Umbracle (1972) - full transcript

To understand censorship

in the Spanish film industry,

we have to take into account

that until 1973

it was completely arbritrary.

There where no written rules.

It was the result

of what the pertinent commission

of civil servants thought.

But the political evolution

of the country,

the transition from autarchy

and Falangism

to the neo-capitalism

of the Opus Dei

in the early sixties

a series of changes

were brought about.

These changes

rationalized Spanish life

in the economic, commercial

and industrial aspects.

Within this new politics

of Opus Dei

one of the areas affected

was that of the film industry.

The application of the set codes

depends on how they are applied

in order for them

to be more or less severe.

I will read some of the rules

and will comment on them.

For example, rule 14

of this censorship code

forbids the disparaging

or undignified presentation

of political ideologies

when in our country

many anti-soviet,

anti-revolutionary and anti-socialist

movies have been exhibited.

Of course,

this rule

has been interpreted

to favor the reactionary

and fascist film industry.

Rule 15

states that films

that promote hatred

between races and social

classes will be forbidden.

It's ridiculous.

Rule 16 states that films

whose theme neglects

the duty of defending

the homeland will be forbidden.

A very militaristic approach.

Rule 17 states

that anything against

the Catholic Church,

its dogma, its morals, its rites,

or against the basic principles

of the State, national identity,

interior or exterior security,

and against the Chief of State

will be forbidden.

These rules

clearly protect

the country's establishment.

In some cases, there will be

grotesquely ambiguous rules.

For example,

there is a very funny one,

rule 18, which states:

when the accumulations of scenes

which in themselves present no fault

yet collectively present

a lustful, brutal,

crude or morbid atmosphere,

the film will be forbidden.

In other words, scenes or shots

which in themselves are harmless

can also lead

to the prohibition of a film.

Again, the biggest paradox

lies in rule 34,

which is the key rule.

All these rules

will be applied equally

to all films submitted to censorship

regardless of nationality.

The code prohibits justification of

suicide, murder out of compassion,

revenge and duels,

divorce, adultery,

illicit sexual relationships,

prostitution, abortion

and birth control.

There is a long list. And finally,

rule 12

forbids the images or scenes

of cruelty

to people or animals,

or of terror.

This is hypocritical because

the police in this country

uses terrorist methods

on the streets,

brutality against civilians,

workers, students,

yet this hypocrisy forbids

showing on a screen

the brutality and terror

which it itself practices.

Finally, there is a general rule

under which everything falls.

Blasphemous, pornographic

and subversive films

will be forbidden for any audience

In other words,

pornography, subversion

and blasphemy are measured

with the same ruler.

It does, however,

reveal the political philosophy

of the regime as a whole.

Censorship is applied

at two levels.

There is an initial

application to the script.

Any Spanish film

has to go through

a script censorship first

which will cut, modify or simply,

the script will be forbidden.

Secondly, once the film is made

based on the approved script,

it will have to go

through a second censorship.

These two filters

applying these codes

make it practically impossible

to have freedom of expression.

Among the worst effects

of this censorship code

in my mind

is the inhibition,

the brutal self-censorship

which it leads to

and which is translated

into the self-castration

of its producers

and script-writers,

in other words, they won't write

a scene for fear of its being cut.

Their imagination is compressed

and the result leads to a weakening

of the scripts themselves.

The conclusion is clear in that:

the only kind of cinema

of some interest

and related somewhat

to reality

and in which there is

a minimum amount of self-expression

by the creators, falls

outside the realms of legality.

It is marginal cinema,

a cinema

which has become clandestine

due to its legal status.

From this standpoint,

there are clearly

two possibilities,

two alternatives which are

more or less practiced.

The last word will be

in the hands of those in filmmaking.

On the one hand, there is

a militant cinema,

cinema which for whatever reason

has not been able to be seen,

and then on the other hand,

a cinema which due to circumstances,

has faced the impossibility

of legal viability.

In a way

it forces marginal,

clandestine cinema

to disentangle itself from the sinister

tradition of self-censorship

which has always fallen heavily

on the Spanish film industry.

Yet, on the other hand,

it offers the film maker

the possibility of researching,

or looking for ways

which will be more meaningful

with his media. And above all,

it will help him get involved

and to communicate

through this new distribution

channel in which he works.

This type of film making,

whose dissemination won't be easy,

at least among us,

is a type of film that could

reach a ready

and qualified audience.

Not a massive or

indiscriminate audience

as we see

in our movie theaters today.

I think one can talk

about underground cinema

as a cultural option

within a system,

a cultural option as a reply

to that system

without trying to break it

but work alongside it.

However, in the experience

of what has been called

underground cinema

in Madrid and Barcelona,

the intention has been

to integrate oneself

into the profession

but through parallel channels.

