Jump directly to the page contents

In October 2018, a year of overwhelming political, personal, and existential transformations, I decided to start filming a diary. I wanted to free myself from cinematographic practice as a constant exercise of projection and representation, and find a living cinema that would reflect the extraordinary quotidian side of life, with everything that usually remains on the sidelines, on the edges of a film. I found myself searching more and more for what I would call a “cinema of manifestations,” rather than a “cinema of representations.” Without scripts, without projections, without writing, the camera would become an accomplice of some moments of life that would remain stored on celluloid until the day they would be revealed—a kind of metabolism of the image, where the practice of filming would be nothing more than a vital metabolic exercise. The images would thus become a mere capture of energies—spectral, historical, emotional—in the form of visual representations.

With these ideas in mind, over the last few years I have been filming these little flashes that capture the moment where celluloid meets life in a series of small film-rituals. It has turned into a not very regular and quite instinctive practice. In 2020 I made my first film from the initial images-rituals recorded for the diary. To my surprise, the film became a first rite of metamorphosis. In PSEUDOSPHYNX (2020), a shattering political event [the 2018 elections which brought the extreme right into power in Brazil] was intersected by the appearance of a dozen fire caterpillars preparing to turn into “witches” and also to transform the entire political horizon with their animalistic spell, stitching together the places I passed through: Paris, Brasilia, Serra dos Pirineus, and Lisbon.

The film became a brief and intense trance, in which everyday life is turned into a ritual by a magical act. It is worth remembering that magic is nothing more than the transformation of what we call “real” into something that was not there before (although perhaps it was latent, dormant, or invisible before the magical act-ritual took place). Today I think that maybe these diaries are a kind of magical exercise in everyday life, à la Bruce Baillie, I would later think.

I found myself searching more and more for what I would call a “cinema of manifestations,” rather than a “cinema of representations.”

It was then, at the time of these everyday magic exercises, that I accepted Garbiñe Ortega’s invitation to think about, film, and honor the memory of the beloved Bruce Baillie on the occasion of the exhibition “Somewhere from here to heaven.” With his generosity, poetry, and conviviality, Bruce transformed the cinema of an avant-garde and intellectual generation into a corporeal, intimate, and almost journalistic cinema. A cinema that does not deny “the first person.” In his films, Bruce is always “there,” exactly where his characters are: fences, cowboys, Native Americans, bees, donkeys, children, letters, or motorbikes, he is always “standing by what he films.” Thinking about Bruce, I believe this is his most outstanding quality: the ability to give himself over to the world he films, to embody each frame, place, or impression.

A “first-person cinema” is something that the rationality of the last century flatly rejected in favor of distance as a privileged way of existing and observing others and the world.

When I received the invitation, I decided to watch all his films again. As I let myself be carried away by each shot, it was impossible for me to imagine that for such a worthy figure as Bruce Baillie, the poet of the image, one could start from a single film or pay tribute to him in the form of an elegy. I suppose he would hate that: to be seen as an icon, a monument, a hero. It was something he constantly rejected through the films he made. So instead of an elegy, I decided to focus my reflection on the form of his soul and his cinema, and on the simplicity of his gestures, to think of a film shot alongside Bruce Baillie rather than in front of or behind him.

For this new film, I appeal to the historical synthesis of the perfect drama, ALL MY LIFE; to the mourning and lament of MASS FOR THE DAKOTA SIOUX; to the love for a dancing body of TUNG; to the mystical portrait of MR. HAYASHI; to the impossible frontier of VALENTIN DE LAS SIERRAS; and to the desire to advance the western frontier in the revelatory QUIXOTE. All these films seem to irrupt and converse with the nascent A ÁROVRE (The Tree), a ritual-film about my father—the artist, musician, and mystic of the forest—Guilherme Vaz, a man who also lived and reflected on the frontier, on the fatal advance of modernity over the peoples of the earth, a man who wrote music instinctively, who thought of cinema as his “spiritual father” and, above all, whose lived life was his greatest work. I quote here a passage from a very beautiful text he wrote in the spring of 2007 in Rio de Janeiro, “Três ventos: dois vácuos e uma espada”:

1. Cinema as a martial art

Between two winds there is a void. The gaze of the sword slides through it. This is the movement that founds the equipment of cinema, before the genesis of things. We say that cinema exists before everything, because there has always been a wind between two voids or a void between two things and a widespread archaic philosophy. Between two volumes or two winds is the primordial territory of the gaze, and the notion of the cinematic storm, of the mind that sees. If the mind circles around objects, it does not see them. It only does so when it enters the void they possess. Seminals. An object can be a society and must have a void at its center. The more compact the object, the more hidden is the void. But they all possess it. To unite these images in a single gesture, one must know how to glue the voids together. The bound voids form a single gesture in which the warrior performs a full swing with his long sword in a single circle. The sequences of these circles of decapitation, evacuation, and baptism produce a sequence of meanings, quipos from the work.

And so is born

A ÁROVRE:a meditation-film in 30-second sequences that links geographies, times, the living, and the dead with a metal sword—the montage—joining voids—internal presences in the sequences.

A ÁROVRE: a film about the metamorphosis of a giant.

A ÁROVRE: a dialogue with the father through the voids.

A ÁROVRE: orbital planes that seek to connect the places we have passed through, where our ancestors may have passed through.

A ÁROVRE: Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia, Porto, Lisbon, Belém.

A ÁROVRE: portrait of the father who is not there and is there.

A ÁROVRE: cinema films absences, it is fundamentally phantasmagorical.

A ÁROVRE: following traces, trusting in the movement and metamorphosis of all things.

A ÁROVRE: a chapter of a long living film that walks alongside all the others, that walks with ghosts.

A ÁROVRE: cinema of the sword, cinema as martial art.

A ÁROVRE: if the traveler already knows the way, it is because he has lost his way.

A ÁROVRE: second chapter in a series of gestures that are linked together.

A ÁROVRE: a diary in which the first person is inside and not outside the world—the “self”leads to the world and not the other way around.

A ÁROVRE: crosses, absences, ghosts.

In A ÁROVRE: I seek to honor my ghosts rather than a stranger. The film is not an elegy to Bruce Baillie, but a reflection on everything that underpins his work: the frontier, the desire for encounter, metamorphosis, the Americas.

Ana Vaz, Paris, June 2022

Back to film

Funded by:

  • Logo Minister of State for Culture and the Media
  • Logo des Programms NeuStart Kultur