Towards a Third Cinema: Notes and Experiences for the Development of a Cinema of Liberation in the Third World
Context and Problem: From Spectacle to a Cinema of Liberation
Early film industry was largely aligned with System interests: cinema equated with spectacle/entertainment and served owners of the film industry, mainly from the United States.
Films typically bore witness to social injustice but addressed effect rather than cause; described as cinema of mystification or anti-historicism and surplus value cinema.
Key questions for liberation cinema: how to produce liberating films with limited budgets when costs are thousands of dollars and distribution channels are controlled by the enemy; how to guarantee continuity of work and reach audiences under repression and censorship.
Critics argued: revolutionary cinema must wait for revolution or for revolutionary political power; such views were rooted in bourgeois models of production, distribution, and exhibition (Hollywood).
The authors argue that reformist, two-bloc politics (USSR vs USA) cannot yield true cinema sovereignty; at best it yields the progressive wing of Establishment cinema.
A new historical situation emerged: after ten years of the Cuban Revolution, the Vietnamese struggle, and a worldwide liberation movement centered in the Third World. This created a masses-led context for revolutionary cinema.
Examples of early contemporary movements and films: Newsreel (US New Left), Italian cinegiornali, Etats Généraux du Cinéma Français, British and Japanese student cinema, Joris Ivens, Chris Marker, Santiago Alvarez (Cuba), and other Latin American efforts toward a revolutionary Latin American cinema.
The role of intellectuals and artists is debated: two poles—(a) reduction of intellectual work to political/military function, denying space for artistic activity; (b) dual role of “work of art” and political commitment, often leading to a separation of politics and art.
The authors identify two omissions that fuel these dualities: (i) assuming culture/science/art/cinema are univocal universal terms; (ii) misunderstanding that revolution begins not simply with seizing political power but when masses sense the need for change and their vanguards organize across fronts.
Neocolonial culture vs national culture: culture and cinema respond to conflicting class interests; in neocolonialism two competing conceptions of culture exist—rulers’ culture and national culture. The universal category will emerge only when liberation is universal and man is truly emancipated.
Neocolonialism promotes cultural penetration, mass media, and educational colonization to depoliticize cultural expressions and absorb them into System needs.
The mass media claim “Beauty in itself is revolutionary” and “All new cinema is revolutionary,” but such universal abstractions miss the national decolonization context.
The System tolerates a degree of protest but can absorb it; leftist art can become the System’s brake and self-correction.
The authors call for a culture of subversion that emerges from national emancipation, not imported universal aesthetics. Decolonization should materialize in culture, cinema, and beauty as part of a broader liberation project.
The economic and political trajectory in Latin America is toward more authoritarian forms, not bourgeois-democratic regimes; the cycle of national bourgeois experiments has largely closed. The continent is positioned for a war of liberation where national liberation must be tied to social liberation (socialism).
The intellectual’s commitment requires risk-taking; passive solidarity is insufficient in a state of law replaced by a state of facts. The documentary impulse is a tool for anti-imperialist struggle.
The authors argue that classic European “national character” cinema has been overridden by Hollywood’s global hegemony; even purportedly “author’s cinema” often remains within Hollywood-derived structures, language, and ideologies. Even Soviet epics like Bondarchuk’s War and Peace illustrate how empire-directed forms shape ideological content.
The cinema’s mechanistic transformation into a show, with a standard duration and hermetic structure, serves bourgeois interests by reducing viewers to consuming subjects and turns history into spectator experience.
The first alternative to bourgeois cinema is the so-called second cinema (author’s/expressive cinema, nouvelle vague, cinema novo). Yet these remain trapped within the system’s constraints and may become the right’s “youthful, angry wing.”
Genuine alternatives require one of two conditions: (a) films that the System cannot assimilate, or (b) films that explicitly fight the System. These conditions are not met by the second cinema.
The authors propose a cinema of liberation (the third cinema) as an open possibility beyond the System’s allowed forms.
Emergence of Third Cinema and the Revolutionary Framework
Neocolonial penetration cuts intellectuals off from national reality by aligning them with universal art/models. The most exploited and “uncivilized” sectors contribute most to national culture’s emancipation; elites may distrust intellectuals and artists.
Popular organizations in Latin America distrusted intellectuals, fearing art-politics contamination; many preferred democracy against fascism rather than confronting imperialism's core contradictions.
The neocolonial project isolates artistic production from national liberation, obscuring root causes and emphasizing outer causes (e.g., democracy vs fascism) instead of imperialism vs native oligarchy.
