Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Argentine Cinema and National Identity (1966-1976)$

Carolina Rocha

Print publication date: 2018

Print ISBN-13: 9781786940544

Published to Liverpool Scholarship Online: September 2018

DOI: 10.5949/liverpool/9781786940544.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM LIVERPOOL SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.liverpool.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Liverpool University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in LSO for personal use.date: 16 September 2021

Argentine Cinema, 1973–1976

Argentine Cinema, 1973–1976

Chapter:
(p.61) Chapter 4 Argentine Cinema, 1973–1976
Source:
Argentine Cinema and National Identity (1966-1976)
Author(s):

Carolina Rocha

Publisher:
Liverpool University Press
DOI:10.5949/liverpool/9781786940544.003.0005

Abstract and Keywords

This chapter documents the changes and continuity in legislation regulation Argentine filmmaking. As the revolución argentina came to an end in 1973, a new cinema law was signed on February 21. Law 20,170 of Promotion and Industrial Recuperation which replaced Law 17,741 was implemented on May 14, 1968 would remain in use until 1994. Despite the return of General Perón and democracy, filmmakers faced increasing problems as censorship continued to be implemented and the NIC lacked directors who could develop long-term policies. I also highlight the achievements of Argentine cinematography abroad. Finally, I contextualize the crisis of Argentine cinematography in 1976.

Keywords:   Law 20,170, NIC, Hugo del Carril, La tregua

As the revolución argentina came to an end in 1973, a new cinema law was signed on February 21. Law 20,170 of Promotion and Industrial Recuperation replaced Law 17,741 (implemented on May 14, 1968) and would remain in use until 1994. El heraldo decried the passing of this piece of legislation weeks before elections, which allowed the state to supervise all aspects of national cinema.1 Among the changes in the new ruling, Law 20,170 gave the NIC director the authority to act as legal representative of the institute or to name employees on its behalf. Another change mandated that film classification be decided after a screening. Films should be rated on whether they could benefit from compulsory exhibition and/or be exported. Finally, they had to be assessed on whether they could be classified as ‘of special interest.’ The reference to national culture and values was deployed to further restrict themes and maintain control over national film production.

As a result of the transition from a military to a democratic government, the NIC authorities and those in charge of censorship changed. Before leaving his position as head of the NIC, the longest tenure up to that point, Ridruejo stated that ‘Tomé un cine que había perdido fuerza con películas que tenían problemas para exhibirse y muchas veces para recuperar el dinero invertido’ [I took over an industry that had lost its power with films that struggled to be shown and often to recuperate investments] (‘La familia,’ 1973, 169). Certainly, the backlog of films produced in the early 1960s effectively ended during his term, but the loans given by the NIC predominantly went to directors who had a record of box office successes, often at the expense of quality. Ridruejo admitted that ‘a partir de la última ley se propende a un cine de mayor contenido y tratamiento y a una mejor colocación de las películas en el extranjero’ [after the last law, the trend was a cinema of more/better content and treatment and a better placement of films abroad] (‘La familia,’ 1973, 169). The trend of more content, however, was limited to a few historical or heritage films. For Ridruejo, the two main strengths of his administration were the open lines of communication between producers, exhibitors, and distributors and a better knowledge of the cinematic market. Ridruejo was replaced as head of the institute by actor, singer, and director Hugo del Carril (1912–1989). (p.62) In his first meeting with the press, del Carril said, ‘tenemos que defender lo nuestro’ [we have to defend what is ours] (N.B., 1973, 46). To that end, he explained that a new law to privilege the stability of national production was necessary. He also talked about the Cámara de la Industria Cinematográfica Argentina [Chamber of the Argentine Cinematographic Industry], which comprised producers (Atilio Mentasti, Héctor Olivera, and Juan Carlos Garate), independent producers (Leopoldo Torre Nilsson, Daniel Tinayre, and Luis Repetto), directors (Enrique Carreras, Fernando Ayala, and Enrique Cahen Salaberry), actors (Luis Brandoni and Jorge Salcedo), and representatives of writers, musicians, laboratory staff, and students of the Experimental Centre of Cinematography, all under the direction of Mario Soffici in his role as Deputy Director of Cinematography. The Chamber was responsible for supervising the artistic values of the films seeking funds from the NIC. Asked what kind of cinema he would favor, del Carril replied, ‘el cine nacional con temática nacional. Hay que entender por una buena vez que el cine no sólo es un negocio para ganar plata sino que es una manera muy importante de difundir nuestra cultura’ [a national cinema with national topics. It has to be understood once and for all that cinema is not only a business to make money but a very important way of disseminating our culture] (N.B., 1973, 46). Del Carril’s statement aligns with the content of Article 10 in Law 20,170, passed during the last months of General Lanusse’s government. There was a discrepancy, however, regarding what was national cinema: populist or liberal.

