Notes on The New Latin American Cinema (López) and Film Artisans/Industries Foreword (Burton)
The New Latin American Cinema: An "Other" History
Core idea: Latin American cinema transcends national boundaries and is united by common problems of misery and the quest for economic, political, and cultural autonomy. Aims for an engaged, didactic, epic, revolutionary cinema with no frontiers, a shared language, and common problems. (Ana M. López)
Term overview: The New Latin American Cinema is a pan-Latin American, politically engaged cinema that seeks to transform the social function of cinema and address underdevelopment. It blends documentary and fiction, experiments with form, and strives for social praxis and consciousness-raising (concienciación).
Timeframe and unity: Emerged in the late 1950s–present; spans roughly 25-30\text{ years}, across at least a dozen countries, embracing multiple genres and production modes. Not a single nation, period, or manifesto, but a broad, evolving movement with a somewhat nebulous unity.
Distinctiveness from other cinematic 'new waves': Unlike Italian Neorealism, the French New Wave, or the New German Cinema, its unity is not tied to a single manifesto or a miracle year; its political and social aims knit diverse practices into a pan-Latin American project.
Definitional core (how López defines the term today):
Unity through a socio-political attitude oriented toward transforming the social function of cinema.
A project of cultural decolonization and autonomy from Hollywood/Russian-American dominance.
Aware of diversity and multiplicity of practices, yet aiming for a shared goal of challenging underdevelopment and promoting national/continental self-definition.
Not merely an aesthetic movement but a social practice linked to anti-imperialist, anti-colonial struggles.
Context of Emergence (1950s–1960s)
Post-1954–1957 crisis across Latin America: Industrial setbacks and market failures in major national industries tended to undermine national cinemas.
Brazil: Vera Cruz studio bankruptcy (1954) showed that capitalism and industrial structure alone cannot ensure cinema development; production 25-36\text{ films/year} (1955–1957).
Argentina: 1954 coup ousted Perón; state protection collapsed; production fell from peak in late 1940s/early 1950s to about 15\text{ films/year} by 1957.
Chile: Chile Films struggled; national production stalled.
Cuba: Cuban-Mexican co-productions dwindled; national production nearly disappeared at times.
Bolivia: Long-standing weakness in national cinema; no new national films since 1938.
By 1968–69, despite limited overall production, a qualitative shift occurred: new movements and leaders emerged (e.g., Birri in Argentina; Cinema Novo in Brazil; Cuba’s national cinema restructuring), and Cuba became the first Latin American nation to build a nationwide cinematic culture on a national scale (reorganizing cinematic experience).
National movements as catalysts for pan-Latin American formation:
Brazil: Cinema Novo emerges from the ashes of Vera Cruz.
Argentina: Nueva Ola (Young Wave) and Birri’s Santa Fe Documentaries propose alternative national consciousness and popular cinema.
Chile: Popular Unity and Allende period influence national cinema.
Bolivia: Jorge Sanjinés and others challenge state control to produce cinema for the majority.
Cultural-political milieu in the 1960s:
Cine clubs, film societies, magazines, and museum exhibitions fostered a public, self-conscious national film culture.
A shift from Hollywood toward art cinema and European paradigms (e.g., Italian neorealism) as tools to address underdevelopment.
What Is the New Latin American Cinema? (Definitional Framework)
López’s answer to the question: It is a process that consolidates a pan-Latin American identity through diverse practices rather than through a single country or manifestos.
Key claims about the movement:
Emerged slowly, without a single trigger event; its distinctiveness grew through the 1960s–70s and into the 1980s.
It is a political cinema committed to praxis and to socio-economic/ideological transformation in Latin America.
It is a social practice, tied to broader movements for cultural decolonization and autonomy.
It embraces multiple forms: documentaries, fiction, shorts, features, clandestine productions, and later, more industrialized outputs.
It foregrounds the viewer’s encounter with reality as a dynamic process, not a fixed given.
Core objective: Change the social function of cinema, making it an instrument of change and consciousness-raising; oppose foreign control of cinematic institutions and Hollywood hegemony; build a cinema of and for Latin America.
Pan-Latin American unity vs. national specificity:
The movement’s strength lies in its ability to articulate national concerns within a continental framework.
