-Jahsira Williams

The cinematography of the film was very beautiful. For mostly outdoor scenes, daylight scenes in white clothes, the characters looked gorgeous. The narrative of the film was comprehensible but lacked an emotional connection for me. Firmino definitely felt more like a trickster, chaotic character than one that deeply cared about his community. He was willing to sacrifice anyone (Cota, Aura, Vincent etc) in order to shake the foundation of the community. I do agree that a revolution was needed, but Firmino’s desires felt unfinished, especially as the film leave us mourning with the community with another death (or potential sacrifice to Yemenja) of a fisherman.

The themes of religion are potent. It seems like most socialists/communists/Marxists do struggle with the role of religion in the revolution. For Africans who were trafficked and enslaved, elements of their religion are what ties them back to Africa. It provides a tether to their home identity. However, maybe the domination they experienced and the Catholic elements are what keeps oppressed people in a state of coping with their situation instead of revolting.

Rocha does allow space for the power of Candomble and women to shine in the film. The precipice of the “turning wind” means that Yemenja is powerful, her daughters are powerful—so sacrifices are required. He (and Firmino) seems to call on the religion to provide that “turning wind” for a new social order.

Lastly, for me, Rocha’s lens and story is lacking for the female characters: Cota firmly placed in her status and is used by Firmino and Naina in her constant weeping.

I also do accept that there’s tons of context I’m missing as an American, and non practitioner of Candomble.

This week in class we watched Glauber Rocha’s Barravento from 1962, and Arrial Do Cabo, from 1960. Although they are in different locations, Both of the films focus on the fisherman communities and fishing process in Brazil in the early 1960s. Arrial Do Cabo is a short that follows the preserving of fish, at the end of the film showing how the workers wind down after work. Although cinematically and compositionally the films are beautiful, they both have brutal subject matter-at least I found it hard to watch at times. The films both show the fish struggling to stay alive, on their last breath as they have been pulled out of the water in order to be preserved in salt for consumption. Additionally, Barravento shows an alive chicken being beaten to death. This sort of imagery reminded me of the short that was shown last week, Maranhão 66, which is also by Rocha. It shows extreme poverty in Brazil including children in slums, starved sick patients in hospitals and unpaid healthcare workers. This imagery aligns with Rocha’s manifesto, aesthetics of hunger, as it depicts the violence that is received and given by marginalized people in Brazil, as well as the conditions poor Brazilians live under hunger, both literal and in terms of social mobility.

I really enjoyed our class discussion on Di Calvacanti, Rocha’s film honoring his late friend. The film was highly controversial due to the tone it took on and many of my peers, including myself, agreed that the film felt insensitive and disrespectful to Calvacanti’s loved ones. However, if one is able to look past that, one is able to appreciate the film. The whole film portrays an intense feeling of distress. With how Rocha is speaking throughout the film along with the frantic edits and cuts, the film encapsulates Rocha’s potential guilt and regret of not appreciating his dear friend while he was alive. It also feels like a very rebellious film— as if Rocha knew about the controversy that would spark and how he did not care about upsetting anyone. In the film, we hear the lines “film irritates daughters” and we see images of newspapers headlining “Rocha films the whole thing [the funeral].” It felt as though he wanted to show that he knew what he was doing and he knew that this needed to be done. This turned out to be a very intense and emotional film— very well done— but it seems to be made at the expense of others.

MARANHAO 66
This film is a striking exploration of regional identity and socio-political struggle. Its narrative is imbued with a raw urgency, capturing the harsh realities of Maranhão through a lens that is both unflinching and poetic. What I found particularly interesting was how the film uses vivid, almost brutal imagery to portray the challenges of poverty and social injustice while simultaneously imbuing everyday life with a certain lyrical beauty. The interplay between documentary realism and epic, almost mythic sequences elevates the film beyond mere social critique, creating a moving, immersive experience. I appreciated its bold visual language and the way it confronts viewers with the complexity of life in a marginalized region.

AMAZONAS, AMAZONAS
In “AMAZONAS, AMAZONAS,” the vast, untamed beauty of the Amazon is brought to the forefront, interlaced with a critical examination of environmental exploitation and cultural erosion. The film’s cinematography is particularly arresting, using sweeping, panoramic shots to convey the majesty of the rainforest, while also incorporating intimate, close-up details that humanize the impacts of deforestation and modernity on indigenous communities. I was drawn to its capacity to evoke both awe and concern; it doesn’t shy away from portraying the breathtaking landscapes while also questioning the socio-economic forces that threaten them. This duality—celebration of nature’s grandeur alongside a somber warning about its fragility—resonated deeply with me.

