Cinephilias in Dispute in the Montevideo Cineclub Movement of the 1950s

In the late 1940s, two highly significant cineclubs were founded in the city of Montevideo, Uruguay, building on the work of Cine Arte del SODRE, an initiative of the state-run broadcaster and cultural agency Servicio Oficial de Radiodifusión Eléctrica, which sought to create a public space for the diffusion of alternative cinema beginning in 1944. Cine Club del Uruguay and Cine Universitario were preeminent institutions in Latin America, both for their large membership and for the consistency of their programming and other activities. Broad social sectors outside the enlightened elite were frequently represented in their screenings, a trait that, together with Cine Arte’s policy of building an expansive audience for art cinema, defined local cineclub culture. This essay explores how an institutional model rooted in erudite cinephilia and a canon of avant-garde and art films was transformed through negotiation with a wider public, particularly an urban middle class that was expanding through economic modernization. The resulting model of the film society threw into question the frontiers between high and low culture, as well as those between art and commerce.

A defining characteristic of the local cine-clubs was the variety of its programming. Films associated with the avant-garde of the 1920s and other canonical repertory fare associated with art-house circuits were screened alongside films from classical film industries, not only Hollywood, but also European national cinemas. Documentary and experimental films from diplomatic sources and nontheatrical films from the promotional film divisions of major companies like Shell also had a very significant presence. The programming as a whole included films that are far removed from erudite cinephilic taste and that only seem to have been considered admissible as part of a themed film series, such as cycles showcasing classics of genre cinema (adventure or horror films, for example). During this period, Montevideo had an extensive network of movie theaters and a wide audience of very diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Moviegoing was one of the main leisure and educational spaces for the population of this large and cosmopolitan city. It is pertinent to highlight here Miriam Hansen’s characterization of Hollywood cinema “as a cultural practice on a par with the experience of modernity, as an industrially produced, mass-based, vernacular modernism,” which prompts us to reconsider its relationship to modernity as well as the opposition between classical and modern cinema.[1]

Given the heterogeneity of Uruguayan cineclubs’ programming, including films that did not necessarily aspire to the status of art, cine-clubs functioned as a cultural formation, making use of supplemental activities to teach and encourage “correct,” productive modes of reading, according to the model of erudite cinephilia.[2] These activities included workshops, pedagogical activities, and film criticism. Uruguay’s mid-century cineclubs are remarkable for the sheer volume of periodicals they produced. The knowledge transmitted by those local texts, rooted in a canonical bibliography of mostly European film criticism and scholarship, came to be recognized as legitimate knowledge. Said bibliography is only occasionally cited, but its implicit presence was part of a common vocabulary and language.

Cineclubs’ Emergence: A Problematic Process

The mid-1950s mark the irruption of a conflict between the model promoted by the leaders of the cine-club movement and the experiences of its members. In a lengthy article written by critic Elizabeth Durand for the mass-circulation magazine Mundo Uruguayo about Cine Club del Uruguay’s new headquarters on Florida Street, she began with a sentence that summarized some preconceptions about cine-clubs:

How long ago?—It´s been thirty years or a little longer since the birth of cine-clubs worldwide. That is to say, barely beyond the boundary separating the era of discoveries and trials . . . from what began to be called the seventh art. And for it to be art, and not crude exploitation—commercial and diva-oriented—of the marvelous power of the invention, there was always, in every country of the world, an eager and well-inspired core of amateurs—with gestures typical of initiates in the divine secrets—who gathered to take charge of the purity and spiritual guidance of films, to direct, as far as possible, the mistaken and incipient taste of the public, spoiled by interested critics and advertising that plays on the most primeval driving forces of the masses of spectators.[3]

Durand's solemn and naïve tone has the virtue of expressing without reservations the commonplace idea that the “masses” had the “wrong” taste and that cine-clubs’ main task was to correct these tastes and lead spectators along the paths of art. They could carry out this task because they knew the “divine secrets”—not only knowledge of “legitimate” procedures for interpreting films, but also abundant leisure time and aesthetic preferences correlated with social class.

