¡Prohibida! Armando Bó and Isabel Sarli’s struggle with censorship in Argentina

“He restrains himself, he sweats and then with his silver scissors, he trims away her body/ he cuts her hair, he deforms her face, and that way, mutilated, he carries her loaded onto the screen… which bleeds.” Sui Generis “Las increíbles aventuras del Sr. Tijeras” (The incredible adventures of Mr. Scissors).

The lyrics to rock band Sui Generis’ 1974 hit about the work of the infamous film censor Miguel Paulino Tato ironically details the mutilation of a female body on the screen, a brutality that violently assaults the gendered body of the star and the act of sex itself as the screen bleeds from its many attacks. Tato, known as the most severe censor, carries a legacy that only reveals a partial story of film censorship in Argentina. Despite Tato’s anecdotal reputation, censorship in the nation neither began nor ended with him. By 1974, when Tato became the director of the Ente de Calificación Cinematográfica (Film Classification Board—from now on referred to as Ente), censorship was already systematic and institutionalized. He would carry it to its darkest hour -- the beginning of Argentina’s worst dictatorship (1976-1983), a time when many liberties were abolished and state violence akin to the screen massacres of the censors was rampant. However, this history begins earlier, in 1957, and covers many governments, both democratic and de facto, which passed laws that would ensure the methodical implementation of censorship. While many of these measures were unconstitutional as military governments instituted them, ironically legitimate ones did nothing to change these legislations. Rather, as we shall see the law only became stricter and state control of what was screened in public increased, until censorship was finally abolished in 1984, following the end of the dictatorship. However, this seemingly impenetrable apparatus produced some moments of fissures or ‘hiccups’ in the system when changes to the law were ostensibly within reach but never came to fruition.

At the centre of any discussion about Argentine censorship is the work of sexploitation duo, director Armando Bó and starlet Isabel Sarli. The duo’s shared trajectory in the film business begins in 1957 with the premiere of their first joint film El trueno entre las hojas/ Thunder among the leaves and ends in 1984 with the eventual release of the banned (in 1976) production Insaciable/ Insatiable three years after Bó’s death, a time frame that fits all too neatly into the nation’s own progress through censorship. When the laws began to tighten the duo’s films became more daring, challenging screen expectations. Since their first project together, Bó and Sarli fervently defended their work, first before the courts and then before the destructive shears of the censors.

The song lyrics cited above ironically disclose the intimate nature of the censoring task, an exercise in outlawing intimacy itself. The words tell the story of how the censor, away from the public eye, secludes himself in a dark and private room to conduct his work. He engages in an intimate moment with the film star and thus ironically his duty, beginning as a sex act itself (‘the man lays her down on the rug/ touches and kisses her’) transforms into an act of fanatical torture (‘he restrains himself, he sweats/ and then with his silver scissors…[begins his chore]’). In his darkened chamber he takes her body, denies her identity, and physically violates her (‘trims away her body/ cuts her hair/ deforms her face/ and that way, mutilated…’) before taking her to the screen, ‘loaded’ like a gun. This description makes a candid suggestion that it is the film censor who absurdly accesses a level of intimacy with the film in its whole original uncut version while deciding which parts need to be altered and cut. The song, which too was victim to its own censorship,[i] describes the intimacies of the act of censoring and the moral hypocrisy of performing such an act. It also establishes a definitive correlation between censorship and torture, seeing both as sadistic violations of the female body, the sex act, and the artistic product.

My aim in this chapter is to reconceptualise the process of censorship, not only by describing how this process works and its development throughout this volatile period of Argentine history but also the kind of violence that films experienced and why. I will take the case of Intimidades de una cualquiera / Intimacies of a prostitute (directed by Armando Bó and starring Isabel Sarli), a film completed in 1972 and finally released in 1974 just before Tato’s reign, to argue that by the time he came into power there was already an efficient yet labyrinthine apparatus in place suggesting that the intimate moment described in the song was in fact much more public as many hands were involved in its release. Censorship was clearly taking place as films were challenging status quo’s notions of morality and politics. I will argue that the work of Sarli and Bó presents a fruitful example for the study of both industrial and moral censorship because their films helped to define the limits of what was permissible especially in the realm of sexuality. By taking an example of a film we can see how ideological positions were staked and the ensuing challenges that this would create for film historians and critics who wish to reconstruct these histories, further complicating any notion of an intrinsic artistic value of the text as there were many hands involved in altering its final version.

