Hasn’t come to my part of the hinterlands, Frank, but I want to see it when and if it does.
Absolutely. It’s an emotionally honest and subtle drama which centers around the idea that people search for a substitute in order to not fulfill what they are really looking for. The love story between Esposito and Irene who need many years to utter their feelings for each other on the one hand, and the cruel story of cold-blooded murder contrast in a brilliant way, and somehow all of the paths the film shows lead to one point, the disturbing scene where Esposito discovers the victim. The film is more complex and allegorical than one is used from that “genre type”, and also manages to integrate the “porteño” humour perfectly. It’s likely my favorite among the Oscar nominees and one of the most pleasant surprises from 2009 aside “About Elly” and “Like You Know It All”.
Was very surprised by how much I enjoyed it. A lot of things happen on the screen, but the emotions are very subtle. In essence, it’s another take on the age old question, “How far would you go for the one you love?” Here, we have two completely different angles to it. One man who walks away while another can never forget. I did not expect the ending, and while I’m generally not keen on any “twist” finales, this is one I’m willing to overlook because it makes sense. We should have known, in fact, that his love was that strong.
I just saw this, and I really enjoyed it (75/100).
Several comments:
-So much of the action and point of interest for me occurred in the longing looks between the two leads (Darin and Villamil). I really loved this aspect of the film. (It doesn’t hurt that Villamil is very beautiful). These moments as well the relationship between the two characters made me think of the novel/film Remains of the Day. i think these moments and the chemistry between the two actors were so strong that I didn’t care that the film hardly spent any time establishing their love for each other. Their interactions are pretty mundane; we don’t see them developing a relationship. They (or he did) seemed to be in love the moment he sees her, and it’s all in the eyes, which was so palpable that I didn’t mind the lack of development in their relationship. -especially the train scene (the score was a bit much, too)—but this is a minor quibble.
—The filmmaker lays the romance on a little too thick at times
—I enjoyed the Pablo Sandoval character and the moments of comedy (when Esposito and Pablo getting chewed out; stealing the letters).
—I thought the film should did a little more to establish the reason Esposito felt he could not pursue Irene. I had no idea of his or Irene’s class status (until Esposito’s arch-enemy says this) or even their positions at work. More background into the characters, especially background to show why he would be so fearful and reluctant to pursue the relationship might have helped. (My wife disagrees with me about this.)
—Did anyone else think it was a little implausible that Esposito went after Gomez with such certainty based on pictures? My initial take on this was that Esposito was so confident because he looks at Irene in a similar way. On the other hand, Esposito looking at Irene comes out of love for her, whereas Gomez’s look indicates that he was her killer? (Is there a class envy thing going on? And/or envying the beautiful girl that is beyond one’s reach; if you can’t have her, then rape and kill her?)
—I enjoyed the sequence at the soccer stadium and the way Pablo concludes this is the place they should look.
—I loved the scene in the elevator.
—Who were the guys that killed Pablo? I’m assuming they were sent by Gomez or Romano (the arch-enemy)?
The one thing I want to think about a little more is the relationship between the murder (or the memory of the murder) and Esposito’s relationship with Irene (or the memory of it). Esposito can’t let go of the murder and he can’t let go of Irene. I also want to think about the meaning of the title.
I would love if Argentina’s would participate and share any insights or nuances I might have missed, too. I don’t know much about the socio-political environment at the time, and I’m wondering if there is any way the film comments on that.
(spoilers)
@Frank
I agree with a lot of what you wrote.
What were the “lying flashbacks?”
I know little about Evita Peron and the Argentinian politics, so I’d be interested in hearing more about this as it relates to the film.
@Apu
“…somehow all of the paths the film shows lead to one point, the disturbing scene where Esposito discovers the victim.”
I want to hear you expand on that. I’d also like to hear you talk about the allegorical nature of the film.
@Deq
“…How far would you go for the one you love?” Here, we have two completely different angles to it. One man who walks away while another can never forget. I did not expect the ending, and while I’m generally not keen on any “twist” finales, this is one I’m willing to overlook because it makes sense. We should have known, in fact, that his love was that strong.”
Wait. Who are the two men you are referring to? When you posed the question, the thought of Gomez came to my mind (Did he love her? If he didn’t, does that mean that Esposito saw a crazy, muderous look in Gomez’s eyes? That seems a bit much.), but I’m assuming you mean Morales (the man whose wife was murdered/raped) and Esposito. However, Morales doesn’t really walk away because he goes after Gomez and imprisons him.
Who are you referring when you say, “…his love was that strong?” What twist are you referring to? (the fact that Gomez was not dead but imprisoned?)
dp
Jazz, was referring to Esposito’s relationship with Hastings and Morales’s passion for justice. Found the former to be dillydallying his own fight while the latter took it upon himself to do what he needed to.