The revolutionary cinema must connect its forms with popular struggles, training cadres who know how to handle cameras, tape recorders, and projectors; OSPAAAL (Organization of Solidarity of the People of Africa, Asia and Latin America) contributes to film production/distribution for anti-imperialist struggles.
Distinctions between professional film production and revolutionary filmmaking are redefined: the organizing principle is the struggle for power and its cultural frontier parallel, not separate.
The authors emphasize the need for a continental, cross-border continuity of work, using regional and international gatherings to exchange experience and plan joint work.
Core Concepts: Third Cinema, Culture, and Decolonization
Third cinema is the cinema that recognizes the Third World’s anti-imperialist struggle as the most significant cultural, scientific, and artistic manifestation of our time; it seeks to construct liberated personalities with local starting points, i.e., decolonization of culture.
Neocolonial culture is a major force of ideological control, turning national realities into dependent models. It promotes the illusion of universal aesthetics detached from national processes.
Dualities and cultural penetration:
Our culture vs their culture; our cinema vs their cinema.
A bilingual culture: not two languages, but two coexisting patterns—national and estranging (subordinated to outside forces).
Upper-class admiration for U.S./Europe as a sign of subjugation and a channel for neocolonial thought.
Knowledge and data in neocolonial contexts are embedded in misinformation and “mirages”; the intellectual must avoid spontaneous thought in foreign languages that reflect a culture not their own.
Mass communications can be more destructive than napalm in destroying national awareness and collective subjectivity; truth becomes subversive.
The struggle requires a culture that mobilizes and politicizes the people; “virulence” and anti-system tendencies must be tied to concrete political aims rather than pure aesthetic dissent.
The mass media, education, and education systems collaborate to absorb and neutralize expression beyond the national struggle; this is the core of educational colonization.
A cinema that wants to be revolutionary must be capable of being political without losing its artistic vitality; it must be mobilizing rather than merely informative.
The Political Economy of Cinema: Production, Distribution, and Financing
The System’s film model (35mm, standard lengths, large theatres) is designed to unify ideology and commerce, turning viewers into passive consumers of a bourgeois worldview.
The first cinema vs second cinema vs third cinema distinction:
First cinema: mainstream Hollywood-like cinema serving capitalist interests.
Second cinema: author’s cinema, attempting to break from Hollywood but still constrained by system norms and market pressures.
Third cinema: cinema of liberation, explicitly anti-imperialist, designed to be outside the System’s needs and capable of fighting the status quo.
To be viable, guerrilla cinema requires: working outside the System’s normal circuits, creating production/distribution structures aligned with revolutionary organizations, and re-investing profits into future productions.
Practical challenges and solutions:
Early lack of equipment, technical difficulties, specialization bottlenecks, and high costs.
Advances: lighter cameras, faster film stock, rapid shooting in normal light, automatic light meters, improved audiovisual synchronization, and widespread specialized publishing.
Chris Marker’s experiments with worker groups and 8mm equipment to democratize filmmaking.
A key method is to democratize access to filmmaking tools so that workers and ordinary people can film their own reality, thereby subverting the monopoly of the System on image production.
The authors emphasize a near-term strategy: fund-raising and distribution must be integrated with political work; a film’s economics should be part of a broader revolutionary plan.
16mm circuits in Europe are not ideal for neocolonial contexts but can supplement fundraising and help publicize Third World struggles to Western audiences (e.g., a Venezuelan guerrilla film could resonate more than many pamphlets).
End goals: to finance guerrilla cinema through expropriations from the bourgeoisie where possible, but also through structured distribution models that recover costs to enable future productions.
A multinational guerrilla cinema network is envisioned: group-level cooperation across borders, regional exchange, and a continental continuity of work; a genuine Third World film international.
The Film as Weapon: Destruction and Construction
The cinema of liberation is both destructive (of neocolonial images and the System’s myths) and constructive (rebuilding a living reality that captures truth).
The cinema aims to restitute things to their real place and meaning; it confronts the pseudo-objectivity of neocolonial media and counters it with authentic national reality.
Documentary and living witness are central: documentary film as a basis for revolutionary filmmaking, with images that can document, witness, refute, or deepen the truth of a situation.
The goal is to produce knowledge through action: the famous Marxist injunction to transform the world, not merely interpret it.
The cinema’s role in dialogue and knowledge exchange: testifying to national realities and enabling mutual exchange of experiences across continents to combat Balkanization and imperialism.
The Film Act: Open-ended Film and the Dialectic of Knowledge and Practice
Film act: an open-ended film that functions as a meeting and a catalyst for dialogue and action, not just a passive viewing experience.
Structure of knowledge in the film act:
Stage 1: sensation and perception (the living fresco of image and sound).
