Third Cinema: The Way Forward

Third Cinema: The Way Forward

The term вЂ?Third Cinema’ is accredited to Argentine Filmmakers, Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino, who introduced new ways of categorising cinema traditions in their 1969 manifesto Hacia un tercer cine вЂ" Towards a third cinema. They discussed the films and industries within recently decolonised countries and proposed a new framework.

This new movement opposes the notion of Cinema as a consumer good, as with so-called �First Cinema’- perpetuated by, but not limited to, the Hollywood system. Under this {mass entertainment} Production model, Cinema has been established as a predominantly commercial enterprise. Filmmakers conceive films for entertainment, �projecting bourgeois values to a passive audience through escapist spectacle and individual characters.’ (Leach) They do so using studio controlled modes of production, distribution and exhibition, generic genre placing and the star-system.

вЂ?Second cinema’ is often referred to as Art or Alternative Cinema. In my view it is a reformist movement that reacts to the generic structure of the Hollywood system norms - tackling censored subject manner; genre swapping; genre dropping; experimenting with form and style. It comprises of several European new waves, but also American Indie cinema. A key element of this is Cinema d’auteur, which centres on the individual expression of the director; valuing their creative input above others. This movement aimed to be radical but failed to bring about any substantial reform. It simply became a different system, started to produce its own structures (of both filmmaking practice and of narrative) and its own conventions and norms. And with the means of exhibition and channels of distribution heavily guarded by the вЂ?owners of the film industry’- the studios, many filmmakers out to revolutionise have wound up, as Godard put it; “trapped inside the fortress”. (Sharpiro, p45) вЂ?Third Cinema’ rejects the view of cinema as personal expression or as economy and aims to truly revolutionise the medium of film.

�Third Cinema’ Films are characterised by not adhering to the recognisable conventions of the First and Second. They don’t fit in with the established cinematic movements. They are less-geographically bound; third cinema can emerge from anywhere. It’s commonly associated with third world countries - Africa, Asia and Latin America and can tackle any subject. The Films are linked by an essentially political nature in both content and production.

“In the dependent countries, third cinema is a cinema of decolonisation, which expresses the will to national liberation, anti-mythic, anti-racist, anti-bourgeois, and popular." (Solanas & Getino, 1969 pp23).

Solanas and Getino recognised the power of cinema in providing the possibility of constructing a liberated view of cultures with each people as the starting pointвЂ" the decolonization of culture. In post-colonial countries, postmodern filmmakers seek to dismantle the myths and views perpetuated by an imperialist cinema, creating a nationalist Cinema that reflects the actual realities rather than projected ones.

Recent Latin American cinema has aimed to remedy the view of their culture and history. City of God (Meirelles, 2002) actively address an ignored past, tackling the international image of Brazil and Rio de Janero as a drug capital and giving voice to the extreme poverty of the favela’s [ghettoes]. In Amores Perros (GonzÐ" les Inarritu. 2000), the story is a fast-past, multi-plotted portrait of modern day Mexico. It presents a new view by following three stories representing three life stages. The characters are linked by their relationships with their dogs and that great cinematic device, a car crash - perfect for bringing people together from all walks of life. The young and poor, the middle class вЂ?yuppies’ and the old. The film accurately displays the gap between rich and poor, the sometimes unavoidable crimes and shades of gray in modern urban life.

The director claims the film is political, although not overtly so.

“It portrays the effect of 70-odd years of an extremely authoritarian political regime.” (S&S, pg 39)

With its narrative and themes, GonzÐ" les Inarritu’s aim is to move away from the idea of Mexico presented in the films made in that era. The character of El Chivo, a former revolutionary, represents this time. His sense of self and purpose has been stripped, so he wanders Mexico, connected with no one but his dogs and with nothing left to fight for, he kills for money. In the past, GonzÐ" les Inarritu accuses