“Soy América Latina un pueblo sin piernas pero que camina.” (I’m Latin America a people without legs yet walks.) (Latinoamérica, Calle 13).

All of our discussions in class from the beginning of the year were about how Latin America came to be, their founding story. And for most of the countries and definitely Latin America as a whole it’s hard to define exactly how they came to be or what exactly makes up Latin America and makes their culture uniquely theirs. That’s why I love this line so much. This is a people that while they don’t know their background completely they keep moving forward.

 

 But I think that is how they actually define themselves. Every day they define more and more who and what Latin America is. Their culture is constantly changing and I think that’s what solidifies them. They are able to keep walking through it all and not get discouraged and give up, but keep making things their own. Latinoamérica is basically all about stickin’ it to the man. They aren’t going to let anyone get in their way.

Recently in my Doctrine and Covenants class we have been talking about the revelation that came to President Spencer W. Kimball saying all worthy males could receive the priesthood. (Don’t worry, this really does tie in with the topic). There is a black guy in the class and he asked the teacher if he could take a few minutes today in class and talk about it from his perspective since he felt it was his duty. He basically said that while we have no idea where exactly this policy came from to begin with, all he knows is that we have a prophet leading us today and that the Church is true so nothing else matters. He said how he doesn’t worry about it at all; it doesn’t even bother him. He accepts the past and keeps on going. This is what Latin America does. They might not know where exactly they came from, yet they keep on going; the past doesn’t hold them up or hinder their progress. “Vamos caminando.”

I searched high and low for the clip from La Misma Luna that I wanted to write about, but to no avail. So subtitle quotes will have to do. It’s when Carlitos is eating lunch with his dad, Oscar.

–Where’s your mother? (Oscar)

–In Los Angeles. Can you take me to her? (Carlitos)

–Rosario didn’t come with you?

 –I’m traveling alone.

–How long has she been in Los Angeles?

–Four years.

–Four years?! That’s a long time to be away isn’t it?

–Not as long as you. I’d never even met you. But if you take me to Los Angeles maybe you and mom can make up.

–She would never forgive me.

–I think she would. I know I would.

Carlitos proceeds to pay for the check when it arrives which brings tears to Oscar’s eyes. I couldn’t help but think of the theme of redemption as I watched this. It sounded like Oscar made some mistakes in the past, but Carlitos readily forgave him. I felt like him paying for the check was his way of saying that he forgives his dad for not being there all growing up. It’s a touching scene that gets reduced to nothing when his dad never actually shows up to give him a ride. So, Oscar had this redemption dangling in front of him and he turned it away? Why did he do that? What drives a person to reject forgives and a second chance?

Obviously the theme of redemption reminded me of that scene from The Mission where Rodrigo is “released” from his burden and starts to cry. It seems as though Oscar and Rodrigo had a similar reaction to their being forgiven. Why then were the outcomes so different? What causes someone to either accept or reject redemption and another chance to start over? My initial response is that they feel like they have done too much wrong to be forgiven or they don’t think that the second chance would actually work or they just don’t want to change. But how does that response in this movie go with the plot as opposed to Oscar accepting the forgiveness? In my mind as I was watching it I could just imagine Oscar driving him back and all of them ending up as a happy little family. I realized though that this movie is about portraying real life, not some picture perfect kids show. It’s about showing the world the rough, not too pretty lives of immigrants. Would it have had the same effect on viewers if it were reversed?

One of my favorite things we have talked about this semester is Levinas’ theory about totality and infinity. It’s not exactly Latin Americanesque on the surface, but you can see it everywhere and anywhere. It’s amazing how many times I have thought of this theory as we have been reading different works in this class or watching the different films. It’s also been interesting to realize how many times I’ve thought about it outside of class.

Just a little reminder about what the theory is: There is yourself, and everyone else that’s not you is an “other.” In understanding these “others” there are two ways to approach them. One way is through totality where you look at them as this kind of pie chart and if you can fill in all the pieces then you will know exactly who they are; you can label them. The other way is through the infinity approach where no matter how much you learn there is always more to find out; you will never be able to label them as something specific. Another way of describing this is that totality is more harsh and grasping while infinity is more gentle and caressing.

When I first learned about this it made me analyze what kind of a person I am, do I just try to figure things out and label them or do I accept things as they are and slowly try to unfold some of the mysteries? I feel like when you first meet someone it’s only natural to want to “understand” them and instantly label them into a category. Since learning this theory though, I’ve been trying harder to just realize that labels don’t explain what someone really is. People are too complex to fit inside narrow, undefined assumptions. So why do we keep putting labels on people?

“Then my mind wandered and my thoughts became a living part of me” (Rudolfo Anaya, Bless Me, Ultima, 187).

