Border Policy/Border Cinema Placing To uch o f Ev il, The Border, and Tra ffic in the American Imagination
By JACK M. BECKHAM II
Abstract: American-made cinema fo- tional and international migration, keeper, Operation Safeguard, and Op- cusing on the United States–Mexico tourism, ethnic interactions, and inef- eration Hold the Line. border often functions as a popular fective political policies. What has re- Whether effective as an impediment culture response to American policy sulted is a type of fuzzy space between to illegal immigration or not, these changes that affect the border and im- two countries where “the lifeblood of policies, programs, and legislative acts migration. How these films situate two worlds [are] merging to form a not only have affected the U.S.-Mexi- America and Americans in relation to third country—a border culture. [. . . co border and its inhabitants, they Mexico and Mexicans dictates these A] vague and undetermined place have clearly been influential in the films’ critical and popular success. [which is] in a constant state of transi- fashioning of popular culture repre- Key words: The Border; Mexico; tion” (Anzaldúa 25). The border is, as sentations of the border region, as well Nicholson, Jack; policy; Soderbergh, Nancy Gibbs observes, “its own coun- as representations of Mexico and Steven; Touch of Evil; Traffic; Welles, try, ‘Amexica,’ neither Mexican nor Mexicans. Christine List has noted Orson American. ‘The border is not where that Hollywood has a long history of the U.S. stops and Mexico begins. [. . .] negative stereotyping and the ability to ince the signing of the Treaty of It’s where the U.S. blends into Mex- generate popular myths (21). As such, Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ico’ ” (42). Yet, the United States has American cinema has, for years, Swhich hailed the line of demar- consistently attempted—and failed— worked its magic to manipulate popu- cation between the United States and to reify and concretize the U.S.-Mexi- lar opinion, machinating to fortify Mexico into existence, the border re- co border through such legislation as racial stereotypes, prejudice, jingoism, gion has been an area of conflict, na- Operation Wetback, Operation Gate- and hegemonic control—especially 130 Border Policy/Border Cinema: Touch of Evil, The Border, and Traffic 131 during times of political change. States in the U.S.-Mexico binary re- The Border,despite having Walton David Maciel states that “films are sults in popular and critical praise for Green (who co-wrote The Wild Bunch) more than just amusement, for movies the films or, conversely, in their being on the writing staff and being directed act as a rich source of informal educa- ignored or, in some cases, spurned. by Tony Richardson—who had won tion and ideas. As such, their content is multiple awards in various countries, never free of value judgments or ideo- Critical Concerns and Parameters including four Academy Awards in logical or political biases” (3). And al- In this article, I look at three Holly- 1963 for Tom Jones—failed to garner though it seems that the value judg- wood films that deal with the U.S.- any noticeable praise. Whereas most ments, ideological biases, and political Mexico border: Orson Welles’s Touch critics in 1982 applauded Jack Nichol- biases inherent in American celluloid of Evil (1958), Tony Richardson’s The son’s performance in the picture, they consistently have worked to establish Border (1982), and Steven Soder- agreed with Variety’s assessment that and strengthen the metaphorical bor- bergh’s Traffic (2001). Although it was “a surprisingly uninvolving film der of difference between Americans generically different, each of these whose subject matter and execution and Mexicans, these judgments and films crosses generic boundaries and leave little in the way of a commercial biases are witnessed most clearly in intersects at the space of the border. audience” (“The Border”16). American-made cinema of the U.S.- More to the point, however, is that Compared with the other two films, Mexico border. each film was released during a time Traffic by far gained the most immedi- Because the border region is an when U.S. policies were shifting in re- ate financial success, grossing over amorphous and culturally malleable lation to the border region. Specifical- $15 million in its opening weekend space, and because cinema maintains a ly, Touch of Evil was released on the and going on to generate over $124 political role as an entity unable to free heels of Eisenhower’s Operation Wet- million domestically (Box Office). In itself from biases while informally ed- back; The Border debuted on the eve addition, it was a widely popular ucating the public, American-made of the Mexican peso devaluation of movie in the United States, not only cinema of the U.S.-Mexico border has 1982 and the height of Mexico’s Bor- with the public but with critics as well, repeatedly attempted to reduce the der Industrialization Program; and receiving instant critical acclaim and vagueness of the border region by in- Traffic made its bow following Opera- winning four Academy Awards (in- scribing the inhabitants and ideologies tions Gatekeeper, Hold the Line, and cluding Best Director). of both the United States and Mexico Safeguard, which were instituted by In this article, I argue that one reason into a binary opposition that places California, Texas, and Arizona, re- for the disparity in reception between Anglo and American values in a hier- spectively. these films results from how each film archical position to (stereotypical) What one sees when looking at positions the United States in the U.S.- Latino and Mexican values, a phenom- these films through the context of U.S. Mexico binary at particular historical enon that Andrew Wood articulates in policy changes is three pictures, each moments. Touch of Evil critiques Amer- his discussion about Mexico, the Unit- of which overtly centers on issues im- ican law and justice, placing Mexico in ed States, and the media: bricated with the border but approach- a hierarchical position relative to the es its subject matter in different ways, United States by highlighting American For nearly two hundred years, Mexico and the United States have viewed each with the result being three social cri- police corruption and portraying the other with suspicion. [. . . And] many in tiques of the United States that have righteousness of Mexican authorities. the United States acted on the belief that received varied responses from both The Border also critiques American law Mexicans were mustachioed machos if critics and the public. but hierarchizes Mexico by advocating not banditos—a people, in other words, In an interview with Peter Bog- emigration to Mexico and espousing a not to be trusted. Accordingly, media forces—initially newspapers and now danovich, Orson Welles stated that covert rhetoric of Mexican nationalism. cinema—have generally only added to Touch of Evil was “snuck” out in the Finally, Traffic is able to critique Amer- the bad blood between the two countries United States “on a double bill with no ica, vis-à-vis U.S. drug policy, while through continued stereotypic portray- press showing” (Welles and Bog- still garnering critical and popular als and skewed ideological constructs. danovich 303). Although Welles was praise by implicating Mexico as the (755–56) awarded an Oscar for co-writing the agent of America’s woes and advancing Most important, these stereotypical screenplay for Citizen Kane (1941), he stereotypical representations of both portrayals and skewed ideological received neither awards nor critical ac- Mexico and Latinos, effectively de- constructs not only are prevalent in claim in America for Touch of Evil, de- positing Mexico and its inhabitants into most American-made cinema of the spite its winning the grand prize at the the ancillary position of the binary. U.S.