Venezuela 2014

By Shane Cassidy

The purpose of this article is not to support any particular political persuasion nor does it seek to defend the killings of any citizens by the government or the military. All violence and intimidation in all of its guises by any institution contradicts the very principles of a democratic country. The focus of this article instead is an attempt to create a deeper understanding of the current events in Venezuela.

In his seminal text, Folk Devils and Moral Panics, the late sociologist Stanley Cohen talks about how a moral panic can manifest in society;

Societies appear to be subjext, every now and then, to periods of moral panic. A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and sterotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or ( more often ) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible.

Over the last ten days internet forums, news agencies and social media sites have brought our attention to the current social unrest in Venezuela. The events, as presented by the mainstream media would lead the casual observer to believe that huge social and civil unrest is occurring in Venezuela which has been caused directly by Nicolas Maduro and his left wing government. This reaction to the events and panic which has been cultivated by the media has been reckless, uninformed, simplistic and decidedly one-sided. On closer inspection it is apparent however that this is far from the reality of the situation.

Following the outbreak of protests and civil unrest primarily by private university students and forces who oppose the current democratically elected, left-wing, Chavista government, headed by President Nicolas Maduro, the government issued an arrest warrant for the supposed leader of the protests, Harvard educated, Venezuelan politician Leopoldo López.

In a country where the current opposition parties are in disarray due to a collapse of any real leadership, Mr. López, the former mayor of one of Venezuela’s wealthiest districts, Chacao,  a man who was virtually unheard of on an international scale until this last week has been elevated to the status as de facto leader of the opposition and has emerged as an apparent opponent to all things abhorrent in Venezuela. “Our youth have no jobs, no future because of this economic model that has failed,” Mr. López declared this week to his supporters, before continuing: “If they put me in prison, it’ll wake up the people. That’s worthwhile.” On February 18th 2014, in what must surely be viewed as a shrewd political maneuver, he voluntarily handed himself in to be questioned regarding his role in protests which led to the deaths of 3 people and injury to over 100 more on the streets of Caracas. He did this only after first attempting to goad Maduro into arresting him by posting on Twitter ” Do you not have the guts to arrest me?”. It is important to note that he did not hand himself in until he had released a video on the internet declaring his intention and thus making himself a living ‘martyr’ for the current opposition supporters currently occupying some of the streets and whipping up even stronger support for himself. Many news agencies and blogs are attempting to present the current dynamic socio-economic-political situation in simplified terms with utter disregard shown to the complex history of the country.

A common statistic which has been repeated verbatim by practically all the major news agencies is that a major reason for the unrest is the level of homicide rate in the country. Venezuelan Violence Observatory estimates that 24,763 killings occurred in 2013 and this is a staggering statistic. Unfortunately crime is a depressing reality in Venezuela. It has, however, been ignored across all media outlets that Nicolas Maduro has actively sought to reduce these figures by introducing the program Por la Vida y Por la Paz whose primary objective is to reduce criminal homicides and has shown signs that it is being effective.

As a way of illustrating the highly complex socio-economic situation, the figure which has been constantly attached to the murder rate in Venezuela has most certainly risen over the previous decade. The statistics regarding this are undeniable. What the media and commentators have repeatedly failed to mention is that during the same period, unemployment rates, especially among the poor, have been halved from 14.5% to 7.6%. So in a country where unemployment rates are plummeting and homicide rates are increasing a much closer inspection of the fabric of Venezuelan society must be undertaken.

There is definitely violence in Venezuela without doubt but these recent events have been initiated by the violent, Molotov cocktail throwing, in-some-cases-murdering rioters and these current riots have been a concentrated effort by the opposition to destabilize a democratically elected government. The US government or its media i.e CNN etc doesn’t support this current democratically elected government. Strikingly, as of February 21st, the US has yet to release a statement condemning the violence of the oppositions protests or the threat it poses to the democratic ideals it purportedly subscribes too. In its 2014 budget, the US has even set aside $5 million for funding “opposition activities” in Venezuela. In other words, they want a more right-wing, US friendly government installed that ‘plays by the US rules’. In 2002 the US attempted, aided and supported a military coup of Hugo Chavez’s totally democratically elected government in Venezuela only for the Venezuelan people to revolt and the US had to admit defeat. A few years later, in 2004, they attempted an oil embargo in Venezuela to make the government less popular. Again, that failed. Last year, John Kerry initially refused to recognize the election results of this sovereign nation but in the end, in a humiliating U-turn, he had to accept the results of an independent nations elections. Just this week, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay released a statement making it abundantly clear that they support the Venezuelan government so it is clear that although pressure is being applied by the US and the media, Venezuela’s closest neighbors are fully behind the country.