We are always thinking. It’s just what we do. Our minds are never at rest; even while we sleep we dream the different thoughts we have. So, what does it mean to have these thoughts become a living part of us? Honestly, I think they are already a living part of us. We just don’t realize that they are. We don’t take time to stop and think about how every single thought we have is shaping our lives. How do they shape our lives though? It’s all about agency, about our choices. We get to decide how these thoughts will play inside our heads.

An example of a thought: “I like that person’s sweater.” Now, there are lots of different reactions we could take from here. We can become jealous either to the point of just thinking how jealous we are or actually taking action on this new found jealousy. We can complement them on the sweater we like so much and be grateful they were wearing it so we could see it. We can decide that the thought we just had wasn’t really that important and dismiss it. Our thoughts, big or little, are what make us alive and living. If our brain stops working, we die.  

I think what Antonio is saying is that he finally realized how important and amazing his thoughts are and can be. He found the worth contained in his thoughts and how life-changing they truly are. We can let our thoughts consume us or we can learn how to guide them and let them lead our lives to where we want to be. I found this interesting:

 

What do you make of it?

“Another thing I did that summer was to confirm Cico’s story. I followed the line of water Cico said was drawn around the town, and it was true, the entire town was surrounded by water!” (Rudolfo Anaya, Bless Me, Ultima, 124)

We talked in class how water always symbolizes something in literature, and this obviously means something! But we never discussed what exactly it meant. So I wanted to delve a little deeper into it. In a sense, you could say this story is “waterlogged” (excuse the pun). It seems as though every time Antonio crosses a bridge or is by the river he either crosses into a place far different than where he just came or he learns something new that will change his six-year-old life forever. And there is water everywhere!

In my mental search for other uses of water like this one, Inception came to mind. Every time they come out of one level of a dream state it is through water. In other words, they use water to symbolize this sort of portal between different worlds.

 

Anaya does this same thing. He doesn’t exactly use it to symbolize a different world but a new phase of life or some new knowledge or understanding that has taken place. He uses it as turning points for Antonio. The fact that the water surrounds the entire town where he lives seems pretty significant as well. It’s clear that his mom and dad have certain dreams in mind for their children. The older sons have gone outside this level of the “dream” and have their own dreams now, and they go off to live their own lives. The more Antonio is by the water and the more knowledge he gains the more he realizes he has the choice to fit in this “dream” that has been created or not. I find it interesting that the myth Antonio learns is that the whole city will be drowned into the water surrounding it. Could this be the washing out completely of the parents’ level of the dream? 

And just one more comment...it's my birthday :)

 

What happened in the beginning and what happened in the end were the same. People started playing music and dancing to the beat. It made it feel like nothing in between even really mattered at all in the end. All that mattered was the music, the beat, and the dance. Which makes sense, considering over half the movie had that continuous beat playing in the background. Why was that the central focus though?

There is obviously a pretty straight-forward connection between this plot and the Greek myth about Orpheus and Eurydice. So why portray it in this way? Why with music and dance at the heart? It took me back to the carnivalesque theory we talked about in class. The whole film is a dance between two differing subjects: joy and sadness, life and death, love and hate, frivolity and humility. And just like in a real dance, there is no “winner” out of the two partners; they both dominate at different times and yet work together to create one whole revolving masterpiece. A perfect song about just this concept is “I Hate You Then I Love You.” Quite humorous in my opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_Y0tC31VcA

 There is this natural dance and beat that we all feel in life. We’re dancing with the opposites that life brings, with the good and bad of every day. There’s no stopping it. Just like the beginning and ending of this film portray, the dance is eternal. It’s never over.

“While others more foresighted than they had got their money out of Santo Domingo and had gone to New Orleans, or were starting new coffee plantations in Cuba, those who had salvaged nothing reveled in their improvidence, in living from day to day, in freedom from obligations, seeking, for the moment, to suck from everything what pleasure they could find” (Alejo Carpentier, The Kingdom of This World, 76-77).

This sounds like a pretty nice concept—to get the most out of life that you can, just living up every moment to its fullest—as opposed to the people who take the more responsible route and try to get their lives in perfect order and harmony. As I was thinking about these two different views on life I couldn’t help but notice that these two views are usually what the two main characters in almost every movie ever made have. One of the characters is the responsible one who has a routine and order in their lives. The other character lives day by day and tries to have as much fun as they can while living it. Basic plot: they meet, they can’t stand each other, they start to like the other point of view, they fall in love or begin to see eye to eye and live happily ever after.

Why do we find such joy in this? How can we watch movie after movie or read book after book about this same exact situation? Why are they so central to life? I’m no expert, but having these differing personalities is what runs the world. If we were all straight-laced and never stepped aside from our order we would never invent new things, try different concepts, find all the joy available in life. On the other hand, if we were all care-free it would be a miracle if anything actually got done that needed to get done.

Balance is the key. It’s as soon as that balance starts dying that things get out of hand in life. But if they’ve already started to get unbalanced like in Carpentier’s book, how do you bring it back to balance?