-Mexico border, but they seem al- Brussels World Fair in 1958, doing most expected by Anglo audiences “tremendous business all over the [rest Touch of Evil during times when U.S. border poli- of] the world,” and being ranked as the Touch of Evil,adapted from a cies change. How films released dur- eighth greatest film of the last one shelved Paul Monash script that was ing these times foster or impede the hi- hundred years in 2002 (Welles and itself adapted from Whit Masterson’s erarchical positioning of the United Bogdanovich 303; Pym x). novel Badge of Evil,was not original- 132 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television ly about the border. After Welles changed Monash’s script, “the film was much more directly a disquisition on the theme of ‘crossing the border,’ bristling with racial tension as the Mexican cop attempts to nail the American cop for perversion of jus- tice” (Wollen 22). Furthermore, by changing the script to focus on inter- national differences in justice, Welles places the film in direct opposition to other films about border crossing from the same era; Wood notes that “Holly- wood films from the 1920s to the early 1980s dealing with Mexicans and Mexican immigration have usually pitted a heroic actor [. . .] against a vaguely defined ‘gang’ of undocu- mented workers seeking entry to the United States” (756). Quinlan (Orson Welles) is certainly no hero, and although there are refer- ences to his saving the life of his Quinlan (Orson Welles) points a gun, which Welles later describes in an interview as beloved sidekick Menzies (Joseph “every cock in the world,” at Joe Grandi (Akim Tamiroff) in Touch of Evil. Calleia), he does, after all, kill him at the end of the film. Quinlan not only the culpability of the American author- which Welles immediately begins to frames suspects, but he is overtly ities. Second, although Quinlan refers undermine. By the middle of the film, racist, referring to the Mexican author- to the United States as “civilization,” a after Grandi reveals himself as an ities as “Keystone Kops,” stating that large portion of the action on the Unit- American citizen, both his racial and he “don’t speak Mexican,” and an- ed States side takes place at the Mi- national identities must be reinscribed. nouncing his desire to return to the rador Motel—located in the desert and Suddenly, the audience is faced with— American side of the border by saying, the only building for miles around. To not a Mexican, or even a Latino, but— “Let’s get back to civilization.” And further problematize Quinlan’s refer- an American who is conspiring with although the Grandis are presented as ence to civilization, Susan Vargas Quinlan to frame Mrs. Vargas and de- a type of “gang” in the film, they are (Janet Leigh) is accosted, drugged, and fame her husband. Furthermore, Gran- hardly attempting to gain access to the kidnapped while at the Mirador, ac- di’s new identity calls the origin and United States. In fact, the only refer- tions in direct contraposition to her in- destination of the Grandi drug-smug- ence to documentation arises at the be- teractions on the Mexican side of the gling operation into question: By mak- ginning of the film when Vargas border with Joe Grandi (Akim Ta- ing Grandi an American of non-Latino (Charlton Heston) crosses the border miroff), a character Jonathan Rosen- (or part-Latino at best) origin, the audi- legally,showing his passport to the baum describes as a “menacing villain ence must acknowledge, at least on border guard. who does not, in fact, succeed in being some level, that the drug smuggling for Quinlan’s presence and actions in very menacing after all” (4). which the brother Grandi has been ar- the film not only betray Hollywood’s Key to Tamiroff’s character, besides rested could be a North-to-South oper- border-cinema conventions from the his lack of menace, is his lack of Mex- ation, very likely a counterintuitive mid-1900s, but his racist rhetoric de- icanness. He tells Mrs. Vargas at their proposition for most moviegoers in constructs itself, elucidating the first meeting that his “name ain’t Mex- 1958. hypocrisy of Anglo superiority. First, ican.” Mrs. Vargas calls him a “little The third way Quinlan’s racist although Quinlan refers to the Mexican Caesar,” insinuating Italian descent. rhetoric deconstructs itself stems from authorities as “Keystone Kops,” Var- During the scene in which Quinlan in- his declaration that he cannot “speak gas’s superior police work discovers terrogates Sanchez, Grandi announces Mexican” while physically attacking that Quinlan has been framing sus- that he is an American citizen. Intro- Sanchez for not speaking English. pects—including Manolo Sanchez ducing Grandi on the Mexican side of This scene metaphorically advances (Victor Millan). This repudiation is a the border as a gangster whose brother English as the language of law while double blow to Anglo superiority, es- has just been arrested in Mexico City establishing the speaking of “Mexi- tablishing the adroitness of Mexican provides the audience with an assump- can” as crime or, at best, a suspicious law enforcement while highlighting tion about Grandi’s national identity, activity. Given Sanchez’s actual con- Border Policy/Border Cinema: Touch of Evil, The Border, and Traffic 133 fession at the end of the film, one can memory Quinlan cannot escape—was argue that Quinlan succeeds in estab- strangled, Grandi’s death by strangula- lishing this metaphor, but this calls Welles was familiar tion can be seen as Quinlan’s pervert- into question what it means to “speak ed attempt to feminize him as a way to Mexican.” David Thomson argues with prejudices and negotiate his longings for his deceased that “Mexico is Quinlan’s instinct (he spouse. knows the Mex is guilty), and Ameri- racist ideologies of Another case for Quinlan’s homo- ca is his profession (he orders the the mid-1900s and sexuality has also been made by Ivan Mexican suspect to talk English). But Zatz, who points to the homoeroticism it’s in Mexico that he arranges a effectively turned of Quinlan and Menzies’s relationship. cover-up, wraps a peachy-clean U.S. Zatz notes Menzies’s fidelity toward blonde in depravity and goes to have the Anglo-held Quinlan: the way he advocates Quin- his fortune told” (34). Thus, while lan’s intuition, guards his walking Quinlan is an English speaker (he lit- stereotype of stick, and is devoted beyond the call of erally speaks English and is also duty (71). Furthermore, Zatz argues metaphorically associated with the Mexican-equals- that the “phallic symbology of the law), equating the speaking of “Mexi- walking stick and game leg, coupled can” with crime establishes