It links diverse national cinemas through shared aims, emphasizing solidarity and cross-border collaboration.
The term’s institutionalization: Today, the phrase New Latin American Cinema stands as a widely accepted umbrella term, even as the underlying practices remain diverse and context-dependent. Previous categories like Third Cinema, Imperfect Cinema, or Cinema of Hunger have largely subsumed under this umbrella.
Core features that bind the movement:
A cinema of authenticity: a commitment to representing social reality and national character.
A mix of documentary and fiction to challenge conventional signification and reception.
An emphasis on audience engagement and on confronting audiences with issues of underdevelopment and national identity.
A critical stance toward Hollywood and imperial cultural hegemony, with a focus on anti-imperialist agendas and cultural decolonization.
Mechanisms of National Cinemas Becoming Pan-Latin American (Argentina, Brazil, Cuba as case studies)
Argentina: Nueva Ola vs Birri’s program
Nueva Ola (1959–1961): A cosmopolitan, experimental, self-expressive wave in Buenos Aires; small-scale, elitist audience; not a national cinema per se; did not alter the economic base of production; economically limited export potential; politically disrupted by 1963–1966 military interventions and regime changes; did not generate a mass national cinema.
Fernando Birri and the Instituto de Cine Documental de Santa Fe: A critique of elitism; a push for a “new Argentine cinema” focused on national consciousness, not aesthetic defense of realism; commitment to a realist cinema with social commitments; aimed to document national reality in a way accessible beyond elites; prototypes included Tire Dié (mid-length social documentary) and Los Inundados; his approach profoundly influenced Argentine cinema and Latin American cinema more broadly, even though its direct productivity remained relatively modest.
Cuba: ICAIC and revolutionary cinema as institutional backbone
Cuba represented a distinct case: a socialist state cinema serving national and continental aims; strong institutional framework (ICAIC) that coordinated production, distribution, and exhibition; promoting a cinema oriented toward social change and decolonization; crucial in shaping the broader New Latin American Cinema through collaboration and exchange.
Brazil: Cinema Novo as revitalization
Cinema Novo: an effort to revitalize Brazilian cinema after Vera Cruz’s collapse; a form of national consciousness focused on social, economic, and political realities; combined artistic experimentation with radical political critique.
Common thread: nationalism redefined
The national in these discourses is not narrow nationalism but a redefined form of nationality that situates local realities within a Latin American, continental framework.
This redefinition seeks to reorient spectators, encourage critical reception, and empower audiences to recognize and act upon social realities.
The Mechanisms of Cross-National Exchange and the Birth of a Pan-Latin American Cinema
From isolation to exchange (early 1960s):
Initially, Brazilian, Argentinian, and Cuban filmmakers operated largely in national or isolated contexts, with limited cross-border interaction.
A shift began with international meetings and film festivals that fostered dialogue and collaboration.
Early pan-Latin American forums and their significance:
Sestri Levante (1962), Italy: A broad meeting of Latin American directors, critics, and producers; resolutions condemned cultural and cinematic isolation due to foreign control; emphasized collaboration and cross-national solidarity.
These discussions framed Latin American cinema as a unified project with shared political and aesthetic concerns.
Southern Cone collaborations and cross-border exchange:
Viña del Mar (1967): Festival that catalyzed a broader pan-Latin American consciousness and led to the creation of institutions like the Latin American Center for New Cinema and the Cinemateca del Tercer Mundo in Montevideo.
1969–1971: Mérida (Venezuela) and Caracas meetings continued to consolidate projects and exchange ideas; the 1968 documentary and fiction works shown (e.g., La Hora de los Hornos, Me Gustan los Estudiantes, Chircales, Por Primera Vez) showcased a range of approaches and reinforced a common agenda.
Outputs and organizational developments:
The Cinemateca del Tercer Mundo and the Latin American Center for New Cinema promoted alternative distribution and cross-national collaboration.
Cine Cubano reported on the 1967 gathering, emphasizing Latin American solidarity and the birth of the New Latin American Cinema.
The 1968 Mérida-Universidad de los Andes festival and the first Muestra de Cine Documental Latinoamericano helped codify the movement’s principles.
