User:Bleff/sandbox24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Golden Age of Argentine cinema
Época or Edad de Oro del cine argentino (Spanish)
Film posters of a few notable titles from the 1933–1956 period. From top, left to right:
Years active1930s–1940s or 1950s[note 1]
Main genres
Major studios
Influences

The Golden Age of Argentine cinema (Spanish: Época de Oro or Edad de Oro del cine argentino),[1][2] also known as the broader classical or classical-industrial period (Spanish: período clásico-industrial),[3][4] is a period in the history of the cinema of Argentina that began in the 1930s and lasted until the 1940s or 1950s, depending on the definition,[note 1] during which national film production underwent a process of industrialization and standardization that involved the emergence of mass production, the establishment of the studio, genre and star systems, and the adoption of the institutional mode of representation (MRI) that was mainly—though not exclusively—spread by Hollywood,[4][12] quickly becoming one of the most popular film industries across Latin America and the Spanish-speaking world.[13]

Argentine industrial cinema arose in 1933 with the creation of its first and most prominent film studios, Argentina Sono Film and Lumiton, which released ¡Tango! and Los tres berretines, respectively, two foundational films that ushered in the sound-on-film era.[14][15] Although they were not national productions, the 1931–1935 films made by Paramount Pictures with tango star Carlos Gardel were a major influence on the popularization of early Argentine sound cinema.[16][17] The nascent film industry grew steadily, accompanied by the appearance of other studios such as SIDE, Estudios Río de la Plata, EFA, Pampa Films and Estudios San Miguel, among others, which developed a continuous production and distribution chain.[12] The number of films shot in the country grew 25-fold between 1932 and 1939, more than any other Spanish-speaking country.[18] By 1939, Argentina established itself as the world's leading producer of films in Spanish, a position that it maintained until 1942, the year in which film production reached its peak.[10]

Beginning in 1943, as a response to Argentina's neutrality in the context of World War II, the United States imposed a boycott on sales of film stock to the country, causing Mexican cinema to displace Argentina as the market leader in Spanish.[13] During the presidency of Juan Perón (1946–1955), protectionist measures were adopted,[18] which managed to revitalize Argentine film production.[19] However, financial fragility of the industry led to its paralysis once Perón was overthrown in 1955 and his stimulus measures ended.[20][21] With the studio system entering its definitive crisis, the classical era came to an end as new criteria for producing and making films emerged,[22] including the irruption of modernism and auteur films,[4] and a greater prominence of independent cinema.[23] The creation of the National Film Institute in 1957 and the innovative work of figures such as Leopoldo Torre Nilsson gave rise to a new wave of filmmakers in the 1960s,[24] who opposed "commercial" cinema and experimented with new cinematic techniques[25][26]

The audience for early classical Argentine cinema were the urban working classes, so its content was strongly rooted in their culture,[27][28] most notably tango music and dance, radio dramas, and popular theatrical genres like sainete[29] or revue.[9] Much of the themes that defined the Argentine sound cinema in its beginnings were inherited from the silent period, including the opposition between the countryside and the city, and the interest in representing the world of tango. As the industry's prosperity increased, bourgeois characters shifted from villains to protagonists, in an attempt to appeal to the middle classes and their aspirations. Starting in the mid-1940s, Argentine cinema adopted an "internationalist" style that minimized local references, including the disuse of Rioplatense Spanish and a greater interest in adapting works of world literature.[30] The historiography of Argentine cinema has often interpreted this change negatively, arguing that it undermined the national identity that made it unique.[3]

Background[edit]

1896–1928: The silent era[edit]

French immigrant Eugenio Py is generally considered to have made the first films of the country in the 1890s.

Argentine cinema is almost as old as cinema in the world.[31] Thomas Edison's first kinetoscopes arrived in Buenos Aires in 1894, but true film projections were only possible thanks to the Lumière brothers' cinematograph, with which a series of presentations were made on 28 July 1896 at the Teatro Odeón.[32][33] In 1897, the first projectors and cameras—from the Lumière and Gaumont firms—reached the country through Enrique Lepage's photography store, Casa Lepage.[33] Their technician, the French Eugenio Py, became the first person to systematically film in Argentina;[33] he shot the 1897 short La bandera argentina, a register of the national flag which is generally considered the country's first film.[32] Other authors consider that the first films belong to the German Federico Fignero, who shot different views with a vitascope in 1896, aided by the camarographer José Steimberg.[34] In addition to Lepage and Py, the third figure who dominated film production at this time was the Austrian Max Glücksmann, who was initially an employee of Casa Lepage and later acquired the firm in 1908.[35][36] The works of these early years of Argentine cinema correspond to actuality films.[35] As noted by historian José Agustín Mahieu, this stage of national cinema "naively discovers the magic of movement, the direct capture of the landscape, of the event. The camera is still a primary eye planted in front of the facts. Over any other concern (artistic or cultural) prevails the technical curiosity, the exploration of a tool that is just beginning to be known."[36] Thus, a small-scale commercial exploitation began, with the Casa Lepage offering projectors and films to restaurants, cafes or other entertainment venues.[36] The company dominated the country's film production for a decade, dedicating to filming curiositites and current events such as official state visits, festivities and tourist sights.[32] In 1900, the first movie theater, the Salón Nacional, was inaugurated, and soon more venues dedicated to the projection of films were opened.[36]

A frame from Mario Gallo's La Revolución de Mayo (1909), regarded as the first narrative film of the country.

At the end of the 1900s, the incipient Argentine cinema made significant progress with the appearance of the first narrative films, which encouraged production and distribution.[32] These were the work of the Italian Mario Gallo, who had arrived in Buenos Aires a few years before as part of an opera company.[37] There is confusion as to which was the first narrative film in the country: those who date its release in 1908 consider it to be El fusilamiento de Dorrego,[36] while more recent researchers point out that this film is actually from 1910 and the first one was really La Revolución de Mayo, released in 1909.[38] For this reason, May 23 is considered National Film Day in the country, in commemoration of the release date of the latter film.[39] In the manner of the French film d'art trend, Gallo's films were closer to photographed theatre, almost always on historical topics.[36] In 1914, Glücksmann produced the oldest surviving feature film, Amalia, very similar in style to Gallo's films.[40] The film was an initiative of the Buenos Aires aristocracy, and premiered at the prestigious Teatro Colón with the attendance of President Victorino de la Plaza.[40] With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, European film production retreated, which resulted in an abundance of Argentine production in the following years.[41] As noted by Mahieu, during this time Argentine cinema "tends to abandon its character of empirical adventure, to become an entertainment industry. New distributors appeared, and in 1914 Pampa Film was founded, which produced several films."[42]

The unprecedented commercial success of Nobleza gaucha (1915) inaugurated a new boom period for Argentine silent cinema.

Before the arrival of sound films, Argentina experienced a "golden age" of silent films and led their production in Spanish, with more than 100 feature films being made between 1915 and 1924, equal to the combined total of those made in Mexico and Spain.[43][10] During the first three decades of the 20th century, more than 200 silent feature films were produced in the country, in addition to a large number of documentaries, newsreels and shorter fictional works.[31] The release of the 1915 film Nobleza gaucha—a project by Humberto Cairo, Eduardo Martínez de la Pera and Ernesto Gunche—was a turning point in Argentine film history,[44] opening new artistic and economic paths.[35] Nicknamed "the goldmine" by distributors and exhibitors, Nobleza gaucha was an unexpected massive commercial success which remained in theaters for more than two decades,[45] and was also released in Spain and several Latin American countries.[46] The artistic and commercial possibilities that the success of this film signaled translated into a growth of film activity in the country, with new producers and directors following its path; however, none were able to reach the initial success of Nobleza gaucha.[46] Martínez de la Pera and Gunche followed with the release of Hasta después de muerta (1916), Brenda (1921), Fausto (1922) and La casa de los cuervos (1923).[45] Another notable production of the era was Juan Sin Ropa (1919), produced by a partnership between the prestigious actors Camila and Héctor Quiroga and the French filmmakers Paul Capellani and Georges Benoît.[41] This period is also significant for the emergence of the country's first woman filmmakers,[47] the production of numerous newsreels and documentaries,[48] and the first animated feature films in cinema history by Quirino Cristiani.[49] Reflecting on the Argentine silent era, Peña wrote:

If anything characterizes Argentine silent cinema, even during its most prolific period, it is its dispersion and diversity. Instead of being concentrated in large companies, production appears atomized in dozens of independent enterprises, technically assisted by a relatively small number of specialists and laboratories (or "talleres" [workshops], in the terms of the time). This phenomenon explains its wide thematic variety and its singularities: in this mode of production, opposed by definition to the mass production favored by the big studios, the exception was the rule.[47]

María Turgenova and Ermete Meliante in Perdón, viejita (1927), one of the many tango-based films by José A. Ferreyra, of great influence for later cinema.

In the early 1920s, Argentine silent cinema entered a crisis caused, on the one hand, by the recovery of European industry after the end of the war and, on the other hand, by the ascent of Hollywood cinema to a position of unparalleled international dominance.[50] Leopoldo Torres Ríos, a future filmmaker and one of the country's first film critics, denounced this situation in 1922: "When they show an Argentine production, they do it as if it were alms. Those same gentlemen endure daily the cinematographic detritus sent from the East to the West and our public, on their immense, broad backs, carries it without a protest."[51] The 1920s was marked by the activity of four main directors: José A. Ferreyra, Nelo Cosimi, Edmo Cominetti and Julio Irigoyen.[52] In this decade, the first model of tango-based films was systematized, despite the absence of sound, with titles including Milonguita (José Bustamante y Ballivián, 1922), La cieguita de la avenida Alvear (Julio Irigoyen, 1924), La borrachera del tango (Edmo Cominetti, 1928) and La vendedora de Harrods (Francisco Defilippis Novoa, 1921).[53] These silent films laid the groundwork for the tango melodramas that defined the Argentine cinema of the early classical period in the following decade.[54]

The most complete form of the silent "tango melodrama" model was the work of José A. Ferreyra,[55] who began his career in the mid-1910s and stands out as the most important Argentine filmmaker of the 1920s,[56] and would continue to be a central figure during the transition to sound and later in the classical-industrial period.[51] Considered a precursor of neorealism, Ferreyra's influential style was characterized by its profoundly local identity, with characters and situations linked to the world of tango lyrics and the urban working classes of Buenos Aires, in whose streets he filmed with low resources and often starring non-actors.[51][57] Many of Ferreyra's titles point to a connection with the mythology of the city and its music: La muchacha del arrabal (1922), Buenos Aires, ciudad de ensueño (1922), Mi último tango (1925), El organito de la tarde (1925), Muchachita de Chiclana (1926), La vuelta al bulín (1926) and Perdón, viejita (1927), among others.[55] Some of these films were based on specific tangos while others inspired the composition of new tangos, and also incorporated other elements of popular culture such as sainete and serial novels.[58] As noted by film historian Jorge Miguel Couselo: "In Ferreyra, also a sporadic lyricist, the identification with tango is total. His adherence to Buenos Aires, to the most needy and suffering face of Buenos Aires, is a porteñismo of soul, temperament and habit, synonymous with tango. The subject matter of his films is tango, an eager search to discover the dramatizable facets of the city song, its habitat, its types, its conflicts, its symbolic candor, its accessible tragedy."[55]

1929–1932: Transition to sound films[edit]

María Turgenova in Ferreyra's Muñequitas porteñas (1931), one of the first sound films in the country, which used the sound-on-disc technique.

Around 1929, the inventor Alfredo Murúa—founder of Sociedad Impresora de Discos Electrofónicos (SIDE)—became a partner of the Ariel production company, and produced the short film Mosaico criollo, with his own sound-on-disc system.[59] Mosaico criollo, the first instalment of an intended series, is not a spoken film but rather a filmed "musical revue".[59] Murúa was responsible for the sound of most of the Argentine sound films made between 1931 and 1933, always using the sound-on-disc technique.[59] The most important was Muñequitas porteñas (1931) by Ferreyra, for its pioneering use of spoken dialogue, although there were several others that used it partially, such as Amanecer de una raza (1931) by Cominetti, El cantar de mi ciudad (1930) by Ferreyra or La vía de oro (1931) by Cominetti; or that used sound to record only music and sound effects, among them ¡Adiós Argentina! (1930) by Mario Parpagnoli, La canción del gaucho (1930) by Ferreyra or Dios y la patria (1931) by Cosimi.[59] It also happened that originally silent films were re-released with new sound added, as in the case of Nobleza Gaucha and Perdón, viejita, among others.[59] As noted by Fernando Martín Peña: "In this sense, the transition [from silent to sound films] was complex and very similar to that which had just taken place in the United States and Europe."[59]

Carlos Gardel in Luces de Buenos Aires (1931), the first in a series of films produced by Paramount Pictures featuring the tango star that was decisively influential on the incipient local producers.

As in other countries, the arrival of sound films put in check the international dominance of American cinema due to the language barrier, leaving a market available.[59] This situation was analogous to the one that occurred during World War I, when the European film crisis benefited Argentine producers.[59] Hollywood tried to deal with these difficulties with attempts at dubbing that ended up failing and also with various forms of subtitling, although this still required technical development and also excluded illiterate audiences.[59] Eventually, the U.S. industry reacted by making little acepted Spanish-language versions of its most important productions, although they found the greatest success once they began to make produce original Spanish-language films made to showcase Latin American stars.[59] Among them, the 1931–1935 films made by Paramount Pictures starring Carlos Gardel stood out, and became a major influence on the emergence of an Argentine sound film industry.[16][17] Before being hired by Paramount, Gardel—the most popular performer in the history of tango—had starred in a series of short films using optical sound between 1930 and 1931, which were directed by Eduardo Morera and produced by Federico Valle.[59] The first of Gardel's feature films produced by Paramount was Luces de Buenos Aires, released in September 1931 to great success.[59][60] By this time optical sound had demonstrated its advantage over disc systems, so the equipment was progressively replaced in a process that lasted throughout 1932.[59]

Despite being foreign productions, Gardel's films may be considered as part of the history of Argentine cinema, as they were conceived by the singer himself together with other Argentine artists (like his lyricist Alfredo Le Pera or revue producer Manuel Romero), and their model corresponded to that of the tango dramas directed by Ferreyra during the silent era, resulting in a strong Argentine identity.[59] In addition, their great commercial success demonstrated the commercial viability of a cinema of Argentine identity for the incipient local producers that would inaugurate the Golden Age period in 1933.[59][60] Paradoxically, Hollywood's attempt to dominate the local market would soon result in the birth of the national industry, which would take Gardel's films as a model to be replicated.[60] According to Peña, the success of Gardel's films was "in fact the success of Ferreyra's and Torres Ríos' ideas taken up by a popular idol and legitimized for the local culture because of their 'foreign' condition".[59] In an interview, Argentine film historian Clara Kriger felt that: "... we [Argentine film historians] always say 'in 1933 the industry was born in Argentina', and the truth is that I would say that until Gardel appeared in films, Argentine cinema practically did not exist on billboards; very little Argentine cinema was being seen. Gardel is what gives Argentine cinema that strength on the billboards."[61] Another aspect little mentioned by historians is that the last four Paramount productions with Gardel were in fact the singer and Le Pera's own productions that the studio agreed to finance, with full property rights for both creators after a first period of commercial exploitation.[59]

Development[edit]

1933–1935: Birth and growth of the industry[edit]

The Argentine film industry took off in 1933 with the release of the first national optical sound films: ¡Tango! (left) and Los tres berretines (right), produced by Argentina Sono Film and Lumiton, respectively.

