Third Cinema () is a Latin American film movement formed in the 1960s which critiques neocolonialism, the capitalist system, the Hollywood model of cinema as mere entertainment to make money (First Cinema), as well as the individualistic, European film d'auteur (Second Cinema). The term was used by Latin American filmmakers and critics of the 1960s, including the article El Tercer Cine: Cinema Novo - realidad y alternativa, published in April 1968 in the journal Cine al día (Venezuela) by Oswaldo Capriles, and later the manifestos by Argentine filmmakers Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino, members of the Grupo Cine Liberación ¿Por qué Tercer Cine? (Why Third Cinema?), written and published in June 1969 in the journal Cine al día (Venezuela), and Hacia un tercer cine (Toward a Third Cinema), written and published in October 1969 in the journal Tricontinental by the OSPAAAL (Organization of Solidarity with the People of Asia, Africa and Latin AmericaOctavio Getino. "Some notes on the concept of a 'Third Cinema'", in Martin, Michael T. New Latin American Cinema vol. 1. Wayne State University Press, Detroit 1997.] ).
Although conceived by Latin American authors, Third Cinema, as a category, is not limited to Latin America: it was imagined from the outset as a tricontinental paradigm, applicable to anticolonial African cinema (Ousmane Sembène, Djibril Diop Mambéty, Sarah Maldoror, Mostafa Derkaoui, Ahmed Bouanani, Ahmed Rachedi) and Asian cinema (Jocelyne Saab, Heiny Srour, Kidlat Tahimik). Indeed, starting in the 1970s, initiatives emerged such as the Moroccan magazine CINEMA 3, directed by Noureddine Saïl, as well as the Groupe du Troisième cinéma (Jamaat es cinima eth talitha), which arose in Egypt in 1976, directly influenced by the Latin American experience.
Third Cinema shares common ground with other manifestos of the period: Glauber Rocha's "Aesthetic of Hunger" (1965), Julio García Espinosa's "For an Imperfect Cinema" (1969), "Problems of Form and Content in Revolutionary Cinema" (1976) by Jorge Sanjinés.
Definition In April 1968, in his article El Tercer Cine: Cinema Novo - realidad y alternativa (Third Cinema: Cinema Novo - Reality and Alternative), published in issue 3 of the Venezuelan magazine Cine al día, film critic Oswaldo Capriles used the term Third Cinema to encompass a body of work on the cinema of the countries that make up the so-called Third World. Capriles defines the term as follows:(...) to speak specifically of Third Cinema is a pressing need of contemporary culture — a need felt with growing urgency in Europe, given its heightened awareness of the shifting centers of global gravity, and one that is simply unavoidable in our own countries, where we can no longer defer the recognition of a shared struggle. In that struggle, the achievement of nationhood, cultural as much as political, is the indispensable step toward eventual universal integration.In 1969, Solanas and Getino wrote their manisfesto Hacia un tercer cine (Toward a Third Cinema). They considered 'First Cinema' to be the Hollywood production model that idealizes bourgeois values to a passive audience through escapist spectacle and individual characters. 'Second Cinema' is the European art film, which rejects Hollywood conventions but is centred on the individual expression of the auteur director. Third Cinema is meant to be non-commercialized, challenging Hollywood's model. Third Cinema rejects the view of cinema as a vehicle for personal expression, seeing the director instead as part of a collective; it appeals to the masses by presenting the truth and inspiring revolutionary activism. Solanas and Getino strongly argue that traditional exhibition models also should not be used: the films should be screened clandestinely, both in order to dodge censorship and commercial networks, but also so that the viewer must take a risk to see them.David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, Film History: An Introduction, 2nd edtn. (McGraw-Hill, 2003), 545.
Background In the late 1940s, the emergence of lighter, less expensive cameras enabled many Latin American filmmakers to begin working outside studio settings: La escalinata (César Enríquez, Venezuela, 1950), Reverón (Margot Benacerraf, Venezuela, 1952), Agulha no Palheiro (Alex Viany, Brazil, 1953), Rua sem Sol (Alex Viany, Brazil, 1954), Rio, 40 Graus (Nelson Pereira dos Santos, Brazil, 1955), O Grande Momento (Roberto Santos, Brazil, 1958), El mégano (Julio García Espinosa and Tomás Gutiérrez Alea, Cuba, 1955), Un vintén p'al Judas (Ugo Ulive, Uruguay, 1959), Araya (Margot Benacerraf, Venezuela, 1959), Caín adolescente (Román Chalbaud, 1959) Tire dié (Fernando Birri, Argentina, 1960), Crónica cubana (Ugo Ulive, Cuba, 1963), and Raíces de piedra (José María Arzuaga, Colombia, 1962), among others. This gradually moved Latin American cinema away from the industrial model.