To prioritize national cinema, two measures were planned. First, the passing of a new law was required to replace the hastily approved Law 20,170. The Chamber of the Argentine Cinematographic Industry was responsible for drafting it. Second, del Carril intended to sign an agreement with Mexico and to strengthen a market of Spanish-speaking countries, like the Union del Cine Hispano Americano [Union of Hispanic American Cinema]. Del Carril’s resignation in early 1974 due to previous work commitments in Mexico and the US, however, left this last task pending. The political transition led to a healthy consumption of films by over 12 million viewers (‘El cine hizo,’ 1974, 17). One of the possible reasons for this increase was the 15% reduction in the price of a movie ticket mandated by Law 20,170. The Argentine films that did best at the box office were produced by Contracuadro and Aries; the former produced the acclaimed Juan Moreira (Leonardo Favio) and Los siete locos [The Revolution of the Seven Madmen] (Leopoldo Torre Nilsson).2 The Junta Asesora Honoraria declared Los siete locos and La revolución [Revolution] (Raúl de la Torre) to be of special interest.3 Juan Moreira garnered the Silver Condor for Best Film and represented Argentina at the Moscow International Film Festival. The success of Juan Moreira, which will be analyzed in section II, particularly significant if we take into consideration that its box office takings were higher than the combined takings of the three most successful Aires productions of the year—Los doctores las prefieren desnudas [Doctors Prefer Them Naked] with 84,785 viewers, Argentinísima 2 with 84,313, and Los caballeros (p.63)

Table 8: Ranking of Argentine Films with More than 75,000 Spectators in the Best Movie Theaters

Film

Spectators

Ranking

Juan Moreira

319,809

4

Los siete locos

101,276

25

Los doctores las prefieren desnudas

84,785

34

Argentinísima 2

84,313

35

Los caballeros de la cama redonda

79,754

38

Source: El heraldo, 20 January 1974: 14.

de la cama redonda [The Knights of the Round Bed] with 79,754, see Table 8. While Gente followed the production of Los siete locos, a Contracuadro film, with interviews with the director and main actors talking about their characters, its film critic was not satisfied with the result and rated it only as ‘good.’ Torre Nilsson had high hopes for Los siete locos: ‘espero que toda esa autenticidad golpee en aquellos que se sienten conformes con su vida, mirando desde la butaca mientras aseguran estar conformes con su suerte’ [I hope that all that authenticity crashes into those who are satisfied with their lives, watching from their seats while they make sure that they are satisfied with their luck] (AMP, 1973, 25). For its part, El heraldo gave the film a higher artistic score than commercial, predicting its success because of the outstanding performance of Alfredo Alcón and the quality of other cast members (Bidal, Renán, Aleandro, and Alterio). Los siete locos received two Silver Condors: Best Director (Torre Nilsson) and Best Actress (Thelma Biral). De la Torre’s fourth film, La revolución, did not perform well at the box office, but it presented an interesting parallel between developments at the beginning of the nineteenth century and the early 1970s. The film had a script by De la Torre in which the leading actors—Graciela Borges, Federico Luppi, Oscar Ferrigno, and Lautaro Murúa—collaborated. For El heraldo, the result was a good, but uneven product. As the reviewer noted of De la Torre’s direction: ‘esta vez, su estilo secuencial se vuelca en contra de la programación dramática y escenas que deberían ser dominadas por un clima interior aparecen artificiales y sin destino’ [this time, his sequential style plays against the dramatic program and scenes that should have been dominated by an interior climate appear superficial and aimless] (‘La revolución,’ 1973, 135). At the end of 1973, Los traidores [The Traitors] (Raymundo Gleyzer) was exhibited at the ninth Pesaro Film Festival. According to Getino and Vellegia, Gleyzer deployed traditional narrative structures similar to the critical realism of the early 1960s to represent political topics (2002, 53).

