"Under the Same Moon": Mexican-government funded pro-illegal immigration propaganda film

"Under the Same Moon" is a new, Mexican government-funded movie about illegal immigration from director Patricia Riggen. The distributors are Fox Searchlight Pictures and The Weinstein Company, and the production companies listed are Creando Films (website unknown) and Potomac Pictures (potomacpictures.com). And, per movies.yahoo . com/movie/1809697065/details, the "Financier" is Fidecine, which is the Mexican government agency designed to promote the Mexican film industry: www.comisionrtc.gob.mx/fidecine

Per the director ("A Child's-eye view of immigration woe" by Delfín Vigil, sfgate . com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/14/PKK8VF33J.DTL):

"I'm not a politician, and I didn't write a political essay... I made a movie. I like entertainment and I like art. If the entertainment is meaningful, it becomes art. That's what I tried to do... [later:] ...Maybe by showing the human side, it becomes political... It's always easier to show a statistic or give the numbers on the economic impact of immigration. By showing the family impact, I think it becomes something that everybody can relate to."

In other words, it's just pro-illegal immigration propaganda. The article also confirms that "she won the trust of private investors and gained funding from the Mexican government". So, not only is it propaganda designed to support illegal immigration, it's funded by the government that profits from that illegal activity.

Two other recent propaganda efforts are described in Tim Padgett's dishonest look at illegal immigration ("Paraiso Travel" movie) and Linda Ellerbee's pro-illegal immigration propaganda for kids (Nickelodeon).

UPDATE: Reed Johnson of the Los Angeles Times offers a review in "Latino immigrants and their northern exposure" (latimes . com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-moon16mar16,1,1194882.story), and, yes, it's about what you'd expect coming from the LAT. He refers to the INS, an agency that hasn't existed for about five years. And, only on the second screen are we informed about the Mexican government link:

Shot mostly in and around Mexico City, on a budget of less than $2 million, the movie is one of only a handful of commercial films that have attempted to offer a transnational perspective on Mexican-American life. Funded in part by Mexico's national film commission...

And, Johnson takes braindead, by-the-LAT-stylebook swipes at those who support our laws:

TO all the people who think that the illegal immigration debate is about electronic fences, NAFTA, Lou Dobbs and such, director Patricia Riggen and screenwriter Ligiah Villalobos offer a polite but emphatic rebuttal... As for the thornier social issues that "Under the Same Moon" raises, the women suggest there's an urgent need to move the discussion on illegal immigration beyond talk-radio ranting...

The screenwriter also stumps for amnesty:

"I think that the issue is being hijacked by a very small group of people," says [Ligiah Villalobos]. "There are polls that are done on a regular basis about how Americans actually feel about the illegal immigrant issue. And most of the polls show that 60% to 65% of Americans believe that there should be a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants."

UPDATE 2: David Montgomery of the Washington Post offers "'Same Moon,' Seen From Cloud Nine" (washingtonpost . com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031401166.html). Despite taking up five screens, he completely fails to note anything about the movie's funding. And, like Johnson, he gets in his own braindead digs:

Turns out that generations ago [Riggens'] people immigrated to the United States, and her great-grandfather fought in the Civil War. Then that same loco great-gramps, William Henry Riggen, lit out to make a new life -- in Mexico. No word on whether he had proper immigration papers.

Obviously, Montgomery is too much of an idiot to understand how Mexico's laws are far more restrictive than those in the U.S.

And, Lewis Beale of the New York Daily News offers "La Misma Luna," an immigration drama with a novela touch (nydailynews . com/latino/2008/03/14/2008-03-14_la_misma_luna_an_immigration_drama_with_.html). As with the preceding, he doesn't note the Mexican government connection.

UPDATE 3: I left a comment on the NYDN article, which was subsequently deleted. I left it again, let's see if it sticks this time:

[This comment was deleted before, despite not violating the NYDN's "Discussion Guidelines". Apparently they don't want you to know this.] What Lewis Beale "forgot" to tell you is that the movie was financed by the Mexican government: https://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007545.html It's propaganda designed to support illegal immigration, and financed by the govenment that profits from that illegal activity.

UPDATE 4: Lilia O'Hara of the San Diego Union Tribune offers "'Moon' director looks at 'the most powerful relationship that exists'" (signonsandiego . com/news/features/20080317-9999-1c17riggen.html), only saying that it was "binationally financed". How creative of her.

