The thought of cinema in Brazil

El Lissitzky, Proun Composition, c. 1922


Paulo Emílio Sales Gomes, Jean-Claude Bernardet, Glauber Rocha


“It is not in aesthetics, but in sociology that the originality of cinema shines as a living art of this century.”

For Paulo Emílio, without this trait cinema is theater or literature, therefore without specificity or originality. This has been the condition of thinking in Brazilian cinema, which we can define as sociological thinking, that is, thinking determined by the movement of society and social theory. Classic texts on Brazilian cinema, such as Cinema: trajectory in underdevelopment, by Paulo Emílio, Critical review of Brazilian cinema, by Glauber Rocha, and Brazil in movie time, by Jean-Claude Bernardet, indicate in a differentiated way the determinations of this sociological thought.

Paulo Emílio: Cinema: trajectory in underdevelopment (1973)

“[...] in cinema, underdevelopment is not a stage, a stage, but a state” In the very first paragraph, Paulo Emílio announces in a sentence his thoughts on the condition of Brazilian cinema and other underdeveloped ones such as Hindu and cinema. Arabic. The colonization process thus would have determined not only the economic structure of these countries, but subjugated the entire culture to the mere reproduction of the forms imposed by the colonizer. Cinema is not experiencing a stage of underdevelopment, like a transition, but a permanent state that reproduces the situation in the country and from which it cannot escape. It is not a question of conjuncture, but of structure.

The concepts developed and underdeveloped move the text towards economic determinations. How is culture structured in an underdeveloped country? What is the nature of the occupied/occupant relationship? How is the logic of dependency established? What are the colonizer's strategies? What is the role of cinema in this logic of oppositions?

On the one hand, the developed cinemas – American, Japanese and European – on the other hand, the underdeveloped ones – Brazilian, Arabic and Hindu. Paulo Emílio elaborates the variations of the model of colonization through the differences of the local production.

In the Hindu model, the refusal of traditional culture to accept the products of the cultural industry of the West, causes an opening for local production to create a commercial exhibition circuit. However, “the most powerful root of this production is constituted by ideas, images and style already manufactured by the occupiers for consumption by the occupied.”

The Japanese model reveals an inversion in relation to Hindu cinema. If in India cinema assumes the images manipulated by the occupiers, in Japan the benshis make western images oriental through the means of narrative. Thus, when national production starts, there is no resistance.

In the Arab model, the occupier encounters an anti-iconic culture, which is not interested in Western films or local production. “The fabrication of an Arab image was intense, but destined for Western consumption: the model was never recognized.”

In Brazil, the colony situation and miscegenation complicate the colonization process, making occupied and occupying indistinguishable. Paulo Emílio summarizes: “The Brazilian cinematographic situation does not have a cultural terrain different from the western one where it can lay down its roots. We are an extension of the West, there is not between it and us the natural barrier of a Hindu or Arab personality that needs to be constantly suffocated, circumvented and violated. We were never really busy. When the occupant arrived, the existing occupation did not seem adequate and it was necessary to create another one (...) We are not Europeans or North Americans, but devoid of original culture, nothing is foreign to us, because everything is.”

Cinema is part of the process of updating this colonization, and in each country a different order of subordination to the colonizers is established. Between being and not being the other, cinema happens as part of a broader ideological movement of hiding the colonization process, which operates with different procedures depending on the specificity of the local culture.

Paulo Emílio then deals with developed and underdeveloped cinematographic models in order to contrast them with the situation of Brazilian cinema. The Brazilian model was constituted by cinematic spurts, which appear and disappear, like fragile copies of the international cinematographic movement. Cinema seems to live here the tragic destiny of the nation that lives on the succession of projects that never fully happen.

While international cinema was not yet an industry, Brazil experienced the Beautiful Era of Brazilian Cinema with tapes about crimes and politics, Brazilian themes in handcrafted cinematographic form, precarious but original. After this first outbreak, the Americans beat their European competitors, renewing the commercial circuit and Brazilian cinema became, as Paulo Emílio states, a North American and also Brazilian fact. This is because the American film invades the social imaginary in such a way that we become the other.

Unlike the Hindu or Arab model, culture in Brazil does not insist on tradition and it did not take huge efforts for the Americans, as the new settlers of this land, to also assume the role of the occupant in the cinematographic context. Since then, cinema has lived from the fissures of this dominant system. The talking movies, for example, immobilizes the system in the search for possibilities of translating the English language, it is enough for a certain advance in the production of films in Brazil.

But it was only in the 40s that a cinematographic surge of greater proportions took place, making Rio de Janeiro's cinematographic production continuous for twenty years. A chanchada it is then the rise of popular cinema in Brazil, which occurs against the occupier's taste, based on models of popular shows such as the Rio de Janeiro revue, and how it reviews the political events of the time. Thus, in the same way as at the beginning of the century, cinema experienced the euphoria of the union between production and exhibition.

In the 50s, the rise of industrial cinema with Vera Cruz São Paulo intended to obtain even greater profits than Rio studios and sought, through the latest technical innovations and foreign teams, to build a national cinema that was above all international. Naivety is the characteristic pointed out by Paulo Emílio to this cinematic incursion from São Paulo, which loses the “popular virtue of Rio de Janeiro cinema” and believes in the illusion that “the movie theaters were made to show any tape, including national ones”.

The frequency of cinematographic outbreaks arouses interest. Brazilian producers are pressing the Government for a policy, but this is limited to determining a market reserve for national films, continuing to favor foreign production. The growth of cinematographic activity in Brazil, in Paulo Emílio's analysis, only makes evident the role of the State alongside the occupier and demonstrates the limits to national production.

The third cinematographic outbreak after the beautiful season and chanchada presented by Paulo Emílio is the New Cinema. The movement influenced by European neorealism and the “diffuse socialist sentiment” structures political and aesthetic criticism in cinema. Cinema Novo is focused as part of a more general cultural process – which includes theater, music, literature and social sciences – silenced by internal politics.

“The former idle hero of the chanchada was supplanted by the worker, but in the cinematographic spectacles that these tapes provided, the occupied ones were much more present on the screen than in the room.”

New characters from a new cinema. Cinema abandons types, stereotypes, in search of the Brazilian social character, but the public does not show up and this becomes the critical point of the movement. If the structure of the parody in chanchadas generated controversy between the occupant and the occupied with light humor, the decisive critical dimension determined by cinema novo deepened and denounced the contradictions in the terms of the occupation.

