¡Prohibida! Armando Bó and Isabel Sarli’s struggle with censorship in Argentina
“He restrains himself, he sweats and then with his silver scissors, he trims away her body/
he cuts her hair, he deforms her face, and that way, mutilated, he carries her loaded onto
the screen… which bleeds.” Sui Generis “Las increíbles aventuras del Sr. Tijeras” (The
incredible adventures of Mr. Scissors).
The 1974 lyrics to rock band Sui Generis’ hit about the work of the infamous film censor Miguel
Paulino Tato ironically details the mutilation of a female body on the screen, a brutality that
violently assaults the gendered body of the star and act of sex itself as the screen bleeds from its
many attacks. Tato, known as the most severe censor in the popular imaginary, carries a legacy
that only reveals a partial story of film censorship in Argentina. Despite Tato’s anecdotal
reputation, censorship in the nation neither began nor ended with him. By 1974, when Tato
became the director of the Ente de Calificación Cinematográfica (Film Classification Board—
from now on referred to as Ente), censorship was already systematic and institutionalized. He
would carry it to its darkest hour -- the beginning of Argentina’s worst dictatorship (1976-1983),
a time when many liberties were abolished and state violence akin to the screen massacres of the
censors was rampant on public streets. However, this history begins earlier, in 1957, and expands
many governments, both democratic and de facto, which passed laws that would ensure the
methodical implementation of censorship. While many of these measures were unconstitutional
as military governments instituted them, ironically legitimate ones did nothing to change these
legislations. As we shall see the law only became stricter and state control of what was screened
in public increased, until censorship was finally abolished in 1984, following the end of the most
gruesome dictatorship in Argentine history. However, this seemingly impenetrable apparatus
produced some moments of fissures or “hiccups” in the system when changes to the law were
ostensibly within reach but never came to fruition.
At the centre of any discussion about Argentine censorship is the work of sexploitation
duo, director Armando Bó and starlet Isabel Sarli. The duo’s shared trajectory in the film
business begins in 1957 with the premiere of their first joint film El trueno entre las hojas/
Thunder among the leaves and ends in 1984 with the eventual release of the banned (in 1976)
production Insaciable/ Insatiable three years after Bó’s death. This timeframe fits all too neatly
into the nation’s own course with censorship. When the laws begin to tighten the duo’s films
become more daring, challenging screen expectations. Since their first project together, Bó and
Sarli fervently defended their work, first before the courts and then before the destructive shears
of the censors.
In the song cited above the lyrics ironically disclose the intimate nature of the censoring
task, an exercise in outlawing intimacy itself. The words tell the story of how the censor, away
from the public eye, recluses himself in a dark and private room, to conduct his work. He
engages in an intimate moment with the film star and thus ironically his duty, beginning as a sex
act itself (“the man lays her down on the rug/ touches and kisses her”) transforms to an act of
fanatical torture (“he restrains himself, he sweats/ and then with his silver scissors…[begins his
chore]). In his darkened chamber he takes her body, denies her identity, and physically violates
her (“trims away her body/ cuts her hair/ deforms her face/ and that way, mutilated…) before
taking her to the screen, “loaded” like a gun. This description makes a candid suggestion that it is
the film censor who absurdly accesses a level of intimacy with the film in its whole original
version while deciding which parts need to be altered and cut. The song, which too was victim to
its own censorship,i describes the intimacies of the act of censoring and the moral hypocrisy of
performing such an act. It further establishes a definitive correlation between censorship and
torture, seeing both as sadistic violations of the female body, the sex act, and the artistic product.
Thesis:
would be sealed towards a more strict censorship. GO THROUGH SOME OF THE
ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT CENSORSHIP.
Not about the story of one censor but an intricate web of politics, morals, and fight against
ensuing sexual emerging culture, church, political actors…
Each played an important role in what was happening in society and in the reactions from the
church and state.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH HOW THIS WOULD INFILTRATE
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE STATE. And how the state’s philosophy is seen through the laws
and the wording how there is a shift in the wording and the preoccupation of the state.
Consumerism is problematic but it comes from the church.
Structure:
History and what happens throughout this time in government
The role of the church
The development of the laws and how they become integrated into the church’s philosophy using
the Guide and the writings as the starting point
Sarli and Bo represented commercialism and a very different moral standard, why? Film content
Go through the periods and how their developed according to the laws
Second part would be the links and relationship with Peronismo
Third part look at the actual files and how these compared to the church and peronist discourses
-keep in mind the changing role of the commercial / coproductions and local versus global ideas
BIG PICTURE: Censorship cannot be linked to one period or one individual. It is an ongoing
process that expands a long period. (why not dealing with pre-1957). It really begins in 1957
because this is when it is formally and legally beginning while we can see traces of it earlier on
but it’s also when the industry begins to change. We can see that throughout this period there
was constant change in policy that was becoming more limiting. However, as we shall see
through the work of Bo and Sarli this did not necessarily reflect what was on the ground. While
not legally, censorship was occurring much before the laws granted it. We will begin to see how
the duo was targeted from early on and how Bo tried to work within the system until things
changed. What we learn in these cases is that before censorship was formally legalized there
were avenues to limit the distribution of potentially offensive material.
This is a complicated chapter that will be divided into two main sections. The first section
will try to give the overall context of the development of censorship from 1957 to 1984 with a
look at the political and legal developments. It also brings in another third actor, the church,
which will impact greatly the way that the state develops this relationship with film. The second
part will be more specific and look at the practical trajectory this political, legal and religious
influence would have on the films by Bo and Sarli as they navigate through the apparatuses
established during this conflictive period.
Official censorship in context/ Establishing the Framework for State Censorship
In 1955 the coup that brought an official end to peronism and instituted the “revolución
libertadora” (liberating revolution) appeased both liberal factions and nationalist Catholics and
also regenerated the middle class. Pedro Eugenio Aramburu, who takes over as President of the
nation after Eduardo Lonardi renounces his de facto position, carries forward a project of
liberalization implementing policies to attract foreign capital, projects meant to please the middle
classes, from which Peron had managed to distance himself. In 1957 President Aramburu passed
law decree 62, which would change the film industry for good, and thus began a new phase in
the regulation of films, an increasingly constrictive period. This law establishes the Instituto
Nacional de Cine (National Film Institute—referred to from now on as INC) meant to oversee
the industry. While law 62 did not itself sanction censorship many see it as the beginning of a
period of increasing governmental control over the industry (Avellaneda; Borgarello and Cipolla;
Maranghello 1992).ii
Law 62 (1957) marks the first of three important laws that will influence the direction of
the film industry in this complicated history of censorship, a politically unstable period that leads
to the eventual dictatorship of 1976.
While the period between *MORE ABOUT EACH PERIOD AND WHY THE LAWS
CAME AT THIS TIME. Law 8.205 (1963) and 18.019 (1968) are the other two landmark
decrees that will lead towards the censorship of films. If we take all three laws and compare the
changes that each brought with it to the industry we can assess both what this meant in practice
to local producers, distributors and exhibitors and the ideological impact that each would have.
After the coup d’état that brought Juan Carlos Onganía to power in 1966, legislation for
culture in general and film in particular tightens even further. The new government institutes the
“revolución argentina,” modelled after Francisco Franco in Spain promoting a national culture
inspired by rural and local traditions but open to universal Christian values. From 1957 to 1968,
there was officially no censorship. Although by 1966, there was an emphasis on defining moral
values in films. For instance, the first decree under Onganía classified films into two qualitative
categories (A and B) and made clear that: “excluded from this category [A] are those films that
are at risk of damaging the principles of Argentina’s cultural tradition” (law 16955, 1966, 1).
And in 1968, the INC would deny classification to those films: “which attempted against the
national lifestyle or the cultural rules of the Argentine community” (law 1774, 1968, 2). By
1969, however, law 18019 officially sanctioned censorship and provided a clear list of six
specific areas where the state can intervene by cutting scenes or prohibiting entire films. This
law gives a clear mandate for the state to interfere when films justify “inacceptable behaviour”
by: 1. representing adultery or behaviour against the family and matrimony; 2. justifying
abortion, prostitution, and sexual perversions; 3. incorporating lascivious scenes that disgust
morale and good customs 4. apologizing for crimes 5. denying the duty to defend the nation and
the right for the authorities to demand so 6. jeopardizing national security, affecting relations
with friendly nations or hurting the interest of fundamental institutions of the state (Law 18019,
1969, 2). This list supports film critic Laura Podalsky’s argument that “legitimate” culture was
aligned with national, Catholic and family values, and “false” culture with foreign, antireligious
and antifamily. Hiding behind this dualistic definition of the film project was a strong clear
agenda to regulate the content of Argentine films produced, so that these would align with the
“legitimate” (199).
