In today’s society, most films are for entertainment purposes. However, there are films that are meant for entertainment but spark up a debate, such as Carlos Carrera’s film, The Crime of Father Amaro (2002). Widely known for its corrosive view of the Catholic Church, the film focuses on the young priest, Father Amaro and others breaking vows of chastity, accepting drug monies, a sexual encounter with fleeting nudity, and abortion.
Carrera’s film has sparked many debates, most debates dealing with the corruption or controversy within the Catholic Church. For that reason, I will be focused on raising the question of how this film is viewed in other countries, because it presents an interesting viewpoint from an international lens. I will focus specifically on two countries, and then I will analyze how one country’s viewpoint differs from another. And if there is a negative reaction to the film, what is the main cause of it?
The two countries were chosen based on their significance to the film. The United States was chosen based on the U.S film industry which allows studios to take chance on more risky movies, emerging screenwriters, and unknown actors. Which therefore allows various genres to enter the “movie scene” without any barriers. The film takes place in Mexico, which was the main reason why it was chosen. A majority of its population is of the Catholic Religion, which can create a biased viewpoint in the Mexican’s reviews of the film.
In the United States, most film critics are either famous or just the average person writing a review on a film. However, that doesn’t stop the flow of opinions from people. I will be using both The New York Times newspaper’s review of the film and the website “Rottentomatoes.com”, which ...
... middle of paper ...
...an conclude that both countries present their strong viewpoints however, the United States is able to see both side of the film, while Mexico only looks at one side. The critics from the United States were able to see the film in both a positive and negative light. There is an equal balance of how they viewed the film, on one hand they see the film’s technique and story line, and on the other they see the truth behind the corruption. While the Mexican viewers only see one side, and turn away from the other. They only see the film as trashing their religion. However, there are some implications when trying to generalize a country as a whole because not everyone has the same opinion or idea.
Thompson, Ginger. "Mexico City Journal; Uproar Over a Movie Priest Going His Own Way." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Oct. 2002. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.