Introduction
Why do I need to study this type of cinema?
Use Nayibe’s example
To argue that national context and transnational context makes these tell us about film history in
ARgnetina and throughout the world in 1960s and 1970s
-the importance of the context gives different meaning to the text
-look at theory of transnational to also argue that the mistakes of national cinema has been to
focus solely on the nation but the mistakes of the transnational will be to focus solely on the
transnational and this book does both to see how both national markers and international factors
can influence cinema
-they were certainly transnational but by pairing both shed new light on their cinema and cinema
praxis in this period
-telling that it is this cinema that achieves great transnationality in 1960s and 1970s
-say what is wrong with their cinema
-use the Lady returns to vindicate what Armando Bo set out to do and show what is wrong with
their films
-innovation and revolution-been forced into greater explicitness by arrival of the beavers and
sexy Hollywood features
Kleines Zelt und große Liebe 1956 went to see this film which had a nude abel martin p16
Haven international distributed:
La mujer de mi padre -1967
Fuego -1969
Exstasis tropical -1970
They were American and had been working from 1967-1971 in distributing and only produced
one film Turn on to love (1969) directed by John G. Alvedsen
Chapter about peronismo
-great quote in Espana volume II p.344 about peronismo and clase media-look at the Mark
Jancovich article “Naked Ambitions: Pornography, Taste and the Problem of the Middlebrow” to
use Pierre Bordieu Distinction: A social critique of judgement of taste as a springboard into an
analysis of how IS is seen as part of the peronist body- use examples from LL and why her films
were popular in LA but not so much in Argentina – look into what peronismo did with the
working classes and what this cinema does with the social political situation in its context. Body
politics- make references to LL and Susana Gimenez etc.
Chapter about coproductions:
Bo brings Pelmex to Argentina, espana vol 2 p449 a lot about other exploitation films
Modernismo and rock
-chapter p.468 espana vol 2
Mexico was making nude pictures as early as 1955, but these (La fuerza del deseo, el seductor
La ilegitima (Ana luisa Peluffo, 1955 Chano Ureta), la virtud desnuda, esposas infieles (Jose diaz
morales, 1955) ; Columba Dominguez, Kitty de hoyos) were “La primera vez aue el cine
mexicano plantea un hecho derivado de la sensualidad fuera del ambito del burdel, el buen
sentido, las costumbres y la gazmoneria dieron al traste con todo. No se puede por tanto hablar
de erotismo en el cine mexicano” (Salvador Elizondo Alcayde, p12 vol 6).
FUEGO
By looking at the film Fuego, the most popular and arguably most notable film of the Sarli-Bo
duo,1 I will try to show some of the theories behind the study of popular culture and stake my
own position and approach. As I will show, Fuego is a film that can lend itself to many
interpretations and readings yet none of these quite explain the actual slippery text. Why? How
do we approach such a film? And why is it important to even think about these issues with this
film? What are some of the challenges of studying a film whose main attraction was the topic of
sex? In many ways Fuego is a perfect example of a popular text, whose main attraction is the
overly sexualized Sarli: a text meant for a mass male audience, an example of populism at the
very least. As I will show throughout this book Fuego reflects the tastes and pleasures of the
“people” and the problematic way of defining this group. In a sense, the very worst aspects of
popular culture that many critics despise.2 Similarly, from our liberated perspective it can be seen
as a very retrograde representation of certain aspects; a simplistic view on sexuality; a
misogynist statement on women’s pleasure; and a very stereotypical representation of
homosexuality. While all of these criticisms are certainly valid a similarly progressive reading of
Fuego can be legitimately made. When I was visiting the University of Wisconsin-Madison, to
give a talk in a workshop about Garbage in the global south, a participant read the plot of the
film as quite progressive from a third world perspective. By taking up this perspective and a
similar criticism I will show the problems with both positional readings of the film. My intention
is to not belittle either point of view as each of these readings make equally convincing
arguments that help to situate the film but to alternatively show that in the end to have a better
grasp of the film and its very complex context I will argue for an important shift in the way we
approach such examples. This shift will guide the rest of the book.
Fuego is a film about Laura, a nymphomaniac who cannot control her sexual urges. The name,
Fuego, which is never translated and takes advantage of the Spanish and exotic original,
describes Laura’s constant thirst for sexual pleasure. The main star, Laura, meets an engineer,
Carlos, played by her real life lover and director, Armando Bó, who falls in love with her to
finally marry. Despite her love of Carlos Laura cannot be faithful to him because of her desire
for constant pleasure. Thus Laura has escapades with her housekeeper, Andrea, and other men
who she finds on her walks through the town. Carlos takes her to the doctor who diagnosis her
with a sexual neurosis and recommends that she see a specialist in New York. They travel to
New York to fix her ailments and restore her sense of monogamy. While this is an utmost failure
because she continues to find comfort in stranger’s arms. Laura returns to Argentina where she
finally takes her own life. Carlos joins her in the afterlife when he realizes that he cannot live
without her.