Furthermore, law 18019 creates the Ente with a General Director and Adjunct Directors
who are all named by the Ministry of Education and Culture as representatives of the
government. All films shown in Argentina had to have a certificate of classification given by the
Ente. The other film body, the INC also had a role to play in censorship as it controlled state
funding to those scripts deemed appropriate. While there are modifications to this law throughout
the years, 18019 will have the greatest impact on the way that film is exhibited in Argentina until
1984 when it is officially repealed under law 23052.
In an article published in 1981, at a time when censorship was under real scrutiny and
debate about its role was clearly emerging, Miguel Grinberg writes a journalistic piece detailing
the process of classification that both the Ente and the INC would follow (38). He explains that
two certificates were given, one by the Ente with a rating ranging from “appropriate for all
audiences” to “prohibited,” and the other, a certificate given by the INC for exhibition. The Ente
would have 30 days to classify the film. The distributor/producer could then appeal such verdict.
Once the film was prohibited twice then the case would be closed, at which time only an appeal
in court was allowed. When cuts were required only the distributor/producer was responsible for
making these and resubmitting for classification (39), a fact that will become clearly contested in
this paper. Each time the film was classified a sum of money was required for the task, and thus
making censoring a moneymaking endeavour for the state. During the period that 18019 was in
effect a total of 725 films were effected: those released with cuts, those prohibited, or those never
released commercially (de las Carreras de Kuntz 13).
It is worthwhile looking at three different aspects that each of these laws address for
which will be a great impact in the work of Bó and Sarli. The first aspect relates to the
administrative structures that each law introduces to ensure regulation of the industry in regard to
funding and classification. The second aspect has to do with the censorship itself and the rights
given to these state run administrative structures to limit the distribution of film on local screens.
Thirdly comes the regulation of what can be exported internationally. We need to understand the
different structures that were put in place to regulate the industry before we see the way that
these were used to ideologically influence what was screened both nationally and internationally.
Administrative Organization and Political Clout
1957 Law/decree 62/57 resurrected the INC (Instituto Nacional de Cinematografía/
National Film Institute), which had been absolved in 1944 before Peron came to power. The law
was meant to give a lifeboat to the dying industry. Before, censorship was exercised in each
province, now it was more centralized and would become more systematic. The emergent culture
which would bring in more visible sexuality would obviously influence the state’s new role to
control who was watching what. The new law established a Special Classification Subcommission, headed by the INC, which would deem whether films were appropriate for
audiences under 18 years of age. This body was made up of government officials, the national
council of Education, the INC and each one representative from the producers and exhibitors,
albeit these last two did not have voting rights. In this law there is a clear statement that films
could not be cut or prohibited unless there was a judicial order to do so. Before, films could be
censored at the level of the provinces, this new centralization would give the INC, and the state,
more control as to what was being watched nation-wide. *EXPLAIN
2.Main role of the INC was to direct the Comission nacional calificadora and within this
a subcommittee that looks at and the protection of minors. – the main role of the inc
-contradiction in this law that you have a clear statement about censorship but at the time you
have interests that are vying for interests but all the people on the commission are people from
the film industry give some examples
structure is set up but the participants are all from the industry
1958 there is an important change that is justified with the idea that the commission
cannot be made up of entirely of the industry
Another function of the INC was to classify films into two categories A or B. Those with
an A classification would have full rights to funding and prizes given by the INC, exhibition in
the better cinemas and full exploitation abroad. Those falling in the B category did not have any
access to funding or prizes and were not guaranteed exhibition. The contradictions of the new
state politics and the different interests at play would already become blatantly apparent. Firstly,
the knee jerk reaction against Peron’s economic nationalism would foster foreign influence and
stimulate imports, bringing in more foreign films into the country and prospering the exhibition
sector. STAT. Secondly, the moribund local industry needed State support in order for the recent
injection of Hollywood product not to bring a tragic end to the business. Local films had small
audiences. By implementing the INC and these A and B categories the State was guaranteeing
that “better” movies would need to be made if they want to be screened. Ironically, at a time
when the nation was moving beyond state intervention towards market forces, the fate of the film
industry was in the hands of the state, controlled by few individuals in the INC, who would
categorize films in the A or B designation. This also marked the beginning of a strong INC that
would really control the industry.
1963
Between 1955 and 1963 peronism was banned although there were elections throughout this
period we can talk about a lack of political legitimacy 5 presidents and only one is elected
democratically Arturo Frondizi who is ousted by a coup because he was going to lift the ban on
peronoism
Jose maria guido march 29, 1962 to October 12, 1963 - under the control of ongania -puppet
Arturo Umberto Illia October 12, 1963 to jue 28, 1966 when he is ousted by ongania
Decree law 8.205 in 1963
Creation of the Consejo Nacional Honorario de Calificacion
Change from people in the industry to new representation from the state (min of education and
justice to ministry of defense and ministry of the interior) POWER OF THE STATE to civil
leagues representing minors and the family and the church – mainly this to the industry being
silenced with a voice and not a vote
-“proteger la moralidad publica, especialmente en todo aquello que tenga una insidencia directa
sobre la minoridad, afectada cada dia mas gravemente por distintos medios de diffusion
espectaculos y publicaciones que ponen en peligro y atacan la vigencia social de valores de la
mayor rearquia spiritual…”
-creation of an entity that is independent of the commercial and industrial interests of the
industry
-freedom of expression EXCEPT “razones educacioneales o el resguardo de la moral publica, las
buenas costumbres o la seguridad nacional”
-“consejo,… podra disponer cortes en las peliculas que lo sean sometidas para su calificacion”
Also says that no film can be screened without the certificate
3c talks about when cuts are allowed
15 days before President Illia was to take power, Guido passed law 8205 on September 27, 1963.
This law creates the Consejo Nacional Honorario de Calificacion Cinematografica (CNHCC),
making mandatory the classification of films shown in Argentina by this board. The members
making up this board are the same as those spelled out in legislation 9660/59, but it includes for
the first time representatives from the Ministry of Defense and the Interior, exhibiting once more
a slant/orientation towards ideological repression. Furthermore, with this legislation the CNHCC
has the power to implement cuts, as censorship is formally sanctioned. At this point the CNHCC
is established separately from the INC and the authority of the INC is set aside, ignored. What
we begin to see in this phase is the classification, not only of films but of culture in general into
two camps: the true and the false in regard to sexuality, religion and national security. The true
or our sexuality includes the intimate, family values and marriage, and the other is indiscriminate
sex, adultery, and anything going contrary to marriage. In this view, culture is the zone of danger
where not only values but ideology is fought. The job of the government, with the help of the
Church, was to safeguard culture, and film in particular, and keep it from “la infiltración
ideológica y el ablandamiento de las costumbres.” Similarly, massification is considered the
greatest of evils as the freedom/dignity/ and the individual is directly opposed to slavery,
indignity and the masses. The problem is that the terms “moral publica,” “buenas costumbres,”
and “seguridad nacional” are vague.
1968
After the coup d’etat that brought in Juan Carlos Onganía culture in Argentina takes a turn for
the worse moment in its history. Onganía institutes the “Revolución Argentina” with a national
culture inspired by traditions of the country but open to universal values of Christian civilization,
mainly that of pre-Vatican II values, modeled after Francisco Franco in Spain. DISCUSS LP
AND FOREIGN VS NATIONAL. -LP legitimate culture was aligned with national,
catholic/Christian and family and false culture with foreign antireligious and antifamily (sex,
adultery, abortion)-6 criteria (LP 201)-concept of what is national and what is foreign p.19 Here
ends a period of constitutional republican democracy replaced by military dictatorship with an
objective to reform society and free it from its evil ways. This repressive climate will feed the
urban guerrilla movements that are beginning to rise up due to the skepticism and they start to
infiltrate universities, unions, priests, and the political youth. This year law 16995 (23
September) gives the INC the power to differentiate between films with obligatory exhibition
and those without, like in 1957. The difference here is that there are two different organisms, the
INC and the CNHC, both with powers to stifle the life of productions. Both are autonomous
bodies who are responsible for to the Executive Power. Clarified the funding situation. The INC
acquires many functions, one of which is to provide funding and the Ente censors the films.
Articulo 1 […] El INC estará dirigido y administrado por un funcionario con el titulo de
administrador general [designado por el poder ejecutivo nacional.] Art 2… El INC por conducto
de la Comisión Nacional Calificadora que funcionara como organismo del mismo, procederá a
calificar las películas nacionales teniendo en cuenta su calidad artística y temática, y su
valorización como medio de difusión cultural, en las siguientes categorías: A) películas cuya
exhibición será obligatoria con derecho a todos los beneficios de esta ley B) películas cuya
exhibición no será obligatoria en ningún caso, y sin derecho a los beneficios de esta ley…
Articulo 11… La comisión nacional calificadora creada por el articulo 7 del decreto-ley no.