Despite changes in the NIC’s management, 1974 was a positive year for Argentine cinema. When Hugo del Carril resigned as the head of the NIC (p.64) in January 1974, the respected filmmaker Mario Soffici took over and made it known that first in his list of priorities was the passing of a new draft of the cinema law. Early in 1974, El heraldo announced the ‘Plan de Realizaciones 1974’ [Plan of Outcomes], which stated that ‘es intención del actual gobierno poner al cine, como importante medio de difusión, en la vidriera internacional’ [it is the intention of the current government to place cinema, an important means of dissemination, before the world] (‘El cine argentino se pone,’ 1974, 65). In 1974 there was a significant increase in spectator numbers (15,235,742) that amounted to a rise 25.9% on 1973 (12,074,910) (‘Hablan,’ 1975, 1). According to El heraldo, this was due to several factors: the 50% reduction in the price of movie theater tickets on Mondays and Tuesdays, a break in television programming from 8–11 p.m., a carefully planned array of films, and spectators’ willingness to consume national cinema (‘Llegaron las vacas,’ 1974, 56).4 The three most viewed films were adaptations of literary works: La tregua [The Truce] was based on Mario Benedetti’s novel, La Patagonia rebelde [Rebellion in Patagonia] was an adaptation of Osvaldo Bayer’s book, and Boquitas pintadas [Heartbreak Tango] was a rendering of Manuel Puig’s popular novel (see Tables 9 and 10). While the first and last centered on personal relationships, La Patagonia rebelde recreated historical events that took place in the Argentine south in the 1920s, when workers suffered savage repression by the military authorities. Because of its topic, the film met with a significant delay—two months—to be approved.5 La Patagonia rebelde was awarded a Silver Bear at the Berlin Film Festival. La tregua (Sergio Renán) was Argentina’s entry at the Academy Awards for best foreign-language film and Boquitas pintadas (Leopoldo Torre Nilsson) received two awards at the San Sebastián Film Festival. Other successful films of 1974 were Quebracho (Ricardo Wullicher), which won the Special Jury award at the Karlovy Vary Film Festival, and La Mary (Daniel Tinayre).6

Table 9: Most Popular Argentine Films of the First Semester of 1974

Films

Spectators

La Patagonia rebelde

219,272

Boquitas pintadas

210,657

Quebracho

81,374

Papa corazón

69,519

La gran aventura

55,433

Source: El heraldo, 29 July 1974.

Not only was Argentine cinema being consumed domestically, but the NIC’s goal of reaching foreign markets also became a reality. Quebracho was sold to the Soviet Union, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, and Iraq for $50,000 (‘Quebracho vendido,’ 1974, non. pag.).7 La tregua (p.65)

Table 10: Most Popular Argentine Films of 1974 and their Rankings

Films

Spectators

Ranking

La tregua

414,636

4

La Patagonia rebelde

379,453

5

Boquitas pintadas

226,190

12

La gran aventura

220,640

15

La Mary

215,207

16

Hay que romper la rutina

175,714

19

La madre María

148,849

21

Quebracho

81,374

49

Source: El heraldo, 6–13 January 1975: 2.

was sold to Spain and La Mary was distributed in Italy and France (Bellon, 2014, non. pag.).8 The attention received by these films overseas prompted a bottom-down initiative. In October, a group of producers comprising Héctor Olivera, Juan José Jusid, Leopoldo Torre Nilsson, and Bernardo Zupnik recommended the creation of Argencine, a company that would be responsible for promoting Argentine cinema domestically and abroad through advertisements, and eventually also the commercialization of Argentine films domestically and abroad.