As for the ideological

meaning of these films,

I think we can refer to them

as types of psychodramas

or almost subconscious

presentations

of the frustrations

or conditioning

of their creators.

By no means are they

considered as works of art

in the sense that they portray

a view of a life

far from the creators'

own frustrations

or of their own egos,

or are they films with

political or even

militant implications.

On this last point of political

and militant cinema

we should probably point out

that there is,

in all cultural works,

a political and ideological

implication,

which is to say, seeing

the ideological/political significant

in any work of art.

But, at the same time, we find

that there exists

a militant cinema and literature

in the sense that the objective

has a political end.

We are no longer

living the times

when a team of the Opus Dei

within the government

tries and opening-up process

towards the exterior,

the exterior being understood

as a supposed

liberalization of the regime.

This proves to be a failure

due to the fact that the government

is incapable of controlling

this supposed liberalization

and the repercussions

resulting from this liberalization

which deeply attacks its politics.

It is then obliged

to take a hard line again.

This hard line goes back

to that taken after the Civil War

both at political

and cultural levels.

And film making

is submitted

to the same conditioning

and the impossibility of creating

a new Spanish film industry

to replace the earlier one.

FRAGMENT OF INFINITE FRONT

1956, PEDRO LAZAGA.

- The Father is inside.

- Bad timing for your arrival, Captain.

- Where's Father?

- He's around here somewhere.

Father Herrera, come on!

- Father.

- I can't! I can't!

I have tried but...

Sometimes I wonder if God refuses

to hear me beseeching him.

It's awful!

Do you realize

what you are saying?

No, I don't.

Get up. Get up, Father.

Once I told you that your mission

would be difficult.

You wear a uniform and a star.

This isn't a post of comfort

but one of sacrifice.

You can't evade fulfilling

your mission as a priest

however hard

and unpleasant it is.

As a priest and as an officer,

your post is here.

Here,

with no weaknesses of spirit

or of self-confessions.

Fight and overcome it

and pray.

Remember the excuse

Peter gave the Lord.

"Lord, I have tried

fishing all night

but haven't been successful."

God reprimanded him

and the apostle bowed his head.

"Trusting your word

I will throw my nets."

Remember it Father,

remember it.

And a miracle took place.

And if you do it this way, Father,

God will smile upon you

but he will let it be you

who makes the effort.

And this effort

will have its reward.

This is your war, Father.

Stand at attention

on the count of one.

Two.

And three.

At ease!

Attention!

Headquarters. Yes.

Captain.

Staff. Yes, yes, okay.

Thank you.

We have visitors.

- Enemy planes are approaching.

- Tell the Father.

Tell the Father to hurry up.

It's impossible to do that now.

He is doing the consecration.

Scatter yourselves, hurry!

This isn't anything major.

Paco!

Hello, hello, how are you?

How are you all?

- Hey, hey, how am I?

- How are you?

If I tell you how you are,

you won't get mad at me?

- I won't get mad.

- Are you sure? Then I will tell you.

My friend Tony,

you are very rude.

- What did you say?

- You are very rude.

Okay, then show me

why I am rude.

Okay, an explanation

of why you are rude.

Very simple.

The first thing you should do

when you stand

before an audience

is to take off your hat,

greet the public,

say good morning, good

afternoon, or good evening,

whatever you prefer.

You have this horrible habit

of not taking off your little hat.

- Hey, hey, give me my little hat.

- Nope, I won't.

- Give me the little hat.

- I won't give it to you.

- My head will get cold.

- Doesn't matter.

Look, I'm getting a bee in my bonnet

and it's going to get ugly.

Doesn't matter.

Look, I am not going to give it

to you. Let it be a lesson.

I don't want to give it to you.

Come here and kindly

don't play with my wardrobe.

- Give me my hat.

- Give me mine first.

No, Sir. You give me mine first.

- Today he doesn't trust me.

- So you don't want to give it to me.

Won't you give me my hat first?

You won't give it to me?

- You first.

- Oh yeah? Well, let's see.

If I make a comparison

and I convince you,

you will give me my hat.

Yes or no?

Well, if you can convince me

maybe I'll give it to you.

Good, I am going

to make a comparison.

Let's suppose that there is a large

hat shop right in front of here.

You are in front of this hat shop.

You go inside...

- and they show you a new...

- New.

- elegant...

- Elegant.

- fabulous...

- Tuberculous.

No, no. Fabulous.

With feathers,

a really lovely hat.

- An ugly hat?

- No, really lovely.

And then they show you

a really horrible one.

An old, green, bare...

Bare like its owner.

- Worth nothing.

- It cost me five...

Look, if someone were going

to give you one of them,

which one would you choose?

The new one or the old one?

Well... the new one!

You would choose the new one.

Well, that's it then.

Take mine because

it's the new one.

- That's not a bad comparison.

- Naturally.

- What did you say?

- Naturally, I convinced you.

- Yes. Naturally?

