Brazilian Cinema Novo

Author(s): Randal Johnson

Source: Bulletin of Latin American Research , 1984, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1984), pp. 95-106
Published by: Wiley on behalf of Society for Latin American Studies (SLAS)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3338256

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of
Latin American Research

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Brazilian Cinema Novo1
RANDAL JOHNSON
University ofFlorida

Over two decades have passed since Cinema Novo burst upon and profound
altered the Brazilian cinematic and cultural scene. In these two decades, m
things have changed in Brazil. The populist government of the early
was quite unceremoniously removed by a 1964 military coup dfetat an
placed by a military regime which only now appears to be losing its hold
power. With them, Brazil's military rulers brought a reign of repression
torture, which intensified in 1969 and began to ebb only in the mid-1
Accompanying the repression was a period of growth known as the 'econo
miracle', which meant the brutal redistribution of already poorly distribu
wealth from the working classes to the upper classes. The miracle, in tur
given way to the nightmare, a 100 billion dollar foreign debt, the servici
which consumes virtually all ofthe country's export earnings and which thr
to tear asunder the country's social fabric.
Brazilian cinema has changed as well. In the early 1960s, Glauber R
summarized the concerns of the initial phase of Cinema Novo in his Fanon
inspired manifesto, 'An Aesthetic of Hunger', also known as 'An Aesthetic
Violence'. In this manifesto he wrote:

. . . hunger in Latin America is not simply an alarming symptom; it is the

essence of our society. Herein lies the tragic originality of Cinema Novo in
relation to world cinema. Our originality is our hunger and our greatest
misery is that this hunger is felt but not intellectually understood . . .
. . . only a culture of hunger can qualitatively surpass its own structures
by undermining and destroying them. The most noble cultural manifesta-
tion of hunger is violence.
Cinema Novo reveals that violence is normal behaviour for the starving.
The violence of a starving man is not a sign of a primitive mentality . . .
Cinema Novo teaches that the aesthetics of violence are revolutionary
rather than primitive. The moment of violence is the moment when the
colonizer becomes aware of the existence of the colonized. Only when he
is confronted with violence can the colonizer understand, through horror,
the strength of the culture he exploits. As long as he does not take up
arms, the colonized man remains a slave.2

Although the manifesto clearly aligns itself with Fanon and the struggle for
Third World liberation, Rocha is speaking not of real violence in a revolutionary
situation, but rather of an aesthetic of violence, a metaphorical usage of violence
in a situation (he was writing after the military coup of 1964) which was far
from revolutionary.3 His statement is an admittedly extreme and in many ways
contradictory formulation of the thrust of early Cinema Novo, but it is none the

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 96 BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

less representative. Rocha and Cinema Novo called

cinematic practice which would combat the idealis
cinema and at the same time participate in the strugg
Contrast that with the situation of the 1970s an
Stam has put it, the aesthetic of hunger sometime
an aesthetic of gluttony?and perhaps only Rocha h
syncratic films, can be exempted from this evo
with success in the national and international m
neutralized the political concerns of the early p
situation becomes even more complex, and seemingl
one realizes that since 1973 the Brazilian governmen
wise financed the most significant national film pr
all films made after that date by Cinema Novo par
Rocha. The current success of Brazilian cinema, w
and Her Two Husbands, Bye Bye Brasil, Gaijin, Pix
Dont Wear Black-Tie, among others, results largel
or marriage of convenience between Cinema Novo an
state.

The current situation of Brazilian cinema?an apparent mercantilistic atti?

