URUGUAY : HISTORICAL
REMINDER
(Program of the
24th Festival of the 3 Continents, November 2002)
One the most typical
features of Uruguayan cinema is that it seems to go through yet another
renaissance each time a film is produced, although the last three years
stand in contradiction to this.
In 1923, Juan Antonio
Borges's Almas de la Costa was hailed as "the first Uruguayan film".
In 1938, Rina Massardi's Vocación was "the first South American
singing film". And in 1979, Eva Landeck's El lugar del humo, a coproduction
with Argentina, was also announced as "the first Uruguayan feature film".
Fifteen years later, Pablo Dotta's El dirigible was presented at Cannes
as "the first Uruguayan film" yet again.
In no other country
in the world has cinema gone through so many revivals. One can suspect
that new film-makers do not know much about their national cinema. But
one can also consider that the filmic experience just goes down the
drain once each film is finished and that people have to start from
scratch with each new project.
Since 1919, Uruguay
has produced feature films such as León Ibáñez's
Pervanche (this director was the current Uruguayan president's great-uncle).
Today it is hard to tell whether this film really was a feature film
as it was destroyed shortly after its theatrical release by the main
actress's extremely jealous husband.
Since the beginning
of cinema, which dates back to 1898 with Carrera de bicicletas, shot
at the Arroyo Seco velodrome by Catalan-born shipowner Félix
Oliver, about fifty feature films have been made.
Since 1993, the
Uruguayan cinema has produced more films than over the last hundred
years. Since Beatriz Flores Silva's La historia casi verdadera de Pepita
la Pistolera, several Uruguayan films - including the most recent and
best-known 25 Watts by young directors Pablo Stoll and Juan Pablo Rebella
- or coproductions with other countries have won international awards;
others such as Beatriz Flores Silva's En la puta vida were great popular
successes. In 2002, Corazón de fuego, by Diego Arzuaga who had
previously made Otario, showed good craftsmanship. Established documentary
film-maker Mario Handler's career reached its peak with Aparte, a feature
film shown in Venice and which might become a reference in our film
history.
The current situation
is promising: films made by members of the new generation, independent
from existing production structures (25 Watts, Alvaro Buela's Una forma
de bailar and Marcelo Bertalmio's Los dias con Ana), as well as films
with definite artistic qualities from experienced authors such as Beatriz
Flores, Diego Arzuaga and Esteban Schroeder with El viñedo, show
for the first time ever that there is a national cinema.
Only three or four
films from the previous period may be added to this list: Carlos Alonso's
El pequeño héroe del arroyo de oro (1929), Ugo Ulive's
Un vinten pÕal Judas (1959) and perhaps Juan Carlos Rodriquez's Mataron
a Venancio Flores (1981).
Seen from a critical
point of view, the official story becomes much more complex.
There never was
a Uruguayan film industry and there never will be
Apart from a few
previous efforts, it was not until the mid-1990s that production in
general, and production companies in particular, started to operate
on a regular basis. In 1919, Borges and his partner (a tailor) founded
Charrúa Production to make the unfinished Puños y nobleza
and Almas de la costa in 1923. Misunderstandings between the two partners
and the lack of benefits compared to the investment led the company
to bankruptcy.
This was the first
of many attempts and as many frustrations. In the 1920s, Henry Maurice
productions and Orion laboratories, which had developed and produced
many films, disappeared, as well as all the companies which had most
often been set up for the sake of one film.
Today the same fate
may befall those companies which partly fund themselves with the making
of commercials and may be affected by the economic and social disintegration
which the country has been suffering from since early August 2002, leading
the nation into a process which threatens the very existence of Uruguayan
cinema.
There never was
any steady film production in Uruguay nor, for the same reasons, a proper
film industry beyond declarations of interest. Such an industry is not
possible considering the small size of the country and the small number
of inhabitants. These characteristics have recurrently put into question
the viability of the Uruguayan state - a British creation designed as
a buffer state between Brazil and Argentina.
However, although
there may be no film industry, there is a national cinema which, in
spite of everything, has fostered the creative expression of a number
of authors.
Today, at the onset
of a century of globalization, one could imagine going on making films
with the help of European funds, coproductions, international aid and
agreements. In Uruguay there is no specific law dealing with cinema,
the Film Institute is penniless, financing is next to nothing, and there
are no reciprocal exchanges that could lead to possible coproductions.
The latest films
to enjoy local success did not recoup on foreign markets: El viñedo
failed in Chile which took part in the coproduction; the company which
made Patrón, a coproduction with Argentina, went bankrupt; Corazón
de fuego, made in 2002, was not able to recoup in countries seriously
hit by the economic depression; En la puta vida did badly in Spain;
the Uruguayan participant in Luna, a coproduction with Argentina and
Brazil, did quite badly; the Uruguayan company which produced El dirigible
in 1994 went bankrupt.
However, without
any industrial support and practically without any help from national
funds, films manage to be made by young film-makers who, right from
the start, have no other strength than their creative spirit and their
need to express themselves.
Examples are 25
Watts, Una forma de bailar, Los días con Ana, Aparte made this
year by Mario Handler; all of these films are works of art in their
own right.
These fims were
neither influenced by a study of the international market, nor dependent
on financing bodies which could have imposed guidelines as to the content
or the form of the projects or altered the film-makers' vision.
As the country has
no resources of its own, it seems the only possibility is to restrict
oneself to whatever is feasible, i.e. very little, before taking on
risks which could lead to the disappearance of the production company.
Furthermore, Uruguay
has changed and will never be the same again since the economic and
social disintegration of the region and the virtual end of Mercosur
started in January 2002, as a consequence of the dominant economic strategy
of the IMF. The Uruguayan crisis is marked by yet another process of
hardly controllable social and political instability (similar to the
period leading to the 1973 coup), because decisions are made neither
in our country nor even in the region. As in other periods in its history,
Uruguayan cinema will exist only with the help of external factors -
on top of the film-makers' own talent - and through its potential to
overcome difficulties which remain unpredictable today.
In this context,
art seen from the remote Rio de la Plata has little or nothing to do
with asserting our cultural identity which is essential for us to be
"ourselves" and not "others". We Uruguayans are used to this.
Manuel Martinez
Carril
journalist, film critic,
Director, Uruguayan Film Archive
Guillermo Zapiola
journalist, film critic,
Co-ordination Officer, Uruguayan Film Archive