I missed the ninth session of class, and as a result, I did not know we were studying a new director,Patricio Guzmán and his works. Upon learning this,I wondered what sort of films Guzmán is known for and what his general filmmaking style is. At the time,I only saw Sara Gomez and Glauber Rocha’s films, and they are vastly different in both subject and style. Both directors use their films to criticize their country’s society,class structures,and the people who take advantage of the systematic oppression built into them. Gomez, however,has a more subtle and personal style of filmmaking. A majority of her films are documentaries that focus on the marginalized groups in Cuba,mainly women and Afro-Cubans. She takes the time to interview people in those groups and to both humanize them and use their stories to emphasize the main topic of her films. She also takes the time to criticize movements within oppressive societies that claim to be more progressive yet continue to leave the most vulnerable behind,such as women in Mi Aporte (1972) and children in a subplot within One Way or Another (1977). Rocha also has documentaries in his filmography,however his critiques are embedded in more narrative films. Barravento (1962), Black God,White Devil (1964) both have characters that cling to religion to cope with the poverty and disenfranchisement they face,and their conflict is meant to reflect how intertwined religion and politics are in the real world. In contrast to Gomez,however,his films express these themes in ways that are much less down-to-earth. In Black God,White Devil (1964), there are multiple bloody murders,including one of an infant. There is much spectacle in his non-fiction works. 

     If Gomez and Rocha are opposite ends of the same spectrum,Patricio Guzmán and his works are in the center. The first film I saw from him, Chile,The Obstinate Memory(1997), is a documentary closer to the works of Gomez and includes much of the same techniques she uses. There are interviews from people involved in the capture of Palacio de La Moneda,the ensuing protests against the new president, Augusto Pinochet,and life under his dictatorship. He also critiques the parts of society that accepted and supported Pinochet in these interviews,such as the women featured in his first film supporting Pinochet years later. He also takes a page out of Rocha’s book by creating brutal narratives in between these interviews to show the dissonance between life within Chile post-Salvador Allende and the image that was projected onto the rest of the world. An example would be the scene involving Chile’s National Stadium. It served as a prison for political activists and supporters of Allende,which was later used to host soccer games. It shows footage and photographs of soldiers preparing to execute prisoners,only to be met with thousands of people in the stands shooting rockets,climbing fences,and covering the area in smoke. Guzmán shows the humanity of the people who lived during the time while also showing the chaos of society at large with brutal honesty.

This Tuesday, we ended our study of Glauber Rocha’s work by watching Terra em Transe (1967). For me,it is the most disorientating work that we watched in class. It is told through flashbacks and isn’t concerned with following a straightforward narrative to tell its story of government corruption and class struggle. After watching 3 of his films,I’ve noticed this is a stylistic choice rather than a technical flaw. While it was seen subtly in his first film,Barravento (1962),in this film it is upped to eleven. Rather than show the main character’s writing more simplistically,his poetry is laid over images of him in an empty land with only a gun pointed towards the sky. He speaks another poem over this shot about his inner conflict and loneliness as he switches political positions. This scene, representative of his emotions, is then followed by a high-angle shot of the opposing political leader putting his flag on the same beach that is implied to belong to indigenous people. This scene can be interpreted as what the main character sees the conservative politician’s beliefs are, betrayal of the people of the country he has taken charge of. What I initially dismissed as a scene added for the sake of confusing the audience,upon second viewing,I caught the interpretation and realized how much it foreshadowed the second half of the film. Just as Rocha upped his usage of this technique,I also noticed he made the message of his film much more obvious compared to his other two films. Barravento (1962) is a more character-driven narrative with an ensemble cast,the main characters of whom are more thoroughly fleshed out. The rest of the Afro-Brazilians are treated as a singular character. The allegory for oppression comes with their interactions with the main character and their boss. These interactions that make the allegory clearer,however,are not shown often. Rather,the main character speaks of their struggles,making it seem more connected to his film and his character rather than the rest of the world. Black God,White Devil (1964),is the medium between the films. The film has both characters with clear motives yet not so complicated that their actions are their own. Rather,they serve to partially be a vehicle for the overall critique of religion. Terra em Transe (1967) is the extreme end of the spectrum,wherein the critique and allegory come first. The characters that are meant to represent political corruption are not given any moments of character growth that could turn them to a fully fleshed out character. They also have extreme personalities that separate them from being misinterpreted as their own characters separate from any real-world comparisons. Almost every main character in the film has a moment to turn to the camera and explain their motivation and paired with the simplistic allegorical characters,a viewer would have to actively disengage with the film to not see its message. I find it fascinating to see this progression happen in correlation to the political climate in Brazil and his growing disillusionment.

