2022-01-22

 

Latin America is a region plagued by political instability. Probably inherited by the colonial process, the particularities of the Latin American elites, oligarchs, and the dependence of the whole region on other metropolises. I use the term metropolis as the Guatemalan anthropologist Carlos Guzmán Böckler uses it, as one referring to the country that controls and highly influences a region, in the case of Guatemala that metropolis has changed from Spain (which ruled the country for around 300 years) to England and Germany for a short period of time and finally to the United States. A not-that-different story could be found all over Latin America. If one examines the last 100 years of history in Latin America, it’s more than evident that the United States has pulled and pushed governments and coups d'etat all over the region. During the second part of the 20th century several countries in Latin America were ruled by military governments aligned to US policies and interests. Back in the 60s the communist menace was really a thing and nobody wanted to be on that side, especially if that meant becoming an enemy of the mighty USA, with a few exceptions, as always. In relation to the influence from the USA to Guatemala there’s a popular saying that goes like this: If the USA catches a cold, Guatemala gets pneumonia.

This attachment to the USA shaped Latin American politics for decades (for instance, in South America Operation Condor crippled several nations), democracy was not an actual practice until relatively recent times. The transition from military governments to democratic ones shuddered the region. A handful of countries experienced civil wars that provoked massacres, genocides and war crimes; passages that inspired stories such as the ones depicted in Argentina, 1985 and La llorona (The weeping woman). Both movies are set during the meager democratic epochs that struggled to thrive amid the remnants of dictatorships’ terror and corruption. These movies’ plots are framed by the most important trials against military personnel in their respective countries, Argentina and Guatemala. In both cases trials were conducted by civil courts, something unimaginable in a post-dictatorial Latin America.

Argentina, 1985 focuses on the nature of politics and the naiveness and yet creativity of young lawyers who join forces with an experienced one to tackle the mighty establishment of Argentina's political and justice systems. The movie keenly depicts real-life-based cases of victims of the Argentinian army during the civil war. The movie easely moves one into tears after one listens to the testimonials presented in it. The film successfully combines real-life footage from the actual trials with the scenes from the movie. The personal life passages of the general attorney in charge of the trial also contribute to the movie’s overwhelmingness.

On the other hand, La llorona depicts the trial and testimonies of victims of the Guatemalan genocide occurred during the 36-year civil war, wonderfully touching and beautifully crafted, La llorona also makes use of psychological horror to depict another kind of justice yearned by the civil war victims: that one that happens inside of the mind of the defendant. This is a sort of divine justice that punishes those who committed severe crimes by keeping the tormentous memories in their hearts and therefore neither rest nor peace of mind is possible. The movie is honest and sharp, clearly portrays the differences between the Guatemalan elites and indigenous people; the power and privilege conferred to those born in white Guatemala cuddles and the struggles of those born in the poor villages of an always forgotten country.

It is possible to notice the difference between the argentinian and guatemalan film making traditions, on one hand Argentina’s movies have a long history of refinement and mastery of storytelling, music and a more close-to-western culture approach that helps to make it more internationally acceptable and therefore its tacit characteristics prop the movie. On the Guatemalan side, the style of Jayro Bustamante (director and screenwriter) is in some way nourished by his exposition to the western style of making movies plus his huge curiosity towards local Guatemalan culture and idiosyncrasy, giving birth to what I bear to call a new wave in Guatemala’s cinema. Guatemala’s cinema tradition is not as rich as that from other countries such as Mexico, Colombia, Argentina or Chile, but for the centralamerican region, Guatemala’s cultural influence is probably the most important one, specially in terms of literature and films.

Both movies are an open call to comprehend one of the most complex and less understood regions on earth: Latin America. Both movies are excellent opportunities to face those ghosts that otherwise remain always in shadows, beside the road of history. Both movies are full of humanity and strength.