Quinlan crime on its side. with an apparent mistrust of women as a bilingual character. This makes that seems to permeate this relation- Quinlan’s denial of his ability to ship, would indicate at least a Platon- speak “Mexican” as faulty as San- ic, if not actually consummated, ho- chez’s denying his own guilt. Welles Welles makes another interesting mosexual relationship between Quin- was familiar with prejudices and move by imbuing the American char- lan and Menzies. This is reinforced by Touch of Evil racist ideologies of the mid-1900s and acters in with homo- the fact that Quinlan supposedly got effectively turned the Anglo-held eroticism while concretizing the het- his lame leg by taking a gunshot in- stereotype of Mexican-equals-crime erosexuality of Vargas. For an audi- tended for Menzies” (71–72). on its side, thereby implicating both ence of 1958, when the national Conversely, the relationship be- the United States and Mexico as coun- rhetoric espoused homosexuality as tween Schwartz (Mort Mills) and Var- tries with criminal activity but with deviant and un-American, Quinlan’s gas is not invested with any of the ho- the heavier hand falling on the United homosexuality can be seen as another moerotic dynamics inherent in the States. True, Sanchez—a young, mechanism that flips the U.S.-Mexico Quinlan-Menzies partnership. And angry man in love—is guilty, but so is binary. In a rather lighthearted bit of Vargas’s heterosexuality is further val- the venerable American officer who discourse between Orson Welles (OW) idated by his recent marriage to Mrs. serves as a symbol for the U.S. justice and director Peter Bogdanovich (PB), Vargas, which, after all, makes him the system. Meanwhile, Vargas recuper- Welles even admits to infusing the only married character in the film. ates Quinlan’s lack—his lost venera- scene where Quinlan strangles Grandi This juxtaposition between the homo- tion—and places Mexican law en- with homosexual overtones: erotic tensions of Quinlan/Menzies/ forcement in a superior position in re- PB: The scene where you strangle Grandi and the heterosexual inscrip- lation to the United States, a statement Tamiroff is particularly gruesome. tion of Vargas operates to, in light of echoed by Donald Pease in his article OW: Yes. It was perverse and morbid— popular culture’s attitude toward ho- the kind of thing I don’t like to do too “Borderline Justice/States of Emer- much. But it was one of those go-as- mosexuality in the mid- to late 1950s, gency: Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil”: far-as-you-can-go—in that kind of further demonize Anglos as being in dirty department. Tamiroff was great some way deviant or defective com- Although Hank Quinlan’s prejudice in it: when he looked at that gun, it against Mexicans supplies Vargas with a pared with Latinos, once again invok- was every cock in the world. It was ing the conception of Vargas as one psychological rationale for aggressively awful, the way he looked at it—made pursuing [his investigation of Quinlan], the whole scene possible. who, as Pease suggests, follows a set Vargas does not accuse Quinlan of po- PB: You meant it to have a sexual con- of higher standards. lice corruption as an expression of his notation? The historical moment of the late solidarity with the political efforts to OW: Of course. It’s a very ugly scene. 1950s, while key in understanding pre- right the history of injustices at the bor- (Welles and Bogdanovich 320–21) der. In exposing Quinlan’s illegal polic- vailing attitudes toward homosexuality ing practices on the U.S. side of the bor- But it is not only the gun/phallus that that would help hierarchize Mexico in der, Vargas struggles to persuade Susan invests the scene with sexual connota- the American imagination, is also key of the higher standards to which the po- tions. Grandi dies by strangulation— when discussing Touch of Evil in rela- lice are held on the Mexican side of the border. (83) itself an eroticized form of death and tion to (or as a response to) U.S. im- an act that places Quinlan in intimate migration policy. When postulating Beyond subverting generic conven- proximity to Grandi. Furthermore, about Welles’s decision to rewrite the tions and American-held stereotypes, given that Quinlan’s wife—whose script, many critics suggest the idea 134 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television came from an incident at Sleepy La- produced a “national reaction against goon on August 2, 1942, when “a illegal immigration” (Koestler). In the young Mexican-American named José In the wake of wake of Operation Wetback and the Diaz was run down by an automobile inequitable treatment of Latinos by and his body dumped in a mud-hole Operation Wetback U.S. authorities, the American public near Sleepy Lagoon, a water-filled —still embracing a rhetoric of nation- gravel-pit that was a swimming place and the inequitable alism and maintaining a skewed view for young Mexican-Americans” treatment of Latinos of Latino-as-illegal—was not interest- (Wollen 22). The Sleepy Lagoon case ed in a film that placed Mexico in a hi- inaugurated an era of police repres- by U.S. authorities, erarchical position relative to the sion, suspects were framed, and the United States via highlighting the vio- following year the Zoot Suit Riots the American public lation of Mexican American’s civil began. Woolen argues that, after re- rights by U.S. governmental agencies turning from Europe, Welles attempt- was not interested and elucidating the corruption of ed to re-create the atmosphere sur- American law enforcement while por- rounding those tumultuous circum- in a film that placed traying Mexican police as abiding by a stances (23). However, governmental higher standard. policies being enforced during the Mexico in a In the end, Zatz contends that the film’s creation seem more likely to hierarchical position film centers around a dispute between have influenced not only Welles’s di- Quinlan and Vargas, two people of rectorial decisions but the film’s re- relative to the “opposing political and national ception as well. And Pease has argued alignment, whose struggle is over convincingly that the film’s political United States. control of natural resources, technolo- unconscious is derived from Operation gy, and the cultural legitimacy which Wetback. would justify their presence within a In 1954, Senator Patrick McCarran space where only one or the other can of Nevada suggested that “subversive in the four years before Welles began fit. And, precisely because Vargas can agents” easily could be included in the work on the picture [. . .] comprised a function equally well within both “wetbacks” that crossed the Rio more compelling location for the film’s spaces, he becomes threatening to the political unconscious than does the Grande illegally, thereby creating a Sleepy Lagoon Case. (87) power and authority held by Quinlan” link between migration and “enemy (68). American audiences and critics infiltration.” McCarran’s establishing In Pease’s model, Quinlan and Var- seem to have been just as threatened this link prompted the Senate Internal gas’s relationship represents the an- by Vargas as Quinlan. Indeed, Vargas Security Subcommittee to conduct an tagonistic relationship between the does seem to function well on both official investigation, headed by Mc- United States and Mexico during Op- sides of the border, not only adhering Carran and Senator Herman Welker of eration Wetback, while Quinlan’s re- to the higher standards of the Mexican Idaho. McCarran recommended the fusing Sanchez’s civil rights mirrors side but, apparently, performing the deployment of the McCarran-Walter the lack of rights of migrant laborers rhetoric of Americanism more profi- Act of 1952, which deported and de- at the hands of the McCarran Com- ciently than the Americans while on naturalized migrant workers whose mission. the U.S. side. In short, Vargas ex- leaders were found guilty of so-called Pease’s model can certainly be ad- plodes the American-held myths that subversive activities. As a result, the vanced as another reason for the film’s put the United States in the dominant Immigration and Naturalization Ser- poor reception in America when con- position of the U.S.