In the process that ended up constituting these cine-clubs as important and recognized local cultural formations, this function was complemented by a much greater purpose: the filmic medium was acknowledged as more than just a select set of works with artistic value; it was understood as a great means of cultural education in a diffuse but broad sense, in which “education about films” was intertwined with “education through films.”

However, the groups that organized cine-clubs in the period continued to cherish the ideals described by Durand. It was this situation that ended up spawning a crisis, rooted in the tensions between these coexisting models. Cine Club del Uruguay's Board of Directors, on the occasion of its tenth anniversary, was able to express these problems in very precise terms. The article they published on the subject is worth quoting at length:

Publications, amateur film contests, debates, study meetings, library, photo archives, specialized courses, were created in our midst as integral parts of the work of Cine Club. If we add more than five hundred regular screenings, educational series, and children´s film series, the development of the institution seems broad and extensive enough. However, a ten-year perspective allows us to face the current situation with different maturity and demands. In a way, the principles and initiatives supported by Cine Club since its foundation continue to be valid, but the problem still lies in the effectiveness that should govern the implementation of these goals, which things are right and which should be discarded or improved. The issue is the general orientation of our cine-club movement. To what extent is a member involved in the work of a cine-club? Members are known to show special inertia towards anything that exceeds the simple attitude of a spectator. It is uncertain whether most of them will read all the information provided at each screening, or whether they will come to watch the program farthest removed from common cinematic entertainment. The crisis of the cineclub—paradoxically—may lie in its own growth. It is difficult to efficiently orient a broad mass of members not always in tune with the Institution’s aims. People asking for novelties, new releases, or sneak previews, and, in the worst case, varied entertaining material. . . . Fishing for novelties is not an abnormal demand on the part of the spectator, but it is a dangerous game for the club that risks becoming a mere organizer of non-commercial shows, so that others may give their opinion, judge, and criticize what they exhibit. On the contrary, what is essential is for this screening material to be instrumental to the ideas and teachings the club intends to impart, regardless of outside opinions. . . . To overcome the simple delight or personal rejection of a spectacle by the public and focus on uncovering to the novice all that he does not usually see in a film; to make him aware of the ideas behind the art, the values it purports, and the influence it exerts on society.[4]

After ten years of operation and in the midst of rapid growth, having recently moved into a new space, with standing-room-only screenings, and multiple activities involving many active members, the Cine Club del Uruguay nevertheless declared itself in crisis. What lies behind this crisis is the very definition of the activity the club developed. What is a cine-club? The editorial indicates that despite all this effervescent activity, the club did not manage to achieve the “model” established by the tradition they were supposed to follow. In the lengthy editorial, the functions the organization was supposed to perform are clearly spelled out.  Translated into a more “secular and democratic” context, they seem to follow the guidelines Durand referred to, but also to exceed them. In the editorial, the cineclub’s leaders described the conflicts that prevented them from carrying out their mission properly as a crisis brought about by growth. The problem is complex but is generally traced to the “mass” of members, that expansive audience they cannot do without but which they cannot effectively guide.

In fact, these debates with the “mass/rank-and-file” as an interlocutor were not new. Although they were part of the growing pains they described, they seem to have been present at a much earlier stage, from the first moments of the film society movement's expansion and were expressed on many occasions. The problem was not centered on the exhibition of films but rather responded to a deficiency more related to habits linked to social class (a real habitus): It had to do with audience behaviors while watching, as much as with the appreciation of the film. The new member did not know how to behave as a film club member and this led to the appearance of texts explaining what is expected of him.