Despite the positive performance of Argentine cinema, political events marred this achievement. President Perón died in office—on July 1, 1974—less than a year after his return to Argentina. During the presidency of his wife, María Estela Martínez de Perón, political turmoil became widespread, even affecting the film industry. The Grupo Cine Liberación presented a new project for a cinema law in August, but it was not implemented (Getino and Vellegia, 2002, 50). At the end of October, a terrorist organization issued death threats against directors David Stivel, Héctor Olivera, Juan Carlos Gené, Fernando Ayala, Daniel Tinayre, and Armando Bó, as well as actors Marilina Ross, Susana Giménez, Héctor Pellegrini, Isabel Sarli, and boxer-turned-actor Carlos Monzón.9 While all those named decided to stay in the country, the Argentine Association of Actors sent a telegram to President Martínez de Perón seeking security guarantees. The union expressed its indignation and some members even proposed to create a common fund that would pay for private protection for those threatened (‘Amenazas,’ 1974, 373). Given the tense atmosphere, the Silver Condor Awards, the most prestigious ceremony of Argentine cinema, were suspended between 1974 and 1979.

Change and continuity were also on the cards for the Argentine film industry for 1975. Regarding change, Soffici unexpectedly resigned from his position at the NIC in January 1975—exactly one year after he took over—and (p.66)

Table 11: The Ten Most Popular Argentine Films of 1975

Films

Spectators

Ranking

Nazareno Cruz y el lobo

275,266

7

La Raulito

198,395

15

Petete y Trapito

142,961

27

Maridos en vacaciones

135,700

28

Los irrompibles

131,761

30

Los gauchos judíos

118,110

33

Las procesadas

100,253

44

Las super aventuras

99,546

46

Los chantas

93,992

49

El pibe Cabezas

88,951

53

Source: El heraldo, 29 January 1976: 4 (Año 75 Cine Arg).

was replaced by Juan Bartolomé Llabrés (‘Nuevo director,’ 1975, 1), who had a background in advertising. Pending issues were whether the Film Rating Board would become part of the NIC and the passing of a new cinema law (‘El futuro,’ 1975, 14). Problems with censorship continued. In March 1975, when the film Mi novia el travesti [My Fiancée the Transvestite] encountered problems with the Film Rating Board, an editorial in El heraldo characterized it ‘un film paria en su propio país’ [a pariah film in its own country] (‘Nueva crisis,’ 1975, 68). The piece also decried both the lack of respect for the freedoms specified in the Constitution and the unfair competition experienced by Argentine films from foreign counterparts which did not pay customs tariffs, and whose box office revenues thus represented pure profits. Perhaps as a result of the antagonism toward foreign films, there were only 253 releases in 1975, a number representing a middle point between the low of 186 in 1969 and the high of 411 in 1968. Other issues affecting national film production were high costs, spiraling inflation, and a lack of materials needed for film production.10 Despite these problems, the cinematic production of 1975 was healthy, with ten titles achieving good box office performances.

As shown in Table 11, the most popular film was Leonardo Favio’s Nazareno Cruz y el lobo [Nazareno Cruz and the Wolf], based on a script by Juan Carlos Chiappe, who had worked on radio soap operas and had had a lasting influence on Favio. Indeed, in an interview published in Gente, Favio characterized Chiappe as the ‘inventor de la tragedia popular en el país’ [inventor of popular tragedy in the country] and told him that ‘nadie como vos le habló al pueblo’ [nobody talked to the people like you] (Serra, 1973, 115). This publication illustrates the way in which expectation for the film’s release was built up during the preproduction stage. At the moment of its release, El heraldo and, more recently, film scholar Diana Paladino characterized (p.67) Nazareno Cruz y el lobo as ‘desbordante y desbordado’ [overflowing and above board] (2003, 295). The film used unusual cinematic techniques to emphasize the fantastical aspect of a popular legend about a seventh son who turns into a wolf, aiming at the spectacularization of a personal tragedy. As Paladino correctly notes, it is a polysemic film that allows several readings: ‘Para la clase obrera representó la ilusión de una posible conciliación, para la joven militancia fue como un símbolo de la resistencia, para los distraídos (¿solamente?) la tragedia de un hombre frente a la inexorabilidad del destino’ [For the working class, it represented the illusion of a possible reconciliation; for the young militants, it was like a symbol of resistance; for the distracted (only?) the tragedy of a man facing fate’s inexorability] (2003, 296). In Nazareno Cruz y el lobo Favio turned to the popular legend as a means of communicing with and bringing together the divided pueblo.