In the new images, new landscapes – streets, favelas, beaches, caatinga – new characters – the worker, the cafajeste, the soldier, the sertanejo, the cangaceiro. And for the first time the image that is created is that of the busy. This is the rupture of Cinema Novo, rupture with the image of the occupant.

Paulo Emílio chooses Cinema Novo as a privileged moment for viewing Brazilian history, as it was able to show and expand the generosity that Brazil experienced in the 50s, when it believed in a national balance that included minorities. These, if they were contemplated in the satires of the chanchadas as a parodic inversion of the model of the occupant, in the new cinema they are portrayed as the model of the Brazilian social reality.

If the cinemanovista movement expresses, for Paulo Emílio, a social conscience, the new cinematographic surge that succeeds it after the Military Coup of 64 and opposes it – the Trash Cinema – displays indifference and withdrawal towards social issues. "[…] O Trash proposes an anarchism without any rigor or anarchic culture and tends to transform the plebs into rabble, the occupied into trash”.

The new outbreak brings new characters. Neither rascal nor worker, the marginal is the character of the trash. Paulo Emílio refers to the São Paulo production of the period as that of artisans from the suburbs, of inarticulate anger, without hope. This is the trait of garbage characters, the absurdity and indifference of the loss of hope. Clandestine, this cinema produces a sarcastic picture of despair and impotence in the face of the nation.

Cinema contemporary to Paulo Emílio’s article participates in the stage of underdevelopment – ​​a Brazilian miracle – of the 70s. Among light comedies in advertising format, erotic films and country movies, the cinema that survives the ideological and artistic “save yourself who can” from 1968 moves from the social to the individual, from Brazil to foreign countries, from the occupied to the occupier. “If at a certain moment Cinema Novo was orphaned by an audience, the reciprocal had even more distressing consequences”.

The final paragraph of Paulo Emílio's article analyzes the consequences of the sudden end of the stimulating condition of the early sixties as an effect of the Coup d'Etat. The intellectual public is orphaned by cinema and an important focus of critical training is erased by force. Audiences turn to foreign film as entertainment.

“Turning one's back on Brazilian cinema is a form of tiredness in the face of the problem of the occupied and indicates one of the ways of reinstalling the perspective of the occupant. The sterility of the intellectual and artistic comfort that foreign films provide makes the portion of the public that interests us an aristocracy of nothing, an entity in short much more underdeveloped than the Brazilian cinema that deserted. There's nothing to do but check it out. This sector of spectators will never find the muscles in their bodies to overcome passivity, just as Brazilian cinema does not have the strength to escape underdevelopment. Both depend on the miraculous revival of Brazilian life and will meet again in the cultural process that will be born there.”

Aristocrats from nowhere, occupiers and occupied consummate the process of underdevelopment as a state of dependence, in which the sterile and mediocre culture only reintroduces the control and propaganda of a culture that is foreign to us. The miraculous situation described by Paulo Emílio demonstrates the exclusion of independent Brazilian cinema and the public's adherence to foreign films. The refusal of our cinema indicates the permanence and continuity of the occupied as an occupant. Indistinct characters running away from differences, when these, if visible, could perhaps erase our trajectory in underdevelopment.

Jean-Claude Bernardet: Brazil in cinema time (1967)

Paulo Emílio praises in the preface to the book Brazil in movie time the young European esthete Jean-Claude Bernardet, converted by Brazilian films of the 1960s into a Brazilian writer. Jean-Claude's thesis identifies a structural relationship between cinema and society and more precisely between national films and the middle class. Ideology, politics and psychology of the characters are associated in Jean-Claude's analysis of the 1958 and 1966 production. Paulo Emílio emphasizes in the text social concerns and the attempt to treat modern Brazilian cinema as an “organic whole”.

Na Introduction, Jean-Claude situates this text as a work within the struggle of the films that he intends to analyze and not as a critical and sociological systematization. The author presents Brazil as a country with outdated structures where only the urban middle class develops, without however becoming the Brazilian ruling class, which generates contradictions. However, there is no doubt that she is responsible for the Brazilian cultural movement as a producer and consumer of a consumable culture where “cinema is foreign cinema”. The author highlights, however, a progressive layer within the middle class, concerned with investigating their own ideas and values ​​at the cultural and artistic level, outside the mirror of the dominant classes. Jean-Claude identifies, then, an internal contradiction to the ideological movement of the middle class, where on the one hand there is a retrograde and mistaken layer in search of similarity with the dominant classes and on the other a progressive vanguard in search of a particular expression differentiated from the determinations dominant. The interpretation of Brazilian cinema from 1958 to 1966 takes place within this framework of analysis of the cultural vanguard of the middle class.

Jean-Claude's arguments are close to Paulo Emílio's analysis when he presents the fragile economic situation of Brazilian cinema as a permanent state, which results from the unshakable occupation of foreign production in the national cinematographic market through the vicious mechanisms of distribution and exhibition, a consequence of lack of legislation that favors cinema in Brazil. Jean-Claude thus assesses the situation of a cinema that thrives on spurts or cycles and even more on isolated films, which coexist with the tradition of a foreign cinematography and with the discontinuity of Brazilian production. It is necessary to create a market and an audience for Brazilian cinema to reach expression, argues the author. Jean-Claude internalizes the issue of the public: it is not just a commercial problem in the market, but the participation of the public in the making of the film. On this participation depends the end of the alienation that results from a cinema of distance from ourselves and the beginning of an awareness through the film-spectator dialogue. How is this new cinema realized from the middle class? What shapes does it create? What reality does it focus on? What forces does it support or fight? Who is the man who introduces us to Brazilian cinema? These are the questions in this classic text by Bernardet.

Jean-Claude introduces the film in his analyses, moves through the images in search of characters, the figures of the Brazilian man portrayed by cinema. Among the characters, the theme and the narrated story appear. Jean-Claude operates in parts: he tells the story through the character's journeys and presents synthesis as a theme – alienation (the deceased – Hirzman), decadence (The circus - Jabor) the perplexity (The challenge – Saraceni). Reflective themes of the middle class. The character, in this author's interpretation, is a class representative, a social type due to his creation by the film itself. “[…] directors never make us penetrate inside these characters to dissect their doubts, their conscience, their alienations. We always see the action of these characters within the community. The strong structure of these characters makes it possible for them to be immediately identified as social types”.

