Originally posted April 28, 2007.
Brazil, 1970: The people are under the iron-fisted rule of a vicious right-wing military dictatorship, but they’ve gone soccer-mad anyway. Everybody, regardless of age, sex, religion, or political affiliation, can’t wait for the impending World Cup tournament to begin. And why not? Pelé’s in his prime, he’s just scored his 1000th goal, and Brazil’s already won two World Cups.
Twelve-year-old Mauro (Michel Joelsas) is a soccer fanatic of the first degree whose ambition is to be a goalie. He obsessively plays a tabletop version of the game, collects pictures of the Brazilian players, and talks passionately about them with his father, Daniel (Eduardo Moreira), a Jewish communist whose wife, Bia (Simone Spoladore), is a Catholic communist.
To avoid arrest, Daniel and Bia have to flee the country, and they tell Mauro that they’re “going on vacation,” promising him that they’ll be back in time for the World Cup. They then drop their son at his grandfather’s house in São Paulo’s Bom Retiro district—which is composed of Yiddish-and-Portuguese-speaking Eastern European Jews—and drive away in their blue Volkswagen Beetle, leaving Mauro standing there holding his suitcase.
It’s hard to believe that loving, responsible parents like Daniel and Bia would, under any circumstances, dump their son on the street without first making sure that the grandfather’s home. But that’s what they do, and it’s this one flaw, as easily overlooked as it may be, that tarnishes an otherwise extraordinary film.
Mauro’s grandfather, the local barber, has died of a heart attack just a few hours earlier, and Mauro’s left to pound on the apartment door until Shlomo (Germano Haiut) the next-door neighbor and superintendent of the synagogue, finds him and tells him what’s happened.
The community gathers in the temple to debate Mauro’s fate. Are they obligated to take care of him because he’s the grandson of a member of the temple? Or is he not their responsibility because he’s a goy—they know this because Shlomo saw Mauro’s uncircumcised penis. To Shlomo’s alarm, they agree that Mauro should live with him until the parents return.
And it’s here we embark on a classic tale, beautifully acted and totally believable, of a goy among the Jews, a twist on the biblical story of baby Moses being taken in by the Egyptians—a fact not lost on the Bom Retiro community; they begin calling Mauro “Moses.” The other twist, of course, is that this is Brazil, a country not exactly known as a hotbed of Old-World Judaism—though an unsuspecting viewer might think that the story were set in Boro Park, Brooklyn, or in Williamsburg before the hipster invasion.
Adrift in this strange milieu, trying to adjust to his situation, Mauro, like a tramp from Godot, waits for his parents to return, seeing them in every car that resembles their blue Volkswagen. He tries his best to get along with Shlomo, despite the fact that the old man feeds him fish for breakfast, which Mauro finds disgusting. (And Shlomo, in turn, tries his best to get along with Mauro, despite the fact that the boy unwittingly desecrates his talis, using it as an accessory for his soccer uniform.)
Mauro also meets Ítalo (Caio Blat), a young revolutionary who knows his father, and the film perfectly captures the look and atmosphere of a student union circa 1970. But mostly, as the adults try to track down his parents, Mauro hangs out with a group of neighborhood kids reminiscent of the gang from The Wonder Years. Though they sometimes play soccer—with Mauro as goalie—the boys have another hobby, which they find infinitely more interesting. Their friend Hannah (Daniela Piepszky) allows them to peep into the changing room of her mother’s dress shop from a secret spot behind the wall—for a price. “First time’s free,” she tells Mauro.
As the entire country comes to a halt to watch the World Cup, Mauro’s parents still haven’t returned, leaving him in despair, unable to enjoy Brazil’s great victory, a moment of national ecstasy tainted by brutal scenes of political repression.
This is the kind of movie that could leave one feeling irrationally hopeful about the state of filmmaking. And one would hope—perhaps irrationally—that it might even provoke a few Hollywood studio heads to ask themselves: Why are we so often incapable of telling a coherent story that isn’t marred by gaping plot holes, and why do we so rarely make films like this?
 |
| Mauro (Michel Joelsas), right, and Hannah (Daniela Piepszky) with the gang from Bom Retiro. |
The Year My Parents Went on Vacation (O Ano em que Meus Pais Saíram de Férias)
Directed and Written by Cao Hamburger
Starring: Michel Joelsas, Germano Haiut, Daniela Piepszky, Paulo Autran, Eduardo Moreira, Simone Spoladore, Caio Blat
By Robert RosenDirected and Written by Cao Hamburger
Starring: Michel Joelsas, Germano Haiut, Daniela Piepszky, Paulo Autran, Eduardo Moreira, Simone Spoladore, Caio Blat
Brazil, 1970: The people are under the iron-fisted rule of a vicious right-wing military dictatorship, but they’ve gone soccer-mad anyway. Everybody, regardless of age, sex, religion, or political affiliation, can’t wait for the impending World Cup tournament to begin. And why not? Pelé’s in his prime, he’s just scored his 1000th goal, and Brazil’s already won two World Cups.
Twelve-year-old Mauro (Michel Joelsas) is a soccer fanatic of the first degree whose ambition is to be a goalie. He obsessively plays a tabletop version of the game, collects pictures of the Brazilian players, and talks passionately about them with his father, Daniel (Eduardo Moreira), a Jewish communist whose wife, Bia (Simone Spoladore), is a Catholic communist.
To avoid arrest, Daniel and Bia have to flee the country, and they tell Mauro that they’re “going on vacation,” promising him that they’ll be back in time for the World Cup. They then drop their son at his grandfather’s house in São Paulo’s Bom Retiro district—which is composed of Yiddish-and-Portuguese-speaking Eastern European Jews—and drive away in their blue Volkswagen Beetle, leaving Mauro standing there holding his suitcase.
It’s hard to believe that loving, responsible parents like Daniel and Bia would, under any circumstances, dump their son on the street without first making sure that the grandfather’s home. But that’s what they do, and it’s this one flaw, as easily overlooked as it may be, that tarnishes an otherwise extraordinary film.
Mauro’s grandfather, the local barber, has died of a heart attack just a few hours earlier, and Mauro’s left to pound on the apartment door until Shlomo (Germano Haiut) the next-door neighbor and superintendent of the synagogue, finds him and tells him what’s happened.
The community gathers in the temple to debate Mauro’s fate. Are they obligated to take care of him because he’s the grandson of a member of the temple? Or is he not their responsibility because he’s a goy—they know this because Shlomo saw Mauro’s uncircumcised penis. To Shlomo’s alarm, they agree that Mauro should live with him until the parents return.
And it’s here we embark on a classic tale, beautifully acted and totally believable, of a goy among the Jews, a twist on the biblical story of baby Moses being taken in by the Egyptians—a fact not lost on the Bom Retiro community; they begin calling Mauro “Moses.” The other twist, of course, is that this is Brazil, a country not exactly known as a hotbed of Old-World Judaism—though an unsuspecting viewer might think that the story were set in Boro Park, Brooklyn, or in Williamsburg before the hipster invasion.
Adrift in this strange milieu, trying to adjust to his situation, Mauro, like a tramp from Godot, waits for his parents to return, seeing them in every car that resembles their blue Volkswagen. He tries his best to get along with Shlomo, despite the fact that the old man feeds him fish for breakfast, which Mauro finds disgusting. (And Shlomo, in turn, tries his best to get along with Mauro, despite the fact that the boy unwittingly desecrates his talis, using it as an accessory for his soccer uniform.)
Mauro also meets Ítalo (Caio Blat), a young revolutionary who knows his father, and the film perfectly captures the look and atmosphere of a student union circa 1970. But mostly, as the adults try to track down his parents, Mauro hangs out with a group of neighborhood kids reminiscent of the gang from The Wonder Years. Though they sometimes play soccer—with Mauro as goalie—the boys have another hobby, which they find infinitely more interesting. Their friend Hannah (Daniela Piepszky) allows them to peep into the changing room of her mother’s dress shop from a secret spot behind the wall—for a price. “First time’s free,” she tells Mauro.
As the entire country comes to a halt to watch the World Cup, Mauro’s parents still haven’t returned, leaving him in despair, unable to enjoy Brazil’s great victory, a moment of national ecstasy tainted by brutal scenes of political repression.