-Mexico binary: vice (INS) and U.S. Border Patrol sidering Joseph Nevins’s argument Vargas is a legal border crosser that were authorized by President Dwight about the importance of the media in repudiates the stereotype of Mexican- Eisenhower to deport massive num- setting the agenda for public debate. as-illegal, assists with the self-de- bers of Mexican laborers in a most an- Nevins states that struction of the rhetoric of Anglo su- tidemocratic fashion, regularly arrest- media coverage can influence policy in periority, and unravels the notion of ing Mexican Americans, placing them two important ways: one, it can influ- superior American nationalism by ad- in interment camps, and refusing them ence policy makers, regardless of its ef- hering to higher standards of law en- fect on public opinion; and two, while it due process, activities that continued is too simple to state that media dis- forcement than do his American coun- from 1954 through 1957 (Pease 91). course causes changes in public opin- terparts. For Pease, ion, it is nonetheless a very important part of the context in which people form The Border the controversies concerning the legali- their political opinions. (119) ty of the state of emergency that the The Border,which had its origins in U.S. government declared to empower Media coverage of Operation Wetback several Los Angeles Times articles its mass deportation of migrant laborers whipped the public into a frenzy and about illegal Mexican immigrants, is Border Policy/Border Cinema: Touch of Evil, The Border, and Traffic 135 described by Vincent Canby as “an which are direct results of Charlie’s In contrast, the beginning of The angry, brutal melodrama about the actions—fulfill the prophecy that the Border makes clear distinctions be- plight of the illegal immigrants, about freeway billboard on the road to El tween the ruggedly pastoral Mexico— the people who rip them off and about Paso portends: “The wages of sin is seen in the opening sequence and sub- the consequences of Charlie’s [Jack death.” sequent montage showing Maria’s trek Nicholson] crossing of his own border Regardless of whether Charlie north—and the urbanized and techno- into the alien territory of bribes, beat- crosses moral boundaries, he is clearly logic United States where Charlie ar- ings, kidnappings and murder” (C10). a border crosser, and, more than any- rests the two factory workers, a dis- This terse summary is significant in thing, this film speaks to issues of mo- tinction that is again made by using that it suggests that two separate bor- bility. In the beginning of Touch of the “Tortilla Curtain” for the establish- ders are being crossed, one physical Evil, the film cutting and set construc- ing shot in the scene that shows Char- and one metaphorical. However, I am tion is such that the viewer becomes lie’s first day on the job with Hooker not convinced that Charlie ever really disoriented and unable to tell which (Stacey Pickren). Like Quinlan and crosses the metaphorical border allud- side of the border the characters are Vargas, Charlie is afforded virtually ed to by Canby. Charlie is positioned on. Mr. and Mrs. Vargas cross into the unlimited mobility, albeit without as apathetic toward U.S. immigration United States, the car explodes on the Quinlan’s metaphorical association to policies from the moment he is intro- U.S. side, Mrs. Vargas is instructed to law or Vargas’s explicit association duced to the audience, casually mean- go “back to the hotel,” and she is sum- with justice. Instead, Charlie is repeat- dering through an entire factory of un- moned by Grandi. At this point, one is edly imbricated with water, which documented workers, arresting an ar- unsure if Mrs. Vargas has already re- aligns him with tropes of mobility and bitrary pair with the fewest mouths to crossed the border and is being sum- binationalism. feed, and already aware of the knowl- moned back to the United States or is Charlie’s association with water be- edge that the factory owner dispenses still headed toward Mexico. The cam- gins when Juan (Manuel Viescas) steals to the (also already aware) audience— era cuts back to Mr. Vargas on the U.S. his hubcaps and Charlie chases him the workers will be returning to make side where Quinlan will make his across what is supposed to be the Rio their $6 a day as soon as possible. By debut and, as the scenes continue to Grande. It ends with the film’s final Charlie operating in this manner, it jump from one side of the border to freeze frame, focusing on Maria and seems clear that he is at least familiar the other, the audience becomes quick- Charlie standing in the river. He also with a territory that would include cor- ly dislocated. Meanwhile, everyone falls into his half-constructed swim- ruption, and he certainly does not ap- speaks English, bilingual signs are ming pool, and, in the scene immedi- pear shocked when Red (Warren posted on both sides of the border, and ately following, light and shadows re- Oates) advocates “leaving a few Wets there is a general look of uniformity flected from the river wash over his in the field” in exchange for a sack of that makes it seem as if there is no bor- body for half a minute before he steps onions. der at all. into the water a second time. These in- Moreover, he makes it very clear to Cat (Harvey Keitel) that he will not participate in murder. In the scene in which Charlie confronts Cat in the motor pool, Charlie makes the metaphorical border physical by draw- ing a line in the dirt. His adamant dec- laration that “this line right here I don’t cross! This fuckin’ line right here!” establishes him as one who re- fuses to cross the metaphorical border into a land of absolute corruption. Whether his temporary status as a coy- ote makes him villainous or not is de- batable, especially in the redemptive light of his helping Maria (Elpidia Carrillo) to cross and (more important) recross the border. Furthermore, Char- lie’s incorruptibility is refortified sim- ply by his being alive at the end of the film. J.J.’s (Jeff Morris) accidental sui- Charlie (Jack Nicholson) confronts Cat (Harvey Keitel) in the motor pool and cide and Cat’s being crushed by con- adamantly declares that he will not participate in murder in The Border. struction equipment—neither of 136 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television