To understand censorship in the Spanish film industry,
we have to take into account
that until 1973
it was completely arbritrary.
There were 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 censorship which 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 timings 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 is 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.
Excuse me. Let's start all over. Sorry.
I'll start over because I missed something.
Silence ...
Cut ...
Give it to me.
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.
Ok, are you ready?
What do I have to say, "never more"?
Yes, the last phrase.
Action!