La Bola Zaina: the Spanish film dividing audiences

The film with Oscar buzz that sparks insults

Is it worth watching a film that has generated this level of polarization? La Bola Zaina has landed in cinemas with the promise of an award and a trail of mutual insults. Those who defend it speak of a great film with packed theatres and real Oscar chances. Those who attack it do not question its technical quality, but its ideological slant: an alleged pamphlet that, according to its critics, portrays the Second Republic as a haven of freedom and the Nationalist side as the oppressor. Between the two extremes lies an uncomfortable fact: almost nobody who rejects it admits having seen it.

The case made by its defenders

The defence of the film rests on three pillars. First, the artistic one: its cinematography and editing are acknowledged as first-rate, even from hostile positions. Second, the cultural one: its contribution to the figure of García Lorca, a character the film portrays, is highlighted. And third, the narrative one: it is insisted that there are no schematic goodies and baddies because one of the protagonists is on the Nationalist side.

The most repeated argument is that the film does not judge, it shows. That it depicts the repression of gaiity under Franco's regime, and that anyone scandalized by that should ask themselves why it bothers them. The implicit conclusion: the rejection is not cinematic, it is political.

The case made by its detractors

The criticism does not focus on quality. It focuses on the message. It is argued that the film presents the Second Republic as a space of freedom and happiness against a Nationalist side portrayed as the oppressor. The historical fact of the repression is not disputed, but the ideological framework surrounding it.

Some go further and speak of a disguised red pamphlet, of art prostituted in the service of an agenda. And some simply say they will not spend their money promoting that kind of cinema. The most repeated stance among critics: I have not seen it and I never will.

The problem of polarization

The exchange quickly degenerates. Defenders accuse critics of ideological prejudice. Critics accuse defenders of not arguing, only insulting. And in the middle, one detail nobody disputes: the film has filled theatres, which suggests the general public is not in either of the two loudmouth camps.

The paradox is that a film about the repression of difference has generated a debate where nobody listens. Some see a masterpiece. Others see a pamphlet. Almost nobody sees the film.

What the release figures say

Concrete box office figures do not appear in the exchange. What is repeated is the perception of packed theatres and the expectation of an award. The comparison with other titles on similar themes —Lorca, the Civil War, gaiity— appears as an argument of weariness: another one.

The most revealing fact is not about the box office. It is that the discussion has focused on what the film says, not how it says it. And for an industry that prides itself on valuing form, that is a defeat.