Natalia Almada Presentation

I found Natalia Almada's films (or the excerpts we saw) compelling for a couple of reasons. As a Hispanic American born of immigrant parents, I was able to connect to the subject matter of her films. The struggle between two conflicting languages and cultures is one that I am familiar with. More impacting, however, was the immediate content of a film like Al Otro Lado. The issue over illegal immigration is a predominant one not only in American politics, but in American sociological life as well. Immigration is not just an issue that lawmakers have to deal with, but one that the American population is involved with on a regular basis. Its impossible to come by an American who does not have an opinion on the topic. I think what Almada did well in Al Otro Lado was reveal the situation from not only one side of the issue, but from both. I'm not disputing that her vision is not a biased one, after all the film follows a Mexican immigrant, but she does take the time to interview the citizen "police" force in Arizona to balance out the film. I think another important thing this film does is explore the issue from an angle not often understood, that of the Mexican immigrant facing the decision to emigrate. There are a lot of people blind and often ignorant to the reasons why immigrants find themselves having to make such a crucial decision. Almada successfully explores this angle of the issue.

All Water Has a Perfect Memory was an intriguing film. Structurally, the film is quite intricate. The dominance of audio in the film was a risky venture on Almada's part but it worked because the story unfolds through what we hear. The visuals compliment the auditory elements. Looking at it from a metaphoric perspective, the dominance of sound in the film demonstrates how Almada's memories of her sister are constructed mainly by the details she has heard from her family. The memory is not reconstructed through visual elements (pictures, videos) because without the explicative voices these visuals mean nothing.

I respect the fact that Almada seems to have made this film for herself rather than to gear it toward satisfying an audience. This, however, is probably the reason some people have a problem with the film, because of how "personal" it is. I disagree with this notion because I think the film is more than just a sob story. The film is grounded in the father and mother's parallel cultures, which is depicted in the fact that they speak different languages and in the description of where they were and what they were doing at the time of their daughter's death. The physical and cultural separation is reconciled only after the death of their daughter.
I would argue the notion that the film is too "personal" on the grounds that all film making has to be and is "personal" by nature. We bring our subjective ideas, visions and prejudices to any film we make- whether it be a documentary regarding unsanitary cattle raising practices or a fictitious piece about aliens with not so subtle environmentalist subtexts. Its part of the film making process- from choosing what you place in the frame to choosing what shots are edited into the film. Objectivity is impossible in film making. Almada, however, demonstrates how subjectivity can enhance your final product by making a film that did not seek to convey any objectivity to please an audience but instead creating a piece that meant something for her. It's a lesson a lot of artists (film makers, writers, musicians) forget sometimes: to create art because you are compelled to create something meaningful for yourself, not because you are seeking to satisfy an audience.