Argentine Cinema and the Crisis of

Audience

Tamara L. Falicov

In late 2001, Argentina plunged into a massive economic and political

crisis. A rebellion erupted on December 19–20 when the government
of Fernando de la Rúa froze domestic savings accounts in an attempt
to salvage the country’s domestic and international banking interests.
The government’s repression of the protests resulted in the deaths
of thirty-two demonstrators (Burbach 2003). The population joined in
a massive popular protest, known as the caserolazo (the night of the
banging casseroles), whereby people of all social classes stormed the
streets, banging pots and pans in protest of the government’s failing
economic policy and endemic government corruption. President de la
Rúa resigned and fled the country, and the nation devolved into chaos.
The film industry, too, was stalled and in a state of uncertainty. Over-
riding the law created two years earlier to make the INCAA an autono-
mous, or autarkic agency, the Economic Emergency Law was passed
authorizing the treasury department to confiscate all film institute funds.
After the situation stabilized, film director Jorge Coscia was select-
ed as the new head of the INCAA. By 2002 the INCAA’s autarky was
reinstated, and funding was restored to the extent that film produc-
tion remained at a high level in 2003, with 67 films released that year
(­Perelman and Seivach 2004: 21). Despite the economic turmoil and
rising unemployment, Argentine filmmakers continued to produce
good-quality, low-budget films. As Marcela Valente explains, “The
success of cinema in the midst of the longest economic depression
in Argentine history is explained in part by the fact that crisis tends to
motivate artistic expression” (Valente 2002: 2). Manuel Antín described
this high level of artistic expression under difficult economic circum-
stances in philosophical terms: “This progress in the film world is proof
that Argentina is experiencing a material crisis, not a spiritual crisis”
(Valente 2002: 8).
Although the country suffered tremendous economic blows, it be-
came a time when citizens began to rethink the old system and make
changes to help people cope with daily life. For example, in response
208 Tamara L. Falicov

to the devaluation of the currency, individuals began setting up swap

meets where one could barter food, crafts, and necessary items.
Some workers who found their factories on the brink of closure took
over the operations after their bosses had fled the companies, as at
the ceramic tile factory Zanon in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego. In creative
and ingenious ways, Argentines made the best of their situation, and
in much the same way filmmakers tried to maintain a steady cycle of
film production amidst the crisis. The late Fabián Bielinsky, the film
director who debuted with the successful con artist film Nueve reinas
(Nine Queens, 2000) opined in 2002 that “today, as never before, people
are gathering in neighborhoods, looking for solutions, looking for ways
to participate in our daily, social, and political life. And that is quite a
change” (Kaufman, 2002:12). Many documentaries which chronicled
these changes include Grissinopoli (Breadstick Ville, 2004) directed by
Dario Doria, which documents the takeover of an abandoned bread
stick factory by a largely female workforce, and a film of a similar genre
but no less compelling The Take (2004) directed by Canadian journalists
Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein, among many others.
That year, film exhibitors, in an effort to reach filmgoers, reduced
the price of movie tickets. While this lowered the amount of tax money
earmarked for national film production, it helped make the cinema the
only cultural industry that did not experience a drop in the level of activ-
ity for that year (Perelman, Seivach 2003). In 2003, the same strategy
was employed by the movie chain Sociedad Anónima Cinematográ-
fica (SAC), who announced that it would reduce the cost of movie tick-
ets for shows between Monday and Wednesday to 4.5 pesos from the
approximately 7 peso admission fee (Martínez 2003).
Exhibition issues for national cinema were addressed to some ex-
tent beginning in the mid-1990s when the INCAA invested in a few ur-
ban movie theaters to create a dedicated space for Argentine cinema.
To date, in addition to the Sala Tita Merello complex on Calle Suipacha
(site of a once-popular downtown theater that lamentably is no longer
the case), there is the better situated Teatro de la Comedia on Santa Fe
Street, as well as a theater called Espacio INCAA Km 0, the site of the
Gaumont movie theater. The idea behind these theaters is to not have
to be beholden to the whims of exhibitors, who by and large consider
national films to be more risky and less profitable than Hollywood films.
Additionally, the INCAA has tried to rectify the many closures of provin-
cial movie theaters by opening them in various provinces throughout
the country. For example, in addition to theaters in Rawson, Trelew and
Comodoro Rivadavia in Patagonia, the INCAA most recently (in April
2011) inaugurated a long-awaited theater in Mendoza, which was offi-
 Argentine Cinema and the Crisis of Audience 209

