AMORES PERROS - STUDENT ANALYSIS

A frantic and dramatic car chase through the streets of Mexico City, resulting in a traumatic crash at a crossroads throws viewers into Alejandro González Iñárritu’s debut masterpiece, Amores Perros (Love’s a Bitch).

Set in the heart of Mexico City, the anthology-pieced film portrays the tales of three individuals of separate social classes who are linked by the car crash that goes on to depict how the characters lives can change dramatically in that instant.

The film does not present a clichéd Mexico for tourists and challenges common stereotypes of Mexico and its citizens as well as generating issues of culture, regret, passion, love, violence, social class and masculinity in crisis. A closer look into the film’s interpretation shows an interweaving of social classes and attitude towards life that does not simply offer a sociological view of Mexico City, but an insight into emotional despair between these social classes in the modern ‘megapolis’. To fully understand the films success both domestically and internationally, it is important to note the images of modern Mexicans being portrayed in a sense to which U.S and European audiences can in some way relate towards- gone are the days of horses and moustaches and enter the new era of Mexican cinema illustrating the harsh realities of one of the world’s largest cities. The almost pop-ish, yet realistic filming of Amores Perros are elements that have enabled it to circulate in global markets, but also features which help audiences focus on the central theme of Amores Perros : The contradictions of cultural modernity in contemporary Latin American society.

The first story unravels Octavio; a lower class youth who uses his violent criminal brother’s dog, Cofi, to win money in illegal dog fights in a pursuit to persuade his brother’s pregnant wife, Susanna, to run away with him. Octavio’s passion for Susanna is fuelled by the thrill of betraying his violent brother and sexual desire becomes the language of a complex

power game. If Octavio succeeds in taking Ramiro’s wife away from him, he defeats him.

It is when Octavio takes a violent revenge on a rival dog fighter, after his dog Cofi is shot, that the car chase pursues. The resulting crash collision also involves the character from the middle section of the film, Valeria. Valeria, a well-respected and famous model had just moved in to a new apartment her boyfriend, Daniel, had just brought for them both before the crash. Daniel, a magazine editor had just left his wife and two kids for the more youthful Valeria and romantic lifestyle. Valeria’s love, besides Daniel, is her small dog Ricci who after her crash, leaving her permanently immobilised to a wheelchair, is her last sanction of happiness while Daniel is at work. Her sadness is emphasised by viewing the giant advertisement banner mounted on a building opposite their apartment presenting Valeria before the crash. Despite being a triumphant viewing before the crash, the banner soon starts to mock the couple due to Valeria’s newly found disability and when viewing it from their bedroom window it subtlety dawns on the audience that they are both reflecting on what they have both lost .

Tensions and arguments mount between the new couple when her dog Ricci runs down a hole in the floorboards where rats can be heard and does not return. The couple can hear Ricci being bitten by the rats, which is used to suggest that, despite the couples wealth and status, they can’t escape the harsh realities of life in Mexico City.It seems it is not just Valeria’s disability that bothers her, but the sense that without her beauty she is nothing. Daniel begins calling his ex-wife, thinking he has made a mistake now that Valeria is in a wheelchair. Valeria watches the blank space where her advertisement used to stand- depicting a final confirmation of the end of her career and dream of an idyllic life with Daniel.

The third chapter of the film studies El Chivo, an ex-family man turned communism fighting guerrilla turned assassin, whose love for stray dogs leads him to save Cofi from the car crash scene before being thrown in a rubbish dumpster left for dead. He nurses Cofi back to health and carries

on with his assassinations. When he returns home, he discovers that the ex-champion fighting dog Cofi has murdered all of his stray dogs. He draws his gun and aims at Cofi’s head before realising that both the fighting dog and himself- the assassin, are doubles of each other, the once domesticated Cofi, like Martin, has now turned professional killer.

Despite being the dog who kills dogs, finding his natural owner in the man who kills men, Cofi’s actions are what lead El Chivo’s towards redemption. This is shown by the shaving of his beard and cutting of his hair as well as a visit to his much loved daughter’s house to explain (on her answer-phone) why he left many years ago to fight for her to grow up in a better country and that he is, although she was previously told otherwise, not dead and loves her very much. He places new photos of himself on her pictures and then sells a client’s expensive car (who he actually betrayed and left to kill the target himself) before walking into an arid landscape with Cofi beside him.

The films success has proved important for the advancement of Mexican cinema. Along with Y tu mamá también ( 2001), Amores Perros paved the way and re-established Mexico as an important factor of national cinema and cultural idendity. This boosted Mexico’s domestic viewing figures in the box office, whereby a mere 3% of domestic films were shown in Mexican cinemas in 1998, compared to 14% in 2000-2001.

Both films have been celebrated for marking the resurgence of the independent Mexican films industry in response to the failure of state-run IMCINE to adequately manage and fund film making. Despite its international success, its domestic appeal can be viewed by the films representation of the films reinforcement of identities that were in place in the post revolutionary project. These images of a reborn Mexican identity are matched with the roles of the character’s dogs in the film, who are associated with the fate of their owners, the dog’s loyal faithfulness contrasted by their owners immoral attitudes and their identities of betrayal from their family, lovers and country, yet also representing the symbolism of who their owners represent: Octavio and Ramiro’s dog Coffi demonstrates the violence of the streets that condition

the brothers behaviour; Richie, Valeria’s pretty pet symbolises the spoiled life she has lived before her accident while El Chivo’s love for his strays reflects his initial rejection of people.

With the film’s introduction to the female characters (with the exception of Valeria, who uses her beauty to support herself) being in stereotypical roles ( in the kitchen, with a baby etc) and the male characters demonstrating violent and betraying attitudes the film represents the marginalization of women, and dominant forms of masculinity are examined. This suggests that the women are victims of a ‘patriarchal’ society, a model often unfortunately even today associated with Mexico’s culture. By showing images of women in marginal positions, Iñárritu has not only challenged the modern day stereotype of Mexicans, but hinted the oppression towards women seen in their cultural society.

Perhaps the most intriguing of concepts when analysing Amores Perros with the cultural issues surrounding Mexico City is the lack of father figures captured within the film. Such references to absent fatherhood could be seen as being similar to a society without an effective government whereby the reference to failed paternal models can be used as a metaphor for a failed state. Ramiro and Octavio’s lack of a father figure leads them to be bad fathers, dog fighting gamblers and bank robbers; El Chivo abandoned his daughter after two years of knowing her and Daniel left his own children to satisfy his fantasy of living with a model. Despite being a film about love and betrayal, the film’s importance in touching on the reflection of a society without an effective government, driven by corruption and dishonesty is demonstrated with every social class within the film (although some critics have argued there are no images of the extreme poor who in reality make up the majority of Mexico City’s population) is extremely valid to Mexican and non-Mexican audiences.