The defining festival moment and its impact:
The 1967 Viña del Mar and subsequent meetings demonstrated a unified purpose: to resist Yankee imperialism and to produce cinema reflecting Latin American aspirations and needs.
The movement’s unity became clearer as more films from diverse countries could be watched, discussed, and distributed under a common banner.
The 1968–1973 Window: Radical Politics, Innovative Forms, and the “What It Is Not” Criterion
When the movement becomes clearly identifiable (1968–1973):
Films were revolutionary and explicitly political, calling for an end to underdevelopment, poverty, oppression, hunger, exploitation, illiteracy, and ignorance.
Documentaries like The Hour of the Furnaces (Solanas and Getino, 1968, Argentina) served as explicit political instruments; other works by Mario Handler (Uruguay) and Santiago Álvarez (Cuba) similarly used film as a tool for social critique.
Fictional works also played a role, showing national faces and problems while subverting conventional cinematic forms to tell “other” stories (e.g., Memorias del Subdesarrollo, The Promised Land, Antonio das Mortes, The Jackal of Nahueltoro, The Courage of the People).
The movement’s range and boundaries:
The New Latin American Cinema did not include industrial or state-driven mainstream productions; it favored independent, marginal, or artisanal practices in countries lacking robust national film infrastructures.
Cuba remains an exception as a socialist state cinema integrated into the movement’s aims, but its influence was broader than mere Cuban export; the movement’s project predates and exceeds Cuba’s own priorities.
Cinematic strategies and reception:
Films mixed documentary and fictional modes to alter signification and engage audiences at multiple levels.
There was a utopian continental impulse—a cinematic expression of José Martí’s Nuestra América in filmic form.
Industry and form: two important distinctions
The movement did not involve industrial films or cinema dependent on dominant-sector production methods.
By the late 1970s, the Latin American cinema system faced new pressures: military coups, debt crises, censorship, exile, and repression, necessitating adaptation and exile strategies, as well as cross-border co-productions.
The 1970s–1980s: Repression, Exile, Video, and the Contested Ground of “Death” vs “Transformation”
Political backdrops complicate the movement:
Chile (1973), Uruguay (1973), Argentina (1976) military coups; long-term repressive regimes undermine the movement’s political opportunities.
Economic crises and external debt intensify pressures on film industries and funding mechanisms.
Shifts in production and distribution:
The rise of video as an accessible medium changes the spaces for oppositional filmmaking.
Co-productions become more common, allowing larger-scale productions but also complicating questions of national identity and ownership (e.g., Alsino y el Condor, 1983, filmed in Nicaragua with Mexican, Costa Rican, Cuban, and other collaborators).
The industry vs. movement tensions:
For many participants, the ideal of a marginalized, anti-imperialist cinema clashes with practical needs for industrial viability, distribution, and audience reach.
In nations with more developed film infrastructures (Brazil, Argentina, Cuba), the New Latin American Cinema gradually interweaves with mainstream industries, sometimes adopting official or state-supported models (e.g., Embrafilme in Brazil; state apparatus in Cuba).
The late 1970s–1980s: reassessing the project
Some critics argued the movement had become repetitive or exhausted its social function; others argued it had evolved and adapted to changing conditions.
Patricio Guzmán’s 1981 remark signals concerns about whether the movement’s premises remained relevant in the 1980s, even as co-productions, cross-national exchanges, and Havana’s festival reinforced ongoing vitality.
The evolving horizon:
The movement no longer lives solely on the margins; many works reflect a pan-Latin American consciousness while engaging with national-specific political moments.
Exile cinema, official national cinemas, and proto-industrial efforts in different countries illustrate the plurality of modes the New Latin American Cinema now encompasses.
The Question of Death, Continuity, and Transformation
The overarching debate: Is the New Latin American Cinema dead or alive?
Critics argued it had ended or repeated itself; others argued that it had evolved beyond the 1960s premises.
López argues against the blanket claim of death, emphasizing adaptation to changing conditions, the expansion of genres and production modes, and the strengthening of pan-Latin American collaboration (e.g., Havana festival, cross-border co-productions).
