The negative comment towards the film starring Guillermo Francella tends to disguise ideology. That is a record thanks to the most popular actor in Argentina with a premise as attractive as the composition of 16 different characters seems to make it untouchable.
Homo Argentum bites his tail. Just as he sought to reflect the Argentine to the stick, that essence so inexplicable, fell victim of a crack that is far from healing. There are few who point out that stark criticisms respond more to an ideological issue than to the smooth and flat assessment of a film. Its directors Mariano Duprat and Mariano Cohn They were in charge of explaining that the film sought “Take back to the general public to theaters and that was financed entirely with private capitals,” suggesting that there are few Argentine films that take people to the rooms and that is the desirable production model.
Within the framework of the chainsaw to the culture that involves the INCAA, the INT, the FNA and the whole culture (only to mention an area) all kinds of feelings emerge. Now, why disguise ideology a negative comment towards the film? What is a record thanks to the most popular actor in Argentina, Guillermo Francellaand a premise as attractive as the composition of 16 different characters, does it imply that it is an untouchable film? Or rather, if you criticize it or not is it for the ideology to which your filmmakers subscribe or the one that emerges from your story?
Just as this national premiere is already a record, the sayings of Guillermo Francella about national films that take few people to the rooms (less and less movies, sadly, for cuts). It is possible to explain that the culture has a forming vocation, enriching of spirit and aspires to diversity, a countermarket of the mass that is often mediocre. Infinity of artists have repeated until the tiredness that if it had not been for culture aid both in cinema and in theater they would not have been able to specify works that raised to the national culture.
It should not be forgotten that we are a lighthouse in the world, still, thanks to the initial promotion of the State that is always completed by private capitals. That material that does not have a specific objective in the massive consumption should not be minimized, culture is something else.
The debate about political ideology only amplify the Argentine being, in short, what the film wants to build. A kind of metadiscourse that emerges from the corpus. There are those who say that it is criticized for resentment and that it must be valued for its result at the box office and “for how difficult it is to make a film in this country.” Precisely for that reason it is vital that the policies of promotion of INCAA continue in cinema or the int or proteat in performing arts, so that the expensive thing is to make art less cumbersome and open the possible.
Source: Ambito
I am an author and journalist who has worked in the entertainment industry for over a decade. I currently work as a news editor at a major news website, and my focus is on covering the latest trends in entertainment. I also write occasional pieces for other outlets, and have authored two books about the entertainment industry.