The year 1933 meant the beginning of an industrial organization in Argentine cinema due to the emergence of Argentina Sono Film and Lumiton—[15]—the first optical sound film studios in Latin America.[62] and the almost simultaneous release of their first productions ¡Tango! and Los tres berretines, respectively, the first feature films with optical sound in Argentine cinema.[63] According to Matthew B. Karush, the "growth of Argentine cinema resulted from the efforts of small entrepreneurs who proved adept at catering to local tastes", citing Angel Mentasti—founder of Argentina Sono Film—as a typical example.[64] Inspired by the Hollywood model, Mentasti introduced serial industrial production to local filmmaking,[65] and his plan consisted of "[forming] a company on the basis of three films and not release the first until the second had started and the third was announced."[66] The project was born after Luis Moglia Barth contacted Mentasti with the idea of producing a film entirely starring the popular performers of revue theater, tango and radio.[63] The duo secured financing from two different capitalists, which inspired them to create the company Argentina Sono Film and undertake serial production to give them a better chance of negotiating with distributors.[66] The musical ¡Tango! premiered on 27 April 1933 and attracted audiences for its select cast of popular performers, including Luis Sandrini, Azucena Maizani, Mercedes Simone, Libertad Lamarque, Pepe Arias and Tita Merello, among others.[67] While Tango! was being released, Argentina Sono Film was shooting its second film, Dancing (1933), which had little repercussion,[68] while the great success of the third film, Riachuelo (1934), allowed the economic viability of the studio.[69]

View of Lumiton in Munro, Greater Buenos Aires, c. 1930s.

Lumiton was founded by César José Guerrico, Enrique Telémaco Susini, Miguel Mugica and Luis Romero Carranza, a group of well-off entrepreneurs who had been responsible for introducing radio to the country in 1920.[63][68] The group had traveled to Hollywood in 1931, where they studied the novelty of optical sound films and decided to bring the new technology to Argentina.[70] After purchasing a complete film equipment at Bell & Howell in Chicago, they returned to Buenos Aires and began building a studio in Munro, Buenos Aires Province, replicating the sound stages they had seen in Hollywood.[70] Thanks to the financial backing of its founding partners, Lumiton became a pioneer in the industrial and autonomous conceptualization of production.[71] The company brought in experienced technicians (including cinematographer John Alton) and opened its first film gallery in December 1932, beginning production with an adaptation of the successful play Los tres berretines.[63] Released on 19 May 1933,[72] the film's credits do not name the director, screenwriter or technical staff.[70] Although ¡Tango! is often considered the first success of classical Argentine cinema, research on the box offices of the time indicates that Los tres berretines had an even greater impact on audiences.[73] In both films, Sandrini plays an awkward, stuttering comic archetype that he had previously consecrated in the theatrical version of Los tres beretines.[74] With some variations, Sandrini played this character in the rest of his films of the decade, which established him as a star of humorous cinema in the Spanish-speaking world during the 1930s and early 1940s.[74]

Ada Falcon and Ignacio Corsini in Ídolos de la radio (1934).

The joint success of ¡Tango! and Los tres berretines confirmed the existence of a growing demand and led to the simultaneous appearance of several production companies eager to take advantage of the opportunity.[75] The growth of the industry was reflected in the increase in production, from 6 films released in 1933 to 14 in 1935,[76] half of which were directorial debuts.[24] Among them were Manuel Romero, Mario Soffici, Daniel Tinayre, Luis Saslavsky and Alberto de Zavalía, who opened new perspectives to Argentine cinema.[77] One of the companies that emerged during this period was Río de la Plata, founded by musician Francisco Canaro in 1934 with a modest studio located in downtown Buenos Aires.[75] Its first production was Ídolos de la radio—directed by Eduardo Morera—which sought to attract audiences with a star-studded cast of radio personalities, including singers (including the only film performance of tango star Ada Falcon), comedians, orchestras and announcers.[78] Another company was Productora Argentina de Filmes (PAF), which supported the entry into Argentine cinema of French filmmaker Daniel Tinayre, whose debut film was Bajo la Santa Federación (1935).[75] Luis Saslavsky and Alberto de Zavalía presented in 1935 their first films, Crimen a las tres and Escala en la ciudad, respectively, which were produced with family money disguised under the name of the Sifal production company.[75] Manuel Romero, impresario of popular theater, joined Lumiton after the economic failure of the company's second film Ayer y hoy (1934) and brought it a new box-office success with Noches de Buenos Aires (1935).[71] Romero would become one of the most prolific directors of classic Argentine cinema, known for the speed with which he shot and released his films, most of them with Lumiton.[71]

Tita Merello and Fernando Ochoa in Noches de Buenos Aires (1935).

In addition to new production companies, the demand for Argentine films prompted the emergence of independent productions, that is, those that were made outside the studios.[75] However, Peña notes that the term "independent" for these films is actually a misnomer, as "this classification loses sight, for example, of the fact that in the early years of sound, Argentina Sono Film itself was not really a 'big studio' and could have disappeared like many other production companies of those years", and that "all ventures lacking significant financial backing (as only Lumiton had) were intensely dependent on commercial success and in this sense the mode of production remained, as in the silent period, atomized, adventurous, fragile."[75] Alton temporarily stepped away from Lumiton to make his own film, El hijo de papá (1933) starring Sandrini, which was such a failure that it caused the latter to set the film's negatives on fire.[75] Moglia Barth also decided to try independent production, moving away from Mentasti to make Picaflor (1935), although the following year he returned to Argentina Sono Film.[75] Also in 1933, the film El linyera directed by Enrique Larreta was released, which is considered more of a filmed theatrical piece than a cinematographic work.[79] The director who had the greatest success in independent filmmaking was Ferreyra, with three films released between 1934 and 1935: Calles de Buenos Aires, Puente Alsina and Mañana es domingo, all of them made with "very few resources but recovering the poetics of his best silent period."[75]

Olga Mom and Florindo Ferrario in Monte Criollo (1935)

The new industry quickly gained traction and grew steadily over the next decade, despite the fact that Hollywood continued to have a vastly superior advantage over local producers.[64] The Argentine film studios were very small compared to powerful companies such as Paramount, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Warner Bros., Twentieth Century-Fox, Columbia, Universal and United Artists, all of which had offices in Buenos Aires and other cities in the country by 1935.[64] Lacking the bargaining strength of foreign companies, Argentine producers couldn't secure a distribution system guaranteeing a share of gross receipts, thus resorting to flat fee sales.[64] According to Karush, "the steady growth of the domestic film industry in such adverse conditions reveals that filmmakers had tapped a powerful demand for Argentine sound films."[64] Despite financial challenges, Argentine studios did have some specific competitive advantages, including the country's long tradition of popular theater, especially the short comic plays called sainetes; by offering similar entertainment at a more affordable admission price, local filmmakers could attract an audience that already existed.[60] Additionally, a significant portion of this audience either couldn't or didn't prefer to read subtitles that accompanied English-language films.[60] The gradual consolidation of the film industry impacted other areas of the broader entertainment industry, as the interplay between cinema, radio, and music led to a unified commercial approach, supported by specialized publications, fostering a star system reminiscent of Hollywood but tailored to Argentina.[28] According to Octavio Getino, the rapid growth of the nascent Argentine film industry was made possible by several factors, which include: the preceding industrial, technical, and commercial experience that, albeit limited, was unparalleled in Latin America; the temporary inabiliy of the United States to retain Spanish-speaking audiences with their films; the popular style and themes of Argentine cinema, which were much more in tune with those of other Latin American countries; and the composition of the primary audience of Argentine cinema, comprising large groups of urban workers, either recently migrated from the country's interior or originating from European immigration.[18]

1936–1942: The rise and fall of international dominance[edit]

View of the shooting of the films Puerto Nuevo (1936) (top) and La rubia del camino (1938) (bottom) in the studios of Argentina Sono Film and Lumiton, respectively.