Jean-Claude directs his analysis towards the construction of the films he points out, that is, he looks for urban middle class types in the characters. What the films of the 1960s show and what they hide about the role of this class in Brazil is Jean-Claude's field of research. When investigating this moment in national cinema, the author traces a line of continuity between the characters: Roni (the big fair), Brave (sun over the mud), Firmino (Barravento), Tonio (Bahia of All Saints) are the ancestors of Antônio das Mortes (God and the devil in the land of the sun), a character, for Jean-Claude, a watershed between middle-class cinema that hides itself and cinema that incarnates the middle class and its bad conscience. the big fair e five times slum emerge as representatives of the first phase and God and the devil from the second. With Glauber, cinema abandons the extremes of the middle class, the wealthy and the slum dwellers, and confronts itself with its own questions. Even so, Jean-Claude recovers the Critical Review of Brazilian Cinema by stating that Brazilian films should not denounce the people to the ruling classes, but rather denounce the people to the people themselves.

But why so much emphasis on the pursuit of the middle class in cinema? On the one hand, because when talking about the middle class, cinema approaches the present time; on the other hand, because the realism of class characters seems to contribute, in Jean-Claude's view, to the construction of relationships and differences that populism would have erased.

“When you approach the present, the border between culture and politics is not clear.”

For Jean-Claude, the retreat into the past would have been the general movement of Brazilian cinema after Vargas. It was only in the 60s, and especially from 64 onwards, that the present of the middle class appeared on screen, and without a doubt with a mixture of culture and politics. the poet of earth in trance, the intellectual The challenge, the bourgeois São Paulo S.A. advertise a cinema that thinks about the middle class of a country in crisis. Addressing issues of this class is, for Jean-Claude, the condition for facing the most urgent issues in Brazil through cinema, hence the praise for the realistic forms found in some films such as The challenge from Saraceni or in Viramundo by Geraldo Sarno, where the intellectual and the northeastern immigrant represent a “class problem”. Realism is, in the field of cinematic form pointed out by the author, a means of erasing populist distortions and generalizations, by rescuing the social contradictions understood at this moment from an analysis marked by the concepts of social class and class struggle.

For Jean-Claude, The challenge introduces for the first time, through the relationship between Marcelo and Ada, the issue of class struggle through the logic of perplexity imposed right after the 64 coup; the stagnation experienced by intellectuals who, throughout the 50s, believed in social and political projects that have now been dismantled. “For these characters who do not act, do nothing, the word is simultaneously a form of reaction and alienation.”

The intellectual character seems to clarify for the middle class not only its role, but also that of the industrial bourgeoisie. The construction of the character delimits the contradictions of his class with a lucidity that, for Jean-Claude, indicates overcoming the situation of stagnation through the awareness of impotence.

Em São Paulo S.A.., the clarity of the impasses of a class is even greater for focusing on the indifference of the petty bourgeois character. Carlos does not choose, driven by whatever events. He is not alienated, nor does he react. If Marcelo experiences the perplexity of impossibility, Carlos experiences indifference in the face of possibilities. In the world of industrial development, money determines the relationship between characters. No project “Carlos is led along the path opened by the big bourgeoisie.” For Jean-Claude, Carlos is a weak character, who lives on the pure exteriority that succumbs to the main character: the city of São Paulo. “The character, who was the dominating element of Brazilian cinema (including in Dried lives), loses strength and prestige in Sao Paulo S/A, an evolution that will certainly not mark the whole, but at least a large part of the future of Brazilian cinema.”

Jean-Claude again points out the continuity between characters in Brazilian cinema when he affirms Carlos as a step ahead of Antônio das Mortes: if before the middle class character oscillated between opposing positions, finally the petty bourgeois character expresses the real situation of the middle class while place determined by the big bourgeoisie. It is the portrait of a class without choice, without project, without conscience.

In the last chapter of his book, entitled Forms, Jean-Claude concludes that the search for equivalence between the structures of the characters and the structures of Brazilian society expresses the Brazilian problem in which the question of culture seems to converge to the question of the popular. This is his main defense: Brazilian cinema must be popular by showing popular themes not only to the cultural elite, but to the general public.

“Thus, although aspiring to be popular for its subject matter and the audience it wanted to reach, recent Brazilian cinema, both the cinema of ideas and the artisanal and commercial, was popular only to the extent that it was inspired by popular problems and forms. But what he did was elaborate thematic and form that express the problematic of the middle class. Five Times Favela to the deceased, São Paulo S.A. e The challenge, through God and the devil in the land of the sun, a watershed in current Brazilian cinema, a theme was elaborated in a few years that ranges from an alienation in which the class illusory intended to identify itself with the people, to a concrete possibility of facing the problems of this class.”

Jean-Claude recovers the issue of the public to reaffirm the need for Brazilian cinema to show the middle class. Cinema dedicated to the people treats the middle class with ambiguity, without attracting the people or the middle class itself, interested in ignoring its situation. Without rejecting the difficulties of distribution and exhibition of Brazilian cinema, Jean-Claude shifts the issue to the impasses between national films and the middle class, between Brazilian cinema and the general public. From the progressive segment of middle-class culture, experience in the field of the theme and form of a cinema that reflects Brazilian society depends. Reflecting, as Jean-Claude says, films not as a reproduction of reality, but as an invention. “Cultural facts, these films are so because their structures reflect structures of Brazilian society, and because they are not copies of reality: their realism comes from an entire re-elaboration of reality.”

Through character analysis, Jean-Claude traces the historical continuity of middle-class cinema. Manuel, Antonio das Mortes, Carlos. Polarity, ambiguity, atomization. Focusing movements of a class in national cinema. An isolated class like its characters, who appear as images of a people where the masses do not appear. At the same time, they are collective characters as an expression of the nationalist imagination of the time, all volunteers in the project of building a country.

Glauber Rocha: Critical review of Brazilian cinema (1963)

At the age of 24, a young short filmmaker writes an intuitive, lucid, ironic and generous essay on the history of Brazilian cinema. The terms of the speech predict a revolution, the revolution of cinema novo. In this manifesto text, Critical review of Brazilian cinema, Glauber Rocha seeks a historical determination for Cinema Novo, seeks to legitimize, through the historical process of Brazilian cinema, the movement of which he is the main interlocutor.

