It is a very good piece of documentary but is far away from being "unbiased". It has its own bias, a conservative view about the events that shook Brazil amidst Cold War. A perspective that somehow was not very popular among brazilians historians for a myriad of reasons. It is a very good documentary full of unspoken words about that years, lots of silenced testimonials that help us to study and comprehend a war of narratives about straight forward facts. Brazil was near to a civil war and that civil war had to "bad" sides, it was not a classic "good guys" versus "bad ones" as some people like to tell.
15 Reviews
Arms and the man in-between
jgcorrea7 April 2019
In order to understand more exactly what happened in 1964 in Brazil, you must brush up a little your History. You must at the very least know that in 1848 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed a thesis interpreting the world and global life as a class struggle, in which the strongest and most powerful enslave and exploit the weakest, apud social Darwinism. Of course, Marx and Engels did not believe in cooperation and integration between classes. They concluded that the exploited class, which produced the goods, was the one that should reign supreme, rather than that of its exploiters. 116 years later, the events that culminated on March 31, 1964 altered the Brazilian evolution and course, determining an alternative direction for that people and a different future for that country. The relevant ideological, political, social and military movement was termed by some as a Revolution, by others as a Coup d'État, according to their convictions, interpretations, and concerned interests. In my opinion, the movement was neither a Revolution nor a Coup, but rather a Backlash. or Countercoup.
The feature film ¨Brasil Paralelo, 1964 - Brazil between arms and books" is certainly the best documentary ever made on the history of modern Brazil. Actually, it ought to be displayed in every school and every TV channel. There is an ongoing campaign of defamation against it, which started with an article in the newspaper "O Globo" arguing that the film in question defends right wing dictatorial regimes. After watching the movie, I plainly realized that conservatives are really in need of a movement that may occupy the social networks, the streets, the cultural scene, and the press. I can understand the commitment of the so-called extreme-press to denigrate the film's image and message, but, contrary to everything they teach in schools, it does contextualize the context (pardon my emphatic pleonasm) of 1964: namely, the Cold War. As interviewee William Waack points out, "Not a single Communist country chose to become Communist by herself." This is also my advocated point, which I hereby relay to all those who really want to know the truth of the facts, regardless of your beliefs and convictions.
After March 31, 1964, communist militants who then saw their plans foiled unleashed, through guerrilla and terrorism, actions such as a bombing of the Guararapes airport in Recife in 1966, a bombing of Army Headquarters in São Paulo, in 1968, an attack against the American Consulate; the murders of a Danish industrialist and a US Army captain, countless bank robberies, kidnapping of foreign ambassadors and assassinations of inexperienced recruits in barracks attacks.
The Brazilian military therefore reacted. Both sides erred, killed, kidnapped and tortured.
For the record, dictatorships and wars are neither just nor holy. They're dirty and inhumane. Nowadays, 55 years after March 31, 1964, what I note is, those who thought like Marx & Engels, those who wanted to rule like Lenin & Stalin, those live today as Rockfeller & Soros, those who 55 years ago, in the name of an ideology that preached equality and freedom, wanted to change the world, support today the Cuban & Venezuelan regimes. 1964 prevented Brazil from being transformed into a communist dictatorship. Let us say that the Armed Forces intervened with the veins of blood nationalism and a residual love for Motherland. This documentary shows the errors and the hits that occurred in the last 55 years. It also reveals how the process of rigging occupation took place in universities and the media and how, through Gramscism, the left wing has since won the "cultural war". My recommendation: watch it.
Very impressive
rgr-0317911 February 2020
A sober, true analysis and does not fail to be anachronistic.
LucasHC_29 April 2020
The documentary is limited to exposing the reality of a Brazil that was finding its prominent role in world chess. Even today, Brazil is influenced by external factors, not least because today the world is much more globalized.
The rulers of that time were not patriots, they had interests of their own. Fidel Castro and Che Guevara had just conquered the island of Cuba. Revolutionary ideas seemed beautiful, and promised hope to the most suffering people.
However, the Brazilian people realized that the interests of the leftist rulers did not have national, but international consistency, mainly interests aligned with the Soviet Union.
Perhaps the most notorious fact is the number of Czechoslovakian spies who settled in Brazil at that time, a documented and unchallenged fact.