The industrialization process was accompanied by standardization in production,[13] going from 6 films released in 1933 to 14 in 1935, 30 in 1937, 41 in 1938,[76] and an average of 50 films per year in the following four years.[64] The 1936 release of the film Ayúdame a vivir—directed by Ferreyra and starring Lamarque—was a key moment in the economic history of Argentine cinema, since it "contributed enormously to its popularity throughout Latin America and was the key that finished opening the continental markets in which it expanded the most during its golden age."[80] According to Karush, Lamarque's films were "international hits and paved the way for other Argentine productions, allowing Argentina's studios to dominate the Latin American market until they were overtaken by the Mexican film industry in the mid-1940s."[81]

By 1937, there were 9 film studios and 30 production companies in Buenos Aires.[64] In 1938, 16 new directors debuted, most of them coming from the theater, including Caviglia, Alippi, Guibourg, Ivo Pelay, Coronatto Paz, Ernesto Vilches or Eduvaldo Viana, among others.[82]

In 1939, Argentina became the world's leading producer of Spanish-language films, with a new record of 50 feature films being made.[62]



The evolution of Argentine and Mexican film production between 1933 and 1945, measured in number of feature films released.[76][83] Since the emergence of industrialization in 1933, Argentine cinema grew exponentially and became the world leader for the production of films in Spanish by 1939.[13] This primacy ended abruptly in 1943, when the United States imposed a boycott on sales of film stock to the country and provided a series of benefits to the Mexican industry.[84]

The decline experienced by the Argentine industry compared to the Mexican industry is not attributed only to US intervention, but also to a series of defects in its commercial management.[85] The success of national cinema did not favor the industrial production sector so much as it did the commercial sector, that is, distributors and exhibitors.[86] As noted by José Agustín Mahieu, the growth of the industry "did not translate commercially into parallel income for production. With a suicidal improvisation, the directors of the industry delivered their films at a fixed price, so that the major profits produced by the eventual public successes remained in the hands of the distributors. The invested capital was thus subjected to limited, short-term plans."[87] In an article published on 29 July 1942 in Heraldo del Cinematografista, Luis Saslavsky pointed out these issues:

I still believe that Argentine cinema has reached adulthood and that its problems do not belong, therefore, neither to infancy nor to adolescence. But this is only true in terms of production. As far as distribution and exhibition are concerned, it is still taking its first steps. The films that are lovingly and neatly finished in the laboratories, are then mistreated, neglected... The business leaders of our industry are the children who have been left behind and have not grown up with us. They, the businessmen, have systematized a policy of incomprehensible exploitation. Touched by the urgency of realization, they have not yet achieved the serenity of judgment that should reign in any commercial operation. We live in a perpetual auction of balances. Films are auctioned in heterogeneous piles.[85]

The cinema of Mexico, on the other hand, had begun to adopt a more favorable long-term policy for its development, through direct state management of production, distribution and exhibition companies, unlike the free market that reigned in Argentine cinema.[86] For example, since 1942 the country had the National Film Bank (Spanish: Banco Nacional Cinematográfico), which helped finance the productions.[88]


https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/toma1/article/view/9294

1943–1955: Industry crisis and protectionist measures[edit]

Throughout the 1930s, the Argentine state had remained largely on the sidelines of the development of the film industry.[89] This situation began to change with the overthrow of President Ramón Castillo in a 1943 military coup.[89] By ushering in a nationalist government that rejected liberal economic principles, the coup laid the groundwork for the state to protect the Argentine film industry.[90] The new military government created the Undersecretariat of Information and Press of the Presidency, which included a General Directorate of Public Shows with three divisions: Cinema, Theater and Control.[89] As noted by Peña: "As happened in subsequent legislation, the law creating this Undersecretariat begins by guaranteeing "the dignity of the right to free expression of ideas" but goes on to detail the various mechanisms it foresees for not doing so. The agency regulated the production of news programs, the content of which became closely dependent on state policy, although it had not previously been characterized as confrontational either."[89] Faced with a shortage of raw film stock, studios attempted negotiations with domestic theater chains for improved terms; when these negotiations faltered, the matter was escalated to Juan Domingo Perón's Secretariat of Labor and Welfare.[90] In response, Perón issued a decree favoring the studios, instituting a percentage rental system and mandating a quota of Argentine films to be shown in theaters.[90] This decree, with slight modifications, would significantly shape the film industry following Perón's presidential election in 1946.[90]

After the end of World War II, the United States maintained its raw film stock restrictions on Argentina.[91]

A 1947 law mandated that domestic films constitute 25% of screen time in first-run porteño theaters and 40 percent elsewhere in the country.[90] Simultaneously, the Banco de Crédito Industrial initiated financing options for domestic film producers, while producers also received a substantial subsidy funded by a minor fee added to ticket prices.[92] Through the implementation of this law, the established legal and official parameters for the development of the Argentine film industry were set.[6] Although these measures didn't restore international sales, they successfully revitalized film production levels: in 1950, the industry released fifty-six films, finally reaching the peak it had attained in 1942.[92] Due to limited capitalization and the idiosyncrasies of Argentina's protectionist framework, there was a tendency to produce low-budget films.[92] These films, reliant on subsidies, were assured screen time irrespective of their quality.[92] The Peronist government actively pursued a moralizing and nationalistic agenda in the domestic cinema.[92] Films deemed to be "of national interest" were granted privileged access to government credit, and the government centralized the distribution of raw film stock, favoring specific producers.[92] By 1949, with the appointment of Raúl Alejandro Apold, former press chief for Argentina Sono Film, as the undersecretary of information and press, the regime had effectively shaped a film industry where every artistic decision fell under political control.[92]

According to Valeria Manzano, the Peronist government "intervened in the film industry on two levels. On the one hand, by offering credits and different types of financing to some studios (...). On the other hand, (...) films were officially consecrated (through the annual awards granted by the film critics) that presumably carried a strong moral charge, reinforcing generic values such as solidarity, the maintenance of family unity, 'patriotism' and fundamentally pointed out 'binary' oppositions characteristic of the Peronist discourse: 'people/oligarchy' / 'lust/austerity', among others."[6]

According to Kriger:

Everyone knew that there were things that could not be said. There was no written decalogue and there was no prior censorship. That is, [if anything] they didn't give you credit if you presented a certain script. There was no prior censorship, but everybody knew that there were things that were not going to get through. The censorship was tacit, but it existed. At one point, this was a fairly widespread idea in cinema in general for those times: if it wasn't political censorship, it was religious censorship, and so on. Here, what you knew you couldn't do was to speak badly of Peronism. There are no films critical of Peronism. It is not the time of critical cinema either. That is to say, there is no independent cinema.[61]

According to Peña:

... although it was highly questioned after the 1955 coup, no subsequent legislation to date has been able to improve its advantages or avoid its disadvantages. Argentina was not the only country in the world that had to design public policies to preserve its cinema, as almost all European countries had to do the same to try to limit the advance of American cinema in the immediate post-war years.[89]

1956–1960: Aftermath[edit]

The only releases corresponded to films made the previous year.[93]

Historiography[edit]

The first book dedicated to the history of Argentine cinema was Domingo Di Núbila's Historia del cine argentino, published between 1959 and 1960.[3] At that time, the idea of writing the history of the different regional cinemas arose in Latin America, inspired by the growing edition of books focused on the history and making of cinema in general.[3]

http://www.adversus.org/indice/nro-26/dossier/XI2609.pdf

Di Núbila's and Mahieu's books became foundational reference texts for subsequent historical studies of Argentine cinema.[3]


https://revistas.ucu.edu.uy/index.php/revistadixit/article/view/1339/1523

http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=telonde&d=5102_oai


In recent years, there has been a growing academic interest in studying Argentine and Mexican cinema of the classical period with a "transnational" approach.

