Prohibida! Armando Bó and Isabel Sarli S Struggle with Censorship in Argentina s1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
¡Prohibida! Armando Bó and Isabel Sarli’s Struggle with Censorship in Argentina
“Se contiene, suda y después con sus tijeras plateadas le corta su cuerpo, / le corta su cuero, deforma su cara, y así mutilada la lleva cargada a la pantalla…La pantalla que sangra” (Sui Generis “Las increíbles aventuras del Sr. Tijeras”)1
The 1974 lyrics to rock band Sui Géneris’ hit “The Incredible Adventures of Mr. Scissors/shears” about the work of the infamous film censor Miguel Paulino Tato (1974-1978) ironically details the mutilation of a female body on the screen, a brutality that violently assaults the body and act of sex itself as the screen bleeds from its many attacks. Tato, known as the most severe censor, carries a legacy that only reveals a partial story of film censorship in Argentina. Despite Tato’s reputation, censorship in the nation neither began nor ended with Tato. By 1974, when Tato became the director of the Ente de Calificación Cinematográfica (Film Classification Board), censorship was already systematic and institutionalized. He would carry it to its darkest hour into 1976 and the beginning of Argentina’s worst dictatorship (1976-1983), a time when many liberties were abolished and state violence akin to the screen massacres of the censors was rampant and systematized. However, this history begins earlier, in 1957, and expands many governments, both democratic and de facto, which passed laws that would ensure the systematic implementation of censorship. While many of these measures were unconstitutional as they were instituted by de facto governments, these would not however be overturned by legitimate governments that followed. As we shall see the law only became stricter and State control of what was screened in public increased, until censorship was finally abolished in 1983, at the end of the dictatorship. At the center of any discussion about censorship in Argentina is the work of sexploitation duo, director Armando Bó and starlet Isabel Sarli. The duo’s shared trajectory in the film business begins in 1956 and ends in 1984 with the release of the prohibited production Insaciable (shot in 197?) three years after Bó’s death. This time frame fits all too neatly into the nation’s own course with censorship. During a time when the laws begin to tighten the duo’s films become more daring, challenging screen expectations. From their first project together, El trueno entre las hojas, Bo and Sarli have to defend their work first before the courts and then with the censors. This paper has a dual purpose: firstly to look at the case of Intimidades de una cualquiera, a film completed in 1972 and finally released in 1974, to argue that by the time Tato came into power there was already a systematic apparatus in place that would allow the censor, regardless of who that was, to impose a certain vision on the films being released for national consumption. While a detailed analysis of the development of censorship during the period from 1957 to 1984 would prove to be too cumbersome, a slice of this history, through this specific case, will show just how this censorship worked. Many interests were vying for an opportunity to have a say in what would be released; yet during different governments the negotiation between these players would seemingly produce an arbitrary system of censorship but I argue that the parameters of the law were so clear that the decisions being made were not as random as one would think. The second focus of this paper is more analytical; by reading the Film
1 Ironically the following stanza from the song was censored: “Yo detesto a la gente que tiene el poder /de decir lo que es bueno y lo que es malo también, /sólo el pueblo, mi/ amigo, es capaz de entender /los censores de ideas temblaríán de horror /ante el hombre libre con su cuerpo al sol.” Classification Board (FCB) file of this film we can easily identify what was considered problematic or offensive to FCB. It is no coincidence that the mutilated body in the Sui Generis song, cited above, is female. The violence imposed on this film, just as in the song, will be clearly gendered. LINK TO MOVIE –history of the album and song- moral hypocrisy of the censor and its institution- where are women – secretary, his wife and the star- masturbates and violence Intimacies of censorship – just like the intimacies of the prostitute -takes it home -goes from public to very small, dark and private spaces where he conducts his work -he becomes his scissors -act against sex that becomes violent -violence in the movie is never mentioned in the file -mujer posee un rol activo – discuros directo hola -safeguard morale – becomes a torture chamber -toruturer and disappeared who is not known -identity missing (change in title) -becomes someone else Sobre la censura por Neyret, Juan Pablo in Criterio Nº 2241 » Julio 1999 -many ways there is a parallel between this song and the case of the film- use both to come to an understanding of how censorship worked: there are two aspects female body and torture and identity We can see a slice of history and how films were censored and what this meant for the film and its meaning and the director. Ironically, this file shows both what offended the censors yet a film that in the end was released in its full version of 95 minutes. By putting together this history like a jigsaw puzzle we can certainly understand how both censorship worked during this volatile period and the types of things that were most offensive to people. However, the only version of the film that exists is a very shortened version of 86 minutes with some of the most “offensive” scenes eliminated. What happened to the film between its release and the current version? Guess: 128 after tato came in he would give these problems….
