In Glaber Rocha’s 1962 film Barravento, I was struck by the narrative’s conflicting ideals: the tensions between urban/rural, religious salvation/revolutionary salvation, and tradition/education. Firmino was fascinating to me as a character who simultaneously utilizes and rejects the customs of the oppressed class he was born into. He absolutely could have been written as a savior of sorts, an enlightened member of his community sent to save his people. But Rocha makes clear the contradictions of this kind of trope, setting apart Firmino from the community he is attempting to educate by literally having him wear the clothing of the oppressor. Although his intentions are meant to be helpful, his actions bastardized their way of life, using a spell to rid them of their veneration of Aruã and slicing the net. The film left us with an ambiguous ending without a clear answer. It would have been simple for Rocha to have insisted on either side, but in keeping the nuances of the story, he abides by the balance between didactic and epic he wrote of in “The Revolution is Aesthetics”. I enjoyed our class discussion on the role of women in this film. It was interesting to me how women held the religious power in this community, yet still were not quite viewed as people. It seemed that women were relegated to two boxes: the respected yet impersonal, stock, group of older women, and the individual yet sexualized attractive women.

It’s fascinating to me how ahead of her time Gómez was in the intersectionality of her film’s themes, and watching these after reading the essay by Devyn Spence Benson was greatly helpful in providing historical and artistic context. Although each documentary had its own distinct focus, Gomez never shies away from showing a diverse range of people and how their experiences differ from one another. Of all the Sara Gómez documentaries we watched this week, Mi aporte stuck with me the most. The film begins in the typical didactic fashion of the revolutionary cinema of the time as a news reporter takes mostly positive conformist interviews of women discussing their new roles in the workforce. But through Gomez’ eye, we descend into the more complicated aspects of such a drastically changed society. She shows us a man’s more shallow perspective on the issue of women’s work, followed by an open dialogue between a wide range of women speaking to each other about their individual opinions and experiences at this time. The conversation of gender roles between the women is so topical today, I found the discussion itself more revolutionary than the government mandated changes stated at the beginning of the film. This stark shift reminded me of a quote in the Benson article from Gómez herself where she says, “We [filmmakers] have a vast public, including urban workers, rural campesinos, children and adolescents . . . for them and with them we have to make films without making concessions. Films that touch on their interests. Films that are capable of expressing contradictions.” It is this willingness to express contradictions that makes her work so captivating.