Paranagua, Paulo Antonio (ed)
Mexican Cinema  (Translated by Ana Lopez)
London: British Film Institute in association with IMCINE, 1995.
ISBN 0-85170-515-4 hbk ISBN 0-85170-516-2 pbk.
321pp.
18.99 (pds stg.) (pb)
Uploaded 16 April 1999

Probably the most complete study to date of Mexican cinema, as Duran Loera states in the preface of the book (ix), Mexican Cinema comes forward as a sound, detailed, very thorough compilation of articles on the way and reasons involved in the birth, growth and actual situation of cinema in Mexico. Originated in the Retrospective of Mexican Cinema held at the Georges Pompidou Artistic and Cultural Centre (October 1992-February 1993), this work was first published in french (1992) to be expanded later for the english version.

The books begins with an article by Paranagua himself, outlining ten reasons to love or hate Mexican cinema, and it is precisely this article which is the one that establishes the structure the different individual contributions will be fit into. Divided into six parts, the first one is a chronicle of Mexico and its cinema that goes from 1896 to 1994 merely juxtaposing data on economics, the political situation, cultural trends and facts related to the cinema. The second part, however, deals with the history of Mexican cinema and is in turn divided into three articles covering firstly the silent cinema, secondly the origins, development and crisis of sound cinema (1929-1964), and the third one looks at the crises and renovations of contemporary cinema (1965-1991). It is from the nature of the always problematic relationship between fact and fiction; production and distribution; auteurship and cultural industry; foreign influence and national pride; technology and budget; aesthetics and ethics that the peculiar characteristics of any cinema emerge. Thus, this second part, where these relationships are examined within a historical context, offers the reader a solid foundation from where to interpret and understand the successes and failures of the Mexican cinema.

The third part entitled “Currents and structures” underlines the particularities of Mexican films. Through a deeper look into its predominant mythologies, such as the rural innocence, the Mexican revolution, the family melodrama, cultural nationalism, and a careful analysis of the film industry (mainly the studios), and the behavior of the audience, the reader discovers Mexican cinema with all its richness and contradictions.

Mexican producers and directors adapted some of the traditional movie genres: melodrama, comedy, and western, to mexican social and cultural identity. They did so by introducing different audio and visual conventions as well as atmospheres, costumes, etc. The comedia ranchera, the Mexican melodrama, and a somewhat peculiar style of comedy identified mainly but not only with Mario Moreno Cantiflas, were the results of this filmic adventure. Part four of Mexican Cinema deals in depth with these genres while also highlighting the special role that the relationship between cinema and history has played in Mexico’s historical discourse. As Andres de Luna points out “in Mexican cinema, history has followed a tortuous path fed by official discourses and censorship or has sometimes spread its wings and tried to fly above conventions.” (177)

In “Focus”, part five of this book, explores the work and contributions of specific directors: Emilio Fernandez, Roberto Gavaldun, Felipe Cazals, Arturo Ripstein, Paul Leduc, Jaime Humberto Hermosillo and the Mexican works of Luis Bunuel. Part six of Mexican Cinema entitled “Dictionary”, contains most valuable information on films, film-makers, Mexican feature film production (1906-91) and a very specialized bibliography. The data contained in this section turns it into a jewel for academic research or for those interested in cinema history.

The contributors such as Toms Perez Turrent, Paulo Antonio Paranagua, Emilio Garcia Riera, Aurelio de los Reyes, Eduardo de la Vega Alfaro, Carlos Monsivis, among others, are highly qualified and experts in their fields which adds to the value of the work as a whole. Nonetheless, and as the preface indicates, Mexican Cinema might be called complete since it encompasses a wide array of perspectives, but it doesn’t pretend to be exhaustive. Thus, after reading the whole book or any of the single articles, the reader might end up with new questions that stem precisely from the ideas, data, and opinions presented. For example: why shouldn’t we consider, in the near future, a re-birth of Mexican cinema despite the lack of financial support from the state, taking in consideration its struggling past, its strengths and what is happening with other Latin American cinemas? (cf. Turrent, 114) Or why not try to gain from audience acceptance of the different mythologies a deeper understanding of Mexican culture rather than just interpreting them using the old cultural imperialism criteria?

A desire for more might be the state of mind of the careful reader at the end, but isn’t that the “quid” of the good story-tellers?

Sandra Idrovo Carlier