cially dedicated by the current INCAA head, Lilliana Mazure. Moreover,

since 2004 there has been an initiative to open these state theaters on
an international scale. On April 30th, 2004, a movie theater was inau-
gurated across the Atlantic, in Madrid, Spain. The Espacio INCAA Km
10,000 was designated as such to reflect the distance from its sister
theater in Buenos Aires. This theater, which holds 120 seats and is
in the Colegio Mayor, an institution of Argentina’s ministry of educa-
tion in  Spain, is the first of its kind on the European continent. Soon
thereafter, one opened in Rome at the Casa Argentina (Espacio Km
11, 100), a third in Paris at the Argentine Embassy, and a fourth in New
York City at the Argentine Consulate (Cine por la red, 2004). Victor
Bassuk, INCAA international affairs director, explained that the project
seeks to “train the public” to get out to see more Argentine films, and is
complemented by another program to “promote consumption” of films
from abroad. “Admission is free because we want our film industry to
be known amongst critics, the curious and students, who in the future
can help disseminate Argentine films abroad — and conquer new mar-
kets,” summarized Bassuk (Valente 2004).
In September 2004 Coscia stated that the INCAA theaters recouped
one percent of the film market, but that they were trying to improve this
percentage. He mentioned that ticket prices were lower in some the-
aters so as to potentially reach a sector with no means to pay regular
ticket prices (Coscia 2004). The effort behind bolstering the exhibition
is to combat what could be dubbed the “occupied screen” phenom-
enon (by Hollywood) and which Randal Johnson describes as an “oc-
cupied market” effect which plagues Latin American film industries
without exception (Johnson 1996: 131). Coscia’s pragmatic approach
to this “David and Goliath” dynamic is the following:

With the recent regulatory measures, we don’t want (and

can’t) eliminate Hollywood from our screens. We had simply
taken the necessary steps to prevent Hollywood from elimi-
nating us. We are not planning to have 80  % share of the Ar-
gentine market (when actually Hollywood has 85 %), neither
are we banning nor limiting American cinema’s access, like
China does. What we attempt to do is to achieve a market
share which we understand is the appropriate considering
the quantity and quality of our film production: 20 % growing
up to 30 %, as the new regulations consolidate. (Coscia 2004).

Although the notion of creating state-run theaters to circumscribe a

space dedicated toward Argentine cinema is a noble one, the reality is
210 Tamara L. Falicov

that the urban movie theaters in large cities such as Buenos Aires, by
and large are in parts of town where people no longer frequent to see
films. If they opened a theater on Corrientes street, where other movie
theaters are, or even made a deal with an exhibitor to rent a space
within a popular multiplex in a wealthy neighborhood like Belgrano or in
the suburbs, then perhaps more people would see homegrown films.
Diego Batlle, Argentine film critic notes that with the success in Spain
of Juan Taratuto’s film No sos vos soy yo (It’s Not You, It’s Me, 2004), Enrique
Piñeyro’s film Whisky Romeo Zulu’s (2004) positive response in France,
a successful run in some U.S. art houses with Lucrecia Martel’s La
niña santa (The Holy Girl, 2004) and Daniel Burman’s El abrazo partido (Lost
Embrace, 2004), that “the good financial repercussion and the critical
acclaim signals how well Argentine cinema is faring abroad.” However,
this contrasts to the domestic front whereby paradoxically, the local
market only saw a seven percent market share in local film consump-
tion during the same period of 2005 (Batlle 2005).
One initiative to encourage national film going by the Argentine public
acknowledged the sometimes short runs that exhibitors had for home-
grown films. Despite these box office successes, the Néstor Kirchner
government felt that national cinema still yielded an unfair advantage in
terms of screen time in theaters compared to their U.S. counterparts.
Enter the screen quota, a protectionist policy last implemented by Juan
Peron’s administration in 1944.
In June 2004, due in part to the left-leaning atmosphere created by
President Néstor Kirchner’s administration, INCAA spearheaded the
passage of new screen quota legislation to counter Hollywood’s hege-
mony. It stated that movie theaters were obligated to show one nation-
al film per screen per quarter: so, for example, a 16 – screen multiplex
must screen 64 Argentine films per year. Another law called the “con-
tinuity average” obligated film exhibitors to continue screening national
films if these domestic productions garnered audience attendance of
between six and 25 percent per theater in a given week. This act en-
sured that exhibitors could not arbitrarily drop national films mid-week,
nor change screening times mid-week (Newbery 2004). By and large
Argentine film producers do not have the funds to market their films.
A Hollywood blockbuster relies on high-priced, intense and fast cam-
paigns for an opening weekend for a film, but an Argentine film usually
gains momentum through word of mouth. In 2009, the law was modi-
fied to give Argentine films a minimum of two weeks in a movie theater
to give them time to build an audience. The earlier version of the law
only guaranteed one week, unless it was a national film with less than
five copies available for screening. The justification for this, according
 Argentine Cinema and the Crisis of Audience 211

