All of his films illuminate the ambiguities and tensions inherent in politics and militancy. His debut, El Estudiante (2011), places a character inside a university setting; Paulina (2015) journeys to disadvantaged rural communities; La Cordillera (2017) unfolds high in the mountains. Now, with his fourth feature, the Buenos Aires filmmaker Santiago Mitre enters History in bold, capital letters.
You were a kid in 1985. What do you remember about the hearings of the boards?
I recall the television footage capturing the courtroom turmoil after the verdict and my parents stepping into the street. The town celebrated something beyond a football win for the first time. Yes, I was very young, but the atmosphere of brotherhood and shared purpose was palpable. Democratic hope persisted despite the country’s economic struggles. That sense of optimism is what the film aims to capture.
Days before presenting Argentina, 1985 at the Venice Film Festival, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was attacked. Do you think that changes the film’s message?
Undoubtedly. Argentina spent most of the last century swapping civilian governments and military regimes. Coups were a constant thread and democracy existed only in brief, fragile moments. After the 1985 trial, violence seemed banished as a tool for political conflict. The attack reminded everyone that fear can reappear and it casts a shadow over the country’s future, turning the film into a warning.
How much of the dictatorship remains in today’s Argentine society?
The pain for families who lost loved ones to torture and murder remains. The emptiness felt by those who watched a relative disappear without a trace lingers. Cruelty like that leaves scars that never fully heal. Yet the trial gave relatives a sense of not being alone, and even though the sentences were not perfect, simply having accountability mattered deeply.
Argentina, 1985 is described as a classic, leaning into Hollywood forensic cinema without hesitation. Why does that approach work?
The filmmaker trusted the story and chose to serve it with clear, accessible language. Formal experimentation would have distracted from the core narrative. For broad audiences, especially younger viewers, simple, recognizable genre cues are the most effective way to communicate. That clarity was the priority.
What do you hope audiences take away?
Today, the world witnesses a resurgence of extremist ideas and a growing disdain for shared values. Citizens hold the power to reverse dangerous trends if they remember the victims and the costs of dictatorship. The film suggests that a country must confront its wounds to advance, and the trial itself acted as a cleansing process—an experience some regions never received after their own regimes.
In a different light, all of his films explore how politics works and how power moves. Isn’t that a pattern worth noting?
Certainly. Both of his parents were deeply involved in politics and justice, and those conversations shaped his childhood far more than music or sports ever did. Politics remains a kind of mystery that fuels drama, and he intends to keep probing that mystery in future work.