7KH,QWHUQDWLRQDO3ROLWLFVRI&LQHPDWLF&RSURGXFWLRQ

6SDQLVK3ROLF\LQ/DWLQ$PHULFD
+RHIHUWGH7XUHJDQR7HUHVD

Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies,

Volume 34.2 (2004), pp. 15-24 (Article)

3XEOLVKHGE\&HQWHUIRUWKH6WXG\RI)LOPDQG+LVWRU\
DOI: 10.1353/flm.2004.0050

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/flm/summary/v034/34.2turegano.html

Access provided by Mount Allison University Libraries (9 Jul 2015 23:06 GMT)

The International Politics of Cinematic
Coproduction: Spanish Policy in Latin
America1
Teresa Hoefert de Turégano
University of Lausanne
Cinema and national identity are easily and often inatten-
tively associated. In many developing countries filmmaking has
gone hand in hand with an idea of nation-building and has served
as an assertion of a desired level of modernity. In some cases film-
makers acquire an important role in the construction of the national
imaginary, becoming its global mediator. At the same time, the ex-
tent to which cinematic production has been the fruit of multidirec-
tional, international exchange is overlooked as the determining label
remains national. Attesting to these international linkages, film pro-
duction and consumption in Latin American countries have from
the inception been characterised by their transnationality. In the
prevailing context of increased globalization and transnationalism
there has been a concurrent amount of cinematic coproduction be-
tween European and developing nations, which merits attention for
political, cultural, and aesthetic reasons.
The association between cinema and national identity pro-
vokes questions about the nature of cinematic representation in
the context of international coproduction, which I describe loosely
as a situation where two or more countries are involved in the
financing and production of a film; there are of course many dif-
ferent types and scales of coproduction. The transnational char-
acter of coproduction is an ideal site to explore the intersection of
local and global identities. My aim is to examine Spanish activity
in Latin American film production during the 1990s to uncover
some of the structuring patterns of a transnational context of in-
dependent coproduction. By connecting policy analysis and aes-
thetics, I argue that Spanish coproduction policy regarding Latin
America has in some cases been conducive to a certain type of
cinema. A context of independent, international coproduction does
not result in a specific homogenous product; however, a particu-
lar cinematographic tendency that elaborates a dialectical tension
around cultural difference through a dual homogenizing/differ-
entiation process is evident. Many of these films simultaneously
emphasise national and local identities along with a determinate
universalising appeal, seemingly aware of the international mar-
ket and its hegemonic trends. In many ways the films are situated
in the precarious balance of the global reach of the mass media
Teresa Hoefert de Turégano | Special In-Depth Section
and state-supported culture in the French sense.
After some introductory comments I discuss conceptual is-
sues in the cultural politics of cinematic coproduction, then turn
to Spain’s current film policy and its economic interests linked to
cinema in Latin America, ending with a discussion of a number
of coproductions.
Building Cinematographic Bridges
Spain has long supported Latin American film production
in a punctual manner through personal and institutional efforts.
During the 1990s there was a shift toward a more concerted cin-
ematographic policy in Latin America, paralleled by a new pe-
riod of Spanish economic ascendance in that region. Recuperating
from Franco’s dictatorship and following through the energy of
the Movida, Spain has been intent on constructing a new voice in
the international stage—the power of this voice being partially
linked to its Latin American relationships. After the United States,
Spain is the second most important foreign power and a leading
investor in Latin America in key economic sectors such as tele-
communications, finance, and energy. This predominant position
is subordinated to the hegemonic power of the United States
throughout Latin America and, in particular, its domination of
film screens, home video, and cable television markets in both
Latin America and Spain. This European country navigates an
ambiguous affiliation with its Latin American partners in the cin-
ematic realm. Its relationship is dominated by the implicit recog-
nition of mutual needs, which appears to have an equilibriating
effect among these economically and politically unequal partners
and yet is framed in an imperial triangle with the United States.
The coproductions considered within the scope of this re-
search are independent, feature-length fiction films with relatively
low budgets, usually under $5 million. High production value,
commercial coproductions are not included. As Ann Jäckel writes:
“large-budget films of the ‘global players’ tend to ignore contem-
porary issues, the coproductions made by both non-European film-
makers and . . . directors working with small budgets, attempt,
with varying degrees of success, to confront and negotiate cul-
Vol. 34.2 (2004) | 15
Turégano | The International Politics of Cinematic Coproduction: Spanish Policy in Latin America1
tural differences.”1 The independent fiction films are often pro-
duced with government funding or that of related institutions, pri-
vate foundations, and, increasingly, television funding. The films
seldom have distribution contracts prior to completion, they usu-
ally circulate in international and alternative circuits, and they are
highly dependent on the recognition gained at international film
festivals. Furthermore, they are often categorized by festivals and
markets on a national or regional basis.
Much literature on Latin American filmmaking does ad-
dress the complexities of identity, culture, and the perpetual com-
plication of what is national and foreign, but there is little analytical
work specifically on Spanish coproduction policy in Latin America
connected to the films.2 A central issue surrounding coproduction
is whether it threatens national and cultural difference. Laura
Podalsky has analysed Cuban/Spanish coproductions to show how
they emphasise national differences, and she argues that
coproductions have no inherent morphology.3 Octavio Getino
recognises the importance of coproduction but only stresses the
positive attributes as equal intercultural exchange between coun-
tries with significant disparities in cinematographic development.4
Julianne Burton-Carvajal challenges the very concept of national
cinema in Latin America given the sustained presence of Europe-
ans and North Americans and the prevalence of coproduction in
the 1980s and 90s, although she does see cinema helping define
national and pan-regional identities in Latin America.5
In contrast, Nestor Garcia Canclini discusses cinemato-
graphic coproduction as part of a transnational, globalising pro-
cess and its complication to the expression of national identity,
but his comments are largely limited to larger scale, commercial
production. He argues that aesthetic innovation has been converted
into a game in the international symbolic market and national
profiles diluted in the arts dependent on advanced technologies
(cinema, television, and video), and he contrasts this with an ear-
lier period where engaging internationally still included an at-
tempt to redefine the cultural traditions from which they were
being expressed. That interest has now been replaced by a “more
mimetic relation with hegemonic trends in the international mar-
ket.”6 Kathleen Newman has also argued that many recent fea-
ture films considered as Latin American “first address an
international audience.”7
Conceptualising Coproduction
One of the principal ways of understanding transnationalism
and globalisation today is that people are increasingly exposed to
forces outside of traditional national borders, so that perceptions
of politics and cultural reference points are increasingly interna-
tional. While much effort has gone into strategies inciting people
to connect themselves to a nationally extended political and cul-
tural “map,” similar enabling representational strategies are less
available internationally. The United Nations, CNN, and Nike
commercials offer inadequate representations of global, cultural
16 | Film & History
identity and politics. Frederic Jameson’s work on “cognitive map-
ping” is useful for understanding the process of how identifica-
tion is spatially extended, enabling individuals to negotiate various
levels of representation to make practical sense of their surround-
ings. The international coproductions in question here participate
in the narration of identity at a global level and are a means for
individuals to situate their own identities and map themselves in
a new global cultural space.
Transnationalism and globalisation are not simply equiva-
lent to greater homogenisation, so, while some people are included
in these processes, many more are excluded with a consequence
of greater inequalities. Nonetheless, with the common perception
of homogenisation, there tends to be a congruent sense of cultural
loss resulting in an inverse reaction to compensate by entrench-
ing national, ethnic, and more local identities. As Canclini notes:
“Nations and ethnicities continue to exist. The key problem seems
not to be the risk that globalization will erase them but rather to
understand how ethnic, regional, and national identities reconsti-
tute themselves. . . .”8
The desire to incorporate difference is essential to the
globalisation process itself, which strives to preserve the status of
the “dominant particular.” Stuart Hall explains: “Hegemony, in
that sense, is never completed. It is always trying to enclose more
differences within itself. . . . It doesn’t want the differences to
look exactly like it. But it wants the projects of its individual and
smaller identities to be only possible if the larger one becomes
possible.”9 Globalisation and transnationalism need the collabo-
ration of nations to thrive; each process needs them to enable that
expansion through a degree of homogenisation. Nations in turn
benefit but also need to assert their autonomy by producing and
appropriating difference, which in turn enable global identities
and projects to flourish.
It is within this desire to incorporate difference, but not to
eliminate it, that the film coproductions reveal the complexities
of negotiating identities in transnational and globalised context.
Indeed, in many instances of coproduction between European and
developing countries, the funding institutions and foundations
hinge their financing and support of a film on its essence as a
vehicle promoting cultural identities. In countries where there are
few possibilities for film production and where the dependence is
greatest on funding from outside sources, this stipulation of cul-
tural identity can be an enabling source, but it can also be limit-
ing. It is clearly positive because previously marginalised voices
assert themselves claiming their power. But the link to cultural
identity has a slightly negative side that creates invisible limita-
tions of what can be said and the extent to which the films can
participate in a radical discourse of equality. In addition, as pub-
lic funding is placed more and more in peril and is superseded by
private interests, the marketability of these cultural products seems
to become more important.
Nuancing this critical interplay of identity is an additional