to Mario Miranda, an INCAA account manager, was the following: “We

noticed that there was a type of discrimination going on. In 2008 there
were 68 films released, of which more than half — 37 — were relegated to
the ‘alternative circuit.’ On top of that, of the 31 local films that did reach
commercial theaters, 30 percent were taken off the marquee after the
first week.” (Garcia, 2009) Other measures enacted by the INCAA in-
clude subsidizing theaters whose national films do not garner enough
attendance to reach the continuity average mentioned above (thus al-
lowing films to continue to be screened), and offering a cash prize ­every
trimester to the movie theater (to reinvest in the theater itself) to the
movie theater who sells the most tickets to an Argentine film.
As an outgrowth of these declining audiences for national films there
has been a debate from the economic crisis (2001) to the present sur-
rounding what kind of cinema should be supported by the INCAA dur-
ing this belt-tightening era—an issue that has effectively polarized the
film community post-economic crisis. Proponents of the New Argen-
tine Cinema (NCA) themselves have complained that while these inno-
vative filmmakers are producing work that is winning international film
festival awards, it has not translated into domestic box office returns.
Film critic Quintín lamented that Argentine independent cinema hasn’t
even succeeded in its own country: of all the films screened, each box
office hit reached no more than a quarter million tickets sold—and this
was many times outnumbered by commercial films like Nueve reinas
or El hijo de la novia (Son of the Bride, 2001) by Juan José Campanella
(Quintín 2003).
Even more troubling to critic Luciano Monteagudo is that film exhibi-
tors have been losing patience with the lack of box office audiences
for Argentine independent cinema. He quotes the numbers for some
independent films that gained fame on an international level:

In the 2001 season Martel’s La ciénaga reached 120,000 spec-

tators; and last year Adrián Caetano’s Un oso rojo received
190,000 and Pablo Trapero’s El Bonarense achieved 220,000.
None of these numbers seem possible today (2003) for Ar-
gentine independent cinema, for the exhibition business—
which has never been generous with local films—chooses, as
everywhere else, to focus on a few highly profitable releases,
as Hollywood productions or “industrial” Argentine cinema,
rather than taking any risk with non success-guaranteeing pic-
tures (Monteagudo 2003: 5).
212 Tamara L. Falicov

In 2004, the situation was not much better. There were 54 Argentine
films released, and the majority only saw only 5,000 spectators each
(Minghetti 2005). Over the second weekend of October 2005, however,
three national films—a police comedy, Tiempo de valientes (On Probation,
2005) by Damian Szifron, Tristan Bauer’s Falkland Islands award-win-
ning drama, Iluminados por el fuego (Blessed by Fire, 2005), and the old-
age romantic comedy Elsa and Fred by Marcos Carnevale (2005) — took
nearly 45 percent of the 370,000 total admissions, up from an average
10−15 percent share of the market for the same time period the previ-
ous year (Newbery 2005).
Film critic Pablo Sirvén opines in various articles dating from 2003,
2007 and 2010, that the state (e.g. INCAA) should be criticized for fa-
cilitating first-time filmmaker fiscal support. These operasprimistas (first-
time filmmakers) make films that, in his words are, “chata, sin argu-
mento, sin elenco, sin dirección, empiojando la cartelera … la gente se
alejó más todavía del cine nacional.” [flat, without a plot, without a cast,
without direction, muddying up the marquee…the public has distanced
itself even more from national cinema] (Sirvén 2010). In each editorial
he argues that there are many national films each year that less than
10,000 moviegoers see. He argues that they are divorced from a mass
audience and the films form part of an “extreme vanguard” and are
“cryptic”. He alleges that these esoteric films will be screened “in a
closet theater with only a few acquaintances and an obsequious film
critic” (Sirvén 2010). On the other hand, he lauds the Argentine films
that do amass a large quantity of spectators of 500,000 or more.
In contrast, in 2009, the top grossing film that year, The Argentine-
Spanish co-production El secreto de sus ojos (The Secret In Their Eyes) di-
rected by Juan José Campanella, brought in 2.4 million viewers, draw-
ing in an astonishing 45 percent of all audience members that year
that went to see Argentine cinema (Sirvén 2010). This film was highly
popular before it won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film (the second Latin
American film to ever win in the history of the Oscars), but winning this
prestigious accolade, in addition to two Goya Awards (Spain’s high-
est honor) probably helped garner such a high number of viewers.
The film beat out the Hollywood hits for that year, Ice Age 3 (1.9 million
viewers) and Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (1 million moviegoers).
Pablo Sirvén uses this success as a case example on how El secreto
de sus ojos embodies the right combination of filmmaking, that is, in his
words “un tipo de película argentina ni tan experimental ni tan popu-
lachera“ [a type of Argentine cinema that is not either experimental nor
crassly popular] (Sirvén 2007).
 Argentine Cinema and the Crisis of Audience 213