stances inscribe Charlie with a fluidity opening scene; or that Maria and Juan of motion that makes him a binational are first seen by Nicholson, through character. He is binational not only be- [The Border] is, night vision apparatus, pausing and re- cause he crosses the border but because turning to Mexico rather than follow- his connection to water also links him really, about an ing their coyote; or that Maria has re- to the Rio Grande, the very essence of turned to and remains in Mexico dur- Amexica. In a very literal way, the Rio innocent family’s ing the film’s final scene. What is cru- is the “vague and undetermined place cial to the entire film is the earthquake [which is] in a constant state of transi- journey al norte, the that sets Maria on her journey north in tion” that Anzaldúa speaks of; it is an corruption and the first place. The earthquake killing ever-flowing, ever-changing, yet a very what is presumed to be Maria’s hus- real and physical border that is at the danger they witness band and damaging her village oper- same time in both the United States and ates to forward Maria not as an illegal Mexico. And, even more important, this there, and their but as an innocent victim, which is binationalism is reified by his fellow doubly reinforced because the earth- Border Patrol agents midway through return to the safety quake occurs during her infant’s bap- the film when they inscribe him with tism: Not only is Maria inscribed with Mexicanness. of Mexico. a type of virginal purity as a faithful On arriving at Red’s party from church patron, but the earthquake Mexico, Charlie is criticized for not fit- takes on the form of God’s will, an act ting in with the rest of the guests, who Although the film certainly contains completely out of Maria’s hands. In comment on his clothes; Red an- undocumented immigrants, and the this light, the film is, really, about an nounces that Cat had “better check his action does occur at the border, rather innocent family’s journey al norte, the green card [. . .] I think he’s come in than categorize the film in the social corruption and danger they witness wet.” This transformation of Charlie problem genre, I suggest it is more there, and their return to the safety of from American to Mexican allows him aligned with works like Alejandro Mexico. to be placed in the same position as Galindo’s classic Mexican drama Es- Maria’s journey across the border Vargas (also played by an Anglo); sud- paldas Mojadas (1955), which at- results in her baby’s kidnapping, her denly, his refusal to cross the tempted to convince Mexicans not to forced employment in a bordello, and metaphorical border of corruption— go to the United States. In this respect, her brother’s death, stemming from his the line in the dirt—is very important: the film is much more about Mexican involvement in drug trafficking. To be It allows him to stand in as the inverse nationalism than about the United sure, these consequences of her north- of his fellow officers so that a critique States or its immigration woes. ern peregrination are the outcome of of American law can be made. And, al- Richardson, a British film director U.S.-Mexico collusion, yet instead of though one might argue that the Mexi- and prominent figure during the inscribing all Mexicans as illegal or cans in the film are just as corrupt and British New Wave, was no stranger to villainous, Hooker notes that the ma- lawless as Charlie’s fellow Border Pa- socially engaged realism, and some jority of the undocumented border trol agents, a closer investigation of might read The Border as a depiction crossers are simply day workers who this claim will actually uncover the un- of the deadend existence of the work- return to Mexico at night, harmless usual way Mexico is hierarchized in ing poor, similar to, say, Look Back in save for throwing the occasional dirt the film. However, before this can be Anger (1958) and citing Charlie as one clod. Furthermore, Jimbo (William accomplished, the film must be placed who is apathetic about his job, perpet- Russ) articulates the economic neces- in the proper context. ually broke, and surrounded by Anglo sity of undocumented laborers in no Gary Keller suggests that the film women who “are slave drivers them- uncertain terms: “Texas’s been runnin’ focuses on what he calls the indocu- selves, whipping on their husbands on Wet labor since before I was born. mentado phenomenon and states that with the carrot of sex or the stick of Does pretty damn good too. You think Hollywood films dealing with this sheer malice” (Lacayo 9). However, this country’d get by without Wets? phenomenon the film is as much about Maria and You go out on some boilin’ hot day Mexico as it is about Charlie. Richard and pick your own lettuce and toma- never have risen above the mediocre. Borderline (1980), starring Charles Lacayo suggests that “Mexicans in toes and beans and onions.” Bronson, and The Border (1981) [sic], ‘The Border’ appear mostly as a In opposition to the so-called starring Jack Nicholson, weigh in as wretched swarm in a crouch position, harmlessness of (most) undocument- sterling examples of a dismal record. ever ready for that clandestine dash ed border crossers, everyone in Red’s Hollywood indocumentado pictures into Texas” (9). But Lacayo forgets sector except for a handful of officers have never surpassed the limitation of the social problem genre as originally about the inhabitants of the Mexican is on the take, and the majority of the conceived in the 1930s and 1940s. interior who appear content enough, if violence in the film is committed by (44–45) not a bit romanticized, in the picture’s Cat’s accomplice J.J., who fatally Border Policy/Border Cinema: Touch of Evil, The Border, and Traffic 137 shoots Juan, and Cat, who indiscrim- inforced aurally by Freddy Fender’s States’ dissolution of the Bracero pro- inately kills a coyote driver for in- rendition of “Across the Borderline” gram. Mexico used facilities that were fringing on his “business” and brutal- that serves to bracket the film: built by the National Border Program ly murders two pollos to pacify Char- There’s a place where I’ve been told and encouraged U.S. firms to join with lie. In fact, after the Anglo law en- Every street is paved with gold Mexican entrepreneurs to build facto- forcement officers and their accom- And it’s just across the borderline ries that would produce goods for the plices are named, there is only one And when it’s time to take your turn U.S. market. The program was a suc- non-Anglo criminal in the film: Here’s one lesson that you must learn cess in terms of lowering unemploy- Manuel (Mike Gomez), who is suc- You could lose more than you’ll ever ment, and labor statistics show that hope to find cessful as a criminal mainly because Mexico’s strong gross domestic prod- When you reach the broken promised of his proximity to the border. land uct rates from 1978 to 1982 gradually Manuel’s bordello, aptly named El And every dream slips through your lowered unemployment (Mertens and Paraíso,is the quintessential stereo- hands Richards 236). At the time of the film’s type of lawless and hedonistic Mexico, Then you’ll know that it’s too late to release, Mexico’s economy was doing and Manuel is quick to offer Charlie change your mind well and