All his films speak of the ambiguities and contradictions of politics and militancy. Her first film, ‘El Estudiante’ (2011), made it by placing herself in the university setting, ‘Paulina’ (2015) traveled to disadvantaged rural areas and ‘La Cordillera’ (2017) was set in high places. Now with his fourth feature film andBuenos Aires filmmaker Santiago Miter enters History in capital letters.
You were a kid in 1985. What do you remember about the hearings of the boards?
I remember the television footage of the turmoil in the courtroom after the verdict and the feelings of my parents when they went out on the street. It’s the first time the town has celebrated anything other than a football victory. Yes, I was very young, but I could feel the atmosphere of brotherhood and brotherhood. Democratic climate of hope despite the economic problems the country is going through. This sense of optimism is what I wanted to capture in the movie.
However, days before her presentation of ‘Argentina, 1985’ at the Venice Film Festival, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was attacked. Do you think this redefines the movie?
Inevitably. My country has spent almost the entire last century replacing civilian governments and military dictatorships. Coups were constant and democracy was under constant threat when it existed. After the 1985 trial, violence seemed to be forever excluded as a method of resolving political conflicts. Recent events show that this is not the case and turn the movie into a warning. The attack terrified me and created fear for Argentina’s future.
How much of the dictatorship is left in today’s Argentine society?
The pain of those who lost their relatives as a result of torture and murder, and the emptiness of many people who saw how a relative disappeared one day, did not know whether they had lived for decades or not. Something so cruel can never be overcome. The trial, however, put the victims’ relatives at ease, as for the first time they felt that they were not alone. The sentences, true, were disappointing in the end, but the mere presence of judgment was of paramount importance.
‘Argentina, 1985’ is the most classic film, and indeed deals with the traditions of Hollywood forensic cinema without hesitation. Why? Why?
I realized that I had to put myself at the service of the story, and therefore there would be no point in resorting to the kind of formal experimentation I used in some of my previous films. When it comes to genre conventions, I’ve found that the best way to communicate with as many audiences as possible is to use simple, recognizable language. And that was the top priority: making a movie for the public, especially for younger audiences.
What do you hope they get out of this?
The entire world is now witnessing a resurgence of fascist ideas and a growing disdain for values. It is important to remember that citizens have the power to reverse these dangerous trends, and for this it is appropriate to keep alive the memory of the victims of dictators. It should not be forgotten that a country must cauterize its wounds in order to progress. For us, the trial served as a purification process, something you Spaniards didn’t have after the Franco regime.
In a different way, all of his films describe ways of doing politics and the ins and outs and dynamics of power. This cannot be a coincidence.
Of course not. Both my father and mother have always been connected to the world of politics and justice, and these were the topics that were always discussed in my home as a child, not about football or music like my friends did. Also, politics is a great mystery to everyone, so its capacity to produce drama is endless. I intend to continue investigating this enigma.