Election time is nigh and a mid-level politician wants to win his party's favor to get a shot at a higher position, but an oversized scandal in an otherwise insignificant village threatens to become a thorn in the party's side if it is not brought under control. He sends a low-level patsy to quietly quell the unrest in the town so that his promotion goes according to plan.
Most reviewers call this movie a satire or a black comedy, and to be sure, both of these terms apply, but I see it as being most precisely categorised as an allegory.
The characters are not very well-developed and they clearly represent archetypes in a system where corruption is allowed to flourish. Juan Vargas is supposed to be the simple-minded but idealistic rank-and-file party member who believes in the revolution's ideals. The gringo is the rapacious foreigner looking to profit off of the woes and troubles of the people in a poorer country. The townspeople represent the repressed lower and middle classes which bear their troubles for a good long while before exploding in random acts of violence.
We know these characters not because the movie develops them, but rather on an intuitive level. In fact, the film just presents them as extreme charicatures that fulfill their function in this parable on corruption.
It's not that I doubt that there are many examples of corrupt politicians and priests who are so brazen that they have become one-dimensional silent film villains; nor do I think there are townsfolk who have been so long repressed and left in ignorance that they are, on their own end, equally one-dimensional in accepting their situation. No, the characters in this movie might be genuine, but truth is no defense in cinema - the film must make us believe what it is presenting.
No doubt this is a very important movie about a very important topic, but it's a bit too simple and preachy for my taste. It tries to rely on humor and archetypes to get its message across rather than plot and character development (and the humor often falls flat, at that).
If you think of something like Gulliver's Travels, on the other hand, that book can stand alone as a good fantasy novel even beyond its satirical message.
The same goes for El Infierno, which would go on to become Luis Estrada's magnum opus and is very similar to this film. It informs on corruption and the drug trade by means of a riveting story that stands on its own even beyond its satirical content.
Honourable Mentions: Gulliver's Travels (2010). Even though the book by Jonathan Swift is one of the most excellent satires of all time, this movie has nothing to do with the original other than the title. It's also boring. I mention it to recommend you don't watch it.
Most reviewers call this movie a satire or a black comedy, and to be sure, both of these terms apply, but I see it as being most precisely categorised as an allegory.
The characters are not very well-developed and they clearly represent archetypes in a system where corruption is allowed to flourish. Juan Vargas is supposed to be the simple-minded but idealistic rank-and-file party member who believes in the revolution's ideals. The gringo is the rapacious foreigner looking to profit off of the woes and troubles of the people in a poorer country. The townspeople represent the repressed lower and middle classes which bear their troubles for a good long while before exploding in random acts of violence.
We know these characters not because the movie develops them, but rather on an intuitive level. In fact, the film just presents them as extreme charicatures that fulfill their function in this parable on corruption.
It's not that I doubt that there are many examples of corrupt politicians and priests who are so brazen that they have become one-dimensional silent film villains; nor do I think there are townsfolk who have been so long repressed and left in ignorance that they are, on their own end, equally one-dimensional in accepting their situation. No, the characters in this movie might be genuine, but truth is no defense in cinema - the film must make us believe what it is presenting.
No doubt this is a very important movie about a very important topic, but it's a bit too simple and preachy for my taste. It tries to rely on humor and archetypes to get its message across rather than plot and character development (and the humor often falls flat, at that).
If you think of something like Gulliver's Travels, on the other hand, that book can stand alone as a good fantasy novel even beyond its satirical message.
The same goes for El Infierno, which would go on to become Luis Estrada's magnum opus and is very similar to this film. It informs on corruption and the drug trade by means of a riveting story that stands on its own even beyond its satirical content.
Honourable Mentions: Gulliver's Travels (2010). Even though the book by Jonathan Swift is one of the most excellent satires of all time, this movie has nothing to do with the original other than the title. It's also boring. I mention it to recommend you don't watch it.