A more incisive question must be asked; Since 1999, in a country where unemployment has been halved, where GDP per capita has risen from $4,105 to $10,801, where poverty has fallen from 23.4% to 8.5% and it must also be mentioned that in 1999, Venezuela’s proven oil reserves stood at $14.4bn but by 2011 that figure had risen to $60bn – who stands to gain from overthrowing this current government and economic system? Certainly not the majority of Venezuelan citizens who represent the poorest and most vulnerable members of society and who have largely benefited from this system.

Mainstream media’s reporting of Venezuela has also sought to overstate the current economic situation in Venezuela. Though an unequal country, this was not the creation of the current or Hugo Chavez’s governments but a far more deeply rooted socio-economic situation created by those vested interests who had maintained control over the media, industry and oil reserves for the decades prior to Hugo Chavez’s election. The Bolivarian Revolution of the last 15 years has been an attempt to more evenly redistribute this disproportionate wealth to more of it’s citizens. The UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean recently declared Venezuela to be now the least unequal country of the region (GINI Coefficient) having reduced inequality by 54%. A fact that mainstream media has conveniently forgotten to mention during these events.

A lot has been made of the protests and unrest and it is paramount that the right to protest and the right to free speech and assembly be respected by the Venezuelan government. It must be stated that the attempts by the executive to conduct the business of the judiciary is deeply troubling and coupled with the recent violent actions and attempts to suppress media which isn’t to the regimes taste indicates a hugely flawed process of government. However a fact, which has been continuously and conveniently overlooked over the last week,  is that Nicolas Maduro and his government have been democratically elected by the majority of the Venezuelan electorate and therefore hold a mandate to carry out their reforms. This, in no way, justifies any and all illegal actions which it may carry out but it is unthinkable that these current protests, which have been directly orchestrated by the opposition parties to create instability, could lead to anything other than an eventual admission of defeat from Leopoldo López. For López, regardless of what develops, he has successfully established himself as the face of the opposition in a country whose government has overcome massive barriers in it’s attempt to create a more fair and equal society. It’s important to ask why a democratically elected, socialist government with 3 times more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and who aspires to the ideals of Simon Bolivar who has attempted to wrestle power away from the minority, wealthy elites is being portrayed in the generally privately owned, corporate media as a renegade government ?

Advertisements

“9 Queens” and Argentine national identity

By Shane Cassidy 

By the late 1990’s, Argentina had become a country so straddled with debt due to the mistreatment of the economy by so many that went before it that this irrefutably disrupted and permanently altered Argentina’s national identity. National identity is the result of various different external factors such as the sharing of history and tradition with others to national symbols such as flag or anthem. Those who have now lived through and experienced Argentina’s crises have undoubtedly had their national identity altered. Following the end of the ‘Dirty War’ and the emergence of democratic politics in Argentina in the 1980’s, a new national identity has naturally emerged with the heavy weight of history inevitably ingrained in Argentinean psyche. The sight of the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo is enough to remind Argentineans of their dark history and the damages an unregulated, un-checked power can do. With that in mind, Argentina has since gone on to experience a different type of abuse at the hands of their leaders and this time through economic methods. Fabián Bielinsky, through his film ‘9 Queens’, attempts to portray this new society and shared national identity while also showing the affects it has had on a larger scale.

9 Queens focuses on two con men, Juan and Marcos who meet when Marcos comes to Juan’s assistance when a scam goes wrong at a petrol station and convinces him to work with him for the day. Marco is the more experienced of the two who will go to whatever lengths for the con, while Juan appears to be the beginner, an innocent with more noble reasons for pulling tricks and scams. In effect, his elderly father is in prison and he needs to earn enough money to bribe the judge. Ultimately they stumble upon a scam to sell counterfeit stamps to a businessman, Esteban Vidal Gandolfo, who is leaving the country the next day. Over the course of the film a web of intrigue and deceit is woven as all the characters appear to have ulterior motives. The film opens with the scene of a simple yet highly evocative and powerful image. Our protagonist Juan, crafty, smooth and clever cons a simple, hard-working and honest cashier out of money in her till. This is a microcosm for Argentinean society in general. A largely corrupt government taking advantage of decent, hardworking citizens for their own benefit. This scene is replicated many times throughout the film, the waiter in the restaurant, the unsuspecting old lady deceived into believing she is helping her nephew to repair his car, the news kiosk where Marcos gets his newspaper for free, the old lady in the lift. The film is an accurate depiction of the extent of present day Argentine society is. Corruption is closely woven into the fabric of society that it is no longer surprising to hear of those who have swindled the books or attempted to steal for their own gain.