In the introduction, Glauber defines the state of affairs: “Brazilian cinematographic culture is precarious and marginal: there are film clubs and two cinematheques: there is no magazine of informative, critical or theoretical importance. […] Each critic is an island; there is no Brazilian cinematographic thought and precisely because of this, filmmakers are not defined. […] those who only intend the profession, the possible success and money, sooner or later balance themselves: they come up with arguments with spurious narrative effects, they are little interested in the ideological meaning of the film or the cultural significance of cinema; they make films despite cinema and not knowing cinema.”

“There is no thought, there is no cinema” is the first conditional of the text, “there is no politics, there is no aesthetics” is the second. The reference to French and Italian criticism and cinema reinforce and substantiate Glauber's position. The construction is in opposition: commercial cinema X auteur cinema, tradition X revolution, that is, against the reformist capitalism that feeds commercial cinema, an auteur cinema is necessary, which is necessarily political – Rosselini, Godard, Visconti, Resnais are just a few examples of the “authorial method” that Glauber seeks to describe and in which he wants, at the same time, to subscribe: “In an attempt to situate Brazilian cinema as a cultural expression, I adopted the “author's method” to analyze its history and its contradictions; cinema, at any moment in its universal history, is only greater in proportion to its authors [...] The politics of the modern author is revolutionary politics. The relationship between the terms is substantive, there is no “author”, painter, poet or filmmaker without a free, non-conformist, violent, true view of the world [...] mise-en-scène is a policy.”

The discourse justifies the stripped form of the new cinema. There is no way to try to fake the world in cardboard scenography through reflectors and special lenses, it is about learning cinema and reality with a camera in your hand and an idea in your head. For Glauber, cinema is not an instrument, it is an ontology; it is not an instrument of politics, it is politics.

The index of Critical review of Brazilian cinema indicates a chronology of this story: Humberto Mauro, Limit (Peixoto), Cavalcanti, Lima Barreto, Independentes… constitute a line of continuities and discontinuities of a story that is intertwined with its characters, a story of characters. Author-characters is the category of characters that matters in Glauber's historical version. Who were and are the authors of cinema in Brazil? is the question that drives the text.

Humberto Mauro sitting, with his back turned, at the foot of a gigantic tree, looking out over the vast, still field, is the founding image in the history of Brazilian cinema. Mauro, the first author of Glauber's chronology, is a first expression of “new cinema” in Brazil. In this “wild” country, Mauro would correspond to Jean Vigo or Flaherty in the search for a free cinema with “a profound sense of truth and poetry”. For Glauber, Humberto Mauro is a filmmaker educated by sensitivity, intelligence and courage, who has the landscape of Minas Gerais in front of him and with it creates a lyrical, poetic, aesthetic vision, a vision of the province, a vision of Brazil.

Em rough denim, Brazilian lyric would free itself from pure descriptiveness, it is affection and meaning. This film, which is the synthesis of the aesthetics of simplicity, is remembered by Glauber as a way of opposing what he considers to be the millionaire delirium of the cinematographic capitalism of his time. Mauro shot the best Brazilian films with minimal resources, he says, and the multiplied resources produce much inferior films. Glauber wants to recover not only the Brazilian character of provincial cinema forms, but also a tradition of production that escapes industry determinations. “The production principle of the universal Cinema Novo is the anti-industrial film.”

Glauber contradicts the concept of primitive by stating that the camera is not a matter of mechanics, but of intuition. Even Mauro's montage escapes the rules of narrative and obeys an inner time that explodes and retreats, making visible an understanding of the physical and social landscape and not ecstasy in the face of its exuberance.

In his text, Glauber places the importance of studying Humberto Mauro's cinema as a principle in a double sense: as the beginning of a new cinema that begins in the 20s and as a necessary reference to the present cinema of the 60s and years to come.

"It Limit exist?" This is the answer by Paulo Emílio Salles Gomes quoted by Glauber at the beginning of his second chapter, The Limit Myth, to the issue of film restoration. Glauber's conclusion is no, Limit does not exist as Brazilian cinema. When you wrote to critical review, Glauber had not watched the film, due to the lack of copies, which does not prevent the author from analyzing some articles and conversations the great myth of Brazilian cinema. Intimate, far from reality and history, Limit it is a pure film, pure art for art's sake, the film lacks a certain grandeur that only the idea gives, writes Glauber. For the new Brazilian cinema, this ideal and aesthetic form only matters as a warning against historical inconsistency. Limit is considered by Glauber as a tragic event in the history of Brazilian cinema, with sterilizing consequences even for its own author, Mário Peixoto. The 30s generation of filmmakers lives fanatically for Limit and its author can accomplish nothing more.

The idealism of the Brazilian critics at the time, enthusiastic about the forms of the international avant-garde recreated by Mário, was responsible for the construction of a myth generated in a typical process of an underdeveloped culture, where it is good to be close to the aesthetic standards established by the developed culture, even if the price is total detachment from the place, from the land. “[…] the film, by the way, does not try to be “Brazilian”. His story is from “anywhere”… His technique is the most modern, international.”

The nature of Brazil that appears on the screen is secondary, it could be anywhere. For Glauber, being Brazil is essential, the filmic substance must contemplate the Brazilian man in his revolutionary form; this is the new cinema and in its historical review it is the origins of this cinema that matter and not a pure form-creation discourse, however rigorous, talented or praised it may have been or come to be.

"Limit it is the replacement of an objective truth by an inner experience; a formalized, socially lying experience; its moral, like the subject, is a limit.”

Cavalcanti is the third character in Glauber's story. The character from industrial cinema in São Paulo, a character who in the 50s presents a technical solution to “the desperate situation” (film and reality of 1951) of the Brazilian film as the only possibility of insertion in the international market. “[…] it's not the technique that counts. On the contrary, it can become dangerous in the hands of irresponsible people and serve as a label for the release of the worst films, branded as commercials. Let us therefore be wary of technique.”

Cavalcanti, however, seems not to be suspicious enough and, following the logic of a producer's film, seeks to articulate the best technique at the service of the worst cinema. A cinema that treats Brazil with exoticism, with the intention of creating an industrial cinema from São Paulo that stands out in the international market. The result pointed out by Glauber is pathetic, neither the international market nor the internal market, neither commercial cinema nor auteur cinema. The Vera Cruz experience demonstrates the emptiness caused by the aestheticization of the social.

