theguardian.com
I'm Still Here": A Brazilian Family's Struggle Under Dictatorship
Fernanda Torres delivers an Oscar-worthy performance in Walter Salles's "I'm Still Here," depicting Eunice Paiva's struggle to protect her five children after her activist husband was disappeared by the 1971 Brazilian military dictatorship; the government only officially acknowledged his death in the mid-90s.
- How did the film depict the emotional responses of Eunice Paiva and her family to the trauma of the disappearance and the subsequent lack of justice?
- The movie portrays the emotional toll on Eunice and her family, showing how state-sanctioned cruelty led to a controlled outward calm masking inner turmoil. The family's move from Rio to São Paulo, and later Eunice's human rights advocacy, reflect their adaptation and fight for justice. The film's ending juxtaposes the family's acceptance of a death certificate 25 years later against the unpunished perpetrators.
- What were the immediate and long-term consequences for Eunice Paiva and her family following the disappearance of her husband by the Brazilian military dictatorship?
- I'm Still Here" recounts Eunice Paiva's resilience in the face of her husband's disappearance by Brazil's 1971 military dictatorship. The film highlights her efforts to shield her five children from despair, even after her own torture. The government only officially acknowledged her husband's death in the mid-90s.
- Does the film's understated portrayal of Eunice Paiva's emotional response accurately represent the experiences of families of the disappeared under authoritarian regimes, or does it risk minimizing the suffering?
- The film's understated approach raises questions about the long-term effects of trauma and state repression on families of the disappeared. It suggests that the numbness displayed might reflect the emotional coping mechanisms employed in the face of overwhelming horror, rather than a lack of feeling. The delayed justice, highlighted in the closing credits, further emphasizes the lasting impact of state-sponsored violence.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The review frames the film's focus on Eunice's emotional restraint as a potential weakness, highlighting the contrast between the film's subdued tone and the inherently traumatic nature of the subject matter. The emphasis on the question "Mom, are you OK?" and the post-credit information about the lack of convictions frames the film's emotional restraint as a questionable artistic choice.
Language Bias
The language used in the review is largely neutral and descriptive, although words like "numbed", "placid", and "dissociated" hint at a judgment of the film's emotional tone. The use of "thuggish secret police" is slightly loaded but descriptive of the historical context.
Bias by Omission
The review focuses heavily on the film's portrayal of emotional restraint, potentially overlooking or downplaying the anger and horror inherent in the story of a mother whose husband was disappeared by a dictatorship. The review mentions the lack of depiction of Eunice's later radicalization as a human rights activist, suggesting a possible omission of a crucial element in her story. The significant detail of the four security officers being charged but not convicted is presented in a post-credit sentence, potentially diminishing its impact.
Sustainable Development Goals
The film depicts the struggle of a family under a military dictatorship, highlighting the importance of justice and accountability for human rights violations. The eventual acknowledgement of the husband's death and the charging of security officers, albeit without conviction, represent progress towards justice, even if delayed and incomplete. The wife's later work as a human rights campaigner further exemplifies the pursuit of these goals.