Di Núbila (1959), Mahieu (1966), Dos Santos (1971), Posadas (1973), Couselo et al. (1984). Todos ellos, en mayor o menor medida, pueden detenerse sobre los géneros y la edificación de una industria nacional, pero sobrevuelan, por ejemplo, las pertinencias textuales de los sistemas narrativos que les son propios, la evidencia o no de los mecanismos enunciativos o, sencillamente, alguno de ellos acusa su deliberada tendencia política, tiñendo sus argumentaciones de indudables cuestionamientos razonables. En última instancia, se trata de textos que, o bien por su marcado registro historicista o por la época y las circunstancias en las que fueron escritos, no postulan, claro está, la historia del cine como la de la evolución del lenguaje cinematográfico concomitante con la evolución de la industria, los géneros y el contexto sociocultural específico.[94]

Style and themes[edit]

1933–1938: Tango and working-class culture[edit]

Musical numbers in Los tres berretines (1933) (left) and El alma del bandoneón (1935) (right). The early films of classic Argentine cinema were aimed at the porteño working classes, incorporating the popular tango music as one of its main attractions.[28]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41342240?read-now=1&x=87.4670485839251&y=181.65132065168362&w=671.1608303835834&h=472.371258920997&index=3&seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents

Generally speaking, the Argentine cinema of the 1930s was characterized by a deliberate effort to portray the working classes, which, in turn, emerged as its main consumers.[28]

The so-called tango melodrama (Spanish: melodrama tanguero) became the first defined genre in the Argentine cinema of the classic-industrial period.[95][96] This style had its antecedents in the silent films of the 1920s, especially in the work of José A. Ferreyra, focused on portraying the world and characters associated with tango, a genre linked to the lower-class neighborhoods of Buenos Aires.[55]

Peña noted that, although in terms of production the Argentine industry wanted to resemble that of the US and France, it "owes less to these other cinematographies than to its strong links with tango, radio or revue, forms of popular art from which many of its main performers, directors and screenwriters came. These roots not only conditioned a certain aesthetic in a particular way, but also the configuration of the various genres, which are almost always hybrids."[9]

As noted by Karush:

Melodrama, more than any other cultural mode, shaped the form and content of Argentine mass culture in the 1920s and 1930s. Producers working in the new media repackaged local traditions in order to offer consumers the Argentine authenticity they could not get from Hollywood or jazz. And when these producers looked to popular culture, what they found was deeply melodramatic. From the late nineteenth century on, the stylistic, formal, and thematic conventions of melodrama were visible on the porteño stage, in popular poetry, in the criollo circuses, and in pulp fiction. As a result, melodrama was omnipresent in the mass culture of this period. Both its aesthetic of emotional excess and its Manichean vision of a society divided between rich and poor were visible in every medium and in almost every genre. Melodramatic mass culture disseminated an image of a rigidly stratified Argentina that contrasted sharply with the complex and fluid class structure of the porteño barrios.[97]

Unlike Hollywood cinema, Argentine industrial cinema was slow to structure its production in the well-defined matrices of film genres.[98]

The first film genre of Argentine cinema consisted of a "sentimental narrative structure originated in the tango".[96]

The first Argentine sound cinema was strongly linked to the theater, which was reflected in their staging and acting style.[99] For example, in early films like ¡Tango!, Radio bar or Por buen camino, the "actors speak, move and gesticulate as if they were on a theatrical stage. The camera was limited to capturing those gestures and attitudes (which today seem excessive or exaggerated), often in fixed general shots, so that the actors could move without risk of going out of frame."[99] Some critics, such as Domingo Di Núbila, identified these "narrative weaknesses" in terms of "backwardness" in relation to the cinema of other countries.[99] On the other hand, writer Mario Berard suggests that it was actually a moment of "creative freedom", in which filmmakers "made use of the impunity of the 'no one knows' to freely appropriate the resources of the new medium. On the contrary, in the 40s and 50s, filmmakers submitted to the canons of the industry, giving rise to a homogeneous and strongly structured mode of representation."[100]

According to Ricardo García Oliveri, the directors of the early sound period "have in common the intuition, the enthusiasm and the sense of the popular. These directors generally come from the middle class and they all coincide, at this stage, in a naive cinema, considered ordinary by the upper classes and hardly costumbrist by the aesthetes, but with virtues that are not harmed by its eminently local content."[24]

Despite the enthusiasm with which local cultural producers imitated styles popular in the United States, their products tended to reproduce an image of an Argentine society deeply divided by class. Like their North American counterparts, Argentine filmmakers celebrated hard work, yet this trait was usually insufficient to overcome class prejudice. Argentine films appealed to their audience’s dreams of attaining wealth and living a good life, yet they delivered these consumerist fantasies alongside explicit denunciations of the selfishness and greediness of the rich. Tango stars performed in black tie and were celebrated as modernizers and innovators, yet they were only deemed authentic to the extent that they had roots in the gritty world of lower-class slums. Tango lyrics endlessly revisited the story of the pure, humble girl from the barrios seduced and ruined by an evil niño bien, or rich kid, and by the luxurious, immoral world of downtown cabarets. In short, Argentine mass culture encouraged consumers to identify the nation with the humble. Both the cinema and the radio celebrated poor people’s capacity for solidarity, generosity, and honesty while attacking the egotism, frivolity, and insincerity of the rich.[101]

The tendency of these early sound movies to emphasize and celebrate the cultural practices of ordinary Argentines

Gardel influence: "Paramount's success with Gardel showed Argentine filmmakers that they could compete with Hollywood by emphasizing their own authenticity. Argentine movies could speak to local audiences in a way that Hollywood films could not. They were set in familiar locales, and they starred actors who spoke Spanish in the local dialect and who were often recognizable to filmgoers from their previous careers in theater and radio. Moreover, these films drew their material from Argentina's popular cultural traditions."[60]

https://rephip.unr.edu.ar/handle/2133/15923

https://www.revistas.usp.br/significacao/article/view/134850/136940


From the late nineteenth century on, the stylistic, formal, and thematic conventions of melodrama were visible on the porteño stage, in popular poetry, in the criollo circuses, and in pulp fiction. As a result, melodrama was omnipresent in the mass culture of this period. Both its aesthetic of emotional excess and its Manichean vision of a society divided between rich and poor were visible in every medium and in almost every genre. Melodramatic mass culture disseminated an image of a rigidly stratified Argentina that contrasted sharply with the complex and fluid class structure of the porteño barrios.[102]


One of the defining styles of the industrial period was the so-called drama social-folclórico (English: "social-folkloric drama"),[103] films that deal with the contrast between the rural and urban universes, associating the people of the first area with goodness and those of the second with villainy.


As noted by Karush: "Domestic filmmakers benefited from the long tradition of popular theater in Argentina, particularly the short comic plays known as sainetes; by providing comparable entertainment at a lower admission price, they could capture an already existing audience."[60]

https://issuu.com/festivalinternacionaldecinedemardel/docs/notas_para_una_contra_historia_del_/1?ff&experiment=uplift

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=M8TzCQAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=mphsR8d-ZagC&pg=PA391

1939–1945: Turn to bourgueois topics[edit]

Mirtha Legrand in Los martes, orquídeas (1941).

The premiere on July 19, 1939, of Así es la vida, directed by Francisco Mugica and produced by Lumiton, marked a turning point for the themes, stars, directors, and representation universes in Argentine cinema.[28] For the first time, the ascending middle class and the bourgeoisie emerged as protagonists who elicited empathy and identification from the audience, in contrast to previous cinema that criticized and portrayed the upper classes as villains.[28] Unlike the ruling clases depicted in Manuel Romero's films, associated with the imagery of an elite land-owning oligarchy, the protagonists of Así es la vida belong to an industrial and professional bourgeoisie, something that promoted ideas of social ascent and appealed to the middle classes, through its celebration of hard work and family unity.[28] The film did not target differentiated audiences but encompassed both lower and middle to upper-class sectors, allowing identification for the latter while also shaping specific imaginations and aspirations; by integrating modernity into the national reality, it reconciled both factors through the exaltation of the family as a point of balance.[28]

The box-office and critical success of Así es la vida led to the proliferation of films that sought to imitate its style, such as Alberto de Zavalía's Dama de compañía, Luis Bayón Herrera's Mi fortuna por un nieto and Francisco Mugica's Medio millón por una mujer, all of them premiering in 1940.[28] However, none of these productions managed to replicate the success of Así es la vida, and debates persisted in the specialized press regarding the need to renew Argentine cinema without alienating the working classes.[28] These debates and problems seemed to be settled with the premiere of Mugica's Los martes, orquídeas on June 4, 1941, which was a success with both the public and critics, and opened the doors to a new style that would enjoy great success during the 1940s: that of the so-called bourgeois comedy (Spanish: comedia burguesa).[28] In particular, the film was the initiator and main exponent of the cine de ingenuas (roughly translated to "ingénue cinema"), the first dominant model adopted by bourgeois comedy.[28]

Although it has often been underestimated by historians, the cine de ingenuas was a genre of great relevance in Argentine cinema between 1941 and 1945, reaching 20% of national film production in 1942.[28] The style was defined


Trying to maintain its position and gain more markets, post-war Argentine cinema resorted to less local language and international stories.[24]