A mentality of self-entitlement pervades the film and throughout we encounter many characters adamant in the belief that they are not only entitled but also deserving in whatever they can get. There exists also a delusionary aspect to their attitudes as, although they are all in one way or another caught up in criminal activity, they all state that they are not personally a thief or a crook. This idea that it is every man for himself and ones only concern is profiting by whatever means necessary. When the two protagonists are sitting in a café, Washington, a petty thief and stolen goods salesman attempts to peddle some of his goods. Juan turns to him eventually and enquires about the possibility of acquiring a gun to which Washington recoils in horror and insists that he is not a crook. The irony in the scene is evident in itself but it highlights the extent to which Argentina’s attitude towards crime and theft has been readjusted. What is clear from the film is that corruption has affected every level of society and even policemen are presented as opportunists looking to earn some more money as is seen in the scene where Marcos pays a police colleague to pretend to arrest him to trick Gandolfo into believing his story about the stamps is legitimate.

The brilliant Ricardo Darín plays the character of ‘Marcos’ and his is a portrayal of man caught up in modern day, corrupt, Argentinean society. He represents the mentality of so many of his fellow Argentineans. He has delusions of grandeur and views himself as above the status of a thief when he remarks to Juan, “¿Se cree que soy un ladrón? Yo no matar a personas. No utilizo una pieza. Nadie puede hacer eso.” He is out for himself, even going so far as to tricking his family out of their inheritance and Marcos doesn’t feel remorse for his actions. He believes that he has seen an opportunity and seized it and that he is deserving of it, he unrepentantly says “Vi una oportunidad y me agarró”. Marcos typifies a disillusioned, disconnected, modern-day citizen. When he meets his sister in her workplace he questions her marital and family status. This is a clear indicator that he does not stay in contact and does not display any interest in the lives of his sister or younger brother ‘Federico’. He also shows his lack of respect for elders and Sandro in particular when Sandro is attempting to explain what happened, Marcos interrupts and says disrespectfully “that’s when you blew your fuse”. Marcos is even willing to prostitute his sister to satisfy his insatiable thirst for money and greed. Even after the supposed act o f sleeping with Gandolfo is completed, Marcos rushes to his sister only to grab the suitcase enquiring about the money and showing absolutely no regard for his sisters well-being.

Marcos appears to care little but for the materialistic and monetary gains. He is clearly void of any admirable traits or scruples and only assists Juan at the beginning of the film as he needs someone to help him perform scams. In one scene he remarks to Juan, “Santos no hay, lo que hay son tarifas diferentes” and then he later remarks to Juan “putos no faltan, lo que faltan son inversores”. These two statements allow an insight into the workings of Marcos’ mind. He is motivated purely by his own profit and interest. It is a combination of his blind greed and inability to care for others which inevitably leads to the downfall of Marcos and this can be equally applied to the Argentine banks and society in general. Bielinsky cleverly juxtaposes Juan against that of Marcos so even though Juan is seen as a trickster, he is one troubled by a conscience and guilt. He is ultimately vindicated in his actions as he is assisting his lover Valeria to regain control of her inheritance. The relationship between the two main characters shows this clash of conscience and values in modern day Argentine society.

“Este país se va al infierno” (Marcos, Nueve Reinas)

By all accounts, the distrust levelled at banks reached a plateau by the turn of the century, most noticeably with the Cacerolazo’s[1], protests which involve the banging of pots and pans and made famous in Argentina. The reference to the banks and financial systems and the impact they have had in Argentina was therefore inevitable especially when Argentina experienced such economic and social turbulence along with massive financial loss at the hands of the banks. Bielinsky references them in several scenes and his reasoning for this is two-fold: firstly he wishes to highlight their recklessness and his second motivation is to present his audience with a deeper understanding of how the situation with the banks could have developed to such a stage. The audience witnesses Gandolfo in his hotel room, engaged in a rigorous debate about the price of shares. It is only with understanding of the impending financial crisis that is clear that he is wishing to quickly offload his shares and save as much money as possible from the inevitable loss and impending run on the banks. In another scene where the stamp expert attempts to extort a percentage of the takings for himself. Juan remarks to Marcos that he is “handing out too much shares”. This latter remark is subtle allusion to the banks and the way in which they banked so senselessly as to leave Argentinean society facing an economic emergency. As of May 2011 approximately two-thirds of Argentinean bank accounts are in short-term deposit accounts with banks also very wary of long term loans[2]. It is a curious that if one of the things that unties national identity is a shared past and similar mentality then a whole psyche of mistrust and suspicion has since developed into national identity in Argentina. Argentinean society is caught in this complex scenario where they are unsure and deeply suspicious of all types of government and understandably so. They have experienced and witnessed at first hand the atrocities performed by the military Junta in the 1970’s and equally they have seen the total financial destruction of their country and the wrecking of their currency by the corrupt elite in a ‘democratic’ government during the 1980’s and 90’s. Naturally and unsurprisingly a deep distrust has developed and it this can be witnessed by the manifestation of the idea of cautiousness towards the banks. The final irony is that Gandolfo pays Marcos and Juan by a cashier’s cheque which is certified by a bank but little do the characters know that this means very little given the country’s economic difficulty.

Bielinsky cleverly disguises the real motives of both characters throughout the film and this naturally leads to a development of mistrust and suspicion on both characters sides but also from the audience. The audience gets a disorientating sense of not knowing exactly what is going on while also experiencing the feeling that they are being duped or conned. This was a reality for Argentine society, especially in the 90’s and early 2000’s where Argentina’s economy and government was awash with corruption and manipulation. At every turn in the film, a new deceit appears to be uncovered and the narrative is constructed in such a way as to prevent the audience from ascertaining who exactly is involved with who. The film’s opening scene involves an act of deceit by Juan and is quickly followed by Marcos deceiving the petrol station employees to aid Juan. Marcos’ life has been a life of fraud and crafty dealing. He has tricked his siblings out of their inheritance and throughout the film he is unaware that everyone he encounters is involved in the ultimate act of misrepresentation in order to regain Valeria’s rightful inheritance. Even when Juan goes to visit his father in prison, his father is not only fooled by his son’s faux-innocence but also the card game which Juan’s father plays while Juan visits him is one of sleight of hand and trickery.

It is also through this use of characters that Bielinski also depicts Argentina in its multicultural, diverse way. Argentina, home to so many immigrants from all over the world is a melting pot of different cultural backgrounds and customs. Although largely Catholic, Argentina is home to the largest Jewish population in South America and this Jewish presence in society is also referred to in the film. Bielinsky himself of Jewish descent, depicts a whole area of Buenos Aries as being a Jewish area simply from the implied manner in which Juan states that his mother is from Entre Ríos, a predominantly Jewish area in Buenos Aries[3]. Bielinsky is attempting to show more than just one face of Argentinean society to his audience and wishes to reflect the vibrant, diverse culture which exists within Argentina. It is also pertinent as it displays and acknowledges the existence of a vibrant Jewish population because, despite Jewish people in Argentina representing only 1% of Argentinean population, 10% of all victims were Jewish during the ‘Dirty War’ from 1976-83[4].

Bielinsky makes clever use of his characters in order to represent Argentine national identity in a new light. Although he depicts his characters as deceitful, suspicious and untrustworthy it is never done to portray Argentineans in a harsh light. On the contrary, it is Argentinean society, reflected through Juan and his hopeful ending which encapsulates the goodness of Argentina and it’s society. However, as in every society, an ill prevails in the form of con artists and thieves, be it on a small level or a large financial institutional level. Argentina has experienced great change over the last 30 years and naturally their psyche and perspective will have been altered.

