Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Pedro Plaza Pinto
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Doctoral Thesis |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Escola de Comunicações e Artes (ECA/SBD) |
| Defense date: | 2008-03-19 |
| Examining board members: |
Ismail Norberto Xavier;
Francisco Cabral Alambert Junior;
Rubens Luis Ribeiro Machado Junior;
Carlos Eduardo Jordao Machado;
Eduardo Victorio Morettin
|
| Advisor: | Ismail Norberto Xavier |
| Abstract | |
The firthies years of 1960s represents an imagination effort about the reality and an impulse to take party that were promoted by the Cinema Novos critics-filmmakers. The already recognized critic and conservator of the Cinemateca Brasileira, Paulo Emilio Salles Gomes, was convoked to endorse the movement according to the inheritance of some ideas that supposedly would be in his texts. In the whirlwind of the debates that had preceded the appearance of several cinemanovistas films, at that moment of affirmation and engagement, he dedicated his work for the complete installation of a film archive, combined with the intervention for a new intellectual environment of modern sensitivity in the cinematographic critics (Suplemento Literário, 1956-1965) and in the intelligence of engaged left (Brasil,Urgente 1963). Even when provoked by Glauber Rochas Revisão crítica do cinema brasileiro, or by the personal request for reading and commenting David Neves Cinema Novo no Brasil, Paulo Emilio just spotted the still incipient character of the movement. The center of this study proposal is the confrontation between ideological affirmation and the filming resultants. The analysis withholds on texts of Paulo Emilio Salles Gomes, David Neves and Glauber Rocha, at the moment that Cinema Novo emerges, when were draw the first lines of that youthful project, before the military coup détat of 1964. We look for emphasizing the lag between ideological affirmation and aesthetic analysis, refusing Paulo Emilios supposed paternal position or attitude of omission, because it demonstrates the same weak point: it reflects ideas that look for something in the writings that were not in the horizon of its objectives. The young filmmakers demanded a forced order of problems, inside schemes that werent in accordance with the way the critic dealt with the objects. We search, in the analysis of the writings and in the contexts in each part the critics life, an understanding for the ideologists position refusal at this distinctive moment of affirmation of the modern cinema. (AU) | |