Mato Eles?

Sergio Bianchi is a very important film director but above all that he's also a very interesting polemicist, creating debate and intrigue on Brazilian society, specially when dealing with topics such as social contrasts and the abysm that divides those who have stuff versus those who have not. When he made the critical and confusing "Maldita Coincidência", his feature film debut, he presented a view of the city of São Paulo filled with misfits and erratic characters who could barely deal with themselves while living together inside of an abandoned chateau. Bianchi evolved with more damning exposition of facts about the urban realities of Brazil and the many social contradictions that surrounds our society with its economical obstacles and social contrasts in films such as "Romance", "A Causa Secreta" and "Cronicamente Inviável" (this one is a masterpiece that deserves plenty of views). He has a clear message, isn't much optimistic (if ever was) and presents things as they are without having any flights of imagination or possible fantastic solutions.

But here's a slightly different view of his, unlike anything he has ever done (before and after). In "Mato Eles?" ("Do I Kill Them?") he brings a reality that is quite distant from the urban centers, and more unknown to a majority of Brazilians since it happens on an indian reservation in the state of Paraná where members of three different tribes (Kaingang, Guarani and Xetá) were being persecuted and killed by local authorities and wood workers who were ilegally profitting with the wood extraction and the occupation of their territories. Let us have in mind that this was the early 1980's, back when the military regime was still going strong and in full effect of power and if the common man from "civilized" society wasn't enjoying liberty to the fullest, you can only imagine what poor native people were suffering on the hands of businessmen and authorities.

The film presents the three tribes and its habitants, all quite close to the civilization so they speak Portuguese, they aren't far back or far rooted in traditions, up to the point where they can deal, trade and use money with the white folks who explore their labor and kills them when they complain to the authorities who legally protect them. If I'm not mistaken, one of the cases follows a native activist who exposed the illegal acts from powerful locals and he was brutally killed and the case never got solved.

You've probably seen this before, and it's not just a thing about the politics of back then. Natives and indians still face prejudice and other dangers while trying to earn their living and just being themselves where they always lived; there are deforestation, illegal extraction of wood and other riches used by the civilized society; and they still deal with poor living conditions, suffer with diseases and some of them don't have access to goods, health care or even police protection whenever they are attacked. You heard of this before.

What you don't get to see and is quite unique in the film (although a little distracting at times) is the opportunity to see the other side of the question which is the people who exploit the natives, the ones who don't care about them and the ones who allegedly say they work for their cause - all presented in short segments and portrayed by actors. So we have a rich white lady dismissing the importance of indians; you have a bureacrat working for one of those native preservation agencies claiming that his administration worked for their cause and there was a huge budget destined to help him with a new road but the interviewer questions that when he visited the location there was nothing done there; and so forth. As I said, it's a little distractive device since careless viewers will believe it as being the real thing happening (which would make this film more outrageous because it's really infuriating the views those people present. But you can't deny it, that kind of view rings true then and even more true today). It's also distractive because the makers decide to use of some humor, some irony while presenting a delicate scenario. When they show the movie-within-a-movie about the tribes playing Carlos Gomes opera "O Guarani" the movie became almost hysterical.

With its combination of facts and some fiction, Bianchi leaves us intrigued, angered and wondering so many things all at once that it's quite hard to figure out what's his real aim, his real ambition in telling us this true story. Is he making the case for we, members of society, to take a deep look at the first habitants of this nation and find ways we can live with them in harmony and respect, or to investigate the killings, find the responsibles for it and prosecute them? Or is it a case for the ruthless citizens who are only thinking about their pockets filled as the growth of the nation's economy stays strong even at the expense of poor natives who'll never have the same benefits as results of their work on their own land - of which are always invaded and for what they're getting exterminated? I wonder if there was in fact an urgency to stir audiences and political authorities in working for any of the cases and parties involved, and little have we evolved since then in those matters. Nothing is really solved - as usual with his films and that's why I like them since he throws the questions to us and we have to figure it all out for ourselves if there is actually a conclusion.

I like the picture but a lot less than I expected. Had it been a feature film with actors and a storyline recreating everything that was presented, then Mr. Bianchi would benefit more, audiences would love the challenge since there's plenty of material that could be worked here, and those are topics that are hardly explored in the movies.

Maybe in the future someone will work this out as a filmed narrative rather than a junction of elements. I hope...6/10.