Entrevista Con Reygadas Otra

8/3/2019 Entrevista Con Reygadas Otra

1/9

BOMB 111 70

CARLOS REYGADASBY ~ O S E CAST ILLO


2/9

FILM I CARLOS REYGADAS

Stolls from S'/flnt L.ght. 2007. COlor f.lm 1N00hsound TOIl'1 running lOme: 13 6 minutes .above ' Mena Pankratz 8S Marianne an d Cor-neho Wall 85 JOhen. All ;mltge5 courtesy ofManlarrl:lye Producc.ones.

7 1


3/9

BOMB111Born in Mex ico City and tra ined as a lawyer special izing in armed-conf lict resolut ion,Ca rl os Reygadas was inspired at age 30 tot r y his hand at f i lm out of his apprec iation o fthe fi lms o f auteurs such as Andrei Tarkovskyand Michelangelo Antonioni. He has beenmaking fi lms ever since. Hav ing releasedthree feature- length f i lms -Japan (200 1 ),Batt le in Heaven (2005), and Si lent Light(2007)-a5 welt as two shorts, Reygadas'shas become a unique voice that stands apartf rom the f i lmmakers co mmo n ly assoc iatedwith the New Mexican Cinema movementof the last decade, whose product ions aremore in sync wi th Hol lywood norms.

Over th e course of his career, Reygadas'stechnique has become more sophisticatedand h is vocabu lary more control led, achievin g subl ime moments o f beauty and the grotesque . His f i lms are neither autob iographicalnor self-referential. They const ruc t a plat form in which visua l language is the medi um that produces affect. Their sever ity andpower arise f rom the fact that they addressserious matters- love, death, faith, fear, sex,sacrifice, and redempt ion- through everydayexperiences, and in the process o f doing so ,they put fo rth a new type o f humanism. l ikea modern-day, c inematic H olden Caulfield,Reygadas seeks the authent ic i ty o f unmediated expe r ience. Steering away f rom thepredominance o f narrat ive and profession a l acting in f i lm , Reygadas has developed amoving and ar resting body o f work seemingly devoid o f artif ice.

Reygadas's tw o most recent shorts haveenriched his repertoire o f techniques andsubject matter : Serenghett i , a montage o fv iews o f a women 's soccer match, and Estees m i reino, a 12-minute f ilm (for Revo/ucion,a compi lation of shorts commemorat ing thebicentenary of the Mexican Revo lution) thatexposes the paradoxes o f communi ty andindividual freedom, celebration, and melancholy in Mexican society. He se ldom talksabout his work , and theorizes about it evenless; he prefers instead to let his f i lm s evincethe ideas and experiences he wants to convey. Regardless, we met at his six-acre property in Ocoti t lan, More los -a vi llage an hourouts ide o f Mexico City where he is buildinga house-and talked about music, li terature,and f il m. Our conversat ion m ade it apparentto me that fo r Reygadas, the road ahead iswide and clear.

- Jose Casti llo

72JOSE CASTILLO: I would like to ask you aboutyour choice to work with film. Could you have chosena different art form? And how does this notion of creating a world of your own relate to film specifical ly?

CARLOS REYGADAS: For me this simplyhas been a consequence of being alive, living my life,more than of any specific search. I've never programmatically set out to make movies that reflect my worldsomehow. Now that I'm building a house, the idea ofwanting to live in a particular way is also defined a posteriori. But going back to film, when I wanted to makemy first movie I was a lawyer and indeed liked law, butI remember wanting a change of life. I wanted to feelmore freedom on a day-l o-day basis.

Actually, though, I wanted to make a first moviein order to see if r had any talent fo r filmmaking-thatwas it. I had no idea whether I could pull it off or not .I went ahead and tried my hand at making a movie,but I knew nothing about the system. This determinedwhat I've been doing ever since. As it turns out, thefilm I made ended up reflecting my personal vision. I'mconvinced that to be original all you have to do is beyourself: we're all original. It 's like people's fingerprints.So, automatically I reflected a personal world.

