In today’s society, most films are for entertainment purposes. However, there are films that are meant for entertainment but spark up a debate, such as Carlos Carrera’s film, The Crime of Father Amaro (2002). Widely known for its corrosive view of the Catholic Church, the film focuses on the young priest, Father Amaro and others breaking vows of chastity, accepting drug monies, a sexual encounter with fleeting nudity, and abortion.
Carrera’s film has sparked many debates, most debates dealing with the corruption or controversy within the Catholic Church. For that reason, I will be focused on raising the question of how this film is viewed in other countries, because it presents an interesting viewpoint from an international lens. I will focus specifically on two countries, and then I will analyze how one country’s viewpoint differs from another. And if there is a negative reaction to the film, what is the main cause of it?
The two countries were chosen based on their significance to the film. The United States was chosen based on the U.S film industry which allows studios to take chance on more risky movies, emerging screenwriters, and unknown actors. Which therefore allows various genres to enter the “movie scene” without any barriers. The film takes place in Mexico, which was the main reason why it was chosen. A majority of its population is of the Catholic Religion, which can create a biased viewpoint in the Mexican’s reviews of the film.
In the United States, most film critics are either famous or just the average person writing a review on a film. However, that doesn’t stop the flow of opinions from people. I will be using both The New York Times newspaper’s review of the film and the website “Rottentomatoes.com”, which allows people to leave a film review, to help me create a better picture of how the United States viewed the film.
In The New York Times, there are two articles written about the film. One is a critic review by Stephan Holden and the other is an article by Ginger Thompson, whose article is about the Uproar surrounding the film in Mexico City. Her article is centered on the views of the Mexican people. Thus I will not be using Ginger’s article to help analyze the United States’ view of the film, I will however use it to help analyze the response from the Mexican viewers.
In Stephan Holden’s review, he writes that the film is a suds-filled political melodrama that bashes the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico, as well as that the film could be accused of many things, but timidity is not one of them (1). Basically, Holden is saying that the film does “trash” the Catholic Church and that the director wasn’t scared to portray this negative image of the Catholic Church. Throughout the review, he talks about the main events of the film and analyzes them to give the reader a better understanding of the film. His review is mostly facts rather than opinion. He presents the accurate image of the film, without being biased or...