Official censorship in context

The 1955 coup that brought an official end to Peronism and instituted the ‘revolución libertadora’ (liberating revolution) appeased both liberal factions and nationalist Catholics and regenerated the middle classes. In 1957 President Pedro Eugenio Aramburu (1955-1958) passed law decree 62/57, which would change the film industry for good, and thus began a new phase in the regulation of films, which proved to be an increasingly constrictive period. This law established the Instituto Nacional de Cine (National Film Institute—referred to from now on as INC), which was meant to oversee the film industry. While 62/57 did not itself sanction censorship many see it as the beginning of a period of increasing governmental control over the industry (Avellaneda; Borgarello and Cipolla; Maranghello 1992).[ii]

After the coup d’état that brought Juan Carlos Onganía to power in 1966, legislation for culture in general and film in particular tightened even further. The new government instituted the revolución argentina, modelled after Francisco Franco in Spain and promoting a national culture inspired by rural and local traditions but also open to universal Christian values. From 1957 to 1968, there was officially no censorship. Although by 1966 there was an emphasis on defining moral values in films. For instance, the first decree under Onganía classified films into two qualitative categories (A and B) and made clear that: ‘excluded from this category [A] are those films that are at risk of damaging the principles of Argentina’s cultural tradition’ (law 16955, 1966, 1). And in 1968, the INC would deny classification to those films: ‘which attempted against the national lifestyle or the cultural rules of the Argentine community’ (law 1774, 1968, 2). By 1969, however, law 18019 officially sanctioned censorship and provided a clear list of six specific areas where the state can intervene by cutting scenes or prohibiting entire films. This law gives a clear mandate for the state to interfere when films justify ‘inacceptable behaviour’ by: 1. representing adultery or behaviour against the family and matrimony; 2. justifying abortion, prostitution, and sexual perversions; 3. incorporating lascivious scenes that disgust morale and good customs 4. apologizing for crimes 5. denying the duty to defend the nation and the right for the authorities to demand so 6. jeopardizing national security, affecting relations with friendly nations or hurting the interest of fundamental institutions of the state (Law 18019, 1969, 2). This list supports film critic Laura Podalsky’s argument that ‘legitimate’ culture was aligned with national, Catholic and family values, and ‘false’ culture with foreign, antireligious and antifamily tendencies. Hiding behind this dualistic definition of the film project was a strong clear agenda to regulate the content of the Argentine films produced so that these would align with the ‘legitimate’ (2004: 199).

Furthermore, law 18019 creates the Ente with a General Director and Adjunct Directors who are all named by the Ministry of Education and Culture as representatives of the government and all films shown in Argentina had to have a certificate of classification given by it. The other film body, the INC, also had a role to play in censorship as it controlled state funding to those scripts that were deemed appropriate. While there were modifications to this law throughout the years, 18019 had the greatest impact on the way that film was exhibited in Argentina until 1984 when it is officially repealed under law 23052.

In an article published in 1981, at a time when censorship was under real scrutiny and debate about its role was clearly emerging, Miguel Grinberg wrote a journalistic piece that detailed the process of classification that both the Ente and the INC would follow (1981: 38). He explains that two certificates were given, one by the Ente with a rating ranging from ‘appropriate for all audiences’ to ‘prohibited,’ and the other, a certificate given by the INC for exhibition. The Ente would have 30 days to classify the film and its distributor/producer could then appeal their verdict. Once the film was prohibited twice then the case would be closed, at which time only an appeal in court was allowed. When cuts were required only the distributor/producer was responsible for making these and resubmitting the film for classification (39). a fact that will be clearly contested in this chapter. Each time the film was classified a sum of money ranging from $400 and $900 US depending on the length of the film was required for the task (38), thus making the censorship process a moneymaking endeavour for the state. During the period that 18019 was in effect a total of 725 films were effected including those released with cuts, those prohibited and those never released commercially (de las Carreras de Kuntz 1997: 13).