62/57 estará integrada por 6 miembros, a saber: el administrador general y 3 funcionarios del
INC un representante de los exhibidores y un representante de la producción. En caso de empate,
el administrador general del INC tendrá voto doble.”( Boletin oficial septiembre 28, 1966, pg1-2)
In 1967 law 1730 transfers the general administration of the INC to the Secretaria de
difusión y turismo: “Al centralizar las funciones inherentes a la difusión de las medidas de
gobierno programadas se contribuirá también a crear y estimular en la población el sentido de
responsabilidad común y la participación en el cumplimiento de los fines de la revolución
argentina. Ese propósito deberá alcanzarse a través de una adecuada explotación de los servicios
de radiosfusión, cinematografía y televisión” ( La prensa junio 7, 1967, pg12, Avellaneda, p.88).
In 1967, nudes are attacked. See Espana 2, p.524. On 14 May, 1968 law 17741 denies
classification to national films who attempt against the “national style.”
This law made the INC dependent on Secretaria de difusión –all power- classifies Films,
and Could deny classification to Films that “a las peliculas que atentasen contra el estilo nacional
de vida o las pautas culturales de la comunidad” certificate was mandatory created cinemateca
and cerc : givng the inc lots of functions – libertad de expresión was in jeopardy
-inc and the ente were separate one was secretaria de difusión y turismo and ente still under
Ramiro de la fuente under minsitry of culture and education. Film approved industrially denied
morally or politically. Articulo 9: El INC clasificará las películas nacionales a efectos de su
exhibición obligatoria y para la exportación. A tal fin designara una junta asesora honoraria
integrada por representantes del INC de la producción de la exhibición y la distribución por
partes iguales. Serán designados de listas que deberán presentar las asociaciones de productores,
exhibidores y distribuidores que tengan personería jurídica. Articulo 10: Los integrantes de la
junta asesora honoraria, que no podrán tener intereses de la película que clasifiquen, presenciaran
su proyección. Finalizada está, en el mismo acto emitirán su opinión. La clasificación se
realizará en la siguiente forma: a) se determinará por simple mayoría si la película es de
exhibición obligatoria o no; si es exportable o no; b) A continuación, y si la película se clasifcase
como de exhibición obligatoria y exportable, se deterinará si es de interés especial. Se
consideraran películas de interés especial las que sirvan a la difusión del patrimonio cultural de
la nación mediante la exaltación de valores morales, historicos, educativos o comunitarios y sean
de indudable calidad cinematográfica […] Articulo 13; El INC negara las clasificaciones a las
que se refiere el articulo 9 a las películas nacionales que atenten contra el estilo nacional de vida
o las pautas culturales de la comunidad argentina. (30 de mayo de 1968, Boletin oficial, pag 1,
Avellaneda p98-99).
On 26 December, 1968 decree 18019 was passed which established cause for censorship.
It determined that as a principle freedom of expression could not be restricted BUT it established
many exceptions: educational reasons, protection of the public morale, good customs, and
national security. In these cases the films could be cut or prohibited. Films could not justify any
attempt against marriage and family values, nor abortion, prostitution or sexual perversions, nor
lascivious scenes or criminal justification. This law also creates the Ente de Calificaicon
Cinematografica, which will replace the Consejo Nacional Honorario de Calificacion
Cinematografica, which depended on the Executive power through Secretaria de Estado y
Cultura de la Nacion. This new entity was strongly centralized and idealized. Films would first
go through the INC via the Consejo Asesor and then through the Ente. It would also have to look
through the scripts of national or coproduction films.
Censorship or Freedom of expression?
Las pautas of 1976
Radiolandia –May 14, 1976 Secretaria de informacion publica – last week informed
about the guidelines for film production- guide its own management towards orientation and
classification- general guidelines that films should follow and the Capitan Jorge Enrique
Bitleston- interventor talks about future productions – not explicit until march 24, 1976
Ultima Hora May 6, 1976 “Comentario de orientacion dirigido a los productores de cine”
– 3 categories
May 5, 1976 Ultima hora – an hour and half meeting- cited producers to notify them
officially – people that were present were Atilo Mentasti, Hector Olivera, Juan Carlos GArate,
Nicolas Garrera, Luis Osvaldo Respetto, Oscar Caccici and Horacio Mentasti, Sabina Siegler- in
the instituto
La opinion May 6, 1976 – law 18.841/68 and 20.170/73
Clarin May 6, 1976 – on the 5th
La nacion- May 6, 1976 – la politica official en cinematografia
Las pautas the official documents: dated 30 april 1976 – already had this document ready
because it was released a month right after the coup
Document that has guidelines for future films:
1. El INC apoyara economicamente a todas aquellas peliculas que exalten valores espirituales,
morales, cristianos, e historicos o actuals de la nacionalidad o que afirmen los conceptos de
familia, de orden, de respeto, de trabajo, de esfuerzo feundo y de responsabilidad social;
buscando crear una actitud popular de optimista efrentamiento del future. En todos los casos se
evitara escenas y idialogos procaces (obscene).
Guidelines for films in preparation:
2. Las pautas existentes hasta el 24 de marzo eran diferentes o no estaban explicitas sera
necesario adecuar las pelicuas en preparacion a efectos de evitar perjuicios economicos – modify
scripts scenes necessary to allow exhibition and these have to meet the guidelines in 1. If the film
is almost done there is a risk that their films are heavily mutilated
Date of 27 april- memorandum
-objective is to orient businessmen and producers – called a meeting for this week with the most
important people in production currently
3. contest – prize will receive funding to film the script. But these films have to abide by 1.
4. recoger las inquietudes que presentan los empresarios para facilitar y promover la industria
cinematogrica nacional – Carlos Busser – capitan de navio
The values to aspire to in these principles:
1. fundamental values that make integrity of society: orden laboriosidad, jerarquia,
responsabilidad, idoneidad, honestidad, within the context of crisitan morality
2. preserve the defense of the institution of the family
3. informative and formative elements that make the cultural heritage
4. give youths models that promote 1 to eradicate and replace the current ones
5. respect dignity, intimacy, honor, fame and reputation of people
6. eradicate stimulus based in sexuality and violence
7. against vices
procedures
8. promoting information that is not verifiable and sensationalist
9. not involving in areas that are not part of public debate
10 elimination total of images obsecen, shocking or unknown- double entendre
11 no use of recourses affective and truculencia
12 correct use of the national language
13 prohibition on submliminal propaganda
14. people who are not experts cannot express their opinions
15. no publicity unless stated
16. no publicity in any form
Memorandum November 10, 1976 – Director general de planeamiento
-specifies guidelines for film geared toward youth
Campana derechos y obligaciones dialogo intergeneracional
Convocar trabajo studio colaboracion y fe en el future orden confianza a la autoridad y respeto
mutuo
Brio necesita moldearse
-direccion de orden y no una escalada de violencia
-encontrarse con los mayors para la construccion de nuestra patria
obligacion del servicio military
-verdadero respect a la jerarqui edad, experiencia, conocimientos
-in opposition to a cult of desepration proponer un accionar sustentado por la integridad y por la
capacidad de abstnerse a derrumbar lo construido
“una juventud difusa que es facilmente influenciable por ideologias y procesos apatriadas”
fomenter madurez, compromise con lo normative, responsabilidad, generosidad, orden, virilidad,
General Antonio Montes Silva- director general de planteamiento secretaria de informacio
publica
*call for youth to ally with adults
Memorandum – Ente de calificacion cinematografica LEY 18.019
- desde hace muchos anos viene siendo especial preocupacion de los pderes publicos la
influencia que tiene el espectaculo cinematografico sobre las costumbres de vastos
sectores de poblacion y especialmente de la jueventud
- Es razonable entonces que los poderes publicos hayan arbitrado remedies orientados a
evitar que esa tecnica maravillosa que Satanowsky (la obra cinematografica frente al
derecho page 288)
“no hay pais alguno en el mundo que carezca de censura previa a la exhibicion publica
clear categories
1. Artisticas – mayor apoyo
2. comerciales comedias brillantes, comedias picarescas, otros generos – no apoyo
3. revisionistas o historicas particpan de puntos 1 y 2
4. infantiles de formacion positive a. didacticas b. entretenimiento
5. documentales a. didacticas educativas cientificas apoyo del inc menor o mayor segun
proyecto
no entra en estas classificaciones cine pornografico-erotico o que atente contra la
moral publica y buenas costumbres
violencia-aberraciones-dorgas- subversion las que pueden lesionar a otros paises o
interfereir en las buenas relaciones con el nuestro
-quote ley 18.019 art 12
IN THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE 20.170 – THEY ARE REPRODUCING
THESE EARLIER LAWS TO SHOW WHAT THEY WANT TO DO (I KNOW
THIS WAS DONE IN 1976 BECAUSE OF THE SECRETARIA DE
INFORMACION PUBLICA
Muestra el hombre es su lucha por la justicia
Contra el materialism, el egoism, y el desaliento, la venalidad, y la corrupcion
Debatiendose por su dignidad por sus hijos por su libertad y por su honra y por su religion o por
sus principios
P1000465 – shows the way that the people in the Ente work but consejero
23 Aguust of 1978- sugerencia sobre las pautas y su interpretacion
el problema del cine nacional- justification as to why we need guidelines
- since 1910 there are guidelines and then gives the examples of 1957 1968 and 1976
- -starts looking at the laws 62/57 – freedom of expression and equates the pautas with
them
- law 18019
- freedom of expression – freedom of expression and pautas tiene presente las conductas en
el ejercicio razonable de esa libertad
- -shows how the pautas are iwthin the law
- reference to god
- about religion P1000473
- about reading the pautas and interpreting them – inc justifying what they did VERy
interesting because it completely ignores the fact that many of the people that put these
laws into place were illegal
- -justifying it that it’s not about prohibiting showing things about justifying them
- “tartar el seco dramaticamente, no significa plagar la pantalla de desnudos y de camas.