Censorship and the Historical Background In 1955 the coup that brought an official end to Peronism and instituted the “Revolución libertadora” appeased both liberal factions and nationalist Catholics and also regenerated the middle class. President Pedro Eugenio Aramburu carries forward a project of liberalization implementing policies to attract foreign capital, projects meant to please the middle classes, from which Peron had managed to distance himself. In 1957 Aramburu passed law decree 62/57, which would change the film industry for good, and thus began a new phase in the regulation of films, an increasingly constrictive period lasting until the end of the dictatorship into 1984. Part of the government’s attempt to satisfy the middle class was to make Argentina’s borders more permeable. On the one hand this meant that foreign films would enter Argentina more readily, and on the other Argentina would export more national films. 62/57 was meant to foster production “in its character as industry, commerce, art, media, and education”2 both for internal and external consumption.
2“en su carácter de industria, comercio, arte, y medio de difusión y educación” After the coup d’etat that brought Juan Carlos Onganía to power in 1966, legislation for culture in general and film in particular tightens even further. The new government institutes the “Revolución Argentina,” modeled after Francisco Franco in Spain promoting a national culture inspired by rural and local traditions but open to universal Christian values, mainly that of pre- Vatican II. From 1957 to 1968, there was officially no censorship. Although by 1966, there was an emphasis on defining moral values in films, albeit nebulous. For instance, the first decree under Onganía makes it clear that: “excluded from this category [Category A] are those films that are at risk of damaging the principles of Argentina’s cultural tradition.”3 And in 1968, the National Film Institute would deny classification to those films: “which attempted against the national lifestyle or the cultural rules of the Argentine community” 4(BO 1968, 2). *By 1969, however, law 18019 officially sanctioned censorship and provided a clear list of six specific areas where the state can intervene by cutting or prohibiting films that justify the following 1. adultery or anything against the family and matrimony 2. justification of abortion, prostitution, and sexual perversions; 3. Lascivious scenes which disgusts morale and good customs 4. Apology of crime 5. Those that deny the duty to defend the nation and the right to the authorities to demand that 6. That that commit national security, affect relations with friendly nations or hurt the interest of fundamental institutions of the state. This list supports film critic Laura Podalsky’s argument that “legitimate” culture was aligned with national, Catholic and family values, and “false” culture with foreign, antireligious and antifamily. Hiding behind this dualistic definition of the film project was a strong clear agenda: to make Argentine cinema more visible abroad but to regulate the content of that product. Furthermore, this law creates the Ente de Calificacion Cinematografica (Ente) with a General Director and Adjunct Directors who are all named by the Executive Power. All films shown in Argnetina had to have the certificate of classification given by the Ente. The other body INC (instituto nacional de cine) was to also have a censoring function by submitting scripts from local or coproduced films that were requesting funding. As the INC’s main function was to support the local industry financially. While there are modifications of this law throughout the years, this is the law that will have the greatest impact on the way that film is exhibited in Argentina until 1984 when 18091 is officially abolished under law 23052. In an article published in 1981, at a time when censorship was under real scrutiny and debate about its role was clearly emerging, Miguel Grinberg writes a piece detailing the process of classification that both the Ente and the INC would follow. He explains that two certificates were given, one with the classification of the film ranging from appropriate for all audiences including children and prohibited given by the Ente, and the other for exhibition given by the INC. The Ente would have 30 days to classify the film and give a verdict. The film was given a classification which could be appealed by the distributor. Once the film was prohibited twice then the case would be closed, at which time only an appeal in court was allowed, but most would not take this route. When cuts were required the distributor was responsible for making these and resubmitting for classification. Each time the film was classified a sum of money was required for the task. Despite the autonomy of 18091 the political landscape in Argentina was very charged in the time leading to the brutal dictatorship of 1976. During this time a total of 727 titles were