unemployment rates had con- ’Cause you’ve paid the price to come the stereotypically dispensed vices: so far sistently fallen in the preceding years. cerveza, tequila, whiskey, and “pussy.” Just to wind up where you are In addition, Alberto Davila and Rogelio Furthermore, John Hiatt’s rendition of Sanez have shown that the steady in- And you’re still just across the border- “Skin Game” playing nondiegetically line. crease in Maquiladoras from April over Charlie’s visit to El Paraíso ham- 1978 to January 1982 had an inverse ef- mers the trope home in a way that is By positioning the United States as a fect on illegal immigration, based on hard to miss: “Hey Amigos, don’t pass land of broken promises and evanes- monthly INS apprehension data (101). this by / Got everything that money cent dreams, a land that annexes inno- In other words, as the number of can buy / Now it’s a place where a face cence and robs mothers of their chil- Maquiladoras increased, the number of ain’t got no name / Down here every- dren, a land of corrupt law enforcers illegal immigrants apprehended by the body’s playing that ol’ skin game / and clandestine murders, The Border Border Patrol decreased, allowing one Down in Mexico, Mexico / Well a boy hierarchizes Mexico in a way that in- to extrapolate that the number of illegal can be a man down on Mexico.” Yet, vokes a sense of Mexican nationalism. border crossers (men and women) as a this entire establishment seems Maria’s returning to Mexico at the whole also steadily decreased. strangely out of place in relation to the film’s end is telling insofar as it insin- Davila and Sanez state that the bucolic scenes near the river where the uates that immigrants’ woes can be number of Maquiladoras increased majority of the south-of-the-border ac- healed by coming home or averted al- from 841,441 in 1978 to 1,571,680 in tion occurs. Just as Manuel is posi- together by avoiding a northward jour- 1981, an 86.8% increase (101). This tioned as the sole Mexican villain, his ney. In this respect, the representation increase in Mexican employment op- bordello resists implicating all of of America’s southern border guard as portunities, coupled with reductions in Mexico as a locale for hedonistic a corrupt entity, implicated in adding Mexican unemployment and a steady abandon. Instead, it serves as a neces- to the United States’ sorrows by assist- decrease in illegal immigration, creat- sary vehicle that allows for Maria’s ing illegal immigrants, was not the ed an unconscious anxiety in the fall from grace. Forced to work in the only reason American audiences re- American imagination. This adds an bordello, Maria is transformed from jected (and perhaps continue to reject) entirely new level of meaning to the virgin to the whore, a necessary the film. The majority of Anglo audi- Jimbo’s question about the country punishment for her decision to venture ences can neither identify with a sense getting by “without Wets.” The Bor- outside of Mexico. of Mexican nationalism nor accept der,then,works on three simultaneous In the end, the film provides a very representations of illegal border levels to scare, infuriate, and alarm the clear carrot-and-stick representation crossers as innocent victims. Anglo public. On the most basic level, of the United States: Venturing north In terms of the historical moment, the film invokes the Anglo fear of an of the border may provide one with a however, the lackluster critical and undocumented horde illegally infiltrat- few extra dollars, but the final cost popular response from 1982 (which ing the United States to take American may be more than one can bear, a view helped marginalized this film) is direct- jobs. On a secondary level, the film in- Vincent Canby succinctly articulates ly related to how the film’s rhetoric of furiates Americans vis-à-vis its repre- when observing that the filmic El Paso Mexican nationalism and covert call to sentation of Border Patrol agents. This border “teems with poor, desperate, il- emigrate is linked to the Border Indus- infuriation can stem from either the re- literate Mexicans seeking entrance trialization Program (BIP) just prior to fusal to believe such a corrupt repre- into the land of milk, honey, bigotry Mexico’s peso devaluation. The BIP sentation is possible—thereby dis- and exploitation” (C10). This carrot was created in 1965 to mitigate the un- missing the film as propaganda—or and stick is, however, not only repre- employment in Mexico’s northern re- from the complete acceptance of such sented via Maria’s trials but is also re- gion, which was caused by the United a representation, which leads to out- 138 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television rage over how a government agency charged with protecting America could allow such a “dangerous threat” to propagate itself. Finally, on the unconscious level, even as Anglos are processing their fear and outrage, they experience the suppressed panic of the realization that their cheap labor might not be available, a view articulated by the factory owner at the beginning of the film: “I’m talkin’ about the life and death of my operation and half the factories in Los Angeles. They want a minimum wage. The day that I gotta start payin’ these people two-fifty an hour, my business is a memory.” By hierarchizing Mexico through a sub- text of Mexican nationalism, covertly advocating a return to Mexico, and demonizing Border Patrol workers and the border-crossing experience in Robert Wakefield (Michael Douglas) sees the decay of America’s moral foundations general, The Border tapped into the and family values while standing face to face with Caroline (Erika Christensen) in American imagination on several lev- Traffic. els that did not bode well for the film’s reception in 1982 and continues to position the film in a liminal space today. clearly establishing a link between its moved and the film is saturated with four Academy Awards, critical ac- rich blue tones. Two minutes later, San Traffic claim, and instantaneous popularity Diego in all its beauty arrives on screen. Like The Border,the camera work and its alignment with the American Clearly, Soderbergh’s tobacco filter in Traffic is very different from that in imagination. does the trick, and the audience is im- Touch of Evil. Stanley Kauffmann ob- Like The Border, Traffic establishes mediately alerted to the difference be- serves that “Welles shoots almost a clear delineation between the United tween the United States—with its rich everything from a strained bizarre States and Mexico, with Soderbergh vibrant colors—and the jaundiced angle. The lighting by Russell Metty is advancing Mexico in the opening scene Mexican landscape. exaggeratedly noir. The film moves and then moving to the more techno- This difference, however, does not with a kind of rush, rather than logic United States. But more than a stop with the Mexico that is twenty rhythm” (31). In contrast, Traffic is a split between the pastoral and techno- miles southeast of Tijuana. Soder- type of cinema verité that uses grainy logic separates the two countries in bergh continues to use his tobacco fil- film and does more with colors than Traffic,which uses a banner in the ter to effectively yellow all of Mexico, was even possible in Touch of Evil’s opening shot