04/03/2023
On January 27, the digital media To The Point published an interview with Andrés Castañeda, actor in the film Los reyes del mundo, by filmmaker Laura Mora, in which he stated that he had fled from Yarumal, because he had been threatened by the exposure that he had after the success of the film; he also said that he had been paid unfairly and that he had been dumped by the production.
A controversy grew in social networks and media about the responsibility of the director with the natural actors of her film; Laura Mora was accused of having a look of “pornomishery” and of practicing a certain “extractivism” for allegedly taking advantage of a violent reality and the vulnerable situation of some boys who wanted recognition.
It is not the first time that a film director has been questioned for his work with natural actors. Rubén Mendoza experienced it with his film Señorita María, which even led him to a lawsuit with the protagonist. There are voices that claim the artistic freedom of working with the actors that the directors consider suitable to build his work and to expose and reflect on reality.
The film critic Pedro Adrián Zuluaga also calls for valuing the learning achieved by a current generation of directors who seek a poetic approach to that conflictive reality and wonder about the political responsibility of their creation and production processes.
One month after Castañeda’s statements, we spoke with Laura Mora about how she has lived and faced the questions, and about what she learned behind the interviews with Castañeda, after they resumed contact.
Art cannot change reality, but it can dignify it. Is it worth insisting on that path?
“Despite the pain I feel today, I want to insist on that and on the freedom that every artist has to find a way to tell or how to convey those emotions. There is also something very beautiful that happens in these processes and that I think has been ignored in this media noise, to immediately say that what happens to the actors is bad, that they are ‘extractivist’ processes and a lot of concepts that do not know what they are. that the actors live”.
How was the case with The Kings of the World?
“These boys realized that they could inhabit the world in other ways, that they were good at working, disciplined, creative, loving; They built other relationships, they have had other friendships and just as in the movies we look at reality through someone else and that nourishes our gaze, that also happened to these guys. They have learned to look and look at themselves in a different way”.
After decades of portraying the harshest reality, has Colombian cinema learned to work with natural actors?
“We don’t see our cinema so much as to say that the audience has been able to access that deeper look at our country. We are still very prejudiced with our cinema. What I am sure of is that this cinema has a power and a narrative complexity that few cinemas have, and that in that it transcends the purely realistic register, and proposes more complex layers. That speaks of a generation that asks itself constant questions about the image, about how to move away from a representation of violence that is only stark and how to find other ways to approach beauty”.
Do you think there is something that justifies or explains the claims that Andrés made in the video?
“No, and not only with Andrés, with all the boys there has been an accompaniment that has to do with their personal, academic, health, work processes, with being very aware of them all the time. So yes, their statements surprise us a lot.”
How much were you paid for your part in the film?
“It does not seem prudent to me to give the figure, neither for him nor for the other boys. There was a decision that the payment of all five was equal, and that meant a very big effort for the film. They were also given a reading and a socialization of that contract, because the reading of a contract is very complex”.
When do you think Andrés began to distance himself from the accompaniment of the film?
“On January 13, he called me to tell me that he had been on a blacklist in Yarumal, in which his name and that of his partner appeared, and that they were in Medellín. I told him that we had to go to the institutions to file a complaint. He told me that he had to get to a farm in Amagá where they were going to give him a job and that he had no money, even though we had given him money a few days before. Because of his insistence and desperation, I gave him more money to make that trip, with the commitment that that night we were going to have a very serious conversation about what was happening and about his future.
What happened then?
“He mentioned that his girlfriend was pregnant, which worried us a lot. That night he called me again and I thought he was already in Amagá, but he told me that he had thrown away the money and that he needed more. I told him that there could not be that level of irresponsibility, that it didn’t seem right to me and I refused. That night he called a lot of people to ask him for money and he had a refusal from almost all the people he called ”.
Could setting a limit to his demands give him reasons?
“I don’t know if that aroused that feeling of abandonment. From there, Andrés disappeared. We tried to contact him through his mom, on Facebook, but he didn’t show up; 15 days later, that is, on January 27, we got together to celebrate the birthday of another of the boys in the film. That night there was a massive projection on the outskirts of MAMM, which was very impressive, and the next day the video appeared with their claims.
In that, Andrés says that he is in the center of Medellín and a third party appears to help him…
“At the time the video appears, some social networks also appear in the name of Andrés that are not his or the boys in the film, that is, they do not use Instagram, they do not use TikTok or Twitter. Some social networks with some descriptions that do not match Andrés’s expressions, there were some hashtags and some contacts that did not match his usual behavior either, that immediately generated suspicion that there could be third parties, so we remain prudent and calm to understand what It was exactly happening.”