During Tuesday’s class we watched Black God,White Devil (1964). The film explores many themes that are touched upon in Barravento (1962) but are approached differently. In Barravento (1962) the main story is about a group of Afro-Brazilians who are oppressed by a white business owner. Religion is an important aspect of the story, as it keeps the people from starting a revolution, but it is not the main focus. The main character and his struggle to push his people towards an uprising is the main struggle of the film. Black God,White Devil (1964),however, is a direct critique of organized religion. As a result,it remains ever-present throughout the film. While he and his wife are stuck in poverty,he turns to religion to both cope and give himself hope that they will eventually have a better life. The religious figure he turns to offers a reason and way to possibly fix his circumstances,in the eyes of his followers at least. Yet this figure,Sebastion, abuses the desperation of his followers and feeds off of their worship. Through the main character,Manuol,we see that he tortures them and forces many away from their family members through group shaming. He decides who is “unclean” and makes these people do horrible things such as murder in order to “cleanse” them or their family members. His cult is centered around sacrifice from everyone but him. Manuol’s dedication to this figure and his religion,even after he dies,motivates his actions for the rest of the film. While both films offer critiques of religion,Black God,White Devil (1964) hyper-focuses on it while Barravento (1962) shows it being used as part of a bigger system of oppression,both as an oppressor and a way to cope with oppression.

   During Tuesday’s class, we watched the film Barravento (1962) and discussed many aspects of it afterwards. During this discussion – sparked by a question from the final slide during a classmate’s presentation – we discussed how the film views and presents women. Many of my classmates brought up many points supporting the view that the film gives women a very important role in the society of Barravento (1962). Women are in charge during religious ceremonies and are the only seen religious leaders. They try to keep others in the village from using spells to curse people and are the people’s moral compass. I agree that women do play a significant role in the film’s religion,Candomblé, however, I feel like the film is more complicated with how it treats the women in this film. The camera and plot don’t treat women who are religious leaders the same way it treats women the audience is supposed to be attracted to. This could be entirely unintentional,but these older women are “othered” from the younger women in the film. The younger women in the film are allowed to be sexual and are sexualized by the camera. During a scene where the people are dancing,there are low angle shots that focus on the breasts of the younger women as they move. This continues in the medium shots where there is a focus on the woman’s rear end as she dances. Maybe I am internalizing Western views on sex that associate these moves with sensuality,but I did notice that there isn’t as much focus put on the men when they do the same dance. The camera doesn’t focus on the same areas when it turns towards the older woman. Instead of zooming in on their rumps,the camera puts focus on their arm movement,and in one case a woman’s feet. Even if one was to argue that it was due to religion,I’d like to point out that the younger women who also play a religious role are allowed to be seen as pretty. In one frame of a younger woman in religious clothing,a woman is framed like a painting. A single tear runs down her cheek when she is upset in the scene,showing her sadness while not making the “ugly” faces that people usually make when crying. The younger women are allowed to be seen as sexy and elegant by the audience while the older women are not.

Today we watched short films, Amazonas,Amazonas (1965), Di Glauber/Cavalcanti (1977),and Maranhão 66 (1966) from director Glauber Rocha. For my presentation, I watched his film Amazonas,Amazonas beforehand. After watching that film and learning a bit about the process of making it,I greatly admired the man and the single work I saw from him. I was excited to see the rest of his films and if they approached sensitive topics as well as Amazonas,Amazonas. That excitement changed once we watched one of his other films,Di Glauber/Cavalcanti. It was much more chaotic than Amazonas,Amazonas in both editing and content. Glauber Rocha narrates most of the picture, and his narration here vastly differs from his narration in Amazonas,Amazonas. In Amazonas,Amazonas,he speaks calmly but there is a hint of solemnness that gives the topic of poverty,colonialism,and environmental destruction in the Amazon region the gravity it deserves. In Di Glauber/Cavalcanti,Rocha sounds much more manic in comparison. He speaks loudly,quickly, and often starts rambling about vaguely related topics. Sometimes he repeats himself and his rants can often come off as boisterous or insensitive. While it can be argued that this more chaotic style is representative of the world-wind of emotions Rocha feels after losing his friend,what can’t be defended is his treatment of Di’s family and his body during the funeral. He was told many times that filming was not allowed and even uncovered his friend’s face despite the wishes of his family. While I admired his political work with Amazonas,Amazonas and Maranhão 66,his actions towards a grieving family knocked him off the pedestal I set him on in my head.