- Of course.

Well look, neither naturally

or factually.

You won't give it to me?

But let's see,

didn't I convince you?

- Yes.

- Then give me my hat right now.

Now it's my turn

to make a comparison.

That's a good one. You are going

to give me a comparison.

Go ahead.

- Let's suppose tomorrow you go out.

- I go out.

And one of those athletic types

passes in front of your house.

An athlete, a young man.

And from the other direction

comes a little old man

about 90 or 95 years old.

Okay, an old man.

Comes from the opposite direction.

They reach the middle and trip

and both fall.

Both fall on the ground.

Who would you help get up first,

the old or the young man?

What kind of a question is that?

Of course, I would help

the old man get up first.

Just like my hat,

which is 90 years old.

Well, that it just great!

You have really convinced me.

Here's your hat.

But hey,

now you pick up mine.

- Yours?

- Yep.

Well, since it's young

it can get up by itself.

Well, that is just great.

I didn't like that at all.

So you think

you are really smart, huh?

Of course.

So so smart.

Much smarter than you.

- Very good.

- Did you like it?

Let's play another.

Very good.

I have decided to make a slight

change in this pattern, as just to say…

As an actor I am now going to do

something which isn’t in the script,

which hasn’t been rehearsed and

which the director has not prepared.

I am going to do something,

so to speak, for myself.

I am going to sing.

I am going to sing because

I love singing and I love music

and because I was

a singer for a time.

But I have neverdone it on the

screen; I’ve never done it in a film.

I am also going to read

something from a poem.

I’m going to read from a poem by

Edgar Allan Poe called The Raven.

A beautiful poem.

Damn!

Excuse me.

Let's start all over. Sorry.

I'll start over

because I missed something.

Silence.

Cut!

Give it to me.

The Raven by Edgar Allan Poe,

is I suppose, completely unique

in the English language.

It has a unique rhythm

and it has also

a unique atmosphere surrounding it.

I suppose, in a way, the central

figure who tells the story

is a little bit like

Edgar Allan Poe himself.

He was a sad, bitter,

lonely, unhappy man

and in this poem, of course,

we have just such a person.

It starts with the man in his house,

sitting, dreaming in front of the fire

and he hears this noise and he goes to

the window (this is making it very brief),

and he opens the window

and in steps this bird.

And the bird perches on this

bust which is in the man’s room

and the man, at first, quite

quite calmly,

almost in an amused sense

starts to talk to the bird.

Well it soon becomes quite obvious

that the raven can only say one word

and this one word gradually

produces ever increasing sense of hysteria

in the man himself because it

doesn’t matter what questions he asks,

and they are very important questions

to him, about his lost love,

about his life, about his future;

the answer is always the same.

It must be the only poem

in I suppose any language, certainly

any language that I am acquainted with,

or any poem that I know of,

where the entire work

devolves from one phrase, indeed,

one word.

Cut.

How much film do we have left?

Let's do another take.

Yes, you told me that when I finish

my narration, we could cut the take.

- Yes, when you were finished.

- Yes, but we are still filming.

Cut, cut, cut!

Once upon a midnight dreary,

while I pondered,

weak and weary,

Over many a quaint and curious

volume of forgotten lore,

While I nodded, nearly napping,

suddenly there came a tapping,

As of someone gently rapping,

rapping at my chamber door.

" 'This some visitor," I muttered,

"tapping at my chamber door;

Only this, and nothing more."

Open here I flung the shutter,

when, with many a flirt and flutter,

In there stepped a stately raven,

of the saintly days of yore.

Not the least obeisance made he;

not a minute stopped or stayed he;

But with mien of lord or lady,

perched above my chamber door.

Perched upon a bust of Pallas,

just above my chamber door,

Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird

beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,

By the grave and stern decorum

of the countenance it wore,

"Though thy crest be shorn

and shaven thou," I said,

"art sure no craven,

Ghastly, grim, and ancient raven,

wandering from the nightly shore.

Tell me what the lordly name is

on the Night's Plutonian shore."

Quoth the raven "Nevermore."

"Be that word

our sign of parting, bird or fiend!"

I shrieked, upstarting—

"Get thee back into the tempest

and the Night's Plutonian shore!

Leave no black plume as a token

of that lie thy soul hath spoken!

Leave my loneliness unbroken!—

quit the bust above my door!

Take thy beak from out my heart,

and take thy form from off my door!"

Quoth the raven "Nevermore."

And the Raven, never flitting,

still is sitting,

still is sitting

On the pallid bust of Pallas

just above my chamber door;

And his eyes have all the

seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,

And the lamp-light o’er him streaming

throws his shadow on the floor;

And my soul from out that shadow

that lies floating on the floor

Shall be lifted—

nevermore!

Ok, are you ready?

What do I have to say,

"never more"?

Yes, the last phrase.

nevermore!