tude supported by the state?does not in fact represent a radical break with
positions held in the early 1960s. It would be simplistic to speak of cooptation
by the military regime or to suggest that filmmakers became starstruck by
commercial success. Rather, the current situation is an outgrowth of a number
of contradictions and paradoxes existing within Cinema Novo from the very
beginning. Despite Rocha's revolutionary statements, a certain distance always
existed between the rhetoric and the reality of Cinema Novo. In this paper
I propose to discuss some of these contradictions, examining how Cinema
Novo arose and evolved during the 1960s. A movement such as Cinema Novo
cannot be isolated from its historical context, for in many ways it responds to
and is influenced by the political development of Brazilian society, it positions
itself in relation to the historical evolution of Brazilian cinema, and it partici-
pates in and reflects ideological debates of the period in which it arose. By
reexamining Cinema Novo in its various contexts, I in no way mean to belittle
the considerable achievements of the movement, which is largely responsible
for the best that Brazilian cinema has had to offer during the last twenty years
and continues to offer today. In a very real sense, Cinema Novo is synonymous
with Brazilian cinema, and its contradictions are the contradictions of Brazilian
cinema as a whole and Brazilian intellectuals in general.
The question might be asked if it is valid to speak of Cinema Novo existing
today. Many historical analyses of the movement have said that Cinema Novo
had ceased to exist by 1972, if not earlier. And yet the movement's only collec?
tive manifesto, known as the 'Luz e Aqdo Manifesto', was published only in
1973.4 Although Brazilian cinema has grown considerably over the last twenty
years, now producing some 100 films per year, four times the annual production
of the early 1960s, Cinema Novo directors such as Leon Hirszman, Nelson
Pereira dos Santos, Carlos Diegues, Joaquim Pedro de Andrade, and Arnaldo
Jabor, among others, clearly dominate Brazilian cinema today. They dominate
not only with their films; they also dominate the state cinematic apparatus

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAZILIAN CINEMA NOVO 97

(Embrafilme). Leon Hirszman's awar

Tie (They Don't Wear Black-Tie) w
Novo de novo' (Cinema Novo anew
without a bit of self-serving exagge
cinema are the 'new barbarians' of
from the gadgetry and large budge
and correct ideological lines of Euro
view if Cinema Novo directors still
early 1960s, Hirszman responded:

In a way, we have never stopped d

some personal rifts, but the discus
at the beginning was never quite a
like the Beatles: they never were r
nor really as separated afterward.6

We can thus refer to Cinema Novo e

cess of cinematic activity, but clear
movement or school.
Cinema Novo arose in the late 1950s and early 1960s as part of a broad,
heterogeneous movement of cultural transformation that involved theatre,
popular music, and literature, as well as the cinema. It evolved through a num?
ber of discernible phases, each of which corresponds to a specific sociopolitical
conjuncture.
The seeds of Cinema Novo took root in the early 1950s, especially in three
film industry congresses held in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo in 1952 and
1953. It was in these congresses that filmmakers such as Alex Viany, Rodolfo
Nanni and Nelson Pereira dos Santos first articulated ideas for the creation
of an independent national cinema.7 The country had only recently seen the
end of Getulio Vargas's Estado Novo (1937-1945), and the process of redemo-
cratization dramatically increased the level of political and cultural activity of
Brazil's middle sectors. Vargas was reelected to the presidency in 1951 in the
guise of a populist reformer who attempted to mobilize support through, among
other things, a nationalist discourse revolving around the creation of a state
petroleum industry. Vargas committed suicide in 1954, leaving a quasi-socialist,
anti-imperialist message for the Brazilian people.
Despite Vargas's death, the nationalist euphoria he helped create continued
and was strengthened with the election of Juscelino Kubitschek in 1955. Kubits-
chek, promising fifty years of development in five, embarked on an ambitious
plan of economic expansion and industrial development. He was one of only two
presidents in the 1930-64 period to remain in office, legally, throughout his
designated term, partially because of his ability to rally the Brazilian people
around a common ideology, known as developmentalism or developmentalist-
nationalism.8 Brasflia, with its ultramodern architecture, is perhaps the most
perfect symbol of Kubitschek's developmentalist ideology.
His brand of developmentalism, however, was fraught with contradiction.
Although it was a means of mobilizing support and guaranteeing the system's
stability, it was also an effective tool for controlling social and political tensions.

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
98 BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

