Search - Todo el Poder on DVD

Like Annie Hall in Hell

C. Scanlon | among us humans | 01/15/2008

(3 out of 5 stars)

"Do you remember in Hamlet when the players come to the castle advertising their wares as tragic, comic, historic, etc., tragic historic, comic historic, etc., etc. and every other kind of combination possible? Such is this film from Mexico City in 1999. It cannot decide what it will be, a serious documentary of urban violence with official complicity, a light petit bourgeous love comedy (complete with jerky friends and a tall bespectacled and bumbling Woody Allen and a slim and lovely and available Annie Hall and the obligatory "How do she pay for that great apartment?"), a crime thriller or a parody. Being all of these above does not help. It is as if the screenwriter ran out of power a third of the way in, and other issues took over.



Very memorable and powerful characters are quickly established and then quickly have no place to go. Once Alex Cox does his quick Spanish only walk on and then quickly disappears the movie quickly loses its way and much touch with reality.



For example, do you really think we can find anymore a priest inhabiting a confessional at that time of night? If only! The Cure D'Ars has not resurrected in Mexico City, or at least as far as I know. And why is the priest's key line edited out? IS the sin of simony too great a corruption for this film?



The one who comes to confess is of course the corrupt police official who calls himself Elvis (not his real name) and who is deeply into that whole thing, including chanting Love me Tender to passing women, wearing long sideburns and wild shirts with long collars. In fact he looks just like a thin Nicholas Cage doing an Elvis impersonation, as does this engagingly.



Each of the actors is excellent (especially of course the too brief Mr. Cox) and breathe real life into their absurd roles. It is the screenwriting which dissipates and gets lost after creating a space for these memorable characters. We do not know whether we have a resolution of the parents of Valentina's divorce or not. They were a couple from a very young age. They gather by her towards the end and hear her cry for unity, but do not know where it goes in the end, after a deep exploration of her need for them to be together. Instead we read in the unnecessary closing "where are they now" type closing cards hints that Valentina instead will follow in their uncommitted and separate ways. A great if unconvincing resolution is lost here.



And the denouement itself takes place in voice-over through the radio announcer who acts as Greek Chorus in consistently promoting and clarifying the action, announcing the bad guys went to jail on unconvincing evidence which had been resolved elsewhere. But by that time we are no longer sure who are the bad guys, as the annointed good guys have themselves committed kidnapping, extortion, murder, prostitution, espionage, and threatened a small dog as well.



Perhaps it is simply too post modern for me. As the main character explicitly states, no one is 100% good or bad, but here everyone seems to get corrupted and engages in criminal activity. Is it possible to remain, as Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, a moral man in an immoral society? Please see Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study of Ethics and Politics (Library of Theological Ethics).



I only watched with the Spanish subtitles so I cannot say how the English subtitles are. The Spanish includes all of the common street slang of Chilangolandia now universal in Mexico: No manches, guey, guerita, and many other things not to be typed here. A good way to learn Mexican Spanish, but the moral of the story leaves me wondering."