Miguel Borges, journey to the end of Cinema Novo

ABSTRACT

This article aimed to present the trajectory of Miguel Borges in perspective with the formation of Brazilian Cinema Novo. A little-known filmmaker, Borges’ trajectory allows us to shed light on certain aspects of the advent of this cinematic movement that were omitted from the memory constructed by more prominent filmmakers. In particular, the comparison with other trajectories in Cinema Novo suggests a more nuanced perspective on the different class fractions that were articulated around cinema in the late 1950s. Firstly, the article seeks to analyze the perspectives on Miguel Borges by other Cinema Novo filmmakers, especially Paulo Cezar Saraceni and Glauber Rocha. Secondly, the article aims to take a retrospective look at Borges himself through his memoirs. Finally, the article presents an initial overview of Borges’ written works at the turn of the 1960s, considering his publications in Jornal do Brasil and O Metropolitano.

KEYWORDS
Cinema Novo; Miguel Borges; press

RESUMO

Este artigo tem como objetivo apresentar a trajetória de Miguel Borges em perspectiva com a formação do Cinema Novo brasileiro. Cineasta pouco conhecido, Borges possui uma trajetória que permite esclarecer determinados aspectos do advento desse movimento cinematográfico que ficaram à margem de uma memória construída por figuras mais visadas. Em particular, a comparação com outras trajetórias no Cinema Novo sugere um olhar mais sensível às diferentes frações de classe que se articulavam no fim dos anos 1950 em torno do cinema. Para tanto, o artigo procura, em primeiro lugar, analisar as perspectivas lançadas sobre Miguel Borges por parte de outros cinemanovistas, sobretudo Paulo Cezar Saraceni e Glauber Rocha. Num segundo momento, trata-se de levantar o olhar retrospectivo lançado pelo próprio Borges, em seu livro de memórias. Por fim, o artigo apresenta um primeiro panorama da produção escrita de Borges na virada para os anos 1960, considerando suas publicações no Suplemento Dominical do Jornal do Brasil e no semanário O Metropolitano.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE
cinema novo; Miguel Borges; imprensa

THE CASE AND STORY OF THE BOLA-BOLA MANIFESTO

In a well-known scene from the film O Vento do Leste [The East Wind] (1970), Glauber Rocha embarked on a tirade to a passerby regarding Third World cinema. The truncated dialogue between the characters on screen reflects the disagreement between Glauber and the directors of the Dziga Vertov Group, Jean-Luc Godard, and Jean-Pierre Gorin (Araújo, 2007). The misunderstanding is reinforced by Glauber’s sole reference to Third World cinema: “Miguel Borges’ bola-bola cinema.” This was an unusual mention, as Borges did not have a prominent career internationally, contrasting with the prestige of other filmmakers associated with Cinema Novo.

Contributing to the peculiarity is the temporal displacement, as the reference pertains to an event that occurred in the late 1950s. At that time, a group of young individuals were preparing their first short films and gaining some recognition in the Rio de Janeiro press, such as Suplemento Dominical [the Sunday Supplement] of the Jornal do Brasil [Newspaper of Brazil] newspaper. Tasked with writing a collective manifesto for the newspaper, Borges presented a text recalled decades later by Paulo Cezar Saraceni:

We no longer want cinema-literature. We no longer want cinema-sculpture. We no longer want cinema-music. We no longer want cinema-dance. We no longer want cinema-theater. We want cinema-cinema (Saraceni, 1993, p. 47, our translation).

The exact content of the document is unknown, as it has not been preserved. Other references to it are generally indirect¹. In any case, the memory of the episode was marked by Saraceni’s reaction:

This is typical of the 1920s, of silent cinema. Pretentious, not even Eisenstein would sign it. Ridiculous. It’ is like a child asking his father: I want a ball. Not a soccer ball, not a basketball, not a volleyball, not a water polo ball, not a tennis ball, not a billiard ball, not a ping-pong ball. I want a ball-ball” (Saraceni, 1993, p. 47, our translation).

The dissemination of the manifesto is reduced to a single, inconclusive shared reading, probably in 1959. Saraceni states there was no possibility of publishing Borges’ text, so the pages of Suplemento Dominical were filled by Glauber and Cláudio Mello e Souza, then close to the group that would form Cinema Novo (Saraceni, 1993, p. 49)². Nonetheless, the case of the manifesto lingered as a topos in the memory of Cinema Novo. In Revolução do Cinema Novo [Revolution of the New Cinema], published in 1981, Glauber Rocha alluded to the episode in a slightly different way from Saraceni, which expresses the variation in oral tradition:

When Miguel Borges made a manifesto, he said that we wanted cinema-cinema. Paulo [Cezar Saraceni] replied that it was like the story of the boy who asked his father for a ball-ball and his father did not know what it was (Rocha, 1981, p. 16, our translation).

The article O Cinema Novo [The New Cinema], in which this quote appears, is the result of the merger of two articles published between 1961 and 1962, and this excerpt can be found in its entirety in O Cinema Novo – 2, published in Ângulos magazine (Rocha, 1961b). Therefore, Glauber’s record predates Saraceni’s memoirs, even if we consider the interview he gave to Alex Viany in 1983, in which he alludes to the case (cited by Viany, 1999, p. 335).

As suggested by the film O Vento do Leste, the manifesto episode had become a topos by the end of the 1960s. Close to Cinema Novo, Alex Viany mentions, in 1965, the “threat of a manifesto” in which Borges “called for cinema-cinema” (Viany, 1999, p. 149). Years later, it would be the turn of Cinema Novo filmmaker David Neves to mention the case in Glauber X Godard, published in 1969 in Fairplay magazine (Neves, 2004, p. 230). Neves echoes, in fact, the postscript added by Glauber to an interview given to Cahiers du cinéma, in which he referred to “Miguel Borges’ bola-bola cinema,” blague reiterated shortly thereafter in O Vento do Leste³. Years later, a new association of the case with Godard, now under a curious authorial influence, would occur in the entry O cinema nasceu na Bahya [Cinema was born in Bahya], from 1976: “I published the Manifesto Cinema Cinema in SDJB without knowing Oswald de Andrade and Godard” (Rocha, 1981, p. 312)⁴.

At that point, the dissolution of the manifesto’s content had been consolidated with Saraceni’s reaction, marked by the interchangeable nature of the expressions “cinema-cinema” and “bola-bola.” Despite the disappearance of the manifesto, the partiality and variations in the reports, and ultimately its intertwining with a memory of Cinema Novo, the case became incorporated into the historiographical agenda without mediation (Simonard, 2006, p. 76; Yuta, 2003, p. 55-56, 284)⁵. Nonetheless, the arguments presented so far highlight Glauber and Saraceni’s elaboration on the theme, whether in interviews or in publications⁶. It is understood that these constitute the record (the case) of a broader, oral circulation (the story). That said, historiographical analysis must become more sensitive to the exchanges between the fact and the production of a historical memory around it.

The theme is functional to the self-construction of Cinema Novo. In Glauber, as in Saraceni, it expresses the idea of an empty formalism, more in line with the silent period, which marked the first phase of the movement. In an interview with Viany at the end of 1964, Glauber recalls being lambasted by Nelson Pereira dos Santos for the excessive formalism of his article Dramaturgia Fílmica: Visconti [Film Dramaturgy: Visconti] (Rocha, 1959b). It is an accusation similar to that made by Saraceni to Borges (“That is a manifesto from the 1920s, from silent cinema”). Interestingly, Saraceni mentions the article criticized by Nelson Pereira dos Santos, suggesting that the manifesto should have been attributed to Glauber:

Glauber had previously written a beautiful article about Visconti. His text was powerful and contained revolutionary violence that he found in no one else in the group, but he thought we should talk to Miguel Borges to draft the Manifesto (Saraceni, 1993, p. 47, our translation).