@Deq
Who are you referring to when you say, “his love was strong.” Morale’s love of justice?
Could Gomez also be one who has a strong “love?” Does he love Liliana, which turns into a hate? Or is that just too crazy an interpretation?
“I want to hear you expand on that.”
I think that the film’s structure owes a lot to Greek tragedy, and the final discovery at the barn can be regarded as its “epiphaneia”, or to put it in a Christian context the revelation of the devil in human form.
“I’d also like to hear you talk about the allegorical nature of the film.”
The film is an allegory on the creation of substitutes, in this case the murderer hunt that Esposito makes use of in order to not confront himself with the love of his life, or as Schopenhauer once put it: “Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants.” It’s one of the essential aspects of human existence to search for substitutes, and the creation of art itself is among the most striking ones.
Jazz, was never convinced that Gomez was guilty. That was part of the fascination for me. If I recall correctly, the film remains ambiguous about that as a way of seeing Morales’ sense of justice. Morales ends up devoting his life to find the only way to honor the soul of the woman he loved. He ends up forsaking his own existence in the process because unless someone paid for her death, he couldn’t live in peace.
From another angle, you could argue that it was more for self-satisfaction than love. But why would anyone go to such lengths for self-satisfaction? The only explanation could be that possibly Morales himself was the murderer, and his actions towards Gomez were of displaced guilt. That’s a stretch, but certainly a possibility.
Jazz: Thanks for updating this thread. It appears that more people have finally seen this important film and are willing to talk about it.
SPOILER ALERT: As to your question about the “lying flashback,” I was referring to the scene depicted in the film when the rapist-murderer is shown being killed by the victim’s husband as he narrates the event, even though it did not actually take place. Instead, the rapist-murderer is held prisoner.
One of the first examples of a lying flashback was in Hitchcock’s STAGE FRIGHT, in which a murderer tells of his innocence and we see that enacted on screen in a flashback. Of course, he’s really guilty. Hitch was criticized unmercifully for “lying” to the audience by showing this false scene and giving them the false impression that the character was actually innocent.
As for the political subtext about Eva Peron, space does not permit me to recount the whole history of the Peron years in Argentina. You can look up a brief summary of that period by searching “Evita Peron” in Wikipedia or Googling her name. Suffice to say that the film implies that the Peron dictatorship allowed the rapist-murderer to escape prosecution because he was affiliated with the right-wing regime.
Of course, you could also gleam some of that history by watching the Alan Parker film and Madonna vehicle, Evita. (I’m only kidding!)
Really enjoyed this movie.
The shot at the football stadium was one of the most unusual in a mainstream film i think i’ve ever seen. It appeared to be one long take starting from a ‘helicopter POV’ above the stadium, it then went into the crowd and finally followed the chase. (hopefully that makes sense)
I know there was a hidden cut somewhere when the camera first moved into the crowd.
Nice scene i thought but does it ‘remove’ the audience to much from the film… not sure… It was so different to how the rest of the movie was shot. At the time I think I may have been concentrating more on the technique than the action.
Was it just me?
@Deq
“Jazz, was referring to Esposito’s relationship with Hastings and Morales’s passion for justice. Found the former to be dillydallying his own fight while the latter took it upon himself to do what he needed to.”
I never fully understood Esposito’s “dillydallying,” and I wished the film supported his hesitation a little more.
“Jazz, was never convinced that Gomez was guilty.”
After the interrogation, I felt this way, too; but after that—when Gomez is released, the film seems to suggest that he indeed is the killer. I don’t think the film works so well if there are doubts about his guilt. If there are doubts, then the ambiguity of this decision would be a more prominent feature in the film. (Irene, Esposito and Morales would express uncertainty and maybe even guilt—although, isn’t there a scene in the present when Esposito tells Irene that Gomez must have been guilty—as if he were uncertain—because it was in his eyes?)
In any event, don’t you guys think the whole discovery that Gomez was the killer seems to be highly flimsy and improbable. (Basically, Esposito seeing it in his look.) One possibility is that this aspect of the film is a sort of romantic/magical realism that is found in books by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. (The film has a little of the flavor, but it’s subtle.)
@Apu
“…or to put it in a Christian context the revelation of the devil in human form.”
Is Gomez (the murderer) the devil or Morales (the husband)? I’m assuming you mean Morales and that you consider him a devil for locking up Gomez for all these years?
“The film is an allegory on the creation of substitutes, in this case the murderer hunt that Esposito makes use of in order to not confront himself with the love of his life, as Schopenhauer once put it: “Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants.”