While specifically defining what makes a film popular can be con-

jecture at best (for devising a formula would make all filmmakers suc-
cessful and wealthy, thus making this an exercise in futility). However,
El secreto de sus ojos exemplifies a type of filmmaking that utilizes high
production values shot in a traditional Hollywood continuity editing
style, replete with recognizable, glossy aesthetics and special effects,
the use of genre (the film has been labeled a thriller and “Argentinian
noir”, Bradshaw 2010), A-list actors (including Ricardo Darín, comedian
Guillermo Francella, Soledad Villamil and Pablo Rago), and witty, fast-
paced, humorous dialogue. While some are critical of Campanella’s
style by comparing it to U.S. television dramas — and no doubt, made
that comparison in part based on his work directing U.S. television
shows such as House, M.D. and Law and Order: SVU — (Sáez 2009), ­others
believe that this comparison elevates Argentine cinema and thus
should be an aesthetic style worth lauding (see readers’ comments
of the Saez review). Cinematographer Felix Monti’s efforts on the film
are also commended by critics, (Tanvir 2010) reinforcing the notion
that this film is shot in a flawless, professional (read: not low budget)
style, not to mention the incredible (quasi) single-take tracking shot
(i.e., there are subtle, almost invisible cuts in the sequence) that soars
over a soccer stadium replete with hundreds of soccer fans (com-
posed using computer generated imagery) and descends down into
the stands, culminating in a chase sequence. Regardless of people’s
varied tastes, the point is that Campanella’s four films (El mismo amor,
La misma lluvia, 1999, Luna de Avellaneda, 2004, El hijo de la novia , 2001),
and now, El secreto de sus ojos have been hugely popular with national
audiences, not to mention international popularity in countries such as
Spain and the United States. The fact that the box office numbers are
so high is remarkable, especially in a time when movie theater atten-
dance is waning, much of it due to the pervasive use of pirated DVDs
and VCDs which have been adversely affecting exhibition attendance
numbers (which according to a 2005 British study was estimated to be
a 24 percent decrease in movie-going worldwide).
At the level of ideology, El secreto de sus ojos has achieved what some
films of the Argentine thriller genre have done previously (for example,
films by Adolfo Aristarain): having a protagonist cope with and exe-
cute matters of justice as an individual, rather than depending on the
State which in Argentina, has a history of authoritarianism and cor-
ruption. This film engages with memories of a dark past, and invokes
flashbacks of an even more flawed and violent government than the
­present day. One of the main characters seeks revenge for an injustice
committed, but for which perpetrator was set free. By engaging in a
214 Tamara L. Falicov