The label of formalism could also be attributed to other members of Cinema Novo, as the relationship between some of them and veterans linked to the Chaplin Club and O Fan magazine was well known. Saraceni’s relationship with Octavio de Faria and Joaquim Pedro de Andrade’s relationship with Plínio Sussekind Rocha are well known. According to Saraceni, Leon Hirszman, who was present at the reading of Borges’ manifesto, acknowledged in an interview with Viany in 1983 his penchant for normative manifestos, attributing it, however, to the collective: “There was a meeting, yes, but it was not a meeting to found Cinema Novo. It was a meeting to draft manifestos about Cinema Novo. To prepare manifestos” (as cited in Viany, 1999, p. 303).

The criticism of Borges anticipates a movement that would take shape years later in Glauber’s 1963 Revisão Crítica do Cinema Brasileiro [A Critical Review of Brazilian Cinema], regarding Limite (1931), a favorite film of the Chaplin Club (Rocha, 2003, p. 57-67)⁷. At that point, the label of “formalism” was equivalent to a kind of denial of cinema with social relevance. With regard to Cinema Novo, the predominant memory of the movement’s early years addressed the problem of formalism in the form of a synecdoche, in which the separation of an exemplary part (i.e., the bola-bola manifesto) sublimates the recognition of collective responsibility. This memory expresses, in short, the redefinition of the Cinema Novo group between 1959 and 1962 so that the part that represents the whole is, at the same time, excluded from it.

After all, Saraceni’s list of people present at the reading of the manifesto does not do justice to the group that came to be known as cinemanovista: besides him and Borges, Hirszman, Marcos Farias, Saulo Pereira de Mello, Mário Jacques, and Carlos Perez were also present (Saraceni, 1993, p. 47). Incidentally, Glauber associates Borges, Farias, and, to a lesser extent, Perez on different occasions. In Revolução do Cinema Novo, there is an entry dedicated to the first two, Borges Miguel Faria Marco (Rocha, 1981, p. 459), a rare occurrence in the book. The closeness to Farias was acknowledged by Borges himself in his memoirs (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 341-345). It is also visible in the statement given by Farias to Viany, published in April 1962 in Senhor magazine. By declaring himself dissatisfied with the Nouvelle Vague, Farias expressed a position common to cinemanovistas (Brum, 2013). However, what sets his rejection apart and brings him closer to Borges was his statement that the advent of sound cinema had led to widespread conformism in relation to the exploration of cinema’s visual resources (as cited in Viany, 1999, p. 34). This statement is consistent with the two films he chose as the best in Brazil in the same questionnaire: Limite and Ganga Bruta (1933) (as cited in Viany, 1999, p. 38).

A general exploration of the social characteristics of the different Cinema Novo groups can help us understand its reconfiguration in the early 1960s. Borges, Farias, and Perez met at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, where they organized a film club. Through Dejean Magno Pellegrin, they came into contact with other film club initiatives that flourished in the city in the second half of the 1950s, bringing them closer to Hirszman, Joaquim Pedro, Saraceni, and Glauber (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 55). Borges and Farias also shared other characteristics. Borges migrated to Rio as an adult, coming from Maranhão, while Farias came from Florianópolis. Their social background was therefore different from that of the other migrants in the group, since they did not have the position inherited by Diegues, from Alagoas, who had settled in Rio at the age of six and had the cultural capital of his father, the anthropologist and folklorist Manoel Diegues Jr., and Glauber, who was from Bahia and arrived in Rio with an established career in his home state (Rebechi Jr., 2011).

It is significant that Diegues remembers Borges in his memoirs as a “potential filmmaker and journalist by profession” (Diegues, 2014, p. 100). Borges belonged to a class fraction with fewer financial resources than the others, surviving on a scholarship from Getúlio Vargas Foundation and, later, through rapid professionalization in journalism. Borges’ professionalization conditions, therefore, differentiate his journalistic practice from that exercised by Glauber in Salvador, who had a brief stint in the police section. Borges’ social differentiation from other filmmakers even defines a different circulation through the city’s spaces: while Diegues refers to the Calabouço restaurant, aimed at poor students in Rio de Janeiro, as the place where the Metropolitan Student Union welcomed President Juscelino Kubitschek (Diegues, 2014, p. 77), Borges recalls the place as a customer (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 53). The sharing of space, often evoked by certain commentators on Cinema Novo, can also serve as an indicator of differences within the group⁸.

From a formal point of view, the difference would be marked in the group’s memory by the “lack of tone” in Borges’ interventions. This is what happens in the case of the manifesto. Regarding another episode, Saraceni recalls:

I heard the somewhat mocking calls from inside the bar, at a table in the back, and saw Miguel Borges and Carlos Pérez talking to an unknown young man from Cinema Novo. I went over and they introduced me to Gláuber Rocha, whom I had never heard of... He told me he was a filmmaker from Bahia and asked for my phone number. I didn’t like Miguel and Pérez, because they must have been gossiping about me. Years later, Gláuber wrote in his brilliant book Revolução do Cinema Novo that Miguel and Pérez said I was a jerk who liked Fellini [...] (Saraceni, 1993, p. 43, our translation).

Glauber Rocha (1981, p. 409) does not attribute the criticism to Borges and Perez. He mentions the presence, in addition to them, of Hirszman and Cláudio Bueno Rocha⁹. The negative association with Fellini echoes not a particular position of Borges, but a position relatively ingrained in sectors of Brazilian criticism. This is the case, for example, with Marcos Farias and Glauber himself, who lambasted the Italian filmmaker in statements made to Alex Viany in 1962 (as cited in Viany, 1999, p. 37)¹⁰. With his “lack of tact,” Borges expressed a stigma that would accompany Saraceni for many years and is engraved in his self-perception, since the reference to Fellini points to the image of “debauchery” associated with the filmmaker. Glauber’s first impression of Fellini would be remembered in the following terms: “Handsome, he looked like Antônio Carlos Jobim, athletic and debauched” (Rocha, 1981, p. 409). Another, more discreet topos from the memory of Cinema Novo.

A WEREWOLF EMERGES FROM THE SHADOWS

Another moment in which Glauber Rocha mentions Borges in Revolução do Cinema Novo is in a 1978 entry entitled A Campanha Contra a Embrafilme é Mais um Episódio na Velha Luta Contra o Nosso Cinema [The Campaign Against Embrafilme is Yet Another Episode in the Old Struggle Against Our Cinema] (Rocha, 1981, p. 344). Coming to the defense of the Brazilian Film Company (Embrafilme), Glauber associates Borges’ criticism of the company with his work in the early 1960s at Centro Popular de Cultura da União Nacional dos Estudantes [Popular Culture Center of the National Union of Students] (CPC-UNE), echoing Borges’ participation in the film Cinco Vezes Favela [Five Times Favela] (1962), for which he directed the episode Zé da Cachorra.

Various studies on the film’s production and limited circulation (Araújo, 2013; Cardenuto, 2008; Silva, 2011) suggest that the episodes directed by Joaquim Pedro (Couro de Gato) and Hirszman (Pedreira de São Diogo) were more favorably received. Zé da Cachorra was accused, on more than one occasion, of technical primitivism, which is not unrelated to the fact that it was made—except for Couro de Gato (1961), which predated the film project—before the others, under precarious conditions.

In his memoirs, which make no reference to the manifesto, Borges implicitly addresses the criticism suffered by Zé da Cachorra. In the chapter significantly titled Revolução do Cinema Novo, the filmmaker emphasizes the precarious technical and financial conditions and the idea that the film served as a guinea pig for the others, ultimately acknowledging the precariousness of the final product. He adds that the improvement in the other episodes comes from the experience gained in his work, adding a statement by Eduardo Coutinho, his producer (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 81). Nevertheless, what is most striking is the small size of the commentary dedicated to his best-known film, which covers only five pages of the publication (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 79-83)¹¹. Borges dilutes Zé da Cachorra into a broader trajectory, in contrast to the crystallized image of him.

