By Josemaria Moreno
The director Luis Estrada recently released this feature film that immediately divided critics and caused controversy. Even the president of Mexico has commented on it: “a churro against the 4T (the Fourth Transformation is the fight against corruption and poverty).” First, let’s review the origins of the genre that Estrada usually uses—satire and then venture a critique. Although Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) was not the creator of this genre—long before, Aristophanes had already used it in his comedies and later great Latin authors made it their own. The Irish author is recognized as the most sublime and incisive satirist. The author of “Gulliver’s Travels” gives us two clues to fully understand Estrada’s work. In a small pamphlet titled “A Modest Proposal” Swift proposes a radical solution to the problem of poverty and malnourished child overpopulation in Ireland at the time: the parents of these children should sell their children to the nation’s wealthy landlords so that they eat them. This would increase the culinary offerings at banquets for the rich and encourage the poor. Swift’s satirical intention was not well received, and he was accused of being barbaric and a writer with very bad taste. Today, we can appreciate the power of his criticism of the wealthy classes. Which brings us to the second clue that Swift offers. In an «author’s note» that serves as a preface to the pamphlet he says, «Satire is a kind of mirror in which the observer generally discovers everyone’s face except his own.»
In times of political correctness that has become almost censorship, it is difficult to defend and support the characters presented by “¡Que viva México!” But perhaps the point is not to try to interpret and comment on the ignoble vices of Estrada’s characters but to try to find the face of oneself in his excessive and caricatural vision of Mexican society. And just as happened with Swift, in this film there is a modest proposition that does not pretend to be a solution to the problems that afflict us as a collective. Rather, there is a scathing criticism that reaches everyone: the human being, regardless of the social class to which he belongs, is capable of the most sordid vileness and the most inhuman greed.