UPDATE 5: Iain Blair of Reuters offers "Mexican film puts human face on immigration" (news.yahoo . com/s/nm/20080321/film_nm/riggen_dc); like the rest, it doesn't reveal the financing. Likewise with the review from Peter Rainer of The Christian Science Monitor (csmonitor . com/2008/0321/p12s02-almo.html).

UPDATE 6: Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly also forgot to mention the funding.


That's a really annoying thing about anti-immigration law enforcement types. Even the most extreme ones absurdly claim they are neutral, balanced, etc. They say they welcome a debate but want to marginalize anyone who disagrees with them as not being a legitimate voice. This is not just those who speak what they consider 'hate'. No, if a racist might agree with some of your policy positions, you might need to be kicked off the air to protect the public from even the possibility of hate being fomented from your words. La Raza's head even specifically says the First Amendment should not apply but I'm sure she welcomes rigorous debate amongst those who already agree with her. They are sanctimonious and all but say God is on their side (usually not a good sign). Only they want to solve the problem and accuse the other side of demagoguery and NOT wanting to solve the problem even if that side has a thought out plan or proposed legislation. No, even then they can only be rabble-rousers.* And it's often strongly implied that these rabble are racists or its various code words, which they consider a rather significant % of the public**. There's always a condescending reference to volume--enforcement proponents should be dismissed as crazed shouters as opposed to their calm voices of reason like Emma Lozano. Of course, 'solve the problem' can only mean amnesty. If there's no amnesty in your plan, it's a scientific law that none of it can work even when it's stuff we say will work splendidly as part of comprehensive immigration reform--logical and consistent they are not. We're gonna keep calling all Americans who disagree with us names so that they'll keep quiet and not act whenever we try to get our legislation passed. And the anti-enforcement side has the market cornered on honesty, what with the constant playing of the mass deportation straw man, even by presidential candidates. They constantly accuse your side of spreading 'myths' but apparently feel entitled to shamelessly peddle that complete fabrication. * 'In the Senate, a small group of Republican senators has introduced a series of deportation-only bills -- including an employment verification bill -- aimed only at escalating the rhetoric, rather than searching for solutions' -- Frank Sharry ** 'An unvarying 20% to 25% of voters are bitterly anti-immigrant: determined to close the borders, send illegal workers home, cut back even legal immigration quotas. Although they are a minority, these xenophobes are loud and intense' -- Tamar Jacoby

Look people its time to fight or become mexico. what do you want?

Maybe your comment was taken down because you used it to promote yourself and tried to get people to read your paranoid nonsense. Your comments are freeloading advertising for yourself.

Calling "Under the Same Moon" propaganda is strange. Considering the propagated source that you come from. With your classification you could call all studio films propaganda. Considering all studio budgeted films get some kind of "financial assistance" through "in-kind" incentives from every state agency film commission in the union. Under the Same Moon is a film that portrays a human interest story. The way your right about it is as-if the movie does not represent actual real life. Which it does. The film was financed through a government "art assistance" program in Mexico. We'd be so lucky to have something similar in America. But we don't, unfortunately. I'm guessing the NEA is not something you support because some how it would represent propaganda from American artists. Take the time to understand economics and how it relates to the film industry. You'll be surprised at what you'll find. You should just pony up that you simply disagree with the message of the film. You need to take responsibility for your feelings and understand that this film is a work of art and has no merits being involved in a political propaganda conspiracy. Films do not change peoples minds, they simply support what the viewer already believes. Besides, by the tone of your post it's seems to me that you need to use your head a little less often and open your heart. _

I can'r believe anyone would quote Tamar Jacoby on anything. Her whole ideology is death to the United States. She is stalwart on the fake Global War oin Terror. She supports the Stalinist police state we are evolving into. She is an ardent supporter of national suicide by free trade. She has no respect for the Bill of Rights as it gets in the way of the Global War on Terror. She will support without reservation Israel's ethnic cleansings of Palestinians. She is heavily connected with the Council on Foreign Relations. Even her husband smells. At one time he was a heavy heroin user. She is morally bankrupt. I would like lawful government, but Jacoby coudn't stand for it as it cut down on a lot of gaming of the system. I support legal immigration as well as constitutional government. Jacoby would support jacobinism.