J C : There's an interesting relationship betweenyour characters' internal and exterior lives. In your filmsthere seems to be a moment in which personal miseries, tragedies, anguishes, and other feelings becomepublic. And there's also redemption, through love andintimacy. There's a scene I find quite compelling inSilent Light, a film about personal relationships in thetight community of Mennonites in Chihuahua, involving a family bathing in a pool. Can you elaborate on theissue of making what's private public and on makingvisible those private emotions?C R: It's all a consequence of action. It's all aboutspontaneity for me; I never put theory before practice.I'm thinking concretely of that bathing scene in SilentLight-ali i wanted was to transmit the sense of peaceand quiet that a family might experience when engaging in a daily ritual in a place of continuing beauty, suchas that pool. These are feelings I must have had as achild, I've had moments of complete plenitude andtranquility, where nothing but the present mattered.

JC: But do you think it's possible to attain sucha state through col lective experiences? Your charactersseem wrapped in their own emotions, so when, for instance, suffering turns outward, ir s manifested fromone character to another; the same with their joy.

CR: I'm sorry, I've never even thought of this.I just don't think it's my forte. For me community isnothing but the sum of individuals. Of course societyas a whole has its own laws and such, but rather thantrying to reflect that in my films, I prefer to read EliasCanetti's Crowds and Power. What I'm interested in not dogmatically, but on an emotional level-are those


4/9

FILM / CARLOS REYGADASbrief moments in which the truth is experienced. Thetruth is never absolute; it's approached almost tangentially. Declaring a philosophical. religious, or social tru thwill turn it into dogma and therefore will prevent it frombeing experienced as real; it will always be normative.On the contrary. what feels real is poetic, ineffable.open-ended. Truth, by definition, is intangible .J C: Inverting Carlos Monsivais's phrase "onlythe fleeting prevails," what seems permanent tendsto be contingent, temporary.CR: Exactly. I've always hated pronouncements,mili tancy based on slogans, religious dogmas. Ethics arethe result of personal decisions; you ask yourself ques tions and tr y to solve them at a particular moment.

.J C: Ethics become manifest in your characters'personal experiences. They hark back to Shakespeare'sand Dostoyevsky's archetypes. How do their moral dilemmas unfold? How do you arrive at your characters'ethics?

C R: It's a silly answer, but basically, via my imagination. But I don't think like a novelist; if I tried to writea novel it'd be a complete disaster. I'm terrible at conventional screenwriting. So by "imagination," I mean Iimagine myself in concrete situations: walking up a hilland running into people. I can actually make myself seethe colors, feel the wind and the temperature, hear thesteps of the people around me . So I proceed by havingthese sensations and letting things happen as I go onwriting the screenplay. This for me is the quintessentialcreative moment. I write everything in one blow overa few days and then make very few revisions- I'm ina state of trance.

You must have noticed that all of my films springfrom a male lead character. At some point I'd like tostart of f with a female lead character . . it hasn't workedout for me yet. So this male character begins acting,moving, and fee ling, and in the process, begins toemerge . That's when the questions spontaneouslyarise, once I enter that character's imagination. Thathuman being encounters problems, hurdles, momentsof pleasure - he faces ethical questions as well. I don'tneed to think about this much; it's like a dream in thesense that it reflects everything the person dreaminghas ever lived, everything he or she will become. Butagain, it's not as if I'm taking notes all year long, thinking about how I'd like this or that character to .. I comeup with them as I'm writing the screenplay.

.J C: How long are your scripts?C R: Very brief: 50 or 60 pages. That Hollywood

idea of a page per minute is one of the stupidest I'veever heard: it's utterly uncreative and noxious .

.JC: Yeah, like the notion that films need to be 105minutes long or should never exceed tw o hours .

C A: It's absurd to think that all films have tohave the same rhythm and duration; it destroys the essence of film's conception of time. Imagine saying that

73all music had to follow a given tempo! It's the sameas saying each page of a script equals a minute in thefilm. That's why even though Hollywood films can becomedies, dramas, or whatever, they all have exactlythe same structure. The characters and plots mightchange, but the films are all alike; people find repetition comforting, that's why the formula is successful.Anyway, although it takes me a few days to write thescreenplay, it does take me a while - a few months,sometimes a year- to decide where I'm going to set itand what the film's engine, or central motor, will be. InSilent Light the engine was the idea of death byemo-tional pain. There'd be a lot of intensity around the ideaof infidelity, in a moralistic sense.

.JC: Meaning that you don't believe in infidelity?You don't seem to judge the possibility of being multiamorous in the film. Your ethical position regarding thecharacter's being in love with tw o people is neutral.

C R: It's curious, when you think about all this,you understand wh y religion promotes monogamyit's complex.

