9.2 Third Cinema: films from and about the Global South

Third Cinema's Historical Context

Third Cinema emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a revolutionary film movement from the Global South. It directly challenged Hollywood and European cinema traditions by centering the experiences and struggles of marginalized communities in developing nations. Rather than treating film as entertainment or personal artistic expression, Third Cinema treated it as a political weapon.

Emergence and Influences

The term "Third Cinema" was coined by Argentine filmmakers Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino in their 1969 manifesto "Toward a Third Cinema." That manifesto called for a fundamentally new kind of filmmaking, one that was politically engaged and revolutionary in purpose. It rejected the idea that cinema from the Global South should imitate Western models.

The movement didn't appear in a vacuum. It grew directly out of the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles sweeping the world at the time:

• The Cuban Revolution (1959) and its emphasis on cultural decolonization
• The Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), which inspired Frantz Fanon's writings on colonial violence
• The Vietnam War, which galvanized global opposition to Western imperialism

These political upheavals convinced filmmakers that cinema needed to do more than reflect reality. It needed to help change it.

Challenging Dominant Cinema Traditions

Third Cinema filmmakers saw both Hollywood and European art cinema as perpetuating colonial and capitalist ideologies, even when those industries didn't intend to. Hollywood (which they called First Cinema) sold spectacle and consumption. European art cinema (Second Cinema) elevated the individual auteur's vision but still catered primarily to Western audiences and aesthetics.

Third Cinema rejected both models. Its goal was to create films that prioritized the perspectives, struggles, and aspirations of people in the Global South on their own terms, not filtered through Western expectations.

Third Cinema's Characteristics

Political and Social Engagement

The defining feature of Third Cinema is that political and social engagement comes first. These films aren't primarily trying to entertain or showcase formal innovation. They're trying to raise consciousness and inspire action.

To achieve this, Third Cinema filmmakers frequently adopted a documentary-like aesthetic:

• Non-professional actors drawn from the communities being depicted
• Location shooting in real neighborhoods, villages, and workplaces rather than studios
• A focus on everyday lives and struggles of ordinary people rather than exceptional heroes

Many of these films also incorporated elements of direct political agitation. Solanas and Getino's own The Hour of the Furnaces (1968), for example, was designed to be screened in secret gatherings and paused for audience discussion, turning the viewing experience itself into a form of political organizing.

Challenging Cinematic Conventions

Third Cinema didn't just challenge what mainstream cinema showed. It challenged how cinema told stories.

• Many films rejected linear narrative structures, using episodic, fragmented, or dialectical forms instead. The goal was to prevent passive consumption and push viewers toward critical thinking.
• Filmmakers experimented with form and style not for aesthetic novelty, but to create a more politically subversive viewing experience. Techniques like direct address to the camera, intertitles with statistics, and jarring juxtapositions of footage were common.
• Production itself was often collective and collaborative. Third Cinema filmmakers frequently rejected the notion of the individual auteur, favoring a more democratic and participatory mode of production where the community had a voice in shaping the film.

Social Justice in Third Cinema

Representing Marginalized Communities

Third Cinema films center working-class, indigenous, and other marginalized communities, giving screen time and narrative authority to people who had been historically underrepresented or actively misrepresented in mainstream cinema.

This was a deliberate counter to the stereotypical and exoticized representations of the Global South common in Western film. Where Hollywood might depict a Latin American country as a backdrop for adventure or a site of chaos, Third Cinema showed those same places through the eyes of the people who actually lived there.

By centering these perspectives, Third Cinema aimed to do more than "include" marginalized voices. It sought to redefine whose stories counted as universal and whose knowledge was considered legitimate.

Critiquing Colonialism and Imperialism

A core concern of Third Cinema is exposing how the legacies of colonialism and imperialism continue to shape global inequalities long after formal independence. These films explore:

• Economic exploitation, such as how multinational corporations extract wealth from formerly colonized nations
• Political oppression, including the role of Western-backed authoritarian regimes
• Cultural hegemony, or the way Western values, languages, and narratives are imposed as "normal" while local cultures are devalued

Third Cinema films offer alternative histories and perspectives that challenge dominant Western narratives. They don't just critique the colonizer's version of events; they actively construct counter-narratives rooted in the experiences and knowledge systems of the Global South.

Celebrating Resistance and Revolution

Third Cinema doesn't only document suffering. It portrays the resilience, resistance, and revolutionary potential of oppressed peoples.

A key distinction here: these films typically depict collective struggles against oppressive systems rather than stories of individual heroism. The community, not the lone protagonist, drives the narrative. This is itself a political choice, reinforcing the idea that liberation is a shared project, not a personal triumph.

By highlighting the agency and power of marginalized communities, Third Cinema seeks to move audiences from awareness to action.

Third Cinema vs. Other Movements

Distinguishing from First and Second Cinema

The "Third" in Third Cinema is a deliberate contrast:

The distinction isn't strictly geographic. A film made in Latin America that imitates Hollywood formulas would be First Cinema. A politically radical film made in Europe could share Third Cinema's goals. The categories are about ideology and purpose, not just place of origin.

Similarities and Differences with Other Political Cinemas

Third Cinema shares common ground with other politically engaged film movements:

• Soviet montage cinema (Eisenstein, Vertov) also used editing as a tool for political consciousness-raising
• Italian Neorealism similarly used non-professional actors and location shooting to depict working-class life

What makes Third Cinema distinct is its specific focus on the Global South and its roots in anti-colonial struggle. It also drew inspiration from broader decolonial cultural movements, including Latin American magical realism in literature, the Négritude movement in Francophone Africa and the Caribbean, and the Black Arts Movement in the United States.

Critiques and Legacy

Third Cinema has faced criticism from multiple directions. Some argue that its emphasis on political didacticism and collective production can limit artistic and expressive possibilities, making films feel more like lectures than cinema. Others counter that this directness is precisely what gives the movement its revolutionary force.

As the global film industry has become increasingly transnational, the boundaries of Third Cinema have blurred. Yet its legacy is visible in the work of contemporary filmmakers from the Global South who continue to use cinema as a tool for social and political critique. Directors working across Africa, Latin America, and South and Southeast Asia still draw on Third Cinema's principles, even as they experiment with new forms, digital technologies, and hybrid aesthetics that Solanas and Getino couldn't have anticipated.