Sea libre el artista para expresar el tema pero sea responsablemente libre; motrando lo
mostrable y solo proponiendo lo proponible.
- No se hable de quitar las pautas ni de flexibilizarles, porque ello implicaria despojarnos
de nuestra escencia moral. Lo que si debe tenerse claro es que el tema crucial esta en
saber interpreter el cabal sentido y el espiritul vivificador de las pautas
- 11 novmiembre de 1977 for youth – same as above
1957
By all accounts (CITE) this period and this law does not limit freedom of expression in
the directors until 1963, when this freedom will start to become more difficult. However, if we
look at the Bo-Sarli case we will see that even in this early period they first hand experienced a
practice of censorship, albeit it manifested itself differently but the centralization and
institutionalization of the INC would help make this censorship more widespread.
This law established the freedom of expression was constitutional but films had to be
classified from a central national body.
62/57 established many criteria it was a complicated law that classified films into two
categories and exhibition spaces into categories. It went on to set an elaborate scheme of who
gets to show which films when and how much.
Another aspect was the declaration that the law was not going to get involved with the
question of what was allowed to be seen that prohibition would still remain in the hands of the
courts. There is a way of protecting minors but clear protection of freedom of expression against
censorship
-given points for all their value page 5
-specifies how to get category a classification
1963
-as a reaction to this law in January 1964 there was “un acto” in Teatro Presidente Alvear at
which Torre Nilsson spoke – how writers, directors and producers are “modificaran su tematica,
seran hipocritas donde antes eran sinceros” (Ferreira 60) asks : “que ha hecho mas mal al estado,
a la soberania nacional, a la estabilidad economica el pais: el cine supuestamente nocivo o las
salidas de tanques a la calle, las rencillas de ministerio y los negociados inescrupolosos?”
Ferreira, 60
“quiero saber si el cine ha engendrado tantos delincuentes como la desocupacion, el hambre, la
miseria” (Ferreira, 60)
“los que por no saber usar la lapicera o el pincel glorifican el fuego y la tijera”
1968
International Appeal
1957
Another component of this law was the role of which films could be seen outside. It was quality
and maintaining some sort of control over what did leave the country.
-have to have a minimum of 3 points to be exportable
1963
1968
The role of the church:
There were various indications that the role of the Catholic Church was growing in
Argentine society and would thus influence the development of censorship in the nation. Peron’s
move to legalize divorce in 1954 (Article 31 of Law 14,394 December 22, 1954) sealed the
contention between peronismo and the church. His downfall in 1955 was supported by the
church hierarchy and would favor more participation of the Church in civil matters during both
the more liberal “Revolución libertadora” of 1955 and the ensuing conservative “Revolución
argentina” of 1966, as will be demonstrated by the role that it would acquire in censorship
practices.
The negotiation between the liberal projects of the Radicals and the conservative
imposition of the Armed forces and church would reap some interesting results demonstrating
the latter’s growing influence. For instance, during the government of the liberal Radical Arturo
Frondizi (1958-1962) the INC and its ensuing bodies would see an infiltration of the Church at
different levels. Under Decree 9660,1 the Special Classification Sub-commission lost its solely
state connection as it incorporated representatives from private institutions, namely the Father’s
League, the Mother’s League, the Family Institute, the Christian Family Movement, the Youth
Protection Agency, and the International Union for the Protection of Infants, which would
clearly demarcate its ideological inclination.2
1
2
Adopted on August 1959, this legislation…. EXPLAIN
These organizations had clear affiliations with the church…HOW?
After Vatican II, Acción Católica Argentina, a non-profit organization working since
1931 to promote Christian values in the nation, publishes Guía Cinematográfica, 1954-1965.
The guide was written: “to offer people interested in film culture some current necessary
elements to facilitate and orient their work” (p.). The guide contains: an introduction by the
Archbishop of Buenos Aires Antonio Cardenal Caggiano, the Encyclical Letter written by Pope
Pius XII on motion pictures, radio and television,3 and a Decree approved by Second Vatican
Council on social media communication, and finally the guide that classifies all the films shown
in Buenos Aires from 1954 to 1965, an exercise occurring following the State’s own
classification. Meant for a Catholic viewer the guide gives each film a recommended
classification rated from 1 (acceptable for all) to 6 (prohibited for all). The Bó/Sarli films
received a 4 (Reserved: these films expect a spectator to differentiate between confusing values
sometimes positive and negative) Favela was classified as such. La diosa impura and La leona
were classified as 5 (Not recommended: the bad elements are dangerous even for people with
good judgment). And the rest received a 6 (El trueno entre las hojas, Sabaleros, Y el demonio
creó al hombre, India, and Lujuria tropical) where evil is posited as attractive and fundamental
ideas and principles are distorted; thus ultimately, not considered appropriate for any Catholic
audience. While meant for a Catholic audience, the guide nonetheless demonstrates the moral
stance that Church adopts in regard to films. As Octavio Getino notes: “Sexo, moral, politica,
ideología, libertad de expresión, todo estaba bajo la lupa en momentos donde la iglesia y los
oranismos gubernamentales de la represión coincidían en una misma misión, que era la de
‘vigiliar y proteger el ser nacional y la moral de los argentinos’” (p.240).
The Church had already begun to infiltrate the INC with the appointment of Julián R.
Bonamino (a fervent pre Vatican II Catholic), who joins the ranks of the INC (AS WHAT?) on
September 29, 1960. In 1963, Dr. Ramiro De la Fuente, a lawyer and ardent Catholic, is
appointed to head the newly legislated Ente de calificación (FULL NAME). This ultraconservative Catholic, known as the Argentine Torquemada, reigned unchallenged for 10 years
under Presidents José María Guido, Arturo Humberto Illia, and Generals Onganía, Levingston
and Lanusse. Prior to his role in the CNHC he was a representative in the Oficina Católica
Internacional del Cine de la Argentina.
The problem with Bo and Sarli’s films goes back to the content as the 4, 5, and 6
classification in the Guia attests their films posit evil as attractive and distort fundamental ideas
and principles. This philosophy was entering the law as for example. NEED TO SHOW
EXAMPLES AS HOW THE LAW WAS CHANGING. In 1961, still under Frondizi, Decree
5797 states in Article 3 that “for the assessment of cinematographic material one must keep in
mind especially the family, patriotic symbols, and the ethical and cultural values that
characterizes the national community b. these are concepts and manifestations repressible that
can damage the sovereignty of the nation, its territorial integrity, the constitutional order, or
international relations; the defense of crime, dishonesty, immorality or violence.”
This letter made public on September 8, 1957 -Miranda Pororsus means “wonderful invention”
in Latin and claims that while media springs from “human intelligence and industry” but
nonetheless is a gift from God. He claimed that the church could use these media for their own
spiritual quest and that governments and individuals could do the same as long as it was for
intellectual and spiritual culture. But he warned against using these avenues of communication
for “exclusively for the advancement and propagation of political measures or to achieve
economic ends”, or for anything “contrary to sound morals” that would put souls in danger.
3
This confrontation between the Church and Bo/Sarli would become personal in an
encounter with a priest in December 1979, when the Church was fully entrenched in the ideology
of the state. This encounter made the headlines throughout the country (Variety, March 19, 1980,
p.52) and it demonstrated just how Sarli was constructed as dangerous. During a conversation
with priest Father Daniel Zaffaroni, who hosted a TV program called “Mass for Artists,” Sarli
asked him about bringing up her son. The priest asked her whether she ashamed of flouncing her
breasts in the dress she was wearing and she slapped him across the face (Variety, 1980/
150549). This anecdote more than clearly show the opposition between the work of the duo and
the Church also functions as a metaphor for the struggle that Bo-Sarli would have with the
church/censors over their films.