revenge narrative, Argentine audiences could probably relate to fan-

tasies whereby criminals who have committed crimes with impunity
were given their comeuppance. Ariel Yablon, in his analysis of Arista-
rain’s thrillers, notes that given the power of the state, the protagonist,
much like U.S. police dramas and westerns, takes matters into their
own hands, in a form that spans “ethical anarchism [see Aristarain’s
Un lugar en el mundo], Basque stubbornness [tosudez], and individual-
ism found in the crime novel” [novela negra] (Yablon 1993: 99). For this
reason, protagonists must take matters into their own hands to seek a
form of vigilante justice.
Campanella has been described as an auteur by some (Sáez 2009),
but he might be more appropriately be labeled an “industrial auteur.”
This discourse (characterized by directors such as Marcelo Piñeyro’s
Kamchatka, 2002, by Campanella, and Bielinsky) versus the new in-
dependent cinema like Martel, Caetano, Trapero, Reijtman, etc. (Ber-
nardes, Lerer, and Wolf, 2002:119–132) created tension in the film in-
dustry because the economic situation is continuing to be so tough
that filmmakers have to fight to receive any sort of state film financing.
Héctor Olivera, considered a veteran industrial auteur, wrote a critique
of the new independent cinema in the French film journal Cahiers du
cinéma (Olivera 2003). According to Monteagudo, Olivera complained
that the official support for Argentine new cinema is generous to every­
one, but “for an industrial film producer, fulfilling dispositions means
investing hundreds of thousands of pesos only to pay the actors, tech-
nicians, musicians and extras. It is obvious that artisan filmmakers
have not fulfilled, are not fulfilling and will not fulfill the current working
agreements” (Olivera 2003: 6). This means that for Olivera, “artisanal”
cinema has not been able to cover its costs, and thus not pay back the
INCAA for its loans, which, in turn, has forced the “entertainment” or
mainstream cinema to bear an unfair burden towards the maintenance
of Argentine national cinema. To be fair, however, those industrial film-
makers are supported by companies like Patagonik and Pol-ka, who
are themselves owned by various multimedia conglomerates such as
Grupo Clarín and Disney with access to vast resources.
While a dichotomy has been set up, there have also been some
cross-over dynamics in recent years; that is, there have been some
ripe opportunities for the industrial auteur film companies to recruit first-
time filmmakers to make higher-budget, more commercial projects.
For example, debut filmmaker Fábian Bielinsky was able to direct his
screenplay Nueve reinas (Nine Queens, 2000) after he won a competition
organized by the film production company Patagonik. This competition
was open to first-time screenwriters to submit scripts, in a fashion simi-
 Argentine Cinema and the Crisis of Audience 215

lar to actor Ben Affleck’s Project Greenlight in the United States. Bielinsky
had a 1.5 million dollar budget, and had incredible success with the
film. It garnered seven Condor Awards (the Argentine equivalent to the
Oscars) and amassed 1,235,000 spectators. The movie also was re-
ceived well in Spain, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico (Iglesias 2001). The late
Bielinsky was considered an industrial auteur and has been compared
to Adolfo Aristarain for working within a genre in a studio system set-
ting. Yet, he was labeled a new innovator in that he has employed a
David M ­ amet-esque artistic sensibility. José Juan Campanella’s El hijo
de la novia (Son of the Bride) was also a tremendous hit at the Argentine
box office, with 1,263,000 viewers. It featured iconic actors Norma Ale-
andro and Héctor Alterio (their first pairing since La historia oficial) and
starred Ricardo Darín (also a main actor in Nueve reinas). Darín has been
character­ized as the darling of the industrial auteur cinema, and this
characterization has endured through the years, most recently with
Carancho (2010), directed by Pablo Trapero and Un cuento chino (2011),
directed by ­Sebastián B ­ orensztein.
The question by Sirvén remains…¿Hay lugar para un tipo de película
argentina ni tan experimental ni tan populachera? [Is there room for
a type of Argentine cinema that is not either experimental nor crassly
popular?]. This question, while valid, has irked some filmmakers who
have been dubbed as “New Argentine Cinema” directors. For exam-
ple, Celina Murga, who directed sparse, bare-bones films which have
gained international film festival attention (Ana y los otros, 2003, and Una
semana solos, 2007), wrote an opinion in 2009 rebutting critics like Sirvén
by pointing out that not all filmmakers wish to engage with a mass au-
dience; that some independent directors may in fact “wish to screen
their film in ten movie theaters”, nor strive to amass more than 10,000
viewers for the simple reason that they are aware that their films may
not appeal to everyone (Murga 2009). Bernardes feels that by eliminat-
ing the support for this style of niche film could signal the death of the
“quality film” (cine de calidad). As if to prove her point that while not all
films may be for everyone, but yet have the potential to be deemed a
significant success, Murga has gone on to make a third film, La tercera
orilla (The Third Side of the River) with Martin Scorsese as Executive Pro-
ducer. This partnership occurred after Murga was selected by Scors-
ese in the Rolex Mentor and Protégé Arts Initiative program to receive
advice from a veteran filmmaker.
Juan Villegas, a director (Sabado, 2001) and Celina Murga’s spouse
also responded in an article in Otroscines.com that while Sirvén has
been lambasting the independent film community for taking state
money to make “navel gazing” films, that the producers of El secreto de
216 Tamara L. Falicov

