The recent court ruling that affects the Colombian film November has generated a debate about the limits between the freedom of artistic creation and the protection of the good name of the victims of the Colombian conflict.
According to the statement issued by the production company Burning, since last October 20, the notice was included that it was a fictional production, but based on real events, which is why “The work maintains its artistic and functional character.”
Now you can follow us on our WhatsApp Channel and in Facebook.
And he adds that this additional information should have been included in all copies, trailers and promotional materials both in Colombia and abroad, in compliance with the order issued by the 128th Municipal Criminal Court of Bogotá:
“The work is a fiction based on real events. Any resemblance to real people does not imply a historical claim. This notice is included in compliance with a court order issued by a Colombian authority.”
The decision came from a guardianship filed by the family of magistrate Manuel Gaona, murdered during the military takeover and retaking of the Courthouse in 1985who argued that the work violated their “honor and good name.”
According to information collected by the Spanish newspaper The Country reported that Judge Danilo Valero Huertas demanded the elimination of a dialogue within the film, in which one of the characters states that Gaona was “nail and dirt with these terrorists”which in the judicial interpretation implied an alleged connivance or complicity with the M-19 guerrilla group that carried out the takeover.
For the magistrate’s family, this was considered harmful, as it damaged his good name and honor.
The feature film, directed by Tomás Corredor and world premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival, It recreates the events from the perspective of those who were trapped in the palace bathrooms during the twenty-eight hours of the assault and the operations of the public force to recover it.
The film recently hit national billboards, generating mixed reactions in public opinion. Additionally, Burning reported in its statement that it recognized that the ruling “limits the rights to artistic creation and expression.”but assured that he would abide by the ruling “with total responsibility and transparency.”
In this regard, Corredor highlighted that the film “was always approached as a fictional expression,” and stressed: “The work of the screenwriter is not that of a historian or a journalist, but that of a creator protected by the fundamental right to freedom of expression and artistic creation.”
But this was not the only thing the author of the film said, as he confirmed that The stated phrase has already been removed from all copies on display and made public that he will appeal the decision “by filing the corresponding legal remedies,” since the ruling can be appealed in the second instance, alleging artistic freedom.
The reason for the controversy lies in the representation of one of the victim magistrates as an alleged collaborator of the insurgents, a characterization that the relatives have considered insulting, while the filmmakers maintain that it is a fictional vision of the events.
The producer defended that the film, Corredor’s debut film, It mainly seeks to “invite us to look again and recognize the weight of the wounds that do not fully heal” around one of the most painful chapters in the recent history of Colombia.
With the inclusion of the mandatory notice and the modification of the scripts, the production company reaffirmed its intention to comply with the court order to avoid new sanctions while the appeal process continues.
