This was a very strange film. I saw it at the San Francisco Film Festival. It was promoted as "a student leader fighting against the bosses of striking workers" and "experiences a coming of age crisis when he inherits his father's ranch". It said "the radical becomes the boss and finds himself responsible for paying back wages to the gauchos stiffed by his father".
To me, that sounded like an interesting political film. Unfortunately, that's not exactly the film I saw. My impression is that first, it showed the disorganization and chaos of alleged strikes by students and workers and how really nothing is accomplished and people are just hanging out getting stoned or having sex or quitting after a few days of complaints. That part reminded me of Berkeley back in the 1970's when people were tired of fighting and just gave up to party and hang out.
The second part of the film, about the father's ranch, was pathetic in a different way. The so- called radical was not in charge at all. The father's notary was the boss and the son really had no responsibility. He was just doing whatever the notary told him to do. I kept waiting for something else to happen, but it was so depressing to see the weakness of everyone. They all seemed resigned to their fate, even when they were protesting. The notary was in control. The son did NOT confront him or try to become the boss, perhaps because there was no way he could deal with the father's debts.
Anyway, besides all that depressing stuff, the really strange thing was that as you watch the actor in the lead role, you gradually realize that he has some kind of disability but it was never revealed exactly what it was, never mentioned, never referred to, and never a part of the story. It kept me on edge throughout the film because I kept assuming that it would become part of the story but it never did. He was treated exactly the same as everyone else and he did not seem to feel he had any disability. Later I decided that it was impressive to have this actor do the role. We tend to assume that a disability will become part of the story but this film showed that it ain't necessarily so.
Perhaps the film was trying to say that despite the backwardness of the country and the society there, that at least they were more advanced in not stigmatizing this young man.
2 of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?