The issue for Glauber arises as a loss of memory. Cavalcanti is a character with good intentions, but who doesn't understand Brazil very well. Cavalcanti's concept of Brazilian film seems unaware that in 1920 cinema had begun with Humberto Mauro. In his analysis of the corner of the sea, Glauber concludes that although this is Cavalcanti’s best film, it highlights the choice for an academic staging instead of “naked capture of reality”, an exotic enchantment in place of the human landscape of Recife, stylized landscape and misery.

Two different utopias, Cavalcanti and Glauber, industrial cinema and auteur cinema, two antagonistic perspectives of Brazilian cinema: the first elaborated from the technical determinations of the international cinema market; and the second, created as a way of opposing this state of affairs, provokes a definitive break with previous utopias by taking place as part of a particular historical process – that of the experiences of the rare authors of Brazilian cinema. For Cavalcanti, the story begins in 1950, for Glauber the beginning is Humberto Mauro in the 20s.

“What remains of Vera Cruz? As a mentality, the worst one could wish for a poor country like Brazil. As a technique, a pernostic effect that today does not interest young directors, who despise gigantic reflectors, cranes, powerful machines, and prefer the camera in hand, the portable recorder, the light reflector, small reflectors, actors without makeup in natural environments. As a production, a criminal spending of money on films that were plundered by Columbia Pictures – who profited the most from the bankruptcy, also a major reason for the bankruptcy. As art, the detestable principle of imitation, of copying the great American directors.”

But perhaps another Vera Cruz character was more important for the construction of Glauber's opposition: Lima Barreto, “the explosion in the chaos of Vera Cruz”. the cangaceiro and the representation of violence in the northeast as folklore undoubtedly show Glauber what he does not want. An epic in the uplands of São Paulo dressed in the northeast, with a melodramatic spirit, the easy picturesque, says Glauber. Cangaceiros invading the province, hanging monkeys and raping women to the sound of celebratory screams with montage resources contrast with the way that Glauber will use to film the invasion of the wedding by Corisco, the great character of God and the devil in the land of the sun, where the camera movement and editing follow the tension of the bodies; where from the inhuman act of rape the absolutely human of Rosa, Dada, Satan and Corisco emerges.

Through the review of the cangaceiro, Glauber stresses the dangers of trying to extract an ideology from the spectacle. “These films spread nationalist ideas with evasive solutions”. Evasive, pseudo-revolutionary, a western without human grandeur, an epic without a mystical movement, a nationalist drama without the power of conviction are some of Glauber's attributes to the great success of Vera Cruz awarded at Cannes. A trap for useful innocents used by reactionary forces, this film genre appears to Glauber as a negative milestone in the history of Brazilian cinema. “The author in Brazilian cinema is defined in Nélson Pereiro dos Santos”.

As an unexpected response to the Vera Cruz crisis, Glauber presents “the main revolutionary personality of Brazilian cinema.” Nélson is Glauber's choice. He decides to make movies while watching river forty degrees. It is the new cinema, cinema of the break with social aestheticism, Brazilian cinema like that of Humberto Mauro but that evolves from poetic realism to social realism. river forty degrees interferes, is “engaged”. “One of the most serious intellectuals of his generation, aware of his historical role.”

Nélson brings together concept and cinema. From it emerges the critical dimension that Glauber will radicalize. From the neorealism introduced by Nélson's images into the Brazilian human landscape, Glauber draws strength for a revolution that brings together thought and cinema, politics and aesthetics. Nélson Pereira's cinema shows what is possible, a cinema of the relationship between thought and land, where the Brazil of the boys who sell peanuts appears as the “true” Brazil. Revolution is an aesthetic, says Glauber, without reflectors and camera in hand. The form translates the idea of ​​a new cinema. “river forty degrees it was a popular film, but it wasn't populist; he did not denounce the people to the people: his intention, coming from below and above, was revolutionary and not reformist.” Years later, in an interview, Nélson, answering a question about utopia, points to the poster of river forty degrees: “That film I made in 55 reflected the utopia of my generation. A country where social relations were fairer.”

In the countless definitions of Cinema Novo, Glauber seems to insist on some relationships – auteur cinema, cinema verité, cinema revolution – while at the same time contesting the definitions of the critics by stating that this cinema will not be defined in advance: “its existence is the practice of the years to come”. When completing your Critical review of Brazilian cinema, Glauber sums up his manifesto: “[…] camera in hand is about building.”

If the story told by Glauber has any continuity, it is that of successive attempts to build cinema in Brazil through the paths and detours of his characters. Humberto Mauro as a lyrical character, the aesthetic character of Mário Peixoto, the industrial Alberto Cavalcanti, Lima Barreto as a reactionary character and the revolutionary character of Nélson Pereira dos Santos.

Among so many utopias, that of revolution is Glauber's choice; among so many characters, the choice is the character engaged as an author in the process of the new cinema revolution, Nélson Pereira dos Santos. The tone of the manifesto is justified as a call to a new way of thinking and making cinema, necessarily political and aesthetic. By presenting the main antipathetic characters, the text takes the risks of walking through the negative through repulsive concepts, such as the commercial, the industrial, the pure aesthetic, to arrive, in opposition to the author, the independent, the new.

Glauber's review shifts the problem of Brazilian cinema away from the economic or technical issue and places the need for social and political thinking as cinematographic aesthetics. Cinema is thought, it is politics, there is no mediation between images and utopias. The images are utopian, they are revolution.

Brazil and cinema

The theses of the authors presented, produced between 1963 and 1973, are deeply dated as productions based on a social thought influenced by Marxist analysis. Concepts such as class struggle, social class, revolution appear differently through the interpretations of Brazils and Cinemas present in the referred texts.

What interests us, however, is to escape the most obvious determinations of the Marxist analysis present in most of the texts of the period in the most diverse fields of knowledge, from science to the arts, in an attempt to focus, on the one hand, on the thought of the relationship between cinema and society as a way to intervene in cinema and society through it, and on the other hand, to look for other routes within these texts that think cinema beyond this relationship – such as, for example: the construction of characters.

It is, therefore, about inverting the analysis of these classic texts of Brazilian cinema, that is, instead of following the Marxist line and remaking social determinations in cinema, seek the invention of Brazil in cinema and a cinema in Brazil. It is evident that one form does not exclude the other, but accentuates other points that should only re-dimension these unique texts in the thinking of Brazilian cinema.

For us, cinema is not limited to expressing the movement of history, but produces a vision and a thought that escape the strictly political and social aspects of historical events.