3 “quedarán excluidas de esta categoria las películas susceptibles de menoscabar los principios de la tradición cultural argentina.” 4 “que atentan contra el estilo nacional de vida o las pautas culturales de la comunidad argentina” banned and this does not include the films that did not present themselves as many did not bother to struggle with the censors. (#359 in censura file- check this number with Maria). GETINO and the changes in government After Hector Campora came to power (25 May 1973) and democracy brought the return of Peron until his death on July 1, 1974, a liberalization of the INC and the Ente also took place, which in turn meant an expansion of Argentine cinema. During this period with two of the most important directors of the classical era at the helm of the INC was Hugo Del Carril (DATES) and then Mario Soffici (DATES).5 A Decree 858 from August 1973 assigns Octavio Getino as director of the Ente for a period of 90 days (Avellaneda, 112, August 8, 1978 La nacion, p.13). In this time he re-structured the Ente and replaced the leagues of fathers and mothers with others, involving instead psychologists and psycoanalysist, sociologists, film critics and directors. The Ente then allowed the release of all those films that had been prohibited for political reasons such as State of Siege (Costa-Gavras, 1973) and The Devils (Ken Russell, 1972) and others for moral reasons like The Decameron (Pasolini, 1972) and Last Tango in Paris (Bertolucci, 1973) (Espana 2, 652). During Getino’s period the Ente classified, instead of censoring films, as this testimony explains his work as director of the body: “Cuando asumí el cargo de interventor con atribuciones de director [el 8 de agosto de 1973] dejo automáticamente de actuar el consejo honorario de calificación. Sus tareas me incumbieron, paralelamente a las de elaboración de un proyecto de ley de cine […] Esta tarea [la de calificar películas] debe consistir en una información escueta y veraz. […] Había que terminar con la costumbre de cortar o prohibir. Dentro de este criterio fuimos largando poco a poco las películas demoradas. […] Si bien la decisión final me ha correspondido siempre, he contado en todo momento con el asesoramiento valioso de un grupo de hombres de cultura. Había en el directores como Rodolfo Kuhn y Rene Mujica, críticos como Agustin Mahieu y Edmundo Eichelbaum, sociólogos, educadores, sacerdotes, representantes de diferentes órganos oficiales […] Ahora estamos en una nueva etapa. Tenemos que contemplar los intereses de todos. Los de quienes hacen y manejan el espectáculo público habrá de estar al servicio del público: tanto para procurarle exparcimiento como para participar de su formación y evitar los estragos de una orientación defectuosa. (La nación, enero 3 1974, p. 11 suplemento literario, Avellaneda, p.115) He also set up experimental public classification sessions where the public decided if the film was apt for all, for those over 14 or 18 (Espana 2, p654). When his term was ending he had a falling out with the then Subsecretary of Culture over the Chilean film called Voto más fusil (Helvio Soto, 1973) and he let Dr. Jorge Taiana, ministry of Education and Culture decide who thanked him for his services and thus begun a different phase in the life the of Ente. However, Getino would continue to work with the Peron government as adviser on the film legislation until the death of Peron. On January 11, 1974 the Ente became responsible to the executive power through the secretary of Press and Difusion, a change since its creation it was responsible to the Ministry of Education and Culture. Miguel Paulino Tato would be made the head of the Ente after Peron’s death in August, 1974, the same month which the new president Maria Estela Martinez de Peron would sign the new film law proposed by the INC and others, but which would be shelved. -had allowed last tango in paris – accused of this and had a court case against him -del carril renounced and so did Soffici