Gauchos https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1ps32cc.9?searchText=%22golden+age+of+argentine+cinema%22&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3D%2522golden%2Bage%2Bof%2Bargentine%2Bcinema%2522&ab_segments=0%2FSYC-6646_phrase_search%2Fltr&refreqid=fastly-default%3Ad5951331411b4c3a1024e40e9ee5f1ce&seq=8#metadata_info_tab_contents

1946–1956: During the Peronist era[edit]

Continuing the pattern that emerged in the early 1940s, Argentine cinema of the Peronist era predominantly focused on the comedy genre.[6]

Mahieu described the period as the "rise of the falsely international, hybrid cinema, the pink comedy, the hollow melodrama", although he commended the "isolated exceptions" of Pelota de trapo (1948), El crimen de Oribe (1950), Días de odio (1954) and Las aguas bajan turbias (1952).[93]

According to Peña, the "tendency of Argentine cinema to adapt foreign authors and works began timidly at the end of the 1930s and grew stronger until it reached delirious extremes ten years later. The obvious cultural affinities made the approach to Spanish or even Italian works more or less logical, but regardless of the geographical origin of the material, the problem was rather the criterion of the producers when choosing and conceiving their adaptation."[30] Examples of this trend include Saraceni's Los tres mosqueteros (1946), Soffici's El pecado de Julia (1946), Schlieper's Madame Bovary (1947), and Saslavsky's Historia de una mala mujer (1948), among others.[30]

Although there were no explicitly propagandistic narrative films, elements of the official Peronist discourse were reflected in the contents of the cinema of the time.[61] Researcher Valeria Manzano recognizes several elements of Peronist morality in the films of the period: "the preservation of the constituted home, class solidarity and the honoring of work as a value essentially involved in the 'march' of society as a whole."[6] The new class of the industrial "nouveau riche" was brought to the screen, contrasting them with "old money" industrialists.[6] In a parodic tone, these "new industrialists" are presented as oscillating, on the one hand, between the excessive luxury of their newly acquired wealth and, on the other, the imitation of old social patterns.[6] As noted by Manzano:

Everything appears exaggerated, even ridiculed: exuberant costumes, overloaded sets, and the chaos that reigns in these new "disordered" houses (as in C. Schlieper's 1950 film Esposa último modelo). In this chaos, marital entanglements take place more often than not, in which the "secretaries" take part: usually lovers of these confused husbands, the opposition of binary models of women (good/faithful/at home and its opposite) is reproduced ad infinitum. The resolution of these conflicts leads to a rarely disguised moral: any "male mischief" will be forgiven, as long as it does not endanger the security of the home. The latter will always prevail, the skein of confusions will be resolved and, more often than not, the help will come from a "faithful servant", who also brings into play a sort of "practical sense".[6]

On the other hand, Manzano focuses on the type of comedies starring Niní Marshall and Luis Sandrini, in which conflicts are resolved by tapping into a kind of "popular common sense".[6] These films often tell stories of low-skilled workers who dream of climbing a bit higher on the social ladder to a comfortable middle-class.[6] In these productions, there's a recurring theme of accepting class differences, especially in Manuel Romero films like Navidad de los pobres (1947).[6] Manzano writes: "The class society of Peronism coexists in the universe of the comedies: the classes share a code and a conflict, the relationships are friendly and pleasant, but the assigned places are never, ever subverted."[6] The other discursive axis that runs through the comedies of the period is a type of work ethic that is opposed to "corruption" and "idleness".[6] Manzano cites the films of comedy actor Pepe Arias as an example, in which his character "usually begins by dreaming of being able to escape the harshness of work and takes on a thousand characters to achieve it."[6]

Between the late 1940s and the 1950s, film noir (Spanish: cine negro) emerged as one of the main genres in Argentine cinema with the work of directors such as Daniel Tinayre, Carlos Hugo Christensen, Hugo del Carril, Hugo Fregonese, Don Napy and Román Viñoly Barreto, among others.[104]

https://www.academia.edu/28094744/Argentina_era_una_fiesta_Ocio_modernidad_y_presente_constante_en_la_comedia_sofisticada_durante_el_primer_peronismo

Legacy[edit]

Conservation[edit]

"A combination of a total lack of knowledge about the best conditions for preserving the material and the high cost of preserving it led to a situation in which most of the Argentine cinema preserved to this day is preserved 'by chance'. The State never became truly aware of how important it is to preserve national cinema, as if indefinite production would replace the successive loss of material."

— Martín Miguel Pereira, Imagofagia, 2015.[105]

Many films survive but through incomplete copies, missing scenes or musical numbers, as is the case with La rubia del camino (1938), in which the songs are missing; La historia del tango (1949), in which Virginia Luque's rendition of the tango "La morocha" is missing; or Tres anclados en París (1938), in which the final act is missing.[106]

Unlike most countries, Argentina has not adopted public policies that preserve the national film heritage, which has been a long-standing claim by the film-related community.[107] This has led to the loss of a large amount of material and to the fact that of many films only a single copy survives in a poor condition, even some that are considered among the most important in Argentine cinema by critics and specialists.[105] From the beginning, the film industry was built around continuous production, with little interest in retaining material already released. As noted by Martín Miguel Pereira:

... industry produces material goods that, to a greater or lesser extent, are perishable. From canned sardines to a refrigerator, all products will be discarded and replaced or renewed at a certain point in time, once they are consumed or until they have exhausted their function. As astonishing as it may be to think of this procedure for what we now consider a work of art, cinema fulfilled the same cycle, with its specificities. A film was produced, distributed, consumed (exhibited) and then, if it could continue to yield revenues in an eventual retrospective exhibition or, by the 1960s, if it could be sold to television for reruns, it was kept.[105]

Between the late 1930s and mid-1940s, there were some first measures for the conservation of film material, although they were interested in the documentary record rather than fiction films.[105] In 1949, the nonprofit cinematheque Fundación Cinemateca Argentina was created as a result of the merging of two film clubs.[105]

https://www.clarin.com/revista-enie/escenarios/cinemateca-nacional-23-anos-larga-espera_0_n96cLfjFqa.html

Museums[edit]

View of the Museo del Cine Pablo Ducrós Hicken in La Boca, Buenos Aires in 2017.

Critics' lists[edit]

A film still of Prisioneros de la tierra (1939) by Mario Soffici, which has been considered the greatest Argentine film of all time on several occasions.

Several films from the classical period have been listed among the best in the history of Argentine cinema. The Museo del Cine Pablo Ducrós Hicken carried out polls to determine the greatest Argentine films of all time in the years 1977, 1984, 1991 and 2000.[108] The results of the 2000 poll can be found in the 4th issue of La mirada cautiva, the museum's magazine, which also included the top 10 from the 1977 and 1984 polls.[109] In the 1977 list, 8 of the top 10 results were films released before 1957, including Prisioneros de la tierra (1st place), La guerra gaucha (3rd place), Así es la vida (4th place), La vuelta al nido (5th place), Las aguas bajan turbias (6th place), La dama duende (7th place), Malambo (8th place) and Fuera de la ley (10th place).[109] In the 1984 list, Prisioneros de la tierra was again selected as the greatest film of Argentine cinema, although only three other pre-1957 films reached the top 10: La guerra gaucha, Las aguas bajan turbias and Los isleros.[109] Due to the coincidences in the number of votes, the top 100 list of the 2000 poll resulted in 43 positions comprising 101 films, of which 29 were released before 1957; these are:[109]

In 2022, the film magazines La vida útil, Taipei and La tierra quema carried out a new top 100 list inspired by the previous ones, which was presented at the Mar del Plata International Film Festival.[110] Due to the coincidences in the number of votes, the total list includes 812 titles and 62 ranking positions,[108] while the "top 100" includes places from 1 to 52 and comprises 103 films.[111] For the first time, no pre-1960s film appeared in the top 10,[112] and classical-era films were among those that decreased the most compared to the previous poll.[108] The fact that more than a third of the list corresponds to films released in 2000 onwards has been interpreted as a consequence of the absence of conservation policies for the country's film heritage.[108][113] As such, the results of the 2022 poll fueled the long-standing claim for the need for a national cinematheque.[114] The films prior to 1957 that made ir to the top 100 of 2022 were:[111]

