The film shows the social and historical aspects of the entire intelligence before and after Junta in a refined way. Basically, it can be divided into three clues: The
first clue shows the social background before the military coup: the economy and politics are messed up, the country is in crisis, and in the vortex of this era, people of all identities are looking for their own chances of survival. Opportunistic peddler, protagonist mother with thick legs, protagonist father who runs softly, desperate working class; the
second clue reveals the relationship between people in the era of severe social opposition, and the relationship between children is Simply because no matter what your background, there is always a human side, but unfortunately, the cruelest price of social conflict always has to be paid by those who have the least power to protect themselves. This includes not only Machuca and cousins who are at the bottom of society. , Including the prominent but innocent male protagonist Infante, and even other children in the school; the
third clue is the role of the Catholic Church in Chilean society. The priest put the ideal of promoting social reconciliation into practice, and wanted to save the disintegrated country, but the evil of human nature is always insurmountable. The parent meeting after the Mass is the culmination of this clue. In the temple of Jesus Christ, it is undoubtedly a great irony for people to vent their prejudices to their heart's content; the death of piglets raised in captivity by children is also a counterattack to the idealism of the priest. But in any case, the director dedicated the highest tribute to the priest, expressing meaningfully his ideological basis that humanitarianism is higher than political factions.
It must be admitted that social transformation has a price, and in many cases it is a painful price. But because of this, we must carefully consider whether the price is worth it. It is not necessarily spring after authoritarianism, not after Stalin, nor after Mao Zedong. Realizing "liberalism" by "authoritarianism" is likely to be like "realizing communism with a hungry stomach".
What is worrying is that some so-called "authoritarian liberals" in a certain country regard Chile's democratic transition as a model. To be honest, there are indeed many successful examples of "military dictatorship" + "economic liberalization" in achieving democratic transformation in the 20th century. Needless to say, the situation in South America, Europe such as Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, and our neighbor South Korea and Taiwan ... This seems to have really become a model for pre-modern countries to enter the modern era, and a necessary way. Is it true?
1. For all the examples of successful transitions cited above, these regimes without exception have neither the strength nor the willingness to challenge mature democracies. Authoritarian politics itself means the reduction of internal pressure, and the nature of power is constantly expanding. At this time, there must be strong external pressure to ensure its development in the right direction. For South American countries, this power mainly comes from the United States. For details, please refer to another Chilean film "Say No to Dictatorship." For EU countries, whether it is a former military dictatorship or a former communist country, the external force for peaceful transition comes from the EU. Soft power, namely trade temptation plus political support.
2. The positive role of the church. Many people think that this wave of military dictatorship in South America is an absolute dictatorship, but it is not. I often tell people that the Catholic Church in South America is the "eternal opposition". I think the director of the film must have a close relationship with me on this point. During the Chilean military dictatorship, Cardinal Henriques has been a fierce critic. If this issue is traced further, it can even be said that Europe can become a modern democratic system precisely because of the continuous tension between political power and religious authority. In this regard, you can look at "Between God and Caesar" by Teacher Riyun.
3. Populism is more closely integrated with right-wing politics in contemporary times. To put it bluntly, populist politics is to mobilize the masses, which is traditionally the housekeeping skill of left-wing politics. But looking at modern Europe, the rise of left-wing politicians with stronger professionalism and weaker ideology such as Blair, Ronchi, and Vals has almost dominated the traditional center-right political market. The new populism has to come back to life in the shell of xenophobia, isolationism, and national superiority. Now talking about military dictatorship and right-wing politics is actually providing ammunition for these more dangerous political forces.
4. Need an example? Just take a look at Russia today. Economists once predicted that Putin's Russia is also taking the Chilean road, so it will have a bright future. How is it now? Not only is there no human rights, but the economy is also a mess. Let’s check the above three criteria: Russia has always ignored the West, its huge armed forces continue to resist external pressure, the United States basically has no right to speak, and Europe barely maintains a window of dialogue by relying on bilateral trade; the Orthodox Church The society has always been a court eagle, and there is no tension between the political power and the religious authority. From the time of Peter the Great, the leader has been the leader. This is their tradition and cannot be changed at all. The populist political forces in Russia today have both left and right, but Basically, right-wing populism dominates the country, and the only universal principle of the left-wing has been abandoned, and it has become a national Bolshevik, which actually formed the situation of "frontier cooperation" in Nazi Germany.
It is interesting to say that in the 2010 Intellectual Presidential election, the two major camps in the film, the Socialist Party and the Christian Democrat Party, formed a campaign alliance. Perhaps this is the greatest comfort to machuca and infante and priests.
In my opinion, mankind has never had any historical experience, only historical lessons. What we should do is try our best to avoid the recurrence of historical lessons, but as Hegel said: human beings never learn historical lessons.
View more about Machuca reviews
