Consuming Bodies: Sex in Armando Bó and Emilio Vieyra

Consuming Bodies: Sex in Armando Bó and Emilio Vieyra

Victoria Ruétalo

The cinema laws established after the fall of Peron (1955) beginning in 1957 and peaking inthe late 60s (1966, 1968 and 1969) leading up to the dictatorship in 1976, were detrimental to the tightening of sexual regulation in Argentina. This ironically follows the same career path of the Isabel Sarli and Armando Bo films, a career that begins in 1956 with El trueno entre lashojas, culminates in the late 60s with the trilogy Carne, Fuego, and Fiebre and ends with the release of the bannedInsaciable in 1983,only after the fall of the dictatorship and posthumous to the death of Bo. This is an important fact as Armando Bo will be Argentina’s biggest defender of sexual freedom, ananti-censorshipwarrior. Emilio Vieyra, on the other hand, beaten by censorship, decides on a different path: his early experiments with eroticism were fraught with frustration due to the censors and thus he relies on a foreign audience during the late 1960s, the period in question, before returning to film more national productions such as those starring Sandro.However, despite the seemingly opposing routes both directors take, in the late 60s Bo’s and Vieyra’sproducts end up in the same place: playing for Hispanic audiences in New York and in the grind houses on 42nd Street in Manhattan.

After 1955, the coup that brought an official end to Peronism and instituted the “Revoluciónlibertadora” appeasing both liberal factions and nationalist Catholics, would effect the regeneration of the middle class. Pedro Eugenio Aramburu, who takes over after Eduardo Lonardi renounces his de facto position, carries forward a project of liberalization implementing policies to attract foreign capital, projects meant to please the middle classes, from which Peron had managed to distance himself. In 1957, under Aramburu, the law decree 62/57, which would change the film industry for good, (4/1/57) was passed and thus began a new constrictive phase in the industry lasting until the end of the dictatorship in 1984.

While 62/57 managed to categorize films into A and B groupings, whereby A films received full support in exhibition within Argentina and outside of ti. It is clear that Law 4488/1958 could not completely control the export of films: “La comisiónnacionalcalificadora no podríaprohibir la exportación de películasargentinascalificadas en la categoria B, cuando el director, autor o interprete, principalesargentinos o extranjeros, hayanconvenidosureunmeración en base a cesión de territorios. En estecaso la exportacion se permitiráúnicamente al país o paisesquehubieransidomotivo de la cesión.” Therefore even if a film is not voted to be exportable it can find distributors who buy its rights abroad.

However, after the coup d’etat that broughtJuan Carlos Onganíato power in 1966 (until 1970), legislation for culture in general and film in particular, takes a turn for the worse. The new government institutes the “Revolución Argentina,” modeled after Francisco Franco in Spain and promoting a national culture inspired by rural and local traditions but open to universal Christian values, mainly that of pre-Vatican II. Whereas this was limited by law in decree 16995/1966, which clearly states that B category films are not apt for exportation and thus “quedaránexcluidas de estacategorialaspelículas susceptible de menoscabar los principios de la tradición cultural argentina.” As Laura Podalsky has argued legitimate culture was aligned with national, Catholic and family values, whereas “false” culture was identified with the foreign, antireligious, and antifamily (that is topics such as indiscriminate sex, adultery, and abortion) (199). This clashes with the philosophy behind selling national films for export as clearly indicated in1968 in a preamble to the cinema law 17,741: “La legislaciónproyectadaposibilita la promoción de nuestracinematografía en el exterior, mediantela realización de semanas de cine argentino, participación de películasnacionales en festivals y subisdios en relación a la real difusión de nuestrosfilmes en los mercadosextranjeros” (BO, 1968, 1). On the one hand the government indicates its objective to “commercialize Argentine films abroad” (BO, 1968, 1). Yet, the films that were most successful abroad were the very same films that were banned or heavily censored in Argentina. They were the ones “attacking” the moral fabric of the nation. The most offensive to the national image: “[esas] queatentan contra el estilonacional de vida o laspautasculturalesde la comunidadargentina” (BO 1968, 2).

-17741 /1968 -page 2 what classifies a national film

-classify it if it’s obligatory or not; if exportable or not –“El INC negarálasclasificaciones a que se refiere el articulo 9 a laspeliculasnacionalesqueatentencontara el estilonacional de vida o laspautasculturales de la comunidadargentina”

In this paper I comparetwo films from directors Emilio Vieyra and Armando Bo, both shotpost-1966 and both using sex to sell an Argentine product that in one case exalted the national and in the other annulled it. I argue that while the state was implementing laws and putting in place a clear systematic apparatus to help with the export and regulation of “certain” Argentine films, it was pioneering directors such as Bo and to a lesser degreeVieyra, who would ultimately be at the forefront of this exportation. Bo and Vieyra conquered foreign markets with the help of foreign-based producers and distributors such as Orestes Trucco and Columbia Pictures International. While using different strategies to do so they both managed to reach overseasaudiences, in particular the vast and growing market of Hispanics in the US, by selling a product that was not acceptable tothe Argentine state, these very same films were heavily censored and not considered representative of the “estilonacional.”As a matter of fact, I suggest that it was this trend of Argentine cinema that was motivating the law, which was trying to stifle any substandard production. If we take a look at two of thefilms from this post-1966 period, Carne (1968) and La venganza del sexo(1967) then we can see just how these filmsengaged with the State’s policies for exporting such products. Bo will embrace the national excessively, thereby parodying the State’s misguided effort for transnationalization. Whereas Vierya dismisses/erases/excoriate/reject/supplant/obliterate/expunge the national in his own quest to become truly transnational. Two very different strategies with one common goal.