sus ojos who “have access to marketing mechanisms and deep pock-
ets” received a 3.5 million dollar subsidy from the INCAA when the film
had finished its theatrical run (Villegas 2010).
While the answer for what formula makes an ideal film (that is, qual-
ity, but one that attracts a large swath of the movie going public) may
be elusive, it is clear that the Argentine film community (and its viewing
counterpart) are seriously interrogating how Argentine cinema should
be defined and state sanctioned (economically speaking, not in terms
of censorship) during this time period, and by extension, how this state
supported culture is being debated as “appropriate” or “worthy” of
state support given its audience base.

Note:
This essay draws on portions of a chapter in my book length study of the Argen-
tine film industry, The Cinematic Tango: Contemporary Argentine Film.
London: Wallflower Press, 2007, and portions have been published in Portu-
guese as “A circulação global e local do novocinema argentino.” In Cinema
no Mundo: indústria, política, e mercado Vol. II América Latina edited by
Alessandra Meleiro, 147–173. São Paulo, Brazil: Escrituras Editora, 2007

Bibliography:

Batlle, Diego. “Argentinos taquilleros: Interés por ‘No sos vos, soy yo’ y
‘Whisky Romeo Zulu’.” La Nación, July 16, 2005.
Bernardes, Horacio. “Cine: Balance de lo sucediodo en la produccion
argentina 2009.” Página 12, December 29, 2009, http://recursoscul-
turales.com.ar/blog/?p=852 (accessed July 17, 2011).
Bernardes, Horacio, Diego Lerer, and Sergio Wolf (Eds.). Nuevo cine
argentino/New Argentine Cinema: Themes, Auteurs, and Trends of Innovation.
Buenos Aires: Ediciones Tatanka/FIPRESCI, 2002.
Bradshaw, Peter. “The Secret in Their Eyes” (review). The Guardian, Au-
gust 12, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/aug/12/the-se-
cret-in-their-eyes-review (accessed July 14, 2011).
Burbach, Roger. “‘Throw Them All Out,’ Argentina’s Grassroots Rebellion.”
NACLA: Report on the Americas, vol. 36, no. 1 (July/August 2002), 38 – 40.
Cine por la Red. “El cine argentino abre un espacio en Madrid con la in-
auguración de la Sala INCAA Km. 10.000. June 5, 2004, http://www.
porlared.com/noticia.php?not_id=4951 (accessed July 20, 2011).
Coscia, Jorge. Raices de cine, no. 12, May 2005.
Coscia, Jorge. “The Screen Quota, A Fundamental Step Forward.” Raíces
de cine, no. 9, September 2004, http://www.raicesdelcine.com.ar (ac-
cessed May 24, 2005).
 Argentine Cinema and the Crisis of Audience 217

