Saw this at the Munich film festival 2019 (in German: Film Fest München). For me is was a big disappointment, given the ingredients. Firstly, the quaint screen format and the unnecessary black&white annoy me, both probably intentional and with a special meaning that goes over a layman's head. Secondly, the story did not move me at all, despite the obvious fact that it was intended to do so, given the heart-breaking circumstances and the inequalities in the battle. Thirdly, the improbabilities hindered me. For instance, how did they suddenly find other women with similar stories??
Fourthly, how are we able to deduce that the parents are illegal immigrants and thus cannot produce an ID when filing a complaint at the police station?? I assume that their origin and status is obvious to everyone in Peru, but we are left guessing. The connection with contemporary immigration issues seems force fed to us, though not really relevant for the plot. (Side note: Maybe it was true for the parents in 1981, so not really forced fed. In case it is true to the original story, I apologise for my accusation.)
Of course, their quest was hopeless from the outset. No happy ending possible. We know that the children in question are already given to their respective adoptive parents, probably abroad or otherwise in a family with deep pockets and not prepared to let their new child go. It also raises an existential question, as spoken out loud in a hallway meeting with one of the lawyers: one can argue that the children in question are much better off now, with a solid future and bound to grow up in a prosperous family. I know it is against human nature to ask such questions, but it is a valid one: what right do the physical parents have when looking at it objectively and coldly??
The director told us before the screening that the actual story ran in 1981, but she translated all of it to 1988, being a pivotal period of Peru's history. It is her prerogative to do so, and it will be applauded by many as a vehicle to bring that era closer to us --we only know it from newspapers--, by showing how people lived there at the time. I personally do not care about this at all.
A bogus extra story line was the contact that Pedro had with an upcoming actor, who later turned out to be sexually interested in him. Petro got a death threat near the finale of the movie, stating they two were pigs and would be killed. Pedro immediately went out to break their would-be relationship with a poor excuse that neither of them really believed (he was accused on the spot to be weak). It would have been more interesting when the letter had been sent by the people that ran the shady business of stealing newborn children to sell them to parents, but nothing in the story pointed to such a connection.
All in all, I normally would have scored a 1 (out of 5) for the audience award, given that I hate format over contents (screen format, black&white, etc, and no compelling story to hold my attention). The transition to 1988 plus the contemporary element of investigative journalism made me hesitate. I eventually scored a 2, a tiny bit better but still not much. It defies the high praises that I read everywhere, but it is not the first time I disagree with the crowd.
Fourthly, how are we able to deduce that the parents are illegal immigrants and thus cannot produce an ID when filing a complaint at the police station?? I assume that their origin and status is obvious to everyone in Peru, but we are left guessing. The connection with contemporary immigration issues seems force fed to us, though not really relevant for the plot. (Side note: Maybe it was true for the parents in 1981, so not really forced fed. In case it is true to the original story, I apologise for my accusation.)
Of course, their quest was hopeless from the outset. No happy ending possible. We know that the children in question are already given to their respective adoptive parents, probably abroad or otherwise in a family with deep pockets and not prepared to let their new child go. It also raises an existential question, as spoken out loud in a hallway meeting with one of the lawyers: one can argue that the children in question are much better off now, with a solid future and bound to grow up in a prosperous family. I know it is against human nature to ask such questions, but it is a valid one: what right do the physical parents have when looking at it objectively and coldly??
The director told us before the screening that the actual story ran in 1981, but she translated all of it to 1988, being a pivotal period of Peru's history. It is her prerogative to do so, and it will be applauded by many as a vehicle to bring that era closer to us --we only know it from newspapers--, by showing how people lived there at the time. I personally do not care about this at all.
A bogus extra story line was the contact that Pedro had with an upcoming actor, who later turned out to be sexually interested in him. Petro got a death threat near the finale of the movie, stating they two were pigs and would be killed. Pedro immediately went out to break their would-be relationship with a poor excuse that neither of them really believed (he was accused on the spot to be weak). It would have been more interesting when the letter had been sent by the people that ran the shady business of stealing newborn children to sell them to parents, but nothing in the story pointed to such a connection.
All in all, I normally would have scored a 1 (out of 5) for the audience award, given that I hate format over contents (screen format, black&white, etc, and no compelling story to hold my attention). The transition to 1988 plus the contemporary element of investigative journalism made me hesitate. I eventually scored a 2, a tiny bit better but still not much. It defies the high praises that I read everywhere, but it is not the first time I disagree with the crowd.