If Favio struck a chord with his folk tale, other important films of 1975 used realism. This is the case, for instance, of Lautaro Murúa’s La Raulito, which depicts the life of teenager María Esther Duffau (Marilina Ross) who passes for a boy to be able to wander around Buenos Aires and support the football club Boca Juniors. Another realist film was Juan José Jusid’s Los gauchos judíos, based on the book of the same name by Alberto Gerchunoff. The film broke records—attracting 352,939 spectators in its first week of exhibition with screenings in 35 movie theaters. It also captured the attention of foreign distributors: an American distributor offered $80,000 to release the film in the US and the Spanish distributor Vicuña offered $40,000 and a release in Gran Vía movie theaters, ‘hecho que hace muchos años que no ocurre con una película argentina’ [something that has not happened to an Argentine film in several years] (‘El fenómeno,’ 1975, 154). The film also received attention in Brazil and Japan and was screened at the San Sebastián Film Festival.11 Finally, Torre Nilsson’s El pibe Cabezas [Kid Head], inspired by the life of Rogelio Gordillo, a 1930s gangster played by Alfredo Alcón, was also a realist film. In El pibe Cabezas, Torre Nilsson followed a similar line as he had in La maffia, but this time concentrating on a lone criminal whose modus operandi linked him to ‘delincuencia criolla, casi nómade, emparentada con cierta actitud del gaucho’ [creole criminality, almost nomadic, related in a certain gaucho way] (Couselo, 1985, 196). El heraldo predicted its probable success given the proven pair of Torre Nilsson-Alcón. Nonetheless, El pibe Cabeza encountered an unexpected challenge. Hours before its release, the NIC decided not to award it the fondo de recuperación industrial, but it could be used to fulfill the screen quota requirement (‘Le cortaron,’ 1975, 109).

In addition to the Film Rating Board and censorship, in 1976 a heightened climate of political violence affected several prominent actors and directors. Actors Héctor Alterio, Norma Aleandro, and Cipe Lincovsky went into exile (Falicov, 2007, 41). Octavio Getino was also persecuted. The legal case in which he was accused of allowing the exhibition of The Last Tango in Paris (Bernardo Bertolucci, 1972), which contained obscene scenes, was reopened on July 28, 1976. The charge against him was violation of the duties of a (p.68) public employee (‘Proceso a Getino,’ 1976, 210). When Getino, already in Peru, was cited for further questioning in this case, he remained abroad, and was thus declared to be in rebellion. His bank accounts were frozen, and a request for his extradition was issued. Other filmmakers met a harsher fate than judiciary persecution. Documentary maker Raymundo Gleyzer, who made México, la revolución congelada [Mexico: The Frozen Revolution] (1970), was kidnapped outside the Sindicato de la Industria Cinematográfica Argentina (SICA). Writer and screenwriter Haroldo Conti, who had been blacklisted since 1975, was arrested and disappeared in early May 1976.