In general, Borges’ memories constitute a double movement, sometimes highlighting aspects of his career that would have gone unnoticed, sometimes responding to criticism he received from his peers. In the first case, it is interesting to note that Cinema Novo remains a criterion for validation. Regarding Canalha em Crise, for instance, Borges states that the work “had a lot of Cinema Novo in it” (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 85); regarding O Último Malandro, Borges sees there “a Cinema Novo bias,” claiming to be a “dissident” Cinema Novo filmmaker (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 197-198). Finally, the demarcation of his position is complemented by the critical interpellation of the movement, registering its disconnection with chanchada, its confused relationship with the dictatorship, and its lack of sensitivity to genre cinema (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 65, 124-125, 346).

In the second case, the responses to criticism focus on two aspects, beyond the case of Zé da Cachorra¹². In the first case, it is possible to glimpse the dilemmas of individual trajectories in the face of the Brazilian state’s film policy in the 1970s—the changes of course inaugurated by the Ernesto Geisel administration (Napolitano, 2017, p. 199-237), when Embrafilme expanded (Amâncio, 2007). Thus, Borges’ interaction and engagement with state institutions and associations differed from the cinema sectors closer to Embrafilme. This is precisely the point made by Glauber in his 1978 criticism of Borges, referred to above.

As president of the National Union of the Film Industry, Borges promoted the Brazilian Film Symposium in 1978, at which Embrafilme was criticized (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 232-233). He also served on the National Film Council between 1979 and 1980, opposing Embrafilme’s presence in the body (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 247-250). Borges also highlights his participation in the Brazilian Film Cooperative, directed by Nelson Pereira dos Santos, which aimed to build independent production in relation to the state (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 237-245).

Although these references concern Borges’ self-perception, they converge with Diegues’ memories, from the opposite perspective, regarding the configuration of an increasingly marked split in the field of cinema. Diegues recalls that the creation of the Brazilian Association of Filmmakers (ABRACI) in 1975 was linked to a disagreement with the industrialist position defended by Luiz Carlos Barreto in the National Union of the Film Industry (Diegues, 2014, p. 376)¹³. Borges, who served on the fiscal council during ABRACI’s first term, also recalls disagreements with Barreto’s group (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 231).

His involvement in film policy during the Democratic Transition period was the springboard for Borges’ ultimate integration into Brazilian state bodies, this time as head of federal film policy in the Fernando Collor government, when he worked in the Secretariat of Culture at the invitation of Ipojuca Pontes. Evidently, his critical position regarding Embrafilme is in line with his choice to join the Secretariat’s team, since the new government had decreed the company’s extinction. Borges’ memoirs strive to respond to criticism of his participation in this episode. Borges even mentions Hugo Carvana’s public outcry over the liquidation of the company (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 295-296). In response to this type of position, he mentions that the project to close Embrafilme should have been accompanied by a complementary measure, the taxation of film imports, which was rejected by the government bureaucracy, possibly due to foreign pressure (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 284-286). Finally, Borges rejects the idea of the end of national production, arguing that the Rouanet Law (December 1991) would restore funding for filmmaking during the Collor administration (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 298).

According to Borges, the episode with Carvana revealed the stigma associated with him by the Collor government. In fact, the filmmaker did not direct any more films until his death in 2013. Shortly after leaving the government, he began writing for Jornal do Vídeo, distributed in video rental stores; he also sought to reestablish himself in the film industry by working for Pedro Rovai. The stigma can be glimpsed in some of Saraceni’s comments about Borges—quoted, along with Carlos Perez, in the episode of Saraceni’s rude introduction to Glauber (Saraceni, 1993, p. 43). It is worth remembering that Saraceni’s memoirs were written at a time when it was very difficult to get projects such as Natal da Portela (1988) and Bahia de todos os sambas (1996) off the ground¹⁴. Diegues, in turn, blames Borges, along with Rovai and Adnor Pitanga, for undue charges for films associated with the Embrafilme estate, which affects Veja esta canção (1994) (Diegues, 2014, p. 663).

It is accurate that Borges’ memories soften certain differences, which are more intensely represented in his interview with Viany in 1983 (as cited in Viany, 1999, p. 324-325). Borges mentions, for example, the cordiality of his relations with Glauber at the time of the release of Terra em Transe (1967) (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 120-125), in addition to the projects developed with Luiz Carlos Barreto (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 173-174). However, in the economy of the book, the similarities are fewer than the demarcation of distance and hostility.

The very title of the memoirs—Um lobisomem sai da sombra [A Werewolf emerges from the shadows]—suggests these relationships. It is worth remembering that characters from Brazilian folklore are present in Pecado na sacristia, the filmmaker’s favorite film. Soon after, Borges produced and edited Fogo Morto [Dead Fire] (1976), directed by his friend Marcos Farias. It should be noted that the character played by Jofre Soares (i.e., Master José Amaro) possesses an essential trait in José Lins do Rego’s novel (1942) that was not recovered in the film: his progressive isolation from his family and community is marked by his involuntary association with the figure of the werewolf.

This association is also found in Borges’ memoirs. His arrival in Rio de Janeiro is characterized by the absence of a social network that could welcome him to the city—in this sense, in contrast to Diegues’ memories of the Botafogo neighborhood in the 1950s. The absence of ties is associated with resorting to prostitution—a theme revisited by Borges in his first feature film, Canalha em Crise. In his memoirs, Borges’ sense of’ ultimate isolation develops in parallel with the melancholic notation of obesity and loss of attraction to women¹⁵. The contrast could not be more striking: if Glauber sketches, in Revolução do Cinema Novo, a symbolic posterity in a scenario in which he occupies the center, Um lobisomem sai da sombra exposes the progressive isolation of its author.

FIRST INTERVENTIONS

I. In the Sunday Supplement of Jornal do Brasil

The crystallization of social memory around Borges and its contrast underscore the need to study his filmography and publications, which are the subject of this work. In particular, it seems fruitful to analyze his interventions during the formation of Cinema Novo, when this memory had not yet crystallized. In this way, it is possible to identify projects that were discarded during the formation of the group in the transition to the 1960s. In this sense, this last section of the article seeks to present an overview of Borges’ first publications, aiming to complement existing analyses of Zé da Cachorra.

As Diegues acknowledged many years later, it was Borges’ responsibility to make room for Glauber in Suplemento Dominical (Diegues, 2014, p. 99). Earlier, in an article entitled Cinema Novo: de 1963 a... (Diegues, 1973), Diegues had characterized the spaces occupied by the Cinema Novo filmmakers as “supplement corners,” “student newspapers,” and “piggybacking on various magazines” (Diegues, 1988, p. 19). This position converged with that of Glauber, who, in a 1965 interview (cited by Viany, 1999, p. 87), pointed out that the participation of Cinema Novo filmmakers in the press was initially restricted to Suplemento Dominical, published between 1956 and 1961, and the weekly O Metropolitano, distributed by Diário de Notícias between 1959 and 1962. Therefore, Borges’ work in Suplemento Dominical was relevant to the legitimization of Cinema Novo.

Diegues’ memoirs contain an error, as he himself published in Suplemento Dominical before the others. On November 24, 1957, Mário Faustino edited a poem by Diegues in his notebook Poesia-Experiência [Experience-Poetry] (Diegues, 1957). His third and most extensive publication of poems in Suplemento Dominical (Diegues, 1958) was endorsed by a laudatory text by Faustino, who praised the author’s precocity (Faustino, 1958). It should be noted that Diegues’ participation, which was soon discontinued, was restricted to poetic production and, more than that, was designated as “young.”¹⁶ Hence the consistency of Diegues’ emphasis on the publications of Borges (from August 1958) and Glauber Rocha (September 1958) in Suplemento Dominical. This position was anticipated by Glauber when he stated in the mid-1960s that the young people involved in O Metropolitano (Diegues, David Neves, Arnaldo Jabor, etc.) belonged to a second generation of Cinema Novo (cited by Viany, 1999, p. 90). Diegues is younger, born in 1940, while Glauber was born in 1939 and Borges in 1937. More than the age difference, however, the difference lies in the early professionalization of Borges and Glauber, who began their careers in the press as reporters rather than editors or columnists.

