Imagining Argentina

Dear iggimarco, Coming from a country that has a similar past with Argentina i can say that the movie touch me deeply like you. Greece experienced its 7 years of cruel dictatorship 1967-1974. Seven long years that left too many scars.

Every now and then i will hear someone of my family talking about the suffer of those years although they rarely talk about what they've been through.

Indeed those who don't know, who are lucky (or not) enough to come from countries that never experienced that kind of horror will judge the movie based on script, lighting, acting etc. Those who know will feel the movie evoking all those feelings of deep sorrow and pain.

Movies like this should always be made. It is another way to maintain memory of the fallen alive and to make sure that...never again (as the movie tells us in the end)

Imagining… arrived with a fair degree of controversy, having been booed, heckled and subject to walkouts at 2003's Venice Film Festival. By saddling an infamous chapter in Argentina's history with a supernatural slant – Sixth Sense meets Missing, perhaps – many critics thought this was altogether a bridge too far. But was the reaction justified? It rather depends on whether you prefer your politics served up in an allegorical sauce or red and dripping on the bone. An adaptation of Lawrence Thornton's award-winning novel, the story begins in 1970s Buenos Aires, with dissident journalist Cecilia Rueda (a waveringly-accented Thompson) kidnapped by the fascist junta to join the ranks of the 30,000 'Disappeared'. As her bereft theatre-owner husband Carlos (Banderas) searches in vain, he develops psychic powers, enabling him to witness what happened to his wife and her fellow detainees. Laying his hands on their relatives he glimpses horrifying images of torture, rape and death at the military's hands, galvanising a traumatised public into motioning the government. In Thornton's magic-realist hands, Carlos's clairvoyance was a metaphor for the struggle against state repression, as he 'imagines' scenarios running counter to the official line: 'if you live in a nightmare, you have to re-imagine it.' While playwright-turned-director Christopher Hampton (who also wrote the screenplay for The Quiet American) cannot hope to replicate the novel's tender touch – the voyage from page to screen being a tricky one at best – the intentions are heartfelt, and the film does make salient points about the importance of empathy and memory as powerful and long-reaching political instruments in themselves.

The first thing I'd like to say is I've been reading people's comments about this movie, and I'm really touched at how much people round the world know about the worst period in Argentinian history. As regards the movie itself, I wouldn't like to disrespect anyone, but I think it is a lousy portrayal of real events. I agree with someone that the title allows for the viewer to expect a free interpretation rather than an accurate historical account. I disagree with someone about the images of torture being too many and too cruel. I think they were too soft. I've seen at least twenty Argentinian movies dealing with this topic (actually, I'd say nine out of ten Argentinian movies have at least one referent to it). The point is, no one can make a movie about "El Proceso" but an Argentinian citizen. It's nothing to be proud of, but it's our burden. I didn't have anyone missing, but I grew up with this, and it'll never be over for us. I understand the good intentions of everyone involved in this movie, and I think it's important that people in other countries let the world find out what happened here, but if you really want to know, you should see local accounts, without fake accents (subtitles are not that bad once you get used to them). Oh, and just for the record, the oppressors were ten times more somber and disgusting than what the movie shows. Most of them still feel the same way about everything they did, and as someone said, justice in this country is a lost cause. I just pray it never happens again. Thanks for reading.

Antonio Banderas plays a theatre director whose wife (Emma Thompson) has been kidnapped by the Secret Service of Argentinian's Videla's dictatorship (1976-1983). Soon he discovers he has sort of a psychic power that allows him to predict the future, and to find out what has happened to her wife and to some of the other missing people (there were +/- 30000 missing people during Videla's dictatorship). Now I wonder: Is it necessary to introduce that paranormal stuff in a movie about Argentinian dictatorship? I mean, you got one of the most cruel and repressive dictatorships ever, and that's enough to make a shocking movie. The psychic powers, the vissions of Banderas' character detract the attention from the main line: the denunciation of that regimen led by General Videla and supported by USA Government, and the atrocities that were committed, the sistematic violation of human rights, and so... Especially when you have two well known stars in the cast, and the movie may have some international impact (which didn't have any of the argentinian movies that talked about the same issue).

Anyway, some parts of the movie perfectly portraits the lack of freedom in Argentina along those 7 years, and there are some sequences really shocking (in particular the ones at the prison where Emma Thompson's character gets imprisoned -and tortured, and raped-). Antonio Banderas and Emma Thompson play their roles with so much intensity, especially Mrs. Thompson, one of the best dramatic actresses from the last 20 years (in my opinion).

That's all. I just want to add that this kind of movies are so necessary, people need them not to forget some of the darkest passages of human history. Especially they need them there in the United States Of America, where no one knows a thing about latin-american dictatorships (most of them supported by the White House).

My rate: 7/10

I am pretty sure that it is not possible for someone other than an Argentine to make a film about this subject and have it matter. These are people who at the beginning of the terror supported it wholeheartedly. The military simply responded to what they saw was a terrorist threat by arresting without process and torturing. Starting small means starting; once you cross the line, everything else is trivial. And so 6 years of what ramped up to 3o police murders a day in Buenos Aires.

So this thing lacks power as a story about Argentine horror. But even through all its faults, it still rings true and haunts about things at home: power corrupted and evil. Torture to protect citizens never does.

The film is incredibly muffed, in pretty much all dimensions except...

There are two good scenes. One is when the husband of the newly missing wife is comforted by his daughter in a somewhat sexual way. This was made for American consumption, and though the interaction may be genuinely Latin, the implication in this context is plain. It was a powerful scene and sets up all that follows.

The second powerful scene is the unveiling of a spy. There is only a second that matters, when the man knows he is revealed and you see not panic but blame to his informant. It happens fact but it matters.

Otherwise, what we have is a powerfully conceived set of folding narratives: a man as a playwright (precisely as in "The Lives of Others") in a film with deliberate dissonance. And him further as a psychic, telling the story to us and other characters as it happens to him. In other hands, this could have worked, especially with the intended fold from then there to now here.

Tangos, l'exil de Gardel, was not good, but still better and at least genuine.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.