Seikilos Blog

I continue with what I wrote on Wednesday. I said several times that Argentina doesn't belong to the "Latin American brotherhood", I think because of our European roots after immigration of the two world wars. And so Uruguay and Chile, probably. But the other countries, poorer, with a strong anchor on indigenous culture, they call themselves "Latin American brothers", and that is, among other things, a contrast to those who call themselves "Americans", of course. Well, historically Argentina always followed the policies imposed by the United States, and the symbolic case was of course the vote against Cuba directed by the United States regarding the so-called "violation of human rights" of the famous island's dictator Castro. The other Latin American countries if they *had* to cede to the US pressure, they would do it mumbling and grumbling. Castro once called Argentina literally "the boot licker of the United States" because of this obedience, to put it mildly. During the nineties, such behaviour was baptized as the "carnal relationships". During the nineties, the government of Menem was the first pupil of the IMF, and we were right winged, if you want, as right winged as a very poor country can be, of course. But now the new government is a friend of Castro and Chávez, president Kirchner supported the left winged party in Uruguay and Evo Morales in Bolivia, and the United States doesn't like that at all. So now Roger Noriega, the American mouth for the American backyard, said that "the United States are very disappointed with that". Argentina answered basically "we do what we want", and that means a lot.
On the one hand, Roger Noriega represents a new level of organization between Latin Americans: those who chose to abandon being Latin Americans to become just Americans. A dissident Cuban is the most hated type of Latin American among Latin Americans. They hate Castro, but they also hate their Latin roots, and they're happy to live in a first world country, living in that kind of thematic part that is Miami. They are right winged, and are easily seduced by people like George W. Bush and Jeb Bush. Now that Bush promised flexibility about their visas, the Latin vote intention for Republicans raised to historical records. They are hated even by the other Latin communities in the United States, who are not that well positioned in the social scale.
On the other hand, Latin America is slowly turning its back to the empire. Next elections suggests that there will be a new turn to the left in South America, and countries like Uruguay will change their policies. The United States fear this, because this region was once controlled by dictators (happily supported by the Cuban dissidents), and now that democracies are maturing, they are dangerously becoming against the American establishment. Noriega (what a suggestive surname) raises ghosts of antidemocratic attacks led by Castro. Noriega waves the flag of the IMF, the historical weapon against the poor nations. Argentina said "shut your mouth", and the dog that was once used to bark and scare people now is surprised when hitted in the snout. The right winged side of Argentina naturally couldn't believe it, and reacted offended against Kirchner. Paradoxically, the left wing is gathering to attack Kirchner as a block, to become a firm opposition against this government.

Some plots repeat over and over again. Yesterday, the American Representative for Latin America said that Argentina is turning to the left, and that is for sure a disappointment for the United States. Argentina answered that the "carnal relations are over, we do not get automatically aligned anymore".

Some words about the movies inspired on "The Lord of the Rings". I have mixed feelings on this topic. On the one hand, it is true that Peter Jackson wasn't really demagogic on the adaptation. He could have surrendered to the temptation of depicting the evil/good eternal fight as Hollywood always depicts it: in black and white. Peter Jackson's heroes are not infalible: they doubt, they have fear, they become tired, they can be corrupted. Only Eowyn can follow a doubtful leader as Aragorn is, "for love", as she says. Only desperate men can enter in desperate and lost in advance battles. From the photography point of view, "The Lord of the Rings" is brilliant more than once, less in the volutuous computer effects than in humble portraits like those of the faces of the common, anonymous people fearing the near death. The movie is full of little details, to provoke the curious eye. The invention of circumstancial items also betrays that old wisdom that says that if a sword is shown on the first scene, it will be inevitably used on the last scene to kill the bad guy.
But on the other hand, a bitter taste was left in my mouth after seeing the whole trilogy. It is still a perfectly canonical Hollywood movie, nevertheless. "The last classic", someone called it. The invulnerable heroes in battle, the endless crew of villains dying like flies, almost without opposing resistence, the love story, the false deaths (Gandalf's in the first part, Aragorn's in the second one, Frodo's in the third one), the moral in the end, with the good triumphant over evil. There's nothing in "The Lord of the Rings" that cannot belong to the Hollywood classic tradition: you won't find a single new thing, set technology paraphernalia aside. It lacks good acting, and overflows with dull and melodramatic moments.
Peter Jackson, once a B-movies director rebel to the Hollywood system, today rendered "the last classic", to corroborate or crown a long tradition of entertainment cinema. The fact that he will film "King Kong" as his next movie somehow makes sense in this picture.