Borges began his collaboration with Suplemento Dominical shortly before Glauber, but Glauber’s collaboration lasted longer: while Borges’ publications ceased in October 1959, Glauber published until Suplemento Dominical closed in November 1961. During their period of collaboration, Borges was more prolific, publishing six texts compared to Glauber’s five. It is also worth noting that Borges’ publications have greater formal breadth. While Glauber restricted himself to film criticism, Borges published three short stories, two reviews (on Ravina (1959)) and a page dedicated to cinema (in collaboration with Cláudio Bueno Rocha).

The first three contributions were fictional texts, the short stories Alarme numa indústria [Alarm in an Industry], O lutador público [The Public Fighter], and M 209 computador eletrônico [M 209 Electronic Computer], published between August 1958 and April 1959. It is worth remembering that Suplemento Dominical was committed to publishing young authors, both in prose (Assis Brasil) and poetry (Faustino). In addition, other filmmakers also wrote fiction in prose, such as Joaquim Pedro (Araújo, 2013, p. 45-51) and Glauber (Brasil, 2007, p. 112-122)¹⁷. Glauber himself praised the initiative of publishing young writers in Suplemento Dominical, thanks to Assis Brasil (Rocha, 1961a).

The three short stories published by Borges in Suplemento Dominical deal with modern elements that affect the working classes¹⁸. The first deals with the dissatisfaction of workers with a show prepared by industrialists, who soon resort to direct threats (Borges, 1958a). The second deals with a situation of domestic violence, mediated by the crowd in the streets (Borges, 1958b). The third deals with the loss of control over a robot by businessmen (Borges, 1959d). After a three-month hiatus, Borges returns to publishing as a film critic, providing a pair of comments on Ravina (Borges, 1959e, 1959f). Two months later, an article by Glauber on the same film would be published (Rocha, 1959c). Therefore, Borges’ critique predates and is independent of his colleague’s critique.

Borges’ approach to film criticism took place in the context of vacancy of authority on the subject. The journal was inconsistent and even informally assigned the film section to José Lino Grünewald—in contrast to the explicit definition, marked in the headers, of the sections on poetry (Faustino), visual arts (Ferreira Gullar), and prose (Assis Brasil). Grünewald’s departure from the newspaper was part of the split between the Rio de Janeiro Neoconcrete group and the São Paulo concretists (Teixeira, 2004, p. 42-58). This opening allowed other critics—Borges, Glauber, and others, such as Sérgio Augusto and Maurício Gomes Leite—to begin to occupy this space without absorbing it entirely¹⁹.Regarding Ravina, it is noteworthy to observe a particular aspect of Borges’ criticism that would have implications for his later career at the newspaper. The negative criticism of the film aligns with Glauber’s later collaboration; however, Borges distinguishes himself through his mocking treatment of his peers in film criticism, who were guilty of inflating Rubem Biáfora’s film (Borges, 1959f). This attitude reemerged in October 1959 during Borges’ most extensive and final collaboration with Suplemento Dominical.

The short-lived cinema page appeared on October 17, with Borges and Cláudio Bueno Rocha serving as its editors. This page included a section that expanded on the commentary regarding Ravina. This was Revista da crítica [Critics’ review], intended to highlight the impressionistic nature of contemporary film criticism (Borges; Rocha, 1959). At the time, the criticism was directed at figures such as Grünewald and Ely Azeredo, who occasionally contributed to Suplemento Dominical²⁰. It seems that the critical stance of those who defended filmmakers such as Vincente Minnelli and Marcel Carné provoked a response, evidenced by the discontinuation of the page in the following edition of Suplemento Dominical, without further explanation. The break is further underscored by the absence of the announced continuation of the article Sobre o Documentário: Potenkim, Zuizerdee e O teto [On the Documentary: Potemkin, Suizerdee, and O Teto] (Borges; Rocha, 1959). Consequently, around the time of the manifesto, Borges’ contribution to Suplemento concluded.²¹

II. In O Metropolitano

O Metropolitano was another venue for Cinema Novo militancy in the Rio de Janeiro press in the early 1960s. The newspaper was re-established in 1959 by the Metropolitan Student Union (UME), under the direction of Paulo Alberto Monteiro de Barros, and circulated as a student supplement in the Diário de Notícias do Rio de Janeiro newspaper. The collaboration concluded in August 1962, likely due to the political positions of the UME. From that point onward, the newspaper began to circulate independently, which limited its reach and graphic design.

The newspaper’s connection with the UME resulted in a relatively homogeneous editorial team composed of university students from Rio de Janeiro, which restricted their social background to the middle class and the bourgeoisie. This was further exacerbated by the predominance of students from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC)²². Due to their affinity with Paulo Monteiro de Barros, law students from PUC, including Diegues, David Neves, and Arnaldo Jabor, joined the newspaper. Diegues even assumed the role of editor-in-chief, becoming director after Monteiro de Barros departed in 1960. Borges, however, did not participate in the newspaper as an organized student, having graduated in 1958. By that time, Borges was working as an editor at Jornal do Commercio and contributed to the UME newspaper as a young but external collaborator, which is why his name does not appear on the editorial staff list²³.

His collaboration with O Metropolitano is more extensive than with Suplemento Dominical, totaling twelve texts from January 1959 to September 1962, when the newspaper was discontinued²⁴. Overall, it is possible to discern that his work is divided into two periods: from January to March 1959 (seven articles) and from September 1961 to August 1962 (four articles and one interview). It can be inferred that his collaboration was more regular at the beginning of O Metropolitano and became more sporadic upon his return after a two-year hiatus.

There are significant differences between these two periods. The first is characterized by the formal homogeneity of the texts, primarily composed of theater reviews. These critiques generally take a quite negative²⁵stance regarding the plays currently showing in Rio de Janeiro, focusing on various dramaturgical orientations: Pedro Mico (Antônio Callado, dir. Paulo Francis), Vestir os Nus (Luigi Pirandello, dir. Alberto D’Aversa), A Fábula do Brooklyn (Irwin Shaw, dir. Geraldo Queirós), A Sempre Viúva (Chico Anysio, dir. Ruggero Jacobbi), and Auto da Compadecida (Ariano Suassuna, dir. Hermilo Borba Filho) (Borges, 1959a).

Starting in February, there is a change in tone in the interventions. In addition to reviewing the plays, the column begins to respond to criticism received in reaction to previous texts. Borges (1959b) responds, for example, to Jece Valadão, who defends the work of the São Jorge Theater, previously criticized (Borges, 1959a). Nevertheless, it is the article O artista chorão [The Crying Artist] (Borges, 1959c) that most forcefully reflects Borges’ position on the criticism he receives in the theatrical field, to which the title already offers a response. As would happen months later in Suplemento Dominical, this controversial criticism marks the end of Borges’ regular collaboration with the newspaper.

The second, more irregular stage of his collaboration began with the article Cultura popular vai entrar de rijo (Borges, 1961), in which he recounts the formation of the CPC-UNE. The collaboration forms part of the network of relationships that developed between the newspaper and the organization: Diegues would direct the episode Escola de Samba Alegria de Viver from Cinco vezes favela; in addition, O Metropolitano would publish articles by prominent figures from the CPC, such as Carlos Estevam Martins (co-writer of Escola de Samba) and Oduvaldo Vianna Filho (actor in the same episode)²⁶. Unlike these figures, Borges’ participation in the CPC is secondary and depends on his dialogue with Vianna and Marcos Farias. Borges notes that the mistrust was mutual: he was seen as a “busybody” by the members of the Teatro de Arena, while he remained wary, which extended to the CPC (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 76-79).

