Romero is a 1989 biopic of the Archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Romero. Produced by Paulist Pictures, the production company of a Roman Catholic sect, it aims to show the latter years of this hero and martyr’s life to better educate Americans about the work of this revered figure in Central American political and religious history. It gained $1.3 Million in the box office, mainly due to a very limited release. Critics have been somewhat critical of some aspects of the film, but they have been very satisfied with the movie’s depiction of Romero, which was the main purpose of the film.
Their critiques are focused mainly on the roles of the secondary characters, the political nature of the film or the amazingly somber nature of the entire movie. The critiques of the secondary characters have a good point in saying that they do not add anything to the film and are only there to help facilitate Romero’s character evolution. This is what secondary characters are supposed to do, however. That is why they are not primary characters. In addition to this, though, they help show many of the political and social messages that the filmmakers wanted to highlight. Romero is the focus of this movie, but as a political mouthpiece he is fairly neutral, up until the very end. The secondary characters, such as Father Grande, Lt. Columa and Mrs. Zelada, are responsible for showing the contrasts between the good and evil, and portraying the central political and social messages that will be discussed later. Another critique of the film is that the complexity of the situation in El Salvador is ignored, as is the nature of America’s involvement in the conflict. These are both good critiques, but they ignore the fact that this film was focused not on the violence in El Salvador, but the life of Archbishop Romero.
While more could have been included in the film about these movies, as it was only 102 minutes long, too much focus on them could detract from the mission of portraying Romero’s later life adequately. In my opinion, the main problem with this film was that it was clearly not produced, written and directed by major Hollywood firms. There were many good parts of the film, and it conveys a good message about a great man, but there are too many throwaway scenes, which add nothing to the film, to be present in a 102-minute film that should have probably been at least two hours. The final critique, which is echoed by many critics, is that the movie has an extremely somber mood, with no respite from terrible events. It is a sad tale, but due to the message it wanted to present there were no silver linings or pleasant distractions. Because of this it loses a lot of entertainment value and as Roger Ebert said in his review, “the film doesn’t stir many passions, and it seems more sorrowing than angry.”
While “Romero” is lacking in certain entertainment aspects it does a very good job of showing Romero and displaying many important political and social messages. The depiction of Romero is extremely true to the actuality of events, especially for Hollywood. While he was never arrested and imprisoned for any of his actions, as in the movie, he was held at a detainment camp; not a very big leap to be included in a movie. The period over which this movie takes place is during the last three years of Romero’s life, quite a short period for so much change to occur, but that is how this actually occurred. He was picked because he was thought to be a bookworm who would not stir any feathers, as in the movie, but after being confronted by the realities of the violence in El Salvador, his outward theology and rhetoric changed dramatically. One thing that is somewhat different is the downplaying of the violence in El Salvador at that time. While this might be very surprising given the violent nature of the movie, it was actually much worse in El Salvador than shown in the movie.
In displaying Romero’s life the film did a very good job, but in displaying his teachings it was somewhat lacking. While there were many direct quotes from Romero’s speeches and radio program there is not much explicit talk of liberation theology. While it can be seen within the subtext and actions of secondary characters, the producers and director clearly meant to keep this aspect of Romero’s life out of the spotlight, as it has been unpopular with both Rome and the United States government, one which is important to the creator’s organization and the other which is extremely important to the individuals who would be paying to see this film. The speech given before his death, which was meant to be heard by the military, and the circumstances are done extremely closely to how it happened in real life, a credit to the filmmaker’s attempt to stay close to the truth.
While the film’s main goal was to accurately portray the life of Archbishop Romero there are very many important social and political messages that can be found in the movie. One of the most obvious messages in this movie is the terrible effect violence can have on a society. While Romero does not espouse liberation theology much in this movie, he does in almost every scene talk about the evils of violence and how something must be done to stop it in El Salvador. He points to poverty as one of the root causes of violence, but he comes to this not because he is focused on poverty, but because the most pressing problem to him is the violence that is plaguing El Salvador. Deaths, torture and kidnappings are highlighted over and over in the movie to show how terrible the situation was there and how there was no end in sight as it kept perpetuating itself. While he is more critical of the government forces, he is wholeheartedly against the guerrillas as they too are responsible for the killing of El Salvadorans. By highlighting the violent actions of both the government and guerrillas the filmmakers show how retaliatory violence can create a self-perpetuating cycle that does nothing but bring about more violence. This was the view elicited by Romero in the movie and seems to be the most important message of the movie.
Another very important message in the movie is the negative role that capitalism and Western influence has had on countries such as El Salvador. While America’s role in funneling arms to El Salvador was pretty much ignored, except for one line from Romero mainly meant to discuss the violence in the country, the economic disparity between rich and poor in the country and the rich individuals’ responsibility for much of the violence is highlighted multiple times. One review of the film points to the focus on this message: “Every single statement in the film in favor of the free market…is articulated by the most sinister, cynical, and bloodthirsty characters in the film.” While Romero doesn’t advocate Marxism or any specific reforms to help the poor, the rest of the people around him advocate for changes such as these that go against capitalism. How the good and evil characters feel about capitalism and its effects points to the feelings of the filmmakers and helps exhibit their message that greed and inequality, two of the root causes of the distress and violence in El Salvador, stem from the reverence for and influence by Western capitalism.
“Romero” as a whole is a good portrayal of the last years of the life of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the series of events that brought about his change from shy bookworm to radical martyr. Some critics said that it missed out on discussing many important political issues, such as American involvement, but I believe that is was fairly successful at showing the problems with violence and Western capitalism while not becoming too preachy. Its extremely somber tone and violent nature hurt its entertainment value, but as an educational peace it is very successful in showing the life of this great religious leader and in bringing such a great man’s presence to the minds and hearts of Western nations.
“Romero (1989).” International Movie Database. 20 April 2009.
Ebert, Roger. “Romero.” Chicago Sun Times. 8 September 1989.
Sirico, Rev. Robert A. “Liberation Cinema: A Review of Romero.” Acton Institute. Vol. 1, No. 2.
