“Cinema, being able to tell stories, does not depend on the type of screen, fortunately,” Santiago Miter assured yesterday, very convinced. First it was Venice, where despite a very good reception it was ignored by the jury, and now it is the Pearls section, a compilation of films from other festivals, which welcomes Argentina, 1985, in San Sebastian. EL UNIVERSO spoke exclusively with its director, Santiago Mitre, who praises the collaboration with a large international platform such as Amazon Prime. Thus, they will be able to premiere in theaters in Argentina and other countries at the end of this month.
How do you live the success you are getting Argentina, 1985 in Venice first and now in San Sebastian?
The truth is that these first screenings of the film have been very exciting. We worked on it for many years and in a very difficult context. It was shot at the worst moment of the pandemic in Argentina, in addition to the responsibility of portraying this enormous historical event in such a complex context, and we are very happy to see how the public has connected with it in such an expressive and forceful way, appropriating it. . It is very interesting to see how a film that narrates such an Argentine event becomes an international mirror. It is interesting how our country dealt with the democratic transition and how it was able to make this judgment in such an unfavorable situation, at a time when South America was still governed by military dictatorships. In Argentina, the military was very strong and managing to win this trial generates a certain pride for us civilians. There are so many reasons to be happy, especially to see how people from other countries in the region with histories of dictatorships can also reflect on it.
How was the research work? Undoubtedly, such a delicate subject does not give much room for fiction.
We understood the great responsibility of making a film about this important historical event, so we researched for a long time with the help of two invaluable collaborators who guided us. So we were able to talk to a lot of the people who participated in the trial, directly and indirectly. With politicians, journalists, witnesses and even with the real members of the prosecution who nurtured and inspired us deeply. But then, when we began to write the script, we realized the great commitment that making a film that spoke a direct, simple and forceful language represented, as the cinema does. Simplicity in language seemed to us to be the best way to communicate with the largest possible public in Argentina and to further universalize the reconstruction of this fact.
Memories, have they faded over time?
Yes, because almost 40 years have passed since then. There are many people who were already beginning to forget the facts, many adult people who were born after the trial. This reinstates us the obviousness of the importance of rebuilding the memory of a country as a way to solidify democracy. Now we live, not only in Argentina, but in the world, a kind of return to certain areas of pro-fascist thought and contempt for democracy. That is why it is important that there be films like this one, that come to reaffirm the importance of memory as a way of building a democratic identity, of a nation’s identity.
What were the biggest challenges or fears Argentina faced, 1985?
They are quite reflected in the film. President Alfonsín signed that prosecution decree, campaigned and managed to become president with the conviction that the crimes committed by the dictatorship could not go unpunished. But, in any case, the political context was one of democratic fragility. Argentina came from a hundred years of alternation between dictatorships and democracies. It was a terrible rule: democracies could be ended arbitrarily and with violence at any time. And, from this trial, a kind of civic consensus was established that democracy is the only possible form of government for our country. The decision that was made politically was very risky. In fact, the surrounding countries made different decisions to deal with post-dictatorships or their democratic transitions. Not all prosecuted. Argentina did it faster, although later there were setbacks due to certain circumstances. But this trial was an act of enormous political and civic courage on the part of the government and society.
Indeed, we continue to witness the increasing presence of dictatorial governments in the countries of our region…
This polarization that is taking place in Latin America and in the world is dramatic and worrying, where there are so many pro-fascist movements that are beginning to despise the values of democracy. In that sense, the film becomes very topical. In Argentina we have just experienced an assassination attempt on former President Kirchner, which we never thought would happen and which gives the film much greater relevance than we imagined. That “never again” of the prosecutor Strassera (in the skin of Ricardo Darín) was a “never again” to violence as a way of resolving political conflicts. We didn’t like what happened. But this makes the film have a resonance and an unexpected level of topicality. Perhaps he turns it into a cinematographic event that will make society and the political class reflect on the importance of defending democratic values and the importance of justice.
The touch of humor included in the film that works as a counterweight to this very dense and dark story is appreciated. How did you manage to handle it?
There was a kind of fear on our part, as authors of the script, of a certain prejudice that the viewer might have in relation to a film on this subject. That is why we use humor as a gateway and to lower the viewer’s defenses. But it also arose in a casual way. We wrote this first scene with the prosecutor’s family playing spy and we realized that it had humor. And so other scenes began to appear that had a strange humor, and that came off a bit from the research that we had heard. It was the best tool to gradually delve into what is the heart of the film, which recounts so many atrocities experienced in clandestine detention centers. It helped us say something so brutal in the most direct and simple way possible. But the statements made by the victims in the 1985 trial are documented material, actual archival testimonies and journalistic graphic material also published at that time.
How does the professional relationship between you and Mariano Llinás, your co-writer for years, work? How do they agree among so many delicate details?
We are very friends. We think very similar. We believe in cinema in a similar way, apart from the fact that he is also a director and we have been working together since 2010. There is already a tacit understanding of how to work, in this case the political, from a new perspective. We understand each other so well that at this point I wouldn’t know how to write with another person, because I feel that Mariano gives me a lot. Sometimes we fight over things that each one wants, but ideas also emerge from that dialectic.
They already had the whole movie put together when Amazon came along. Did this platform intervene with some sort of qualm in the production?
No. Amazon joined a work process that had already matured long enough and joined as one more collaborator. The dynamic was interesting because our intention was precisely to make a film that had a universal vocation. Amazon is a company in which people from all over the world work and which gave us the possibility of the film having immediate worldwide distribution. They never imposed anything for becoming one of the producers, but they entered respecting and trusting that we knew how to tell this very delicate story. They were the vehicle to pretend that this intention of universality of the film was real.
How do you see the future of cinema as such, in the face of the avalanche of platforms that is growing every day?
Now we come from this pandemic used to seeing movies in a different way. I am a fervent believer in the movie theater, in the collective fact that watching movies implies. Amazon allowed us that. The film is going to have 20 days of exclusive exhibition in theaters and then through the platform, which will be very positive thanks to the good impact it is having in these festivals, which are large cinema windows. We are very fortunate to have this immediate worldwide distribution capacity that these streaming platforms have. Movie theaters will continue to exist forever, although perhaps the way in which it is consumed will be reformulated. Both things will continue to exist and both will be able to strengthen each other. In the end, the cinema is a fabulous way to tell stories that do not depend on the type of screen, fortunately.
Source: Eluniverso
Paul is a talented author and journalist with a passion for entertainment and general news. He currently works as a writer at the 247 News Agency, where he has established herself as a respected voice in the industry.