.J C: Yes, it's people's way of resolving dilemmaslike the one in your film.C A: It's not a way of resolving them; it's actu

ally a way of avoiding conflict. If you firmly believe indogmas, you'll never experience conflicts, but that'sreducing life to nothingness. It's like a friend of minewho never wants to have a dog because she thinksshe'd suffer too much when it died. I understand whythere'd be a book such as the Divine Comedy and somany representations of the devil and religious punishment; when something goes terribly wrong it seemsas though the cause is divine retribution. I understandwhy there are rules regulating human drives, but I'dmuch rather embrace human nature with caution, set ting limits for myself depending on where I'm comingfrom and what my goals are.

.J C: The critical reception of your films tends toemphasize the potency of your images. Where do youstand in regard to the ar t of cinema? You've said else where that "there are few films, there are more movies. and plenty of illustrated literature."

C R: My screenplays are not literary in the waythat most screenplays are literary. Mine are images andsounds. and because of that, they're closer to film they're no t merely translating literature into drawingsfor a storyboard. In my opinion most screenplays are,basically, literature, in a structural and finally even anontological sense. As I said before, for my screenplaysI enter this vision, a hypnotic, hallucinogenic , or dreamlike one; I write it down, but the result is not literatureAs I write I imagine I'm already seeing the film:A black square appears, a cinemascope, or a 1: 1.33screen ratio, a text in a bright-blue Bauhaus font appears, it remains on screen for only two seconds. Cut.


5/9

B O M B 1 11Then. it appears again on the background and thendissolves ... The sound begins .. The face of a dark30-year-old man appears. The camera moves .That's how I go about writing; I'd be happy to lend youone of my screenplays so you can see ho w I go aboutnumbering each take - that's what films are, sequencesof takes . And so what I write is images and sounds,basically. One of film 's burdens has been that usuallysomeone writes a literary screenplay and then someone else illustrates it through the medium of cinema;sometimes it's the same person. It's a difficult idea toapprehend, because people think I'm just referring tothe adaptation of novels, but I'm not at all: a novel caninspire a great translation into a sequence of imagesand sounds. In any case, my creative moment is reg istered in the script, because that's when I have a tota lvision of the fi lm.

.J C: I'm interested to hear how close or distantyou feel to other forms of visual representation in film.I'll give you an example: if you think of certain scenesin the films of Peter Greenaway you have the sensethat he's working in a painterly fashion. This is different from what you do, and yet, I am interested in hearing how you work out the relationship between strongpictorial scenes, and the sense of experience.

C R: The issue of reality and representation is incredibly comp licated because it operates on many different levels, among them a philosophical one and evena semiotic one. They tend to get tangled up. I' ll addressthe simplest level, wh ich is also the most complex. Filmis based on the principle of photographic reality. If wewere looking at a picture of you, even though we bothknow it's ultimately nothing but pixels on paper, we'dboth agree that the photo is a representation of you.We know that the piece of paper is no t Jose, but weknow that Jose was actually before the camera at thepoint in which the picture was taken. With the movingimage, as well as sound, this reality effect is magnified.When you see a movie you know that what you're seeing, in effect, truly happened.

In this sense, cinema is the art of reality, the medium in wh ich reality's beauty is captured, where youcan film marble or a face, or record someone's voice,a sunset, the innate beauty of what you're contemplating. Ta rkovsky achieved th is. I never remember theplots of his films. People talk about Nostalgia and mention the part where so-and-so does this or that, and Ifumble; even though I've seen that film about 15 times,I act like those people wh o bluff w hen they say they'veseen something that they actually haven't, I have noidea what they're talking about. What I do remember isthe camera's movements, the sound of a saw up in thehills; I perfectly remember the textures of the pool andthose other things that were really happening. When Iattack representation in film, I'm talking about the issue

74DECLARING A

PHILOSOPHICAL ,RELIGIOUS , OR SOCIAL

TRUTH WILL TURN ITINTO D O G M A ANDTHEREFORE WILL

PREVENT IT FROMBEING EXPERIENCED ASREAL ; IT WILL ALWAYS

BE NORMATIVE. ONTHE CONTRARY, WHATFEELS REAL IS POETIC,

INEFFABLE, OPEN-ENDED.TRUTH , BY DEFINITION,IS INTANGIBLE.