element in the cinematic relationship between Spain and Latin
American countries, which might be described as one embedded
in a “culture of consent” with its Gramscian undertones. But the
categories of subaltern and dominant are confounded and dispari-
ties in power subsumed to a dependence on respective political,
economic, and cultural objectives. Furthermore, the most power-
ful Latin American countries are not far behind the level of global
power held by Spain, and all are trying to counter the hegemonic
power of the United States, even if Spain is more advantageously
positioned. Spain also gains political leverage within the Euro-
pean Union through its connections to the enormous Latin Ameri-
can market. Thus, the need for each to accommodate the other is
a prevailing factor.
The Latin American countries and Spain all have strong
incentives to coproduce. “In some cases, coproduction has be-
come the principal, if not the only possibility to produce our own
images, as has happened in Cuba (since the ‘período especial’)
and in Peru (with the reversal of supportive legislation).”10 In Cuba,
the film industry had been in government hands since 1960, en-
suring a consistent level of production, but, when in 1991 the
Cuban Film Institute (ICAIC) became responsible for its own
budget, the only way to survive has been to attract foreign money.11
Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina had film industries early in the 20th
century modeled after Hollywood until about 1950, but even in
these countries the majority of films and television series are im-
ported from the United States. Little remains of those industries
with studios and laboratories now used for television production
and advertising. The industries that exist in Mexico, Venezuela,
and to a certain extent Brazil, revolve around telenovelas. In the
case of Venezuela there is literally no film industry, although the
technology exists and is sometimes used for cinema. Over 90%
of all the rights for films and videos purchased in Latin America
are for films of North American origin.12
The decline of the film industries that did endure partially
stimulated the production of independent cinema, although there
were always isolated attempts to produce films outside of the es-
tablished structures. Coproduction became and continues to be an
important way of dealing with the problems and challenges of the
market, to resolve financial difficulties, and to extend access be-
yond local markets, and even more so for the least developed coun-
tries in the region. Regional and national fragmentation of the
markets is also a handicap to production, to the ability to attract
foreign capital, and to distribution across borders. While advances
in digital technology could eventually have a significant effect on
filmmaking in less wealthy countries, many filmmakers are still
faced with high production costs, limited budgets, and small local
markets where distribution is difficult, making financing from a
single, local source rare and making coproduction necessary.
Almost 50% of the cinemas in all the Spanish and Portu-
guese speaking countries were closed between 1985 and 1996,
dropping from 12,700 to 6,700. Out of that total, all of Latin
Teresa Hoefert de Turégano | Special In-Depth Section
America and the Caribbean have only approximately 4,000 cin-
emas.13 None of this, however, affected the interests of the Ameri-
can majors whose products dominate. There are also increasingly
powerful multimedia holding companies in the region, i.e. Televisa
in Mexico; O Globo in Brasil; Grupo Cisneros in Venezuela; Grupo
Clarín in Argentina; Grupo Prisa in Spain, etc., which control the
markets, making the existence of independent, alternative types
of production difficult.
From 1986 to 1992 Spanish television alone invested more
than US $20 million in coproductions with Latin American coun-
tries. This is more than the Latin American governments com-
bined invested in film production during those same years. In Cuba
almost all fiction films made since 1991 are coproductions. In
Venezuela, Colombia, and Bolivia coproductions were over 50%
of all production. In Mexico and Argentina, where local produc-
tion had slowed down, coproductions also amounted to about 50%
of all production. An average of 20 coproductions a year were
made by Latin American and European countries between 1993-
1996. Most Latin American coproductions are made with Euro-
pean countries, although some are made with the United States.
The American companies often bring their entire infrastructure
and use the local population as labour or backdrop, so the ex-
change is often non-existent or overwhelmingly one-sided.14
Coproducing with Europeans has historically been more interac-
tive in nature and often driven by government policies.
Some of Spain’s incentives to coproduce with Latin Ameri-
can countries have already been mentioned, but it is also worth
noting that the Spanish-speaking market totals about 500 million
people. The potential economic advantage of trade in this market is
obvious, although that film market still has to be created. Today
Spain’s most important economic market is Europe, however, as
one Spanish Secretary of State for Culture noted: “Spain’s princi-
pal (media) asset is not Europe, but the world market of Spanish-
speaking spectators.”15 Spain has long dreamt of creating a large
Spanish-speaking cinema market. In October 1931 the Primer
Congreso Hispanoamericano de Cinematográfia was organised in
Madrid. A Latin American Cinematographic Confederation was
created to empower and safeguard the interchange between all those
countries, united by the same language, and under Franco more
meetings followed, for example, the Primer Certamen
Cinematográfico Hispanoamericano (Madrid 1948) and the
Congreso Hispanoamericano de Cinematografía (Barcelona 1966).
In Spain, for example, almost all foreign films shown until the 70s
were Mexican and Argentine, and the public was most interested in
popular films (Latin American melodramas, Westerns, and
Cantinflas, etc.) and far less in the political New Latin American
cinema, which emerged in the 1960s and 70s.16 Spanish interest in
coproducing with Latin American countries is also clearly linked
to cultural and linguistic affinities that can be imagined as the equiva-
lent of a Spanish francophonie or rather hispanophonie.
While multiple coproduction strategies exist, one of them
Vol. 34.2 (2004) | 17
Turégano | The International Politics of Cinematic Coproduction: Spanish Policy in Latin America1
is certainly to engage in coproduction in order to encourage and
assist the development of national film industries, and this may
sometimes be done as a counter-measure to Hollywood domi-
nance. This is for example the case in France with its film policy
toward developing nations. Spain is certainly susceptible to the
model of French cinematographic infrastructure and policy
(French inspired policies have periodically been promoted in
Spain), and in this respect Spain’s priority seems to lie with the
Latin American countries.
Spanish Coproduction Policy
At the end of the 80s Spanish support for Latin American
filmmaking was institutionalised in a new manner with internal
policy changes at the Institute for Cinema and Audiovisual Arts
(ICAA), which is part of the Spanish Ministry of Culture and
Education; in the Agency for Cooperation and International De-
velopment (AECI) which is part of the Spanish Ministry of Ex-
ternal Affairs; and at the Television Española (TVE). This
increasingly effective effort toward a more cohesive film policy
is linked with developments in the Spanish television landscape
and with Spain’s assertive economic policy in Latin America, both
of which have consequences for Latin American coproductions
in terms of the tensions between “cultural” cinema and the in-
creasing privatization of the mechanisms of film production.
ICAA
The ICAA is Spain’s central regulating body for cinema.
Over the years ICAA has signed coproduction accords with most
Latin American countries as well as a regional coproduction agree-
ment signed in 1989. During the 1980s, ICAA underwent consid-
erable transformation, just as Spain as a whole went through radical
social change during that period when it ratified its first post-
Franco democratic constitution in 1978 and then became a mem-
ber of the European Union in 1986. Under Felipe González’s first
socialist government, Pilar Miró, an intellectual filmmaker, was
appointed General Director of ICAA. She restructured Spanish
film policy by modelling it on the French system of avance sur
recettes. The Miró law, passed in 1983, provided Spanish cinema
with a protectionist environment and established an important
system of subsidies. ICAA’s previous priority for producers of
popular, mass entertainment changed radically to favour an auteur-
oriented cinema.17
It is true that under Miró Spanish coproductions declined
quantitatively, but this must be qualified. Prior to this period
coproductions totalled 1/3 of all Spanish production, but these
were mostly fraudulent coproductions with foreign companies
made only to secure dubbing permits for the films they wanted to
distribute in Spain.18 The Miró law limited such practice, and then,
in 1988, new legislation was approved enabling coproductions to
obtain project subsidies. 19 The effects of this shift toward
18 | Film & History
emphasising auteur cinema as opposed to popular filmmaking
were invaluable to preparing the terrain for independent, interna-
tional coproductions. In 1994, however, the new conservative gov-
ernment changed the film financing system modifying the advance
subsidies that had been the cornerstone of the Miró Law and gear-
ing them to the commercial results of films, thus favouring Spain’s
largest producers.
AECI
The AECI provides pivotal behind the scenes support for
Latin American film production in general and coproduction in
particular. It was only in 1981 that Spain’s status changed from
being a recipient of development aid to a country which began
providing aid and formulating its own cooperation and develop-
ment policies. During the 80s Spain was integrated into various
regional and international development institutions (i.e. Inter-
American Development Bank, African and Asian Development
Banks, and the aid programs of the European Union) and its de-
velopment policy was finally consolidated when Spain joined the
OECD in 1991.
The AECI was created as an autonomous institution within
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1988. Spanish development
policy has been structured with a clear attempt to differentiate
cooperation with Latin America from that with the Arab world,
the Mediterranean, and developing countries, and these two cat-
egories are regulated though two different institutes. From the
outset, relations with Latin America were not situated within a
development discourse but dichotomised around developed and
less developed. Latin America is a priority region, although North
Africa, the Middle East, and other developing areas with which
Spain shares particular historical and cultural ties are also given
some priority.20 This more egalitarian political disposition toward
Latin America is also carried through in their film and audiovi-
sual policies.
Within the AECI, film and audiovisual projects consti-
tute a major part of the cultural cooperation. Since 1996 the au-
diovisual department of the AECI also has greatly increased its
cooperation with ICAA. They have become a reference point for
obtaining advice on showing Latin American cinema and a unify-
ing point of interaction for both sides of the Atlantic.21 The AECI
appears to maintain a balance between promoting cultural and
economic development in Latin America, seemingly embedded
in an egalitarian fashion, and yet the result also leads to employ-
ing the utility of Latin Americaness in the European and global
marketplace.
Ibermedia is one of the most interesting projects promoted
by AECI. It is a cooperative project among Spanish and Portu-
guese-speaking countries to: encourage coproduction of films for
cinema and television; support project development; assist the
distribution and promotion of films in the market; and provide
training for people in the industry. Initially conceived in 1989 at a