It toyed with the people's nationalist sentiments, but b

industrialization on foreign investment.
Former Sao Paulo governor Janio Quadros succeeded K
but resigned after a mere seven months in office. Quadr
vice-president, Vargas protege Joan Goulart, who was in
military. Goulart's brief administration, marked by a nu
crises, witnessed a turn to the Left in domestic and fore
dent attempted to implement structural changes such a
was overthrown by the military in 1964. Within this hist
class artists and intellectuals, such as those who created
increasingly politicized and sought to commit their art t
of Brazilian society, a transformation they erroneously th
After a preparatory period, from 1955-1960, the first
goes from 1960 to 1964, a period in which 'national que
at every level of society. The films of this period attemp
debate with films about the country's lumpen, often dep
(dos Santos's Vidas Secas, Guerra's Os Fuzis, Rocha's D
do Sol). The second phase of Cinema Novo extends from
of the Fifth Institutional Act, which inaugurated a perio
sive military rule. Although political liberties were res
increased, there was still a degree of space available for
During this period, the focus of Cinema Novo shifted from
as film-makers turned their cameras, so to speak, on th
to understand the failure of the Left in 1964 (Saraceni'
Terra em Transe, Dahl's O Bravo Guerreiro, dos San
A third phase runs from 1968 until around 1972. During th
harsh military rule, it was difficult for film-makers to ex
and allegory became the preferred mode of cinematic d
known as Tropicalism' in Brazilian cinema (Andxade's M
Como era gostoso o meu frances, labor'sPindorama). At th
ing underground movement challenged Cinema Novo from
had sold out to commercial interests (Sganzerla's O Band
Bressane'sMatou afamiliae foi ao cinema, among others).
pluralism under the aegis of Embrafilme has marked the
Cinema Novo, as part of an ongoing process of cultur
reflects the ideological contradictions of Brazilian society
phase of Cinema Novo was informed by a number of h
influenced to a large degree by the formulations of th
Estudos Brasileiros (Higher Institute of Brazilian Studie
by Kubitschek in 1955 with the express purpose of for
ideology of development. Although it would be simplist
merely as a reflection of the ideology of ISEB?indeed, a
films directly or indirectly revealed the contradictions
none the less important to be aware of the kinds of po
discussions that were taking place and examine how Cin
them.10
The ISEB was composed of intellectuals of various political persuasions,
including Helio Jaguaribe, Candido Mendes, Alvaro Vieira Pinto, Nelson Werneck

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAZILIAN CINEMA NOVO 99

Sodre, and Roland Corbisier. Altho

coincide precisely in the concepts u
ideas. First of all, they saw autono
absolute value, as an unequestionab
means. And perhaps paradoxicall
development they spoke of was b
was only after a stage of advanced
alternative modes of production cou
The members of ISEB formulated a nationalist thesis based on a radical
awareness of Brazil's underdevelopment, which was caused by what they calle
the country's 'colonial situation', its relations of dependence to advanc
industrial powers. They saw the continuation of such relations as an impedime
to autonomous development. They therefore conceived the major contradictio
of Brazilian society as being not capital versus labour, but rather as the 'Nation
(that which is authentic) versus the 'anti-Nation' (that which is alienated fro
the 'Nation's' true historical being). The contradiction was set forth in these
terms, rather than, for example, foreign versus national, because they s
imperialism not as an external determinant but rather as an internal or 'inte
nalized' force in Brazilian society.
The 'Nation', seen as the modern, progressive sector of society, included th
industrial bourgeoisie, the urban and rural proletariat, and the productive sect
of the middle-class. The 'anti-Nation', or the traditional, retrograde, archaic
sector of society, included large landowners, export-import groups, the non-
productive sector of the middle-class and certain portions of the proletariat,
in other words, sectors whose interests lie not with national development bu
rather with the continued foreign domination of the nation's economy. This
dichotomy reflects a dualist vision of society with, on the one hand, a feuda
rural sector dominated by an oligarchy whose interests are tied, through an
export economy, to those of industrialized countries, and, on the other
modern, urban, industrial society led by a supposedly progressive nation
industrial bourgeoisie dedicated to autonomous national capitalist developmen
The 'Nation'/'anti-Nation' dichotomy as formulated by ISEB cuts across cl
lines and thus attempts to efface or ignore questions of class conflict, which
once again, are conveniently postponed until after full capitalist developmen
is achieved.
The intellectuals associated with ISEB felt that for autonomous national
development to occur, it was necessary for an enlightened intelligentsia to create
an authentic, national, critical consciousness ofthe country's underdevelopment
and its causes and thereby overcome the country's alienation from its true
historical being and lead to a process of social transformation and national
liberation. Such liberation would come through what they called a 'bourgeois
revolution', i.e., transformation led by enlightened intellectuals such as them?
selves and progressive elements of the national bourgeoisie. Although I have
merely summarized some of ISEB's positions, the contradictions of this develop-
mentalist ideology are immense. But it is important to note that large sectors of
the Left, including the Brazilian Communist Party, shared, these views, forming
a 'populist pact', which Glauber Rocha so brilliantly dissected in Terra em
Transe (Land in Anguish, 1967).