The connection between the two directors is solidified through distributor and producer Orestes Trucco of Argentine Film Enterprises based in New York, whose ambition was to import Argentine filmsto the over 40 Spanish language theatres in Queens, Brooklyn, and Manhattan, which until that point was purely dominated by Mexican fare. When Trucco met Bo in the early 1960s he picked up the distribution rights to three of his films (India, Favela, and La burrerita de Ypacaraí).Truccoalso launchedLibertad Leblanc’s featuresand eventually Emilio Vieyra’serotic productions. When Trucco met Vieyra he introduced him to Leblanc, who starred in Testigoparauncrimen (Violated Love, 1962). His second feature starring Leblanc, titled Maria M (1964) tells the story of a prostitute who wants to find God, and in doing so, changes her life. However, it was the ending that disturbed the censors in Argentina. As Maríaenters a church to thank God for her fortunes after having met the man of her dreams, she discovers that this same man is the priest at the church. In a panic she exits the church and is struck by a car. This ending was entirelyeliminated by the censors, and thus left the film unfinished without a clear ending, thereby explaining its failure in box office, according to the director. This experience caused Vieyra to place his efforts in a foreign audience as the five films that follow are producedwith the US market in mind (Extraña invasion, Placer sangriento, La venganza del sexo, La bestiadesnuda, and Sangre de virgenes). New York clearly was the market for Argentines to conquer, as censorship at home was stifling any experimentation, and the growing number of Latinos, particularly Puerto Ricans wanted Spanish language films. New York gave Argentines a place to show and exploit their sexploitation goodies that were banned inside Argentina.

Carne begins a different phase in the work of BoandSarli. A clear affiliation with major distributor Colombia Pictures International characterized by critics as beginning the excessive phase of their career (See Wolf).The story of two lovers, Delicia (Isabel Sarli) and Antonio (Victor Bo), working in a meat packing plant whose relationship is interrupted by Delicia’s constant rapes, exposes the double macho standard of Argentina: men were to indulge in sex but women were expected to be monogamous and even virgins. In the end, Antonio avenges Delicia’sviolationsby punishing those responsible. He accepts Deliciadespite the many rapes she has experienced because these were not her fault and because he truly loves her. This seemingly Catholic tale of redemption actually has many elements that detail Bo’s own love of the nation despite the many problems he experienced with the nation’s censoring body. From the very title, Carne, he makes reference to Argentina’s two greatest exports: meat/beef and Sarli as a star. Both nation and Sarli as star are clearly referenced in the film.

Cultural identifiers such as the language used, the workers of the meat industry,the tango songs, and the mate in combination,characterizethe film as purely Argentine. Furthermore, in the final half of the film, when Sarli is repeatedly raped by different men, she is wearing a light blue skirt,a matching sweater, and a white scarf tied around her neck,theshades of blue and white reference the color of the national flag. This image equatesSarli with the nation, as she wears its national colors at the worst moment in the film, when she is kidnapped and kept locked in the back of a refrigerated truck, used to carry meat, in this case the meat is Sarli.Sarli as the object of desire is likened to the meat that is eaten, desired and consumed by the male workers in the plant in the digesis, who like the voyeurs watching the film are Argentines and foreigners alike. Sarli’s body is the site of the intersection between the nation and the excess of the foreign. It is this site that offends both the workers, who desire to consume it, and the censors who want to cut it and even erase it.

While other stars of the Classic period: PepitaMuñozas a worker in the plant and Vicente Rubinoas a closeted homosexual surround Sarli in the film, these only highlight the added value of the true star: Isabel Sarli. The references to the glorified past of the cinema in Argentina mean nothing when it comes to the real star, who makes real money abroad, what classic Argentine cinema could not do well. It is only now, and mainly through the work of the duo that foreign markets throughout Latin America, the US, and across the world are being truly conquered. As Carne is the second of the films distributed by Columbia Pictures International, and the first to be screened in its entirety in the US since La Leona was the first but it was censored in the US because she was kissing a black man.In Argentina, Carne was censored in 1968, when it premiered at the Hindu cinema (24-10-68) in Buenos Aires. It was not until 1979, during a retrospective, that Carne was seen in Argentina in its uncensored complete form.

-She is raped by many boys of the nation: Argentines and immigrants alike.