Stage 2: synthesis and concepts (the announcer/narrator guiding projection; didactics and exposition).
Stage 3: knowledge-action (the leap from rational knowledge to revolutionary practice).
The film act presupposes a specific setting; each projection act is unique, influenced by location, participants, time, and strategic aims. Variations and additions are possible to adapt to local conditions.
The film act integrates the audience as active participants (comrades who share risk and contribute their experiences). The spectator becomes an actor, and dialogue and debate follow showings.
The film act aims to insert itself into ongoing struggles, not to replace them; it should lead to action proposals and concrete mobilizations.
The film act emphasizes the dialectical unity of knowledge and action: the projection itself and the associated discussions anchor revolutionary practice.
The aims of a film act include strengthening revolutionary organization, mapping out practical steps, and creating a continuous process of learning and action.
Organization, Discipline, and Guerrilla Filmmaking: Group Dynamics and Security
A guerrilla film group operates like a guerrilla unit: needs military-like structures, centralized planning, and continuity; discipline and clear allocation of responsibilities are essential.
Risks include internal conflicts, group fragmentation, and external repression; all participants must understand and accept the discipline required, including security measures to protect the group.
The “myth of irreplaceable technicians” must be repudiated; every member should be capable of filling various roles across production stages.
Security and secrecy are crucial; groups must maintain a constant watch for infiltration and must manage the appearance of multiple projects to mislead the regime.
The group should maintain a filing center for materials and coordinate with other groups regionally or globally to sustain continuity.
Early distribution remains fragile: cinema is banned or suppressed in several countries; underground and apartment showings, university screenings, and cultural centers become primary venues.
Financing remains a collective political responsibility of organizations and militants; patterns include selling prints to fund future work and distributing prints through decentralised networks; profits should be re-invested into future films.
The long-term aim is to produce and distribute guerrilla films with funds drawn from expropriation and the sale of prints, while ensuring accessible pricing for audiences comparable to System cinema.
The authors outline potential distribution pathways: organizing, expropriation, box-office arrangements, and alternative channels. They anticipate a gradual shift toward broader access as political spaces open.
The networked, international character of guerrilla cinema is essential for sustaining momentum and sharing techniques, with regional and interstate collaborations.
Language, Form, and Ethics: A Critical Stance Toward Universalism
The authors caution against universal norms and universal aesthetics; films must reflect local conditions and the specificities of each liberation struggle.
They critique the notion that “universal art” or “universal beauty” can be severed from anti-imperialist political work; decolonization requires culturally grounded aesthetics and politics.
The role of the artist is not to serve as a passive aid to the System but to actively engage in political transformation; the artist must be politicized and mobilized.
They warn against reforms that preserve the System’s structure; reformist, cosmetic changes to the System’s cinema merely improve the left’s place within the System and do not advance liberation.
The “purity” of documentary forms is less important than their ability to mobilize and transform; pamphlet films, didactic films, and testimonies all have legitimate revolutionary value.
The risk of neopopulism: artists must avoid language or forms that pander to the masses without imparting critical insight or facilitating emancipation.
They emphasize that revolutionary cinema must intervene in situations and not merely illustrate or document them; the objective is transformative impact, not neutral observation.
The revolutionary filmmaker’s language must arise from a militant and transforming worldview; the aim is to craft a film language commensurate with the struggle’s intensity and scale.
Case Studies, Movements, and Examples Mentioned
The Hour of the Furnaces (La hora de los hornos): central to mobilizing audiences in Latin America and elsewhere; used as a catalyst for action and debate.
Santiago Álvarez (Cuba) and the Cuban documentary movement: exemplars of revolutionary documentary work.
Student and popular movements worldwide: cinegiornali, Zengakuren documentaries (Japan), Italian and French student films, etc.
OSPAAAL: provided solidarity and support for anti-imperialist film distribution.
Argentina: mass showings, apartment screenings, and later suppression laws; the film movement faced national repression but persisted underground.
Brazil: Cinema Novo faced increasing censorship.
Uruguay: large-scale screenings in Montevideo demonstrated audience mobilization (2,500 attendees).
Africa Addio (Jacopetti): critique of neocolonial representation of Africa; contrasted with the reality of anti-imperialist movements (Lumumbas, Lobegulas, Nkomos, etc.).
May 1968 events in France and the broader global student protests are cited as context for the power of documentary and political cinema to mobilize.
The authors reference their own experience making La hora de los hornos as an example of a film that triggered political engagement and debates among militants.
The 6 Core Propositions for Practice and Practice-Based Theory
Practice precedes theory: knowledge begins with practice; after practical experience, theory can be developed and then practice iterated.