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
100 BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

In general terms, Cinema Novo saw itself as part o

alienation' through a strategy of conscientizacao,
It sought, at least during its initial phase, to show the
face of the country's underdevelopment in the ho
a critical consciousness and participate in the struggle
Rocha wrote in 'An Aesthetic of Hunger', Cinema N
but an evolving complex of films that will ultimately
its own misery.'
Similar to the ideologues of ISEB, Cinema Novo
conflict of Brazilian society as 'colonizer' versus '
words, rather than analyse it in terms of class. The m
a struggle to create an authentic national culture in o
of the colonizer. It also tended to adopt a dualist vis
a traditional, feudal, backward Brazil tied to imperi
gressive, modern Brazil led by sectors ofthe national b
Cinema Novo's alliance with supposedly progressive
bourgeoisie is revealed not only in its choice of them
of financing. Many pre-1964 Cinema Novo films, in
Nelson Pereira dos Santos's Vidas Secas (1967), Ruy G
and Glauber Rocha's Deus e o Diabo na Terra do Sol (1
the National Bank of Minas Gerais, which was owned b
Magalhaes Pinto, one of the civilian conspirators in th
In their attempt to de-alienate the Brazilian people
attempted to search out the areas of Brazil where so
most apparent: poor fishing villages, urban slums, and
east, where the three films just mentioned were set
Cinema Novo films tended to focus on the traditional or backward areas of
Brazil, denouncing that backwardness and the economic sectors (the 'anti-
Nation', in ISEB's formulation) held responsible for it. Dos Santos's Vidas
Secas outlines a conflict between a landowner and a peasant family during a
period of drought; Guerra's Os Fuzis concerns soldiers who guard a landowner's
food warehouse from starving peasants; and Rocha's Deus e o Diabo na Terra
do Sol, while focusing speciflcally on the twin alienations of religious mysticism
and anarchistic cangaceiro violence, indirectly discusses the feudal structure that
impedes a more just distribution of land in the Northeast. With the possible
exception of Guerra's nouvelle vague-inspiied Os Cafajestes (The Hustlers,
1962), which denounces the reification of human beings in capitalist society,
not a single film of the 1960-1964 period critically examines the contradictions
of the bourgeoisie or the supposedly progressive sector that was to lead the
country along the road to development.11 Such a critique would appear only
after 1964 in such films as Paulo Cesar Saraceni's 0 Desafio (The Challenge,
1965) and Rocha's Terra em Transe, when the failure of the 'populist pact'
was painfully apparent.
Paradoxically, however, a curious inversion occurs in these early Cinema
Novo films.12 If, on the one hand, Cinema Novo aligned itself with the modern
and progressive forces of urban, industrial society, on the other it tended to
value as authentically Brazilian, authentically national, the cultural forms of
the traditional sector. Rocha's first two films, Barravento (The Turning Wind,

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAZILIAN CINEMA NOVO 101

1962) and Deus e o Diabo na Terra

on one level, denounces Afro-Braz
on another it affirms that religio
identity and as a potential site
Terra do Sol, on the other hand, u
sion?the cordel ballad, to be spe
Brazilian culture, these films seem
industrial Brazil, but rather from
The valorization of traditional cu
for the cinema itself is an urban, i
sion. The early 1960s witnessed
is being repeated today, about the
reference to cultural production.1
to preserve and value the cultural
it tended to empty it of its conte
revolutionary messages. In other w
of popular culture and substituted
course. Film-makers attempted
ception of what popular culture s
they really existed. Such paternal
It is Cinema Novo's version of the
should lead the people to social tra
Closely linked to the central dich
versus colonized?is the movemen
film industry and toward questio
Novo's concept of industrial devel
the historical evolution of Brazilia
history in Brazil, but until recent
industrial development for one
Brazilian market has been domina
film distributors. Such dominatio
been unable to depend even on
investments, Brazilian cinema h
production on an industrial scale,
stable. Second, foreign films broug
unattainable by the undercapitaliz
became accustomed to the product
became the standard by which
Brazilian cinema has often been co
of support, which has further wea
to attain at least minimal levels of
Because of the international success of American cinema, the dream of
Brazilian producers historically has been to emulate that cinema and create
a national film industry based on large studios. Two attempts at such industrializa?
tion are particularly relevant to the present discussion. In 1943, several producers
joined together to form the Atlantida Studios, which became the most successful
attempt at concentrated industrialization in the history of Brazilian cinema.
Atlantida was particularly successful after 1947, when it was acquired by Luis

