How Political Context Influences Cinema
A Story of Love and Hate
In this text, we will approach the theme not exactly as cinema itself, but through the relativization of the concept of cinema. The central issue is that, throughout history and within different political contexts, great works emerge. And I am not referring only to aesthetic quality, but to films that ceased to be merely common works and became true historical documents.
But after all, what is a historical document when we talk about art? It is a conjunction of moments. For example, during the Brazilian military dictatorship, several filmmakers and musicians were exiled from the country. Forced to practice their art in countries such as Argentina and Chile, these artists ended up experiencing — and generating — increasingly strong and malleable influences on Brazilian cinema. The point I want to reach is not only how politics directly interfered in art, but how a specific decision, such as exile, was able to shape the entire cultural history of a country. So, what happened in our example, Brazil?
Brazilian Cinema and Identity
Brazilian cinema will be our focus because it comes from a culturally rich country, politically chaotic and, consequently, confused about its own identity. Thus, the cinema of marginalized countries differs profoundly from that of wealthy nations. Much of this difference is due to forced miscegenation caused by colonialism, in which countries explored lands, abused women, and enslaved Indigenous peoples.
From this context emerges a return of art to identity, culture, happiness, and the beliefs that kept these societies alive, now fused with a dominant culture that did not seek to share, but to correct. What we can conclude is something tragic: the artistic output of colonized countries will never be one hundred percent about themselves, because at some point in history an erasure was forcibly imposed.
Given this, what are the impacts on contemporary cinema?
Politics and the Brazilian Cinematic Canon
Returning to Brazil, we find one of the most emblematic films of recent national cinema: Central Station (Central do Brasil). Directed by Walter Salles — winner of the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film with I’m Still Here (Ainda Estou Aqui), a work that will be discussed later — the film is often celebrated as a major milestone. And yes, this success should be celebrated.
However, if the political context during the years of dictatorship and colonization had been different, Central Station might not even exist. These are the “what ifs” of life.
What I mean is that Central Station is a shy, restrained film. It is not frontal because it responds to a society that demanded culture considered “good,” often shaped by international market standards, such as those of the United States and Hollywood. Years later, Salles made history with I’m Still Here, which feels almost magical. Its frontal nature, aggressiveness, and national exaltation transformed the film into a true lung — a lung pulsating with history and life.
Political Division and Cultural Consequences
Nevertheless, there are still reservations within the Brazilian political population itself, a debate that may not be worth fully entering here. In 2022, the year of the Brazilian elections, there was a strong internal division of political ideals, with two poles debating viscerally the fate of a continental country: on one side, a left-wing president; on the other, the right.
And here we reach the core of this text: perhaps if the right-wing candidate had won, Brazil would not have achieved its first Oscar.
The Artist as a Political Product
It is as if the political landscape were a mold, and this mold shapes ideals. It is undeniable that politics is one of the main influences in making artists feel important and seen. It is about growing up in an environment that shapes one’s way of seeing life. From this, a split emerges: the ideal artist — or the idealized one — would be an anarchist?
Anarchism is a form of solitude. It is to feel that one belongs, yet remains outside the niche. No one wants to be abandoned; on the contrary, everyone wants to be seen. The anarchist perspective places other ideologies on lower platforms, not out of ego, but out of a pursuit of freedom. And here lies the paradox: the purely anarchist artist has never existed.
People are subject to political influence from birth, especially those living on the margins of society. The ideal artistic vision may be anarchist, but that excludes the artist’s humanity — the very element that made them an artist in the first place. Thus, their point of view inevitably assumes a position.
As examples, we have Jean-Luc Godard, openly communist, and Christopher Nolan, who, even without explicitly declaring a political stance, bases his artistic production method on finance and the market.
Cinema, Ideology, and Plurality
In short, Brazil and the world are deeply affected by political influences. Godard is a product of the French revolts; Nolan grew and became a major director through the market. This is not a text about politics, but with politics. It is about understanding that your favorite films may indeed be products of capitalism or of communist dissatisfaction.
The key question is whether these works would be what they are today under an inverse political reality.
Imagine if the entire world lived under a single ideal. Would that be good? Perhaps. But it would also be monotonous. Plurality enriches human beings, and respect dignifies them. Contemporary society imprisons more than it liberates — this is a fact. Imagine how many works are being produced in countries at war, only to be censored.
More important than that is understanding that anarchist freedom, as an ideal, is also a proposal for life: to receive words with open arms and to understand that, regardless of political alignment, no human being deserves to die by the decision of a single person. That is egoism. And such egoism reveals that the world has not learned from its mistakes — mistakes that cost lives, dreams, and families.
Final Considerations
Ultimately, political context and art walk side by side, but both must always remain subordinate to the well-being of the entire population.
AMAZON
Post a Comment