of attempting to translate literature into fi lm -eve ry th ing is reduced to the lowest common denominator,to what it's supposed to be instead of what it is. Forinstance, in Mexican telenovelas, when they want torepresent a rural tiendita (a bodega), they'll have threeshelves stacked with the products that people assumeare always sold there as well as a middle-aged senorawith an apron at the register. Eve ryone gets used toseeing that tiendita, the code representing it. that is,instead of the real thing. If we went to a real tienditaright now and the camera was rolling, we'd discover anumber of incredible surprises there and people wou ldappreciate having access to a different visual experience. Maybe we find a dead cat hanging from a wall.or a poster we'd never imagine we'd find there. Realityhas so many things to offer, things you wouldn't havearrived at via your own imagination.

Often directors talk about how in their films theymanaged to achieve about 60 percent of what theyhad envisioned, which always, according to them, farexceeds what you can actually do in film . I always saythe contrary; my fi lms are always so much better than Icould have ever dreamed of, not because the end resultis magnificent, but because they utilize things that wereunthinkable to me before making them: take CornelioWall's wrinkles, his tone of voice in Silent Light. Theseare things I didn't imagine before, I only allowed mycamera to absorb them. Of course if I had imagined anactor with such-and-such traits, and then had dressedup an actor so he looked like the character in my head,


6/9

FILM I CARLOS REYGADAS

Stili showing M arcos Hernandez in Be rr ie inHeaven, 2005 , color film wIth sound Tota lrunnIng lIme : 98 minutes

S t ill f ro m Serengheni, 2009, color fil m withsound . TOl al running l ime 80 minut es.

I would end up with less than I had imagined.The camera is a funnel taking in real ity. I be

lieve in natural locations, in working with non-actors.The ten commandments of Dogme 95, the Danish fi lmcollective, point to some profound truths even if theymight seem silly to some people. The idea of not bring ing anything to the set that isn't already there makes awhole lo t of sense to me. All they're saying is let cinema transmit the power of vision, the power of sound,the power of feeling and being in the world we live in.instead of representing literary narratives taking placeinside cardboard houses.

JC: Two questions for you. You can answer eachindividually, though they're linked, so I'll ask them at thesame time. In what you're saying, I sense that there'sthe logic of the character versus the logic of the actor.In English the word "character" is more potent because

75it also points to personality. Can you elaborate on therelationship between actors and characters? And thesecond question has to do with how you understandrepresentation, and with your interest in music. You'vesaid that in terms of how it is experienced, film is closerto music than to theater. Glenn Gould stopped playinglive at some point because he thought that perform ing music in a concert hall was like a staging- it in volved a degree of falsehood. So he began recordingin his studio and broadcasting his music on the radio.He would record each Goldberg Variation many timesover, until he go t it right.

C A: Well, a character in Spanish is called apersonaje and that term also is related to personality.An actor is someone trained to represent a character- a carryover from the theater. We could get intoStanislavski's method acting: you'll playa soldier inthe film, so you have to eat like a soldier, dress likeone, and almost travel to Vietnam fo r a few days soyou're able to get into character. In my opinion this isnot only completely unnecessary in film; it's also quitesad, because when you see the film, instead of a human being, you'll only be able to see the character thatthe actor is representing. Just like with locations, I'minterested in seeing human beings. Some people thinkthat my films lack plots - they don't, it's just that for methe plot is a skeleton from which things are hung, andnot the who le point of a film. When people talk abouta film being "a good story" they don't get it. The storyis there so everything else can be st ructured aroundit . The Surrender of Breda by Velasquez is famous notbecause of the story; it's much more interesting toread about it in a history book . It's about how it's painted. The same can be said about Rubens's paintingsof mythological figures. So when w rit ing Silent Light(I'm talking about it simply because it's my more re cent film), I had in mind a character who causes hiswife so much pain that she dies. I, more or less, hadimagined who he was, where he lived, but had avoideddescribing what he looked like because I wanted thehuman being I encountered at a given moment to fillin that part. I'm often asked about how I cast people.It's very simple; there's no technique. It' s as if some-one asked me how I go about liking a woman. There'sno science to it. You've had certain experiences in lifethat have determined your personality, and so you sim ply see a woman you like, and know that you like he r,you don't need to rationalize it. It's the same with myactors. I met Cornelio, ate some shrimp w ith him inCuauhtemoc, Chihuahua, and realized that the traits ofthis character who I had imagined all of a sudden werestarting to fade and we re being replaced by Cornelio'shumanity.