When the film was released high eroticism and pornography
-aca no hay galanes ‘bonitos’ de modo que todo el mundo se puede identificar con los que
aparecen en la pantalla, sonar que pueden ser seguidos por la siempre exuberante Isabel Sarli”
“La coherencia en toda la obra de Armando Bo, en el fondo lo hace aparecer como el unico
verdadero autor argentino”
others criticize it: “la falta de sentido dramático es memorable.”
-25 september 1971
“de lo unio que no resultan culpables estas obritas apresuradas y economicas es de sacrificar la
libertad con que siempre trabaja este fertile realizado”
“dialogos .. consiguen cargarse de una extrana poesia de lo absurdo a igual distancia de lo
ridiculo y de lo genial.” Franqueza antiestetica y no particpa en el costumbrismo hipcrita”
so much so that in 2004, La cosa, a fanzine, writes about the film but the English language
version.
-version that was released in argenitna was cut
-censored for being pornographic
Progressive reading:
Going to the north to cure the ailments of the south and then the failure of the north to cure the
ailments of the south. DEVELOP THIS
About a wealthy man who cannot get what he wants
-desires of women which cannot be contained? Despite the social pressures to do so?
In “Sexploitation, Space and Lesbian Representation in Armando Bo’s Fuego” Nayibe
Bermudez Barrios looks at the film Fuego to speak about how lesbian space is constructed in the
film. By looking the character of Andrea she argues that: “the lesbian occupies a threefold space.
In view of the situations in which she gets entangled, she becomes a tool for selling the film; due
to her erotic and sexual interest in the protagonist, she is a threat to sexual “normalcy”; and
through her role of working woman, she represents a menace to gender relations.”
She stays out of the discussions about industrial mechanisms such as production values and
market strategies. – but she also stays out of the context completely.
“culturally rooted aesthetic and thematic decisions as well as on industrial mechansmisms” she
contradicts herself.
-in this regard she says that industrial and economic concerns then played a role in Bo and saril’s
attempt at profiting from a transnational market.
-she goes with this exploitation genre has helped duo’s partnership transcend national boundaries
through coproduction deals with producers from urugay, brazil, Paraguay, Venezuela and mexico
-transnational aspect
-she argues 256 that she became a star because of this
-no other director was creating this type of film except for vieyra – but vieyra is different and at a
different time – there are others who followed
-under estimates the pioneering effect of the duo
-images, symbols and codes for the representation of lesbian – given the hisotircal conjuncture
and which find their way into fuego
- argues it is a tool to display sarli’s body only
-but is this unique to this representation and the represntnation of the lesbian? No
-all the films are the same
-she is assuming that this film is meant only for the us – but she doesn’t have all the information
because it was also meant for latin America and – she says the north south troupe where the
north is easily consumable by the south – REALLY? But what about her trip to the north?
-male fantasy about the lesbian
-cites the something weird video
-unable to contain the lesbian- BUT is she really lesbian or is she just free of sexual norms?
-accentualte the lesbian gaze
-talks about prison films from the 1950a NATALIA taccetta and Fernando pena
-situates lesbianism within US 1960s and 1970s
“As I have shown, its ambiguous politics renders the lesbian invisible thorugh iconographic and
cultural citations that reinforce the place of the lesbian withtin heterosexually regulated
representations of space.” 262
-Leon Hun “permissive populism “
heterosexual
-untameable working status *BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WORKING STATUS OF THE
OTHERS IN THE FILM? DOES THIS NOT HAVE GREATER IMPLICATIONS
-GENRE –functions as socioeconomic and culturally conditioned aesthetic framework for
representation and consumption of images
-uncultured to a revered one that sees these films as camp
-genre with industrial pactices to transnational special business practicws
-female body is seeking to produce shock and manage consumable products
When Fuego was released it was anticipated that the film would be good. Andrea, played by
Alba Mujica, was a very well known star from the classic period.
Cine sarmiento- are other versions, german, English and French
Fuego – realeased in BA in 1971 but because of all the problems that they had with Fuego they
moved to the US – and abroad. 90125 – no decree lots of work to get abroad why you need
uniargentina 90125 (25 august 1974- Tato is already in) Furia infernal in japonese and fuego in
japanese
-threaten to leave because they were not given funding by the INC (90151-55) 28 of august INC
denied them funding to Una viuda descocada – they gave him money for El ultimo amor en tierra
del fuego but it was’t what it deserved – made this movie for the local market – very local no
nudes but now they are taking it away? 70,000- gave the credit for the project –INC justifies it by
saying that it doesn’t achieve values of relevance in the benefits of the law – talks about Deep
Throat and is for censorship but says that the INC is more evil than censorship- CORRUPT
in Italy it appeared as an American film- Isabel sarli, joseph Adams (Bo) mary Jacobs (mujica)
Bob Dunnigin (Arrialdi) Jim Winters (Miguez) and Harold Lee director A. B. Greent (Bo)
-true story
Garbage and Taste
-also about a
But Fuego (1968) along with Insatiable (1978), another film not released until the end of the
dictatorship and Bo’s death, were heavily censored. Fuego was heavily censored and shown in
Buenos Aires finally on September 23, 1971 in Cine Sarmiento. This version was shown with
two scenes missing (WHICH?) It was no coincidence that Fuego became such an international
success. Bo’s ongoing experience with Argentine censors forced him to look at markets abroad.