The article was published in the first month of João Goulart’s government, in a context marked by political instability that affected the circulation of O Metropolitano itself, whose publication was suspended in the weeks following the resignation of Jânio Quadros in August 1961. Therefore, Borges return to this periodical occurs at a time of rupture²⁷. The very formation of the CPC relates to this context. Hence the need to present its purposes and the prospectus-like nature of Cultura popular vai entrar de rijo, which already refers to Cinco vezes favela. Despite the differences, therefore, it was a matter of closing ranks in support of the new government, which proved to be fragile from the outset. This seems to be the tone of the interview he gave to the newspaper, together with Glauber, in early 1962 (Borges &Rocha, 1962). In it, the critical notation regarding a “propagandistic” cinema, closely linked to the Cold War, already reflects the experience of Cinco vezes favela, which Glauber described on the same occasion as a sectarian film, albeit a valid on.²⁸

The final core of Borges’ collaboration with O Metropolitano occurs at a time of rearticulation of the left (the CPC) and of conjunctural instabilities that will lead, first, to the end of the distribution agreement with Diário de Notícias (in September 1962, which also leads to a graphic restriction of the newspaper to tabloid format) and, finally, to the closure of the newspaper (October 1962). Editorial instability therefore grew during the period when the dispute over the plebiscite that would decide the return of presidential powers to Goulart intensified in January 1963. At the same time, the left-wing film industry was focused on defining the concept of “new cinema” (Cardenuto, 2022).

The three articles published by Borges between July and September 1962 reflect these issues. The first, O ano novo [The new year] (Borges, 1962a), is a curious case since reviews of films from the previous year were published in January²⁹. In it, Borges makes a broad argument based on films that attest to the good moment Brazilian film production was experiencing³⁰. The following month, in Marylin Monroe: lição para o Geicine [Marilyn Monroe: a lesson for geicine] (Borges, 1962b), the death of the American actress a few days earlier is seen as a symptom of the crisis in American production and, therefore, of its unsuitability for Brazil. In his view, it would be more appropriate for the Brazilian Film Executive Group (Geicine, created in 1961) to opt for a policy of supporting independent cinema, associated with an admittedly vague definition of new cinema³¹. Finally, in September 1962, Borges published his last article in O Metropolitano, Afinal, o que é Cinema Novo? [After all, what is Cinema Novo?]. The need for a conceptual definition at a time of political turmoil highlights the importance of the issue for Cinema Novo filmmakers, although Borges, as we have seen, had shown relative openness in the previous months. This position would be reiterated here, as Borges incorporates, as part of the renewal movement, O pagador de promessas [The Given Word] (1962), Assalto ao trem pagador [The Robbery of the Pay Train] (1962), and Os cafajestes [The Scoundrels] (1962), about which other Cinema Novo filmmakers would make some reservations. It is remarkable that his “purification” of the movement evokes a film that is rarely mentioned in the debate among other critics, the co-production Pedro e Paulo (1962), a film that expressed a Christian perspective on working with the poor populations of Rio de Janeiro. This repertoire places Borges in a very different position from that presented the following year in the restricted definition of Cinema Novo defended by Glauber Rocha in Revisão crítica do cinema brasileiro (Rocha, 2003, p. 125-151).

However, the promotion of the CPC and Cinema Novo, during this last phase of Borges’ collaboration with O Metropolitano, reveals his declining position. Although he was a respected interlocutor, to the point of granting an interview alongside Glauber Rocha, by this time, his isolation was already becoming apparent. On one hand, his position in Cinema Novo was not in line with Glauber’s purge, which would eventually prevail. It is significant, incidentally, that Borges was the only Cinema Novo filmmaker at the time not to participate in his colleagues’ films (Lorenzo, 2011)³². Conversely, in the CPC, he worked on the sidelines, alongside Marcos Farias, which diluted his trajectory in relation to that of his colleague, who was more closely linked to other Cinema Novo filmmakers, especially Leon Hirszman. In his memoirs, rather than identifying specifically with a political group, namely the Workers’ Party, Borges emphasizes the collective position under a generic designation—they were all “communists”—which ultimately obscures the differences (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 77). Even this political designation, however, overlaps, in Borges’ case, with professional mediation since, at that point, he was working in the Brazilian section of the newspaper Prensa Latina, an organization linked to the Cuban government³³.

In the year that Cinema Novo came into its own, the particularly hostile reception of “Zé da Cachorra” contributed to reinforcing Borges’ declining trajectory and, ultimately, his exclusion from the very definition of the group. The negative reception is intertwined, it is true, with the controversies cultivated by Borges in the Rio de Janeiro press, which marked, as we have seen, his stints at Suplemento and O Metropolitano. This is the case, for example, of Salvyano Cavalcanti de Paiva, who, as early as February, raised doubts about Cinco Vezes Favela, linking his assessment to an intervention by Borges at a conference on Frank Capra given by Clóvis de Castro, which would reveal a pretentious semantics for those who wish to address the problem of the favela (Paiva, 1962). If, as Reinaldo Cardenuto (2008, p. 189-190) identified, the appeal to extra-filmic elements was fundamental in the interventions favorable to the film, Borges’ “lack of tone” certainly did not help.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

In late 1962, alongside his work at Prensa Latina, Borges published his opinion pieces in Shopping News in Rio de Janeiro. The limited prestige of this newspaper is implied in Hirszman’s comment in a 1983 interview, in which he recalls Viany’s marginalization during the period when he wrote for that publication (cited by Viany, 1999, p. 286). From 1958 to 1962, therefore, Borges followed a downward trajectory in the Rio de Janeiro press, even if we take into account the limited space occupied by film critics³⁴ and the difficult dialogue with dominant figures in widely circulated newspapers³⁵. In 1963, Borges began working in the newsroom of Tribuna da Imprensa—as a reporter, but also as a theater columnist, replacing Carlos Perez and Cláudio Bueno Rocha. Nevertheless, access to a broader space was downgraded from an authorial point of view: these were unsigned reviews.

The restriction of his horizons in terms of writing was compounded by the difficulties in producing his first feature film, Canalha em crise, in 1963³⁶. The film was censored by the police during the Goulart administration and again by the government that came to power after the 1964 coup, which delayed its release until 1965. Borges would only release another feature film in 1967, when Perpétuo contra o esquadrão da morte came out, a police genre film that marked a retraction of the filmmaker’s authorial horizon.

His trajectory was therefore different from that of other members of Cinema Novo, which had its first productive peak between 1963 and 1964, when it garnered unprecedented attention from the national press, which would be important in ensuring its symbolic survival after the coup d’état. It is significant of this divergent trajectory that the controversy that would erupt between Borges and Cinema Novo in 1965 would take place through third parties, and not in his own space (cited by Viany, 1999, p. 324-325). Therefore, the crystallization of his image by his Cinema Novo peers feeds on the restriction of his authorial diction—written and audiovisual. In short, he did not have the corresponding means to respond to this memory.

Moreover, Borges’ “lack of tone” can be understood not only as a personal characteristic, but also as a social marker—the expression of the difficulty in adjusting his discourse to the class expectations implicit in the spaces he entered, which his colleagues performed more effectively³⁷. That said, the case of Borges can help to construct an approach to Cinema Novo that assumes its formation as a process throughout which the production of films and texts is intertwined with the dispute over the definition of parameters for its success or failure.

