claudiusedmondolethard

Dennis Villeneuve should take a look back on his early works when he would let himself get lost on atmospheric details of his narratives. A lot of critics are commenting that this version is improved when compared to Lynch's version. Although I don't think Lynch's Dune is his best work, David Lynch's take had more atmosphere, more plastic qualities capable of provoking sensory and emotional effects. Because Lynch, as always, is focused on the richness of plastic imagery and its affections and sensations induced in the audience. What makes Villeneuve's Dune lose its way is the rush and worry to accomplish an classic dramatic structure. To push some causality. If Villeneuve allowed himself some Lynchian absence of logic that allows the movie articulation not link the dots, his Dune would had been a more interesting take.

(We must remember that Alejandro Jodorowsky almost directed the 80's Dune - the cinematic universe of Dune asks for minds that don't want to link the dots, that explodes the causality of a narrative construction in cinema)

There are works in cinema that explores the commonplace motifs in order to extract some other plastic potential of them. That's what Daniel Nolasco proposes to do in every film of his. And yet he's still failing in accomplish that.

The reason of Nolasco doesn't reach the best of his works is given to a comfort zone he puts himself during his picture. The comfort zone of commonplace imagery involving ideas of men and masculinity. Than to dissimulate that commonplace imagetic motif, Nolasco washes it with high tones of stylization and extremely explicit staged sequences. The commonplace explored by Nolasco is the easiest way to reach his audience.

Differently from films like "A Portuguese woman", "Playdurism", "Take me somewhere nice" in which we find high tones of stylization too and some tableux oriented composition. The films of Daniel Nolasco doesn't explore details in his commonplace imagery that would turn to some different perspective or would reveal other sensations or affections hidden in those already highly explored and known images. He doesn't let himself explore those details. Because those details would bring some zone of uncertainty to the construction.

Lacks Nolasco some risky decisions that Jarman's pictures applied to his too extremely controlled and composed shots. That suddenly could awakens some affection or sensation in the pictorial qualities of the shot. That would show some unique gesture, moviment, expression, ways of relation between bodies and space.

Nolasco, unfortunately, stays in the sterilized provocative aestheticization of Gaspar Noé.

Not only, we see the same muscular and athletic bodies wanderlust that already is extremely dated. What about the erotic qualities of other kinds of bodies too? They don't deserve some reverie?

If you are a scientific researcher and wanna find where all the worst of Brazilian audiovisual production and artists come from (like Rio Heroes, Dom, Marcelo Galvão), watch every Malhação season. It subsumes the trashy and kitsch tendencies of our cinema in each year from 1995 to 2020.