We are aware of this very Portuguese cultural vice in which we sometimes, consciously or not, participate. Let’s call it the constant promotion of some of our artists as obligatory figures in the “heroes” gallery – as much as possible for the media frenzy of consumption. International awards and, of course, death serve to inflate such dependence. Example? In some cases, the militant blindness to the filmography of Manoel de Oliveira gave way to his obsessive and unreasonable praise of the “master” …
It should be understood that all of this is unrelated to the fact that there may be less enthusiastic, completely legitimate views on Oliveira’s (or anyone else’s) work. The question I am asking is something else. First of all, he is of a different nature. Namely: at the limit of our troubled relationship with the artistic expression of some Portuguese creators, we are confronted with universes that can question and challenge our “Portugueseness”.
This is what happens in the works of Joao Botelho, the director, in which we find very direct echoes of the literary heritage of authors such as Almeida Garret (Who are you?2001), Esa de Queiroz (Mayan2014) or Fernando Pessoa (Year of death of Ricardo Reis, 2020); his first feature filmfinished conversation1981) was born from a dialogue, literary and symbolic, Portuguese and universal, between Pessoa and Mario de Sa Carneiro.
com Film of this formnow in its premiere, Botelho opposes Alexander O’Neill (1924-1986). Confrontation, that is, the promotion of conflict – as we well know, only fine in a football match to establish a conflict and together with it for a week to determine the parameters by which we (not) think of our daily life.
What is this opposition then? Well, in direct opposition to the most mediocre example – and also the culturally stronger one, let’s not be under any illusion – approaching a literary work (or any other character) of anyone. We are not talking about “illustrating” this work, because this is a cinema that knows that illustration is impossible: sights and sounds are a new territory for our intellectual and sensory experience.
The opposition is rooted in the belief, both pedagogical and artistic, that the film appropriates O’Neill’s words, displacing them from their original habitat, condensing them into new linguistic arrangements from another language. the two main components of dream work according to Sigmund Freud?
Therefore, the dream is not Film of this form, an escape from reality. It is even a way of questioning the matter, the limits and the values of what we call such a reliable and so uncertain reality. Consequently, Botelho celebrates O’Neill’s words as “things” that appeal to music and spectacle, transforming any hypothesis of naturalism by returning words to us as a bitter and sweet scenario of being (or not being) Portuguese.
In Um Filme em Forma de Assim, João Botelho is inspired by Alexander O’Neill to become (or not to be) Portuguese.
So there is a scandalous aspect to it. Film of this form which is more important than ever to recognize and celebrate. What is the scandal? This is not an attempt to close the meanings of the Portuguese identity in some officially consecrated “destiny” to be fulfilled in a supposedly redemptive future, but rather the exposure of this identity as the present – here and now – in which we rediscover ourselves alive, in spite of (or through ) to the transparent inevitability of death.
As O’Neill himself wrote in dream table1958 poem, from a book In the Kingdom of Denmark (ed. “Water Clock”): “The table of dreams in my body lives / All forms begin / All lives // I grow next to a person // And I protect myself from death, populating / With new dreams life“.
Filling life with new dreams can be a good expression for defining what filming is all about. With this moving object that Film of this form, Botelho reasserts himself as a Portuguese director, apparently (he wrote tragically…) heir to the Oliveira saga, resisting the lazy formatting of all audiovisual languages and thus thinking that there may still be viewers who do not remain offended. that the movie appeals to their intellect. Anyway, it’s just a thought.
Journalist