For example, Cine Universitario published a long text called “Mission of the Cine Club” in its March 1956 newsletter that had been previously published by the Zaragoza cineclub (Spain) in July 1953, and it seems to delimit the cine-club within the sphere of culture understood as something opposed to entertainment. The cineclub was to be a space for learning and not for leisure, it implied work and effort. When Cine Universitario reprinted the text, a summary was added which, in the ironic tone their statements took on, proposed a list of good practices defining the buen cineclubista [good film society member]. As Jullier and Leveratto put it, “film culture is about cultivation,” and involves time and dedication.[5] This case was interesting because it seems to list all the bad habits adopted by the masses who could not be disciplined: they did not respect schedules, talked and ate in the theater, did not know in advance what film they were going to see, and had not studied it beforehand to evaluate it, complained about projection problems during the screenings, and demanded that friends who were not members be allowed to attend.[6] In other newsletters, the directors showed annoyance at requests for Greta Garbo films, in a tone similar to Cine Club del Uruguay’s complaints about the demand for premieres and entertainment films.[7]  

Cineclubs showed a remarkable number of contemporary films, including sneak previews of new releases and films that had been recently shown in commercial theaters. These choices are likely to be related to the members’ explicit and implicit demands. Another way of recognizing these demands was through a proactive response to the members' requests, as when Cine Universitario agreed to give them a direct outlet:

Members’ programming: A group of members has requested a new screening of a documentary film series on car racing; this program will be shown on Tuesday, the 17th of this month, on an extraordinary basis.  Within reasonable limits, this policy of offering shows “a la carte” by popular demand will be maintained in the future, taking into account the convenience of having a theater of our own.[8]

This anecdote shows other sides of this “unenlightened” cinephilia that found it difficult to become cultivated and that can be defined by the practices of what Jullier and Leveratto call the “ordinary movie fan.” These popular films were sought after by this audience, along with many non-fiction films that were widely screened in commercial theaters. These demands account for the great interest in films produced by Shell and similar materials and also explain the significant share of the programming devoted to documentary and educational films. 

On other occasions, these preferences corresponded with a more canonical repertory; the Cine Club del Uruguay, for example, justified one of the repeated screenings of Le sang d'un poète (The Blood of a Poet, Jean Cocteau, 1932) by saying that it was at the members’ request. In a Cine Universitario newsletter from 1952, they complained about the “ambi-members” (“ambi-socios,” a play on ambiciosos, or ambitious ones) who questioned some films of dubious quality or certain dubbed versions and demanded the repetition of Rashomon (Kurosawa, 1950), Bronenosets Potyomkin (Battleship Potemkin, Sergei Eisenstein, 1925), or Los olvidados (Luis Buñuel, 1950).[9] The “mass of members" did not behave uniformly. There were times when a harmony of interests was noticeable between members and programmers: The Czech film Ecstasy (Gustav Machatý, 1933), notable for featuring a nude Hedy Lamarr, seems to have been shown in every season, arousing the interest of both leaders and audiences of the two organizations.

In addressing audience preferences, one must also consider that cineclub audiences were offered programming and not just individual films. One element to take into account is that beyond the suite of activities proposed, it was the arrangement of a program, the juxtaposition of different types of films, the associations, comparisons, and contaminations established between dissimilar pieces, that constituted an important space resonating with the fragmented exhibitions of the avant-garde in the 1920s described by Malte Hagener. The provocative proposal of avant-garde cinema was expressed in the form of external montage, where “the confrontational nature of the avant-garde attractions was less an effect of the single film than of the confrontation between different films, an external montage instead of an internal one. . . . [A] syncretist form as exemplified by the attractionist combination of films.”[10] In this case, external montage was used not in the service of provocation, but as a training space for a film culture that can expand canons and encompass alternate uses of cinema. However, the club leaders maintained their interest in taking actions to fulfill the “mission of a cine-club” and in 1955, they proposed the creation of spaces devoted to training and debate on film culture.  Several study meetings were scheduled to discuss general topics such as “What is film culture?” coordinated by the directors of Cine Club del Uruguay. In the December newsletter there appeared the following text:

Culture: The numbers resulting from the study meetings confirmed a proven fact – that the majority of the public prefers to watch films rather than think about them. This activity, like others initiated by Cine Club in the past, is aimed at promoting increased interest in issues related to cinema. In its eight years of work, Cine Club has organized debates, study meetings, conferences, theoretical and practical courses, presentation of films, re-evaluation of famous titles, contests.

