(For boys Badebec)
Someone
Library of Alexandria ran a series of fires which give rise to a story which is constantly burning. That's not what we saw last night when we attended the screening of English film-Americanized Agora, Alejandro Amenábar, Goya Award in 2009 for best picture, director and screenplay. But we had not noticed it until the end when we find ourselves in a sort of strange coincidence with a teacher and two fellow adventurers.
I had gone into a kind of unreasonable confusion where the only thing that was repeated: "It is just wonderful Right now, we have come to see this movie "and also:" The political leadership should come and see. " AF I saw his face disfigured with excitement, red eyes, the look scattered. In the hallway, I see the teacher and colleague and I greet him. It rubbed his eyes. Grunts and gestures gesturing angry puppet, as if manipulated by a controlled anger only social life. In the door comes over and whispers in my ear:
"I do not know, maybe it's me, but the cinema is an art that seems increasingly banal.
To which I say:
"But the movie was good, it was not a masterpiece, but it was correct.
Then, Short answer: "Maybe I
be me, do not know.
My short answer: "They taste
. I thought it was good, although there are several little things that could have been improved.
Meanwhile, without saying so, I thought, is training, I'm not made for the movies-for-nothing really, I'm lacking a poor end. And from there I look, or read.
As I walked quickly down the hall, Fabian was back and searching again. At the door, arm tells me
-C, hey, what do you do?
I see first one and then from the bottom, another of my friends to leave the room. The back row. Well
. We are all here, "he said.
"Yes," and laugh. There
finished repairing the disfigured face F. And I understand that, like me, the movie moved us both and similarly, although I'm sure, about different things. But the guys were disappointed. Measuring his words. And I noticed. Confirm finished outside, they began the ironies. So was born The Child C. And you begin to notice that at any moment F explodes and hits a little barbed. Restless eyes. One holds that the other is a specialist in Greco-Roman literature and history and, therefore, can say something about the content, if it was or not. Comes a flood of irony at all subtle. The first:
"Well, now we know how the library was burned.
The second: "I do not understand why they put a love story with a mine that was almost ascetic.
And the third was a question of the Child C, telltale of poverty: - But the discovery of the elliptical solar orbit is licensed by the director, not because it was Kepler or am I wrong?
-brainer, all-inclusive respond F.
And then, another is put in place a film major and harangue:
"But even from the formal, the taking of slave running is so very, very stereotypical action movie Hollywood. Amenábar could have done otherwise.
C
not replied no, that The other, for example, there is nothing clearer than that his look is Hollywood. Then, put your sandwich provocative: "This is
American cinema and yanquee; not be asked otherwise.
bewildered eyes of the other accomplices. They want to and put at fault:
"But if you look Amenabar's previous films, you may be asking other things.
Again, Child C insists, no counter-argument: "It's
film yanquee commercial break, it seems to me that was fine and that, by elimination, between films that were missing, it was good I liked it, although there are some uncomfortable stereotype of good and evil do not like, especially towards the end, but we are within the parameters Hollywood.
not going to tell them you saw other Amenabar films to see where it goes, nor that these other films, the U.S. election was already done, even from the English language is also present in the previous films. F
began their long hoses:
"But the reconstruction of the conflict between Christians, Romans and Jews is fine. We can not deny it. Showing the violence going back and forth from all sides supported by fundamentalists or necessity to maintain power in one place. The Roman occupation, the lie of his ruling elite the only thing he wanted was to retain power, is clear. And that is a reconstruction of that first moment of Christianity.
and continued tensions, to insinuate that there was no historical or political content, which did not appear the truly historic in these scenes, except as a background, a simple context. Then, F is not contained:
- Well, neither are going to get the place of the super critical yanquee watch a movie because we're not.
They watch together. I say without saying he is not and look at me and say I should be and put your first is to understand what they said. And no. And Nothing more. Child C decides to retreat, before assembling the carnage. Come tells F. And out.