Censorship was not in line with the church itself as it was becoming more progressive, as
the case of France shows. In France the Catholic Church abolished censorship providing the
following explanation of its decision: Es inconcebible e inmoral una inervencion autoritaria
sobre la conciencia de cada uno. Que derech tenia el comite de ponerse en el lugar de la gente y
ordenar lo que debia o no debia hacer? (Espana 2, 529)
Bo within the systems that are being created:
El trueno entre las hojas would be the first film to experience problems with the INC. It
was finished in February, 1957 (December 1956 se estreno oct 2 1958 150554) and would not be
released until later. The new law would also make it difficult to screen this film as it did not
receive category A status. Sarli would travel to the film festival in Karlovy-Vary to present the
film before it was screened nationally. Finally, it would premiere on October 2, 1958. Similarly
to Las aguas bajan turbias in 1951-52, when Hugo del Carril was accused of being a communist,
El trueno is going to establish the duo’s fate with the censors due to one important feature: Isabel
Sarli’s body. It can be said that Armando Bo was a pioneer, and in many ways he was, but he
established himself as such by copying some of the formulas/strategies of the new more
liberating foreign films that were bombarding Argentine films. Both Hon dansade en sommar/
One Summer of Happiness (Arne Mattsson, 1951) and Sommaren med Monika/ Summer with
Monika (Ingmar Berman, 1953) inspired Bo to do the same with Augusto Roa Basto’s erotic
story, feature a controversial nude swimming scene similar to the one in One Summer of
Happiness. Both of these Swedish films played in Argentina, and Sarli even attests to Bo taking
her to see these films in preparation of El trueno (Romano, 40 and OTHER). If these two films
had no problem playing the capital region, Sarli’s were different, “considered too provocative
and ostentatious” (Romano, 144, OTHERS). After the INC attempted to took its time giving a
release to the film and latter attempted to cut scenes it finally classified it as “prohibido para
menores de dicieocho años,” (Goity in Espana 1, 368) (DID THESE OTHER APPEAR IN THE
LIST? But instead the INC released the film and left it to its fate after the fact. Both El trueno
and Sabaleros, their second feature, would face criminal charges for violating codigo 128. At the
time codigo 128 was the only way that censorship was allowed. This constitutional penal code
128 claims that 15 days to one year of prison term can be given to the one who: “al que
publicare, fabricare o reprodujere libros, escritos, imaginese u objetos obscenos y el que los
expusiere, distribuyere o hiciere circular.” Any citizen can denounce this behavior. Under this
article both El trueno and Sabaleros were removed from the screens until the case was heard in
judicial court. The public prosecutor De la Riestra claimed that El trueno was: “atacando contra
la moral y las buenas costumbres.” In the case of their second film Sabaleros, the INC did not
hold up its release. In part this may be due to the directorship of Narciso Machiandiarena (May,
1958 to Feb, 1959), Bo’s brother-in-law. However, like El trueno, one week after its release
Sabaleros was seized and under court restriction not allowed to screen for violation of penal code
128 (Goity in Espana 1, 369). –el intendente capitalino, Hernan Giral acuso por exhibiciones
obscenas a Sabaleros. The negative and 20 copies of the film were with the court until the case
was heard. India was thrown out of court for not finding merit in the case.
-no explicit censorship but it’s there
Given that both films were tied up with the courts until the accusations were cleared up
their third feature, India, would be handled differently. This case shows how, while legally there
was no indication of the practice of prior censorship by the INC in 1959/60, this was already
taking place before it would become the law. Bo heavily consulted with the INC director at the
time Emilio Zolezzi (OR SOLEZZI) to ensure that the film would not experience any hassles
once it was completed. It becomes clear that the problem is not nudity per se, but Sarli’s body
itself. As Sarli attests: “Las indias auténticas podían aparecer con el busto al descubierto, pero yo
no” (slide 150551). Sarli, playing an indigenous maiden, would have to appear dressed, while her
tribeswomen could appear naked. There was a scene where Sarli does appear naked while
bathing in the waters of the Iguazu Falls. This scene was in Agfacolor and would showcase the
diva’s body in full color for the first time. This scene, shot in the touristic site, was deemed
beautiful for the censor, so much so that he allowed it to stay in the picture, but asked Bo to
insert black dots where Sarli’s breasts were. Even after all of this cautious consultation with the
INC others did not deem the concessions enough and it still was denounced as offending the
judgment and good morals of Argentines under code 128. While all three films were seized by
the courts, India, would be released a month and a half later by judge Luis Maria Ragucci, for
not finding sufficient cause to process its actors, director and producer (La nacion, Marzo 8,
1960; p.10, cited in Avellaneda, p.54).
Both Y el demonio creó al hombre and La burrerita de Ypacarrí received A category
ratings and placed 15th in the productions for the year of its release in 1961, allowing the second
to receive funding and a prize for cinematography awarded to Julio Levrero. In the case of Y el
demonio Sarli does not bear anything given that the duo still had two films stuck in court
proceedings (El trueno and Sabaleros). Nonetheless, there was still a proceeding for the scene in
the film, which shows Bo brutally beating the sea lions on the island, a practice he claims still
existed at the time. Because of this scene the film was also confiscated under code 128 for
showing a scene that supposedly was cut from the original.
This first period shows how Bo tries to work with a system that was more open. Even so
his films do receive ‘special’ treatment as films are censored and the role of the INC is still more
prominent for the Bo-Sarli duo during this period. Court proceedings seem to have been more
effective at hindering his full exploitation of Sarli’s appeal. Even though in the end he won all
four cases charged against him. The case of the negotiations with the INC for Sarli’s dress in
India and his practiced restraint in Y el demonio, La burrerita?, and Favela? exemplify how he
was trying to make films within the framework of the laws at the time. However, at the same
time, this period shows how Bo-Sarli were already categorized as problematic, while they would
receive A category in some of their films, they were experiencing prior censorship when legally
this was not the norm. It also shows how Sarli’s body is already seen as different from other
examples of female nudity. The case of India perfectly illustrates the discrepancy between her
ostentatious body and that of her indigenous tribeswomen. Why was her body considered
offensive than other female bodies (the other tribeswoman, ACTRESSES in One Summer and
Summer)? This period ends with Sarli working with Leopoldo Torre Nilsson in Sesenta veces
siete and Bo’s own production of Pelota de trapo with Nilsson, a break from the duo’s activities
because of the constant struggles with the courts.
In 1965 the city council of San Juan closed the theatre Renacimiento for five days and
fined its owners for exhibiting the film La mujer del zapatero without any of the cuts that the
board had required for an exhibition for over 18 years of age. The Direction in Protection of
Minors had classified the film as prohibited for those under the age of 22 (La Nacion Julio 4,
1965: p. 22 cited in Avellaneda p.74). At this point the cuts that were asked were not yet left with
the censors, there was more breathing room for directors and producers, what would change later
on. There were tactics on both sides of the game: the censors would take long to provide the
certificate so they can order the confiscation of the film that was projected without the
mandatory certificate. And producers and directors such as Bo, also had tricks. He knew how to
manipulate the Board as he testifies in this quote: “pasa un desnudo lejano, o con poca luz, pero
los proximos a la camara o los iluminados con nítidez son cortados sin lástima.”
One of the tactics of the Ente was to delay classification and thus the Films would be
fined for screening without the obligatory certificate. In 1966 Bo is detained because he called
the censors coimeros delay of classification with La mujer de mi padre, which he was trying to
get for 7 months (Espana 2, 524). On this occasion he insulted a censor and went to jail for this.
(La prensa, octubre 10, 1966: p.6, Avellaneda, p.81) The only one who came to his aid was a
journalist Isidoro Gabriel. After being told to cut a shot of Sarli from behind going to bathe in the
cataratas de iguazu but he defended himself by citing an example in Zorba, the Greek with a shot
of Anthony Quinns’s buttocks.
This is when Bo experiences the most problems and not coincidently when his films
become more International, succeeding in New York and beyond.
La tentacion desnuda –made 1965 and premiered in 1966
La senora del intendente –made in 1966 and premiered in 1967
La mujer de mi padre –made in 1967 and premiered in 1968 coproduction with Crompton Films
in UK
Desnuda en la arena – made in 1968 and premiered in 1969
Carne made 1968 premiered when? – in 197? Was a retrospective and it was shown with the full
version in Argentina in 1979. (J Abel Martin 1979)
Fuego -1968 came out in 1971- seen in NY more than 20 weeks – given category B at first.
Fuego was prohibited altogether “perversions sexuales, escenas lascivas o que repugnen la
moral, y las buenas costumbres” “una pelicula con escenas de alto contenido erotico, lesbianismo
y pasion desenfrenada que podia conflictuar a los menores.” It was banned for 10 years.