Manifestos There are multiple manifestos accredited to beginning the genre of Third Cinema: Glauber Rocha's Aesthetic of Hunger (1965), Julio García Espinosa's For an Imperfect Cinema (1969), Problems of Form and Content in Revolutionary Cinema (1976) by Jorge Sanjinés, and finally Why Third Cinema? (1969) and Toward a Third Cinema (1969) by Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino. Although all define the broad and far reaching genre, Solanas and Getino's Toward a Third Cinema is well known for its political stance and outline of the genre.
"Toward a Third Cinema" Explaining the neo-colonialist dilemma and the need for "a cinema of subversion" or "a revolutionary cinema", "Toward a Third Cinema" begins by explaining the dilemma that the anti-imperialist film-maker is left with a paradoxical need to survive within as well as subvert "the System"."Third cinema is, in our opinion, the cinema that recognizes in that struggle the most gigantic cultural, scientific, and artistic manifestation of our time, the great possibility of constructing a liberated personality with each people as the starting point – in a word, the decolonization of culture."Solanas and Getino define the problem with 'the System' (the political and cultural authorities in place) as being one that reduces film to a commodity that exists to fill the needs of the film industry that creates them—mainly in the United States. This "spectator cinema" continues a lack of awareness within the masses of a difference between class interests or "that of the rulers and that of the nation". To the authors, films of 'the System' do not function to change or move the culture forward; they function to maintain it.
Availability of technology
With the advancement of technology in film in the late 1960s (simplification of cameras and tape recorders, rapid film that can be shot in normal light, automatic light meters, improved audio/visual synchronization), Solanas and Getino argue that an alternative cinema is finally possible. The authors cite the Imperfect Cinema movement in Cuba, Cinegiornali liberi in Italy, Zengakuren documentaries in Japan as proof that it is already happening.
Urging the need to further politicize and experiment with the format of film—mainly the documentary—Solanas and Getino illustrate the somewhat obscure and non-universal steps that must be taken to make "revolutionary cinema":"Real alternatives differing from those offered by the System are only possible if one of two requirements is fulfilled: making films that the System cannot assimilate and which are foreign to its needs, or making films that directly and explicitly set out to fight the System."
The "guerilla-film-unit" Paradoxically, Solanas and Getino continue to state that it is not enough to simply rebel against 'the System'. The manifesto uses Jean-Luc Godard and the French New Wave throughout as a formidable example of a group which failed to properly subvert 'the System'. Referring to it as “second cinema” or "author's cinema", the problem begins with the genre's attempt to exist parallel, be distributed by, and funded by 'the System'. Solanas and Getino quote Godard's self-description as being 'trapped inside the fortress' and refer to the metaphor throughout the manifesto.
Because of this paradox of subversion but need for distinctions between commodified rebellion and "the cinema of revolution", Solanas and Getino recognize that film-makers must function like a guerilla unit, one that "cannot grow strong without military structures and command concepts." The authors also recognize that the difficulties encountered by those attempting to make revolutionary cinema will stem mainly from its need to work as a synchronized unit. Claiming that the only solution to these difficulties is common awareness of the basics of interpersonal relationships, Solanas and Getino go further to state that "The myth of the irreplaceable technicians must be exploded."
The guerilla-film unit requires that all members have general knowledge of the equipment being used and caution that any failure in a production will be ten-fold that of a first cinema production. This condition—based on the fact that monetary support will be slim and come mainly from the group itself—also requires that members of the guerilla-film unit be wary and maintain an amount of silence not custom to conventional film-making."The success of the work depends [on]…permanent wariness, a condition that is difficult to achieve in a situation in which apparently nothing is happening and the film-maker has been accustomed to telling all…because the bourgeoisie has trained him precisely on such a basis of prestige and promotion."
Distribution and showing The manifesto concludes with an explanation for how to best distribute third cinema films. Using their own experience with La Hora de los Hornos (The Hour of the Furnaces), Solanas and Getino share that the most intellectually profitable showings were followed by group discussions. The following elements (Solanas and Getino even refer to them as mise en scène) that "reinforce the themes of the films, the climate of the showing, the 'disinhibiting' of the participants, and the dialogue": Art pieces such as recorded music, poetry, sculpture, paintings, and posters A program director to chair the debate and present the film Refreshments such as wine or yerba mate When distributed correctly, third cinema films will result in the audience members becoming what Solanas and Getino refer to as "man-actor-accomplices" as they become crucial to the film achieving its goal to transform society. It is only when the "man-actor-accomplice" responds to the film that third cinema becomes effective."Freeing a forbidden truth means setting free the possibility of indignation and subversion. Our truth, that of the new man who builds himself by getting rid of all the defects that still weigh him down, is a bomb of inexhaustible power and, at the same time, the only real possibility of life."
History