Overall, what I appreciate about these films is their fearless blending of the didactic and the epic. They each function not only as vehicles for social and political commentary but also as deeply personal artistic statements. Whether through the stark realism of “MARANHAO 66,” or the environmental and cultural dualities in “AMAZONAS, AMAZONAS,” these works compel the viewer to confront complex realities while also inviting a visceral, emotional response. Their innovative approaches to storytelling are a testament to the enduring power of cinema as a medium for both reflection and transformation.

For my presentation last week I was assigned to discuss Glauber Rocha and his documentary Di Calvacanti (1977) in which we discussed the topic of ethics in filming, capturing those who we love, and the documentary style of Rocha. I wanted to touch upon however the concept of which Rocha filmed his deceased friend, Emiliano Di Cavalcanti; and focus on is it unethical to film a funeral in a way such as Rocha. For starters, Rocha filmed in such a way where his film had gotten banned by the family of Cavalcanti, but was this justified? On one hand you can exclaim that Rocha was being irrational, and bringing a grotesque approach to this cinematic technique. However, if looked at by the other perspective, you can say this was perhaps a cry for help in the purest form. From what we see in the film Di Calvacanti, we can clearly see this psychotic state coming from Rocha in describing his friends death. It may seem poorly thought out at first, but rather it is one of Rocha’s purest forms of work as he felt that Di Calvacanti must be filmed in a cinema novo-esque manner, truly praising one of Brazil’s greatest painters.

 

I agree with Stam’s stance on heightening trance religions to greater cultural importance. This is not to say that the religions are not important already, but that they lack significant means of disseminating them into popular culture. In order to achieve Stam’s idea of lifting trance religions to the respect and recognition of European and Abrahamic religions, there would need to be a greater form of distributing such cultural ideas. Whereas in Europe this is done through the church, Stam seeks to accomplish this through film.

I do however disagree with Stam’s relation to transgenderism and transracism as displayed in this text. I feel that he relates to African trance religions, though without Eurocentric stereotypes, with a liberal lens. While this is not a distinctly negative action, I think it fails to recognize that much of the world does not operate through the same world view. I think he fails to properly contextualize the gender and race views of these cultures and is instead imposing his views onto them. In doing so, he crafts an idea that due to this, these cultures are more moralistic and, therefore, better. I am not saying this is not true or possible, but I do think he fails to properly analyze his viewpoints on a foreign entity, which he does not contextualize enough.

Glauber Rocha’s Maranhão 66 portrays the grim reality of poverty and political disillusionment in Brazil during the governor’s inauguration in 1966. What stuck out to me was Rocha’s decision to focus on the people affected by his leadership rather than the governor himself. Instead of celebrating the event, Rocha emphasizes the hardships of Maranhão inhabitants, including poverty, a lack of education, and horrible living circumstances. This made me think about how political pledges frequently fail to solve the underlying challenges in society.

One of the most essential takeaways from this film is how Rocha uses cinema as a political tool. By emphasizing people’s voices, Rocha draws the viewer’s focus away from the glamour of politicians and toward the realities of inequity. This decision felt particularly significant because it highlighted the distance between government leaders and the people they represent. What I liked best about the film was how Rocha left room for interpretation. He does not offer remedies or promote a certain message; rather, he reveals the raw truth, asking viewers to think critically about leadership and systemic inequity. It showed me how effective documentary filmmaking can be in bringing societal issues to light. Rocha’s work serves as a reminder that films may challenge authority and highlight underrepresented perspectives, which I believe is tremendously vital in cinema.

The film Cat Skin was a great film I enjoyed how it shows real life struggles of Brazil during that time. The film shows how life is full of tough decisions, the boy selling the cat for a dollar, showing how little he makes for a big sacrifice: loss of innocence and childhood. The film also shows how to other side lives, the rich and wealthy having the luxury to own a cat for fun and the poor children have to steal cats just to get by. I also noticed at the end after the boy sells the cat he wipes his tears ultimately showing how the “have-nots” have to suck it up and keep pushing.

I also enjoyed Glauber Rochas film ” Di Cavalcanti” honoring his friends life after his passing, although it wasn’t ethically executed I did understand why Rocha followed through with the film. Especially when Cavalcanti’s family was not okay with Rocha filming the funeral or exposing the closed casket. Overall you can see through the chaotic fast imagery and manic like talking that Rocha does during the film, you can tell Rocha is hurt by his friends passing and is expressing that pain through his art.

Madison Reed

I was very moved by “Di Cavalcanti Di Glauber”. For me it raised the question, does art need to be confined within ethics to be powerful and serve its purpose? It comes down to the form and conception, which I would consider strong in this short. At certain points Rocha is almost yelling at us, filled with grief and passion. The frames flow almost as if they are a painting, perhaps an acknowledgement to the former painters life and impact. Confined work can not be as strong as work that subverts conventional parameters.