Filipe Manuel Neto

Apr 2, 2024

1.0

**A kind of film that doesn't deserve to be called cinema.** The “film” that brings me here today is truly bizarre: it is a kind of Brazilian production that focuses on the life of a kind of French researcher, whose texts became the cornerstone of a kind of religious-philosophical doctrine that never wanted, or managed, to assume itself as a religion, although it is considered as such by many of its followers. The person who presents this is Wagner de Assis, a kind of obscure director who has dedicated his life and (few) talents to making “films” about Spiritism, which he defends and of which he is probably a follower. I, as a thinking human being, do not feel capable of defining what Spiritism is, or is not: if not even its followers know how to say what they are, I will not be the right person to help them through this existential crisis. What I can say is what this work is not: a film worthy of its name and worthy of our time and money. Esteemed reader, I have a very old and simple rule: always be suspicious about films sponsored by religious organizations. They are almost never good, and almost always made with the aim of surreptitiously indoctrinating unsuspecting audiences. I acquired this rule in the hardest times of my militant atheism, and maintained it after discovering faith and abandoning the “Nietzschean” nihilism in which I lived. I may be a faithful theist today, but I have not lost my discernment and critical spirit, and I do not sign without reading any law or dogma, not even those of my church. And although I cannot say for sure, it is almost certain that this “film”, made by members of Spiritism to praise the man who is its founder, deserved sanction and certain funding from the organization, which has Brazil as its nerve center. Therefore, it could not be more biased: look at it ignores the way in which Rivail became rich at the expense of the books he wrote and the controversy he fueled, or the way he took advantage of the help of self-styled mediums to write them, taking the credit and opposing their thirst for personal publicity. We've seen this before: almost all religious sects today have had similar leaders. Some were investigated by the Justice, but even so, religion remains an attractive business. My objections to this “film” do not just center on its likely connection to a “church”, or its hagiographic narrative. It also doesn't have any characteristics that make it a cinematographic work: the visual effects are very poor; I have never seen Paris, the city of light, so dark, empty of people or movement. The sets and costumes seem to have been assembled with material borrowed from Globo and sound as fake as in any period soap opera by Walcyr Carrasco. The actors are talentless unknowns, removed from obscurity where they deserved to remain. Leonardo Medeiros and Sandra Corveloni, the only ones worthy of attention, are still trying to act, but they would have done better investing their efforts in a worthy production. This “film” lacks everything, starting with the budget. Maybe the “church” wasn’t very generous when it came to that? Brazilian cinema, contrary to what some Brazilians say, has its merits and its value. Brazil has great actors and competent people, but the lack of money and the language barrier have always deterred our Brazilian friends from seeing their efforts recognized internationally. Fernanda Montenegro can complain about this, even though it is one of the few cases that has received foreign attention. However, this work by Wagner de Assis can hardly be considered cinema, much less a work with the qualities that Brazilian cinema needs.