Why a book on Uruguayan cinema? As most of us know, Uruguay is not necessarily well known for film production. Whereas Uruguayan literature has been widely acclaimed and recognised for several decades thanks to writers such as Mario Benedetti, Eduardo Galeano, Juan Carlos Onetti, Juana de Ibarborou and Idea Vilariño, it was not until the beginning of this century that Uruguayan films started to gain more attention. This seems to be very clear to the many people that throughout the years have asked me: ‘is there any cinema in Uruguay?’, ‘I didn't know films were made in Uruguay’, ‘I';ve heard of one… I think it was called Whisky, am I right? Or is it from Argentina?’ ‘Do you have enough material for a book?’ And ‘how many films were made in Uruguay?’ I would not blame anyone for these honest reactions. On the contrary, this kind of question triggered many others in me: what concept of cinema did they have in mind? Were they only thinking about film shot on celluloid? Or would they also consider films recorded on video? How should I respond to the question on quantity? Should I count only fiction features? Or would short documentaries be seen as samples of cinema as well? In fact, in trying to find these answers, I realised that this book would contribute not only to an exploration of Uruguayan cinema – a cinema which has been under-researched – but also to discussions on what is usually understood by the concept of ‘cinema’ and how this has changed and continues to change not only as time passes and new technologies are adopted, but also as different historical, political and economic contexts are taken into account.

The present work emphasises the importance of broadening the definition of cinema, when exploring cinemas without an established film industry. Amateur, institutional, documentary and animated film made in diverse film gauge and video formats should be placed on an equal footing to avoid discarding most of the production. Moreover, both the text and the materiality of these films are key elements to be analysed. In line with current approaches to film history, this work considers that it is important to explore those practices which, as Charles R. Acland and Haidee Wasson put it, are ‘beyond questions of art and entertainment’ and have not been exclusively made on 35mm film stock.