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
102 BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

Serveriano Ribeiro, the owner of the country's largest e

the largest national distributor. His acquisition of At
vertically integrated system of production, distributi
tida combined its advantageous position in the marke
tion geared toward and based on the commercial
to make a series of relatively inexpensive but imme
such as the chanchada, or light musical comedy, frequ
Its heyday was the period from 1945 tc 1960. After t
of television caused the chanchada to lose appeal, and
ing rather than diversify its production. Cinema Nov
vision of Brazilian society, was in part a reaction to th
of the chanchada.
In sharp contrast to Atlantida were the Vera Cruz
Paulo in 1949 and modelled on Hollywood's MGM stu
Cruz improved the technical quality of Brazilian film
ments in cinema, and incorporated into national c
cinematic language', with its panoply of conventional
an expensive and luxurious system without the econ
which to base such a system. It tried to conquer the w
solidating the Brazilian market. In contrast to At
production costs far above the lucrative potential of
Unable to recoup its investments in the domestic m
the international market, Vera Cruz went bankrupt in
it the perhaps unrealistic dream of developing a film
large-scale studio system.16
The emergence of a new mentality among Brazilian
the final years of Vera Cruz. They began to reject th
of the studio system in favour of an independent, ar
This new mentality would later blossom into Cinem
Cinema Novo, therefore, was a new attitude toward t
industry. Influenced by Italian neo-realism and base
Cruz and the undermining of the chanchada by tele
rectly determined that the foreign-controlled Brazilian
an adequate return on expensive studio production a
independent and inexpensive mode of production us
shooting and non-professional actors. This was the fi
Brazilian cinema that such a mode of production wa
and aesthetic choice rather than by circumstance.17
Glauber Rocha perhaps best expresses Cinema Novo's
of film production in his 1963 book Revisdo Crit
He aligns himself with the nouvelle vague and its strugg
rigidity of industrial cinema and its norms, while at
the nouvelle vague's concept of auteur. The auteur, ac
against the mercantilist mentality of industrial cinem
and easy communication above art. While quoting Tru
Rocha goes a step further than the initial formulati
and proposes an opposition between 'commercial cinem
and untruth) and 'auteur cinema' (freedom of express

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAZILIAN CINEMA NOVO 103

words, 'If commercial cinema is t

The politics of a modern auteur a
even necessary to qualify an auteu
ing noun . . . The auteur is respon
his mise-en-scene his politics.'18 R
but claims that it is revolutionary.
In Rocha's formulation of the pr
colonized dichotomy of 'An Aest
studio system, a model borrowed
dedicated to the falsification of
finance capital for film productio
technical level of most foreign fi
which would make their work mer
chose to resist by turning 'scarcit
theoretical expression of this cons
The model of neo-realism serv
aesthetic strategy, especially duri
makers attempted to portray wha
development. The critical realism o
sad, ugly, screaming films, in Ro
political function by expressing t
relation to world cinema.20 In sho
Brazilian cinema and attempting t
people, in opposition to the alie
Cinema Novo adopted a new atti
Brazilian cinema and a new attitu
ideas over technical perfection.
e uma ideia na cabeca?summarizes these attitudes.
Despite the movement's real contributions along these lines, a paradox also
appears in their strategies. Although it opposed traditional modes of cinematic
production and the aesthetic forms accompanying them, its participants made
no real attempt to create alternative or parallel exhibition circuits. Rather, they
released their films in established commercial circuits which had been built
primarily for the exhibition of foreign films. The Brazilian public, long con-
ditioned by the illusionism of Hollywood, was generaUy unreceptive to the
films of Cinema Novo, which became in many ways a group of films made by
and for an enlightened, intellectual elite, and not for broad sectors of the film-
going public, much less for Brazil's impoverished masses.
Even Cinema Novo's low-cost production methods soon began to show their
limitations. Like Vera Cruz before it, Cinema Novo made the mistake of assum-
ing that simply making a film was sufficient for it to be successfully placed on
the market. Directors and producers came to depend on distributors and even
exhibitors for postproduction financing, which put them in the disadvantageous
position of having to pay a larger percentage than usual for the distribution and
exhibition of their films. The problem of a return on investments became
critical. Exhibitors argued that Cinema Novo films were too intellectual for
success in the market, and the production of more popular films thus became
imperative if Cinema Novo was to continue to exist. As Gustavo Dahl once said,