summit for the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking heads of state,
it was finally ratified in 1997 in Venezuela. The authorities re-
sponsible for cinema in each country (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil,
Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Spain, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama,
Peru, Dominican Republic, and Venezuela) gathered for the first
Foro Iberoamericano de Integración Cinematográfica to create
various regional film agreements and then the Conferencia de
Autoridades Cinematográficas de Iberoamérica (CACI). The
CACI is an international organisation that formulates policies
designed to enhance audiovisual sovereignty in the region and
stimulate the cinematographic integration through the strength-
ening of Latin American cultural identity and mechanisms for
multilateral exchange and cooperation. Ibermedia is juridically
administered by CACI and supported by the AECI.
Within the program each member country provides a finan-
cial contribution that varies according to its capacity (Spain
$2,000,000; Mexico $500,000; Brasil $300,000; Argentina, Por-
tugal, and Venezuela $200,000; Columbia, Cuba, and Uruguay
$100,000 each in 2001). Out of the total, 60% is allocated for
coproduction, 30% for distribution and promotion, 5% for project
development, and 5% for training, with maximum allocations for
each project. The selection committee is comprised of the head of
the cinema institute of each member country. In 1999 their fund
totalled US $4.63 million. The average budget for coproductions
selected by Ibermedia is US $1 million; higher budget films may
range around US $4 million (usually Argentinean or Mexican),
whereas films from less developed countries may be as little as
US $400,000.22
Ibermedia is a program of historic importance for the re-
gion. Since 1931 there have been meetings, discussions, and in-
tentions to create such a project, to no avail. The way it is conceived
and administered reflects a cooperative approach as opposed to
an aid-oriented one. Most importantly, each country has an equal
vote in the selection of projects. So even though Spain is the larg-
est financial contributor, and it provides the main infrastructural
support, in effect it has the same voice as the other countries.
However, one of the criticisms made of Ibermedia is that the cho-
sen projects often go to the same select group of individuals. In-
deed repetitions are evident among producers who have received
Ibermedia support, but it seems that the circles are from the out-
set quite small and that the choice of selection is thus somewhat
restricted. One of the biggest problems for the program has been
to disburse the 30% allocation to support distribution, because of
the lack of independent cinemas or distribution networks, outside
of Mexico, Argentina, and Venezuela, which are minor excep-
tions. In addressing this crucial problem of distribution, Media
Research Consultancy has suggested that Ibermedia could tie its
production assistance directly to distribution. 23 In spite of
Ibermedia’s highly positive character, there is nevertheless a side
effect. The principal aim of supporting coproduction in this pro-
gram is to promote Latin American cultural identities. While it is
Teresa Hoefert de Turégano | Special In-Depth Section
still too soon to tell, the interest of Ibermedia will be determined
by how that stipulation of cultural identity can be translated into a
progressive mode of identity politics and how it survives the prac-
tical problems of the Latin American market.
TVE
In addition to the support given by the AECI and the ICAA
for Latin American film production, Spanish coproductions are
often undertaken through the Radio Televisión Española (RTVE),
a public television. It has been the principal coproducer in Latin
America and in this respect 1987 is a real turning point for an
increase in production.24 From 1956 (when RTVE was created)
to 1987 there were only a handful of coproductions completed.
When Pilar Miró (former director of the ICAA) took over the
direction of the TVE in 1986-1989, she created a concrete
coproduction policy, and the number of productions with Latin
American countries increased significantly.
TVE directly coproduces or participates in Latin American
coproductions and is an essential partner in the production of
Spanish film. It has bank agreements for filmmaking loans and
has signed contracts with the Spanish Federation of Audiovisual
Producers (FAPAE) committing itself to buying films. In 1999,
TVE renewed its contract with the FAPAE for an annual acquisi-
tion of rights totalling US $12 million per year.25 It also supports
Latin American production in other ways, for example, since 1987
it has cooperated with the New Latin American International Film
Festival in Havana by providing prizes, it also distributes Latin
American films in Spain, and it maintains relationships with the
Cuban International School for Film and Television (EICT) and
with the Foundation for New Latin American Cinema.
There are drawbacks regarding film funding from the TVE.
It is important to note that the directorial board of the TVE is
appointed by the leading political parties. It is financed through
advertisements, but in 1994, facing financial crisis, the govern-
ment allowed the TVE to accumulate a crippling debt. In 2000
cutbacks in support for film production began, and there has also
been periodic speculation of privatisation. When the Popular Party
headed by José Aznar was elected in March 1996, a split occurred
with the conservatives linked to the TVE and the socialists to Canal
+ España. This kind of ideological association does have an ef-
fect on support for independent production. According to a pro-
gram specialist in the film production section at the TVE,
coproductions have changed, becoming “less idealistic and less
politically engaged, so there are hardly any militant films being
made.”26 The extent to which films were considered militant prior
to this new period needs to be kept in perspective.
Digitalisation and Expansion
Spanish fiction film and consequently Latin American
coproductions are then primarily financed through two means:
Vol. 34.2 (2004) | 19
Turégano | The International Politics of Cinematic Coproduction: Spanish Policy in Latin America1
the ICAA and the televisions companies that contribute to financ-