Did they talk to him again?
“We tried to contact him and it was not possible. About 8 days after the video came out, I received a voice message from a man who claimed to be a merchant from the center of Medellín and who was Andrés’ adviser because he was not able to communicate with me, that I was not his wish and that everything had to be through this man. He was suspicious, I told him that Andrés was of legal age and that the communication had always been directly with him.
Were there any further contacts with this merchant?
“That put us all on alert. The next day Mirlanda Torres, the producer, received a call from this person telling her that she is helping Andrés. Mirlanda tries to understand what is happening and at one point in the conversation, he tells her that if they do not reach an economic agreement, they would travel to Bogotá and speak with a person from a large media outlet allied with them, and that they were going to continue with the news. . She called again the other day and at the suggestion of the lawyers we decided not to answer and that is where our knowledge of that third person stopped ”.
And he never had direct contact with Andrés again…
“Two weeks ago Andrés contacted me and told me about some threats. I told him what we have always said, that we had to go to the authorities. We convinced him and we met at the Medellín City Hall. The Secretariat for Non-Violence opened a space for us with personnel from the Security Secretariat to attend to their complaints and complaints and to understand what was happening”.
What did Andrés tell the authorities?
“Andrés said that the videos and interviews were done through this third person who called us, and there was someone else in charge of social networks, editing the videos, organizing the interviews; he had even done an interview with a Mexican journalist, they told him what to say and how to act ”.
Is it clear then that there was an instrumentalization of Andrés at that moment?
“Yes, and that is related to the scandal that exists in social networks.”
Let’s talk about the other four protagonists of the film, because the criticism belongs to Andrés, but we know little about the others…
“With the other four boys, the process has been the same, that is, very close accompaniment since we started filming in 2021 until today. In addition to the psychosocial support we have had, we must first understand what they want with their particularities”.
How do they see their future?
“The minors decided to go back to school to validate the baccalaureate. In August 2022, thanks to a contact from Cristina Gallego, we found an audiovisual production diploma, they took it, including Andrés, and since Andrés lived outside of Medellín we helped him financially so he could attend, but he abandoned the process. The other four graduated. We went to the degree and from that diploma a video written and produced by them came out, which they are now sending to festivals”.
And the older ones?
“The one who plays ‘Culebro’ in the film, from the recording, when he didn’t have to act, he started working with the lighting team. He is now in Bogotá working on a movie. We got the person who plays ‘Sere’ a scholarship to recover mobility in his right arm and his dream is to be a driver, so we help him get the pass with his disability and now he is working, not as a driver, as he would like, but he is working on a construction site with some people close to him and he is happy”.
How has media exposure affected them?
“I have been very vehement with the care of the private life of these boys, that is to say, they were going to have a natural exposure of their characters and of the film, but even from the design of the Press kit and the press material of the film I asked not to reveal anything about their private lives, because a pitiful approach scared me or that it would expose them much more. I did not agree with Andrés being profiled in a medium, it seemed to me that this was a risk for him ”.
Has Andrés’ case affected your colleagues?
“It has hit them very hard, not only because of a natural concern for what may be happening with him, but because they feel that he is not saying the right thing in the face of their processes.”
If everyone has gone through the same process and initially had the same level of exposure, why do you think the controversy is focused on a single failed case?
“I think that today’s world, of social networks, works almost like a world of good people, of superior morality, where we are very attentive to who makes the first mistake to fall on them with a very strong moral judgment, where reading the counterpart does not we are interested. On February 1, we published a very specific letter where we told what I am telling and it has been very clear that this has not been news, the other generates much more news, a media boom.
Have you felt canceled on those social networks? How have you lived this month of public ridicule?
“It has been sad and very painful, because something with which I have been very demanding with myself is being questioned. Since my first short films there has been an obsession with the idea of justice, I also demand a lot from myself regarding the ethics of the cinema I make, of my processes and in my life in general, and an ethical issue is being questioned, with which we have been absolutely responsible and judicious. This affects the relationship with a film that is already important for national cinematography and for a cinema made by women”.
Do you think there is something personal against you?
“I have tried not to feel that way, to not take anything personally. Yes, there has been something with my name, it has not been a claim that has been made to the film or the production, but to my name, but I would not like to think that this stems from a personal attack, but rather that the director is the person most visible of a film and much more of this type of film, and he was the most visible person to question.