to announce the filmic lo- which a handful of critics—such as time. However, whereas Traffic is cation as Mexico, twenty miles south- Richard Porton and Catherine Ben- more aligned with the cinematography east of Tijuana. The film is grainy and amou—have noted as problematic: of The Border,which switches from has a decidedly yellow (the more ro- [Soderbergh] shot the Mexican sections deep green and blue hues to desolate mantic call it sepia) tone, and the audi- “through a tobacco filter” and then over- desert-bleached cinematography, it is ence is introduced to two state police exposed the film to imbue these vi- The Border and Touch of Evil that officers, Javier Rodriguez (Benicio Del gnettes with an oversaturated look. more closely resemble each other Toro) and Manolo Sanchez (Jacob Var- Mexico, therefore, becomes a mirage- like, evanescent realm where life is when discussing critical reception: Of gas), who are speaking Spanish. The di- cheap and morality is infinitely expend- the three films, Traffic is the only one alogue begins with Javier explaining a able. As film scholar and Latin Ameri- to receive instantaneous critical recog- nightmare to Manolo. Later, Javier and can specialist Benamou observes, the nition and wide popularity among Manolo capture some drug trans- movie “posits an historical and moral moviegoers. Likewise, it is the only porters, the audience is introduced to hierarchy between the postmodern United States—which has to retrieve its film to (not surprisingly) establish the the corrupt General Salazar (Tomas moral foundations and family values— United States in a hierarchical position Milian), and the scene shifts to Colum- and premodern Mexico, which has pre- to Mexico in the U.S.-Mexico binary, bus, Ohio, where the graining is re- sumably never been able to draw the Border Policy/Border Cinema: Touch of Evil, The Border, and Traffic 139
line between the law and lawlessness.” In this light, Mexico is doubly cul- (Porton 42) pable. First, Mexico’s own lawless- ness has averted its progression into a Benamou’s observation here is key in- Traffic succeeds in postmodern stage of development; sofar as the historical and moral hier- adducing the second, Mexico’s premodernity and archy she refers to implicates Mexico lawlessness have thwarted the United on both sides of the border, how Mex- United States as States and threaten to derail its pro- ico’s lawlessness is directly linked to gression to the next stage of cultural the moral decay of the family on the a country lacking development, which allows Soder- U.S. side. in morals and family bergh to make his critique of the Unit- No one would argue that Soder- ed States. Traffic succeeds in adducing bergh advances Mexico as lawless. In values only by the United States as a country lacking fact, it is as if he takes great pains just in morals and family values only by si- to do so. From the opening scene, the simultaneously multaneously producing a scapegoat audience is faced with smugglers who producing a that Americans can point to as the en- are blatantly subverting the law and tity responsible for their woes. Wood then immediately spoon-fed General scapegoat that observes that, by portraying Javier as a Salazar’s intervention, which high- “noble soldier while nearly all his lights (if not immediately, then cer- Americans can point compatriots fall prey to kidnapping, tainly later) the lawlessness of the fed- assassination, torture, and betrayal, eral authorities. Twenty-one minutes to as the entity Traffic offers a skewed portrait of later, the corruption of the state is on responsible for Mexican society in getting its anti- display when two American tourists drug message across to U.S. audi- plead for Javier’s help in finding their their woes. ences” (760). stolen car, and he explains how the Yet, Soderbergh successfully de- couple will pay local police to make stroys any recuperative properties that their car appear. Moreover, the hit man foundations and family values.” Wood even Javier might have, not even al- Frankie Flowers (Clifton Collins, Jr.) explains that by “beginning with the lowing him to be positioned as a noble later assigns lawlessness to the non- yellow camera filters, Soderbergh in- soldier. Although Javier is a legal bor- governmental realm of the society, sinuates that nearly all Mexicans are der crosser, similar to Vargas and completing a taxonomy of federal/ somehow involved in the drug trade” Charlie, his being smuggled into Mex- state/local corruption that apparently (761). But the yellowing of Mexico ico by the FBI links him to the trope of runs through all of Mexico. When two implicates both the people and the Mexican-as-illegal that Vargas repudi- of these worlds of corruption collide in land; Wood goes on to state that “from ates. In addition, because Javier has the form of General Salazar torturing the highest echelons of power to the just provided information to the FBI Frankie Flowers, one can see a clear street dealers and sidemen, Soder- about his countrymen in the previous reference to Benamou’s description of bergh’s portrayal of life across the bor- scene—information that makes him Mexico as premodern. In fact, the only der establishes Mexico (and by exten- “feel like a traitor”—he is also unable thing that seems misplaced in the sion, all of Latin America) as the foun- to skirt the trope of Mexican-as-illegal scene is General Salazar’s yelling, tain of evil that is the drug trade” via innocence like the immigrants in “We are not savages.” But this state- (760). The Border manage to do. In this way, ment is obviously to be read as iron- If, as Porton claims, Soderbergh’s Soderbergh’s skewed portrait of Mexi- ic—after all, in a fantastic world film is “primarily obsessed with how can society is a totalizing one—no one propped up by so many stereotypes, drugs have befouled the American is recuperated, no one is noble. the notion of the savage being the only family nest” (42), then Benamou’s Even worse than Soderbergh’s total- one who does not see himself as such claim that the United States is hierar- izing image of Mexico as the place to would be even more noticed by its chically positioned over Mexico but focus blame, however, is that the same absence. must still retrieve its moral founda- proclivity to blame that occurs in the This carefully choreographed law- tions and family values is key. Because film is happening in the real world. An lessness and savagery becomes key these foundations and values are being article in U.S. News & World Report when considering Soderbergh’s yel- destroyed by drugs—as seen via the printed shortly after Traffic was re- lowing of all Mexico, an act that ex- Wakefield family—and all of Mexico leased in theaters quotes one Latino’s tends these tropes throughout the is implicated in the drug trade by way response to the film: “ ‘It’s obviously country and inscribes all of its inhabi- of Soderbergh’s tobacco filter, then the made in the U.S.,’ [. . .] ‘For them, the tants as the agents who have, as Ben- disintegration of family values and drug problem is always our fault’ ” amou states, led the “postmodern morals in America is a result of law- (“Life” 34). And the article continues, United States” astray from its “moral less Mexico. stating that “Mexico’s El Financiero 140 