ing by buying the rights. In 1997, ICAA paid US $28 million for
fiction film production while televisions paid US $25 million.
Financing from combined television rights often averages 40%
of a film’s budget, and 90% of all production includes financing
from the televisions or the holding company to which they be-
long.27 In the Latin American region only Spanish and Portuguese
televisions are inclined to pre-purchase, and it is not usual prac-
tice for the local televisions. In countries such as Argentina, Bra-
zil, and Spain, where pay television and the use of digital
technology is strongest, there has been an increase in film pro-
duction and growth in the audiovisual industry.28 In most cases
the televisions are part of large conglomerates thus confounding
notions of independent production in a classical sense.
TVE owns 25% of Vía Digital, a digital pay-television plat-
form, which entered the market in September 1997; the two work
closely together. Vía Digital became an important investor in Span-
ish film production, providing 9,000,000,000 Pts. (US
$54,000,000) over a four-year period as a result of an agreement
signed with the FAPAE. If there is a Spanish coproducer in a given
project, Vía Digital will involve itself from the beginning. The
company has agreements with US majors and Spanish producers
for acquiring the broadcasting rights for films.29 It has also ob-
tained major television assets in Argentina and shares in Patagonik
Films Group, an important supplier of content to the Latin Ameri-
can market.
The principal shareholder of Vía Digital is Telefónica Me-
dia, which holds all of Telefónica’s communications assets and
audiovisual services (production, ownership, distribution, and
broadcasting) in the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking market.30
Telefónica is Spain’s largest phone operator and the leading pro-
vider of telecom services in that market. It is Spain’s largest mul-
tinational, Europe’s fourth largest telecom company, and one of
the worlds leading telecom companies. The Spanish Prime Min-
ister appoints the head of the company, and, even though Telefónica
was privatised, the Spanish government maintains its political
influence through regulation.31 Personal ties reinforce the exist-
ing professional agreements, for example, Juan Nieto, the presi-
dent of Vía Digital, is also the president of Antena 3 (a free channel)
and the COO of Telefónica Media.
Juan Villalonga, CEO of the company for four years during
the 1990s, made an important mark on the company’s strategy.
He was known for his “drive to create a Latin American empire”32
and wanting to make Telefonica into a communications media
giant. With its explicit interest in creating content, this powerful
multimedia group brings to the fore questions regarding conver-
gence in the film, audiovisual, and telecommunications sectors.
Under Villalonga the company acquired telephone companies
across Latin America making it the leading telecom company in
the region. Telefónica International manages their strategic plan-
ning in Latin America and is “a motor force in the economic de-
20 | Film & History
velopment of client countries, thanks equally to the scale of its
investments ($4.70 billion in the last eight years), its role in infra-
structure and communications network modernisation, and its large
contributions to the public coffers.”33
Telefónica Interactiva, through its company Olé, invested
in Internet portals in Peru, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, and Uru-
guay and planned to do the same in Argentina, Mexico, Brazil,
and the US. Olé is already the leading Internet portal in Spain and
the Latin American market. Telefónica also signed a US
$900,000,000 joint venture with Tyco International to build a South
American, undersea fibre optic network, linking South and Cen-
tral America and the US, connecting the principal Latin Ameri-
can cities on both the Pacific and Atlantic. “This cable system
will be a key element in strengthening Telefónica’s leadership in
Latin America.”34 Given the direction of multimedia technology,
these investments in the Internet serve to strategically position
Spain throughout Latin America. In addition, Telefónica also
signed a Pts. 500,000,000 (US $30,000,000) agreement with the
Cervantes Institute35 to promote and diffuse the Spanish language
over the Internet. The combined result is the strengthening of a
hypothetical hispanophonie. Telefonica’s strategy of multimedia
convergence should be some cause for concern given their con-
trol of communications networks and their aspiration to control
content. Of course the United States is undoubtedly still the hege-
monic power in Latin America; however, Spain is strategically
positioning itself, using the inherent advantages it has in that
market, with an eye toward long term benefit.
After TVE, Canal + España is the second most important
television network for Spanish film production. It is owned by
Sogecable,36 the leading pay television operator in Spain, which
is part of Prisa Group. Sogecable also owns Canal Satélite Digi-
tal; Spain’s largest provider of digital pay television programmes.
Canal + E participates in the financing of films by buying the
television rights or by financing them through Sogotel, its pro-
duction company. Canal + E buys almost all Latin American film
productions when there is a Spanish coproducer involved.37 It also
buys the rights for films produced by other production compa-
nies, spending about US $8 million a year. Canal + E also sup-
ports Latin American cinema through less direct means. For
example, since 1997 they have enabled producers who graduate
from the Cuban film school to do internships at Canal + E. In
December 1998, the agreement was expanded to have teachers
sent to the film school, to provide financial assistance in the form
of plane tickets, and to exhibit films on Canal + E.
Prisa is Spain’s biggest media company built around El Pais,
the country’s most widely-read newspaper. The conglomerate is
active in communications, entertainment, education, and culture,
providing more content and integrated services than anyone else
in the Spanish-speaking market and aspires to become a global
multimedia leader. Prisa’s growth paralleled the rise to power of
the socialist party which governed for 13 years beginning in 1983,

until Aznar’s conservative party took power in 1996. The two major
media conglomerates are each closely associated with the main
political parties. As in the case of Telefonica, Prisa’s professional
holdings are reinforced by personal ties. In December 1998, Javier
Díez Polanco, the nephew of the president of the Prisa Group,
became vice-president of Sogecable.
Sogecable and Telefónica plan to unite their interests in the
Internet and their two digital television platforms: Canal Satellite
Digital and Vía Digital. They have created an alliance to develop
services through the Internet throughout Spain and Latin America38
called Newco Digital. Given the increasingly important role of
television financing for Spanish filmmaking and thus also for
coproductions, and given that the holding companies and major
interest holders of the two leading televisions are the very same
companies which are heavily investing in and consolidating power
in the key sectors of the Latin American economy, we should
wonder about the consequences of such a configuration for inde-
pendent production and coproduction. And with a merger between
Spain’s two digital television platforms, the sources of film fund-
ing become even more limited. What happens to independent film
production and coproduction when the sources of funding are
concentrated and derived from one enormous monopolistic me-
dia conglomerate?
In this section I have shown how two elements in par-
ticular weave their way through Spain’s current production policy
in Latin America. The first is linked to public support for art cin-
ema, often accompanied with stipulations of demonstrating Latin
American cultural identities. This public support is invaluable for
the production of independent film production, but, as the second
element, that of increasing privatization and overriding commer-
cial interest, also becomes a determining factor in production, the
way that cultural identities are used within the politics of produc-
tion needs to be observed. As Hall reminds us, the representation
of cultural difference and its inclusion into the dominant discourse
has its distinctive purpose in identity politics even while the eco-
nomic and political incentives are clear. Spanish and Western
European culture remain positioned in a normative manner against
which a certain degree of Latin American exoticism is played out.
Transnational processes do not supersede national cultures but
activate a tension between the homogenous and the heteroge-
neous39 just as capital expansion operates through national dif-
ferences to achieve its global objective.
National Identity and Filmic
Constructions
As I mentioned in the introduction, my aim is also to ex-
plore the association between policy analysis and aesthetics. There
are cinematographic coproductions made within the context de-
scribed above which elaborate a dialectical tension around cul-
tural identities through a homogenizing/differentiation process;
Teresa Hoefert de Turégano | Special In-Depth Section
there is an emphasis on representing local identities while at the
same time developing a universalising discourse and maintaining
an awareness of the international market and its trends. I have se-
lected three coproductions: El viaje (1991) (Argentina/Spain/France)
by Fernando Solanas; Guantanamera (1994) (Cuba/Spain) by
Tomas Gutierrez Alea and Juan Carlos Tabio; and Profundo Carmesi
(1996) (Mexico/France/Spain) by Arturo Ripstein, from a larger
cross-section of Spanish coproductions made during the 1990s with
various Latin American countries. The films were drawn from lists
provided by TVE, Ibermedia, and ICAA and cross-referenced with
their selection and reception at a number of international film festi-
vals. Each of these directors is well-known internationally, labeled
abroad as representatives of their Latin American, national citizen-
ship. The films have achieved a comparatively high profile through
attention at larger film festivals (each was nominated to compete at
major festival such as Cannes, Venice, Sundance) or through inter-
national distribution. Even a brief look at these films indicates how
the play of cultural identity as a local and global dialectic manifests
itself cinematographically, and how, or if, the films show new strat-
egies for multicultural existence.
El viaje by Fernando Solanas is about an adolescent’s search
for his father that becomes a voyage of self-discovery and is a
political allegory for Argentina, with overtones to the rest of Latin
America. Young Martin Nunca rides his bicycle from Tierra del
Fuego in the south of Argentina, northward across the continent,
to Mexico. In this witty, ironic, fantastical film, dictatorships and
corrupt leadership are satirised, statues fly quite literally floating
through the air, and people live “normally” in cities and houses
half-flooded, moving around town in boats. Through its symbolic
employment of such magical realist devices, the film speaks to
spectators awaiting that which is typically associated with Latin
American identities. Familiar regional and cultural specificity
envelopes this universal story of a young boy trying to find his
own identity and place in the world, and we understand his alle-
gorical role for Argentina. At the same time, the tradition of revo-
lutionary Latin American cinema, in which Solanas was a seminal
figure, is carried through in the critique of political corruption.
El viaje is a polished film predominantly constructed as
mainstream narrative cinema because its codes and conventions
lie in the road movie genre, with an ordered sequence of events
which lead to effective, positive closure at the end of the film.
What differs from the mainstream model however is the inclu-
sion of a non-conventional film language with an emphasis on a
much slower movement of the image, intertextuality, repetition,
and so forth. The film is also a scenic epic of Latin American
integration and diversity. In a very positive sense this film ad-
dresses hard issues in Latin American history and politics, and, in
spite of its intelligent allegory and satire, it reads in a formulaic
manner. In this case there is literally a sampling of Latin Ameri-
can identities peppering this classical road movie with its positive
closure. The film does, for example, question identities, both per-
Vol. 34.2 (2004) | 21
Turégano | The International Politics of Cinematic Coproduction: Spanish Policy in Latin America1
sonal and national, in an explicit manner but is wrapped in a po-
litical discourse, which seems very attached to those revolution-
ary ideas that Europe expected of Latin Americans particularly in
the 1970s.40
Solanas, and also Gutierrez Alea, were seminal figures of
Third cinema, a movement founded in Latin America, which en-
couraged the use of film in the service of the revolution. For
Solanas, successive films and larger coproductions have earned
him increasing criticism for making films geared toward interna-
tional audiences, flavoured with a dose of magical realism and
both static political criticism and cultural referencing. In contrast
to a younger generation of Argentine filmmakers, Solanas’ work
now seems to be missing a connection to contemporary social
concerns of an Argentine world plugged into global society.
Guantanamera satires the contemporary political and finan-
cial crisis in Cuba. Gina, the protagonist, is a disillusioned, former
economics professor married to Adolfo, a mediocre and recently
demoted bureaucrat. Adolfo devises a plan to restore himself into
the good graces of the regime. The plan consists of increasing
savings on his department’s gasoline expenses during their task
of transporting cadavers (en route to funerals) across the island
by changing cars in each major town so that expenses are as-
sumed by each region. When his wife’s aunt dies during her visit
in Guantanamo, he tests his new plan to return her body to Ha-
vana for the funeral. The professional plan goes awry as does his
personal life. Gina finally leaves him for Mariano, a former stu-
dent who has an engineering degree but makes a living as a truck
driver, and whom she runs into on the trip back to Havana.
The film is a humorous criticism of the futility of a heavy
bureaucracy and the extent to which it is out of control. The film
is about love, life, and death in an impoverished and politically
repressive nation. The spectator is given a taste of Cuba, still ex-
otic in the West for its revolutionary history and the myth of Castro.
Through the point of view of the truck driver and the chauffeur of
the funeral cortège, we step into daily life in Cuba, seeing the
extent of the informal market, where everything is paradoxically
based on the US dollar even though America is officially taboo,
and thus the validity of capitalist ideology is simultaneously rein-
forced for the international audience. Alea is able to situate him-
self in a way that speaks to both Cubans and international
spectators by both ridiculing the regime and approving it at the
same time. Alea, an activist filmmaker in Cuba, functioned within
the State, and, because his criticism is not actually against the
revolution, he is able to criticise what he sees as its weaknesses.
Finally the spectator is given a taste of Afro-Cuban religion as the
film is enveloped in the legend of Olofin.
Guantanamera is an engaging and well-made film. It hints
at the way globalising processes are affecting Cubans and the way
that identities are being reconstituted, but it is still entirely framed
within Cuba’s political system. It is an appealing, political cin-
ema from any perspective, with a classical narrative and acces-
22 | Film & History
sible images, following the conventions of dominant cinema, with
closure through heterosexual courtship, recuperating the “trans-
gressive” female into the social order. It balances the representa-
tion of Cubanness and the image that others have of Cuba with
universal themes of love, life, and death, which can reach any
spectator, and it works for both the revolution and for capitalism.
Spectators outside of the country can understand the limits of
bureaucracy criticised in the film. The story has no villains apart
from the ridiculous bureaucrat, but love prevails, and the new
couple also signifies an enlightened, positive road in the Revolu-
tion. Through this film spectators are satisfied by a palatable taste
of Cuba, more sophisticated than common stereotypes and yet
limited itself to a universally consumable Cubanness.
Profundo Carmesi by Arturo Ripstein is based on The Hon-
eymoon Killers by Leonard Kastle. The narrative unfolds around
Coral, an overweight nurse, and Nicolas, a smooth little gigolo,
who team up after she uncovers his profession of courting women
in order to rob them. Coral falls desperately in love with Nicolas
and blackmails him into continuing their relationship. They even-
tually really connect, and their passion becomes cemented by the
crimes they commit together, albeit driven by her jealousy. This
film achieves a subtle complexity by bypassing moral and didac-
tic judgement, although retribution for the murders does happen.
Sacrifices and delirium in the name of love can be universally
understood even if these extremes might not be. But those very
extremes, woven into a velvety, bold, and baroque cinematogra-
phy that is extremely powerful, do not exploit clichés or cultural
stereotypes. So while the spectator is presented passion and ex-
tremes, in this case Mexican or Latin American, it seems organi-
cally infused in the film, less superimposed or forced, as I suggest
is the case with the construction of identity in the two films noted
above. Ironically Ripstein’s film is based on an American novel,
yet Profundo Carmesi very successfully maps out and enables an
entry into a complex realm of identification and representation of
an idea of Latin Americanness.
Conclusion
There are also other tendencies among these independent
coproductions, but they were less visible internationally during
the 1990s. Some are more commercial and popular and draw con-
nections to Latin American traditions of the telenovela and melo-
drama. In some cases these films still maintain a didactic or
socio-educative facet, as is the case of Cuban coproductions such
as Un paraiso baja la Estrellas by Gerardo Chijona (1999) (Spain/
Cuba) and Las Profecias de Amanda by Pastor Vega (1999) (Cuba/
Spain/Venezuela). Another example could be a parody such as
Golpe de Estadio by Sergio Cabrera (1999) (Colombia/Spain),
which also aims for a more popular audience.
The three films detailed above are examples of a particular
tendency in coproduction that I would characterise as more auteur-

driven cinema, intellectual, sometimes socio-educative, and aware
of the history of Third Cinema in Latin America with its social
conscience, equally aware of its international audiences. This is
one of the types of coproductions particularly wooed in interna-
tional film festivals. Among independent, international
coproductions of the 1990s, and specifically Spanish-Latin Ameri-
can coproductions, there are common characteristics to be found
even if there are variations. These films function through a mise-
en-scène of particular national, regional, or local identities associ-
ated with the director, juxtaposed by ubiquitous or “universal”
themes, made stylistically palatable and narratively accessible.
Between the fine line of cultural cliché and an empowering mise-
en-scène of difference, these films still do much more than sustain
clichés; however, the potential for progressive cultural representa-
tion and global connectedness often seems subsumed by the repre-
sentations that Europe has of those cultures, particularly in the case
of El viaje and Guantanamera. In spite of any criticisms that can be
made regarding such coproductions in the long term, these films
can be seen as further opening the market place for film produc-
tions made beyond Europe and North America.
Finally, I have focused on Spanish coproduction policy with
Latin America showing the shift in government practices, paral-
leled by Spain’s significant investment in the Latin American
economies, and changes in financing of independent films due to
the increasing importance of television. In spite of the specifi-
cally Spanish meld where private and public still remain connected
through personal and class alliances, the increasing privatisation
of television and media ownership in Spain is changing the con-
text of what is traditionally known as independent film produc-
tion. I have suggested that there is an important trend in
Spanish-Latin American independent coproductions during the
1990s where an emphatic tendency to both entrench national and
cultural identities is infused with universalising references, to an
increasingly formulaic degree. What is problematic is that within
this particular context of independent production—a context which
ideally enables a degree of removal from the laws of the mar-
ket—many films seem to resemble each other, albeit seasoned
with distinct cultural flavours, reflecting the dual homogenizing/
differentiation process necessary to globalised cultural produc-
tion through which capital expansion operates.
Notes
1 I would like to thank GeorgeYudice and the Rockefeller program for Research
on Cultural Policy and the Privatization of Culture at New York University
for their support, as well as the Swiss National Science Foundation for its
initial assistance under grant # 8210-53424.
2 Anne Jäckel, “European Co-production Strategies: The Case of France and
Britain” in Film Policy: International, National and Regional Perspectives
edited by Albert Moran (London: Routledge, 1996) p. 91.
3 Media Research and Consultancy has completed a number of reports dealing
with Spanish policy in Iberoamerica, although with some exceptions these
Teresa Hoefert de Turégano | Special In-Depth Section
are primarily factual. See also Irene Castillo de Rodríguez, “Cien años de
presencia de España en el cine colombiano” in España en Colombia: Revista
de la Embajada de España 3 May 1995, pp. 52-53; Laura Podalsky,
“Negotiating Differences: National Cinemas and Co-productions in
Prerevolutionary Cuba” Velvet Light Trap 34, 1994, pp. 59-70.
4 Podalsky (1994).
5 Octavio Getino, Cine y Televisión en América Latina: Producción y
Mercados Santiago, Chile: LOM Ediciones, 1998.
6 Julianne Burton-Carvajal, ”South American cinema” in World Cinema:
critical approaches edited by John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 194-210.
7 Nèstor García Canclini, Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving
Modernity, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995), p. 63.
8 Kathleen Newman, “National Cinema after Globalization: Fernando
Solanas’s Sur and the Exiled Nation,” in Mediating Two Worlds, ed. John
King, Ana M. Lopez, and Manuel Alvarado (London: BFI, 1993), p. 243.
9 García Canclini, Néstor. “Will there be Latin American Cinema in the Year
2000? Visual Culture in a Postnational Era” in Framing Latin American
Cinema—Contemporary Critical Perspectives Ed. Ann Marie Stock
(Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), p. 256.
10 Stuart Hall, “Old and New Identities, Old and New Ethnicities,” in Anthony
King, ed. Culture, Globalization and the World-System (Minnesota:
University of Minnesota Press, 1997), p. 68.
11 Octavio Getino, Cine y Televisión en América Latina: Producción y
Mercados Santiago, Chile: LOM Ediciones, 1998, p. 54. (Author’s
translation) “En algunos casos, la coproducción se ha convertido en la
principal, si no la única, posibilidad de realización de imágenes propias,
como ha comenzado a suceder en Cuba (a partir del llamado ‘período
especial’) y en Perú (con el retaceo de los recursos dispuestos por ley).”
12 Gustavo Fernandez, Vice-director Production ICAIC, Cuba. Interview with
author. Havana, 9 December 1998.
13 Media Research and Consultancy, La Industria Audiovisual Iberoamericana:
Datos de sus principales mercados 1998 (Madrid) June 1998, p. 17.
14 Getino (1998), p. 43.
15 Getino (1998), p. 55.
16 Miguel Angel Cortés, Spain’s Secretary of State for Culture in the new
Aznar conservative government at the San Sebastian Film Festival (1995)
“Flowering of Spanish Film,” San Sebastian Film Festival 1996,
(www.filmfestivals.com/sanseb96), p. 2.
17 Alberto Elena, “Avatares del cine latino-americano en España” in Mitologías
Latinoamericanas edited by Alberto Elena and Paulo Antonio Paranaguá
(Barcelona: Ediciones Paidós, 1989), p. 232.
18 Marsha Kinder, ed. Refiguring Spain: Cinema/Media/Representation
(Durham, Duke University Press, 1997), p. 247.
19 Helen Graham and Jo Labanyi, eds. Spanish Cultural Studies (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 370.
20 Fundesco, La industria cinematográfica en España (1980-1991), Ministry
of Culture, Institute for Cinema and Audiovisual Arts: Madrid, Spain, 1993,
p. 35.
21 Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional, Ministerio de Asuntos
Exteriores, Ley de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo, September
1998, p. 16.
22 Departamento de Programas y Proyectos Audiovisuales de la Agencia
Española de Cooperación Internacional Instituto de Cooperación
Iberoamericano, Report of Activities, Madrid, 13 January 2000, p. 1.
23 Elena Vilardell, Technical director of Ibermedia. Interview with author.
Vol. 34.2 (2004) | 23
Turégano | The International Politics of Cinematic Coproduction: Spanish Policy in Latin America1

Madrid, 8 March 2000. Disney, Warner, Polygram, and Dreamworks. Throughout the 1990s Canal
24 Media Research and Consultancy, La distribución internacional de cine + participated in the financing of about 90% of French film production. Canal
inberoamericano, diagnóstico y estrategias 1999 Madrid, 1999, p. 22. + is now owned by Vivendi, a French water utility that is transforming itself
25 Manuel Perez Estremera, Canal Plus España, Head of Programmes (formerly into a telecommunications and entertainment giant. “French company to
at TVE). Interview with author. Havana, 10 December 2000. Purchase Seagram for $34 billion” New York Times, web edition, 19 June
26 “RTVE renueva con la Fapae el convenio de cine” El Mundo, web edition, 2000.
12 February 1999. 38 Mariela Besviesky (Tornasol Productions). Interview with author. Madrid,
27 Luis Renesses de la Fuente (Delegado Producciones Cinematográficas TVE). 23 June 1999.
Interview with author. Madrid, 9 March 2000. 39 “El Grupo Prisa y Telefónica ultiman una alianza estratégia para Internet y
28 Media Research and Consultancy (1998), p.160. televisión digital, según El Mundo” 08.06.2000 (www.porlared.com/cinered/
29 Media Research and Consultancy (1998), p. 24. noticias).
30 For example, it has an agreement with Lolafilms, one of the two leading 40 Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Spanish film production companies. In 1999, it joined forces with Disney Press, 1996).
and the Clarín group. It has agreements with Disney, Metro Goldwyn Meyer, 41 See for example, José A. Mahieu “Cine iberoamericano: Los cuadros vivientes
Universal, or Polygram and independent distributors like Miramax, o hipotesis de Raul Ruiz” Cuadernos hispanoamericanos No. 360, 1980, p.
Tripictures, Lauren Films, New Line, or Sogedasa. Telefónica Media has 649.
agreements with Disney, MGM, Universal/Polygram as well as independents
like Miramax, Tripictures, Lauren Films, New Line/Sogedasa.
31 www.telefonica.es Teresa Hoefert de Turégano teaches
32 Enrique Bustamante, “Spain’s interventionist and authoritarian in the Section d’Histoire et esthétique
communication policy: Telefonica as political battering ram of the Spanish du cinéma at the University of
right” Media, Culture and Society, Vol. 23, No. 4, July 2000, p. 433 - 446. Lausanne, Switzerland. Her research
33 “Villalonga Out, Alierta in at Telefónica,” New York Times, web edition, 26 interests include international
July 2000.
cinematographic co-production,
34 www.telefonica.es
cultural policy, and the critical
35 “Telefónica Internacional and Tyco International Ltd. to build South American
undersea fiber optic network,” 11/05/1999. (www.telefonica.es)
political economy of cinema.
36 El Pais, web edition, 30 May 2000, No. 1488.
37 Sogecable is owned 25% by the Prisa Group, 25% by Canal + France and
the rest of the shareholders are a majority of Spanish financial groups (i.e.
BBV and Alba). Canal + E (Sogecable) has signed agreements with Universal,

TOOLS FOR RESEARCH FROM FILM & HISTORY

The Film & History CD-ROM Annual series provides peer-reviewed articles for students of film and
television outside the scope of the print journal’s thematic issues.

These word-searchable resources include work on every level of film and television scholarship by
authors from around the globe.

CD-ROM Annuals for 1999, 2000, and 2001-2002 are currently available for purchase. Visit
www.filmandhistory.org for full details on these valuable research tools or see descriptions at the
back of this issue.

24 | Film & History