References

• AMANCIO, Tunico. Pacto cinema-Estado: Os anos Embrafilme. Alceu - Revista de Comunicação, Cultura e Política, v. 8, n. 15, p. 173-184, 2007.
• ARAÚJO, Luciana Corrêa de. Joaquim Pedro de Andrade: Primeiros tempos. São Paulo: Alameda, 2013.
• ARAÚJO, Mateus. Godard, Glauber e Vento do leste: Alegoria de um (des)encontro. Devires, v. 4, n. 1, p. 36-63, 2007.
• ARRAIAL do Cabo. Dir. Mário Carneiro e Paulo Cezar Saraceni, Brasil, 1959.
• ASSALTO ao trem pagador. Dir. Roberto Farias, Brasil, 1962.
• BAHIA de todos os sambas. Dir. Paulo Cezar Saraceni/Leon Hirszman, Brasil, 1996.
• BARÃO Otelo no barato dos milhões. Dir. Miguel Borges, Brasil, 1971.
• BAZIN, André. O que é o cinema? São Paulo: Cosac Naify, 2014.
• BERNARDET, Jean-Claude. Brasil em tempo de cinema: Ensaio sobre o cinema brasileiro de 1958 a 1966. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2007.
• BOCA de Ouro. Dir. Nelson Pereira dos Santos, Brasil, 1963.
• BORGES, Miguel. Alarme numa indústria. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 2, 31 ago. 1958a.
• BORGES, Miguel. O lutador público. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 6, 23 nov. 1958b.
• BORGES, Miguel. Sugestões, Cotações, & Cia. Diário de Notícias, Rio de Janeiro, O Metropolitano, p. 4. 1 fev. 1959a.
• BORGES, Miguel. Variedades de teatro. Diário de Notícias, Rio de Janeiro, O Metropolitano, p. 4, 22 fev. 1959b.
• BORGES, Miguel. O artista chorão. Diário de Notícias, Rio de Janeiro, O Metropolitano, p. 4, 8 mar. 1959c.
• BORGES, Miguel. M 209 computador eletrônico. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 4, 5 abr. 1959d.
• BORGES, Miguel. Ravina - I. A continuação de um equívoco. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 4, 4 jul. 1959e.
• BORGES, Miguel. Ravina. Considerações a propósito. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 6, 11 jul. 1959f.
• BORGES, Miguel. Cultura popular vai entrar de rijo. Diário de Notícias, Rio de Janeiro, O Metropolitano, p. 2, 23 set. 1961.
• BORGES, Miguel. O ano novo. Diário de Notícias, Rio de Janeiro, O Metropolitano, p. 3. 14 jul. 1962a.
• BORGES, Miguel. Marylin Monroe: lição para o Geicine. Diário de Notícias, Rio de Janeiro, O Metropolitano, p. 3, 11 ago. 1962b.
• BORGES, Miguel. Afinal, o que é Cinema Novo? O Metropolitano, Rio de Janeiro, p. 5, 19 set. 1962c.
• BORGES, Miguel et al. Cinema Novo em discussão. Movimento, Rio de Janeiro, n. 7, p. 4-8, nov. 1962.
• BORGES, Miguel; ROCHA, Cláudio Bueno. Cinema. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 7, 17 out. 1959.
• BORGES, Miguel; ROCHA, Glauber. Os jovens fazem… cinema. Diário de Notícias, Rio de Janeiro, O Metropolitano, p. 5, 17 mar. 1962.
• BORGES, Miguel; SILVA NETO, Antônio Leão da. Miguel Borges: Um lobisomem sai da sombra. São Paulo: Imprensa Oficial, 2008.
• BRASIL, José Umbelino. As críticas do jovem Glauber: Bahia 1956/1963. Tese (Doutorado em Comunicação e Cultura Contemporâneas) - Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, 2007.
• BRUM, Alessandra. A Nouvelle Vague sob o ponto de vista do jornal O Metropolitano. Estudos Históricos, v. 26, n. 51, p. 193-212, 2013.
• CAFAJESTES, Os. Dir. Ruy Guerra, Brasil, 1962.
• CAMINHOS. Dir. Paulo Cezar Saraceni, Brasil, 1958.
• CANALHA em crise. Dir. Miguel Borges, Brasil, 1963.
• CARDENUTO, Reinaldo. Cinema Novo em disputa: páginas da imprensa carioca em 1962. ArtCultura, v. 24, n. 44, p. 183-203, 2022.
• CARDENUTO, Reinaldo. Discursos de intervenção: O cinema de propaganda ideológica para o CPC e o Ipês às vésperas do Golpe de 1964. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciências da Comunicação) - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2008.
• CASO Cláudia, O. Dir. Miguel Borges, Brasil, 1979.
• CATANI, Afrânio. Cogumelos de uma só manhã. B. J. Duarte e o cinema brasileiro. Anhembi: 1950-1962. Tese (Doutorado em Sociologia) - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 1991.
• CINCO vezes favela. Dir. Carlos Diegues, Joaquim Pedro de Andrade, Leon Hirszman, Marcos Farias e Miguel Borges, Brasil, 1962.
• CONSÓRCIO de intrigas. Dir. Miguel Borges, Brasil, 1980.
• COURO de gato. Dir. Joaquim Pedro de Andrade, Brasil, 1961.
• DIEGUES, Carlos. O poeta novo. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 5, 24 nov. 1957.
• DIEGUES, Carlos. Poesia em dia. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 7, 13 jul. 1958.
• DIEGUES, Carlos. Eisenstein sobre 'Limite'. Revista Arquitetura, n. 38, p. 21-24, ago. 1965.
• DIEGUES, Carlos. Cinema brasileiro: Ideias e imagens. Porto Alegre: Editora da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul/MEC, 1988.
• DIEGUES, Carlos. Vida de cinema: antes, durante e depois do Cinema Novo. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2014.
• ESCANDALOSAS, As. Dir. Miguel Borges, Brasil. 1970
• FAUSTINO, Mário. Poesia em dia. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 7, 13 jul. 1958.
• FOGO morto. Dir. Marcos Farias, Brasil, 1976.
• GANGA bruta. Dir. Humberto Mauro, Brasil, 1933.
• GARCIA, Miliandre. Cinema Novo: A cultura popular revisitada. História: questões & debates, n. 38, p. 133-159, 2003.