It is thinking about the positions, erudite, formal, elitist-in scenes, the mood of F and yours. In the emotional situation that made that movie, today, to each other, there was a movie for enjoyment, desire, but that, under the eyes of specialists in various arts, first in historical content and in form film, then, has led to further reading and even deceptive. And acknowledges that they have a point, but he had already said, it was a masterpiece, no. There was another thing. A micro and emotional potential film overflowing and woke him in a kind of beast, to smother with ideas, thoughts, perhaps banal, on the present and about its history insignificant. Was. Somehow, as an emotional code that movie resemantizing this.
not just the story of love and identification with the heroine silly "with the woman who would have loved to be just like in the movie (without giving a damn whether or not the hiperfabulación version). Not only that. There was a performance in making the Roman square by the Christians, a coincidence with what happened in Buenos Aires. In Soldati. With the squatters manipulated by the various ruling classes and the various struggles to control the destabilizing power of the other excluded. National discussions in those days had debated on whether or not to suppress. Sticks out to shit on these foreign usurpers of ours and, if necessary, doused with gasoline and set them off from an aircraft fire (which are responsible for declaring many in the screens that want to do with the villas). And the rural bourgeoisie, conservative and populist-progressive vying responsibilities. The film foregrounded making a public space-the Roman agora, a group of Christians. And also pointed out the consequences of a violent attempted eviction. The slope of the crime, violence, there in that movie. That once unleashed, would not slow down, would grow to rampage, the library, the papyri, the tranquility of the bourgeoisie and the people themselves. In short, the chaos that many needed (including that generated) and others feared in media presentations of power in those days.
And until there was more rare in the film. While the court was commercial-American, since from the same subject was brought to light a conflict in a nearby area, or connected-to the Middle East, ideologically recurring theme in commercial cinema from yanquee 11. But he was carrying something like a warning in their representations to the Empire. All Empire, seemed to indicate the movie, sooner or later, through moments that put you in check and if violence breaks out over a territory, it can not slow down, to turn against the Empire itself and wipe out what is of more symbolic: Library culture. It was a double message, cynical and ambiguous, returning to discuss this devastating U.S. policy in the Middle East. On the one hand, it was a warning about teaching ethics that served for both sides. Because at the time that revealed the power of violence, gave answers and tools to stop it and thus, to placate an opposite tack to power in the film: the proclaimed non-violence, with the anti-repression (not quremos I and Child C, or peace and democratization that non-violent eviction).
And there was an emotional angle-reflective film complicate and rethink allowing the double talk that is handled by the national elites to stop the reaction of the Other-Beast dispossessed. When two powers vying for power, as the breath of repression and defense of repression will not ever stop being two ways to operate their own benefit to the destabilizing power of the Other-Beast dispossessed. But that does not mean, under any view, any strategy that would do the same. Because the film was clear: it is in vain for another Beast-bearing martyr, beaten or dead ends (repressed), because that will mean that, at its expense, one of the two powers and not just win that, but for the benefit own, could think of it as well, as a human. Of course the absolute victory, redemption, we might say, never the Other-Beast (always a victim-offender disputes for power), but still ... Can we continue to hold, as some orthodox Marxists, which is the same anywhere on the ruling elites?
For all these bestialidades que venían y atormentaban con dudas y posicionamientos y más dudas y el temor, siempre, de estar equivocado; un verdadero núcleo de afectos-reflexiones y éticas que vehiculizaba la película en ese ahora, lugar y en la historia de C y de F (también una love story), por todo eso emergía -enorme y en carteles obsesivos luminosos- una incógnita y una puesta en duda de los sistemas de valoración del arte. Por un lado, evidenciaba que lo afectivo y micro había sido dejado de lado por los especialistas en los modos de estructuración del gusto y de la emisión de juicios estéticos lapidarios. Dejaba de lado, de alguna manera, eso que Alberto Giordano denomina la “heterogeneidad de la experiencia aesthetics ", an oversight that requires many of those who call themselves professionals or literature review to develop their judgments not afford to see the contradictory aspects nest, even in those works that can be labeled as garbage from some angles of valuation. The assessment is not unambiguous and always keeps multiple dimensions that overlap and leaking of critical terse, dry, you can not do more than affirm or deny something. The assessment is troublesome if we pool all angles, and it never can, because there is always a remainder, or an abyss, elusive. Child C understands that, beyond the findings that may have been correct about the film by their colleagues, they escaped the emotional situation in which the film was premiered and what it meant in a social-emotional and micropolitical and there, in that component of the assessment, had alienated elements that allowed even the commercial-imperialist logic of such a film, triggering questions about life and art, as it wanted the historical vanguards.