-many references to English and hoof and mouth disease

-parody

-performance of the body for viewers- reference to the performance of sex- being raped

While Carne clearly references the nation and the consumption of national meat/Sarli, La venganza del sexo is a more complex tale because of its own production history. The international career of Vieyra, really begins after meeting producer Orestes Trucco in the early 1960s as both establish the production company ArtistasAsociadosArgentinos. Through this company Vieyra’s early attempts at exploitation: Testigoparauncrimen (1963), Maria M (1964) experienced problems in Argentina. His next film Extraña invasion (1965) would not even be released in Argentina until 1974. The four films that follow were clearly made for the foreign market in 1966 and 1967: Placer sangriento, La venganza del sexo, La bestiadesnuda, and Sangre de virgenes. As a matter of fact, only Placer sangriento was released in Buenos Aires immediately after it was made. Both Vieyra and Gloria Prat, its star, were arrested on the grounds that they shot extra nudes for the foreign release. The other three films were not even released in Argentina until Pel-Mex (who had established an office in Argentina through their connection with SIFA) bought their rights after the closure in 1968 of ArtistasAssociadosArgentinos. La venganza del sexo, made in less than two weeks in 1966, was not even shown in Argentina until 1971. It opened in Hispanic theatres in 1967 and in 1969 Jerry Intrator picked up its rights in the US, making edits that would lengthen the picture by 17 ½ minutes and releasing it for the exploitation market as The Curious Dr. Humpp. The word curious, meaning sex, is a clear reference to highly controversial banning ofI am Curious (Yellow) (VilgotSjoman), the Swedish film,which caused a sensation at the Box office when it was finally released in the US. Vieyra’s curious was advertised as “the most curious picture of them all.” The problem is that this US version is the only one found today. Intrator edited version, although Frank Henenlotter, who restored this version makes clear where the added footage comes in.

The basic story remains the same:Dr. Humpp (Zoide in the original) kidnaps sexually active individuals and takes them to his mansion as prisoners. He then conducts experiments and induces them with an aphrodisiac to enhance sexual activity. While these couples are involved in sexual activity he extracts from them a substance that he needs to live. The Dr. was part of the original experiments done in Italy by another Dr., whose brain is now guiding Dr. Humpp’s current work. Unlike Carne this film has no references to Argentina. Even its stars (Gloria Prat and Aldo Barbero were premiering in the film; Ricardo Bauleo and Susana Beltran were just beginning their careers). The question of the foreign and national are completely erased, especially as this version is dubbed and not even language becomes a marker. The only reference made in the film is to the original Dr. of the sex experiments, who was Italian. The sex that the consumer sees is not reduced to one star, such as the case of Sarli, but to many young people. Yet similarly to Carnethere is a self-referencing of a consumption tale. Sex, even before it comes under Dr. Humpp’s control, the opening scene when Rachel (Gloria Prat) is stripping, is revealing.As in most sexploitation fare: she is the object of desire amongst the males in the room watching her strip. In this case, the labor of sex is clear and paid through her strip tease. However, the rest of the film clearly demarcates leisure/sex and work, except for in the case of

Sex is to be consumed: Dr. needs it for his survival, without it he dies

He watches it on tv and takes advantage of its power: “sex dominates the world and now I dominate sex”; and yet this doctor is impotent. He can’t participate, he is truly a voyeur that feeds on the sexual excess of others.

-performance of sex and watching it

allegory for the consumption of sex

moral tale that undoes the whole excesss on the screen and makes it right

-working for the camera (performance) and working in the sex trade

-aesthetic stake of performance in

-SIMILARITIES-rape control of others bodies and minds

-controlling the bodies and minds of people is clear in both

-in the end both films eliminate that control and free sexuality so that it is between two people, but not perverse

-problem revolves around sex

-watchestv – sex on tv- needs it in order to survive without it he dies

-but the film ironically seems to parody the paranoia of sex taking over the world and posit the problems with the consumption of sex

-sex is an elixir to keep himself eternally young

is this idea of control of the body- using the body – like rape – rape of the mind

warning of the dangers of sexual excess

original opening- la virgen del fuego – there is no speaking in the opening scenes- about the public display of sexuality-kissing, stripping, drugs

-everyone watches the display in awe – shows the saxophonist and barman watching- eyes watching in the animation that was the original.

From every act of pleasure comes an equal act of perversion

Exercise control

Nothing like this has ever gripped your senses

-sexual impotence = monster – one of the original automatons of the original Italian doctor

Bibliography:

Gerard Dapena, “Emilio Vieyra: Argentina’s Transnational Master of Horror.” Latsploitation, Exploitation Cinemas, and Latin America

Laura Podalsky, Secular City: Transforming Culture, Consumption, and Space in Buenos Aires, 1955-1972. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004.

from 1961-1964 bo would be doing coproductions after good experience with favela—Venezuela (lujuria tropical), mexico (la diosaimpura) and brazil (la leona) after Colombia bought rights for el trueno to be distributed in LA

-he decided to travel to CAmerica and US to sell his films- how he met Orestes Trucco who acquired the rights to three films and contacted him with Lorenzo Gonzalez izquierdo, a distributor venezolano