Armando Bo had four sessions with the censors and in each they demanded new cuts, so much so
that the story was unintelligible. They also refused his scripts Amor Guarani and Nieve (Espana
2, 529).” – given categoria B status but reclassified Fuego in A
Extasis tropical was filmed in 1969 and came out in 1978
Embrujada filmed in 1969 and came out in 1976
Fiebre made in 1970 and came out in 1972 Fiebre –Inc allowed it to show but the got B rating –
took the INC to court “accion de amparo” but the court of appeal upheld that decision: things
were turning for the courts
Under Lanusse (1971-1973) Bo and Sarli had a sit-down or hunger strike right in the
Plaza de Mayo in front of the Casa Rosada. They lasted there for 14 hours to protest the arrest
“just to show the president” journalist came, they talked on the radio but they couldn’t stand the
hunger so they left (Variety). For fiebre –because they wouldn’t allow them to exploit it abroad
20170 by Lanusse: changed the subsidy system so that independent producers could get funding.
“Cuando estas vayan en detrimento de los intereses de la Nacion”
Free period: Getino from August to October, 1973
After Hector Campora came to power (25 May 1973) and democracy brought the return
of Peron until his death on July 1, 1974, a liberalization of the INC and the Ente also took place,
which in turn meant an expansion of Argentine cinema. During this period with two of the most
important directors of the classical era at the helm of the INC was Hugo Del Carril (DATES) and
then Mario Soffici (DATES). A Decree 858 from August 1973 assigns Octavio Getino as
director of the Ente for a period of 90 days (Avellaneda, 112, August 8, 1978 La nacion, p.13). In
this time he re-structured the Ente and replaced the leagues of fathers and mothers with others,
involving instead psychologists and psycoanalysist, sociologists, film critics and directors. The
Ente then allowed the release of all those films that had been prohibited for political reasons such
as State of Siege (Costa-Gavras, 1973) and The Devils (Ken Russell, 1972) and others for moral
reasons like The Decameron (Pasolini, 1972) and Last Tango in Paris (Bertolucci, 1973)
(Espana 2, 652). During Getino’s period the Ente classified, instead of censoring films, as this
testimony explains his work as director of the body: “Cuando asumí el cargo de interventor con
atribuciones de director [el 8 de agosto de 1973] dejo automáticamente de actuar el consejo
honorario de calificación. Sus tareas me incumbieron, paralelamente a las de elaboración de un
proyecto de ley de cine […] Esta tarea [la de calificar películas] debe consistir en una
información escueta y veraz. […] Había que terminar con la costumbre de cortar o prohibir.
Dentro de este criterio fuimos largando poco a poco las películas demoradas. […] Si bien la
decisión final me ha correspondido siempre, he contado en todo momento con el asesoramiento
valioso de un grupo de hombres de cultura. Había en el directores como Rodolfo Kuhn y Rene
Mujica, críticos como Agustin Mahieu y Edmundo Eichelbaum, sociólogos, educadores,
sacerdotes, representantes de diferentes órganos oficiales […] Ahora estamos en una nueva
etapa. Tenemos que contemplar los intereses de todos. Los de quienes hacen y manejan el
espectáculo público habrá de estar al servicio del público: tanto para procurarle exparcimiento
como para participar de su formación y evitar los estragos de una orientación defectuosa. (La
nación, enero 3 1974, p. 11 suplemento literario, Avellaneda, p.115)
He also set up experimental public classification sessions where the public decided if the
film was apt for all, for those over 14 or 18 (Espana 2, p654). When his term was ending he had
a falling out with the then Subsecretary of Culture over the Chilean film called Voto más fusil
(Helvio Soto, 1973) and he let Dr. Jorge Taiana, ministry of Education and Culture decide who
thanked him for his services and thus begun a different phase in the life the of Ente. However,
Getino would continue to work with the Peron government as adviser on the film legislation until
the death of Peron. On January 11, 1974 the Ente became responsible to the executive power
through the secretary of Press and Difusion, a change since its creation it was responsible to the
Ministry of Education and Culture. Miguel Paulino Tato would be made the head of the Ente
after Peron’s death in August, 1974, the same month which the new president Maria Estela
Martinez de Peron would sign the new film law proposed by the INC and others, but which
would be shelved.
-had allowed last tango in paris – accused of this and had a court case against him
-del carril renounced and so did Soffici
Intimidades de una cualquiera made in 1971 and premiered in 1974 –extensos cortes a Fuego,
El sexo y el amor made in 1973 and premiered in 1974
Fiebre fue muy censurada – por la escena con caballos
-Fuego – los hombres que provocaba en la ficcion eran todos integrantes del equivpo
companeros de trabajo
-hicieron una guerra de hambre contra la censura- tuvieron que sacarlos a la fuerza de la plaza de
mayo
After Getino in 1974: the darkest part of history
Shortly thereafter on September 1, 1974 Miguel Paulino Tato, or “Nestor” is designated
as the new director of the Ente. He is the only official who continues his work into the
dictatorship until he retires on September 20, 1978. Tato is a self proclaimed …. However,
ironically he had directed a film called Facundo, el tigre de los llanos (1952), which suffered
from censorship at the time. His tenure in the Ente proved to be one of the harshest of all time.
He claims: “Combatiré a la muerte la pornografía, pero sé que hay cosas peores que ella, como la
morbosidad. Por ejemplo, creo que La Madre Maria [1974, Lucas Demare] es más perniciosa
que muchas películas subidas de tono, porque exalta el curanderismo y, por lo tanto, puede dañar
mucho más a la gente preparada. Hay otra clase de pornografía que es la barata, como la que
practica Isabel Sarli, Libertad Leblanc y los hermanos Sofovich. De todos modos, hasta ahora
siempre se fue más permisivo con las películas extranjeras en material de pornografía…”
(Espana 2, 656)
After Tato came Dr. Alberto Leon, appointed on 21 September, 1978 and lasting until the end of
the dictatorship in 1983. While, not as drastic as Tato, he was conservative and a member of the
Central Commision of the League of Fathers and a lawyer. He would be part of the dark period
until 1979 but also begin to open things up in the final leg of the dictatorship from 1979 to 1983.
-inc goes to be part of SIP in 1977
-1976 authorities dictate 3 categories of filmmaking (Gociol p.44)
Bo and Sarli’s struggles with the censors continued during these periods La diosa virgen,
a film directed by Dirk De Villiers, made in would premiere that year. However, Una mariposa
en la noche, filmed between October and November, 1975 premiered on Sept 5, 1977. WHY?
And Insatiable made in 1977 would take two years before it was finally banned on October, 1979
and would never premiere as long as the dictatorship was in power and Bo was alive. Insatiable
made in 1977 never premiered until 1984. At this time the fact that it was prohibited until then
was used to exploit the film, and claim that it’s the first time one of the duo’s films was shown
without cuts (NOT TRUE). The League of Decency from Rosario issued a public communiqué:
IT is inadmissible that in our country films such as the one mentioned can be made, in which the
main character play a nymphomaniac and resorts to such a poor story in order to exhibit all kinds
of immoralities… We are surprised that the censors have not prohibited other films inexplicably
being exhibited, and which even receive subsidies.” (Variety March 19, 1980, p.62). During this
time a few films came out that were made long ago: Embrujada (1969) came out in 1976 and
Exstasis tropical (1969) came out in 1978 (the film to receive the most cuts (150763)).