By extending this image of Brazilian cinematographic thought, however, we insist that only through the relationship between “thought and the earth” can we glimpse how this cinema is substantiated, not as a simple reproduction of the real, but as the invention of possible reals through the creation of the your characters.

The three characters we chose to think about cinema in Brazil tell us three stories of Brazilian cinema. We can perhaps say that it is the same story, determined by the legacy of the colonization process that establishes our state of dependence.

In his text, Paulo Emílio insists on the condition of dependence generated by the historical process. For this author, Brazilian cinema is the image of the relations between occupied and occupant, a cinema determined by the economic and political situation in Brazil, and to change cinema it is necessary first to change Brazil. With passionate nationalism, Paulo Emílio defends cinema, defending Brazil. Free country, independent cinema. Paulo Emílio's character is Brazil.

If Paulo Emílio tells a history of Brazil through cinema, Glauber tells a history of cinema through Brazil. If, for Paulo Emílio, an independent country can build a national cinema, for Glauber, a Cinema Novo can create a new country.

Glauber's character is “the cinema author”. In his film history, Glauber creates a chronology of more and less Brazilian authors. As an arrival and departure point for a new cinema, the character of the revolution, Nélson Pereira dos Santos.

With a similarly nationalist discourse, Glauber invents Cinemas and Brazils. Their characters indicate the differences. Many cinemas existed, but only the cinema that approached the real Brazil is of interest. Real as misery, hunger, inequality and also as utopia. The camera movement must show the aesthetics of hunger and the ideal of revolution.

The real that haunts Jean-Claude Bernardet is another. Middle-class cinema needs to show it and not hide it. The closer to the problem of the middle class, the greater the contribution of cinema to the country. Jean-Claude's character is middle class. From the continuity between the characters of the cinema, their story is built.

Paulo Emílio and Jean-Claude insist on the continuity of a historical process of the country and of a class, and Glauber on discontinuity, on the necessary rupture with what preceded him. For the first two, cinema needs to invent the popular; for Glauber, it is necessary to invent the people.

Popular is for the people?

The discussion about popular cinema in Brazil seems eternal. And popular what is it? Many Brazilians at the cinema watching Brazilian films? For colonial reasons, our cinematographic market is not our cinema, as is the case, for example, of the American cinema market. Here our market is also American. Against this fate, throughout the history of Brazilian cinema, much has been tried. Filming the Brazilian human landscape (Mauro), importing aestheticism (Mário Peixoto), telling American stories with Brazilian ingredients (Atlântida), building a national industry for the international market (Vera Cruz). Even Chanchada, which for twenty years maintained its audience, among other factors because the producer was the exhibitor, reached how much of the audience? Ten percent maybe.

The economy of Brazilian cinema is a complex game of interests concerning foreign production, Brazilian legislation, distributors, exhibitors and, lastly, the national producer. The vast majority of texts on Brazilian cinema deal with this crucial controversy for the survival of national cinema. The present text just wants to discuss the popular concept as a structuring element of the thought of cinema in Brazil.

At the epicenter of all the stories announced here is Cinema Novo. In relation to what it was, had been or would become, the authors drew up diagnoses where the question of the public occupied a prominent place.

When you close your Trajectory, Paulo Emílio reverses the issue by stating that the fact that Cinema Novo was orphaned in terms of audience was less serious than the fact that the public was orphaned by Brazilian cinema after the end of the instigating conjuncture of the early sixties. The author refers to the intellectual public that turns to foreign countries as a way of feeding “their cultural distrust”, as the aristocracy of nothingness.

Jean-Claude points out in his text that the middle class that produces films in Brazil is linked more to an official culture than to popular culture, it speaks to the people but its references originate in the dominant culture. Jean-Claude questions paternalism, the ambiguity of cinema with utopian intentions.

“[…] the films failed to establish a dialogue with the intended public, that is, with the social groups whose problems were focused on the screen. If the films did not achieve this dialogue, it is because they did not really present the people and their problems, but rather incarnations of the social situation, the difficulties and hesitations of the petty bourgeoisie, and also because the films were, in fact, addressed to the leaders of the country. ”

For Jean-Claude, Brazilian cinema should be popular – dealing with people's affairs not just with the cultural elite, but with the general public. Cinema Novo, in the author's assessment, would have moved away from the popular and lost itself in language resources and concludes:

“Brazilian cinema is not a popular cinema, it is the cinema of a middle class that seeks its political, social, cultural and cinematographic path.”

Glauber opposes commercial cinema to auteur cinema and repudiates the model of popular cinema that preceded it – the Chanchada. For Glauber, cinema is not popular, it is the people. The missing people, as stated by Kafka and Deleuze, and Glauber invents this people. The people are those who manage to escape popular populism, the people of reaction, of revolution as the ultimate movement for the creation of a Brazil and a cinema.

Cinema Novo is for the progressive middle class, but it wasn't lost, it was experimenting and it was interrupted. It is of this loss that Paulo Emílio speaks. It will be experienced by Glauber in earth in trance.

Characters and utopias: individuals and collectives

earth in trance begins with the landscape of Eldorado, land of utopia crowned by the sound of atabaques.

Pierre Perrault states that the role of the filmmaker is “voir venir l'avenir”. The cinema of the future is also Glauber's cinema. This future is the invention of the missing people. Deleuze retrieves this statement from Kafka and the situation of impasse described by him: the impossibility of not “writing” and the impossibility of writing in the dominant language.

“At the moment when the master, the colonizer proclaims “there were never people here”, the missing people is a becoming, they invent themselves, in the favelas and in the fields, or in the ghettos, with new conditions of struggle, for which a necessarily political art has to contribute.”

In this process, individual and collective are confused in the indiscernibility of relations between public and private. Character design is not exclusively about your particular view of the world, but it is the world that your character sees through. And if the world is in crisis, in a trance, the character and the cinema are not consumed in your vision.

In a way, the individual in the collective is present in the analyzes of Paulo Emílio, Jean-Claude and Glauber, but with variations. The individual as a character is always a representative of a Brazilian thought, of a class, of a cinema. There is only a displacement within this thought that, in Paulo Emílio, confirms his diagnosis of an underdeveloped nation and culture, in Jean-Claude it presents itself as a process of awareness of a class about its own issues and in Glauber as an invention of a people and as an intervention process through a recreation or acceleration of the mechanisms of the crisis that was established in Brazil at that time.

