"Cleo and Daniel" is not exactly a bad film, it's merely weak and disjointed while treating serious, interesting themes that are more common in movies
these days than at the time of its release. A doomed love story with plenty of teen angst, psychological and psychiatric issues as a reckless and bittered
analyst (John Herbert) becomes a crazed form of cupid while joining a sexually curious girl (Irene Stefânia) and the friend she has a crush (Chico Aragão), a
pill-popping depressed addict whose best friend (Rodrigo Santiago) has a crush on him, and through the doctor they form a connection of sorts.
The film takes
some time to get there with the idea of two lost teens falling in love through the intervention of a dangerous man who's only doing this to satisfy his
god-complex and appease a dying friend (Haroldo Costa) whose soon-to-be published novel revolves on that Greek mythology of the four-legged/four-armed
creatures who were torn apart and destined to find hapinness and true love by searching its other half in a soulmate, in order to be complete again. The
German-named doctor (a play on the Nazi?) is a completely uncaring character who understands the problems faced by Cleo and Daniel, typical for their ages
(except for Daniel, as he has a deep concern about his mental state, thinking he's going crazy and he'll be sent to a psychiatric hospital). The big
problem is that they'll be forced to go through some extreme situations, and they're destined to hit a point of no return with their hearts and minds, and
the adult world around them won't understand what's happening to them.
Roberto Freire's film (based on his own book) is slightly curious due to its depiction of Brazilian teens of the 1970's, and it was made in a
very reflective manner that you care for the characters despite their limited dialogues and the countless inner problems they face. My favorite moment
from the film is right in its early scenes, when Cleo is analyzed by the therapist, who clearly sees that there's nothing wrong with the girl and her
mother (Beatriz Sagall) sent her there as she's too worried about the companies she has, going around with many boys, which is totally fine for a young girl discovering
the world and pleasure. The gay friend played by Santiago is the least problematic of the characters and the one who's most connected with the reality of
everything and everyone (always a great actor to watch).
However, the film doesn't satisfy as a whole due to a small series of things. Easy to understand the notion that sometimes only love is
not enough to save lost souls from going insane or to help overcome life problems. Love was treated here through a series of sex scenes and kissing, zero
construction as to where those two could go from this new blissful state, and they don't communicate with each other at all after truly finding themselves.
This whole inexistent contact between the couple was missed in the story, and by that time they feel complete the tragic destination is only a matter of time
and scenes. Irene and Chico were quite good in those roles, but a pity they were given more to do with such - except for the lovely foursome sequence where they
have different partners (as they were only friends then, Cleo sleeps with the gay guy while Daniel is with another girl, played by a young Sonia Braga. They find
ways to observe each other).
Another obstacles from the story that can impact certain audiences is the whole presentation of the pyschoanalyst, his behavior and way of
treating people. Anxious and/or depressive viewers musn't take this particular character as a reality (despite the many real aspects of the story),
case you haven't looked for any help. The doctor suffers from a series of issues within himself and becomes a fully erratic, obnoxious and hateful
man who doesn't feel anything but contempt for mankind. He provokes a shock treatment to his patients when in fact he was the one who needed the most.
Again, it wasn't a bad film. I think there's many enjoyable things about it, but some problems with its presentation (confusing at times) and the
simplification about the reality of love (or even its cute idealization), prevented this from becoming a better film that could be worthy of a provoking
discussion. 5/10.
