Moving melodrama about Dr. Alberto Robles, an idealistic city physician (Arturo de Córdova) living in a rural community ruled by macho customs and feudalistic landowners, who falls for Soledad, a peasant woman (Stella Inda, of "Los olvidados" fame). She loves him in turn, but their relationship is marked with abuse and violence from heavies Pedro Armendáriz and Carlos López Moctezuma. Director Roberto Gavaldón as usual makes a good work, although sometimes the Catholic sentimentality (best illustrated by the character of Father Juan and his children choir) is irritable, as well as the final "conscience-rising" speech by Dr. Robles to his city colleagues. Be wary of commercial copies that repeat some shots to cover missing fragments: though brief sometimes it feels as if the filmmakers had no footage to edit, which is not the case. I suppose that better copies of the film are non-existent, since a great fire destroyed negatives of many Mexican films in the vaults of Cineteca Nacional de México.
3 Reviews
Splendid Mexican movie
jm_cq16 June 2006
Gabriel Fiegueroa's photography is excellent and shows this rural story with his typical composition management, which makes every scene a beautiful theatrical piece.
Arturo De Cordova makes a social consequent doctor who makes his practice in a little rural community where moral and ethic situations constantly happens. Exhalted virility, macho conduct, sexual abuse, misogyny, and straight traditions are showed while urban-society makes a bigger difference every time with its rural counter-part.
Pretty good roles, and Mexican stars like Pedro Armendariz and Domingo Soler.
Arturo De Cordova makes a social consequent doctor who makes his practice in a little rural community where moral and ethic situations constantly happens. Exhalted virility, macho conduct, sexual abuse, misogyny, and straight traditions are showed while urban-society makes a bigger difference every time with its rural counter-part.
Pretty good roles, and Mexican stars like Pedro Armendariz and Domingo Soler.
At first I read it as "the shawl of loneliness"
fatcat-734506 September 2021
A prim left-leaning doctor goes to work with the community in "Tierra Caliente," a region that spans parts of Guerrero and Michoacan and known for being rather underdeveloped when compared to the major Mexican cities.
Several tropes which were standard for Mexican movies of the time come up (Río Escondido will immediately come to mind). Our urban professional feels an aversion to the superstitious ways of the natives and wants to change them. On the other side of the battle, those who serve to benefit from the status quo (local strongmen, witch doctors, and the people themselves who fear change) overpower him and he makes very little leeway. It's cliché, but the melodrama of a negative cliché seems to be more satisfying than that of saccharine ones.
The movie's plot is further made more interesting because of its duality. Perhaps because two of the biggest names of the Golden Age of Cinema were acting in it (Arturo de Cordova and Pedro Armendariz), the two plots that each of these characters pilots seem to be so distinct that it feels as if I watched two different movies. The romance-drama of the middle-aged doctor falling in love is the main focus for a while but then the movie shifts to an action-drama about Roque's (Armendariz') shenanigans, with a significant shift in tone along with it.
People familiar with the culture of Tierra Caliente will no doubt be pleased with the more or less accurate portrayal of the people from this region in terms of dialect, costume, and culture - they really did their research for this one.
One important thing to mention is that the movie basically justifies a rape and ends up exonerating the perpetrator in the plot by his subsequent behavior. The blasé attitude toward this whole issue reminded me of Bad Timing (1980).
It was an effectively sad movie. The ending speech was strong, but it seemed a little misplaced. In the same hodgepodge manner as the film as a whole, it focused on a specific aspect of a story which had too much diversity of plot and moral dilemmas to deserve such a concentrated speech.
The decision not to select it as best picture at the Ariel Awards for 1952 was a wise one.
Several tropes which were standard for Mexican movies of the time come up (Río Escondido will immediately come to mind). Our urban professional feels an aversion to the superstitious ways of the natives and wants to change them. On the other side of the battle, those who serve to benefit from the status quo (local strongmen, witch doctors, and the people themselves who fear change) overpower him and he makes very little leeway. It's cliché, but the melodrama of a negative cliché seems to be more satisfying than that of saccharine ones.
The movie's plot is further made more interesting because of its duality. Perhaps because two of the biggest names of the Golden Age of Cinema were acting in it (Arturo de Cordova and Pedro Armendariz), the two plots that each of these characters pilots seem to be so distinct that it feels as if I watched two different movies. The romance-drama of the middle-aged doctor falling in love is the main focus for a while but then the movie shifts to an action-drama about Roque's (Armendariz') shenanigans, with a significant shift in tone along with it.
People familiar with the culture of Tierra Caliente will no doubt be pleased with the more or less accurate portrayal of the people from this region in terms of dialect, costume, and culture - they really did their research for this one.
One important thing to mention is that the movie basically justifies a rape and ends up exonerating the perpetrator in the plot by his subsequent behavior. The blasé attitude toward this whole issue reminded me of Bad Timing (1980).
It was an effectively sad movie. The ending speech was strong, but it seemed a little misplaced. In the same hodgepodge manner as the film as a whole, it focused on a specific aspect of a story which had too much diversity of plot and moral dilemmas to deserve such a concentrated speech.
The decision not to select it as best picture at the Ariel Awards for 1952 was a wise one.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