This is how he established a contractor and agreement with Colombia Pictures International, a
relationship which began with La Leona (1964) and ended in 1974 with Intmidades de una
Cualquiera, and provided for the Bo-Sarli team a distribution network.
CONTEXT
Bo’s films were not produced or exhibited in the usual ways. He was working throughout the
1960s and into the 1970s when local film industries and studios had already experienced a death.
He was also not part of the art film circuit; hence his films would not have been seen at
international film festivals except for some exceptions. But he was however a savvy businessman
and thus began to establish his own business deals that would eventually win him the contract
with the B section of Colombia Pictures. This aspect of his work makes him a pioneer in many
ways. Firstly, he began to produce his own films through co-production agreements that brought
in money from abroad (see chapter…). Unlike Mexico, which had Pel-Mex, Argentina did not
have an apparatus to overlook distribution of national productions or a mechanism to help build
co-production agreements with foreign markets. Although there were attempts at building such
an apparatus in the 1950s, while it was even given a name, Uniargentina, it never amounted to
anything.3
Secondly, the internal struggles with censorship taught Bo that if his films were to be seen by
people he would have to break external markets. While the films that preceded Fuego dabbled in
this in many ways, the formula that he established with Fuego, exemplified an urgently needed
direction for him. Fuego was dubbed into many other languages and it was subtitled for the
Japanese market. It was seen in Canada, almost all of Latin America, Japan, Hong Kong and
Italy. The Sarli-Bo team did a lot of groundwork to enter new markets, where Argentine film had
never been seen. For instance, since Japan had no agreement between Japan and Argentina there
were lots of legal issues that needed to be worked out before the film could be seen there.
The formula for Fuego, a film that cost just over $15,000 and made in 14 days, was going to
prove groundbreaking. It was shown in the US in 83 theatres and spent 14 weeks on Broadway.
It made over $1 million in the US alone. They adapted different stratagies for different markets.
For instance, in some cases they used English names to disguise the film as a Hollywood
production (Isabel Sarli and Joseph Adams (Bo), Mary Jacobs (Alba Mujica), Bob Dunningan
(Airaldi, Jim Winters (Miguez), and Harold Lee. The film was directed by A.B. Greent (Bo).
This worked because they did well in this market.
Given all of these circumstances and contexts how can we solely look at a film from its
representation? Not just representations it’s very narrow perspectives that are in themselves
considered “progressive” before looking at the example. So we have a set of progressive
standards and then we look to see if the text conforms to these standards. However, this is not the
work of a historian, or a theoretician – formulaic work.
We need to take into consideration much more:
1. Bad cinema… theory…. And shock… etc. and sex…/ pornography debates.
2. Pushing the boundaries of what is permissible needs to be in there as a pioneer in this work…..
3. Clear class consciousness not from the perspective of the lower classes but yes it is…. How?
Censorship? SUGGEST PERONISMO CHAPTER …
4. how does this example allow us to talk about a perfect example of popular culture? - theory
*BRING IN THEORY ABOUT SEX
*BRING IN THEORY ABOUT POPULAR CULTURE
*BRING IN THEORY ABOUT PARACINEMA/ BAD CINEMA/ GARBAGE
CINEMA/EXPLOITATION/ ETC.
All of these issues also need to be taken into account as we look at this work.
august 15, 1971 –ente gives the ok to show fuego- prohibida para menores de 18
after new york
-really a film about censorship and the struggles with this
-5 october 1971 – first week
-costly campaign to bring the film to Buenos aires
full page ad in La razon and promotion of Lucho Aviles and Jorge Jacobson in Radiolandia en tV
-aviles was in charge of the premiere for channel 11
-variety shots of the premiere in new york were on the door to the theatre in Buenos aires
- public in the interior of the country and not in the city
-blame the fact that many knew that censorship had done away with the film
Bibliography
Nayibe Bermúdez Barrios, “Sexploitation, Space, and Lesbian Representation in Armando Bo’s
Fuego.” Latin American Cinemas: Local Views and Transnational Connections. Ed. Nayibe
Bermúdez Barrios. University of Calgary Press, 2011: 249-273.
1
See the introduction to the film from by John Waters and the Something Weird version of the
film. How much money it made… More facts about the film.
2
In many ways bring up the debate about the politics of the popular: Garth Williams, Jon
Beasely Murray and Alberto Moreiras, Beatriz Sarlo.
3
Add note about Uniargentina.