The other side of the story is told, and it is far from being an apology for totalitarianism. Worth seeing.
The rulers of that time were not patriots, they had interests of their own. Fidel Castro and Che Guevara had just conquered the island of Cuba. Revolutionary ideas seemed beautiful, and promised hope to the most suffering people.
However, the Brazilian people realized that the interests of the leftist rulers did not have national, but international consistency, mainly interests aligned with the Soviet Union.
Perhaps the most notorious fact is the number of Czechoslovakian spies who settled in Brazil at that time, a documented and unchallenged fact.
The other side of the story is told, and it is far from being an apology for totalitarianism. Worth seeing.
Simply the truth
drpedrinha7 April 2019
The Brazilian 'Triumph of the Will'?
adacunhapora12 April 2019
Imagine a documentary that praises a dictatorship and tries to sell to the audience an idea that a coup d'etat was benefectful. Looks like a Nazi German piece of propaganda? Surprise, surprise: is a Brazilian film recently released on YouTube. Shameless historical revisionism.
Biased as hell
conanthecinephile19 April 2019
It would be hilarious if this film was a satire.
The synopsis says it's an "unbiased analysis", but that's far from the truth. The screenplay is based in lies and misconceptions, and it's shameless ideological propaganda.
The synopsis says it's an "unbiased analysis", but that's far from the truth. The screenplay is based in lies and misconceptions, and it's shameless ideological propaganda.
A flop in every sense
papisajoanita19 April 2019
A heavy barrage of lies
jingagoddess30 April 2019
Guns, books and lies
janetepsicologiaatendimento21 June 2019
It was painful to watch it. Biased and with a lot of lies or soft interpretations on crimes committed by the highest authorities in the 1964-1985 Brazilian Dictatorship. They tried to romanticise the situation and make criminals to look like heros. It could be classified as lunatic fiction, never as a documentary. I would not recommend anyone to see this movie.
Poor relativism, cherry picked facts mixed with personal political perspective
steelemovielovers21 June 2019
1964: O Brasil Entre Armas e Livros can't be called as a Documentary. This is the result of cherry picked facts: there is no storytelling and it also doesn't represent the history. It's a cliche of relativism and denial of the corrupt system maintained by the director's politics idols. There is a sense that there was no wrongdoing in a dictatorship.
For anyone that doesn't live in Brazil, watching this would give you a very incorrect understanding the politics and history.
For anyone that doesn't live in Brazil, watching this would give you a very incorrect understanding the politics and history.
A pack of lies, history revisionism and propaganda
Rodrigo_Amaro4 May 2020
YouTube algorithm works just fine case some are wondering and that's why I got here with this movie. Back when it was released lots of people were complaining
that truth was being hidden from them because YouTube wasn't showing this film as a suggestion. Brasil Paralelo is everywhere these days with their ads despite their cries of
closing down and they want new members to join their cause. After a decade of left-wingers in power they couldn't get a better timing to rise - along with wordly forces too.
This revision of history, propaganda and project of documentary is travesty of the worst kind. I even felt sick and angry while watching it; and it got worse since the comments featured there all praise the film as being something to be taught in schools. I'll won't stick to plot or the usual common ground which goes with bad interviewees, some fine editing to make it appealing to audiences but it's so all one-sided that makes you questioning everything shown. Let's stick to some of the issues.
Victims of the left-wing censorship and martyrs for the right-wing cause, the makers reply. That simply is not the case. Major studios face difficulties in releasing their projects by major theater chains at times limited to just a week of showing or at times going straight to DVD. And there are times when the studios just see how the market was in the U. S. and simply prefer to not show the movie ("Boy Erased" fell into that controversy and Universal was accused of censorship due to the film's nature and also because likely viewers obviously thought of government censorphip since the current nation's leader is an open homphobe). If the idea is to complain about the market chains and their lack of interest in releasing a film, I'm thankful for this film; however, if the film was turned down it was because they didn't thought they could gain audiences and cash for it, or because it was really bad. As for the cinema chain who responded to the director by saying they don't follow politics they're half right: big budget special effects flicks open everywhere while artful/Oscar nominated films have limited releases and are destined to certain locations where basically you have to cross locations to watch them. The whole topic is discussed in the introduction of the film, there you can realise something fishy is going on.
