Stevens’ article explains how the film Camila brought in very many people, one of the biggest crowd attracted in Argentine film making history, and Camila also was a oscar nominee for Best Foreign Film. Stevens discusses Maria Luisa Bemberg who wrote and directed the film Camila. It is important to know a little background about Bemberg because that is why the film has a feminist perspective. Bemberg was married when she was twenty years old, she had her hands full with four children, but somewhere things fell apart and she and her husband got divorced. Bemberg was able to regain her maiden name. She tried to put together feminist groups but they were shut down. After her children had reached adulthood she turned her attention to making films. Later in her career she wrote Camila, she wanted this story to be told from a woman’s perspective, her perspective.
In the beginning of the film Camila is a young child and her grandmother comes to live (be locked up) with the family. Stevens addresses the patriarchal authority in the film by how the fathers and extended family chooses what path or specialized training their children would have, it was not just the child’s choice. Ladislao was a prime example of this, since he was the nephew of he Governor he was well connected politically so the decision of priesthood was probably  not his alone. Stevens explains that the scene where Ladislao spoke out against the violence of the bookseller’s murder could have never happened this way because Rosas would have immediately had him killed. Stevens also describes how records state that the two lovers fled at night on horseback not in a carriage. Bemberg probably did this so the passionate lovemaking scene could be added while they were making their getaway.
Stevens explains how Camila’s father really is not the ‘kittykiller monster’ as displayed in the film, that his letter to the Governor actually was an attempt to save his daughter and of course his name, and he aid the entire blame on Ladislao. The film also fails to mention that Camila was friends with Rosas daughter. The film does a very good job at showing the patriarchal authority of the times and also tells a tragically beautiful love story that is very entertaining. My favorite part of this film is that even though a few things may be different that documentation all of it really happened. There was a wealthy family with a daughter named Camila who ran away with a priest for love and they were executed right beside each other. It really happened, that is so beautiful to me! The last lines of the film were my absolute favorite; where Camila calls Ladislao’s name right before they are executed and he says I am by your side and then they are executed and both placed in a wooden box and the same lines are repeated.
Elizabeth Dore’s reading is focused on the interaction between state politics and gender politics in Latin America. Although it was viewed that during the 19th century women were making a lot of progress towards gender equality, Dore argues that state policy changes were not making women more equal to men, it was actually doing the very opposite. In the colonial state men ran the house, community and polity. During the mid 19th century liberal states seized power in Latin America, they to favored male authority; the rich male elite felt it was their right to have authority because they were superior. The elder male would be over a house hold of women and younger men. The rich white males were the ones who could vote and participate in politics. Males believed they were born superior to women. In the film Camila this is very evident. Camila’s father defiantly has the authority in the house. One can see this by how he locks his own mother up like a prisoner. Or how he makes Camila get up from the dinner table for expressing her opinion, and how his son tells him of Camila’s escape and he strikes him across the face. In the film the father has complete authority and no one in the family ever questions it.
Dore explains how the laws of the land even exaggerated female inferiority. With the abolishment of the obligation dowry, and in Mexico and Central America they completely did away with the requirement that property of married couples had to be jointly owned, this enabled men to exclude their wives from ownership. The church deemed women’s sole purpose was a ‘babymaker.’ Patriarchal authority was everywhere, in the home, in the laws, and even in the church. Females were not getting their voices in the political debates, but finally in the 20th century women started demanding more equality and changes in state policies. This started the slow depletion of the patriarchal authority system that surrounded the women of Latin America.