Key takeaway: The movement’s core impulse—cinema as a tool for political and social change—persists, even as its forms, institutions, and geographic scope have broadened and shifted.
Final perspective: Rather than declaring death, scholars should analyze how the New Latin American Cinema has changed, track its current expressive and social strategies, and consider its continuing commitments in diverse political contexts.
Notes on Method and Theoretical Framing
Methodological challenges López highlights:
Rethinking traditional film history categories (nation, periodization, single auteurism) to account for cross-national, cross-genre, and interdisciplinary dynamics.
Understanding influence not as mere imitation but as a process of exchange that generates difference through a shared political project.
Balancing nationalism and pan-Latin Americanism in ways that recognize local particularities while acknowledging continental solidarities.
Core concepts to remember:
Concienciización: consciousness-raising through film.
Otherness and cultural domination/hegemonic dynamic: how Latin American cinema negotiates its relationship to dominant global cinema.
National cinema vs. pan-Latin American cinema: how national practices feed into, and are reinterpreted within, a broader continental project.
The role of state institutions, film clubs, and distribution networks in shaping reception and access.
Key People, Films, and Institutions (Overview)
People and collectives:
Fernando Birri (Argentina): Santa Fe Documentary School; national consciousness project; Tire Dié; Los Inundados.
Glauber Rocha (Brazil): Cinema Novo; discussed in López’s opening frame as a theoretician of a radical, national cinema.
Tomás Gutiérrez Alea (Cuba): La Hora de los Hornos and other works; Cuban revolutionary cinema in dialogue with the movement.
Patricio Guzmán (Chile): Chilean cinema in exile; later participation in Havana festival discussions.
Jorge Sanjinés (Bolivia): Frontier of indigenous cinema and counter-hegemonic practices.
Representative films and works (illustrative list):
La Hora de los Hornos (1968, Argentina) – Solanas & Getino
Memorias del Subdesarrollo (1968, Cuba) – Tomás Gutiérrez Alea
El Chacal de Nahueltoro (1968–1969, Chile) – Miguel Littín
Me Gustan los Estudiantes (1968, Uruguay) – Mario Handler
Chircales (1968, Colombia) – Marta Rodríguez & Jorge Silva
Por Primera Vez (1967, Cuba) – Octavio Cortázar
Alsino y el Condor (1983, Nicaragua) – Miguel Littín (co-produced; example of cross-border collaboration)
Institutions and forums:
ICAIC (Cuba): state-run film institute central to revolutionary cinema and pan-Latin American collaboration.
Embrafilme (Brazil): state organism influencing the trajectory of Brazilian cinema.
Cinemateca del Tercer Mundo (Montevideo): distribution and exchange hub for Latin American cinema.
Festival and meeting venues: Sestri Levante (1962), Viña del Mar (1967), Mérida (1968), Caracas (1971, 1974) – sites for dialogue, solidarity, and practical collaboration.
Thematic Synthesis and Real-World Relevance
The New Latin American Cinema as a social project: It sought to transform the region’s cultural landscape and to provide an empirical counter-narrative to external domination in the cultural sphere.
Practical implications: The movement pushed for institutional changes (state support, new distribution channels, film schools, festivals) that could sustain national cinemas and foster regional collaboration.
Ethical and political dimensions: The cinema is framed as a tool for emancipation and social justice, not merely an art form or entertainment product.
Global relevance: The movement contributes to broader debates about development, decolonization, and the politics of culture, illustrating how film can be integrated with social theory and political practice.
Footnotes and Contextual References (Selected Highlights)
1955–1957 production levels and national declines referenced in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, and Bolivia; use 25-36 films/year (for Brazil) and 15 films/year (Argentina) as numeric markers.
The Sestri Levante (1962) agreement and the Viña del Mar (1967) festival mark turning points toward pan-Latin American dialogue.
The 1968–1973 window is characterized by a fusion of documentary and fiction and a militant political stance; major works include La Hora de los Hornos (1968) and Memorias del Subdesarrollo (1968).
The persistent question of “Is the New Latin American Cinema dead?” is a recurring debate; López argues for transformation rather than death, pointing to ongoing collaborations, festivals, and organizational structures like the Havana International Festival of New Latin American Cinema as evidence of vitality.