  • Las aguas bajan turbias (14th place)
  • Más allá del olvido (18th place)
  • Prisioneros de la tierra (19th place)
  • Apenas un delincuente (27th place)
  • Si muero antes de despertar (31th place)
  • Los tallos amargos (42nd place)
  • No abras nunca esa puerta (45th place)
  • Mujeres que trabajan (49th place)
  • La guerra gaucha (49th place)
  • Los isleros (49th place)
  • La vuelta al nido (51st place)
  • Vidalita (51st place)
  • La cabalgata del circo (52nd place)

In 2000, American Cinematographer—the magazine of the American Society of Cinematographers—listed Los tallos amargos (1956) as one of the "50 Best Photographed Films of All-Time", the work of cinematographer Ricardo Younis.[115][116] In 2022, the Spanish magazine Fotogramas included Los tres berretines (1933), Los martes, orquídeas (1941) and Dios se lo pague (1947) in its list of the "20 best Argentine films in history".[117]

Major figures[edit]

Actors[edit]

Mecha Ortiz portrayed by Annemarie Heinrich. Nicknamed the "Argentine Greta Garbo",[118] she was often typecasted in femme fatale roles.[119][120]

Directors[edit]

Unlike the silent era, there were no female directors during the classical period because the industry firmly prevented their emergence, and the first sound film directed by a woman did not come until 1960 with Vlasta Lah's Las furias.[47]

Lists of films[edit]

Image gallery[edit]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ a b It is generally agreed that the advent of the sound era in 1933 constituted the opening to industrialization in Argentine cinema.[5] Film historian Domingo Di Núbila—who introduced the concept of the Golden Age—[6]places the period between 1933 and 1942, the years of release of the films ¡Tango! and La guerra gaucha respectively.[7][8] Writers that equate the Golden Age to the so-called "classical" or "classical-industrial" period, like Claudio España and his collaborators,[5] date its end in 1956, with the crisis and decline of the studio system.[2] According to Fernando Martín Peña, the Argentine film industry was consolidated as such around 1938 and ceased to exist around 1948.[9] Other authors, like Peter H. Rist and Jorge Finkielman, narrow the Golden Age between 1937 and 1942, the years of greatest production and international dominance.[10][11]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 67.
  2. ^ a b Kairuz, Mariano (18 November 2001). "Made in Argentina". Radar. Página/12. Retrieved 14 November 2022.
  3. ^ a b c d e Pardo, Soledad (2016). "Los estudios sobre el cine argentino del período clásico industrial: un panorama histórico" (PDF). Questión (in Spanish). 1 (49). La Plata: Universidad Nacional de La Plata: 352–367. ISSN 1669-6581. Retrieved 11 November 2022 – via CONICET.
  4. ^ a b c Alvira, Pablo (2014). "Representaciones de trabajadores/as en el cine clásico-industrial argentino: los mensúes, entre la denuncia y la tragedia". Páginas (in Spanish). 6 (10). Rosario: Escuela de Historia. Facultad de Humanidades y Artes. Universidad Nacional de Rosario: 53–82. ISSN 1851-992X. Retrieved 14 November 2022.
  5. ^ a b España 2000, p. 23.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Manzano, Valeria (2001). "Cine argentino y peronismo: cultura política y propaganda, 1946-1955". Filmhistoria (in Spanish). XI (3). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. ISSN 2014-668X. Retrieved 11 November 2022.
  7. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 71.
  8. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 391.
  9. ^ a b c Peña 2012, "Introducción"
  10. ^ a b c Rist 2014, p. 4.
  11. ^ Finkielman 2004, p. 213.
  12. ^ a b Manetti & Rodríguez Riva 2014, p. 44.
  13. ^ a b c d Schumann 1987, p. 19.
  14. ^ Manetti & Rodríguez Riva 2014, p. 24.
  15. ^ a b Mahieu 1966, p. 15.
  16. ^ a b Finkielman 2004, p. 199.
  17. ^ a b Di Núbila 1998, p. 108.
  18. ^ a b c Getino 2005, p. 17.
  19. ^ Rist 2014, p. 5.
  20. ^ Getino 2005, p. 24.
  21. ^ Schumann 1987, p. 22.
  22. ^ Lusnich 2007, p. 21.
  23. ^ Schumann 1987, p. 23.
  24. ^ a b c d García Oliveri, Ricardo (2011). "Argentina". Diccionario del Cine Iberoamericano (in Spanish). Madrid: SGAE. pp. 420–442. ISBN 978-848-048-822-8. Retrieved 19 November 2022 – via Ibermedia Digital.
  25. ^ Cossalter, Javier (2014). "El cine experimental de cortometraje en la Argentina de los años sesenta y setenta: apropiaciones y vinculaciones transnacionales" (PDF). European Review of Artistic Studies (in Spanish). 5 (4). Vila Real: Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro: 32–-49. ISSN 1647-3558. Retrieved 20 November 2022.
  26. ^ Manzano, Valeria (2014). The Age of Youth in Argentina: Culture, Politics & Sexuality from Perón to Videla. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. pp. 36–43. ISBN 978-146-961-161-7.
  27. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 94.
  28. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Kelly Hopfenblatt, Alejandro (2016). La formulación de un modelo de representación en el cine clásico argentino: desarrollo, cambios y continuidades de la comedia burguesa (1939-1951) (PDF) (Doctoral thesis) (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
  29. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 87.
  30. ^ a b c Peña 2012, "El afán internacional"
  31. ^ a b Kairuz, Mariano (9 August 2009). "Los muchachos de antes no usaban sonido". Radar. Página/12 (in Spanish). Retrieved 10 November 2022.
  32. ^ a b c d Schumann 1987, p. 16.
  33. ^ a b c Mahieu 1966, p. 5.
  34. ^ Maranghello 2005, p. 14.
  35. ^ a b c Schumann 1987, p. 17.
  36. ^ a b c d e f Mahieu 1966, p. 6.
  37. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 12.
  38. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 13.
  39. ^ "23 de mayo: Día del Cine Nacional" (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Ministerio de Cultura. 15 May 2020. Retrieved 13 October 2023.
  40. ^ a b Peña 2012, "Comienzos de la ficción"
  41. ^ a b Peña 2012, "El caso de Juan Sin Ropa"
  42. ^ Mahieu 1966, p. 8.
  43. ^ Rist 2014, p. 3.
  44. ^ Getino 2005, p. 13.
  45. ^ a b Peña 2012, "Nobleza gaucha, o 'la mina de oro'"
  46. ^ a b Mahieu 1966, p. 10.
  47. ^ a b c Peña 2012, "Mujeres cineastas"
  48. ^ Peña 2012, "Noticieros y documentales, espejo del mundo"
  49. ^ Peña 2012, "Dibujo animado y sátira política"
  50. ^ Karush 2012, p. 73.
  51. ^ a b c Peña 2012, "Cine nacional versus cine extranjero"
  52. ^ Mahieu 1966, p. 12.
  53. ^ Manetti & Rodríguez Riva 2014, p. 25.
  54. ^ Manetti & Rodríguez Riva 2014, p. 27.
  55. ^ a b c d Manetti & Rodríguez Riva 2014, p. 26.
  56. ^ Getino 2005, p. 14.
  57. ^ Getino 2005, p. 15.
  58. ^ Karush 2012, p. 106.
  59. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Peña 2012, "Hacia el sonoro"
  60. ^ a b c d e f g Karush 2012, p. 76.
  61. ^ a b c Bretal, Álvaro; Durruty, Agustín (21 February 2022). "Clara Kriger: "Hasta hace algunos años, los libros de historia del cine le dedicaban solo tres páginas a la época del peronismo"" (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Taipei. Retrieved 1 October 2023.
  62. ^ a b Schumann 1987, p. xxxvi.
  63. ^ a b c d Peña 2012, "1933-1941"
  64. ^ a b c d e f g Karush 2012, p. 74.
  65. ^ Manetti & Rodríguez Riva 2014, p. 21.
  66. ^ a b Di Núbila 1998, p. 75.
  67. ^ Di Núbila 1998, pp. 71–73.
  68. ^ a b Di Núbila 1998, p. 76.
  69. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 88.
  70. ^ a b c Di Núbila 1998, p. 77.
  71. ^ a b c Peña 2012, "Manuel Romero"
  72. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 400.
  73. ^ Kriger 2018, p. 182.
  74. ^ a b Di Núbila 1998, p. 72.
  75. ^ a b c d e f g h i Peña 2012, "Otras empresas"
  76. ^ a b c Getino 2005, p. 176.
  77. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 114.
  78. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 90.
  79. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 82.
  80. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 133.
  81. ^ Karush 2012, p. 83.
  82. ^ Mahieu 1966, p. 45.
  83. ^ García Riera, Emilio; Larralde, Elsa (1960). "Medio siglo de cine mexicano". Artes de México (in Spanish) (31). Mexico City: 1–19, 21–32. Retrieved 19 November 2022 – via JSTOR.
  84. ^ Schumann 1987, p. 21.
  85. ^ a b Di Núbila 1998, p. 384.
  86. ^ a b Getino 2005, p. 20.
  87. ^ Mahieu 1966, p. 26.
  88. ^ Di Núbila 1998, p. 385.
  89. ^ a b c d e Peña 2012, "El Estado benefactor"
  90. ^ a b c d e Karush 2012, p. 183.
  91. ^ Maiheu 1966, p. 37.
  92. ^ a b c d e f g Karush 2012, p. 184.
  93. ^ a b Mahieu 1966, p. 73.
  94. ^ Manetti & Rodríguez Riva 2014, p. 170.
  95. ^ Manetti & Rodríguez Riva 2014, p. 28.
  96. ^ a b Lusnich 2006, p. 13.
  97. ^ Karush 2012, p. 85.
  98. ^ Lusnich 2006, p. 14.
  99. ^ a b c Berardi 2006, p. 27.
  100. ^ Berardi 2006, p. 28.
  101. ^ Karush 2012, p. 11.
  102. ^ Karush 2012, p. 86.
  103. ^ Lusnich 2007, p. 19.
  104. ^ Vazquez Prieto, Paula (9 December 2012). "El aluvión noir". Radar. Página/12 (in Spanish). Retrieved 26 December 2022.
  105. ^ a b c d e Pereira, Martín Miguel (2015). "La conservación del cine nacional: La larga agonía del patrimonio fílmico argentino". Imagofagia (in Spanish) (11). Buenos Aires: Asociación Argentina de Estudios de Cine y Audiovisual. ISSN 1852-9550. Retrieved 26 November 2022.
  106. ^ "Crónica de la destrucción del cine argentino". La Nación (in Spanish). 14 June 1998. Retrieved 12 December 2022.
  107. ^ Varea, Fernando G. (3 October 2022). ""Argentina es el único país que no tiene cinemateca"". La Capital (in Spanish). Retrieved 26 November 2022.
  108. ^ a b c d "Editorial" (in Spanish). Encuesta de cine argentino 2022. 11 November 2022. Retrieved 13 November 2022.
  109. ^ a b c d "Las 100 mejores del periodo 1933-1999 del Cine Argentino". La mirada cautiva (3). Buenos Aires: Museo del Cine Pablo Ducrós Hicken: 6–14. 2000. Archived from the original on 21 November 2022. Retrieved 21 November 2022 – via Encuesta de cine argentino 2022 on Google Drive.
  110. ^ Riehn, Astrid (11 November 2022). "Festival de Mar del Plata 2022: se eligieron las 100 mejores películas de la historia del cine argentino". La Nación (in Spanish). Retrieved 13 November 2022.
  111. ^ a b "Top 100" (in Spanish). Encuesta de cine argentino 2022. 11 November 2022. Retrieved 13 November 2022.
  112. ^ "Encuesta de Cine Argentino: para cifrar la mirada". Revista Ñ. Clarín (in Spanish). 18 November 2022. Retrieved 22 November 2022.
  113. ^ Prividera, Nicolás (15 November 2022). "Lo que (no) dice la "Encuesta de cine argentino"". Con los ojos abiertos (in Spanish). Buenos Aires. Retrieved 21 November 2022.
  114. ^ "Mesa redonda "La preservación cinematográfica y los espacios de exhibición" en el 37º Festival Internacional de Cine de Mar del Plata" (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: INCAA. 11 November 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  115. ^ "Las mejor fotografiadas del siglo". Clarín (in Spanish). 4 January 2000. Retrieved 4 December 2022.
  116. ^ "Los Tallos amargos (The Bitter Stems). 1956. Argentina. Directed by Fernando Ayala". MoMA. 2016. Retrieved 4 December 2022.
  117. ^ Borrull, Mariona (17 July 2022). "Las 20 mejores películas argentinas de la historia". Fotogramas (in Spanish). Madrid: Hearst España. Retrieved 6 December 2022.
  118. ^ Ortiz 1982, p. 139.
  119. ^ Ortiz 1982, p. 216.
  120. ^ Pardo, Soledad; Croci, Pablo (2011). "Safo, historia de una pasión: Tensión entre canon y ruptura en el primer melodrama erótico del cine argentino". Imagofagia (in Spanish) (3). Buenos Aires: Asociación Argentina de Estudios de Cine y Audiovisual. ISSN 1852-9550. Retrieved 19 November 2022.

