Spholiv

I read Thomas Spurlin's DVD review of Cria Cuervos ... - The Criterion Collection at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=29793 and...

I don't understand how one can write a review about a movie such as Cría Cuervos without referring to the political allegories of the film? Also, you talk about Ana's fading grasp of reality as if these images of her mother are hallucinations of hers?
The present of the film is set in 1995, but most of the film deals with the past in 1975. So, in other words, the film deals with memories. Memories which are often not clear, because memories are not. Ana seeing her mother brushing her hair, for example, is not a hallucination. Remembering Rosa brushing her hair before the funeral simply brings back other memories, memories of her mother brushing her hair, because that is what she used to do. Memories are never entirely clear.

I cannot see why you do not bring up the Franco regime and the changes that occurred in 1974-75. How the household resembles the state and how the children are the uncertain future of Spain. The modernity that creeps into the "house" (i.e. Spain) through the music (Por que te vas) and the magazines. How the house is dark and hidden while the immediate outside is full with colourful billboards and noise, representing the changes occurring in Spain while Franco was still alive. The father representing the military and the mother all women. Rosa representing silenced republican values. How the present Ana in 1995 (played by Geraldine Chaplin btw, another interesting part) is trying to deal with what happened, just as Spain cannot move on without dealing with what happened and breaking their "pact of silence".

I think the whole point of the movie is missed in this review, since it goes so much deeper than just a child dealing with the loss of her parents.

Trevor

Not at all an attack on the OP, perhaps I'd totally side with them if I saw the film, but I find it interesting that these comments on our reviews are almost always made by new members.

John Sinnott

I think it's interesting that review comments are almost always made by new members too. I know that a lot of the review traffic is from search engines, but I'd think users who have been on the site for a long time would have more to say about the reviews.

Kurt D

Regular users have become too numbed to respond passionately about reviews.

The OP has an interesting point , however. How important is it for a reviewer to have specific knowledge when a movie functions mostly as a political allegory?

From a viewing standpoint, one might conclude to simply not watch the movie if not armed with knowledge about Spanish political history.

It seems here at DVD Talk the question generally is this: will the movie engage and interest the viewer regardless of their worldly intelligence?

gryffinmaster

When this review was composed three years ago, I didn't have the same knowledge base as I do now. A mentioning of the political allegorical context, along with of the time period, would've certainly been appropriate; however, I still took the stance in reviewing the film itself for its merits as a piece of cinema, not just as a political statement -- as I learned it was shortly following my screening of the film, upon diving into the special features. My writing methodology has improved with time, more researched, but I still stand by the comments I made about the film's content in itself. It's a great film even without knowledge of its political edge.

Kurt D

Of more interest, that. I studiously disregard all extras prior to reviewing a movie. I find they often make me like a movie more than I did just after watching it, which is all well and good, but counter to the experience.

As an art student, I often heard the phrase, "you're not going to be there to explain the painting to the viewer."

To wit; if a director or an extra has to explain what a movie is about for a viewer to understand it, can that movie be described as successful on whatever level is in question?

Trevor

Very good point. I often find myself liking films more after watching the extras. Fine for me, but a review of a film should be unbiased by material that is usually, to some extent, PR material.

But of course, I imagine you write your film review first, then watch the extras, then write the rest of your review.

For disc reviews, what you all write about the transfer and special features are more important than your feelings on the film, imo.

I don't come here for movie reviews, for the most part, I want disc reviews.

Kurt D

Yep, I write the review, then hit the extras. If I learn that a movie had some huge point I missed, I'll mention it in the extras part.

It's tricky writing what are essentially product reviews, since most of us ended up here because we love watching and writing about movies, not picking apart compression artifacts, but what are you gonna do?