5 H del Carril was asked by Campora to take over the helm of the INC but because of previous engagements he would not until August, 1973. He would name Mario Soffici interim director and then subdirector when del Carril returned from Mexico. Intimidades de una cualquiera made in 1971 and premiered in 1974 –extensos cortes a Fuego, El sexo y el amor made in 1973 and premiered in 1974 Fiebre fue muy censurada – por la escena con caballos -Fuego – los hombres que provocaba en la ficcion eran todos integrantes del equivpo companeros de trabajo -hicieron una guerra de hambre contra la censura- tuvieron que sacarlos a la fuerza de la plaza de mayo
After Getino in 1974: the darkest part of history Shortly thereafter on September 1, 1974 Miguel Paulino Tato, or “Nestor” is designated as the new director of the Ente. He is the only official who continues his work into the dictatorship until he retires on September 20, 1978. Tato is a self proclaimed …. However, ironically he had directed a film called Facundo, el tigre de los llanos (1952), which suffered from censorship at the time. His tenure in the Ente proved to be one of the harshest of all time. He claims: “Combatiré a la muerte la pornografía, pero sé que hay cosas peores que ella, como la morbosidad. Por ejemplo, creo que La Madre Maria [1974, Lucas Demare] es más perniciosa que muchas películas subidas de tono, porque exalta el curanderismo y, por lo tanto, puede dañar mucho más a la gente preparada. Hay otra clase de pornografía que es la barata, como la que practica Isabel Sarli, Libertad Leblanc y los hermanos Sofovich. De todos modos, hasta ahora siempre se fue más permisivo con las películas extranjeras en material de pornografía…” (Espana 2, 656) After Tato came Dr. Alberto Leon, appointed on 21 September, 1978 and lasting until the end of the dictatorship in 1983. While, not as drastic as Tato, he was conservative and a member of the Central Commision of the League of Fathers and a lawyer. He would be part of the dark period until 1979 but also begin to open things up in the final leg of the dictatorship from 1979 to 1983. Period with a politics of openness and transparency (Mazzeo):
-new law signed by Isabel Martinez de Peron – denouncing the monopoly of the US market and three parts of this new law: 1. 2. Protectionism of national film by applying a quota system 1 in 6 national films 3. Not as apart of a police state but as a combination of integrating pueblo and the government -activities of the left were becoming more common, the death of peron on juliy 1st of that year, and country was in an institutional crisis, appearance of the triple A by personal assessor to peron Jose lopez rega -the law was a lost cost – it was started by the prior government
Evidence shows hat the apertura that was had during Getino’s reign as interventor was working towards changing the censorship …. -persecuted him for Last Tango in Paris after the systematization of violence and persecution – after the disapearence of Raymundo Gleyzer (1976) when they go to get Getino but instead he leaves – questions the reason for asking for his extradition 7 years after 1973 when the film was shown – is it really about obscenity? What we should be asking as well.
Getino November 1973 Tato August 1974 1963- ley 8205/63 annuls articles 4 and 22 of 62/57 which guaranteed liberty of expression
Why intimidades? This film is representative of a film that was quite censored but not completely prohibited like Insaciable. This film was being reviewed at a time when important government changes were occurring. This is the only partial file that exists to date.6 -show that even though these changes were happening that the interest was more in politics and not sex -not the most censored – fuego and insaciable with a similar theme were the most censored The film is shot after the big three films Fuego, Fiebre, and Carne, which means that Sarli and Bo were already international stars by this point. They already had a long relationship with Columbia Pictures International, which began WHEN? While this file is not complete, a comparison between the film that was released (remember that the Ente kept copies of the clips that they did not approve of) and the notes in the file can give us a clear picture of what was deemed offensive to the group. While others have argued that censorship was rather arbitrary (WHO) it is a beginning to interrogate the process and practice of film censorship during the most organized period.
