I have read the last comment made on this film and have to utterly and totally disagree with it.

You see, I am of Portuguese nationality and even though this film may say little to someone coming from Boston, it surely says something to both Portuguese and Brazilian people, as well as immigrants everywhere.

And why, you may wonder? Well, firstly, this film deals with two sibling nations: Portugal and Brazil. Brazil gained its independence in the early 19th century (by the hands of the heir to the Portuguese throne)and since then relations improved greatly. 

However, meaningful as this may be, there is still a lot of prejudice. Because of the economic climate in Brazil during the 1990's, immigration to Portugal grew massively. You see, Portugal is not only a country sharing a similar language, culture and beliefs as Brazil but is also a gateway to the rest of Europe. Some people were thus forced to make the decision to cross the Atlantic and look for a better life and Portugal was the first logical place to try to immigrate to. 

As it happens still with a lot of immigrants, they were paid averages below the minimum wage and were treated like "dirt" - only in this case, because the language is similar, they were constantly made aware of their status as immigrants.

Another curious thing in this film is the idea it conveys of how a man so knowledgeable of the history of his own country still tried to make a quick buck through exporting coveted national resources. It is exactly people like this that keep Brazil in a constant state of arrested development, as the country is well endowed in natural resources and could easily climb the economic ladder should it be given a fair opportunity.

In a sense, this goes to show how colonialism still exists - Pablo representing the exploited people, Igor the man whose status as a "nobleman" (or at least rich or "well off") is assured by the foreign colonialist power which is in turn represented by Kraft.

If you have seen other films by Salles you will recognize this as a recurring topic - the struggle against an oppressing power. I do not mean to lecture or be patronising as to teach anyone history but I thought this film was, symbolically speaking, very powerful. I am not saying there wasn't room for improvement (as there always is) but I think the last comment written on it was not only narrow minded but hands down ignorant.

One last thing to be said on this, I have to assume you have watched this film with the eyes of an "American film watcher". No harm intended by this remark but I mean "foreign" films cannot all be about "beautiful scenery" - Art deals with the problems of its time. You would not expect Otto Dix, for example, to paint all the lovely places in Bayern and the Black Forest... Why should you expect a film maker to focus exclusively on scenery when he feels there are more relevant issues to attend to?

In a nutshell, do not judge films lightly and with only two or three criteria in scope. This film is very interesting, its photography is quite good and even the idea the black and white colouring conveys goes hand-in-hand with what it deals with. I believe the image is purposefully grainy... like reality, no? :)

Watch it and reach your own conclusions...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive