Al parecer, en los últimos años los gringos han empezado a poner más atención al cine proveniente de países de habla hispana (podríamos utilizar la etiqueta "latino" y meterlos a todos, incluyendo Brasil, Portugal y España). Hasta hace poco, solamente existían las películas esporádicas que lograban capturar el interés norteamericano como "Camila", "La historia oficial", "Como agua para chocolate" y "Estación Central".
Pero el panorama ha cambiado bastante en la era post-"Amores Perros". Las películas del mundo iberoamericano han ido despertando la curiosidad de un año a otro con "Los otros", "Hable con ella", "Y tu mamá también", etc. Este año no se ha quedado atrás... A mediados de año apareció "María Full of Grace" y más tarde "Los Diaros de la Motocicleta".
El primer filme encontró una acogida calurosa esperable: una mujer joven que resulta valiente y decidida, víctima del negocio de la droga en Colombia, que encuentra un lugar seguro y una vida prometedora en EEUU; todo en una narración impecable y una actuación impresionante. Un caso diferente es el de "Los Diaros de la Motocicleta" porque entra en un campo peligroso para el gringo medio: el de la política. La mayoría de los comentarios de los críticos se confundían... celebrar la película es ensalzar a la izquierda? A continuación va mi respuesta después de leer las discusones en el Internet Movie Database:
As a movie, I think it does a very good job of narrating the story of social awakenings...1952 is a year of awakening not only for Che and his friend Alberto, but also a moment of awakening for Latin America as a continent. Even though this is the story of a particular man, what is really being told is the profound changes that were boiling up in Latin America. It is a great cinematic choice. My main formal critique would be structure, which at times loses pace and momentum. The cinematography is just breathtaking and it made me miss my home country immensely. I am very curious to know more about the production process of this film: the fact they had local units and actors in each country, a Brazilian director, a Mexican actor... Truly a Latin American film in its form and content.
I am surprised to find very few comments that really focus on the movie as a movie. Many of them simply reveal what the authors think about Che and his politics, while their analysis is forgotten. Of course, this is to be expected, since Che and what he represents will always generate strong and passionate opinions. In general, these comments confirm the fact that the people of the US and other English-speaking countries know and understand so little about the complex idealism of Latin America when it comes to social issues. Those who have a rigid black and white view of the ideologies of the 60s, who were surprised to read connections between Marxism and Democracy, Communism and Catholicism, etc, will really never be able to grasp the real legacy of Che Guevara and many others that remain very much alive throughout the continent, not just political activists, but also artists like Neruda to priests like Monseñor Romero.
