I have chosen several comments that I believe are particularly perceptive, profound, and persuasive. As with Mi Familia, the selected comments fill in important gaps. Please read through them carefully. You will note that I have also used a few of the comments to offer some further insight and clarification on the film. The one thematic motif that seems to fall into our blind spot (absent in the class discussion, the timed writings, and my post on the film) is Gonzalo’s dramatic discovery of the instrumentality of privilege (“Mírame” “Look at me”), whether it is defined as white privilege or class privilege or both.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of the film is to demonstrate the intrahistoria during this time period and illustrate the racism, the inequality, and the physical and emotional violence of this time period. The film illustrates these issues through various scenes, but one in particular that demonstrated this was the scene where the mom of Gustavo fights Silvana and there are various themes shown in this one scene.
Pedro and Silvana’s family, that is based on a native reservation, is constantly under attack by the government and the upper class. They struggle to make ends meet and are treated horribly due to the fact that they are seen as “Communist.” We also see how their families are destroyed due to the perpetual cycle of racism and poverty. [Professor Cope’s comment: This is a really great observation, and I have just one small correction to add. Pedro and Silvana don’t live on a reservation, but rather on the outskirts of the city in an improvised settlement. This phenomenon is seen in large cities in Spain as well as large cities throughout Latin America. However, the characterization of the space as a reservation kind of goes with the Lone Ranger theme.]
Boys from the lower class neighborhoods of Santiago are allowed to attend the private Catholic school that Infante attends for free. However, these boys are separated by different uniforms, a language barrier in the classroom, and even skin color. It is very evident that the majority of the class is lighter skinned boys, whereas the new boys are of more native decent.
In Gonzalo’s bike, we can see an interesting metaphor of mobility that plays with the way the bike was symbolic in Bicycle Thieves. [Professor Cope’s comment: I like the connection to Bicycle Thieves. If we think of him as a Lone Ranger metaphor, his bike is like his horse (or pony since he’s still a boy).]
Machuca contains protests, political dialogues, class struggles, and everyday life like parties and first kisses. No matter how uncomfortable a situation is, Machuca refuses to move on to the next scene until the scene it is relishing plays out. Most notably, the scene where Gonzalo makes out with Pedro’s teenage neighbor, Silvana, is prolonged and uncomfortable in a very Buñuelian way.
Gonzalo lives in a large house with lots of furniture and things. It is filled with pastel colors; his room is lightly colored with a yellow comforter on his bed. None of the colors are bright or vibrant – it is a representation of his family life which although are rich, are not bright, happy or perfect.
I believe the purpose of this film was to show a neorealist perspective in a historical context. This is because there are many contrasts between the rich and poor in the film.
This history appears very candid on film and it elicits a neo-realist aspect with the direct and blunt violence that has stemmed from poverty and similar factors. It is important to understand those events shown in the film because they are not often reflected in history books. [Professor Cope’s comment: We are seeing the neorealist style being employed across several movies in this unit on historical film. We are in a position now to assert that neorealism is a technique often used when portraying social realities and that the style lends authenticity to the portrayal. If we take seriously what Rosenstone says about mimesis, then this stylistic choice makes sense.]
Although their parents all have different views on the political situation, these boys, together, understand that their world is changing and will never be the same. In saying goodbye to father McEnroe, a representative of socialist Chile, it is as if the boys are saying goodbye to this era entirely.
Rather, as the wall shows, society was completely “repainted.” However, as the wall was simply painted over, perhaps Wood shows that while the new government attempted to move on from the past, they simply covered it up. [Professor Cope’s comment: This is a really interesting detail in the film that registers for me as a metaphor of erasure. By this I mean the erasure of collective memory and of physical communities, which we see when Gonzalo goes back one last time to the settlement where Pedro lived and it is as if the whole community was never there.]
One of the ways that the film highlights the ideological differences is through camera movement. The movie is shot in such a way as to explore each perspective one at a time, and then switching back and forth. This is marked in the physical landscape, and how the camera moves through it. When it is about to cover the political left, the camera pans from right to left. There is a location on the road where this is especially visible, due to its repetition throughout the film.
In Machuca, when Father McEnroe leaves, Machuca stands up and says goodbye. The rest of the students copy this action as well. I thought this similarity was interesting. For me, I was much more emotionally affected by the scene in Dead Poets Society, but I was very proud and surprised by Machuca’s decision. [Professor Cope’s comment: Nice observation that sees another way that the director is “quoting” American films. Wood did his training in film at NYU.]
The film works hard at not portraying a single perspective but at developing understanding in its audience. At no point throughout Machuca does it feel like Wood is pleading for us to identify with one side of the class divide that it portrays. We see the conditions of the shantytown in which Pedro and the other poor families live. We see people forded to hunt for dog food. This would lead us as the audience to support the leftists, fighting for equality for the poor and better treatment. At the same time, though, we see the realities of the economic policies taht hte current socialist government has put into place. In one scene, as Gonzalo purchases condensed milk from a shop, we come to understand that the shop owners are rationing their supplies. In another, as Gonzalo and his father leave a warehouse, the camera slowly pans onto cardboard sighs stating “no cigarettes,” “no meat,” and “no milk.” …. This slow visual reveal is largely in the background of an unrelated scene, but speaks to the way that many middle class families in Chile must have felt under Allende’s government. They, too, felt unseen and unnoticed.
Leave a Reply