Placing Touch of Evil, the Border, and Traffic in the American Imagination

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 justice” (Wollen 22). Furthermore, by changing the script to focus on international 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.

Load more