There's a chemistry between the actors and methat seeps into the films. If they seem funny, me lancholic, pleasant, or unpleasant to you, you'd be likely


7/9

BOMB111to feel the same way about them if you were to meetthem in real life. Once I meet the human being, I beginto adapt the character for him or her, instead of the other way, which is more common, of asking the actor toadapt in order to complete the character. Some peopleargue something that to me seems like a sophism they say that everyone is always acting, that we're allcharacters in the theater of life. That's one thing, andacting, or pretending. when you've got a camera infront of you is entirely different. That frustrates me,because it involves putting on a mask. I much preferto see someone contribute their presence to a film. Inthis sense film is like portrait photography; I'm thinkingof Richard Avedon's work. fo r instance. When you seehis photographs the soul of the flesh-and -blood personbefore the camera manages to emerge. To lose thatin cinema is a shame to me . My actors are, say, likedogs, a sunset, or a tree - beings offering their presences. I obviously do not say this pejoratively. on thecontrary. I ask them to offer their presence; wh ich ismuch deeper and sophisticated than their professionalacting technique.J C: I'd like to connect your notion of presences in your films to the way in which your fi lms areexperienced. The imagery in your films is arresting;it overtakes the viewer 's senses, not only their sight,beckoning an array of emotions. This might be relatedto music. The last take in Japan juxtaposes Arvo Part's"Cantus in Memory of Benjamin Britten" with the im-age of a train wreck which the camera circles, conveying the idea of a spiral leading to tragedy.

C R: It 's a descending spiral.JC : Absolutely. The other scene I'm thinking of

is that of an engine running at a gas station and thechants by pilgrims walking on the highway in Battlein Heaven, for which you chose Bach's "St. MatthewPassion."

C R: It's actually one of his clavichord concertos.J C: I can 't think of anyone who's been able to

articulate a momen t of perfect attunement between amodern industrial experience and Bach. That's whenfilms cease to be merely visual; the presences in themattain, all of a sudden, humanity.

C R: Or resplendence.J C: Do you also conceive of that when writing

the screenplay?C R: I can imagine it, yes. For the gas -stationscene, I imagined the conjunction of something sacredand something aU too human and mundane, an engine.Only humans can create music and engines. One is themost poetic, divine, ethereal of our inventions. and theother the most practical, the most functional, but bothare distinctly human. Again, some people would question the idea of hearing Bach at a gas station- we goback to the idea of the lowest common denominator.Can one only hear cumbias, soccer matches, and news

76on the radio? I'm glad you brought up Battle in Heaven;it's my problem child, and therefore the film of mine Ilove the most. It's full of that type of juxtapositions .

J C: I won't get into why Battle in Heaven is yourproblem child; that's probably related to what somepeople perceived as the film 's shock value. I'd rathertalk about the role of the human body in the fil m . Youdepict a bodily humanism; in other words, it's no t onlythat the body is a repository of anguish, desperation,and moral dilemmas, but also feel ings expressed andexperienced through sweat, groans, and wrinkles.

C R: Actually I do want to address the issue ofthose images that people find shocking. If you thinkabout it, what's so outrageous about a naked obesewoman? There are plenty of astonishing images in oth er films with flying cars and such ... What you find in myfilms you see any ordinary day: a gas station, a hunterkilling an animal. people making love. I'm not trying toimpress anyone with those images; they make sensein the context of my films . People feel uncomfortableseeing a beheaded pigeon. What's the big deal? WithBattle in Heaven some people accused me of film-ing monstrous people making love and then showingthat to the public. How did they come up with that?My subjects never seemed monstrous or grotesqueto me. Mexico has the second highest rate of obesityin the world. My subjects are overweight, and yes, Ifi lmed them making love, and walking, and I love themand that's it. Whoever thinks I'm depicting somethingshocking is a hypocrite who thinks that what he or shewould prefer not to see simply doesn't exist . For methe real is beautiful. Blood is beautiful if it's real, but abeautiful woman and a beautiful house are horrible tome if they're not authentic. All those feel-good thingsto me feel reallv bad- their falsehood is depressing. Ican't believe that in England, the country that birtheddemocracy, Japan, to this date, is censored: they cutthe scenes in which the pigeon is killed and the village'sveterinarian tickles a little dog. The country with themost infamous colonial history thinks that by censoring my film they've paid fo r thei r sins!

JC : I don't think you've ever referred to yourfilms as ar t films, although they do represent an alternate type of cinematic production.

C R: Ninety-nine percent of fi lms are part of theentertainment business. Even so-called independentfilm is still a business. Most films screened at Sundanceare simply a poor man's Hollywood film - they have thesame formula, the same structure, the same mechanisms . . A man looking fo r a woman on a road tripacross the United States. The soundtrack. a minimalist piano piece.

I was talking to my brother recently, and he men tioned James Cameron's Avatar. I told him I hadn'theard anything about it, and he couldn't believe I wasso out of it I didn't even know the film existed. That


8/9

FILM / CARLOS REYGADASsam e day I saw Bela Tarr's Werkmeister Harmonies .What beauty! I cou ldn ' t believe my eyes! Yet if mybrother were to see it, it'd be nothing bu t a trippedout black-and -white Hungarian film to him. There's nopoint in trying to explain to him what he's missing - it'sa shame. Werkmeister Harmonies is truly an ar t fjlm: itmasterfully reveals the nature of existence.

J C: How do you experience other peop le'sfilms? You're not a film buff, though you obviously enjoy films .C R: I'm not interested in referential films; that'swhy I don't like some of Godard's more famous films.I appreciate his daring, but I don't like the demonstrational quality of his films, thei r didact icism, theoreticalapproach, and filmic references. I guess it's one thingif you spent your entire adolescence watching movies. I spent mine digging in the dirt, with schoolmates,breaking things. I take pleasure in small things: feeding my dogs, walking around, feeling the sheets of mybed on my body, using my chainsaw, listening to GlennGould's superslow 1983 recordings of the GoldbergVariations . I can have a great time not having any artisticexperiences per se and simp ly talking with my wife ora friend, or doing math with the calculator on my cellphone . Ultimately, I really enjoy making films. I lovecasting, scouting for locations, shooting the film . It 'sthe actual experience that I most enjoy. I'm fascinatedby film's materials, building a take, thinking about thelight. And mixing the sound, I really enjoy all of that. Ideal with those processes myself.J C: Is it painful labor, or does it all flownaturally?

C R: It 's not painful at all. I'm happy from theminute I start thinking of a film until I emerge from thetunnel, so to speak. I even en joy the sUbtitling process.The materialization of a vision that up till then was onlyon paper unfolds before your very eyes.

J C: You made a film called Serenghetti for theRotterdam Film Festival. Is the film more in a documentary vein?

C A: I shot a match in a nearby soccer field, butit's not a documentary. In my own experience, the dif ference between genres has vanished. My film is "fiction,"though I used "real" materials. Silent Light could beseen as a better documentary on Mennonites in Mexicothan one produced by National Geographic. They'll tellyou the whereabouts and indexes of Mennonites inMexico, but you'll never see them making love, havingan intimate conversation, bathing with their families ina pool, or dying. What I recently filmed fo r the MexicanRevolution's bicentennial celebration is perhaps moreakin to a '70s happening: it is a short film about a gathering which includes food, conversation, music, chil dren playing, and a bonfire. It's about freedom.

JC: Ideally it'd be screened at galleries insteadof movie houses.

77C A: Yes . The same with the soccer match .JC : In relationship to your audience, what

would be the measure of your success, what bringsyou satisfaction?

C R : I have a brutal ambition to materialize myvision so I can share it with others. I wouldn't makefilms otherwise. And it doesn't matter to me if there'sone person or 3,000 who like what they see. I remember professors saying, "I'll be satisfied if even one ofyou sitti ng here ends up practicing criminal procedurallaw." It's completely true. You know you connectedwith someone if only one person laughs at your jokes.Film prizes are frankly absurd. When have sympho nies co mpeted against each other? People say CitizenKane is better than Werkmesiter Harmonies - it's likesaying a pine tree is better than a rose, or milk betterthan beer.Translated from the Spanish by Camino Detorrela

SUBSCRIBE ATBOMBSITE COM

L


9/9

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Title:

Source:

ISSN:

Publisher:

Carlos Reygadas

Bomb no111 Spr 2010 p. 70-7

0743-3204

New Art Publications, Inc.

80 Hanson Place, Suite 703, Brookly, NY 11217

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced

with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is

prohibited.

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or makeany representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Documents

Entrevista Con Reygadas Otra