References

[1] http://www.cacerolazo.com

[3] FALICOV, T, The Cinematic Tango: contemporary Argentine film, Wallflower Press, 2007

[4] http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/Argentina_STATUS.html

Bibliography

FALICOV, T, The Cinematic Tango: contemporary Argentine film, Wallflower Press, 2007

REIN, R, Argentine Jews or Jewish Argentines?: essays on ethnicity, identity, and diaspora, Brill, 2010

SHAW, D, Contemporary Latin American cinema: breaking into the global market, Rowman and Littlefield, 2007

Nueve Reinas, 2000, Bielinsky, F, Argentina. Buena Vista International (film)

http://www.cacerolazo.com/

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/Argentina_STATUS.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0517/1224297118048.html

By Shane Cassidy

Violence in Mexican film and literature

 

By Shane Cassidy

Violence in text, like violence in our world, is multifaceted. It functions at different levels, is perpetuated by different motivations, and is experienced in a variety of ways[1]

Over the last 30 years Mexico has suffered various inflictions of violence upon its society. Economic and social violence, in the form of a reduction in the social contract between the state and its citizens, combined with the massive and rapid rise of the drug culture and resulting violence has left a lasting mark on Mexican consciousness. The portrayal of violence In Juan Pablo Villalobos’ novel, Fiesta en la Madriguera, and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s film, Amores Perros, is complex and diverse and facilitates an insight into two very different aspects of Mexican society. Villalobos highlights how continued exposure to violence desensitizes people or society and the ease with which the abhorrent can be normalised. Inarritu’s commentary on present day Mexico also illustrates how such prolonged exposure leads to the audience reacting worse to the animals being hurt in his film rather than the people.

Fiesta en la Madriguera centers around a young boy, Tochtli, who lives in a mansion and the bizarre and violent world he inhabits in Mexico. He lives with his father, Yolcaut, who is a major drug baron and through Tochtlis naive, matter-of-fact narrative we gain an insight into the paranoid and violent world of the Mexican drug trade. By electing to have a child narrator, Villalobos presents the audience with a non moralizing view on the drugs trade in Mexico but it also allows for no ambiguity as to the severity of the world that they inhabit and impact it has had on Tochtli. The portrayal of violence through the young narrator allows for Villalobos to illustrate the crushing effect that not only violence but the exposure to violence can have on a young, impressionable mind. Although not obviously a novel on Mexican drug culture, it is clear that drug culture violence which is so pervasive in Mexican society has heavily informed the novel. In a non-moralizing approach, Villalobos succeeds in highlighting the corruption and numbing of Tochtlis feelings towards violence. In the novel we see Tochtli ponder nonchalantly about how many bullets it would take to kill a man;

Una de las cosas que he aprendido con Yolcaut es que a veces las personas no se convierten en cadáveres con un balazo. A veces necesitan tres balazos o hasta catorce. Todo depende de dónde les des los balazos[2]

As Elizabeth Baines argues, a child’s innocent, unbiased mind acts almost like a camera for the reader[3]. Although Tochtli doesn’t understand the seriousness of these topics, we are left in no doubt as to the severity of the actions of the adults in the novel. It makes the violence and things Tochtli says impact even more as he is so young.

Amores Perros is a violent triptych of stories reflecting love and loss in contemporary Mexico City. The first story revolves around Octavio and his attempts to get his Susana, his brother’s wife, to run away with him. The second story revolves around an upper class executive who has just left his wife for a younger, famous model. The final story centers on El Chivo and his attempts to reconcile with is daughter while also working as a hired gun. These three stories are all connected by a car crash and the characters lives are intertwined stories about the different strata of life in Mexico City. In each story the characters condition is represented in the parallel lives of their dogs who also become victims to its extreme violence.

The dogs serve as crucial narrative to the violence in the film and act as a metaphor for the brutality and bestiality of the city. The dogs are used throughout the film as an escape from economic, social and emotional deprivation and yet ironically they are so often the ones that suffer such savage violence. Octavio’s desperation for a new life has allowed him to reconcile the fact that he is constantly endangering his only source of income and potential escape in order to make enough money to run away with Susana. Valeria’s dog suffers a traumatic ordeal, trapped under the floorboards and reflects Valeria’s own sense of being trapped within the apartment, within her disfigured body and even trapped within her ‘perfect’ body before the accident. In the case of El Chivo, when he discovers that all his dogs have met with a bloody and vicious end, he renounces his life as a gun for hire. Throughout the film, El Chivo rescues stray dogs and gives them shelter while continuing to kill people. It is only upon witnessing the gory scene of his dead dogs that El Chivo realises that the actions of the dog mirror his own murderous behavior and he resolves to change.

Both texts emphasize the evident neglect and isolation of the working class and their desperate measures to survive as a result. Octavio has had to resort to the brutality of dog fighting merely to make money and as he dreams of a better future although he never elaborates on what that future will entail. Octavio’s brother, Ramiro, also affected by the economic situation, is a violent and abusive partner to Susana and who works in a Supermarket where his increasing frustration leads him to commit robberies and hold ups of chemists. His violent nature against his wife reflects his frustration with his life and the lack of any real social opportunities and his failure to provide a living, as the man, for his family. Ramiro’s pride must be severely punctured by the fact that his family are living with his mother and brother and hismachismo leads him to assert his superiority and dominance over his wife , who becomes a victim of domestic violence[4].