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
104 BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

the making of popular films became the sine qua non

cinema. The struggle for the market became a priority
Cinema Novo took a number of steps to ameliorate
a broad audience. First, together with Luis Carlos Bar
tors formed the distribution cooperative Difilm as a
films more easily in the multinational-controlled m
important, since it is on the level of distribution tha
ates the Brazilian market. In 1973 Embrafilme, the go
created in 1969, took up and expanded the idea of a
Brazilian films.
Second, they began to make films with a more po
hand they turned toward literary classics: Joaquim P
e a Moca (The Priest and the Girl, 1965) is based on
mond de Andrade; Walter Lima Jr.'s Menino de E
1965) on a novel by Jose Lins do Rego; Roberto
Augusto Matraga (Matraga, 1966) on a short story b
and Paulo Cesar Saraceni's Capitu (1968) is based on M
piece, Dom Casmurro. On the other hand, comedy b
of discourse, with such films as Nelson Pereira dos
Enforcer, 1967), Domingos de Oliveira's Todas as Mu
Women in the World, 1967), and Roberto Farias's
que e uma Fera (Every Maiden Has a Father Who Is a
Even so, the major problem of Cinema Novo conti
financing, and very early on they looked toward the
tance. In late 1963, Guanabara Governor Carlos Lace
of the 1964 coup, signed into law a decree creatin
Auxilio a Industria Cinematogrdfica (Commission for
CAIC would administer two basic programmes of fi
industry: (1) a system of cash awards or subsidies for
gross income of films exhibited in the state, and (2)
duction financing.21 Lacerda's decree was not the f
level, to directly aid the industry, but it was the fir
logical control over the industry. The decree found
benefits of the law would be denied any script or fil
things, the use of violence to subvert the political
class prejudice, propaganda against the democrat
pluralism or against private property, and so on.
In fact, the restrictions of the decree were more f
first appear, and CAIC was one of the major source
Novo filmmakers. Almost coinciding with the 1964
beginning of a tacit alliance between the state and
that would continue with the federal government's
Nacional do Cinema (National Film Institute) in 1966
and that would become formalized in 1973 when Roberto Farias, Cinema
Novo's chosen candidate, became head of Embrafilme. Among Cinema Novo
films partially financed by CAIC were Walter Lima Jr.'s Menino de Engenho,
Roberto Santos's Matraga, Joaquim Pedro de Andrade's O Padre e a Moca,
and Arnaldo Jabor's documentary about the middle class, Opiniao Publica

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAZILIAN CINEMA NOVO 105

(Public Opinion, 1967). In subseque

(1969), Carlos Diegues's OsHerdei
era gostoso o meu frances (How Ta
also be financed by state-sponsored
If state support was important f
also responsible for its first majo
until today. Divisions arose within
makers should take in relation to
given the ideological restrictions w
financing as a form of cooptation
soon found himself distanced from
The 1964 debate is echoed in the
Whereas other Cinema Novo partic
its policy of co-productions, Gu
a relationship with the state. H
a 'public at all cost' philosophy and
for commercial success. Hehas been critical as well of Nelson Pereira dos Santos's
recent campaign for a 'popular cinema', saying instead that Brazilian cinema
will be popular only when there is a radical transformation of the economic
structures of Brazilian society.
In conclusion, there has not been a radical change in the propositions of
Cinema Novo and its associates over the last twenty years. Film-makers are now
more concerned with production values and with success in the marketplace,
but this concern derives largely from an early decision to use established com?
mercial circuits for the exhibition of their films and to make the marketplace
the site of struggle against the colonizer. Association with the state has increased
dramatically, especially during the last ten years, but it too has roots in the
early 1960s and in the seemingly eternal problem of the undercapitalization
of the industry. It would be simplistic to say that the political concerns of
Cinema Novo have disappeared all together. Nelson Pereira dos Santos is now
filming Graciliano Ramos's Prison Memoirs, a denunciation of the Estado
Novo's authoritarianism and repression. Roberto Farias, who has always been
more commercially-oriented than some of his counterparts, recently made Pra
Frente Brasil (Onward Brasil, 1982), about torture and repression in the early
1970s. Carlos Diegues is completing what is in many ways a sequel tohis 1963
film Ganga Zumba, about the Republic of Palmares which was set up by run-
away slaves in 17th century Brazil. And Leon Hirszman's award-winning Eles
nao usam Black-Tie (They Don't Wear Black Tie, 1981), which was totally
financed by Embrafilme, deals with labour struggles in contemporary Sao
Paulo. These films and others express political concerns and are at the same
time much more communicative than most early Cinema Novo films. To quote
Hirszman once again:

