This chapter conciliates two different demands. On the one hand, it presents Martín Fierro as the apex of the gauchesca genre, as an intervention in political and cultural conflicts regarding the consolidation of the nation-state, the conservative order, rural capitalism, and the relationship between urban elites and rural populations, taking into consideration the two very different contexts in which both parts of the poem were written and initially read. On the other, it presents what seems to be the most impactful and widespread legacy of the poem: how, through the trope of the gaucho outlaw, the poem establishes a mode of conceiving the relationship between lettered elite and subaltern bodies and voices, when articulated to diverse (even contrasting) cultural/political projects. This articulation entails a constant redefinition of what “subaltern” may mean but always seems to assume unique uses of gaucho bodies and voices. One example would be the notion of the gaucho sociolect as the true national language and not a frontier sociolect, something unique to Latin America. How this came to be, and why, and with what consequences, are guiding questions.

After the publication of Eduardo Gutiérrez’s Juan Moreira (1879), its successful theatricaladaptation, and the numerous narratives about rebellious gauchos that followed, the set ofpractices and discourses that create a sense of belonging around the figure of the gaucho hascome to be known under the umbrella term of criollismo. Although recent research has shownthat criollismo did not disappear in the early twentieth century but converted to other nonliterary media, no approach considers the relationship between criollismo and cinema in thelong term and on a global level. In doing just this, this chapter focuses on the crossingbetween criollismo and cinema by looking at the images of the nation that gaucho-themed filmsbring into play. It explores how a repertoire of themes, characters, arguments, and landscapesdisseminated by criollista literature was adapted to film, projected globally in Hollywood movies, and then reappropriated by the local culture. Finally, it argues that this feedbackbetween criollista literature and film was fruitful until the late 1970s, when – after reaching a high level of violence – the political uses of criollismo became less massive and more sporadic.