It's all downhill from there: conspiracy theories that are interesting to think about yet useless to accept as fact or history are thrown at us time and again. A simple research on Google could be made when it comes to show that many of the disppearing people/revolutionary didn't die, they just exchanged names but while a careful search the date of deaths can be contested and there's no proof of such scheme of them being alive.
The theory of Gramscism goes to show how selective the makers of the film (or right-wing folks as well) can be: if the Gramscism is resposible for the inclusion of debating the 'isms' of the world such as feminism, racism, homosexualism and so on; and that those front of oppressed people found ways to rise therefore the makers truly believe that leftist people who trust their cause are opposed to white, misogynist and homophobes and that such figure represented in those three topics are biased who hate movements such as black power, women power, gay power. What is forgotten is that all those three forces or more actually help them with their cause, and many other nations actually accept them because they make...money, lots of them, and that is the basis of any political system even the flawed red parties of Cold War.
Military as a traditional 4th power? Give me a break! Goes to show how ill-informed the creators of this are. Military can only intervene on countries - such as they did in Brazil back in '64 - after political pressure (3 powers) and the press (actual 4th power when democracy is truly involved) pressure to present how unhappy and critical society is when the presidency isn't going their way. They don't act without someone's approval.
An interesting point brought to the film is the fact society wanted a coup against Jango but they didn't want military intervention as it unfolded for more than 20 years with censorship (of which the film complains it wasn't so bad), repression to Communism, tortures, killings, and a moral revisionism that was laughable. I never thought of that before. If people were unhappy with a socialist giving power to common people and the majority of elite are let down with him, find ways to impeach the man but be assured that your next move, your next choice is someone of whom you can feel satisfied. I guess there was some historian that mentioned the U. S. contribution to the elite cause as being little and unreal since aircarries can't do anything. I guess he haven't heard of WWII and the use of aircrafts and planes on it to carry out attacks - truth is if the president refused to resign those aircrafts were ready to act. No use for it since the military haven't found resistance and an illegal coup took place.
This lousy propaganda didn't convinced me at all and knowing what I do know about such individuals (if there's protests you can't dress in red otherwise you're beaten because you're distracting their act) or march full-heartedly in favor of someone they like even if he's doing huge mistakes, I can't endorse this - not just because of political beliefs but mostly on a more ethical and behavior thought process. However, this isn't a criticsm of the whole right-wing. The problem is the current wave, where you can see brainwashed children making loud speeches about a period they never lived on. Films like this are part of the process and it's simply a distortion of history. If they're really right - despite a pompous historian of whom I had to endure talking with his dumb acting and a former disgraced journalist currently working on a famous left-wing network (maybe the process is different here with international networks) - then invite me for a tea and show me how can I follow their program. Only that way I could follow them, I'm not subscribing/paying for it and social media can stop delivering me those. 1/10.
This revision of history, propaganda and project of documentary is travesty of the worst kind. I even felt sick and angry while watching it; and it got worse since the comments featured there all praise the film as being something to be taught in schools. I'll won't stick to plot or the usual common ground which goes with bad interviewees, some fine editing to make it appealing to audiences but it's so all one-sided that makes you questioning everything shown. Let's stick to some of the issues.
Victims of the left-wing censorship and martyrs for the right-wing cause, the makers reply. That simply is not the case. Major studios face difficulties in releasing their projects by major theater chains at times limited to just a week of showing or at times going straight to DVD. And there are times when the studios just see how the market was in the U. S. and simply prefer to not show the movie ("Boy Erased" fell into that controversy and Universal was accused of censorship due to the film's nature and also because likely viewers obviously thought of government censorphip since the current nation's leader is an open homphobe). If the idea is to complain about the market chains and their lack of interest in releasing a film, I'm thankful for this film; however, if the film was turned down it was because they didn't thought they could gain audiences and cash for it, or because it was really bad. As for the cinema chain who responded to the director by saying they don't follow politics they're half right: big budget special effects flicks open everywhere while artful/Oscar nominated films have limited releases and are destined to certain locations where basically you have to cross locations to watch them. The whole topic is discussed in the introduction of the film, there you can realise something fishy is going on.
