Mexico anticipated neo-realism that is often attributed to Italy, with this work. Touches of Flaherty's "Man of Aran" are evident. Redes means "wave," the silent dark symbol/metaphor at the end of the film, while the sea had been so quiet and calm throughout the film. The music and camerawork are notable. The editing seems to be influenced by Eisenstein's work. A fascinating official debut from Zinnemann, though his unaccredited debut is a 1930 film called "Men on a Sunday"officially attributed to Robert Siodmak as the primary director. Perhaps the film reveals the real Zinnemann that one we glimpsed in "High Noon",often seen as Carl Foreman's real vision.
5 Reviews
Explicit but profound film
MoishLoneWolf18 October 2023
The beautiful class consciousness and struggle for workers' rights related to the sea and what it produces captured in the Mexican cinema of the golden age, which occurs in other films of the same context in a similar way as in La Perla by Emilio "El indio" Fernández, which I find fascinating and with an implicit intention in both plot and montage, This use of the sea I interpret as a symbol of freedom, realities of the time of the film still relevant today with the powerful message that unity is strength, brief in footage but powerful and precise, the photo is of some superb shooting that are illustrations worthy of being framed and exhibited in a museum.
Review (partial spoiler)
peteito18 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I would certainly agree with the previous comment that this film is worth watching due to the poignant camera work of Paul Strand and the score of Silvestre Revueltas that intensifies the emotional power evoked by Strand's cinematography (that Strand seems not cut out to be a cinematographer is hardly surprising - he was actually a prominent US photographer commissioned by Narcisso Bassols, then Mexican Minister of Education to make this revolutionary film).
I'll also add that as a film this is an important socio-political moment as it marks the emergence of a Revolutionary national cinema very much in the collectivist spirit of Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin. The editing mimicks the Russian director's use of separate cell blocks (shots) to translate the Marxist social dialectic of thesis + antithesis = synthesis into a filmic language labelled Soviet Montage. The film's clearest example of this is the juxtaposition of 'photographic' images when the politician shoots Miro. Eisenstein's influence permeates Redes (for example, real people acted in the film, replacing hired actors (except Miro), coping Eisenstein's use of typage), as it did Mexican film in general during this Revolutionary era, due largely to his philosophy and the fact he actually went to Mexico and shot a film, 'Que Viva Mexico!' in 1932. For those interested in things Eisenstein, I would recommend Potemkin, Strike, and Oktober, the latter contains a barrel-of-gun scene which surely inspired the aforementioned murder of Miro.
To analyse this film as a Revolutionary piece of art would be to give its best interpretation, therefore the cinematography of Strand ought to be compared to the photography of Edward Weston and Tina Modotti, other important contributors to the visual arts element of the revolutionary movement. Indeed the doctrines of Eisenstein are reflected in the fact both Modotti and Strand were members of the Communist party, alongside such notables as Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo. Strand's portrayal of weighing scales shot as to evoke the scythe, the symbol of the Communist Party, could easily be a Modotti still.
As an example of revolutionary art, beautiful cinematography, and emotive music, this film is a worthwhile watch, especially for those familiar with the work of Eisenstein, Modotti, and Weston.
I'll also add that as a film this is an important socio-political moment as it marks the emergence of a Revolutionary national cinema very much in the collectivist spirit of Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin. The editing mimicks the Russian director's use of separate cell blocks (shots) to translate the Marxist social dialectic of thesis + antithesis = synthesis into a filmic language labelled Soviet Montage. The film's clearest example of this is the juxtaposition of 'photographic' images when the politician shoots Miro. Eisenstein's influence permeates Redes (for example, real people acted in the film, replacing hired actors (except Miro), coping Eisenstein's use of typage), as it did Mexican film in general during this Revolutionary era, due largely to his philosophy and the fact he actually went to Mexico and shot a film, 'Que Viva Mexico!' in 1932. For those interested in things Eisenstein, I would recommend Potemkin, Strike, and Oktober, the latter contains a barrel-of-gun scene which surely inspired the aforementioned murder of Miro.