Timeline -file 504/72 10 julio 1972 when it is given to Ente to classify – 90 min classified on 17, july 1972 as prohibited (signatures are of manoccotu – joven, josefina boneo (infancia), Bence, Eduardo M. Ares (minister?)
-agosto 1 1972 solicita calificacion en consulta (during de la fuente) December 5, 1972 solicita reconsideracion (during de la fuente) -December 11, 1972 – aconsejando calificarla prohibida para menores de 18 anos where they outline more cuts (signed by Joseina boneo- union argentina proteccion a la infancia, juan biedma, ministro de cultra y educacion) letter by Ramiro de la fuente 0 film had been seen in three versions- new version could be authorized with more cuts September 7 1973 solicita reconsideracion de cortes (during getino) - getino leaves it up to his helper manuel augusto Padilla who says – doesn’t like that the lesbian scene impinges on articles of law 18019- it’s necessary to make it fit articles 21, 22, 23 September 17, 1973 he writes a letter – adding some scenes to the film why? September 18, 1973 – letter has classified it as under 18 prohibited – Padilla and getino
-secretario de ministerio is ares
Mario Soffici was the director of the INC (first interim but then made director when Hugo del Carril quit after not finding the time. –when Hugo del Carril appointed in June 1973 director of the INC then he begins to talk about a new proyecto ley meanwhile in the legislative assembly Farias is triying to eliminate law 20170
6 About the problems with the files. Soffici says “existe el punto de vista unanime de poner coto a la censura y restablecer la libertad de expresion asegurado al mismo tiempo la proteccion de la ninoridad.” Getino is in for a period of 90 days – July 1973 to elaborate the new law -Furia infernal was allowed without any cuts When? -Getino- some resistence to pornography as he received 9/17 films that were pornographic -went back to code 128 with some films as this still existed as a way of people to oppose the obscene -soffici named director of INC – talks about going ahead with the new law and how he will name Getino as new head of the classification March 19, 1974 Columbia Warner changes the name of the film to from prostituta to cualquiera Was released on 20 May 1974 in Normandie and in other small theatres in the barrios
23 abril 1974 INC gave Intimidades Category A certificate May 7, 1974 criticism –Intimidades is released on May 2 1974 in 95 min version. -talk about the frontal nude scene by Jorge Barreiro -ocurrs under Soffici and Borda -Peron dies in July 1974 -right before Tato enters in August 1974 -despite the fact that the new law is discussed by all including tato he begins to prohibit films – see a huge shift happen -el sexo y el amor is released on Sept 19, 1974 but mariposa en la noche is supended -dictatorship happens in Mary 1976
Gender questions -body and what it means Why is it that women’s bodies are allowed Not male bodies Censoring the lesbian component
From Prostitute to Cualquiera -word cualquiera what it means -this change was asked of the title -Why?
Changes:
1. keeps some things: the beginning BUT with credits to hide some of the details 2. scene with the boy- insinuation about parents wanting her to have sex with him but then makes it his allucinations only and then he initiates it 3. parents role radically changed from listening to the door to doing their own thing and saying boys will be boys better that he is with her because she is clean 4. -ofrecimiento de la hija a cambio de vino – porque tengo que pagar con mi cuerpo su comida – in the dialogue – he takes cans- food BUT he was drinking wine and there is an earlier scene that makes reference to his drinking Eliminates: 1. shorten the first scene with sex with the store owner - DONE 2. sexual organs of the man with the blue house coat – shown –eliminated 3. lesbian scenes in the prison – eliminate tortillera and the part when she takes off the smok – SHORTENed but not eliminated – Getino that is going to ok when it is prohibited for under 18 But not the other things CUT IT TOO LONG 4. sex scene in the bathroom – with gemidos from woman – taken out YES it is 5. sex in the forest – ELIMINATED??? 6. Shots of her walking to the forest she opens her bata 7. Kisses on the breasts in the river -get the certificate on December 14, 1972
Sex and Violence
Title Change: Cualquiera –means a nobody – a hussy, a tramp, a woman of ill repute, whore
Explain the context of the files etc. Intimidades de una cualquiera was made in 1971 but did not premiere until 1974, already when Tato was the head of the Ente. (EXACT DATE OF RELEASE)
This is the only official file that exists. Although the Ente kept files for each of the films that were reviewed between 1968 to 1983, these files somehow disappeared. The only ones to have survived were the ones that were photocopied by Octavio Getino (who served as director of the Ente between August 8, 1973 to October 10, 1973 and later returned to be director of the INCAA in 1989).7 He had photocopied parts of some of these files when he headed the INCAA between 1989 and 1990. Getino was succeeded by Bordo for a short period before Tato is appointed on September 1, 1974, after the death of Peron two months earlier.
