A Paixão Segundo G.H.

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.

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.

The endless monologue of the main character became tiring already in the first few minutes. Me and my friend both fell asleep at the cinema within 10-15 minutes and woke up from a scream of the main character. Monotonous shots of her inside her flat rambling through her existential crisis. It is supposed to be philosophical and artistic but is primarily boring. It might work as a book, but as a film, it lacks everything. Even for sleeping, because of her sudden scream. Two hours wasted, do not make the same mistake. One of the biggest disappointments I have seen in cinema. It had a 7.9 rating here when I checked, I see now that average was based on too few reviews to take seriously.

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.

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.