Men with Guns

In John Sayles, 1997 film Men With Guns, a widowed doctor, Humberto Fuentes (Fernando Luppi) leaves his practice in an unnamed Latin American country to search for medical students he trained to be doctors in Indian villages under the "Alliance for Progress". Filmed almost entirely in Spanish with English subtitles and based on stories by Francisco Goldman, the film is a fictional adventure story but suggestive of real events. Sayles has said, "As I was writing it, I made sure that almost all of the incidents are based on events that have happened somewhere else, almost to the exact detail."

Naively unconvinced that there is any danger from a guerilla war in the interior, Dr. Fuentes travels to remote areas to discover his "legacy". Soon he finds out the reality. His tires are removed, his wallet is stolen, his life is threatened, and he cannot get any information because people won't speak to him out of fear. He sees starving people, destroyed villages, and people who have lost their hope, while the world is ignorant of what is taking place. Dr. Fuentes picks up several travelling companions along the way; and learns more about the struggles they have endured. Each has lost something close to them. Domingo (Damian Delgado), a soldier has deserted his army, Conejo (Dan Rivera Gonzales), a very wise young boy has lost his parents, an ex-priest Padre Portillo (Damian Alcazar) has lost his faith, and a native woman has lost her voice after being raped by soldiers.

At the first village, a blind woman tells Dr. Fuentes that the "men killed one of his students with guns". When he asks her the reason, she says simply, "Because they had guns and we didn't". The film clearly shows the powerlessness of the Indians and peasants caught in the middle of a conflict they do not want to be involved in. Sayles shows peasants as little more than commodities who are used by the system: the Salt people, the Sugar people, the Coffee, Banana and Gum people, all surviving at subsistence level because of economic conditions beyond their control. The doctor finds out that it does not matter who is threatening the people, they are all just "men with guns" and Indians are just as capable of cruelty against their own people as government soldiers. Fuentes discovers that some of his students have been killed but keeps going from village to village to look for the rest. His expectations, however, are met only with one grim story after another. Weary but not despairing, he and his traveling companions set out on one last journey, a spiritual quest to find a city hidden in the rainforest called Circle of Heaven where the air is clear and there are no guns.

Men With Guns has a point to make but makes it early and often and there is little suspense or plot development in the last half of the film. Mr. Sayles has wisely kept the story as generic as possible but there is no indication of what the issues are or what the conflict is all about. It is well known that civilians and "innocent bystanders" are often the biggest victims in war. Beyond that, what is the film saying? Is it that resistance movements who might be fighting an uphill battle against a brutal dictator should lay down their arms? Aside from the problems I had with the issues, the characters come across as types rather than real people. Oblivious American tourists, played by Mandy Patinkin and Kathryn Grody, are too laughable to even warrant being called stereotypes. Though credit must be given for tackling a subject that most filmmakers would rather not hear about, Men With Guns is overlong and lacking in dramatic impact. Eventually, it veers off into magical realism with much self-consciousness but little realism and no magic.

I just fell upon this movie while watching the IFC channel and I hadn't been back from Guatemala for long. After living there amongst the natives I was able to get to know them better and understand their culture more. Seeing this film brought back a lot of those memories and reminded me of the many stories I heard of the army's genocidal tendencies towards the indigenous people of Guatemala. The cinematography for this film is simple, but it shows the beautiful landscapes and run down third world towns in a way to almost show us the same details that we would see if we were really there. We have to remember that the characters portrayed in this movie are very real, they may not have the same names, but they do exist. Even the war vets who have gone to levels so low we cannot even imagine. If you would like to understand what went on in Southern Mexico and Guatemala during the 80's, I would strongly recommend this film. It left a very strong impression on me.

This movie has some of the most expertly drawn characters I've ever seen in a movie. The acting and writing is absolutely superb. The ending is uplifting, but not sappy or overly sentimental. It's the type of movie that can be watched again and again.

Following on the heels of the critical breakthrough of his previous film, _Lone Star_, writer-director John Sayles takes a real chance here.

