Dios y el diablo en la tierra del sol

I saw this film on the premise of that it according to critics is the "best Brazilian film of all times". Critics are way too generous to this young auteur influenced by Eisenstein and other masters, mixing genres and styles but only achieving an amateurish, confused, pretentious and quite tasteless work. It is messy, low-budget and is overall not worth watching despite a handful of nice shots and moments. In an accompanying interview to the film, the director Rocha, with Marxist rhetoric, blame European colonists for Latin America's economic problems and justifies the movie's content as "the aesthetics of hunger". To me, more than anything else, it shows the madness of religion and cults and how they attract people in desperation.

This film begins wonderfully, brilliantly shot and keenly acted- but right as you're sure it's coming to a close, the music suddenly runs uptempo and the narrator says the equivalent of "Wait, there's more!" and the second segment of the film destroys any credibility the first might have established. The director's portrayal of the desert's harshness lends logically to the lunacy of the characters- but Rosa's actions in the second half seem completely unmotivated, as if the actors ran out of script and just start making things up out of boredom in front of the camera. Laudable attempts at Eisenstein-style multiple-repeat editing are a good idea but using them to cover the low-budget nature of the action scenes is not. Overall worth seeing, but I must warn you that I fell asleep towards the end.

This movie is considered by the critics as the most important Brazilian movie of all times. And they are right in this point. An impressive, outstanding portrait of Brazilian rich culture with a focus on some delicate subjects as religion, faith, violence and economic exploration. Rocha made here a fantastic synthesis of the main problems of Brazil, problems that still remained almost forty years after. Great performances by Del Rey and Mauricio do Valle.

At just 25, Brazilian director Glauber Rocha directed Black God, White Devil, now considered one of the most important pictures to ever come out of Brazil, and a key entry into the Cinema Novo movement. Combining elements of Sergio Leone, Italian neo-realism, and Soviet propaganda such as the work of Sergei Eisenstein, Rocha created a brutal, grainy world inhabited by suicidal religious fanatics, wandering hit men, and psychopathic bandits. From the opening shots of rotting animal corpses and the endless Brazilian sertão, Rocha portrays a grim social realism, one of the key aspects of Cinema Novo.

Ranch-hand Manuel (Geraldo Del Rey) lives in poverty with his wife Rosa (Yona Magalhaes). Fed up with his situation, he goes into town to sell his stock, only to have his boss try to cheat him out of his money, so Manuel kills him with a machete. Fleeing the authorities, he falls in with maniacal preacher Sebastiao (Lidio Silva), who leads Manuel, Rosa and his other followers on a killing spree. Circumstances lead to Manuel leaving the cause, and joining up with famous bandit Corisco (Othon Bastos), who also leads the couple on an orgy of meaningless violence and thievery. But shadowy gun-for-hire Antonio das Mortes (Mauricio do Valle), having been paid by the church and a poltician, is hot on Corisco's tail.

The film very much reminded me of Cormac McCarthy's astounding novel Blood Meridian, where the sheer brutality of the violence played as a metaphor for a society gone sour and a world intent of self-destruction. Like Blood Meridian's The Kid, Manuel and Rosa follow blindly to whichever cause they see a glimmer of hope in. They fail to see the lunacy of Sebastiao's behaviour, and it's only at the point where he stabs a baby in the heart that their eyes seem to be opened, only for them to shack up with the gibbering Corisco, a man who speaks like a poet but doesn't seem to be able to comprehend his own existence. It is at this point, about two-thirds in, that the film seems to lose momentum and becomes somewhat of an unfathomable mess.

But it isn't just the social-political ponderings that make Black God, White Devil so memorable, it also has style in abundance. The camera-work is shaky and urgent at times, full of character close-ups from awkward angles, but it also uses fast editing reminiscent of Eisenstein's greatest works. Similar to Battleship Potemkin's (1925) Odessa steps sequence, the Monte Santo chapel massacre at the hands of Antonio das Mortes is simply electrifying. It is das Mortes' presence that leads to the moments that evoke the work of Sergio Leone, wrapping the shady anti-hero in moody atmosphere like Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name. It's a dangerous mixture of conflicting styles that works beautifully, making the film beautiful and cool, occasionally horrifying, and undoubtedly important. It's just a shame it doesn't manage to keep up with the absolutely astonishing opening two-thirds.

I loved the first two-thirds of this jaw-dropping epic. For my second viewing, this time with a friend, we both agreed that it fell to pieces after that point, becoming incoherent and unfathomable, whilst still being stylish and remaining 'strange'.

The visual sense was part 'Aguirre, Wrath of God' and Sergio Leone's 'Once Upon a Time in the West'. But, in grainy, high contrast black & white. Camera movements are urgent rather than flowing with the odd editing flourish to enliven the action. We both found this approach initially utterly mesmerising.

This film is of hardcore fanaticism, with religious bigotry and the sheer survival in the harsh scrub desert-lands of northern Brazil. Some scenes are reminiscent of Russian cinematic masterpieces by Eisentstein, as in Ivan the Terrible. I think some scenes will offend and appal many viewers whilst still retaining mystery and that 'Wow, this is something totally different and exciting'. The sort of film that has the critics swooning but with the actual film-lover rather less than overawed.

I'd rather not go into all the narrative in and outs, mostly because it is the overall effect and impression that it has left on me. Unforgettable, true; daring and significant, undoubtedly. But that doesn't make it a film any easier to watch, though. I would give the first two thirds 9/10 and the remainder five.