The last two films had no problems being released: Ultimo amor en tierra del fuego made
in 1978 and premiered in 1979 and Una viuda descocada made in 1980 and premiered that same
year. Interestingly enough it seemed that Bo was tired of fighting with the censors and Ultimo
amor received a credit from the INC and could be considered the most complicit film to the
dictatorial apparatus. WHY? But just when we think that he has been able to win the hearts of
the censors, the final film he made does not receive funding, and he and Sarli threaten to finally
leave the country. They exclaim that they will not mak make another film together again in
Argentina, and this is the case as Bo falls sick and dies the following year. Another project was
stifled by the censors, as Bo exclaims in the following interview: “…al pedir la autorización para
filmar con Tita Merello ‘Honrorás a tu madre’, con el apoyo económico que arbitra la ley, un
asesor del Instituto [de Cinematografía], el señor Pérez Guridi, me manifestó que no podía
aprobar mi película porque en una escena la protagonista, una mujer anciana, robaba para ayudar
a su hijo. Me dijo resueltamente que una madre no roba para ayudar a su hijo, o que al menos
escenas de tal índole no podían mostrarse en una película nacional.” (La prensa, septiembre 9,
1980: p.2, Segunda sección, Avellaneda, 195, 1980). By this point others were publically
beginning to oppose censorship and its apparatus. On the one hand Bo states in 1980: “Of course,
now everyone’s against the censors, but they’re all still begging for government money to help
finance their films” (Variety in 1980). This is a thought confirmed by other critics (See Varea
p89) as well. For instance: Journalist Jaime Potenze in his article “Un saludable disgusto por la
censura” points out how censorship functions: “Es importante advertir que existe un consejo
asesor honorario integrado por 15 miembros, a ninguno de los cuales se les pide versación
cinematográfica, lo cual es coherente porque tampoco se le exige al director del organismo. Y
aquí hay representantes del Ministerio del Interior, la secretaria de información púbica (de la cual
depende el ente ahora, con lo cual se modificó el sensato articulo que daba esta facultad a la
secretaria de cultura y educación), del servicio de informaciones del estado, la subsecretaria del
menor y la familia, la liga de la decencia de rosario – ciudad que asume así una preponderancia
inusitada- la obra de protección de la joven, el ministerio de defensa, la liga de padres de familia
y la de madres, etc. Es interesante señalar que nadie que tenga que ver ni de lejos con el cine ha
sido convocado a este Consejo. Si bien el articulado no lo dice se ha procurado que este siempre
al frente del organismo alguien vinculado estrechamente de la oficina católica internacional del
cine; el actual fue – o es- presidente de la liga de padres de familia.” (La nacion, 8 de noviembre
de 1981, pag 9, Avellaneda, 223) Directors like Carlos Hugo Christensen also began to join the
fight: “En realidad lo que le molesta a la censura no es la relación en sí, sino que se pueda
mostrar en imágenes. Para la censura el cuerpo humano es una cosa sucia y el amor es mas sucio
todavía, olvidándose que todo aquello que Dios impone solo puede ser puro” después que le
censuraron a La intrusa de Borges (La prensa, 23 de diciembre de 1981, p.4 seccion segunda,
Avellaneda, 226 1981).
"forma parte esencial de una concepción democrática de la
sociedad, la idea de que los hombres tienen autonomía para elegir y
desarrollar su propio ideal de vida, de modo que el Estado debe
abstenerse de perseguir comportamientos que no afecten los derechos de
otros o a la sociedad como tal". What the poder ejecutivo said in 19831984
Other Films:
The majority of the films made between 1976 and 1983 were comedies with women
provocatively dressed and jokes about sex, with big star power and mainly produced by
Producciones Aries: Jorge Porcel and Alberto Olmedo, Susana Gimenez, Moria Casán, Adriana
Aguirre o Graciela Alfano. These were censored somewhat but they represented repressive,
misogynous, and even violent tendencies that were for the most part complicit with the regime.
Although on occasion the INC did repress these films for instance the fate that fell on Mi novia,
el… starring Susana Giménez and Alberto Olmedo directed by Enrique Cahen Salaberry, did not
receive the “cuota de pantalla” legally agreed upon, nor did it receive subsidy promised by lawdecree 20170/73: “Es una producción de neto corte revisteril, con abundantes diálogos de subido
tono y otros groseros, lindando con lo procaz. [El INC] está facultado para negar los beneficios
de la obligatoriedad de exhibición, créditos y subsidios, a las películas que atenten contra el
estilo nacional de vida o las pautas culturales de la comunidad.” (La nación 15 de marzo, 1975,
pag.13, Avellaneda, p125)
p.74 disappeared list
p. 109 Varea Libertad Leblanc- peronista
Threats:
The Association of Actors notes that death threats have been given to some of its members by
the Alianza Anticomunista Argentina, a right wing death squad active in Argentina mostly active
during Isabel Perón’s government and representing the right faction of the Peronist movement,
that which led during the dictatorship. Many artists and actors were targeted by the AAA such as
Norman Briski, Nacha Guevara, Hector Alterio, Luis Brandoni and Horacio Guarany (abril 27,
La nacion? (not sure because it appears as m and no short form) no page number, Avellaneda,
p127). To that list others were added: Alfredo Alcon, Maria Rosa Gallo, Marilina Ross, Juan
Carlos Gene, Sergio Renan, David Stivel, Luisina Brando y Leonor Manso (abril 28, La nacion
pag 10, Avellaneda, p.127). By 1976 many actors were not permitted to work on TV, film,
theatre or radio (p.230 Avellaneda). Bo and Sarli were also amongst those that received letters
accusing them of “being obscene and promarxist” (“Me acusaron de obsena y promarxista”
ARCALT No7 p53-57). While Sarli was certainly associated with Peronism, publically
supported Peron. She was not a Marxist. Although in an interview she admits to having had read
the Diary of Che Guevara. Armando had told her that Che was an adventurer who wanted to be
an actor and later became a guerrilla fighter. While Armando was looking for places in Bolivia to
shoot a film about Che and his guerrilla activities he was one of the only Argentines to see his
dead body. The film would star Sarli as the lover of one of the guerrillas, but it never was made
and would have been banned in Argentina (“Me acusaron de obsena y promarxista” ARCALT
No7 p53-57).
Funding issue
As always funding is a motive behind some of the decisions made by the Ente. In 1975 el Ente
declared that with the prohibition of 34 films the country has saved $300,000 dollars. “Cuando
sean 200 las peliculas prohibidas—agrega el comunicado –podra estimar el ahorro de divisas
para la nacion en cifras que alcancen el orden 1.500.00 dolares.” (La nacion, 4 enero, 1975,
p.10Avellaneda, p.120, 1975). Even Tato used this as an excuse (p.82 Miguel Tato) FIND
QUOTE. Furthermore, every time a film was classified a cheque had to be included in 1968 it
cost $5000 pesos in 1978 90,000 pesos and in 1979 300000 and in 1980 40,000 pesos and
150,000 in 1981 (SOURCE p.61). Every time there was a change, even as simple as a name
change this fee was administered. See Magdalena Ayelen Berta for a good explanation of the
economic reasons behind the coup.
End of Censorship
On 20 February 1984 Law 23052 takes effect annulling the problematic Law 18.019 and
dissolving the Ente. Once Raul Ricardo Alfonsín came into power he appointed Manuel Antin as
director of the INC who in turn appointed film critic Jorge Miguel Couselo as director of the
Ente. Both of these figures drafted the version of the law that was finally accepted in February.
Other stuff:
While there have been interventions from the State prior to 1963 and dating back to 1929 with
the first attempt at classification and censorship for the purpose of this paper we are not going to
enter in those examples. The stringent development of censorship that will lead to the darkest
period in Argentine history commences on…
Political and moral censorship and they both melded into the other
As the law became stricter, cinema became more tied to the state and controlled by it, and
morality was more of a concern as would be politics. While the censorship of films like la hora is
not necessarily the same as Intimidades, in other ways it is the same thing.
By the dictatorship censorship was the norm and negotiation of cuts, accepted that censorship
was the norm. Few were against it. The changes were implemented immediately at the Ente
(Gociol p.51) the cuts had to be left in the Ente office in a file. P.52 how art was a game
They had their own microcines – they would have private screenings when all were welcomethey could see the whole version without paying to watch the chopped up version in commercial
cinemas. “Me acusaron de obsena y promarxista” ARCALT No7 p53-57
-lo mas indignante es que los cenores veian mis peliculas comppletas, sin cortes, junto a sus
amigos. En esa epoca se vivia con la mordaza en la boca y una venda en los ojos.
Were times when copies without cuts were shown
Local filmmakers were easier to control first the script which would be given funding and then
the film to get the certificate needed.
History begins and ends with AB and IS
Kuhn – Armando is the most coherent of filmmakers in Argentina
Product of more promiscuous nature of society? As sex is more accepted? But it becomes less
accepted in Argentina
-unorganized until 1963 when it becomes more official
-one of my arguments is that it wasn’t as arbitrary as thought
-use the Sarli Bo films to see that there was something else going on in these films that bothered
them about Sarli’s body
Look at their films how these are censored throughout this period
Look more specifically at Intimidades to argue what it was that made their films problematic
-by using a comparison between what Bo was doing and the destape you can conclude that like
the destape economic benefit was behind his fight for freedom of speech but he was the most
fierce fighter of speech at a time when many just shut up.