Bibliography[edit]

Further reading[edit]

  • Campodónico, Raúl Horacio (2005). Trincheras de celuloide. Bases para una historia político-económica del cine argentino (in Spanish). Madrid: Fundación Autor. ISBN 84-8048-680-5.
  • Couselo, Jorge Miguel; Calistro, Mariano; España, Claudio; Insaurralde, Andrés; Landini, Carlos; Maranghello, César; Rosado, Miguel Ángel (1992). Historia del cine argentino (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de América Latina. ISBN 950-25-0105-5.
  • García Candela, Lautaro; Granero, Lucas; Salas, Lucía; Sonzini, Ramiro, eds. (2023). "Dossier: Cine clásico argentino". La vida útil (in Spanish). Córdoba: Ramiro Sonzini. pp. 4–131. ISSN 2618-5318.
  • Gil Mariño, Cecilia (2015). El mercado del deseo. Tango, cine y cultura de masas en la Argentina de los años '30 (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Teseo. ISBN 978-987-723-039-0.
  • Kelly Hopfenblatt, Alejandro (2019). Modernidad y teléfonos blancos. La comedia burguesa en el cine argentino de los años 40 (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Ciccus. ISBN 978-987-693-797-9.
  • Kriger, Clara (2021). Cine y propaganda. Del orden conservador al peronismo (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Prometeo. ISBN 978-987-845-143-5.
  • Lescano, Victoria (2021). Prueba de vestuario: diseñadores y vestuaristas en el cine argentino (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Ampersand. ISBN 978-987-416-162-8.
  • Lusnich, Ana Laura, ed. (2005). Civilización y barbarie en el cine argentino y latinoamericano (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Editorial Biblos. ISBN 978-950-786-451-3.
  • Lusnich, Ana Laura; Aisemberg, Alicia; Cuarterolo, Andrea, eds. (2017). Pantallas transnacionales. El cine argentino y mexicano del período clásico. Buenos Aires; Mexico City: Imago Mundi; Cineteca Nacional de México. ISBN 978-950-793-256-4.
  • Maranghello, César; Insaurralde, Andrés (1997). Fanny Navarro o un melodrama argentino (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Ediciones del Jilguero. ISBN 978-987-957-862-9.
  • Martín-Barbero, Jesús (1991) [1987]. De los medios a las mediaciones (PDF) (in Spanish). Mexico: Ediciones G. Gili. ISBN 968-887-024-2. Retrieved 4 December 2022 – via Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
  • Melo, Adrián, ed. (2008). Otras historias de amor: gays, lesbianas y travestis en el cine argentino (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Lea. ISBN 978-987-634-052-6.
  • Peña, Fernando Martín (2023). Diario de la filmoteca (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Blatt & Ríos. ISBN 978-987-847-368-0.
  • Wolf, Sergio, ed. (1994). Cine argentino. La otra historia (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Letra Buena. ISBN 950-777-048-8.

External links[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bleff/sandbox24&oldid=1218837107"