"Republican Sighs at the Twilight of a Tropical Empire" is a fascinating exercise in presenting interesting definitions of duality both in life and art, but taken to a
crazed and humored extreme. We have everything, everywhere all at once: the narrative follows the doomed romance between a young woman (Débora Lamm) member of the Brazilian monarchy
who falls in love with a young man (Caio Junqueira) who's deeply committed to the cause of democracy and awaits for the promulgation of the republic system which seems close to
happen unbeknownst to the Emperor's and his people back in November 1889.
As the film shows this story, there are several elements within the story that keeps insisting in telling us that this is a film with captions presenting behind the scenes stories about the obstacles faced by the production in order to deliver the movie. What could be viewed as a goof or some error is in fact completely intentional and here's some examples: in one shot, the film director appears reflected in the mirror; a badly printed image from the cinema becomes a matter of discussion between the camera operator and the lab who developed the film; at other times the captions reveals why the story was jumpy, or why the clean-shaved actor appears with a moustache towards the end, etc.
The junction between the many different fictions as trying to present them as a reality makes up for a fun and hilarious combination. The love story that has a historical background seems quite credible and even likely to had happened - though not in the exact same humored fashion -, and as for the behind the scenes that keep popping up with many goofs and crazed interferences each viewer can aceept it to believe them or not. But why such strange gathering of elements and what the directors are trying to prove? Well, basically it's a challenge on viewers in separating the fact from fiction and how the past can always be redifined depending on who tells the story, who provides the more information or has solid evidences about the facts. It happens everywhere in life and history and cinema has always challenged deep rooted notions about basically everything or even creating alternative realities (of which lately has become a dangerous thing outside of the fictional universe thanks to history/political revisionism and the mass media consumption through phones and internet which work outside old medias).
Will any historian reveal that those two opposite forces managed to break conventions and consume their love when the republic became the rule and monarchy was sent to exile? Perhaps.
But until we get to such possible reality we'll always believe those forces never joined together. Can we actually trust in any of the making of stories presented within the film? Yes and no (the real idea is to create humored situations). But there's some truth in those moments since we do see the director on the shot, ruining the scene; we see the shadow of hands making gestures in one scene; but we can't proof anything that doesn't appear in the actual sequences, so therefore it could be real. Whatever happened there the final result was one of the most positive, creative and fun short films I've seen in a long time, very imaginative and well-made...despite the dreary circumstances during the make (I'd like to believe those stories presented are a spoof on films that had troubled shootings). 9/10
P. S.: I just wished the narration by veteran actor José Wilker could be longer and extended outside of the title card that are presented. He had a magnificent voice and with a narative presented as if coming from a history book, this would be fantastic.
As the film shows this story, there are several elements within the story that keeps insisting in telling us that this is a film with captions presenting behind the scenes stories about the obstacles faced by the production in order to deliver the movie. What could be viewed as a goof or some error is in fact completely intentional and here's some examples: in one shot, the film director appears reflected in the mirror; a badly printed image from the cinema becomes a matter of discussion between the camera operator and the lab who developed the film; at other times the captions reveals why the story was jumpy, or why the clean-shaved actor appears with a moustache towards the end, etc.
The junction between the many different fictions as trying to present them as a reality makes up for a fun and hilarious combination. The love story that has a historical background seems quite credible and even likely to had happened - though not in the exact same humored fashion -, and as for the behind the scenes that keep popping up with many goofs and crazed interferences each viewer can aceept it to believe them or not. But why such strange gathering of elements and what the directors are trying to prove? Well, basically it's a challenge on viewers in separating the fact from fiction and how the past can always be redifined depending on who tells the story, who provides the more information or has solid evidences about the facts. It happens everywhere in life and history and cinema has always challenged deep rooted notions about basically everything or even creating alternative realities (of which lately has become a dangerous thing outside of the fictional universe thanks to history/political revisionism and the mass media consumption through phones and internet which work outside old medias).
Will any historian reveal that those two opposite forces managed to break conventions and consume their love when the republic became the rule and monarchy was sent to exile? Perhaps.
But until we get to such possible reality we'll always believe those forces never joined together. Can we actually trust in any of the making of stories presented within the film? Yes and no (the real idea is to create humored situations). But there's some truth in those moments since we do see the director on the shot, ruining the scene; we see the shadow of hands making gestures in one scene; but we can't proof anything that doesn't appear in the actual sequences, so therefore it could be real. Whatever happened there the final result was one of the most positive, creative and fun short films I've seen in a long time, very imaginative and well-made...despite the dreary circumstances during the make (I'd like to believe those stories presented are a spoof on films that had troubled shootings). 9/10
P. S.: I just wished the narration by veteran actor José Wilker could be longer and extended outside of the title card that are presented. He had a magnificent voice and with a narative presented as if coming from a history book, this would be fantastic.