Reasons why they were censored:
-opposed to the emergent discourse emphasizing the democratic possibilities of consumption and
mass market
-emergent culture to situate sex and sexuality as legitimate topics
-foreign aspect – ok for Swedes and French to do it but not local
-sex was becoming more visible
-arbitrariness was not consistent
-inconsistency made state more powerful (LP)
-targeted those that would reach masses (LP)
-opposed discourse emphasizing democratic possibilities of consumption and mass market
-Kinsey report
-sex being more visible but there were limits
-censorship was a negotiation between parties and as a result most films were not banned
outright because the producers bent to the wishes of the censors. But Armando Bo was the one
who fought more vehemently
Foreign movies were equated with sex:
Alessandro Blasetti's La cena delle beffe (Dinner of fun, 1941) which had Clara Calamai topless
in what is credited as being the first topless scene in an Italian film
Era Lui, Si Si (1952, with Sophia Loren) she was to appear topless in the French version;
Jean-Pierre Melville's Bob le flambeur (1956, with Isabelle Corey, then aged 16);
François Truffaut's Shoot the Piano Player (1960);
Two Nights With Cleopatra (1954, It.) (aka Due Notti Con Cleopatra), she appeared naked in a
pool swimming scene; she played a double role as the sultry Queen of the Nile and slave girl
Nisca- Sophia Loren
Brigitte Bardot's casual nude scenes in Contempt (1963) by Jean-Luc Godard;
the French film The Game is Over (1966, with Jane Fonda);
Luis Buñuel's Belle de jour (1967, with Catherine Deneuve);
and Isadora (1968, with Vanessa Redgrave).
In 1966, the British-Italian film Blowup became the first mainstream English-language film to
show a woman's pubic hair, although the particular shot was only a few seconds long. (Some
sources, such as Playboy magazine's History of Sex in Cinema series, have stated that the pubic
hair exposure was unintended.)
Two Swedish films from 1967, I Am Curious (Yellow)
and Inga, were ground-breaking—and notorious—for showing explicit sex and nudity. Both
were initially banned in the U.S., and were rated X when they were shown in 1968
STATS p29 my notes
Extra Material:
“In April 1962, the jury of the film institute granted cash prizes to fifteen Argentine films, and
they preferred to award one million pesos to the film La burrerita de Ipacarai (The Donkey girl
from Ipacarai), a pornographic film with Isabel Sarli, by Armando Bo, rather than award Los
inundados any prize at all.” -in his defense of how the authorities were taking Birri’s film
-“It was invited to screen at Cannes, but the film institute sent Setenta veces siete (Seventy
Times Seven by Leopoldo Torre Nilsson) instead.”p.87
Sabaleros feb 1959
1961 se estrena Favela – got credit and premio from inc -15th place 1960
La burrerita 5 abril 1962- two scenes were offensive: one with bath and other with the sex?
Eliminated in my copy- received 1060000 pesos in 15th place espana 29 it beat out Los
inundados
Complicity:
-were reactions by the press, cine club, and critics created meetings, debates, round tables and
interviews with authorities on the topic this culminated in an act in el teatro Alvear. Months later
everything went back to normal and no one spoke of the subject: complicity by all including
producers and distributors who safeguard their business (p.273, 281-282 Espana)
-carta abierta (160054) paradoja éxito y amargura- how he defines his films
Lujuria tropical did not get funding in 1964 but did get prize for color photography Julio Levrero
One of the problems with censorship is that it is patronizing as Tato’s own testimony
exemplifies: “el cine que yo quiero [es] positivo, limpio, decente; un cine que sea cultural, no
solo industrial [...] Los argentinos en realidad no estamos maduros para muchas cosas, y nos
pueden hacer mal las películas. Hablo por supuesto de una cantidad de argentinos, no de todos.
De todas maneras, no se trata de defender al que es maduro, sino a los que son menos maduros.
No se trata de atacar un derecho sino de defender a la gente que no sabe hacerlo.” (Espana 2,
p.658) This shows that censorship is based on protecting and defending those that cannot for
themselves.
Ares said to Victor Bo “Tu padre siempre vio de frente. Nos insultó cuando lo creyó necesario y
jamás no chipó las medias como otros.”
No se autoriza el preestreno de la pelicula El poder de la censura, dirigida por Emilio Vieyra, en
el segundo festival de cine argentino de mina clavero (Clarin 27 de marzo de 1983 pag 5,
Avellaneda, p.240, 1983)
p.127-128 se habla de una ley mas generosa y es un periodo liberal la gestion de getino y Tato
quiere hacer del cine algo educativo de una determinada orientación todo parece dirigido por el
gusto personal de tato – (Torre Nilsson “Euforia y crisis del cine argentino. Despues del boom
del 74, un naufragio para el 75? Crisis, p.51-56, mayo 25 1975) see also crisis 26 junio, 1975
parte dos pages 61-65
“Me acusaron de obsena y promarxista” ARCALT No7 p53-57
-p.55 she talks about why she is peronista
-“Me considero una luchadora una mujer del pueblo”
-Armando said to her “Sabes porque sos tan famosa? Porque haces peliculas para el pueblo, para
la masa”
Laws
62/57 – Janauary 9, 1957 -Arambaru
-against law 12909
-“asegure el fomento de la industria cinematografica, de lugar a una elevacion de la calidad
artistica y la integren como un creciente medio de educacion y diffusion de nuestra cultura
incluso en el exterior”
-ensures freedom of speech as per the constitution, “Sin embargo, cuaando razones
educacionales lo aconsejen, podra impedirse el acceso a determinadas exhibiciones
cinematograpficas de menores de 18 anos.” Other than that prohibitions or cuts are not allowed
other than through the judicial process as per the penal code.
-whoever imposes censorship could be jailed from 1 to 6 months
-creation of the INC under poder ejecutivo through Ministry of Education and Justice
-one director and 4 civil servants denominated by the Executive power
-Comision nacional calificadora –part of the INC – classify films into categories A and B
-production and exhibition reps have voice but no vote to classify films for over or under 18
years
category based on “calidad artistica, cultural o de medio de diffusion y educacion”
-theatres were classified A and B (these would be further categorized into a, b,c,d,e)
-consejo adonorem for classifying the salas
-details which salas films can be screened at and for how long and what percentage of the ticket
goes to whom
-INC is charged with giving bank credits
-also “fondos de recuperacion industrial” to category A certain percentages
-50% of films up to 15 will get prizes – category A
-coproduction INC will encourage it
Works Cited:
“Boletín oficial de la República Argentina. Decreto-Ley 62. 9 de enero de 1957.” Boletín oficial
de la República Argentina. Web. 1 March 2013.
“Boletín oficial de la República Argentina. Ley 16955. 28 de septiembre de 1966.” Boletín
oficial de la República Argentina. Web. 1 March 2013.
“Boletín oficial de la República Argentina. Ley 17741. 30 de mayo de 1968.” Boletín oficial de
la República Argentina. Web. 1 March 2013.
“Boletín oficial de la República Argentina. Ley 18019. 7 de enero de 1969.” Boletín oficial de la
República Argentina. Web. 1 March 2013.
“Boletín oficial de la República Argentina. Ley 23052. 16 de marzo de 1984.” Boletín oficial de
la República Argentina. Web. 1 March 2013.
“No tango erotismo, advirtió Getino.” La gaceta 11 September 1973: 289. Print.
Avellaneda, Andrés. Censura, autoritarismo y cultura: Argentina 1960-1983. Volume 1. Buenos
Aires: Centro Editor de América Latina, 1986. Print.
Borgarello, E. Susana, and Francisco Cipolla. Regimen legal de calificación cinematográfica en
la República Argentina: poder de policía jurisprudencia. Córdoba: Editorial Advocatus, 2011.
Print.
de las Carreras de Kuntz, María Elena. “El control del cine en la Argentina. (Primera parte:
1968-1984).” Foro político. Revista del Instituto de ciencias políticas. 19 (April, 1997): 7-29.
Print.
Grinberg, Miguel. “Como nos llegan las películas.” Montaje. 1.2 (April/May 1981): 38-9. Print.
Maranghello, César. “La censura afloja sus cuerdas: Octavio Getino libera films prohibidos se
respira libertad cultural.” Cine argentino: Modernidad y vanguardias 1957-1983 II. Buenos
Aires: Fondo Nacional de las Artes, 2005: 652-61. Print.
---. “La pantalla y el estado,” Historia del cine argentino Ed. Jorge Miguel Couselo. Buenos
Aires: Centro editor de América latina, 1992: 89-108. Print.
Martín, Jorge Abel. Los films de Armando Bó con Isabel Sarli. Buenos Aires: Corregidor, 1981.
Print.
Mazzeo, Nicolás. “Entre lo possible y lo deseable: Octavio Getino frente a la gestión pública en
1973.” Cine documental. Web. 5 June 2013.
Podalsky, Podalsky. Secular City: Transforming Culture, Consumption, and Space in Buenos
Aires, 1955-1972. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004. Print.
The album, “Pequeñas anécdotas sobre las instituciones” (Short anecdotes about institutions)
was released in 1974 and was also victim to censorship. Its title was changed, two songs were
eliminated, and many songs modified including the cutting of the final stanza from “Las
increíbles aventuras.”
ii
It is very clear in Article 4 of this law that freedom of expression as declared in the Argentine
constitution shall be maintained unless this freedom compromises minors, in which case they
have to be protected (Law 62, 1957, 1).
i