The coup d’état of March 24, 1976 implied a new government and changed the outlook for Argentine cinema. With the return of military authorities, the censorship classification of the mid-1960s continued to be applied. There were attempts to suppress it from 1970 to 1973 but it was never done. Other issues besides problems with freedom of expression also besieged the Argentine film industry, which came to a near standstill by the end of that year. In March, the price of a movie ticket was debated. Due to inflation, movie theater owners asked that it be raised by 13%, but the state was considering authorizing an increment that would not allow recuperation of costs. Hence, an increase took several months to be authorized. The situation of the Argentine film industry was summed up by screenwriter José María Paolantononio: ‘es difícil resolver los problemas del cine sin resolver fundamentales problemas del país. No somos una isla en medio de la tormenta’ [it is difficult to solve cinema’s problems without solving the fundamental problems of the country. We are not an island in the middle of the storm] (‘Dos directores,’ 1976, 65). Similar ideas were expressed by Juan José Jusid, who added that while problems were slowing down Argentine film production, foreign cinematographers ‘seguirá[n] encontrando el campo más propicio para su actividad’ [will continue to find the most favorable ground for their activity] (‘Dos directores,’ 1976, 65). Jusid was certainly correct if we consider that the ten most popular films in downtown Buenos Aires were all foreign, as shown in Table 12.

Several factors contributed to the crisis of the national film industry. One was its near paralysis. An editorial piece in El heraldo detailed that a film cost around 4,000 million old pesos to make, a sum that did not take into account the advertising campaign and the cost of producing copies. Moreover, a film had to attract an audience of at least 1.5 million spectators to recuperate its costs. The editorial also noted that ‘cada vez es más difícil conseguir créditos’ [every time, it gets harder to get loans] (‘¿Adónde vamos?’, 1976, 151). In an interview with El heraldo from August 1976, Torre Nilsson stated that ‘hace falta una política cinematográfica. Si no, nadie va a filmar’ [a film policy is sorely needed. Otherwise, nobody will shoot] (‘Hace falta,’ 1976, 234). Torre Nilsson also referred to the situation of the Argentine film industry as one of paralysis. Another reason for the dismal situation was a persistent economic crisis that prompted one in three viewers to stop attending cinema screenings (‘De cada tres,’ 1976, 275). As a result, the number of films produced also drecreased. In September, El heraldo noted that the inactivity in the industry (p.69)

Table 12: The Ten Most Popular Films of 1975 in Argentina

Film

Country of origin

Number of spectators

Earthquake (1974)

USA

538,987

I am Losing My Temper (1974)

France

466,310

Scent of a Woman (1974)

Italy

374,802

Airport 1975 (1974)

USA

369,991

Chinatown (1974)

USA

341,733

Amarcord (1973)

Italy-France

288,454

Nazareno Cruz y el lobo (1974)

Argentina

275,266

Murder on the Orient Express (1974)

England

246,552

Beautiful people (1974)

South Africa

239,721

The Return of the Pink Panther (1975)

USA

231,957

Source: El heraldo, 29 January 1976: 4.

was remarkable given its past achievements (‘Nadie quiere,’ 1976, 251). Of the 12 films that were shot in 1976, nine had been planned in 1975 and only one remained in production. In November 1976, the newspaper La nación and El heraldo both printed an article entitled ‘Cine nacional, a crisis que se agudiza’ [National Cinema, a Crisis that Deepens], which listed the total number of Argentine films released in 1976: 18, of which only four passed the 1 million spectator mark (‘La crisis,’ 1976, 331). Consequently, by the end of that year, the national film industry almost came to a standstill. Despite the laws and the interest that the sector had received since 1967, by 1976 the military authorities no longer saw it as a crucial means of communication to build nationhood and represent Argentina around the world. As many artists, directors, and screenwriters went abroad to flee repression, the film industry entered a dark period of few productions—many of them light musical comedies with Palito Ortega that catered to domestic viewers—from which it would emerge only with the return of democracy in 1983.

