1.
This film is an aesthetic provocation. The language it proposes does not emulate the languages ​​of productions made with capital, it creates its own language from poverty, not to describe poverty, but to express from poverty. We do not show marginalized people, from a supposed documentary objectivity, but we collectively recreate, from the margins, the dreams of revenge that marginality produces.

2.
Yes, the movie is difficult to watch. This is because we are reformulating language. A new language tailored to our marginal production conditions, because we cannot continue creating with the criteria of oppression. A language really born on the margins has to be, from its very foundations, different from the languages ​​produced in the centers of wealth. Paraphrasing Evita, we can say that only a language born out of poverty can free audiovisual production from the conditioning of the privileged. The film should be judged on its own law, which is the one proposed by itself. A law of the margins.

3.
So our films look poor technically, but they are rich in linguistic proposal. We follow Fernando Birri’s aphorism “a technically perfect cinema is immoral in an imperfect world”. Our films are messy, but neatness is a petty bourgeois value. Our films are militantly poor and untidy.

4.
We sincerely believe that the future, not only of cinema, but of all humanity, in these moments of dizzying concentration of the world’s wealth, lies in the creation of languages ​​that defy the censorship imposed by concentrated capital. Censorship of substance and form. A language born on the margins, with different canons of excellence and commitment. A language born from the tradition of guerilla cinema. A language such as that of The Triumph of Sodom.

5.
The film is a political provocation in its content. As we are working on the margins, we take the opportunity to say everything that can only be said on the margins. It would not make sense to make a guerrilla film without a guerrilla content. Thus we have crossed the line in many respects. No institution has intervened in it, and it would never have passed the filter of any institution. We hoist this with pride: The Triumph of Sodom is the most extreme film to come out in a long time in the Spanish-speaking world.

6.
The Triumph of Sodom is declamatory and the characters are unambiguous. Ambiguity, at a time of the global resurgence of fascism, has turned reactionary. We have reached the point where the lack of political commitment to an art that is not committed for one thing or the other, has itself become an enemy to fight. We refuse to continue to accept ambiguity as a positive value.

7.
We find again the ambiguity on a broader level, in the black humor that relates it to the imaginary crimes of Sade, Buñuel or Lautréamont, which invert the moral foundations of reality. We rediscover it on the line that separates real action from the absolute freedom that we must defend in artistic simulation. Here no one really thinks of going out to castrate straight males, but it does help them to imagine themselves without the overwhelming weight of their genitals.

8.
In a world of clones and photocopies. The triumph of Sodom is unique, you will not find another like it. Difficult to label, it resets the possibilities of fiction, makes fun of technical limitations and expands the limits of documentary.

9.
Its production is strictly marginal. A significant part of the participants are marginal. We are or have been in circumstances of prostitution or in situations of extreme social vulnerability. From there we collectively recreate our visions of anger, hope and humor against all established order.

10.
Produced without money, all its work has been for militancy, with the commitment not to betray our joint artistic freedom and the same mission: to subvert capitalist morality, cement the fall of patriarchy and stimulate the liberation of bodies, because The Triumph of Sodom It is also The Triumph of Love.