“Desproporciones criollas: muchas operas primas y poco cine com-

ercial de calidad.” La Nación, February 25, 2007, http://www.lanacion.
com.ar/886465 – desproporciones-criollas (accessed July 18, 2011).
“El negocio del cine y del video (pirateria)”, a study sponsored by the
MPA, INCAA, Union Argentina de Videoeditores, et. al. not dated
(2007).
“Finalmente, el martes abrirán uno de los 4 espacios Incaa prometi-
dos.” Diario Los Andes, 2 de abril de 2011, http://www.losandes.com.
ar/notas/2011/4/2/finalmente-martes-abriran-espacios-incaa-pro-
metidos-559831.asp (accessed July 7, 2011).
Garcia, Facundo. “Un poco de aire para el cine nacional.” Pagina 12,
January 8, 2009, http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/suplementos/
espectaculos/5 – 12508 – 2009 – 01 – 08.html (accessed July 8, 2011).
Hortiguera, Hugo. “Políticas del recuerdo y memorias de la política en
El secreto de sus ojos de Juan José Campanella.” CiberLetras: Revista de
critica literaria y de cultura, no. 24 (December 2010), http://www.lehm-
an.cuny.edu/ciberletras/v24/hortiguera.html (accessed July 7, 2011).
Iglesias, Fernanda. “El cine que importa (y exporta).” Clarín, September
22, 2001, http://www.clarin.com.ar.diario/2001 – 09 – 22/c-01011.htm
(accessed November 13, 2001).
Johnson, Randal. “Film Policy in Latin America.” In Film Policy: Internation-
al, National and Regional Perspectives, edited by Albert Moran, 128 – 147.
London: Routledge, 1996.
Kaufman, Anthony. “World Cinema Report: Argentina’s Next Wave
Struggle Sustains Momentum Amid Economic Collapse.” Indiewire,
March 20, 2002, http://www.indiewire.com/biz/biz_020320_World-
cine3.html (accessed March 20, 2002).
“La crítica y la gente, divorciadas.” La Nacion, July 6, 2003, http://www.
lanacion.com.ar/509149 – la-critica-y-la-gente-divorciadas (accessed
July 20, 2011).
Martínez, Adolfo C. “Entradas de cine, con nuevos precios.” La Nación,
January 30, 2003, http://www.lanacion.com.ar/03/01/30/ds_469913.
asp (accessed January 30, 2003).
Minghetti, Claudio. “Una golpe de realidad.” La Nacion, May 9, 2005,
http:// www.lanacion.com.ar (accessed May 9, 2005).
Monteagudo, Luciano. “Last News from the Battlefront.” El Amante.com,
August 7, 2003, http://www.elamante.com.ar/nota/2/2080.shtml (ac-
cessed October 8, 2003).
Murga, Celina. “Opinion.” Pagina 12, December 29, 2009.
Newbery, Charles. “Quotas give screen time to local pix.” Variety, July
12, 2004, 12.
218 Tamara L. Falicov

“No sos vos, soy yo sigue batiendo records.” Cómo hacer cine, July
13, 2005, http://www.comohacercine.com/actualidad_detalle.php?
ide+3695&c+Taquillas (accessed August 7, 2005).
Perelman, Pablo, and Paulina Seivach. “La industria cinematográfica
en la Argentina: Entre los límites del mercado y el fomento estatal.”
Observatorio de Industrias Culturales, no 1. Buenos Aires: Centro de Es-
tudios para el Desarrollo Económico Metropolitano, 2004 (2nd. Edi-
tion), http://estatico.buenosaires.gov.ar/areas/hacienda/sis_estadis-
tico/ind_cine_arg2.pdf (accessed April 4, 2012).
Quintín. “A Provisory Balance.” El Amante.com, August 1, 2003, http://www.
elamante.com.ar/nota/2/2079.shtml (accessed October 8, 2003).
Sáez, Liliana. “Mirar atrás para descubrirse” (review of El secreto de
sus ojos). El espectador imaginario, Sept. 2009, http://www.elespecta-
dorimaginario.com/pages/setiembre-2009/la-mirada-del-otro/el-
secreto-de-sus-ojos.php (accessed July 14, 2011).
Sirvén, Pablo. “Los desafíos que enfrenta el cine argentino.” La Nacion,
February 2, 2010, http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1230338 – los-desafi-
os-que-enfrenta-el-cine-argentino (accessed July 20, 2011).
Tanvir, Kuhu. “Review: The Secret in their Eyes.” Wide Screen, Vol 1,
Issue 2, June 2010, http://widescreenjournal.org/index.php/journal/
article/view/56/62 (accessed July 15, 2011).
Valente, Marcela. “Argentina: An Award-Winning Film Industry Seeks
Wider Markets.” InterPress Service, April 12, 2004, http://web.lexis-nex-
is.com.www.2.lib.ku.edu:2048/universe (accessed August 11, 2005).
Valente, Marcela. “Inventive Directors Conquer Crisis.” Arts Weekly/Film Ar-
gentina, InterPress Service, November 23, 2002, http://www.ips­news.net
(accessed November 12, 2004).
Villegas, Juan. “La columna del PCI: Respuesta a Pablo Sirvén, por
J. Villegas.” Otroscines.com February 8, 2010, http://www.otroscines.
com.ar/columnistas_detalle.php?idnota=3852&idsubseccion=11
(accessed July 20, 2011).
Yablon, Ariel; “Un mundo de desconfianzas: acerca del cine negro de Ad-
olfo Aristarain” in Gonzalez, Rinesi, Eds. Decorados: Apuntes para una histo-
ria social del cine argentino. Buenos Aires: Manuel Suarez, 1993, 97 – 108.