Añade un argumento en tu idiomaIn 1964, after the end of a passion and the dismissal of her maid, G.H., a sculptor from Rio de Janeiro, decides to clean up her apartment. In the service room, G.H. comes across a huge cock... Leer todoIn 1964, after the end of a passion and the dismissal of her maid, G.H., a sculptor from Rio de Janeiro, decides to clean up her apartment. In the service room, G.H. comes across a huge cockroach and experiences her existential vía crucis.In 1964, after the end of a passion and the dismissal of her maid, G.H., a sculptor from Rio de Janeiro, decides to clean up her apartment. In the service room, G.H. comes across a huge cockroach and experiences her existential vía crucis.
- Dirección
- Guión
- Reparto principal
- Premios
- 5 premios en total
Reseñas destacadas
Maria Fernanda Cândido's character holds the viewer's hand to drag you down into a trip of self disconnection. She dances, reflects, cries and crawls through a thousand emotions, she turns herself into so many characters in her search for herself.
This piece is a stunning impersonation of author Clarice Lispector's romance in first person, a piece that seems impossible to bring to a screen when you read it, but Luiz Fernando Carvalho magestically worked it out. Through a portrait perspective and a monologue that prances through the expectations of high class Brazil, the "passive" role of women, racism, poverty, disgust and otherness.
This piece is a stunning impersonation of author Clarice Lispector's romance in first person, a piece that seems impossible to bring to a screen when you read it, but Luiz Fernando Carvalho magestically worked it out. Through a portrait perspective and a monologue that prances through the expectations of high class Brazil, the "passive" role of women, racism, poverty, disgust and otherness.
First of all, it's important to talk about the book that inspired the movie. Is has the same name and it's by the greatest female writer in Brazil, Clarice Lispector. Lispector is know by a extremely poetic and philosophical writing, that created complex characteres, such as G. H
When i was watching the movie i couldn't escape from the feeling that this work reminds me of the earliest stages of cinema. In theses stages, trying do prove itself as value as teather or paitings, cinema would copy these arts. Creating some kind of reproduction of them, as the cinema didn't have its own soul and esthetic found yet.
G. H is a monologue with two hours of extension. What we see in the movie is a long and lonely speach, as we don't have other people talking. This is speach is made in a closed format, that takes only the center of the screen. This closed format works in a way to prevent you from drifting from the character, as we don't have anywhere else to see.
This movie has great acting and a beautiful direction of art and photography. But at the same time it doesn't has a reason for it's existence. Is wasn't capable of finding a exterior motive, besides the book, to work this story in a different media. It's not really a different media, is a ilustrated performance that would work better a teather maybe.
The ideia of beautiness being the reason to justificate the quality of a work of cinema, even a work of art, it's the ideia that we overcame in the past. If the text is better in the book, if the acting reminds teather monologues, why would a movie exist just to be beautiful?
When i was watching the movie i couldn't escape from the feeling that this work reminds me of the earliest stages of cinema. In theses stages, trying do prove itself as value as teather or paitings, cinema would copy these arts. Creating some kind of reproduction of them, as the cinema didn't have its own soul and esthetic found yet.
G. H is a monologue with two hours of extension. What we see in the movie is a long and lonely speach, as we don't have other people talking. This is speach is made in a closed format, that takes only the center of the screen. This closed format works in a way to prevent you from drifting from the character, as we don't have anywhere else to see.
This movie has great acting and a beautiful direction of art and photography. But at the same time it doesn't has a reason for it's existence. Is wasn't capable of finding a exterior motive, besides the book, to work this story in a different media. It's not really a different media, is a ilustrated performance that would work better a teather maybe.
The ideia of beautiness being the reason to justificate the quality of a work of cinema, even a work of art, it's the ideia that we overcame in the past. If the text is better in the book, if the acting reminds teather monologues, why would a movie exist just to be beautiful?
This is a challenging film. Just like Clarice Lispector's book. This is the moment when word and image meet. A feature film honed over decades, just as the author of the book deserves. It brings more discomfort than support; after all, we are talking about a work of art.
This is a film that requires public sensibility. And much more. Audiences need to be prepared to step into G. H.'s most undesirable gaps-only words can rescue a person from their certainties.
G. H. Becomes a mirror for those who see her. Sometimes, it's difficult to see yourself thinking. For many, it can make them sleepy. For others, it may be a chance to find themselves outside themselves, on the screen.
Anyone who goes to the movies expecting to see a movie will probably leave disappointed. As Clarice Lispector's work was not about literature but about witchcraft, this movie is no different.
This is a film that requires public sensibility. And much more. Audiences need to be prepared to step into G. H.'s most undesirable gaps-only words can rescue a person from their certainties.
G. H. Becomes a mirror for those who see her. Sometimes, it's difficult to see yourself thinking. For many, it can make them sleepy. For others, it may be a chance to find themselves outside themselves, on the screen.
Anyone who goes to the movies expecting to see a movie will probably leave disappointed. As Clarice Lispector's work was not about literature but about witchcraft, this movie is no different.
As I write this text... The film is still in cinemas across Brazil. There are those who say that it's nothing more than an "audiobook version" of Clarice's book, there are those who get up in the middle of the session and complain on social media... Simply, disagreements, that's life. But there are those who find cinema and in cinema a version of themselves stamped on G. H.'s via crucis. And feel a film made of human material in every pore of the actress and director. Speaking of LFC, if this film that was considered "impossible" to be filmed comes to life now, it's because passion has transformed into love that can be found.
The Passion According to G. H., a Clarice Lispector's novel considered by many to be an "unfilmable" work, becomes a revelation in the hands of the director Luiz Fernando Carvalho and of the actress Maria Fernanda Cândido. It is a masterpiece in which images and music intertwine with the text in such an organic way that we realize they were born from the same source: from the Art that springs from the depths of the soul. The great and talented actress Maria Fernanda Candido achieves a level of excellence in this wonderful, powerful, strong, delicate and sensitive work, with the impeccable aesthetics of Luiz Fernando Carvalho.
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesThe film marks as director Luiz Fernando Carvalho return to cinema after a 22-year absence. His previous film was LavourArcaica (2001), which was his directorial debut outside of TV movies, soap operas and short films.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is The Passion According to G.H.?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Recaudación en todo el mundo
- 6477 US$
- Duración
- 2h 6min(126 min)
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta