Monos, a Colombian film directed by Alejandro Landes, undoubtedly shows us large and deep layers of reality that are proposed as a goal to narrate not only descriptively but also, invites us to reflect to the point of awakening our proposal skills.
In this way, the film begins to tell us from its surface, the story of a group of 8 teenagers who were trained by a guerrilla to serve as soldiers, taking as a theoretical framework, of course, the Colombian armed conflict. The plot continues to talk about the kidnapping of a hostage, and how the central argument revolves, apparently around this.
However, from this moment on it is already beginning to be seen that this work does not only want to be one more of the set of works without a real educational proposal and only endowed with entertainment purposes. It allows us to appreciate the internal conflict that each character has, and how it relates to the narrative of the war.
Therefore, we are given a panorama with many emotions, with very rough scenes, but with a background well beyond what can be seen from a first approach. It tells us about human nature, how we react to different contexts, the existence of different causes of our problems and feasible solutions.
Understood in this way, here the film acquires a reach not only at the level of society, when it is concerned with imitating its reality, but also, a reach from the scope of our civilization. Monos, allows us to realize that there are dilemmas so internalized in our consciences, that we no longer perceive them as problems.
With this logic, it is that our first SDG appears as the secret central focus of the narrative: reduction of inequality. It is implicit in the work that it starts from the reasons that the protagonists are performing in that context, it is from the fact that there are those who benefit from this. These people would, in principle, be their direct bosses, but it is also not wrong to think that there would be members of the State who would benefit from this hypothetical armed conflict. The fact that the characters live like that, that they have been poor, and that they come from demographically poor families, tells us about the relationship between inequality and violence.
In a similar sense, education plays a very important role here. What has been said previously is explained because it is clear that adolescents do not have a formal education, but most of what they know, and therefore most of what drives them to behave the way they behave, they have learned in the mountains.
It is thus that we are revealed the importance of providing our youngest generations with quality education, where they are prepared for a good future, and a future in which they are kind, because they have the means to earn enough resources, so that they do not have to be harming others for their personal benefit.
Then, the relationship is denoted, in addition with the work factor, because, with a high degree of probability, if the families of the recruits had worked with dignified and favorable conditions for their correct development, their children would not have had to experience the battle. The same reality that if families and the insurgents themselves had been able to progress in the labor market, they would not have had to make themselves heard by the guns.
The foregoing makes us aware that, if a society wants to remain for long periods in peace and without conflict between its different agents, it would have to have, at least, as a requirement, a bonanza and a minimum level of well-being for all its citizens, because these citizens will not resort to violent means to achieve the satisfaction of their primary needs.
In this context we are also participants in the discussion about what must be done to achieve peace. For example, what should we be willing to give up for this goal? And the same question increases its degree of difficulty when there are no longer "good players" and "bad players", that is, when the dichotomy between black and white is lost.
It is true that, in real life, it is not as clear as in fiction, where, on several occasions, there is unquestionably defined a protagonist role and an antagonist role that functions as a counterposition. When we speak of peace, we must recognize that we all have things that can make others angry, we all have differences that make coexistence a much more complex phenomenon to achieve.
Nevertheless, we must pursue pacifism, because by the fact of being human, we are in the obligation to relate to beings of the same species, regardless of whether we like it or not. We must work on building "bridges" that connect us for a better society, not in a little utopian way, as presented in the film.
On the other hand, we achieve a transversal description of a situation that is rarely exposed when we talk about issues related to war: nature. The work places special emphasis on showing us grandiose landscapes, with unexplored roads and countless natural resources of which, at times, we are not aware.
But the film extends to give us the opportunity to think about the fact that in the world in which we live not only we live, but also there is an immeasurable quantity of species of flora and fauna, which demands us to be protected and available to recognize their extreme importance, over and above our wars.
In other words, after seeing Monos, there is an invitation to us that when we throw ourselves into battle we are not harming another person, but we are harming the entire planet on which all species live.
From another perspective, there is something that is said, though not explicitly here: the need that each society has to develop infrastructure for its exchanges and innovation to improve its standard of welfare. This circumstance is perfectly understood when it is reflected that those who participated in the armed conflict could have benefited if there were more roads, more airports, ports and, in general, more and better ways of connecting with other urban centers in their distant territories.
It becomes clear that, if the corresponding State of this film had been concerned to offer them a better interrelation with the big cities, it would have allowed them to have the opportunity to experience a better quality of life. Added to the reality that a nation should be fighting for innovation, is the process by which scientific, business and political breakthroughs accelerate progress.
Similarly, there is a connection to the prevailing state need to confront the dilemma of the fight against hunger. Monos make us appreciate the context in which most of us live: where we enjoy 3 meals a day, a roof, drinking water services, electricity, television, mobile phones and internet. However, I want to emphasize the importance of the first benefit, which is the possibility of eating well.
We must agree that, without food, we will have the tendency to do whatever it takes to get it, so there is a greater understanding of how the agents involved fight for simple survival, where they have no values of "superior" essence and only care, in most cases, for themselves.
In addition to the fact that the narrative links us to an environment where its protagonists do not have luxuries, but not only that, because they are under conditions of extreme poverty, explained, from the point of view that they have no idea why their guerrillas fight ideologically, they only have as a priority to live one day later.
Therefore, there is a clear call to governments, and to us as a society, to ensure that none of our children, teenagers, adults or older adults fight excessively for their economic sustenance.
Additionally, if we take our role in eradicating poverty, we would be contributing accurately and accurately to build something more just, equitable, and long-term, good, for absolutely every member of the society involved, found as an unexpected positive impact, peace.
With respect to the alliance for the achievement of the objectives, Monos makes us reflect that, if we take into account the previous points, and, in addition, we take into consideration the differences that we as people and organizations have. We could accelerate the influence that we have to have a good performance in the great goals that we as humanity have: climate change, fairer societies, well-being for all.
In conclusion, the film has content that transforms into possible the opportunity to bring to debate different thoughts about the network of cause-consequences in which we introduced ourselves long ago as a species, the same reflection that invites us to proactivity and the necessary proposition, if what we are looking for is a change and an improvement of a real character, independently of what our political opinions express to us.