The film’s language should emerge from a militant, transforming worldview tied to concrete struggles, not from preconceived universal norms.
The revolutionary filmmaker must be willing to take risks, endure solitude, and operate in hostile conditions; the popularity of System promotion media is not a constraint if the movement’s audience supports the work.
The film acts as a detonator for political action: a film should be subordinate to and insert itself within the people’s struggles, not dominate them.
The cinema of liberation must be built as a collective enterprise; a group-centered, militarized, and disciplined approach is essential to survival under repression.
The ultimate aim is the decolonization of both filmmaker and film; culture should emancipate minds and transform social relations, not merely represent them.
Key Numerical References and Formulas (LaTeX)
35 mm camera:
Frame rate:
Mass media capacity in Argentina (neocolonial penetration):
Large audience example in Uruguay:
Sugar harvest goal utilized as an example of political-economic mobilization:
European 16 mm circuits as fundraising adjuncts: not a single numeric figure, but referenced as a distribution mechanism; context implies international circuits capable of funding and publicity
The quotation from Marx about interpretation and transformation is referenced as:
Connections to Previous Lectures and Real-World Relevance
The text situates Third Cinema within a longer lineage of anti-imperialist documentary and militant art (Newsreel, cinegiornali, Marker, Ivens, Alvarez) and aligns with Fanon’s call for revolutionary action and decolonization.
It connects to foundational Marxist ideas: base/superstructure, the relation between culture and economic power, and the necessity of praxis (knowledge through practice leading to transformation).
It links theory to practical outcomes: ensuring that films function as instruments of political mobilization, not just aesthetic artifacts; building producer-consumer relationships that reinvest in liberation work; fostering cross-border solidarity (OSPAAAL, regional collectives).
Real-world relevance includes the use of films as political education in worker/student organizations, the strategic use of showings to catalyze debate, and the potential for cinema to create spaces of political agency within oppressive regimes.
Ethical, Philosophical, and Practical Implications
Ethics: a revolutionary cinema must avoid artifact fetishism; it must prioritize subversion of neocolonialism and empowerment of the masses, even when this challenges established reputations or institutional frameworks.
Philosophy: a dialectical materialist approach to knowledge and action; emphasizes practice as the driver of understanding and transformation. The artists argue for a continuous synthesis of theory and practice, with practice guiding theory and theory guiding action.
Practical implications: filmmakers must organize, train cadres, secure equipment, and create sustainable funding/distribution networks; they must also plan for long-term continuity beyond single film projects.
The risk of co-optation is acknowledged; any form of protest can be absorbed by the System unless it remains explicitly oriented toward liberation and anti-imperial aims.
The text encourages a radical redefinition of cinema’s role in society: from entertainment to a living, tactical instrument of decolonization and social transformation.
Summary of Themes and Takeaways
Third Cinema is not simply about making politically charged films; it is a strategic project to build a cinema of liberation that emerges from and serves mass anti-imperialist struggles.
Neocolonialism uses culture, education, and media to depoliticize and depersonalize national realities; Third Cinema seeks to counter this with culturally grounded, politically engaged, and locally rooted filmmaking.
The film acts as a vehicle for dialogue, learning, and action, not merely as a finished product; cinema should be open-ended and capable of producing further political initiatives.
Filmmaking becomes a guerrilla practice: disciplined, collective, and adaptable, with a focus on security, group cohesion, and international collaboration.
The ultimate objective is the decolonization of minds and cultures, not merely the decolonization of political power; liberation is a holistic project of transforming society, culture, and people’s consciousness.
Key Quotes to Remember
“The film act means an open-ended film; it is essentially a way of learning.”
“Knowledge begins with practice. After acquiring theoretical knowledge through practice, it is necessary to return to practice.”
“The cinema of the revolution is at the same time one of destruction and construction.”
“Destruction and construction. Decolonizing action rescues… impulses.”
“Testimony about a national reality is also an inestimable means of dialogue and knowledge on the world plane.”
References and Notes
1: The Hour of the Furnaces (Neocolonialism and Violence)
2–13: Various theoretical and practical footnotes cited in the text (imperialism and culture, national concept, Mao on practice, Che Guevara, etc.)
Mention of Fanon, Mao Tse-tung, Che Guevara, Rodolfo Puigross, and others as intellectual anchors for the argument.
Translation amendments by Cineaste (Julianne Burton et al.)
Contextual examples: Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Uruguay, Cuba, Africa, Vietnam, and France (May 1968).
Final Note
The text argues for a cinema that refuses to be absorbed by the System, instead creating a transnational, anti-imperialist, participatory, and politically engaged form of film practice that seeks to decolonize culture itself as a foundation for broader social transformation.