy for the oppressed and marginalized native Argentinians. It was very much a "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude. This is not the sort of attitude that I would want to see shown by my leaders if I were an Argentinian.I suppose much of the bitter hatefulness of this movie can be understood by considering that it is a reaction to very oppressive censorship. Such a movie is acceptable as a preliminary blast against the oppressors, but one would hope that calmer, clearer heads would prevail afterwards. The attitude of the film makers here, in this film, really borders on the unhinged, the demented.