Sécheresses

The illiterate migrants Fabiano (Átila Iório), his mate Sinhá Vitória (Maria Ribeiro), their two sons and their dog Baleia drift in the country of the Northeast of Brazil, fighting for their survival. They are hired by a farmer (Jofre Soares) in a slavery condition to take care of his kettle.

"Vidas Secas" is a classic of the Brazilian Cinema and the first movie of the "Cinema Novo" ("New Cinema"), a movement of the Brazilian filmmakers in the 60's that proposed to make low-budget movies with social concerns and rooted in Brazilian culture, which had the following slogan: "A camera in the hands and an idea in the head".

Nelson Pereira dos Santos made a masterpiece, certainly on of the best Brazilian movies ever. Based on a classic novel of the Brazilian literature of Graciliano Ramos, the reality and cruelty of the story is stunning. The black and white photography and the performances of the cast, including the dog, are very impressive, recalling the Italian Neo-Realism of Roberto Rossellini. This movie was made in 1963, the story happens in the 40's and presently the situation of the drought in the country of the Northeast of Brazil remains exactly the same, being one of our greatest national shames. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Vidas Secas" ("Dry Lives")

I rented this movie just because I had read the good book by Graciliano Ramos, back in 1992 in high school. When I played the video tape I really enjoyed what I saw. The slow rhythm is not an obstacle for us who want to have a great time watching a movie. It's the other way around, we just can't leave it once we realise "Vidas Secas" is an impressive narration of the difficulties poor people have when they try to move from their dying land in order to start a new life in the city. It's really time to press "play" and sit back.

My rate 7/10

Typical representative of the call "Cinema Novo" in Brazil, that film is beautiful. With picture in black and white, the history was based on a classic of the Brazilian literature and it rotates around a family it expels of your earth for the dry climate, with thirst and hunger, migrating for an inhospitable landscape in search of a better life. Even a character so difficult of representing, the female dog " Baleia ", it has an anthological interpretation.

As the great director Nelson Pereira dos Santos was, he delivered a consistent movie on the harsh life conditions of scarcity and hunger in Northeastern Brazilian hinterland, adapting to cinema a major classic of the country's literature by Graciliano Ramos. Cinematography is spectacular and certainly this paramount Cinema Novo film inspired a later classic of Brazilian cinema: Cinema, aspirins and vultures. The footage shot with animals in Barren Lives is particularly impressive. Baleia is a charismatic character, being decisive on how much moving the film may be.

Arid land, poverty, suffering, this is the visit here. The story is about a poor family who eke a miserable life in a homestead in the Brazilian wilderness, but this isn't about a story, it's going through the motions of life, embodying, suffering the hardship.

I like here how it conveys the meaninglesssness, the limits of a world that goes on forever but offers so little to do. Drag your feet under the sun from here to there, pick up firewood, stir a thankless meal, herd bony cattle for the town rancher; a leather bed is their dream, denied until the end.

I'll have you imagine the film like sheets with patterns of life stitched on them that someone hung out in the sun and forgot, the sun has bleached the patterns, the wind and dust have battered them to a lean rough texture, the film is their aimless flapping in the wind.

So overall there's a godforsaken purity here that feels stumbled on to. This poses a dilemma. I can't watch something like this as aesthetic token when it involves the suffering of people, it wholly defeats the purpose. The question for me is how far or close is real life? Of course every shot has been staged, I'm talking about the registered perception; how much truth has seeped in with the dust?

With Bela Tarr, see, we know, reality is the canvas of place on which cosmogonic abstractions are drawn with history as the brush, time as ink. With Rossellini, it's the stage on which a play is enacted, often about the pursuit of a real fulfillment, a real self. Herzog is about this dissonance between staged and real (so much more effectively than Godard), with jumps of madness that blur and edge to purity.

Here it has all been so effectively bleached of difference. So I'm swept. But to a world I can only parch in. It works, in the end I can't wait to leave the place just like the characters who drag their feet away from there. As they do, the question on the children's parched lips is when will they finally become 'real people'? Meaning, in the context of this, that real life is a life of possibility, that lets you envision and create, look beyond suffering.