Lula, o Filho do Brasil

I just saw "Lula, Son of Brazil" at the Palm Springs Festival. As others noted, the acting (Glória Pires and Milhem Cortaz ) is very good and first timer Ruis Ricardo Diaz does a good job portraying the future president. The cinematography is also up to the usual high standards of Brazilian films. The portrayal of the Northeast, origin of much of the marginalized population in the industrial southern cities is genuine and sympathetic, as it was in previous films ( "CentralStation", and "Behind the Sun" )

The fictionalized and tear-jerky story line, however, comes across as the secular sanctification of Lula. One should not forget that the film's makers and some of the actors are intimately connected with the ex-president. Lula's remarkable popularity and executive success should not be cause to whitewash his entire past and portray him as the proletarian saint he appears to be in this movie. The director ( Fábio Barreto ) admitted that national screenings only netted an audience of 1 Million. In a nation of over 200 Million, that stands in contrast to the reported 85% approval rating of the politician at the end of his term. Ms. Barreto, full of class angst, blames this on the "Class A" population, supposedly the only ones interested enough or rich enough to afford the $5 ticket price. This implies a simplified vision of Brazilian society between the haves (Class A) and have-nots (Class C); exactly the sort claptrap ideological rhetoric that prevented Lula from achieving success in previous attempts. Yes, there is a wealthy elite and yes, Brazil does have lingering problems with class divisions, but there is at least a middle "Class B" (growing, in large part, due to the impact of recent Brazilian economic successes). There are worthwhile role models among the class of small entrepreneurs, possibly even in the "Brahmin" ranks of "Class A". The simple truth is, people in Brazil may largely approve of the ex-president, but they are not excited enough about him and his worker's party to invest the time and fork over the money to come and adore him. They'd rather wait until it's out on DVD and available for a buck on the notorious black market.

Go and see this film. It has its merits and foreign audiences, in particular, will learn something about Brazil and Lula, but leave your handkerchief in your pocket.

This movie is profoundly based on the true story of Brazil's President Luís Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2010), beginning at his birth, in the poor countryside of the Northeastern semi-arid Pernambuco State.

It is not openly political, once the story ends before his political acting years in the early eighties, but it has produced some controversy in Brazil, once this is election year. Of course, he can't run for President on a third term, though.

Apart from that, there is a feeling through the movie that it was meant to show some of the most important moments in his life, so there are some scenes that are short on completion. Viewers may expect something more about the short stories told as facts, like something you'd tell on a conversation.

The screenwriters apply the conduct line on the main character's mother, played by Gloria Pires (great), as was done in the other heartwarming movie '2 Filhos de Francisco', but still there is some loss of bond.

All the actors give their best, specially the main actor. The photography is well composed. The soundtrack, highly appropriate, though a bit repetitive. The direction, it seems to me, could have been better.

Great moments bring the audience to tears, while learning about the past of suffering and poverty that built the charismatic and popular politician. As a Brazilian, I was touched when I found out that a little boy who cleaned people's leather shoes in the streets became my President. All he needed was to be stubborn.

This movie is about the true story of a poor immigrant, syndicate leader, that became the president of Brazil. The story itself is amazing and deserved to be told. However, the execution here is way poorer than it should. There are many Brazilian directors capable of doing it.

The movie is at all, really bad. The reconstruction of the period id poor, the acting is bad, the casting is at all misplaced. The preparation of the actors was really poor, the accents are wrong, the set is too bi-dimensional, the history set is shallow, it doesn't account for what was the dictatorial period the movie is set in.

At the end, you can't understand or believe in the main character because the director was too much of a fan, or was unable to portrait the man as a real person.

As the story is pretty good, It's is only a badly executed movie. It's a pity, hope this story gets to be told more properly in the future.

Lula is the leading and agglutinating symbol of the "cultural revolution" that gave leftists complete hegemonic control of public discussions, to the point that virtually all ideological opposition disappeared from the big picture. To confirm Karl Marx's claim that historical tragedies recur as farces, one should write a play about Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Any student of Marxism who has properly done his homework realizes that, from the point of view of revolutionary strategy, Lula did nothing wrong. Instead. He followed the recipe faithfully, with a fine dialectical sense of objective conditions, moments and opportunities, succeeding in accomplishing what was almost impossible: to save the Latin American communist movement from extinction, and put it in action in a dozen countries. The FARC themselves recognized it emphatically in a letter of thanks sent to the XV anniversary of the Forum of Sao Paulo. Lula himself, conscious of the work accomplished, celebrated his spectacular ideological victory by arguing that Brazil had reached the perfection of democracy: all candidates were left-wing. It is easy to call him a thief, a con man, a devil. But the fact is, such critique is based on a criterion of administrative appropriateness which only applies within the framework of "bourgeois morality." Lula, like Allende in Chile, had to make alliances and concessions - including the vocabulary of "bourgeois honesty" - with a firm intention of throwing them away as soon as possible. He moved amid the ambiguities of an opportunistic conciliation between the strategic demands of the revolutionary movement and the objective interests of his capitalist allies. Not even personal illicit enrichment can be seriously alleged against him by the canons of revolutionary morality. It is an historical fact that all the major stars of the communist cast enriched illicitly - Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Pol-Pot, Allende, Ceaucescu - and it was a tacit norm that they had the obligation to do so, preferably with Swiss accounts, in order to have the means to protect themselves, and eventually restart the revolution in case of failure of any local project. Only Lenin was unable to enjoy a potentate status because some time after the victory of the Revolution, tertiary syphilis, fulfilling its fatal term, reduced him to a human rag. As per Yakov Stanislavovich Ganetsky, Lenin's financial mentor, "the best way to destroy capitalism is for us to become capitalists ourselves." The revolutionary movement has always relied on robbery, fraud, smuggling, kidnapping, drug trafficking, and, in democratic countries where it came to power, assault on public coffers. Lula did not invent anything, he did not innovate at all, he did not change anything, he only demonstrated an extraordinary ability to apply good old tricks. In the court of revolutionary ethics, therefore, not a word can be said against him. His Party (PT) was not a mere case of "corruption" like so many others, but rather a gigantic plan of appropriation of public money in order to give the communist movement full power over the continent.

This film itself is a mockery to all good Brazilians. True, this movie was made before the thief was arrested for corruption. He is not a hero, but a convicted felony. Nothing can change that. The worst criminal in brazil's history. And worst than that, a communist. The movie lacks reality and does not depict him as he really is. Made by communists to communists. If you have any knowledge of Brazilian history and what is going on here right now. You'll see how wrong and inaccurate this is after all. I can't see good things about this movie. It's incredible how Brazil makes great or horrible movies. This is a horrible one.