The period 1955–1976, punctuacted by three coup d’états and short democratic governments, constituted a time when changes in the political arena were sought but hard to implement due to a lack of consensus. This instability deeply affected the Argentine film industry at a time when it depended on state funding to compete with other cinemas. For their part, the military governments had understood the importance of Argentine cinema and regulated it with four laws: Law 12,909 of 1957 (aka 62/57), Law 16,955 of 1966, Law 17,741 of 1968, and Law 20,170 of 1973. While the first two encouraged the exhibition of Argentine films, the latter two emphasized the state’s control over content and subjected film productions to censorship and classification prior to release. Despite these policies, Argentine film (p.70) production recovered from an all-time low of 15 films in 1957 to an average of 31 films per year from 1957 to 1971. Nonetheless, the support of the local audience fluctuated wildly. The experimental films of the Generation of 1960 failed to attract spectators. Comedies and musicals were popular, but lacked prestige and were thus only for domestic consumption. Given the small size of the Argentine population, co-productions and quality films were seen as a means to reach other audiences, but met with uneven success. In the late 1960s, two genres, the gauchesque and historical films addressed the ‘national topics’ requirement and were well received, finding a market niche by depicting the Argentine heritage and the nation-building period.

Notes:

(1) For more on this, please see my article ‘Film Censorship in Argentina.’

(2) El heraldo reported that in its first two weeks, Juan Moreira was watched by 580,377 spectators while El santo de la espada attracted 584,692 viewers in the same period (‘Último momento,’ 1973, 186).

(3) Los siete locos received the Silver Bear at the Berlin Film Festival and the award for Best Latin American Film at the fifteenth International Film Festival of Cartagena.

(4) In 1973, exhibitors reached an agreement with the US Film Board to buy films at a fixed price which allowed them to lower the price of a movie ticket by 50%.

(5) In a note that appeared in El heraldo, it was mentioned that the film was waiting the approval of the Minister of Defense and that the delay concerned not only the producers, but all those involved with Argentine cinema, given that the NIC proposed to classify it as ‘of national interest’ (La Patagonia,’ 1974, 214). The article asked ‘qué seguridad tienen los productores argentinos que cumplen lo fijado por la ley—presentación de libros, etc, etc—especialmente cuando el libro es un “best seller” y el film se ajusta a él, o en otras palabras, que nadie puede decir que la película difiere del libro presentado. Ayala-Olivera tienen razón de estar preocupados por su millionaria inversión, pero el cine argentino debe estarlo aún más’ [what guarantee do Argentine producers who comply with the law—submission of screenplay, etc., etc.—especially when the book is a best seller and the film follows it, or in other words, when nobody can say that the film differs from the book. Ayala-Olivera are right to be concerned about their significant investment, but Argentine cinema should be even more so] (1974, 147).

(6) Beceyro classifies La tregua as an example of ‘cine de autor’ [auteur cinema] and explains that ‘en 1974 un filme de Sergio Renán logra el milagro. El cine de autor consigue entonces una audiencia mayor y La tregua se convierte en uno de los grandes éxitos populares de la historia del cine argentino’ [in 1974 a film by Sergio Renán performs a miracle. Auterist cinema achieves a bigger audience and La tregua becomes one of the first popular successes in the history of Argentine cinema] (1997, 14).

(7) Refering to Quebracho, Fernando Ferreira states that ‘se prohíbe su exhibición (p.71) en todo el territorio nacional y la exportación de cualquiera de sus copias’ [its release is forbidden throughout the entire national territory, as is the exportation of any of its copies] (2000, 206).

(8) The producers of Globus Baires traveled to Europe and arranged the distribution of La Mary in France.

(9) In addition to the censorship of local films, there were also attacks on movie theaters that screened ‘subversive’ films, such as Jesus Christ Superstar (Norman Jewison, 1973) (Ferreira, 2000, 215).

(10) As evidence of the chaotic state of affairs mentioned in the editorial, director Sergio Renán and the producers Tamames-Zemborain desisted from shooting Pase un día con su artista favorito [Spend a Day with Your Favorite Artist].

(11) El heraldo gave it nine points for commercial value and seven for artistic value, remarking that ‘es un filme argentino para celebrar, porque por arriba de algunos defectos visibles subsisten orgullosos los resultados obtenidos con un esfuerzo no común en la producción nacional’ [it is an Argentine film to celebrate, because even with some visible flaws, the pleasing results obtained with an effort not common in the national production are evident] (‘Los gauchos,’ 1975, 154). (p.72)