To achieve greater efficiency, next year this activity will be structured organically, and we can already announce the realization of two annual courses: An elementary course on cinematographic initiation, and another one devoted to the theoretical and critical study of cinema.[11]

Throughout 1956 both the announced courses were taught; their results were not mentioned again, but their existence at least showed that the Board was committed to fulfilling what they considered “their duty.”

The Characteristics of a Negotiated Model

By the mid-1950s, these disputes led to a new model of the cineclub that was surprisingly varied, in accordance with diverse interests. Taking into account all these factors, I consider that the expansion of audiences outside the classic cinephile groups to which these movements were originally circumscribed generated favorable circumstances for the development of a cineclub model with similar characteristics to post-war European movements that included cinema as another means of cultural education.[12] Clearly, the local numbers of cineclub participants were smaller, even per capita. The particularity of the Uruguayan case is that the model developed out of a relationship of tension between the parties involved.

In the end neither side prevailed; rather, a negotiated process unfolded between the factions. Both cineclubs acted as a space of mediation where the opposing interests of the large group of subscribing members and the most active members were discussed. The itineraries followed were established on the basis of different demands, sometimes against the grain but always bearing in mind the problems to be solved: the growing demand for films and an expansion and consequent (albeit relative) diversification of the audience in order to make the cineclub’s activities financially viable.  This particular public was not a majority among the general film audience but it was certainly significant, and the tradition born in this period persisted in the decades to come. By contrast with the diagnosis issued by the Cine Club del Uruguay’s organizers, I do not believe that those people who filled the theaters, made noise and violated decorum went to the movies only to be entertained. I propose that one of the great achievements of this model of a diverse cine-club lies not in the diffusion of the film culture it set out to accomplish but in what it actually accomplished.

Beyond the limited interest of the broad group of members of film clubs in the regulated practices of erudite cinephilia, an extensive group of audiences was formed, accustomed to watching diverse materials with diverse purposes; and in doing so, the movement did something much more significant than managing “the mere organization of non-commercial shows.” Moreover, it generated a widespread practice whose concerns were guided by desire and taste rather than duty; that placed unregulated pleasure over the joy of rigor. This purpose is in line with Jullier and Leveratto's proposal on the ways the problem of cinephilia should be approached:

It is therefore not a question of opposing the history of the social uses of cinema to the history of cinematographic art, but of restoring to the notion of cinephilia its broader sense of a culture of cinematic pleasure instead of confining it to the exclusive and restrictive admiration of certain films or types of films. To recognize, in other words, the diversity and plasticity of the forms of sociability and aesthetic competence transmitted by cinema, which leads to leaving aside the valorization of only one form of cinephilia. (Jullier and Leveratto, Cinéfilos, 14)

It is possible that by the 1950s the practice of frequenting theaters was informed by shifts in the public sphere related to the changes generated by the political movement of neo-Batllism and its policy of democratic enlargement and modernization.[13] This historical context, which we describe as an expanded democracy that proposed the inclusion of new sectors in urban modernity, leads me to think of the utopia proposed by Hansen: “This may well be a fantasy: the fantasy of a cinema that could help its viewers negotiate the tension between reification and the aesthetic, strongly understood, the possibilities, anxieties, and costs of an expanded sensory and experiential horizon—the fantasy, in other words, of a mass-mediated public sphere capable of responding to modernity and its failed promises” (Hansen, “The Mass Production of the Senses,” 256).

Finally, this modern experience of this field of exhibition and education found its particularity in that diverse set of programs that were organized as external montage, combining the characteristics of vernacular modernism that Hansen attributes to the classic cinemas of the interwar period with its more reflexive components. Other modernizing efforts of different signs, such as the edifying mission of John Grierson and useful cinema, also participate in this ensemble.[14] Although this cineclub model declined in the following decade, its imprint left very deep traces in the way Uruguay experiences its relationship with film culture to this day.