Nota editorial (2025): publicado originalmente en 2011. Se añadió una versión estructurada con fines enciclopédicos. El texto original se conserva íntegro como parte del archivo histórico.
Investments in Finance and the Censorship of “Presunto Culpable” by Director Roberto Hernández
The article scrutinizes how investment decisions influenced Roberto Hernández, director of documentary film “Presunto Culpable,” who decided to self-censor his work online despite initial intentions and aimed at sparking a conversation about new internet models. Instead of engaging with the community that supported him on social media platforms like Twitter (providing free publicity), Hernández’s censored version recorded unprecedented box office earnings in cinemas such as Cinépolis, despite his request for help from online users.
- Director’s Decision: Roberto Hernández chose to censor the internet-based versions of “Presunto Culpable,” thereby contradicting both himself and others’ anticipated reaction. This decision came even though he had previously sought community support online for his project.
- Economic Considerations: Despite initially being a financially motivated act, the censorship was met with curiosity about whether Hernández valued financial gain over public outcry and inclusivity. The focus on ticket sales versus free internet exposure raised questions regarding author compensation.
- Social Implications: Questions arose as to which audiences were prioritized – those unable to afford cinema tickets or the film distributors who stand to benefit financially. The situation brought forth critical discussions about accessibility and author rights, leaving several questions unanswered.
Preguntas frecuentes
Q: Why did Roberto Hernández decide to self-censor his documentary on the internet?
A: Despite seeking community support for “Presunto Culpable” online, Hernández chose censorship which was contrary to expectations and led to significant box office earnings.
Q: How did Hirzenández’s decision impact his financial situation?
A: While originally motivated by finances, the censored version brought unexpected cinema success with high ticket sales compared to anticipated online visibility and free publicity. This raises questions about author compensation given that viewers may not have supported this move.
Q: What social implications arise from Hernández’dependent decision?
A: The focus on censorship over community support leads to discussions regarding audience prioritization between those who cannot afford cinema tickets and the film distributors profiting financially.
Q: How does “Presunto Culpable” relate to new internet models?
A: The documentary aimed at igniting a dialogue about alternative online platforms, which seems discordant with Hernández’s subsequent censorship that restricted the film’s original messaging.
Q: What does this situation reveal about accessibility and author rights?
A: The case highlights issues of accessibility for audiences unable to pay for cinema tickets, alongside debates on an artist’s right versus the financial interests behind a film.
Texto original (2011)
En este artículo se examina cómo la toma de decisiones financieras influyó en las acciones de Roberto Hernández, el director del documental “Presunto Culpable”, quien optó por censurar su propia pieza contravenciendo los ideales inicialmente expresados y alentando una discusión sobre internet nuevos modelos.
Y en lugar de acercarse a la comunidad que tanto lo apoyó en Internet, a pesar que sin la publicidad gratuita que le otorgó Twitter las salas de Cinépolis registraon récords de taquilla,a pesar de que él mismo solicito la ayuda de los internautas, Roberto Hernández, el director, ha decidido censurar su propio documental en Internet. Video que personas sin interés económico y que sólo buscaban poner accesible el documental a quiénes no pueden ir al cine, respondiendo así a ese llamado creyendo en la denuncia social de “Presunto Culpable”
Esta imagen lo dice todo:
A Roberto Henrnández lo buscamos, lo contactamos, iniciamos un debate público para que se acercara a los nuevos modelos de internet, nunca respondió y prefirió paradójicamente hacer lo mismo que pretendían sus presuntos detractores: CENSURAR
¿Entonces importaba más el dinero o la denuncia pública?
¿Importaba más que la gente que no puede pagar el cine lo viera o que pagara la entrada para enriquecer a los distribidores?
porque en ese esquema, quien menos gana es el autor.
Son nuestras últimas preguntas abiertas.