Shadow Under This Red Rock: Farpões, Baldios by Marta Mateus

Wri­ting about a first film invol­ves a stumb­ling through the dark ter­ri­to­ry of an unknown dia­lo­gue. It might feel like the sound of one’s own voice after a deca­de of silence: fra­gi­le, wrong. Yet, in the case of Mar­ta Mate­us and her short Far­pões, Bal­di­os, a con­fi­dence is estab­lished as it deci­dedly is a film about dia­lo­gues. It opens and invi­tes the words that follow.

The film pre­mie­red at this year’s Quin­zai­ne des Réa­li­sa­teurs in Can­nes and is up to now the best film I have seen this year. Why such a state­ment? May­be becau­se other­wi­se it is hard to get the atten­ti­on for a short film, a first film. It is a film in which two hearts beat: The first belongs to ten­der­ness, the second to seve­ri­ty. The first belongs to the pre­sent, the second to the past. The first belongs to the young, the second to the old. Bet­ween tho­se move­ments lies a shaking that opens a world of con­cen­tra­ti­on. So, befo­re tal­king about the set­ting or the plot of the film, it invi­tes and asks to com­ment on its pre­sence and sen­sua­li­ty. In the case of Mate­us, the kind of work that goes into each frame is remi­nis­cent of very few film­ma­kers. As it is cus­to­ma­ry to give some names in order to place a new voice among the old, let me get that out of the way: D. W. Grif­fith, Jean-Marie Straub, Daniè­le Huil­let, Pedro Cos­ta, Antó­nio Reis and Mar­ga­ri­da Cord­ei­ro. Here Mate­us opens a first dia­lo­gue, the dia­lo­gue with cine­ma. Like almost all dia­lo­gues in the film, it takes place bet­ween ide­as of tra­di­ti­on and moder­ni­ty, but also bet­ween the obser­ver and the obser­ved. Mate­us, like gre­at artists do, stu­di­ed how to paint a per­son in order to film a real per­son, ins­tead of stu­dy­ing the per­son and going ahead with pain­ting wit­hout know­ledge. So, it is clear that we can detect cine­ma in the film. Yet, Mate­us suc­ceeds taking cine­ma to peo­p­le and places.

Farpoes-Baldios-3

The work that goes into each image is rela­ted to the work with distances, sounds and framing. The first shot of the film shows a dark ent­rance into an unknown space. The wall around the black hole that works as a door tells the sto­ries of dirt and fire. On the left, a sort of chain hangs loo­se, slow­ly moving in the soft wind. It imme­dia­te­ly beco­mes clear that things have pas­sed that door, that buil­ding. We hear an approa­ching sound. It is loud and vio­lent, it ratt­les along the ground, beco­ming lou­der and lou­der. Then an old far­mer appears from out of the black hole, he holds a rake and drags it behind him. The moment he appears he vanis­hes out of the frame. The came­ra lin­gers a few more seconds to look at the black hole as an insect (may­be a but­ter­fly) enters the frame, not cer­tain if it wants to fly into the hole or stay out­side. Some­bo­dy emer­ges from the black­ness, some­thing will be shown that was buried. Bodies, vio­lence, rage and move­ments. Though distant clin­king sounds can be heard from time to time in the film, the work with sound in the first shot tells a lot about the approach to the peo­p­le and their (hi)story. Mate­us never makes us hear more than what her posi­ti­on allows for. If peo­p­le move into the distance, we hear the distance; if they come clo­se, we hear the inti­ma­cy. It is a film about evi­dence and the impos­si­bi­li­ty of evi­dence: How to approach cer­tain topics, what we see or do not see, espe­ci­al­ly when tal­king about things that have pas­sed, like the Car­na­ti­on Revo­lu­ti­on, and the days of revolt and work in the Alen­te­jo regi­on. The sub­jec­ti­vi­ty and for­lorn­ness of such an endea­vour is reflec­ted in the form of the film, a form that makes us feel the weight of each shot. Her framing is a decis­i­on. Though Mate­us some­ti­mes cuts during a sce­ne, she never does it wit­hout reason. The­re are only two obvious point-of-view shots in the film (one could argue that many shots are seen through the eyes of child­ren or ghosts), both depic­ting hands. One belon­ging to a young boy who holds grains in his hand, the other to an old woman who only holds wrink­les ins­tead of life.

This is the way dia­lo­gues are ope­ned up in the film. The second one takes place bet­ween the old far­mers and the child­ren. During the Revo­lu­ti­on, the far­mers occu­p­ied their mas­ters’ huge pro­per­ties, sce­nes we only feel shadows of in the film, recal­ling Tho­mas Harlan’s Tor­re Bel­la. Yet, while Har­lan sta­ted that the revo­lu­tio­na­ry actions in his films were also moti­va­ted and chan­ged due to the pre­sence of the came­ra, Mate­us’ came­ra has no choice but being eit­her too ear­ly or too late. Too ear­ly refers to the child­ren who, like in Paul Meyer’s Déja s’en­vo­le la fleur maig­re, inspi­re the places of for­mer strugg­le. Always on the move, obser­ving, sear­ching and being sear­ched for, it beco­mes more and more unclear if it is the young ones who thwart histo­ry like phan­toms or the old sto­ries and legends that haunt the regi­on. Regard­less of what holds true, the uto­pian pos­si­bi­li­ty of a dia­lo­gue is offe­red in the film when the old tell their sto­ry to the young in a mix­tu­re of oral sto­rytel­ling and thea­tri­cal per­for­mance. Some­ti­mes only the ges­tu­res remain (which is also true for the came­ra when it focu­ses on a group of peo­p­le loo­king into the len­se), and some­ti­mes a rea­li­ty that makes tan­gi­ble what has been lost is estab­lished. In the end a bus lea­ves taking the young and the old with it. The idea of coll­ec­ti­vi­zed agri­cul­tu­re that fol­lo­wed that Revo­lu­ti­on and the Agra­ri­an Reform has long dis­ap­peared here. Very pro­min­ent­ly, a very yel­low Tati-like fac­to­ry buil­ding cen­tres the frame when the bus has long gone. The dia­lo­gue bet­ween agri­cul­tu­re and peo­p­le seems to have stop­ped in a regi­on that is con­side­red the „bread bas­ket“ of Por­tu­gal. The enthu­si­asm of 1974 has beco­me an illu­si­on. In a vio­lent sce­ne the film shows how child­ren are expel­led from a farm by two men. Instru­ments are thrown at them, nobo­dy ever works with them in the film. It is a was­te­land wit­hout use. Still, the film looks at the stones and dirt with eyes that want more:

499348.jpg-r_1920_1080-f_jpg-q_x-xxyxx

„What are the roots that clutch, what bran­ches grow
Out of this stony rub­bish? Son of man,
You can­not say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of bro­ken images, whe­re the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shel­ter, the cri­cket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
The­re is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock), (…)“

(T.S. Eli­ot, Wasteland)

The third dia­lo­gue takes place bet­ween the came­ra and the peo­p­le acting. Recurr­ent­ly, the young boy who we can call a prot­ago­nist faces the came­ra ins­tead of the sce­ne. He moves a bit like Benjamin’s “Angel of Histo­ry“ and we can very well say that Far­pões, Bal­di­os is ano­ther one of tho­se films that show the trans­fi­gu­ra­ti­on of the revo­lu­tio­na­ry into the his­to­ri­an. It is an honest search for a begin­ning in order to know whe­re and how to con­ti­nue. This dia­lo­gue invol­ves a visi­ble effort for grace and inde­pen­dence in the faces and acts of the peo­p­le. In a way, the film gives a voice not only to the his­to­ri­ans but also to the com­mon revo­lu­tio­na­ries, even if they have no voice yet. Not only due to this, the film tells of an eman­ci­pa­ti­on that deri­ves from dis­sent and play at the same time. In order to con­ti­nue, we have need for such a film.