Vitalina Varela

In this movie Vitalina Varela performs her own person role in an event of her personal life as a non-professional actress.

As a Capeverdian living in Cape Verde (a former Portuguese colony) she saw her husband leaving to work in Lisbon, Portugal. Only 25 years later she managed herself to leave to Portugal to join her husband. However she arrived there three days after his death. Then an atmosphere of sorrow and bitterness sets itself in the movie even suggested by the image darkness, the slow movement of characters and their foreground plan faces. Meanwhile Vitalina becomes aware that her husband's behaviour was rather illicit.

A remarkable movie direction by Pedro Costa.

I watched this movie praised by most critics for its beauty. And it is a beautiful shot movie because of mis-e- scene, acting, lightning and camera. It is all superb in its self inflicted-limitations. Very simple mis-en=.scene and dressing of mostly very poor slum interiors, all shot at night. Fascinating acting of the woman Vitalina who's face is so great to look at in the many close ups. The lightning which makes with its claire obscure and brilliant color accents everything into a Carravagio painting. And the camera which chooses always a fixed cadre like a painting and gets the light and colors in a subtle way. There is hardly a story cause there is no development. It is more the depiction of the failed life of the just died husband of Vitalina, told to us through her eyes, her monologues, searching for details and questions to the priest who buried him. In one scene the husband is shown seen on his slender young naked back lying in the matrimonial bed still in Cabo Verdi. The now young wife Vitalina stands up and walks out of their self build house into a beautiful but dry landscape. The general theme of the movie is the misery of life in general and that of Cabe Verdian migrant workers in particular. My question watching the movie was and is what is the function of all this beauty, what is it for? Is it to show that allthough life is miserable the figures in this movie experience it as beautiful? The answer is negative cause they are desperate in their life and see no light. Is the beauty meant to soften our experience of viewing all this malheur? Of course it does. How to watch so much ugliness for such a long time if there is not something nice to be seen? It has that softening and pleasurable effect but it is not the main function of all this esthetica . I think the function is deeper. Is it l'art pour l'art: beauty for beauty sake? Maybe but what does that mean here? I think that in a religious way we are shown the deep humanity of all these unlucky and unhappy people and the possibility to reconcile ourselves through this beauty with human life. At least I think it is meant that way by the maker of the movie. Did it work that way with me? In a way yes but not in a satisfactory way. Maybe that's my fault.

An expressionistic melancholy spell. Painstakingly composed and beautifully lit. The texture and hues of the images are remarkable.

The images do very little of the storytelling beyond place, space, and tone. The story itself is almost completely orally told. Even then, words emerge after long ambient soundscapes of unseen "slum life" always just happening beyond the image's frames or on the other side of walls.

Whether it's day or night, it's almost always pitch, with pinpoint spotlighting illuminating only parts of this desolate world and the striking faces that occupy it. Most of the image is in consummate shadow. Until the end, when, finally, emerging from out of our mourning, we begin to see daylight and sky. Most of this sky is in memory, but not all.

The pacing is so languid and the creative choices so deliberate that we have plenty of time to live inside the images and moments.

I felt there was some Bergman here: the disenchanted priest; the memory haunted spaces and characters; the faces floating in darkness, only their eyes revealing the depths of their emotional experiences.

You are forgiven for thinking that this film is boring or could be shorter. You are forgiven for thinking that it is perfect as it is, even somehow fragile; that it creates the exact effect on the viewer that is intended.

You are forgiven for thinking and feeling anything you've ever thought and felt, as long as you turn your face towards kindness from this moment forward... but you must do it quick, before the credits roll.

Pedro is very well know outside the country he lives and films on, not that much in the country he actually lives, the country I also live. I think the reason for that is, one: the films are complicated, and two: his filming a reality people don't know and don't want to see. There's a lot of people that don't really understand what "his" saying, and I can't blame them, because I also don't understand, in some, a large portion of it, Pedro himself says he doesn't either. To watch "his" films I ask for the company of my mother. She explains the films to me, a rare occasion for her, because she's accustomed to being me doing the movie explanations. She's seeing a reality she lived 50 years ago, right after the 1974 revolution, a revolution made only for some.

A poignant story in an extraordinary setting, shown in a poetic, serene way.

Gorgeous cinematography, shot in a clair-obscur style which highlights certain distinct colours from the darkness (at times reminiscent of old masters's paintings, such as the work of Caravaggio or Rembrandt).

Strong, pure acting by the lead actors - Vitalina Varela and Ventura.

Pedro Costa tells his story slowly, but intelligently. Instead of presenting the plot outline on a silver platter, he challenges the viewer to discover this for himself. Costa's style of story-telling reminds me of Bela Tarr's films; both prefer the visual language over the spoken one.

This film is not very accessible, and requires full attention. But it will prove to be very rewarding in the end.