Although he's long marched to beat of a different drummer, as they say, as one of the few truly independent American filmmakers, Sayles really goes out on the edge this time, giving us a film which is presented almost entirely in Spanish, with English subtitles, as he tells the tale of a doctor in an unnamed Latin American country who undertakes a journey into the rain forest in search of a group of young medical students he'd trained some years before. Not only does he expect us to put up with the subtitles, but he also fills the movie with a largely unknown cast (to most American audiences, that is), of Latin American actors and actresses.

Federico Luppi, the film's star, is an older actor and one I'm not familiar with. He has the air about him of a quiet, dignified man. A city-dweller, through and through, he has always bought into the government's version of the battle between mountain guerrillas and government troops. He's had no reason to doubt the stories nor to suspect otherwise.

Ultimately, though, as the title suggests, this is not a story about winners and losers, about the "official story," but about the effects on the daily lives of the country's people that "men with guns" can have. Whether they are soldiers or guerrillas, bandits or thieves, on the side of the good or the bad, they are simply "men with guns" and the people do what they say because of this simple fact.

The film's journey, started largely out of boredom (the doctor is nearly retired and looking for something to do with his time) gradually becomes a mythical, almost allegorical journey, as he moves from village to village, unsuccessful in his search. It begins to appear that most (all?) of his former students have been killed or otherwise incapacitated, viewed by the rebels or the villagers they went to serve as a danger.

Along the way, the doctor gradually picks up a group of traveling companions, including an army deserter, a former priest, a little boy, and a woman who has not spoken since she was raped by soldiers. The deserter and the priest tell their very poignant stories and the doctor is forced to gradually open his eyes to the realities of the world around him.

As they continue, ever deeper into the jungle, the story, which was never grounded in a specific reality anyway, becomes even more dreamlike and unreal, as the travelers seek out the mythical "Circle of Heaven," a village so high on a mountain and so deep in the forest that soldiers cannot find it and the people there live in freedom. This is a movie that truly verges into the area of magical realism which so many Latin authors provide in their novels, but which is seldom seen successfully on the screen.

If one is able to put up with the subtitles (there are moments when a couple of American tourists, one played by Mandy Patinkin, burst onto the screen, with their loud English and "ugly American" attitudes), the film is a real treat.

John Sayles has sometimes been criticized as a filmmaker for being more interested in telling his story than in fiddling with the camera angles and photography. If that's a valid criticism, I fear for the future of American film. In both _Lone Star_ and this film, Sayles shows us the value of a well-told story in a film, a virtue which increasingly seems to be disappearing, in favor of explosions and special effects. Very highly recommended. Rating: A.

A retired Professor of medicine in Mexico begins a journey to reaffirm his legacy, that is, to find and reacquaint himself with the students who studied under him. His search takes him to southern Mexico along the Guatemala border, where an internecine war is in progress between guerilla soldiers and government troops. The war has left the country and its native inhabitants devastated. He find, tragically, his former students have all been killed: if they treated guerilla soldiers, they were executed by the army. If they treated soldiers they were assassinated by guerillas. He ends up with some companions on the journey: an embittered ex-soldier, a priest ravaged by guilt from the commission of an unpardonable sin, a woman who has been gang raped by soldiers, a boy who is old before his time. It is very interesting, and a tribute to a carefully wrought script, that none of these characters can be who they are: the doctor is no longer a doctor, the soldier has deserted, the boy can no longer be a boy, the woman a woman, the priest a priest. Their very violent and moving journey takes them to a mountain top and to the magical possibility of redemption. Mandy Patinkin appears briefly several times in the film as an American tourist, exploring the offbeat paths of rural Mexico. But he, symbolically, is much more than that. His role is one of the most intriguingly conceived elements of the film. Is he a guide? A celestial companion? The film is mostly in Spanish, although long sections of it are in native languages, such as Mayan and Huatl. They are beautiful languages, very musical in nature, and offer one more reason to see this vibrant, provocative masterpiece. This is one of the greatest of American films. Many critics said so and it received universal accolades from everyone except the public. They stayed away in groves, and I, living in Philadelphia, had to plan carefully in order to see it twice. Those who are critical of American film, believing it can never equal the philosophical attainments of European film, should see this film. Few films have dealt with eschatological issues as assuredly as this one: The Seventh Seal, Persona, Cold Fever, Forbidden Games, are some that have, and this magnificent film is very much their equal.