I can understand the quote if we’re talking about moral decisions (as Paul talks about in his letter to the Romans), but I don’t quite understand this quote with regard to objects of desire. Irene is the love of his life. What’s stopping him? Maybe I don’t understand Argentinian society and culture sufficiently; maybe Argentinian (or South American) viewers had not trouble understanding his fear and inability to pursue Irene, but I felt the film needed to establish this a little more.
@Frank
Thanks for the clarification. Re: the lying memory. I thought you were referring to Esposito’s recollections.
“Suffice to say that the film implies that the Peron dictatorship allowed the rapist-murderer to escape prosecution because he was affiliated with the right-wing regime.”
I knew enough to pick this up. If knowing more about the Peron regime would help me understand the film, let me know, and maybe I’ll make the effort (not via the Pakula film).
@Duncan
I really liked the stadium scene, and I agree with most of what you said. The scene and the filmmaking drew attention to itself, but I didn’t mind.
@Deq
“Jazz, was referring to Esposito’s relationship with Hastings and Morales’s passion for justice. Found the former to be dillydallying his own fight while the latter took it upon himself to do what he needed to.”
I never fully understood Esposito’s “dillydallying,” and I wished the film supported his hesitation a little more.
“Jazz, was never convinced that Gomez was guilty.”
After the interrogation, I felt this way, too; but after that—when Gomez is released, the film seems to suggest that he indeed is the killer. I don’t think the film works so well if there are doubts about his guilt. If there are doubts, then the ambiguity of this decision would be a more prominent feature in the film. (Irene, Esposito and Morales would express uncertainty and maybe even guilt—although, isn’t there a scene in the present when Esposito tells Irene that Gomez must have been guilty—as if he were uncertain—because it was in his eyes?)
In any event, don’t you guys think the whole discovery that Gomez was the killer seems to be highly flimsy and improbable. (Basically, Esposito seeing it in his look.) One possibility is that this aspect of the film is a sort of romantic/magical realism that is found in books by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. (The film has a little of the flavor, but it’s subtle.)
@Apu
“…or to put it in a Christian context the revelation of the devil in human form.”
Is Gomez (the murderer) the devil or Morales (the husband)? I’m assuming you mean Morales and that you consider him a devil for locking up Gomez for all these years?
“The film is an allegory on the creation of substitutes, in this case the murderer hunt that Esposito makes use of in order to not confront himself with the love of his life, as Schopenhauer once put it: “Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants.”
I can understand the quote if we’re talking about moral decisions (as Paul talks about in his letter to the Romans), but I don’t quite understand this quote with regard to objects of desire. Irene is the love of his life. What’s stopping him? Maybe I don’t understand Argentinian society and culture sufficiently; maybe Argentinian (or South American) viewers had not trouble understanding his fear and inability to pursue Irene, but I felt the film needed to establish this a little more.
@Frank
Thanks for the clarification. Re: the lying memory. I thought you were referring to Esposito’s recollections.
“Suffice to say that the film implies that the Peron dictatorship allowed the rapist-murderer to escape prosecution because he was affiliated with the right-wing regime.”
I knew enough to pick this up. If knowing more about the Peron regime would help me understand the film, let me know, and maybe I’ll make the effort (not via the Pakula film).
@Duncan
I really liked the stadium scene, and I agree with most of what you said. The scene and the filmmaking drew attention to itself, but I didn’t mind.
“Is Gomez (the murderer) the devil or Morales (the husband)?”
I was refering to Gómez who is portrayed as malicious and indefeasible throughout the film, but suddenly is revealed as a vulnerable and pitiable human being. The Greek theatre frequently made use of these nrevelations in human form, and although I haven’t read any analysis of “El secreto de sus ojos” that puts it into this context, it reminds me of those epiphaneias.
“maybe Argentinian (or South American) viewers had not trouble understanding his fear and inability to pursue Irene…”
I certainly becomes understandable in a cultural context if we think of the South American “machismo”. I remember a headline of an Argentine newspaper which said: ""En la Argentina son muy machistas y no se dan cuenta. (In Argentina they’re very chauvinistic without being aware of it.)" I think that Irene’s job-related superiority as a judge makes it difficult for the court investigator and macho Esposito to admit his love, he therefore searches for a substitute to overcome what he actually wants, making the murderer hunt a far more personal matter than it would be necessary. The photo which shows Esposito looking at her reveals his true intention though.
@Apu
“I think that Irene’s job-related superiority as a judge makes it difficult for the court investigator and macho Esposito to admit his love, he therefore searches for a substitute to overcome what he actually wants, making the murderer hunt a far more personal matter than it would be necessary.”
This is helpful. Actually, now your substitute theory makes more sense. He can’t express his love for Irene, so he begins to equating the murder case with his love for Irene and transferring his feeling towards it. Does he see Morales as himself? (Esposito talks about how he never saw a love in the eyes of anyone else in the same way.)
I have to admit something that really threw me off. When Esposito is writing his book at the beginning and then we see going to the court to visit Irene, I assumed that he was a lawyer—on the same level as Irene. I also didn’t pay enough attention when Irene becomes his boss, so I think this made understanding Esposito’s relationship with Irene a little more difficult.
That’s hard to say. I think that that he certainly identifies with Morales and therefore helps him in every possible way to find the murderer, but the comment might as well mean that he envies Morales’ love which at least got fulfilled before the girl was murdered. In that context it might be of importance that the protagonist’s name “Esposito” actually translates as “Espouse” as if he were meant to marry his love which didn’t happen. It’s without a doubt a film about lost opportunities, which is mirrored in the conversation with Irene after they met again, where she asks Esposito why he didn’t just take her with him went he left with the train.
I felt that i was watching Law &order with clasical music…
@Apu
I think he indentifies with Morales’ love (not the fact that it was unfilled or not). Remember Esposito says that he never saw eyes full of love that Morales’ possessed. He says this to convince Irene to keep the case open and when he sees Morales twenty-five years after the crime. (Nice observation about Esposito’s name.)
“…where she asks Esposito why he didn’t just take her with him went he left with the train.”
Well, that’s what I kept asking myself, and I stil don’t know if the film establishes how and why Esposito behaves this way (even after the details you mention).
@Mikel
Ouch. That thought hadn’t occurred to me at all.
one of the best movies i have seen so far,there was a real depth to all the characters ,i think thats why it is elevated to a notch above crime\thriller genre esp the forbidden love between two leads ,simply fantastic
also that stadium shot ,it was simply fantasitc ,
i no the movie is perfect as it is ,but i was just thinking who could be the right perosn if it were to be remade in holllywood ,only one name came to my mind;David Fincher
Up for Robert.
….. takes the hand-off, dodges a few tackles, and TOUCHDOWN !!!!
Frank has winner here: strong elements throughout.
fascinating flashback narrative (with “lying flashbacks” a la STAGE FRIGHT); a subtle, repressed love story; a 30-year-old mystery about a rape-murder; a surprising amount of humor and comic relief for a drama; a late-in-the-film critique of the Evita Peron years in Argentina; terrific acting; great cinematography and sound track, etc. etc.
And yet, not my type of structure – too many etc. etc. I think there’s thematic dilution occurring, which requires the individual pieces to fit too precisely.
The “lying flashback” had me thinking hubby was gonna be the killer….but this was a love story not a who-done-it right?
but this was a love story not a who-done-it right?
It’s kind of a messed story now that you mention, I’m not pretty sure what the director wanted to tell us but the film is still worth to watch and discuss.
@Robert
I think your criticism have some validity, although I never really fully analyzed the film, so….For me, I loved the two leads, particularly their facial expressions and eyes—that’s where all the action took place, which makes the title so appropriate; it’s probably one of the most apt titles for a film I can think of.
That might be a mini mcguffin near the end when Esposito walks directly to where Gomez is – you’re right that the elevator scene was great.
My memory of the film’s details is shot, so I don’t remember the scene you’re talking about. spoilers
(It’s the scene before Gomez is executed right?)
Gomez was executed?
Oh dear. Which guy was Gomez? (the killer?) I was thinking of the comical side-kick guy. (I told you my memory was shot.)
Yeah Gomez was in the cage – don’t confuse me – I saw it yesterday !
muzzling is like giving your kids a time out
Frank P. Tomasulo, Ph.D.
This film won the Oscar for Best Picture this year but I have not read much about it on this Web site. Perhaps it hasn’t played in the hinterlands yet.
I thought that this Argentinian film succeeded on many levels: a fascinating flashback narrative (with “lying flashbacks” a la STAGE FRIGHT); a subtle, repressed love story; a 30-year-old mystery about a rape-murder; a surprising amount of humor and comic relief for a drama; a late-in-the-film critique of the Evita Peron years in Argentina; terrific acting; great cinematography and sound track, etc. etc.
There’s a subtle motif of objects blocking the frame, only to be removed by character or camera movement, thus representing the ultimate discovery of what happened in the mystery part of the narrative in cinematic form.
I heartily recommend this movie, especially after a season of mean-spirited and dispiriting dramas that just went over the top in portraying human life as completely irredeemable: WHITE RIBBON, SHUTTER ISLAND, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO; etc. etc. I usually LOVE depressing dramas, but this recent string was too much for even me. I’m glad that THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES broke the sctring.
Does anyone else agree with my assessment?