Documentary? The questioning isn't mine, but comes from the short film itself at several times during its little running time as it rambles on between
Mário Chamie's poem about rural workers (lavradores) and the whole situation brought by land reform, of which it feels like the ultimate sin when it comes
to politics and society. Little movements, small progress but the questioning remains about the necessity of land reform, the ones working for it and the
ones against - the cattle people, always. But what about "Lavra Dor" (it's a play on words that gets lost in translation, case you're not from Brazil).
The ones who liked it should've explain it right here why they felt this was such an important work, with its mix of art forms, poems, political speeches
and cinema, and how it was effective on the land reform cause. I got nothing but loud voices shouting speeches on a dark screen, then moves to the "Documentary?"
with small and forgettable images; and to reach the bottom of it all: in this whole discourse against bosses, violence and use of police force against poor rural
workers, was there any solution to it? Was it just complaints and statements of facts? Gets wildly damning if one pays attention to whom Ana Carolina and Paulo
Rufino are using of a verbatim, why there are using of such person and if there's irony, criticism or support.
The short opens with a quote from marshal Castelo Branco (Brazil president from 1964-1967), the first military president. It's a quote that defends that society's
insurrection is a legitimate tool of a people. Interesting take, considering that that establishment felt that it was okay to dethrone an elected president simply
because he was favoring the less favorable members of society rather than the elite opposed to all social reforms Goulart wanted - land reform included.
The film is made
at the time of military regime and the use of such quote gives the impression of being an endorssment rather than a subtle attack (no wonder it got away without
being censored - if it was, I don't know the story). If used as an irony, or a possible way to incite audiences into claiming back power to the people, it doesn't
work since the presentation of everything is a mess, ugly, pretentious as a unlikely 9th wonder of the world, boring, dull and empty as a plate without food.
Couldn't possibly care less about the statements it tried to do as it didn't offer nothing except the reality of those who suffer the abuse from landowners, and their exploitative means, and kept trying to find an
explanation to itself as an art form: are we documentaries with exclamation point or question mark? Geez, oh man. If you don't know what you're doing, don't ask your audience about it. 3/10.
