criterionforum.org

Nice edition of an important work, but for all its strengths, this is really not a good film. Nothing wrong with the intentions, general storyline or structure. There's a definite intelligence behind some of that, and the Mayan references and visual patterning as well. But oh my the perfunctory dramatics. The characters are uniformly poorly conceived, poorly written and poorly performed: relentlessly one note and ploddingly on-message. I wish I could limit the bad acting criticism to the Americans as others have done, but I think it's more a case of subtitles masking the thinness elsewhere.

On the plus side, the film and transfer look simply magnificent. As far as I'm concerned John Glennon is the real star of the show. The detailed making-of is good. It's certainly a more interesting story than the one in the film it documents. Nava's commentary is plodding, earnest and informative, like El Norte itself.

Still, I'm glad I've seen it. Good and bad, it really sets the tone for an awful lot of American indies that have followed in its wake.

zedz wrote:The characters are uniformly poorly conceived, poorly written and poorly performed: relentlessly one note and ploddingly on-message. I wish I could limit the bad acting criticism to the Americans as others have done, but I think it's more a case of subtitles masking the thinness elsewhere.

Agreed. David Villalpando was pretty bad, obviously cast for his doe eyes. Zaide Silvia Gutiérrez fared better, but not always. Their love and devotion was played dangerously close to incestuousness. The dialogue completely lacked subtext and didn't serve the actors well at all.

Still, the narrative thrust was well-paced, and the situations were believable enough that I can say that I liked the film. But adding a third-dimension to the major characters would have done wonders. Same goes for couching the emotions and messages in subtext.

zedz wrote:Nothing wrong with the intentions, general storyline or structure. There's a definite intelligence behind some of that, and the Mayan references and visual patterning as well. But oh my the perfunctory dramatics.

Agreed. Nava name checks the right artists (Welles and others) in the commentary. The ingredients were there, some excellent locations and music, just not the overall execution. I wish I could chalk it up to it being his first movie. But seeing something like My Family doesn't make one think he got much better, sorry to say.

HistoryProf wrote:Can anyone comment on the commentary? No one has yet, and I wonder if it's worth the sit down.....my kevyip is so damned large I rarely take the time to listen to them when i could be watching something new.

The movie is much more entertaining with the commentary on. Especially with Nava's smooth as silk voice. Hell, one doesn't need to watch the movie; just listen to the commentary. He's got one hell of a behind-the-scenes story to tell.

Anthony wrote:I just watched this for the first time last night. Maybe it's just me, but the the acting by the english speaking Americans was horrible. I kind of felt like I was watching a "Sunday Night at The Movies" on network TV back in the 70's. Dreadful stuff. Parts I & II in Guatemala and Mexico were pretty good. The acting by Ernesto Gómez Cruz & Zaide Silvia Gutiérrez seemed believable, real and touching. But then they arrive in the U.S. in part III and all the U.S. actors act like they are trying to destroy the movie. The acting by the American actors from L.A. just felt... cartoonish.

Actually, the lighter tone begins when they get into Mexico hitching with the truck driver. Nava intended there to be at least a somewhat jaunty feeling to the film rather than a grinding existential struggle for survival. Part of the problem might have been the tight schedule Nava was constantly facing, among other things.

jbeall wrote:In the film's defense, I guess it's not terribly heavy-handed by 1983 standards

Not that 2012 standards are that advanced, either. In fact, they just might be worse.