Workers, slum dwellers, marginals are portrayed or recreated as collective characters of a nation, who appear on screens through the cameras of the new cinema. Glauber insists – cinema must necessarily be political; Jean-Claude tries to escape genres and treat cinema as an organic whole; and Paulo Emílio interprets the panorama of an underdeveloped cinema. All present, through their characters, the utopias of a nation that seek to realize themselves in or through cinema.

If we can consider, based on the example of the three texts analyzed, that there is a tradition in the thought of Brazilian cinema that is based on an interpretation of Brazilian society, on the other hand, this thought is made into cinema. It is the political and social thought that forms the generation of cinema novo in Brazil, the pinnacle of the cinema of thought, that is, a cinema that distances itself from the market and its cultural limits in order to be able to think.

Cinema Novo has a thousand faces that confuse any interpreter and not only at the time it was produced but throughout the recent history of theory and cinema in Brazil. It's not technical, but it's aesthetic, it's not popular, but it shows the people. And how to be popular if “the people are missing”?

If Cinema Novo fights against Chanchada, it is precisely because on screens and in movie theaters the masses are subjugated and this is not the public it claims. The utopia was to make cinema for an audience yet to come, with a policy of inventing characters from a new Brazil.

Cine-characters and social types

The authors referred to in the first analyzed the relationship between cinema and society in different ways, seeking to interpret and intervene in society through cinema. Despite being determined by social theories, especially by Marxist theory, these documents persist in a privileged moment of thought in Brazilian cinema. We are particularly interested in the moments when this thought seems to escape the order of social discourse and approach a cinematographic invention that is not far from an invention in Brazil.

It is as if for a long time these authors did not stop asking themselves what is outside the film, or what is outside inside the film? We would like to reverse the question. What's inside the film, or what's inside outside?

Deleuze in books Cinema 1 e 2 and also in What is philosophy?, he affirms cinema as thought. Cinema thinks. If philosophy thinks through the creation of concepts, cinema does it through affects and percepts. By describing the form of philosophical construction, Deleuze enhances the role of the conceptual character.

The character as a concept is created by Deleuze to answer the question What is philosophy? Through this long answer, he builds the conceptual character as a becoming or subject of a philosophy in which the philosopher appears as a simple shell of his main conceptual character and of all the other philosophers, his intercessors. “Plato becomes Socrates at the same time that Socrates becomes a philosopher.” Deleuze outlines a plan and peoples it with his main conceptual character: the philosopher, the one capable of thinking the unthinkable of thought while living off the impossibility of saying “I”.

The conceptual character is, in Deleuze, the movement that describes the author's plane of immanence and intervenes in the creation of his concepts. The movement can be positive or negative and thus constitute sympathetic and unsympathetic characters. Nietzsche for example operates with both Zarathustra as sympathetic and Christ as unsympathetic. Deleuze thus focuses on the antagonistic dimension of concepts.

“The conceptual characters are the philosopher's heteronyms, and the philosopher's name, the simple pseudonym of his characters. I am no longer me, but an ability of thought to see itself and develop itself through a plan that crosses me in several places. The conceptual character has nothing to do with an abstract personification, a symbol or an allegory, because he lives, he insists.”

Like Fernando Pessoa, Deleuze insists on heteronomy. Pessoa distinguishes pseudonym from heteronymous works. “The pseudonymous work belongs to the author in his person, except in the name he signs; the heteronym belongs to the author outside of his person, it is a complete individuality manufactured by him, as would be the words of any character in any of his dramas.”

The passage from Deleuze to Pessoa, invented by the philosopher himself, suggests the idea of ​​a character as an agent of creation, when the order of becoming emerges as a creative fabulation. Philosophy, literature or cinema manufacture their characters, seers of the world they create. They are invisible beings, imaginary of a lived world and that cannot be confused with it. But if philosophy builds the conceptual character (Deleuze) and literature the literary heteronyms (Pessoa), perhaps we can speak of cine-characters as a corresponding possibility in cinematographic form.

Referring to heteronyms – Alberto Caeiro, Ricardo Reis and Álvaro de Campos –, Pessoa writes: “If these three individualities are more or less real than Fernando Pessoa himself – it is a metaphysical problem, that this one, absent from the secret of the Gods, and therefore ignoring what is reality, it will never be able to resolve.”

Character as a mask, the real as possible and not as reality, figures as a condition of possibility for shifts in thought in cinema. The existence of the cine-character can update a conceptual character and his predecessors on the cinematographic level. The displacements of the cine-characters of Brazilian cinema produce a particular aesthetic and retrace the lines for the thought of cinema in Brazil. A thought from the outside, a line of flight from the terms of representation, revealing a cinema that is not reduced to reality, on the contrary, it deconstructs and intensifies it in a composition of sensations.

Bakhtin on Dostoyevsky writes a treatise on the polyphonic novel. The polyphony of speech is pronounced by polyphonic characters. Who is it The idiot? Prince Michkin's idiocy is updated by giving a plural sense to the other characters and to himself. The Russian Christ created by Dostoyevsky in Bakhtin's interpretation reappears in a thousand voices in the natal ground Russian. Deleuze claims that philosophy is inseparable from a natal ground and asks what is the relation of thought to the Earth? Deleuze creates a polyphonic philosophy by incorporating the relationship between many conceptual characters into thought, as if many voices produced the same sound. The concepts are the same, but thought of differently (Foucault), – Would Descartes in Russia have gone mad? Reason and madness in the same character: the idiot.

Dostoyevsky's characters no longer represent class strata, but think and recreate their roles and territories in an incessant movement. Russia is the natal ground, but it is fiction.

“The character does not interest Dostoyevsky as a phenomenon of reality, endowed with rigid and defined typical-social and characterological-individual traits, as a determined image, formed of monosignificant and objective traits that, as a whole, answer the question: “who is he?". The character interests Dostoyevsky as a specific point of view on the world and on himself, as a rational and evaluative position of man in relation to himself and the surrounding reality. What is important for Dostoyevsky is not what his character is in the world but, above all, what the world is for the character and what he is for himself.”

And at the movies? What is the nature of the cinematographic character? If, for example, Bakhtin poses the issue of self-consciousness as an artistic dominant in the construction of Dostoyevsky's literary character, the movement of bodies would be the determining factor in the construction of cinema characters. From the visual order, these characters emerge, from their gestures, their speeches, the looks and colors, from the light that illuminates them, their shapes appear, which create a world for their vision. In the body, the thought, a point of view on the earth. The construction can take place in words, but they are words enunciated with so many pronunciations that many times we only sense the author of the speech.

They don't seem to come from anywhere, but emerge from the screen invented by cinema as cine-characters. Natural from cinema, they are the agents in the creation of many cinematographies; through them we incorporate the differences between so many cinemas from different eras, from unheard of languages, from distant spaces. If each land produces its cinema, it is through the sensations and perceptions of the cine-characters.

But what will be the nature of these characters? In cinema, many forms of character appear. We then repeat the idea of ​​the character as a mask. What material is it made of? Is it rigid and we can't see through it? Or, on the contrary, is it translucent and malleable, subject to metamorphoses?

We can think, for example, of two characters from Brazilian cinema: Fabiano in Dried lives as a social type – cowboy from the northeastern hinterland – he represents an event, the drought, and the aridity of an inhuman landscape. Image of the lived, of a miserable existence, Fabiano reproduces the historical state of a region of Brazil. Paulo Martins, in Terra em trance, moves like an aesthetic, polyphonic figure, making the universe of sensations of the pure experience of the order of the historical event overflow in permanent crisis in a trance of becoming.

The concepts of social type and aesthetic figure are not exclusive, psychosocial types enact the movement of history and aesthetic figures as beings of sensations in eternal becoming produce events, as an act of creation that escapes history. Like overlapping planes, social types and aesthetic figures are related but not confused, like powers of affects and percepts, the figures are never reduced to what is experienced.

How does Brazilian cinema create a shift from characters as social types to aesthetic figures? If a sociological interpretation was possible at a certain moment in Brazilian cinema theory, wouldn't it have been precisely because the cinema of the period operated essentially with social types? How to make these types correspond, in the theoretical field, to the transformations produced by aesthetic cine-characters?

To extract from the social thought of Brazilian cinema another image of thought. Reflection on the classic texts by Paulo Emílio Salles Gomes, Jean-Claude Bernardet and Glauber Rocha confirm the possibility of tracing another route for the thought of cinema in Brazil through its characters.

Extracting cine-characters from social types means finding a fold in the way of thinking about our cinema. The cine-characters appear as a way of expressing a fundamental difference between the creation and reproduction of a social reference by cinema.

The analysis of the cine-characters can provoke a variation in the thought of cinema in Brazil, by enhancing its aesthetic elements and differentiating itself from the tradition of a certain way of thinking based on a social and political theory. That is, thinking from a social and political theory. That is, thinking about Brazilian cinema remains a sociological task and varies according to the theoretical changes in this field, without necessarily configuring an advance in the study of cinema as an aesthetic movement, even though this aesthetic has ethical, social and political meanings, such as we can extract from all art, from any era. On the contrary, starting from the composition of the characters of Brazilian cinema contributes to the deepening of the way that cinema has of thinking and creating Brazil. The cine-characters inscribe new images of thought in Brazilian cinema.

*Katia Maciel is a professor at the School of Communication at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.


  1. Paulo Emilio Salles Gomes. “The Cinematographic Character” in the fictional character. São Paulo: Perspective, 1968.
  2. Paulo Emilio Salles Gomes. Cinema: trajectory in underdevelopment. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra/Embrafilme, 1980, page 75.
  3.  page 76.
  4. Vicente de Paula Araújo cited by Paulo Emílio Salles Gomes, cited work.
  5. Paulo Emílio Salles Gomes work cited page 83.
  6. , page 81.
  7. , page 84.
  8. , page 87.
  9. Jean-Claude Bernardet. Brazil in movie time. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1978, page 12.
  10. , page 20.
  11. , page 154.
  12. , page 87.
  13. , page 127.
  14. , page 123.
  15. , page 115.
  16. , page 150.
  17. , page 138.
  18. Glauber Rocha. Critical review of Brazilian cinema. Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian Civilization, 1963.
  19. , page 38.
  20. , page 44.
  21. , page 50.
  22. , page 83.
  23. Interview conducted by the author in 1993.
  24. , page 147.
  25. Gilles Deleuze. What is philosophy? Rio de Janeiro: Editora 34, chapter 1, page 100. “The game is all the more complex as the infinite negative movements are involved in the positive ones on each plane, expressing the risks and dangers that thought faces, the false perceptions and the evils feelings that surround you; there are also antipathetic conceptual characters, who stick closely to the sympathetic ones and from whom the latter do not manage to detach themselves (it is not only Zarathustra who is impregnated by “his” ape or his buffoon, Dionysus who does not separate himself from Christ, but Socrates who does not reach to distinguish himself from “his” sophist, the philosopher who is not enough to conjure up his evil doubles); finally, there are repulsive concepts intertwined with attractive ones, but which draw regions of low or empty intensity on the plane, and which never cease to isolate themselves, to disjoint, to break connections.”
  26. For expressing a certain moment in the history of Brazilian social thought.
  27. Paulo Emílio Salles Gomes, work cited on page 87.
  28. Jean-Claude Bernardet, work cited page 51.
  29. Gilles Deleuze. Movie theater - image-time. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1990, page 259. “It is necessary that the cinematographic art participate in this task: not to address a supposed people, already present, but to contribute to the invention of a people. The moment the master, the colonizer proclaims “there was never a people here”, the missing people is a becoming, they invent themselves, in the slums and fields, or in the ghettos, with new conditions of struggle, for which a necessarily political art has to contribute.”
  30. In a conference held at the Ethnographic Film Show in Rio de Janeiro in 1996.
  31. Gilles Deleuze. Cinema – Image-time. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1990.
  32. , page 260.
  33. Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guatari. What is philosophy? Rio de Janeiro: Editora 34, 1992.
  34. , page 86.
  35. Jose Gil. Fernando Pessoa or the metaphysics of sensations. Lisbon: Water Clock.
  36. , page 193.
  37. Jose Ferrater Mora. Philosophy dictionary. Madrid: Alianza, 1980. “The Latin term persona has, among other meanings, the same as the Greek voice – whose origin is estimated – means mask.” Author's translation.
  38. Mikail Bakhtin. Problems of Dostoyevsky's poetics. Rio de Janeiro: Forense-Universidade, 1981.
  39. Gilles Deleuze, work cited pages 91 and 132.
  40. Mikhail Bakhtin, cited work.
  41. Gilles Deleuze, cited work pages 88, 93 and 229.



See this link for all articles