Comments on: The Dangers of Not Thinking Politically: A Review of Sin Nombre

By: German

German — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:49:30 +0000

If Fukunaga never made the film what would you rant about, Star Trek’s racial inequalities? The lack of gender representation in “Hunger” because no Irish women chose to starve themselves? The voiceless computer perspective in “Terminator: Salvation”?

Your perspective in this blog is so limited to your singular agenda that your “dissident” perspective is over shadowed by the true goal of the piece, your own ego. The goal of the film, according to the director/writer, is to show the immigrant journey, to share with the audience an experience that many have never seen nor felt before. I didn’t read in any interview a goal to write a thesis on border issues, gang proliferation, or political agendas.

If you feel so strongly, write your own film, or better yet, write an essay to further the cause which you so fervently support that doesn’t rely on this film [to hate on]. In short, don’t denigrate a film that in essence is fighting to show what you pretend to support, or is sympathetic towards a similar cause because your voice then reeks of exploitation and political righteousness.

Focused on all that wasn’t covered in the film, are you losing the forest from the trees? The mere fact that the film was produced is a miracle. Rather than critique it, try and find the good in the film and use it to your advantage, find a way to use it as a tool for dialogue that constructively looks at this debate rather than peacock feathers (couched in references) that highlight your recent library readings (or personal published essays).

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 27 May 2009 01:46:23 +0000

The only thing “problematic and confusing” I see is this review. You raise pointed questions about Fukunaga’s intended purpose in creating the movie, but make no effort whatsoever to answer them. Surely augmenting the film’s portrayal of Mexican gang violence by pointing out the American government’s complicity in its development is worthy enough, but decrying the film’s failure to raise the issues hardly qualifies as legitimate criticism, given its limited scope. As it stands, the points you raise in your article are vague enough to give the intimation that anyone who portrays Mexico negatively is an imperial apologist.

By: Maria Padilla

Maria Padilla — Tue, 26 May 2009 01:58:17 +0000

I enjoyed your commentary on “Sin Nombre,” which I saw today at an art house (sorry). You make many valid points regarding immigration and U.S. policy. However, I still find it a haunting movie. It reminded me of the 80s film “El Norte,” which also stayed with me for a while. I will take issue with only one point in your critique, and that is that the Mara Salvatrucha is a distincly Salvadoran gang that, as you correctly state, has become internationalized due to the U.S. policy of deporting criminal illegal immigrants. It is not a Mexican gang, so the film doesn’t reflect poorly on Mexico per se. The characters are traversing through Mexico, indicating Mexico has an immigration problem of its own that we rarely or never hear about.

By: John

John — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:56:28 +0000

“…it presents a largely one-dimensional view of Mexico as a land of violence with few honorable people.”

“One-dimensionable”? I spent over twenty-years in Mexico as an “undocumented North American worker”—enslaved there by a “paracaista.” And only once did I encounter an “honorable person.”

They are either blatantly not or refuse to commit themselves one way or the other to avoid any situation involving honor as a matter of sheer self-protection. Mexico is that corrupt and corrupting.

The only “one-dimensionable view of Mexico” that I have encountered since returning home stateside is the presumption Mexico must be like the U.S.A..

“It (of the Rio Grande) separates us from our absolute differences.” — Octavio Paz