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television newspaper criticized the film’s por- popular praise seems perfectly clear: It ceptance by American audiences sig- trayal of a military general in the pay was released during a time when the nals that the anti-immigration and of drug lords as ‘Hollywood’s version’ border was experiencing the most mil- Mexico-as-lawless rhetoric was more of corruption” (“Life” 34). The key itarization since its inception. In short, pandemic. Indeed, other southwestern words here are “Hollywood’s version,” the movie tapped into the American states recently had militarized their especially considering Porton’s dis- imagination and confirmed the suspi- borderlines in a fashion similar to that covery of what the film excludes. He cions about the lawlessness, danger- of Operation Gatekeeper: Texas imple- argues that, “while it would be silly to ousness, and deviance of a people that mented two plans—Operation Hold deny that Mexico is rife with corrup- all those U.S. tax dollars were being the Line in 1993 (actually created be- tion, the film, either willfully or naive- spent to protect civilized society from. fore Operation Gatekeeper) and Oper- ly, sidesteps the long history of collu- Operation Gatekeeer, which was ation Rio Grande in 1997, and Arizona sion between the American CIA and launched by the INS on October 1, launched Operation Safeguard in 1995. members of the Elite in Central Amer- 1994, was, as Nevins has convincingly Moreover, Congress had recently ica whose best interests are served by argued, the end result of a rise in “neo- passed the Illegal Immigration Reform the efficient proliferation of drugs” restrictionism” that began in the 1970s and Immigrant Responsibility Act in (43). Furthermore, Porton discusses due to several factors, most notably the 1996. Nevins explains that “the emer- evidence that American military Chicano civil rights movement in the gence of Operation Gatekeeper—or, equipment that is supposed to be used late 1960s and the mid-1970s energy more specifically, the emergence of the to fight drug trafficking in Mexico is crisis and economic downturn (62–63). context that led to the Immigration and being used against the Zapatista move- The neo-restrictionist rhetoric stem- Naturalization Service (INS) strategy’s ment; he goes on to claim that the ming from the 1970s was further exac- implementation—demonstrates the “War on Drugs has become inextrica- erbated by both President Regan’s power of the boundary and its related ble from a War on Subversion. One of linking unauthorized immigration to sociogeographical practices in forming Gaghan’s more articulate mouthpieces issues of national security and his war an almost reflexive consciousness in insists that ‘in Mexico law enforce- on drugs. Following the passage of the favor of boundary and immigration en- ment is an entrepreneurial activity, this Immigration Reform and Control Act forcement” (62). In other words, mili- is not so true for the U.S.A.’ This kind of 1986, the Border Patrol became tarizing the border propagates a milita- of offhand remark is Hollywood’s ver- more and more preoccupied with drug rization of the border or, more to the sion of disinformation” (43). enforcement, causing the INS to begin point, that militarizing the border in- So, between Soderbergh’s stereo- deputizing Border Patrol agents as stills the necessity of a militarized bor- typical portrayal of Mexico as a law- Drug Enforcement Administration der in the American imagination. less, premodern, last frontier; his rep- (DEA) and Customs agents to fight With this in mind, it is clear why resentation of Mexicans as savage, against drug and contraband smug- Traffic was such a success: Through its barbaric, and corrupt; his implication gling (Nevins 69). In 1993, after the depiction of Mexico and Mexicans, of Mexico as the agent of Americas “bombing of [the] New York’s World the film not only waves the political woes; and his election to omit any Trade Center by suspected unautho- flag that calls for continued militariza- facts that might portray an America rized immigrants,” an advisor to Presi- tion of the U.S.-Mexico border but it that is responsible for its own prob- dent Clinton explained that “there is a helps fortify what most Americans lems, he effectively mirrors the same fear that unless the administration gets (think they) already know, namely that ideological tenets held by the majority out in front, you’ll see what you did in by militarizing the border, they made of American culture, thereby perform- Germany: a violent reaction against the right choice. ing a critique of the United States immigration” (Nevins 88). As a result, while simultaneously propping up the on July 27, 1993, Clinton announced Conclusion ideologies that paint a picture of a hi- his plans to increase border enforce- Touch of Evil, The Border, and Traf- erarchized United States in the Ameri- ment, and on October 1, 1994, Opera- fic are, of course, not the only exam- can imagination—offering what Wood tion Gatekeeper was born. ples of films that speak directly to U.S. calls a “curious mix of old stereotypes Because a large portion of the action policy changes and the American and new perspectives regarding U.S.- in Traffic occurs in California, the film imagination. As Chon Noriega points Mexican relations” (756). speaks almost directly to Operation out, “most Chicano feature films are Wood’s comment about mixing old Gatekeeper and the rhetoric that pro- based on true stories or historical stereotypes and new perspectives is duced it, especially the holdover ideol- events,” with an obvious example particularly trenchant, especially when ogy from the Regan era that somehow being Born in East L.A. (1987), a film considering Traffic’s historical mo- implicates all of Mexico in drug traf- that “lampoons the Simpson Rodino ment and the events that formed the ficking and the still-held belief that our Immigration Reform Act of 1986 and specific U.S. border policies being en- southern border must be secure against English-Only Movement” (90, 113). forced during its release. Today, why illegals who may be a security risk to An even more recent example is the the film garnered such critical and the nation-state. But the film’s wide ac- short-turned-feature-length A Day Border Policy/Border Cinema: Touch of Evil, The Border, and Traffic 141
Without a Mexican (2004), which the Monthly Flow of Mexican Undocu- Evil.” New Centennial Review 1.1 seems to speak directly to President mented Immigration to the U.S., (2001): 75–105. George W. Bush’s proposed guest 1978–1982.” International Migration Porton, Richard. “Traffic.” Cinéaste 23.3 Review 24.1 (1990): 96–107. (2001): 41–43. worker program and the strong politi- Gibbs, Nancy. “New Frontier: La Nueva Pym, John, ed. Time Out Film Guide. 10th cal opposition it faces. Although the Frontera: A Whole New World: Along ed. New York: Penguin, 2001. three films investigated here are only a the U.S.–Mexican Border.” Time June Rosenbaum, Jonathan, and Orsen Welles. cross-section of the past fifty years, 11, 2001: 38–47. “Orson Welles’ Memo to Universal: they seem like an important starting Gilchrist, Jim. “Minuteman Project.” Mar. Touch of Evil.” Film Quarterly 46 point to begin thinking about the volu- 15, 2005