The film was very different than many other ones we’ve seen previously, but I did feel that it was very magical which we’ve seen in a lot of films like Como agua para chocolate, El laberinto del Fauno, etc.
This hints at the machismo in Latin American where men put women in boxes with labels that seem to be convenient to them. In a follow-up to the different gendered perspectives, there is a question of power.
In a religionless town, she can be seen as playing the role of the savior, who brings back life to a town that has been falling apart. Through her gracious actions she has played the role of a saint and is referred to as a saint, even if there is a priest in the town.
It is backwards—being so generous is ridiculed and sinning is applauded. I believe this is a postmodernist trait, critiquing modernity. Values and morals are becoming overlooked or confused in the modern world.
Without love and compassion everything is without color and people are depressed, but introduce a little caring to their lives and color returns to the town and it is newly appreciated. It connects the words whore and saint and seems to celebrate hookers and saints alike.
Dolores is either fully wicked or fully holy, and cannot be both. At the end of the film, this dichotomy breaks down as she continues her compassion while Manolo joins despite her being sinfully jealous of the other women who are with him. The town survives because the dichotomy is broken, as it is seen fading in and out of color when the townsfolk try to decide if Dolores is pure or not.
Leave a Reply