Camila.

I love when class assignments allow me to write informally and self absorbedly about films. Like for Camila.

I think, as a whole, I liked this film, but at the same time, there were a number of points about it that I didn’t like.
The film begins sort-of in medias res in that Camila’s grandmother is arriving at their home, and it is not immediately apparent that she has been sexually involved with a member of the clergy—although it is vaguely implied, and it’s definitely spelled out on the back of the box. In medias res is actually fine with me, but I think the film fails to do it smoothly, and I find this grating.
Additionally, I’m not sure how good the production values are. I understand that this was filmed in the 1980’s, but to be honest, the harshness of the lighting, contrast, and colors, combined with the quality of the footage itself, make it look like a BBC TV series. Or maybe PBS. This is a shame. Although I do not know if the costumes, hair, and make up are appropriate to the time period and location, they are exquisitely and excellently done. I wish that the characters looked as good on the screen as I think they probably did in real life.
The script was well done, but certainly not perfect. A good amount of the dialogue between Ladislao and Camila was overdramatic swill. This is particularly aggravating in that this is certainly a stereotype afforded to Latin American screen productions—being excellently exhibited in Mexican soap operas (thank God Americans don’t all talk like the recently reborn 90210). Additionally, the passionate scenes—although there aren’t an abundance of them—are a little over the top, and rather sloppy. This, however, I found to be an endearing quality of the film, as it made the characters seem much more human. I do not believe in the existence of the overly glamorized sleekness of Hollywood sex.
I did feel like Camila’s brother, however, was a shill character, which is a shame. The religious brother of the philandering sister has a lot of potential for fantastic character development, and yet throughout the film he is a completely flat character. The father, as well, is very one dimensional—perhaps this is supposedly how people were in the mid 1800’s in Argentina, but I doubt it. If the film makers were really trying to highlight the difference between Ladislao and Camila with the rest of the characters as individual and independent, thinking characters versus the flat puppet like depictions of their counterparts, adamant and unthinking in their social roles, it could have been done much more artfully (or artfully at all), so that it resembled a story telling technique rather than a bleak omission.

The story itself was interesting to watch; it was particularly interesting for me because, although I began watching the film blindly, I happened to watch the first hour of the film the day before Dr. Burnett discussed it in class. This means that I had the perfect context in which to watch it—a discussion of the culture and history that were defining the time period and the area. Unfortunately, this also meant that she spoiled the ending for me, although I’d probably read it on the back on the box anyways, and then just forgotten. However, I think that, were the film not based on true events, it would have been an incredibly lame story—very trite. Instead, it was almost shocking, and I think this is probably what made the film worthwhile.
I think that the film did an okay job showing the context of the setting, but I think this could have been done better as well. I certainly got a feel for what life in Argentina was like in the mid 1800’s, but I’d hardly say I understood it. The film makes it clear that Camila is in the upper class, as she donates her old clothing, etc., but it never shows the other classes and what their life is like, or why, as Ladislao says, they would have no use for the clothing of a rich woman. At the very least, it seems they could be made into blankets or rags.
Additionally, there is one scene where Camila and her brother hear gun shots and run to the door to watch men ride past on horses shooting their guns into the air. This scene could contribute to the description of the period, but it lacks any type of explanation—leaving the watcher confused and uncertain what had just happened. Had we not discussed it in class, I would not have known what had happened, and it would have simply been an incongruous and out of place event in the film.
The tone was interesting; it was very open and nonjudgmental. It seemed to have little to say about what was happening within the film. Although Camila’s family (besides her father) seemed upset about what was happening, and although the men who executed the lovers seemed unwilling to do so, the script itself, as well as the making of the film, seemed to lack any real sort of commentary on the issue and the situation, portraying the whole situation very simply and straightforwardly. Once again, if this was done (in my opinion) more masterfully, it could have been a much more affecting film, but once again, I felt that it fell short of this.
Camila was a decent little film, but altogether seems to lack any sort of strong statement, either about the time period, the story, or the art of film.