The stories of El Chivo and Maru and Octavio and Susana convey the utter polarization which has developed in Mexico in recent years due to excessive economic restrictions imposed by the IMF, NAFTA and all the other side effects of economic globalization overseen by massive multinational corporations and banks[5]. Although this economic hardship and the social impact is prevalent throughout all three of the stories and at every level of society, there is no political engagement from any of the characters. Instead, the struggle against imperialist oppression is limited solely to violence and the role of El Chivu and this is through his previous life as a guerrilla. Violence is seen as the only tool to act against this hardship and even El Chivo has surrendered in his struggle, disillusioned, and has instead become a gun for hire.

This disillusionment is prevalent in both the novel and the film, where the characters are motivated by money to commit acts of savage violence. Octavio is willing to inflict suffering and pain on his dog for economic gain. El Chivo is hired by a man to kill his business partner due to financial greed and El Chivo initially agrees to it, only for the car crash he witnesses to act as a catalyst for change in him. In the novel, Yolcaut and his associates are engaged in the drugs underworld for money and the vast the amounts which can be earned.

In Amores Perros, the depiction of violence is gruesome, bloody and visceral. The visual viciousness of the dog fighting which is captured is staggeringly effective. It is an uncompromising and realistic portrayal of the often violent, daily lives of the characters. In Fiesta en la Madriguera, violence is not limited solely to physical violence, as we see from Tochtlis use of highly violent and aggressive language which pervades his daily mindset. Tochtli’s interests include samurais, the guillotine and safaris in Africa. It is a history of violence and we can see how the violent world in which Tochtli resides has influenced him. In Chapter 3 alone, Tochtli repeats words like “cadaver”, “muerte”, “cortar”, “maricas”. However, the lack of words can also equally reflect the sense of the danger in Tochtlis society and how saying too much or the wrong thing will have dangerous and fatal consequences. So although we are not presented directly with the violence we can still sense it and the atmosphere created is one of great danger and constant impending violence. Muteness is a common theme throughout the novel and it also represents a form of escape and avoidance. In Chapter 3, Tochtli himself elects to remain in mute which doubtlessly reflects the trauma that he has endured. It can also be argued that when Tochtli speaks he unknowingly utters such heavy, wounding words that in his muteness or silence, an escape from this spoken violence is possible.

The sense of a circle of violence dominates the novel. The visit of an American drugs partner is implicit rather than explicit violence. Though nothing of a violent nature occurs an atmosphere is created of a constant foreboding violence in the air. Even Alotl, who provides him with a more maternal perspective and from when he meets her he no longer curses, presents him with a violent samurai film to watch. After the film, Yolcaut shows him the gun room and declares that “Tú un día vas a tener que hacer lo mismo por mí”[6]. That he is exposed to such violence is harrowing and sobering and also there is a tragic element in that we are very aware throughout the novel of this unbreakable circle of violence and that this amiable character in all likelihoods will grow to emulate his father. That Tochtli is deprived of his mother is telling in that throughout the novel he complains of experiencing stomach pains. That the world he encapsulates may very likely have been the reason for this deprivation is telling through this pain. Physical pain suffered by Tochtli is one of the repercussions which is inadvertently due to the violent lifestyle chosen by Yolcaut. It is this corruption of innocence which seems so tragic and so influential. This also serves as an allegory for Mexican society and how so many are exposed to such violence on a daily and often hourly basis, given recent statistics on drug killings in Mexico, and the impact it has on their consciousness[7].

The representation of violence trough the text and the film aid in the understanding of the deep psychological impact it has had on wider Mexican society. By using their respective stories as a microcosm for a much larger sociological problem, the audience is able to grasp the harsh realities of violence in the characters lives. Villalobos employs the use of a child narrator while Inarritu used dogs as an allegorical approach to dealing with this troubling subject. Both are innocent victims who are corrupted and placed in awful situations by their owners. The final result being a sense of loss, devastation and the realisation of how unnecessary the violence being inflicted upon the characters is while at the same time it exposes the socio-economic and cultural factors which have contributed to this harsh vision of modern day, violent Mexican City life.

References