• GARCIA, Miliandre. A questão da cultura popular: As políticas culturais do Centro Popular de Cultura (CPC) da União Nacional dos Estudantes (UNE). Revista brasileira de História, v. 24, n. 47, p. 127-162, 2004.
• HOBSBAWM, Eric. Era dos Extremos: O breve século XX: 1914-1991. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 1995.
• HOMEM do Sputnik, O. Dir. Carlos Manga, Brasil, 1959.
• LIMA, Livia Azevedo. Trilogia da paixão: Paulo Cezar Saraceni leitor de Lúcio Cardoso. Tese (Doutorado em Meios e Processos Audiovisuais) - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2022.
• LIMITE. Dir. Mário Peixoto, Brasil, 1931.
• LORENZO, Ricardo de. Os agentes do Cinema Novo e seus 'antagonistas': ensaio prosopográfico. In: HEINZ, Flavio M. (org.). História social de elites. São Leopoldo: Oikos, 2011. p. 114-133.
• MARIA Bonita, rainha do cangaço. Dir. Miguel Borges, Brasil, 1968.
• MORTE comanda o cangaço, A. Dir. Carlos Coimbra, Brasil, 1960.
• MORTE passou por perto, A. Dir. Stanley Kubrick, Estados Unidos, 1955.
• MOTTA, Rodrigo Patto Sá. As universidades e o Regime Militar: Cultura política brasileira e modernização autoritária. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2014.
• NAPOLITANO, Marcos. Coração civil: A vida cultural brasileira sob o regime militar (1964-1985). São Paulo: Intermeios/Programa de Pós-Graduação em História Social da Universidade de São Paulo, 2017.
• NATAL da Portela. Dir. Paulo Cezar Saraceni, Brasil/França, 1988.
• NEVES, David. Cinema. Diário de Notícias, Rio de Janeiro, O Metropolitano, p. 4, 6 jan. 1962.
• NEVES, David. Telégrafo visual: Crítica amável de cinema. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004.
• PAGADOR de promessas, O. Dir. Anselmo Duarte, Brasil, 1962.
• PAIVA, Salvyano Cavalcanti de. Cinema. Diário carioca, Rio de Janeiro, Revista da Televisão, p. 3, 18-19 fev. 1962.
• PÁTIO. Dir. Glauber Rocha, Brasil, 1959.
• PECADO na sacristia. Dir. Miguel Borges, Brasil, 1975.
• PEDRO e Paulo. Dir. Angel Acciaresi, Argentina/Brasil, 1962.
• PERPÉTUO contra o esquadrão da morte. Dir. Miguel Borges, Brasil, 1967.
• PORTO das Caixas. Dir. Paulo Cezar Saraceni, Brasil, 1962.
• RAVINA. Dir. Rubem Biáfora, Brasil, 1959.
• REBECHI JR., Arlindo. Glauber Rocha, ensaísta do Brasil. Tese (Doutorado em Literatura Brasileira) - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2011.
• RIDENTI, Marcelo. Intelectuais e artistas brasileiros nos anos 1960/70: 'entre a pena e o fuzil'. ArtCultura, v. 9, n. 14, p. 185-195, 2007.
• ROCHA, Glauber. John Sturges: do novo western. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 1, 7 set. 1958.
• ROCHA, Glauber. Pátio: Glauber Rocha. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 6, 29 mar. 1959a.
• ROCHA, Glauber. Dramaturgia fílmica: Visconti. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 6, 25 jul. 1959b.
• ROCHA, Glauber. Ravina: erro de origens. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Suplemento Dominical, p. 6, 05 set. 1959c.
• ROCHA, Glauber. Reunião (E Sonia) 1. Diário de Notícias, Salvador, p. 1, 20 mar. 1961a.
• ROCHA, Glauber. Cinema Novo - 2. Ângulos, Salvador, ano XI, n. 17, p. 123-125, nov.-dez./1961b.
• ROCHA, Glauber. Revolução do Cinema Novo. Rio de Janeiro: Alhambra; Embrafilme, 1981.
• ROCHA, Glauber. Cartas ao mundo. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 1997.
• ROCHA, Glauber. Revisão crítica do cinema brasileiro São Paulo: Cosac Naify, 2003.
• SARACENI, Paulo Cezar. Por dentro do Cinema Novo: Minha viagem. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 1993.
• SILVA, Carolinne Mendes da. Nem todas as mulheres do mundo: Uma análise das personagens femininas nos filmes do Cinema Novo. Tese (Doutorado em História Social) - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2020.
• SILVA, Thiago de Faria e. Audiovisual, memória e política: Os filmes Cinco vezes favela (1962) e 5x favela, agora por nós mesmos (2010). Dissertação (Mestrado em História Social) - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2011.
• SIMONARD, Pedro (org.). No rastro do Cinema Novo. Curitiba: Kotter Editorial, 2021.
• SIMONARD, Pedro. A geração do Cinema Novo: Para uma antropologia do cinema. Rio de Janeiro: Mauad X, 2006.
• TEIXEIRA, Heloisa. Impressões de viagem: CPC, vanguarda e desbunde: 1960/70. Rio de Janeiro: Aeroplano, 2004.
• TERRA em transe. Dir. Glauber Rocha, Brasil, 1967.
• ÚLTIMO malandro, O. Dir. Miguel Borges, Brasil, 1974.
• VEJA esta canção. Dir. Carlos Diegues, Brasil, 1994.
• VENTO do Leste, O. Dir. Grupo Dziga Vertov, França, 1970.
• VIANY, Alex. O processo do Cinema Novo Rio de Janeiro: Aeroplano, 1999.
• VIZENTINI, Paulo. Do nacional-desenvolvimentismo à Política Externa Independente (1945-1964). In: DELGADO, Lucilia de Almeida Neves; FERREIRA, Jorge (org.). O Brasil Republicano 2. O tempo da experiência democrática - da democratização de 1945 ao golpe civil-militar de 1964. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2011. p. 295-216.
• YUTA, Edmar T. Glauber Rocha e a formação do Cinema Novo. Tese (Doutorado em Sociologia) - São Paulo, Universidade de São Paulo, 2003.

• DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT:
  The entire data set supporting the results of this study was published in the article itself.
• 1
  The terms of the manifesto are referred to by Glauber Rocha (1981, p. 16) and Carlos Diegues (2014, p. 100). According to Saraceni (1993, p. 47), the reading took place at Alcazar, a bar located in Copacabana, in the southern part of Rio de Janeiro, and these two filmmakers are not mentioned among those present. Diegues had not yet joined the Cinemnovista group, and Glauber Rocha, although he traveled frequently to Rio, lived in Salvador.
• 2
  Saraceni links participation in Suplemento Dominical to the screening of Caminhos (1958) and Pátio (1959) at a private session in 1959 attended by Reynaldo Jardim, editor of the periodical (Saraceni, 1993, p. 46-47). However, the first texts by Glauber and Borges were published the previous year (Rocha, 1958; Borges, 1958a).
• 3
  The case is also mentioned in extemporaneous contexts in the entry “Stanley Kubrick” in O Século do Cinema, published in the early 1980s, in which Glauber mentions the “cinema-cinema dimension” to characterize the film A Morte Passou por Perto (1955). It should be noted, in another sense, that a distant echo of this episode is recorded — through the expression “film-film” — in the song Cinema Novo (1993), by Caetano Veloso and Gilberto Gil.
• 4
  Diegues (2014, p. 100) also stated that the manifesto was published, which is contradicted by an extensive search carried out in Suplemento Dominical within the scope of this investigation.
• 5
  I mention these researchers for their pioneering work in developing a methodology for analyzing Cinema Novo between 1990 and 2000. In Simonard, whose interviews with Cinema Novo filmmakers are a valuable resource (Simonard, 2021), the description of the formation of Cinema Novo suffers from the absence of historiographical mediation in the use of this same material, the bola-bola manifesto, for example, is reproduced without question. As for Yuta, although he expresses a certain caution regarding episodes such as the manifesto (Yuta, 2003, p. 284-289), the problem lies in analyzing the formation of the Cinema Novo unity without paying much attention to exclusions, thereby diluting figures such as Borges.
• 6
  This investigation is limited to these types of materials, but it is worth noting Saraceni’s letter to Glauber, dated November 1960, which mentions the limitations of the “manifesto people” (cited by Rocha, 1997, p. 129).
• 7
  There are also variations within Cinema Novo on this point: in 1965, Carlos Diegues published in Revista Arquitetura an apocryphal comment by Sergei Eisenstein praising Limite (Diegues, 1965, p. 21-24).
• 8
  The internal differences within Cinema Novo point to the need to go beyond the observation that the group belonged to the middle class, as mentioned as early as 1967 by Jean-Claude Bernardet (2007).
• 9
  It is not impossible that Glauber toned down the more direct reference because of the gregarious intent of Revolução do Cinema Novo (Rebechi Jr., 2011, p. 272-290). After all, well before that, in a 1964 interview, Glauber attributed the insult to Borges (cited by Viany, 1999, p. 89). Shortly thereafter, Viany, in O Cinema e a Cultura Brasileira, would reproduce the comment, albeit toning down Borges’ words (Viany, 1999, p. 151).
• 10
  In 1957, French critic André Bazin published the article Cabiria, ou Viagem aos confins do Neorrealismo in Cahiers du cinéma (Bazin, 2014, p. 353-361). The title is provocative in its reference to the novel Voyage au bout de la nuit (1932), by the right-wing French writer Louis-Ferdinand Céline.
• 11
  By way of comparison: Canalha em crise [Scoundrel in Crisis] (1963, 17 pages); Perpétuo contra o esquadrão da morte [Perpétuo Against the Death Squad] (1967, 13 pages); Maria Bonita, rainha do cangaço [Maria Bonita, Queen of the Cangaço] (1968, 31 pages); As escandalosas [The Scandalous Ones] (1970, 8 pages); O barão Otelo no barato dos bilhões [Baron Otelo in the Billions’ Bargain] (1971, 15 pages); O último malandro [The last rogue] (1974, 7 pages); Pecado na sacristia [Sin in the Sacristy] (1975, 23 pages); O Caso Cláudia [The Claudia Case] (1979, 21 pages); Consórcio de intrigas [Consortium of Intrigues] (1980, 5 pages). Although we are comparing a short film with feature films, it is worth adding the five pages dedicated to his first and unfinished short film and the 8 pages dedicated to the short films shown on TV Globo’s Fantástico television program in 1974.
• 12
  In his memoirs, Borges does not address the controversy with Cinema Novo that arose in the mid-1960s, as mentioned in an interview with Viany in 1983 (cited by Viany, 1999, p. 324-325). In general terms, the controversy was raised in 1965 in the newspaper O Globo by Armindo Blanco, who described Borges as an “enemy” of Cinema Novo. Although the filmmaker did not endorse Blanco’s position in 1983, it is worth noting that even then he associated his dissent from the movement with his search for a more “popular” aesthetic.
• 13
  In 1978, Diegues made highly critical comments about “the ‘orthodoxy of Cinema Novo’ grouped in ABRACI” (Diegues, 1988, p. 27-28).
• 14
  It should be noted, however, that there were positive references to Borges, such as his defense of Capitu (1968) (Saraceni, 1993, p. 244).
• 15
  The representation of male and female bodies in Borges is not dissimilar to that of other Cinema Novo filmmakers. In this regard, see: Silva (2020). It should be added that athleticism is a central element in Saraceni’s memoirs.
• 16
  The importance of the emergence of a specific youth culture in the 1960s has already been pointed out by historiography (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 317-323).
• 17
  The intricate relationships between cinema and literature were developed, considering the case of the Saraceni-Lúcio Cardoso relationship, by Livia Azevedo Lima (2022).
• 18
  In 1959, the comedy O homem do Sputnik [The Man from Sputnik] was released, narrating the misadventures of a couple from Campo Grande, in western of Rio de Janeiro, after the famous Russian satellite fell in their backyard.
• 19
  Even Glauber, who published a considerable number of reviews, did not assume ownership, but was rather a privileged contributor.
• 20
  The disagreement with Azeredo foreshadowed the tension (and strategy) that erupted in 1962 between him and the cinemanovistas (Cardenuto, 2022).
• 21
  The fact that the circumstances of the manifesto are vague—it is even impossible to determine its date—prevents the establishment of a direct correlation between the two events. However, it is possible that Borges was assigned to write the manifesto because of his collaboration with Suplemento Dominical.
• 22
  On the scope and expansion of higher education in the first half of the 1960s, see: Rodrigo Patto Sá Motta (2014, p. 23-64). A propósito das mudanças na composição das classes médias e do recrutamento dos intelectuais nesse período, cf. Marcelo Ridenti (2007). The law course also defines a predominantly male recruitment; Helena Solberg, a contributor to O Metropolitano, was a student of literature at PUC.
• 23
  Miguel Borges is one year younger than Paulo Monteiro de Barros, which highlights his early professionalization.
• 24
  The external nature of Borges’ collaboration is evident when compared to the number of texts by Diegues (59 texts) and David Neves (80 texts).
• 25
  Interestingly, Borges’ memoirs choose to emphasize the complimentary nature of the theater reviews published years later in Tribuna da Imprensa (Borges; Silva Neto, 2008, p. 75).
• 26
  On the perspectives of the CPC, including its relationship with Cinema Novo, see: Miliandre Garcia (2003, 2004).
• 27
  Other Cinema Novo filmmakers changed their perspectives at this time, as did Saraceni, who interrupted his project to adapt the novel Crônica da casa assassinada, moving on to a simpler production, Porto das Caixas (1962).
• 28
  Cinco vezes favela was screened occasionally, but its release in Rio de Janeiro did not occur until December 1962. Among the extras in the episode directed by Borges was Cláudio Bueno Rocha, with whom he shared the cinema page in Suplemento Dominical. Regarding the Cold War, it is worth noting that the Goulart government was marked by the more defined construction of the so-called Independent Foreign Policy (Vizentini, 2011, p. 207-215). The Profit Remittance Law itself (September 1962) addresses the issue of cinema in its Article 45. In short, the progress of the Goulart government profoundly affected the audiovisual field (not only on the left), as indicated by Reinaldo Cardenuto (2008).
• 29
  In the first edition of 1962, for example, David Neves published a list of highlights from the previous year (Neves, 1962).
• 30
  The breadth of Borges’ vision was outlined in a statement to Viany, published in April 1962 in Senhor magazine. In it, Borges includes A morte comanda o cangaço (1960) among the great Brazilian productions (cited by Viany, 1999, p. 38). The film would be harshly criticized by Glauber in Revisão crítica do cinema brasileiro (Rocha, 2003, p. 96).
• 31
  The debate between the young Cinemanovista critics and Geicine involves the hegemony of this body by a group of filmmakers from São Paulo, especially Flávio Tambellini, producer of Ravina — who, it should be remembered, had been criticized by Borges years earlier. On the political process of Geicine, see: Afrânio Catani (1991, p. 82-90).
• 32
  It should be noted, however, that the restriction of the Cinemanovista group by criteria crystallized a posteriori may affect a prosopographic analysis, such as that carried out by Ricardo de Lorenzo. After all, Claudio Bueno Rocha, who shared the cinema page in Suplemento Dominical with Borges, is listed in the cast of Zé da Cachorra.
• 33
  Prensa Latina, incidentally, was partially reproduced in the last editions of O Metropolitano at the end of 1962. It is worth remembering that Fidel Castro visited Rio de Janeiro in 1959.
• 34
  Restricted and unstable, since the two supplements frequented by the cinemanovistas were closed between 1961 and 1962. Another periodical in which they were present, the magazine Movimento (linked to the UNE), began to circulate as a tabloid, under precarious editorial conditions, in 1963. In this periodical, Borges participated in a collective statement organized by Carlos Diegues, regarding Cinema Novo (Borges et al., 1962), where he emphasized the need to avoid sectarianism.
• 35
  In a 1983 interview, Walter Lima Jr. recalls the hardships he faced in getting his texts published alongside the leading critics of Tribuna da Imprensa (Ely Azeredo) and Correio da manhã (Antônio Moniz Vianna) (cited by Viany, 1999, p. 369).
• 36
  It is interesting how this restriction is reflected in a way at the beginning of the film Boca de Ouro (1963). In the newsroom of the fictional newspaper O sol, Borges receives a phone call (“Miguel Borges, phone call”) just as news arrives of the death of the illegal gambling boss Boca de Ouro. Reporter Caveirinha (played by Ivan Cândido) is called to cover the event (“you’re going to win the Esso Award,” says a colleague in the newsroom) and Borges takes a back seat, with Caveirinha taking center stage. At the end of the scene, two lines are juxtaposed: “Go on, Caveirinha, you’ve got it all, huh”/”Miguel Borges, phone.” Summoned by Nelson Pereira dos Santos, Borges is not credited in the film.
• 37
  In Glauber, unlike Borges, his excessive tone earns him new spaces in the press and in cinema. However, this excess is part of a strategy that is well attuned to his areas of activity, later becoming a limiting factor outside (from 1970) and inside (from 1974). See Arlindo Rebechi Jr. (2011) on this subject.

• Responsible editor:
  Ely Bergo de Carvalho

Data availability

The entire data set supporting the results of this study was published in the article itself.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  12 Dec 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  1 May 2025
• Reviewed
  28 Aug 2025
• Accepted
  30 July 2025