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
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.
Just watched yesterday (Saturday) at a film festival Luiz Fernando Carvalho's second feature, 22 years after "To The Left of Father", his first feature. Before starting, suspect of any other extensive review considering this film "a masterpiece", comparing it to works of filmmakers known strictly to cinephiles such as Godard, Pasolini, Antonioni, Bergman and others. Summarizing in a few words: two hours straight of endless speech by the female lead and boredom. Almost the whole movie is shown in pan&scan aspect ratio (or 1:33 aspect ratio), the bored woman looking straight to the camera while speaking, crying, smiling. Endless blah, blah, blah on nothing. Sometimes alternate with B&W moments. Only very few moments to highlight: the maid, a young black woman, drawing in her bedroom's wall; the bored female lead destroying the drawings at the wall; and the close-ups of the living cockroach and its bleeding lymph. The director shot his own foot with his new feature. This movie is not for healthy and normal people. Not recommended.
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.
To watch this film, it seems necessary to know the work of Clarice Lispector.
Clarice has a very particular, rich writing that is not classified as easy (despite the incredibly clear images she is capable of transmitting). Therefore, you cannot expect anything pleasant or captivating. This is not the idea. It wouldn't make sense for a film based on her work not to be dense.
I read some criticisms here talking about a boring monologue. Clearly those who don't realize what they are going to see and prefer to talk badly about what they don't know. Everyone can have opinions but when it's baseless, use to be uninteresting.
It's not a film for any audience, that's for sure. But if we consider that it has a beautiful scenography, excellent photography, complex but captivating text and exquisite aesthetics, it is very difficult to think that it deserves to be evaluated as boring.
If you like density, go for it.
Clarice has a very particular, rich writing that is not classified as easy (despite the incredibly clear images she is capable of transmitting). Therefore, you cannot expect anything pleasant or captivating. This is not the idea. It wouldn't make sense for a film based on her work not to be dense.
I read some criticisms here talking about a boring monologue. Clearly those who don't realize what they are going to see and prefer to talk badly about what they don't know. Everyone can have opinions but when it's baseless, use to be uninteresting.
It's not a film for any audience, that's for sure. But if we consider that it has a beautiful scenography, excellent photography, complex but captivating text and exquisite aesthetics, it is very difficult to think that it deserves to be evaluated as boring.
If you like density, go for it.
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.
¿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$
- Duración2 horas 6 minutos
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta
Principal laguna de datos
What is the Spanish language plot outline for A Paixão Segundo G.H. (2023)?
Responde