To analyse this film as a Revolutionary piece of art would be to give its best interpretation, therefore the cinematography of Strand ought to be compared to the photography of Edward Weston and Tina Modotti, other important contributors to the visual arts element of the revolutionary movement. Indeed the doctrines of Eisenstein are reflected in the fact both Modotti and Strand were members of the Communist party, alongside such notables as Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo. Strand's portrayal of weighing scales shot as to evoke the scythe, the symbol of the Communist Party, could easily be a Modotti still.
As an example of revolutionary art, beautiful cinematography, and emotive music, this film is a worthwhile watch, especially for those familiar with the work of Eisenstein, Modotti, and Weston.
Not a great movie, but great nonetheless
Henry-5926 January 2003
This is not a great movie: the characters are made out of cardboard, the plot is standard "Waiting for Lefty" with a heavier emphasis on historical materialism, and some of the actors are barely that. But it is still worth seeing, for two reasons: Paul Strand's beautiful pictures and Silvestre Revueltas' beautiful score.
Strand was not cut out to be a cinematographer: his shots are as static as a still photo. Not surprising, considering that Strand was one of the greatest photographers of the last century. You can see how much he loved taking the portraits of clouds, the sea, and the fishermen who are the heroes of this film-which doesn't make a good movie, but is still a delight to watch. As for Revueltas' score, someone who knows more about music will have to comment on it. It is enough to say that it is powerful, not overstated, and modern. He apparently wrote much of the score before the movie was finished, so it doesn't have the interplay with the film itself that Herrmann's score for Vertigo or Fumio Hayasaka's score for Seven Samurai does. But it is still wonderful, particularly if you hear it played by a good orchestra.
Strand was not cut out to be a cinematographer: his shots are as static as a still photo. Not surprising, considering that Strand was one of the greatest photographers of the last century. You can see how much he loved taking the portraits of clouds, the sea, and the fishermen who are the heroes of this film-which doesn't make a good movie, but is still a delight to watch. As for Revueltas' score, someone who knows more about music will have to comment on it. It is enough to say that it is powerful, not overstated, and modern. He apparently wrote much of the score before the movie was finished, so it doesn't have the interplay with the film itself that Herrmann's score for Vertigo or Fumio Hayasaka's score for Seven Samurai does. But it is still wonderful, particularly if you hear it played by a good orchestra.
An absorbing hour of cinema
philosopherjack7 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Fred Zinnemann and Emilio Gomez Muriel's Redes is a completely absorbing hour or so of cinema - persistently stunning as observation of (at least apparently) real, challenged lives against pictorially transfixing backdrops, emotionally stirring for its depiction of social injustice, while also limited by narrative artifice and the unwarranted promise of its climax. The film focuses on a poor fishing community on the coast of Mexico, where one of the men becomes radicalized after losing a child for lack of money to buy medicine; he focuses on how the profit from their efforts flows overwhelming to the single capital provider at the top of the social pyramid, with the workers perpetually settling for almost nothing. He inspires some of his colleagues while alienating others, but in the end, after further tragedy, they're all united, and the film suggests they might constitute a figurative revolutionary wave, amassing to wash away an exploitatively complacent society. The portrayal of the fishermen's plight (interesting to note as an aside that women are barely glimpsed in the film, let alone being allowed to speak) feels as righteously provocative now as it did then, despite the mostly clunky portrayal of the complacent local master and his conniving politician sidekick. Among the multiple fascinating contributors to the film, the involvement of Zinnemann as co-director, long before his mainstream, multiple Oscar-winning peak, stands out: as with much of his later work perhaps, one can point to aspects of Redes which appear brave and ground-breaking, and feel grateful for its overall achievement, while yet feeling willing to sacrifice some of its craft and calculation (even Silvestre Revueltas' grandly imposed musical score) in return for a more truthful overall testimony. But perhaps it took the test of time, and the repeated triumph of predatory capitalism, for that failure to become as clear as it is now.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