Foreword: Film Artisans and Film Industries in Latin America, 1956–1980 (Julianne Burton)
Context: The Foreword situates The Battle of Chile (Part I, 1975–1979) within a broader discussion of the material conditions of cinema and the theorization of a materialist or praxis-oriented cinema.
Iconic moment: A camera operator filming a tank and apparently being executed on camera underscores a central claim: the image carries the trace of its own production conditions, including risks to those who shoot it and the political stakes involved.
The central analytical challenge: How do modes of filmic production and distribution shape what cinema can say and do? The image’s cost, and the risk to the filmmaker, exemplifies this inquiry into the relationship between form, content, and material constraints.
Broader aim: To illuminate the theoretical and critical implications of variations in modes of production and consumption across Latin American film artisans and industries between 1956 and 1980, as a complement to López’s historical narrative.
The Battle of Chile as an emblematic case: A montage of documentary realism and political cinema that foregrounds the inseparability of production conditions, political context, and cinematic meaning.
Source note: The Foreword appears in Working Papers, No. 102, Latin American Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Smithsonian), 1981, pp. 1–25.
Key Equations and Time References (LaTeX-formatted)
Early production declines and ranges: 1955-1957; production levels around 25-36 films/year.
National production benchmarks: Argentina at 15 films/year by 1957.
Timeline anchors: 1954 (Vera Cruz crisis), 1959 (Cuban Revolution), 1962 (Sestri Levante), 1967 (Viña del Mar), 1968-1969 (shift toward political realism), 1968 (Hour of the Furnaces), 1973-1978 (The Battle of Chile), 1982 (IV International Festival of the New Latin American Cinema in Havana), 1983 (Alsino y el Condor).
Periodization lens: The New Latin American Cinema spans a 25-30 ext{-}year window beginning in the late 1950s ext{–}present.
Synthesis: Why This Material Matters for Your Exam
The New Latin American Cinema is a historically grounded, cross-national movement characterized by political aims, diverse production modes, and a pan-Latin American horizon.
It challenges conventional histories that privilege national narratives or a few canonical auteurs by foregrounding exchange, influence, and shared socio-political projects.
It illustrates how cinema can function as a site of resistance, cultural decolonization, and social change, while also confronting tensions between marginal practice and mainstream industrialization.
The Foreword by Julianne Burton complements López’s historical account by foregrounding the material conditions of making films and how production realities shape cinematic form and political content.
Quick Reference (Glossary of Core Ideas)
concienciización: consciousness-raising through film.
Nueva Ola: Argentine Nueva Ola (1959–1961) – cosmopolitan, experimental, elite-focused cinema that helped seed a national consciousness but did not become a mass national cinema.
Cinema Novo: Brazilian movement seeking social critique and national transformation through experimental forms.
ICAIC: Cuban Institute of Cinematographic Arts and Industry; key actor in state-led revolutionary cinema and cross-border collaboration.
Sestri Levante: 1962 festival that formalized a Latin American cinematic exchange and condemned isolation.
Viña del Mar: 1967 festival that catalyzed regional solidarity and institutional collaboration.
The Battle of Chile: A major documentary project (Part I: 1975–1979) that foregrounds the interplay of politics, production, and danger in documentary cinema.
Appendix: What to Remember for Exam Answers
The New Latin American Cinema is best understood as a continental, politically engaged, multi-form project that seeks to redefine national cinemas within a shared regional struggle for autonomy and social justice.
It arose from a mix of external influences (Neorealism, French New Wave) and internal, bottom-up pressures (cine clubs, regional exchanges, state support in some countries).
Key turning points include Sestri Levante (1962), Viña del Mar (1967), Mérida (1968), and the Havana festival era, which together solidified cross-border collaboration and defined the movement’s political aims.
The movement’s evolution through the 1970s–1980s shows both resilience and transformation: exile, state involvement, video production, and cross-border co-productions alter its form but not its underlying commitment to social change.
The Foreword by Julianne Burton highlights how production conditions—risk, cost, institutions—shape what cinema can say, illustrating the materialist critique of cinema that underpins the theoretical terrain of Latin American film studies.