The true path to both the national and the popular passes through
the valorization of popular emotion. One should not manipulate emotion
in the manner of mass culture, in the manner of TV. But without emotion,
you cannot communicate your ideas. There has to be a dialectic of reason
and emotion.22

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 106 BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

That, perhaps, is the greatest lesson Cinema Novo lear

years.

NOTES

1. Portions of this paper appear in my forthcoming Cinema Novo x 5: Masters of Con-

temporary Brazilian Film, University of Texas Press, Austin.
2. 'Uma Estetica da Fome\ Revista Civilizagdo Brasileira, no. 3 (July 1965); English
version in Randal Johnson and Robert Stam (eds.) (1982), Brazilian Cinema, Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press, Rutherford, N.J., pp. 68-71; reprinted in Michael Chanan
(ed.) (1983), Twenty-flve Years of the New Latin American Cinema, British Film
Institute/Channel Four Television, London, pp. 13-14.
3. Ismail Xavier (1983), Sertdo Mar: Glauber Rocha e a estetica da fome, Brasiliense/
Embrafilme, Sao Paulo, pp. 153-67.
4. English translation in Brazilian Cinema, pp. 90-2.
5. Christian ScienceMonitor, 22 March 1984.
6. Randal Johnson and Robert Stam, 'Recovering Popular Emotion: An Interview with
Leon Hirszman,) Cineaste, XIII, no. 2 (1984), pp. 20-3, 58.
7. Maria Rita Galvao, 'O desenvolvimento das ideias sobre cinema independente', Cinema
BR (Sao Paulo), no. 1 (September 1977), pp. 15-19. The second part of this article is
in Cinema BR, no. 2 (December 1977), pp. 10-17. Complete article reprinted in
30 Anos de Cinema Paulista, Cadernos da Cinemateca 4 (Sao Paulo: Fundagao Cine-
mateca Brasileira, 1980), pp. 13-23.
8. For a discussion of this period, see Thomas E. Skidmore (1967), Politics in Brazil,
1930-1964, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 163-86; and Maria Victoria de
Mesquita Benevides (1976), O Governo Kubitschek, Paz e Terra, Rio de Janeiro.
9. Randal Johnson and Robert Stam, 'The Shape of Brazilian Film History', in Brazilian
Cinema, pp. 15-51.
10. The following summary of some of the ideas of the Instituto Superior de Estudos
Brasileiros was extracted from Caio Navarro de Toledo (1978), ISEB: Fdbrica de
Ideologias, Atica, Sao Paulo.
11. Jean-Claude Bernardet (1979), Cinema BrasUeiro: Propostas para uma Historia, Paz e
Terra, Rio de Janeiro, p. 48.
12. Xavier, op. cit.
13. Ibid., pp. 17-41.
14. Ismail Xavier, 'Black God, White Devil: The Representation of History', in Brazilian
Cinema, pp. 134-48; also Sertdo Mar, pp. 69-119,153-67.
15. Xavier, Sertdo Mar, pp. 153-67.
16. For a discussion of Vera Cruz, see Maria Rita Galvao (1981), Burguesia e Cinema:
o Caso Vera Cruz, Civiliza9ao Brasileira/Embrafilme, Rio de Janeiro; and idem., 'Vera
Cruz: A Brazilian Hollywood', in Brazilian Cinema, pp. 270-80.
17. Johnson and Stam, 'The Shape of Brazilian Film History*.
18. Revisdo Critica do Cinema BrasUeiro (1963), Civilizagao Brasileira, Rio de Janeiro,
pp.13-14.
19. Ismail Xavier (1982), 'Allegories of Underdevelopment: From the "Aesthetics of
Hunger" to the "Aesthetics of Garbage"', Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University,
p. 18.
20. Ibid., pp. 18-21.
21. Estado de Sao Paulo, 12 January 1963.
22. Johnson and Stam, 'Recovering Popular Emotion: An Interview with Leon Hirszman'.

This content downloaded from

129.128.216.34 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:12:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms