Semi-Documentary?

Let me start off by saying that I enjoyed the film, and it had an awesomely weaved story, even though it took a little while for things to get going in the beginning - that's life for yeah.

Although a bit fragmented, the film contained everything you need to tell a compelling story about an individual in object poverty, who is on a drifting path and knows nothing more than to sell herself. It also uses amazing metaphorical elements (whether intentional or unintentional), and that is probably one of the best things I like about this film.

Aside from the obvious name inflections, the Amazon and the Transamazonica project serves as a huge component to the film. It represents a deep fragment of Brazilian history, culture and livelihood, and that very fabric is being torn in half by this new idea of generating revolutionary technological/economic advances that is supposed to create - not destroy connectivity and quality of life.

In a way, the Amazon and the failed project represent Iracema (Edna de Cassia). Her character being indigenous is a reflection of old ways of life in Brazil. She is compromised to be something she probably never was, just as the Amazon was being pillaged and compromised into being something it was not either. Iracema finds herself drifting through just as the Transamazonica project was in terms of construction. She becomes a failure and no longer of interest by Tiao Brasil Grande (Paulo Cesar Pereio), who once hauled lumber from the Amazon, now takes cattle he finds along the road (just as he did with women). Tiao at that point looks more refreshed and is on his way to Acre, where the economic development focus shifted. On the contrary, Iracema is a mess and most of all she doesn’t even know it.

Now onto the main topic I wanted to discuss… Is this a documentary?

Subjectivity was one of the first things I learned about documentaries. People often think that documentaries are supposed to be this genre or form of film that is impeccably truthful and depicts realities in a very direct, but all encompassing way. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. Initially, I rejected this notion, but as I became more aware of documentary, I began to see that every documentary is biased, and that there is nothing anyone can do about it. Once you plop a camera down in front of someone, and frame it – it becomes biased. Basic decisions like “what do I shoot?” emerge in every direction at that point.

In doing a bit of research on the film, I found that it did contain actors most notably Paulo Cesar Pereio (Tiao Brasil Grande) and mostly everyone else plays their own character or similar to their own character. The scenes were mainly improvised on the spot, but the story was shaped well before the camera was even turned on.

So with those elements in place, is this a documentary? In my opinion, yes - to some degree. The film did give a realistic view of the Transamazonica and the people it was benefiting and hurting. While shots were clearly constructed, the story behind it was still evolving in front of the camera, and many of the characters were still being themselves in a lot of ways. What is the main thing that separates a documentary from a narrative film? The classification, and an ongoing action that has a certain level of unpredictability. The film was definitely mocking the social and political situations in Brazil, but I did not necessarily get the feeling it was mocking the documentary form on a high enough level to classify this as a mockumentary.

So in all fairness, I will classify this as a semi-documentary.

Let me know your thoughts.