For most college-age women, being locked inside a bathroom with an older gentleman for over 24 hours would be a less-than-enjoyable experience. This is exactly the stage that is set by Spanish director David Trueba in his film “Madrid, 1987.”
Not to mention the fact that the two main characters spend most of the movie naked with only a small bath towel to share between them. Trueba’s film, which was an official selection at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival, uses this situation as the basis for its plot.
This Spanish-language period piece tells the story of an encounter between young journalism student Ãngela (MarÃa Valverde) and respected news journalist Miguel (José Sacristán). Set in 1987, the film transports audiences to a Spain that was transitioning to democracy and focuses on the dialogue between Ãngela and Miguel, who each represent distinct generations and world views regarding the past, present and future of their country.
At the start of the film, Ãngela meets Miguel at a cafe and it is evident that their rendezvous will be anything but a simple interview. After sitting and talking about Ãngela’s schoolwork for a few minutes, Miguel invites her to his friend’s studio. Though she seems reluctant at first, Ãngela agrees to go along ““ despite the fact that Miguel’s intentions are clearly sexual.
Once they arrive at the studio, Miguel seems far more interested in sleeping with Ãngela than discussing his experiences as a journalist. While Ãngela is taking a shower, a naked Miguel enters the bathroom and closes the door behind him without realizing that the door can no longer be opened from the inside. The pair find themselves literally trapped until Miguel’s friend can return to set them free.
During the many hours that they are forced to spend together, their conversation takes up political, social and sexual themes as they learn from each other and discuss Spain from two very different points of view.
This film is not suited for the claustrophobic crowd or anyone uncomfortable with nudity. However, the movie does make viewers think about what can be learned from spending time with members of other generations. For example, Ãngela’s view of politics has been shaped by what she has heard from her father, a member of the Spanish military, whereas Miguel has a completely different set of opinions.
Sacristán does a commendable job of capturing and portraying the mindset of this political journalist, who now finds a completely new set of intellectual and political views in Ãngela. His quick delivery of frank, honest dialogue positions his character in a place of authority and experience. For her part, Valverde makes palpable the intense feelings of uncertainty and vulnerability that Ãngela exhibits.
The problem with this film is that is seems to drag on for a little too long. While their situation is alarming at first, Ãngela and Miguel eventually seem to run out of things to talk about, and we can only hope that they will be released from their bathroom prison sooner rather than later.
Given this precarious situation, though, Sacristán and Valverde remain faithful to their characters and do their best to maintain the engaging dynamic that keeps viewers interested in the plot. In one scene, Miguel tells Ãngela to imagine that they are watching a movie and describes an imaginary film to her in order to pass the time. Once the characters get over the fact that they will be stuck together for a while, they become more comfortable in their nudity and reach a point of purposeful dialogue.
If nothing else, this film will make audiences think about the history of their own countries and the different perspectives from which we view the events of the past.
And it might also remind people to keep a spare key handy in case of emergencies.
““ Andrea Seikaly
Email Seikaly at aseikaly@media.ucla.edu.