This is the kind of movie that could leave one feeling irrationally hopeful about the state of filmmaking. And one would hope—perhaps irrationally—that it might even provoke a few Hollywood studio heads to ask themselves: Why are we so often incapable of telling a coherent story that isn’t marred by gaping plot holes, and why do we so rarely make films like this?
A couple of comments:
ReplyDeleteFirst, Bom Retiro is most famous for being a Jewish neighborhood but it was largely Italian and Spanish in the first part of the 20th century and even after the Jewish immigrants began to arrive, it continued to have many Italians--a detail that featured prominently in the film. The film also hinted at the fact that by the early 70s Bom Retiro was rapidly becoming a Korean neighborhood. Today, mostly Koreans and Bolivians live there.
Second, I *can* imagine the parents just dropping their son off--perhaps you cannot imagine the fear and paranoia of people living under a totalitarian police state, but I can, particularly after knowing many people who lived in Brazil during the last dictatorship. In fact, in light of what was happening at the time, the parents would do anything *not* to be caught with their son who could be used by police during torture sessions.
June 27, 2007 3:54 PM
I absolutely agree with the comment posted above. My father was imprisioned during the Brazilian dictatorship and he tells all those stories. In those days it was very common that one involved with socialist activities would get into the car, drive to Uruguay and never be back. One such person would never tell one's spouse/lover or family about his or her involvement with such activities. Americans have never experienced the horrors of dictatorship - be grateful for that. Neither Joseph McCarthy nor Bush compare to Brazilian dictators. Plus, it is plausible among small neighborhood communities that a child left behind would be taken care of by her friend's parents. Anyway, in those days, when people "vanished" from earth everyone would promptly realize what was really going on. So actually what Rosen takes as a flaw I take as one of those details that tell a good script from a predictable, cheesey one.
ReplyDeleteDecember 15, 2007 11:04 PM
As a brazilian and someone who happen to had grown up under the same circunstances and environment as the main character in the movie, I would like to say that it's indeed very realistic that in those days, the parents would drop off their kid in the grandpa's doorstep. People were "vanishing" and never coming back, a minute could mean your life and sometimes a life of a loved someone ( in that case), and thousands fled in similar situations. It's hard for someone to define what's credible or not, in a situation like that, when you didn't experience anything like that in your own country. I agree with the above comment about Bush/McCarthy, you cannot compare the situations, thousands died in Brazil, maybe hundreds of thousands throughout South America, under the hands of killing squads, disguised as secret police. Great movie, very real.
ReplyDeleteDecember 25, 2007 11:29 AM
Okay, okay, obviously my comment about the parents dropping off the kid was a result of my gringo ignorance and having never lived under a military dictatorship. Thank you both for educating me.
ReplyDeleteJanuary 1, 2008 1:36 PM
Unlike you imply, one CAN be jewish and non-circumcised. In fact, many jews now are vocally opposed to it. Google for "jews against circumcision", and you will find some interesting information about it.
ReplyDeleteJanuary 18, 2008 3:52 PM
All I implied was that upon hearing that this particular kid in this particular movie had an uncircumcised penis, these particular Jews assumed he was a “goy.” I’m aware that many Jews are uncircumcised. But this fact had nothing to do with The Year My Parents Went on Vacation.
ReplyDeleteJanuary 23, 2008 10:07 AM
Hey Robert, thanks for your review. As a Brazilian, and São Paulo born and raised, I can tell this movie is really touching, and makes me think about a time that doesnt exist anymore in our city: people helping each other, living like a community. When I walk here in the streets, in some old streets with old fashionable cafes like that one of the movie, it's a bit sad, it's like a piece of São Paulo that is dying.
ReplyDeleteAnd I can tell your review is pretty good, even for Brazilian readers. What some people just cant understand is that a foreigner would never think exactly like a Brazilian, and that’s just ok, because these are just cultural differences, so no problem with that. And even more, it's pretty natural if you dont know some minor detailes about brazilian history our são paulo neighbourhoods. So congratulations man, and keep making some good posts.
May 6, 2008 1:50 AM
Hello Rutrubs,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting the comment. We at Maiscott & Rosen do the best we can and it's encouraging when people appreciate it.
May 12, 2008 8:40 AM
nice post dear blogger
ReplyDelete