When "Palomita Blanca" was shown in Chilean theaters, a lot of people felt disappointed because this movie has "no story". Anyway, this movie is a fresh and humoristic portrait of Chilean society in the 70s. A lot of situations depicted with humour become, I think, part of the best of Chilean cinematography, making fun about political dogmas and social differences (Chile is a very class-distinction country). "Palomita Blanca" was shot in 1973, but the military strike stopped the editing process. It was shown at first time in Chile in the beginning of the 90s.
5 Reviews
in defense of this film
gana-38 July 2006
Suicide King you must be one of those young ones sadly brought up under the miserable education system of Pinochet. Hollywood predictability of plot is not what Ruiz is interested in. Ruiz sated in that Hollywood have highly polished standardised formulaic scripts often using a one character developed around a central conflict which is then resolve frequently by force. I have not read the book but I understood the movie. Yes old Chilean movie - gee made under difficult conditions in 73 - remember? I lived in Santiago. Maybe you need to see few more of his films. .. "Tres Tigres Tristes" for example or "Three Crowns for the Sailor". AND I think its a bit inappropriate that you could refer to torture about your film given your countries history under Pinochet. ("if you are masochist, you'll torture yourself by watching this horrible adaptation of a good book.")
Excellent, though its off the cuff style would make it not for every one
Andy-2963 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The late Chilean director Raul Ruiz (which made more than a hundred films, most of them of an avant-garde sort, respected by film critics but with a very limited audience) shoot this film in 1973, on the eve of the Pinochet coup. After the coup, Ruiz, a supporter of Salvador Allende, went into exile (eventually into France) leaving the film negatives in Chile. Only in 1990 he could return to edit the film. It was released in 1992, to great success in Chile (this was probably Ruiz's commercially most successful film, at least in his native country).
Amid the 1970 election between Allende and his conservative opponent Alessandri, a poor girl (Beatriz Lapido) begins a relation with a rich boy (Rodrigo Ureta). This allows Ruiz to show the huge divide (not just economic, but cultural) between the rich and the poor in Chile. The movie works with humorous vignettes more than with a straightforward story, which shows Godard's influence on Ruiz at this part of his career. The film also compares their romance with those in the idealized telenovelas or soap operas, so popular at the time in Chile and the rest of Latin America.
This was based on a famous book by Enrique Lafourcade. Reportedly (since I haven't read the novel) Ruiz took many liberties with the book, and this has some people upset. But the film is very good in its own terms. Lapido is pretty and compelling (this was her first and only movie). Ureta is quite inarticulate, but this is probably in line with his character as a spoiled rich brat.
In other films of him, Ruiz's cleverness can be tiresome and irritating, but in this film it is tempered by the genuine warmth he feels toward the characters. And the movie has some genuinely funny pieces (for example, in the scene with the high school professor's rambling speech to his students, or the socialist activist creatively insulting the Alessandri supporters in the street). A great soundtrack by the music group Los Jaivas helps the movie a lot.
Amid the 1970 election between Allende and his conservative opponent Alessandri, a poor girl (Beatriz Lapido) begins a relation with a rich boy (Rodrigo Ureta). This allows Ruiz to show the huge divide (not just economic, but cultural) between the rich and the poor in Chile. The movie works with humorous vignettes more than with a straightforward story, which shows Godard's influence on Ruiz at this part of his career. The film also compares their romance with those in the idealized telenovelas or soap operas, so popular at the time in Chile and the rest of Latin America.
This was based on a famous book by Enrique Lafourcade. Reportedly (since I haven't read the novel) Ruiz took many liberties with the book, and this has some people upset. But the film is very good in its own terms. Lapido is pretty and compelling (this was her first and only movie). Ureta is quite inarticulate, but this is probably in line with his character as a spoiled rich brat.
In other films of him, Ruiz's cleverness can be tiresome and irritating, but in this film it is tempered by the genuine warmth he feels toward the characters. And the movie has some genuinely funny pieces (for example, in the scene with the high school professor's rambling speech to his students, or the socialist activist creatively insulting the Alessandri supporters in the street). A great soundtrack by the music group Los Jaivas helps the movie a lot.
A chilean avant-garde movie.
veomuchatele19 August 2011
I just saw this film on TV and I was laughing so hard at some parts (the music teacher was a total charlatan) and angry at others (Juan Carlos, I hated him)...
This is a movie that will create a lot of emotions. At some parts is almost a documentary of the time, the social problems. At others, a surreal movie.
Yes, it could be improve by remastering it. But if you left aside those problems, you would enjoy it very much. The soundtrack, by Los Jaivas, is spot on, a mixture of the Nueva Canción Chilena and the sounds of Woodstock.
The camera work is also superb and the work of Bélgica Castro is magnificent as always.
(Sorry for my English.)
Good bye maestro, I hope everybody has the opportunity of see your work.
This is a movie that will create a lot of emotions. At some parts is almost a documentary of the time, the social problems. At others, a surreal movie.
Yes, it could be improve by remastering it. But if you left aside those problems, you would enjoy it very much. The soundtrack, by Los Jaivas, is spot on, a mixture of the Nueva Canción Chilena and the sounds of Woodstock.
The camera work is also superb and the work of Bélgica Castro is magnificent as always.
(Sorry for my English.)
Good bye maestro, I hope everybody has the opportunity of see your work.
HORRIBLE!!! and hell boring!!
suicideking66629 March 2002
Ok, one word that describe what you'll think after watching this movie: "horrible", if you liked the book, you'll be totally disapointed with this movie. You'll never understand the storyline even if you read the book and you'll hardly understand what are the actors saying when they are talking.
you know, it's an old chilean movie, but it doesn't justify the awful sound and the camera movements. I guess at least the sound could be remastered so you'll understand something and you won't hear just whispering.
My vote was 2.0 and that only point was for the soundtrack by "los jaivas", i think is the only good think on this movie and i really think you should by this soundtrack, but any other thing about the movie sucks.
at the first 30 minutes you'll want to burn and destroy your VCR and if you are masochist, you'll torture yourself by watching this horrible adaptation of a good book.
so in conclusion, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE, YOU'LL BE BORED AS HELL
you know, it's an old chilean movie, but it doesn't justify the awful sound and the camera movements. I guess at least the sound could be remastered so you'll understand something and you won't hear just whispering.
My vote was 2.0 and that only point was for the soundtrack by "los jaivas", i think is the only good think on this movie and i really think you should by this soundtrack, but any other thing about the movie sucks.
at the first 30 minutes you'll want to burn and destroy your VCR and if you are masochist, you'll torture yourself by watching this horrible adaptation of a good book.
so in conclusion, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE, YOU'LL BE BORED AS HELL
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