Why pick this file? Explain how censorship begins in 1957 and the major laws that were implemented throughout the years to only culminate in 18019.
Intimidades de una cualquiera
- change of name from una prostituta to una cualquiera - -change of the credit sequence - delete scenes of lesbianism in the jail (women in prison films)
7 Peron did not officially take power for his third term until October 12, 1973. Getino’s stint as the director of the Ente would have been during Hector Campora’s turn in office, a left wing Peronist who paved the way for Peron’s long awaited return. - -deletes word tortillera - delete scene with frontal nudity of man - Prostitution and the law it’s one of the themes that was not allowed and others were left for interpretation like lesbianism etc.
Why were these changes so offensive to the government? Law 18019 in 1968 under the Onganía government - -irony of these men who would be watching the films of sarli all to themselves as they built their own theatre to screen all these films and then deciding on what would be seen and what would not be seen -same irony in the song- he wants to see her nude he sits in the dark with a so called sarli and
What did the history of censorship mean? Different moments in that history and what did each mean?
How was that going to really effect the film industry? -how it would impact the ability of these independent producers to make any money and how they had to go outside to make any money
Extra:
This law managed to categorize films into A and B groupings, whereby category “A” films were exhibited with ease both inside and outside Argentina. Category “B” would have limitations, one of which meant that these films’ exportability was evaluated separately. Conversely, during this period it was legally acknowledged that the National Film Institute could not have complete control over exportability. A law passed in 1958 (#4488) stated: “The national classification commission cannot prohibit the export of Argentine films classified as category B, as long as the director, author, or main actors, Argentine or foreign, have agreed remuneration in the cession of territories. In this case, exportation will be allowed only to the country or countries, which were cause of the cession.8 For that reason even if a film were not to receive enough votes to make it exportable it could potentially find distributors who buy its rights and thus exhibit it abroad. As far as I have come with this research this law never changes at least until 1984, when censorship is officially eliminated. Hence, this means that while the government attempted to control exports of national film it essentially couldn’t.
In a preamble to Cinema law 17741: “The projected legislation makes possible the promotion of our cinematography abroad, through the implementation of weekly screenings of Argentine cinema, participation of national films in festivals, and subsidies pertaining to the real diffusion of our films in foreign markets” (BO, 1968, 1).9 On the one hand the government wants to “commercialize Argentine films abroad” (BO, 1968, 1). Yet the films that were most
8 “La comisión nacional calificadora no podrá prohibir la exportación de películas argentinas calificadas en la categoria B, cuando el director, autor o interprete, principales argentinos o extranjeros, hayan convenido su reunmeración en base a cesión de territorios. En este caso la exportacion se permitirá únicamente al país o paises que hubieran sido motivo de la cesión.” successful abroad, supporting the commercialization project of the State, were the very same films that were banned or heavily censored in Argentina. They were the ones “attacking” the moral fabric of the nation. Despite this seemingly insular vision of culture, Onganía’s legislation would make more emphatic the importance of exportation.
9 La legislacion proyectada posibilita la promoción de nuestra cinematografía en el exterior, mediante la realizacion de semanas de cine argentino, participación de películas nacionales en festivals y subsidios en relación a la real disfusión de nuestros filmes en los mercados extranjeros”