Introduction
This essay examines the films Argentina, 1985 (2022), directed by Santiago Mitre, and I Am Still Here (2024), directed by Walter Salles, within the framework of human rights and transitional justice. Set against the dictatorships in Argentina (1976-1983) and Brazil (1964-1985), both marked by state-sponsored disappearances and repression, these films portray legal efforts to confront past atrocities. By analyzing their representations of legal processes, this discussion assesses how they contribute to collective memory and accountability. Key similarities include the emphasis on turning personal suffering into public reckoning, while differences lie in the scale and timing of justice portrayed. Drawing on human rights perspectives, the essay highlights the films’ roles in fostering societal healing, informed by concepts like transitional justice (Teitel, 2000).
Representation of Legal Processes in Argentina, 1985
Argentina, 1985 dramatizes the 1985 Trial of the Juntas, a landmark prosecution of military leaders for human rights violations during the dictatorship. The film depicts this as a unified, state-driven effort to establish truth, with prosecutors gathering evidence amid threats, underscoring the fragility of emerging democracy. Through courtroom scenes, it illustrates how legal proceedings expose systematic abuses, such as forced disappearances affecting up to 30,000 people (CONADEP, 1984). This representation positions the trial as a catalyst for collective memory, transforming hidden traumas into documented history. Indeed, the film’s focus on procedural details, like witness interrogations, educates viewers on the importance of accountability, arguably reinforcing human rights norms by showing justice as a bulwark against impunity. However, it somewhat idealizes the process, downplaying later setbacks like pardons in the 1990s, which limited full reckoning (Sikkink, 2011).
Representation of Legal Processes in I Am Still Here
In contrast, I Am Still Here explores Brazil’s protracted quest for justice through the lens of a family’s ongoing fight following a disappearance. The film portrays legal struggles as fragmented and personal, spanning decades without a singular trial, reflecting Brazil’s delayed transitional mechanisms. For instance, it highlights barriers like amnesty laws that shielded perpetrators until the 2010s, with truth-seeking only gaining momentum via the National Truth Commission in 2014 (Schneider, 2011). By centering on individual resilience—such as petitions for recognition and confronting bureaucratic denial—the narrative reveals the emotional toll of impunity. This approach emphasizes grassroots advocacy in human rights, showing how private grief fuels public demands for memory. Typically, such depictions critique systemic failures, fostering empathy and urging societal acknowledgment of unprosecuted crimes, though the film risks oversimplifying broader political contexts.
Comparative Analysis and Role in Shaping Memory and Accountability
Both films share a commitment to human rights by illustrating how legal processes convert loss into “grievable” narratives, echoing frameworks of mourning in post-conflict societies (Butler, 2004). A major similarity is their use of realism—Argentina, 1985 employs dramatized testimonies, while I Am Still Here integrates personal archives—to bridge fiction and fact, enhancing viewer engagement with historical truths. Differences emerge in scope: the former celebrates a prompt, institutional triumph in 1985, aligning with Argentina’s quicker democratic transition, whereas the latter depicts Brazil’s slower path, marked by corruption and inaction until recent years (Abrão and Torelly, 2012). Furthermore, these portrayals shape collective memory by challenging official silences; Argentina, 1985 promotes national unity through justice, potentially inspiring global human rights advocacy, while I Am Still Here underscores enduring trauma, highlighting the need for sustained efforts. Critically, both contribute to accountability by educating audiences, though their effectiveness depends on cultural reception—evidenced by Argentina, 1985’s Oscar nomination, which amplified its message internationally.
Conclusion
In summary, Argentina, 1985 and I Am Still Here distinctively represent legal struggles in post-dictatorial Argentina and Brazil, with the former emphasizing institutional milestones and the latter personal perseverance. Their similarities in transforming trauma into public memory contrast with differences in timing and focus, ultimately advancing human rights by fostering accountability. These films imply that without robust legal mechanisms, societies risk incomplete healing, urging ongoing commitment to truth and justice in transitional contexts.
References
- Abrão, P. and Torelly, M.D. (2012) ‘The reparations program as the lynchpin of transitional justice in Brazil’, in Transitional Justice: Handbook for Latin America. International Center for Transitional Justice, pp. 443-485.
- Butler, J. (2004) Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso.
- CONADEP (1984) Nunca Más: The Report of the Argentine National Commission on the Disappeared. Argentine National Commission on the Disappeared.
- Schneider, N. (2011) ‘Impunity in post-authoritarian Brazil: The Supreme Court’s recent verdict on the amnesty law’, European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 90, pp. 39-54.
- Sikkink, K. (2011) The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
- Teitel, R.G. (2000) Transitional Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
