Em Nome do Pai

I first watched this in 2003 or 2004. I rediscovered this 17 minute version recently. There were more scenes when I first watched it; an additional, slightly longer shower scene, a scene of the father *not* locked out of the son's bedroom, a scene in which the boy deliberately withholds food from the dog, and a scene including a suspicious but ultimately satisfied police inspector near the end.

The first time I watched, I was enthralled, fascinated and shocked. Mesmerized. For years, I avoided thinking about this film, and alternately searched vehemently to find it again.

This 17 minute version is still a story perfectly told, and thoroughly captivating. I hope someday I find the complete version again.

"Em Nome do Pai" ("In the Name of the Father") is a tough idea to sell. All I can say is that I liked it but I can't say exactly why I liked it because it would hurt the experience of making new viewers to join and know the film; and because there could have some missunderstandings or some controversy on why I liked this picture. And another thing that affects me is how can I use of a deeper meaning, a deeper thought and write it down here without spoiling things for you? I simply can't. And I have this urgency to bring new viewers to this film. Possibly like the writer/director of this, I too, want to cause a commotion on you just the way he did with me where I couldn't figure out exactly the reasons why I liked this film despite dealing with issues we tend to avoid in the news or in movies. Yes, it's gonna leave you a little disturbed but that's what movies are also made for: to shake our senses up.

But here's some things: it's very dark, there's mystery, humor, intrigue and leaves viewers in full suspense through the whole thing. Not to mention, the trio of actors Elias Andreato, Denise Weinberg and the always incredible Leonardo Miggiorin (in his very first short film) were all brilliant. The biggest tragedy of such an intriguing project is that it isn't a feature film where the ideas could be more well developed, expanded with more characters, twists and turns and even leader a more open ending than the one we had here - which wasn't all that open. I believe if you pay enough attention you'll understand exactly what happened at the end and before.

Some minor info for you guys: here's your typical family with a mom (Weinberg), a father (Andreato), a son (Miggiorin), his baby brother (Antonio Roberto) and a dog. Their meetings and sequences filmed all take place inside the kitchen where they're usually having breakfast or having dinner, and the usual talk is constantly related to the woman's complaints about not being able to walk around in her backyard because the dog hates her; the men defend the dog all the time. When the father is out, the talks between mother and son all relates to the old man frequently arriving late at night and always drunk. And that's where lies the mystery when notice that whenever he returns, he doesn't go directly to his room shared with his wife; he always tries to enter in his son's bedroom. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. I guess you get the picture from here.

The movie wraps itself in a spiral of minor events that lead to a major change where some secrets won't stay hidden for too long and things might get out in the open to unexpected results and consequences. And although I could sense some obvious ideas coming, I could not predict its final moments (maybe some major event, but not how it was about to be shown, and neither could I predict the boy's character silent yet powerful interaction with the audience). And it's so bloody short that makes you desperate for more to be seen, more to be explored, more stuff to leave us intrigued the way we were through the whole thing. But it's all great and amazing. Can't wait to see it again, maybe just to find something new or lost during my first view. It's that kind of film that grows on you after it ends. 9/10.

Not easy to define it. Maybe , provocative sounds reasonable but , obvious, it represents more than a provocative short film.

It is a family portrait who seduce , scene by scene, the viewer, in simple, precise way. A couple, their sons, their dog. The talks in kitchen, the special relation between mother and elder son, the father coming home late, drunken, a shower scene who offers first clue about dark side of this idylic portrait and the shocking last scenes.

Fair crafted suggestions, well game of ambiguity and admirable performance of young Leonardo Miggiorin.

In short, one of film seducing and proposing a serious fist of questions.

It's very hard to characterize this short film. I was very attracted by its music, which is a somewhat mournful bassoon solo, and I suppose how you respond to it will depend a great deal on your own attitudes toward its taboo subject-matter.

Only 17 minutes long, I would characterize it as very compact and extremely well made, in terms of both the crafting of the very short screen-play, and in the economy of its direction and acting, which was riveting.

However, it's hard to say if it's a black comedy with humor similar to some of the darker scenes of the Japanese film, Tampopo, or a short story intended to be taken seriously.

For a black comedy, it has a very brooding atmosphere; for a brooding, melancholy, disturbing film, it has a somewhat abrupt, almost humorous ending--and so it's hard to say what one should make of it.

However, it's SO short, that it isn't as if you are investing a great deal to find out how you feel about it, and I doubt that anyone would be COMPLETELY disappointed by it, because it is crafted very well: the subtle symbolism reminded me a great deal of playwright Lanford Wilson: a ceiling lamp which needs a bulb replacement, for example, representing a family secret which has been carefully hidden by and from all.

I found it rather engaging, but I think I would have preferred a longer treatment--a feature length--so that the plot resolution could have had far more justification and build-up than it had.