Within this context the case of Intimidades de una cualquiera (from herein called Intimidades), Ente file 504/72, offers a meaningful example. Intimidades was shot in 1971 and finally released on 2 May 1974 (Martín 1981:160). This timeline spans a very important change in government, a shift that would mean the return of Juan Domingo Perón after an 18-year exile in Spain. While reconstructing what actually happened to this film is almost impossible since only parts of the file are accessible,[iii] we can however use primary materials (partial Ente file, DVD of an 86-minute version of the film, film laws, and press coverage) to understand this span of film censorship and how the Bó-Sarli vehicle would represent a challenge in these different historical moments. The file on Intimidades sheds light on three specific periods of film censorship in Argentina. Firstly, the full implementation of 18019 under the directorship of Ramiro de la Fuente, a lawyer and ultra-conservative Catholic who served in such a role from 1963 to 1973. Secondly, the shifts at the Ente under the directorship of Octavio Getino whose mandate from the INC was to change the process of censorship and help develop and implement a new law for film classification that repealed law 18019.[iv] Despite this more liberal period it still took Intimidades another year to be released under Horacio Bordo, interim director who served until Tato replaced him in August 1974.

Intimidades follows the usual formula of the Bó-Sarli duo—a mix of melodrama, socially conscious cinema, and erotic elements where love always triumphs. The film begins with a voice over of the protagonist, Maria, telling the story of her difficult life as a prostitute and offering a confession of her intimacies. After being exploited in her hometown by her stepfather, his friends, her employers, and motivated by her boyfriend, Cholo, she moves to the big city to find employment to help pay for her ailing mother’s treatment. In the city she encounters the same abuse from men and turns to prostitution with the help and guidance of her friend Betty, who in the end will help her see the value of her work as a prostitute. Cholo joins her in the city and becomes her pimp further exploiting her. She experiences much misfortune and is even imprisoned. After her release she returns home to a very sick mother. Upon seeing Maria as a prostitute her mother dies. Determined not to be exploited anymore, Maria chooses to travel throughout the country with Cholo acting as her pimp. The narrative acknowledges that many things need to be done to help prostitutes: laws need to change and society must understand their circumstances and accept the valuable work they do. In Patagonia Maria meets a rich landowner, José Luis, who falls in love with her and wants to rescue her from her hardship. Even though she marries José Luis, Cholo is not willing to give her up. In the end José Luis and Cholo fight and Cholo falls off a cliff to his death, leaving Maria and José Luis free to live happily ever after.

Intimidades’ convoluted path to being released

The partial file shows that Intimidades was first given to the Ente to classify on 10 July 1972 and at that point received a classification of ‘prohibited.’ This initiated a process of negotiation, which began with a consultation between Bó and the Ente on 1 August 1972, and resulted in a reclassification on 5 December 1972. However, a letter from the Ente’s Honorary Advisory Council dated 11 December 1972 would change that status to ‘restricted for those under the age of 18’ pending the following detailed changes: ‘cutting the scene of the coitus with the store owner, suppressing the lesbian scenes in the jail, the word “tortillera” and the shot where she begins to take off the apron of the other inmate, suppress the scene showing the sexual organs of the man in the light blue housecoat, nude coitus with the protagonist moaning in the washroom, coitus in the marshes, shot where the protagonist walks towards the lake, opens her nightgown, kisses on the breasts in the stream, and bath of the protagonist naked in the trailer.’ The letter by de la Fuente explains that the film was viewed in three versions and that the first two could not be authorized. He concurs with the Council that this new version would become permissible once it was cut accordingly. He states: ‘they [referring to the cuts] are so numerous that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to enumerate them all in the usual way. On the other hand, the similarity of some with what has already been authorized leaves as its only guarantee of control the fact that these [cuts] remain in deposit as will be noted in the certificate.’