It's all downhill from there: conspiracy theories that are interesting to think about yet useless to accept as fact or history are thrown at us time and again. A simple research on Google could be made when it comes to show that many of the disppearing people/revolutionary didn't die, they just exchanged names but while a careful search the date of deaths can be contested and there's no proof of such scheme of them being alive.
The theory of Gramscism goes to show how selective the makers of the film (or right-wing folks as well) can be: if the Gramscism is resposible for the inclusion of debating the 'isms' of the world such as feminism, racism, homosexualism and so on; and that those front of oppressed people found ways to rise therefore the makers truly believe that leftist people who trust their cause are opposed to white, misogynist and homophobes and that such figure represented in those three topics are biased who hate movements such as black power, women power, gay power. What is forgotten is that all those three forces or more actually help them with their cause, and many other nations actually accept them because they make...money, lots of them, and that is the basis of any political system even the flawed red parties of Cold War.
Military as a traditional 4th power? Give me a break! Goes to show how ill-informed the creators of this are. Military can only intervene on countries - such as they did in Brazil back in '64 - after political pressure (3 powers) and the press (actual 4th power when democracy is truly involved) pressure to present how unhappy and critical society is when the presidency isn't going their way. They don't act without someone's approval.
An interesting point brought to the film is the fact society wanted a coup against Jango but they didn't want military intervention as it unfolded for more than 20 years with censorship (of which the film complains it wasn't so bad), repression to Communism, tortures, killings, and a moral revisionism that was laughable. I never thought of that before. If people were unhappy with a socialist giving power to common people and the majority of elite are let down with him, find ways to impeach the man but be assured that your next move, your next choice is someone of whom you can feel satisfied. I guess there was some historian that mentioned the U. S. contribution to the elite cause as being little and unreal since aircarries can't do anything. I guess he haven't heard of WWII and the use of aircrafts and planes on it to carry out attacks - truth is if the president refused to resign those aircrafts were ready to act. No use for it since the military haven't found resistance and an illegal coup took place.
This lousy propaganda didn't convinced me at all and knowing what I do know about such individuals (if there's protests you can't dress in red otherwise you're beaten because you're distracting their act) or march full-heartedly in favor of someone they like even if he's doing huge mistakes, I can't endorse this - not just because of political beliefs but mostly on a more ethical and behavior thought process. However, this isn't a criticsm of the whole right-wing. The problem is the current wave, where you can see brainwashed children making loud speeches about a period they never lived on. Films like this are part of the process and it's simply a distortion of history. If they're really right - despite a pompous historian of whom I had to endure talking with his dumb acting and a former disgraced journalist currently working on a famous left-wing network (maybe the process is different here with international networks) - then invite me for a tea and show me how can I follow their program. Only that way I could follow them, I'm not subscribing/paying for it and social media can stop delivering me those. 1/10.
Authoritarian reactionary propaganda
guisreis20 September 2021
This is a dishonest biased anti-communist and pro-military dictatorship propaganda film with a laughable text, narration and interviews that are a mess, and exploitation soundtrack. It supports the usual authoritarian version that 1964 coup was "necessary" to avoid communism. The movie tries to attatch president João Goulart as authoritarian instead of the ones who destroyed Brazilian democracy, who the producers deffend by presenting interviews which lack credibility but, together with a good edition, give the impression of a serious documentary to uninformed spectators. It also says that the lack of support for military rule was due May 68, immature voters and moral relativism that does not distinguish between good and evil anymore (?!!). Its historical revisionism aims to show as normal and positive a brutal regime, particularly emphasizing the reactions as if they were aggressions. It also lies that USA had no relation with the coup. They also say that Gramsci wrote the Prison Notebooks in the 60's, but the Italian communist philosopher died in 1937!
Fiction. A piece of fiction!
jluizmail25 June 2020
Indispensable
SoEsPal31 May 2022
Until recently, this type of work would have been unthinkable in Brazil. Brasil Paralelo is helping to enlighten Brazilians so that they know the truth of various moments in our history that have been completely altered by the national left in recent decades.
The period before the Counter-Revolution of 1964 is detailed by the Brasil Paralelo team to show that the tentacles of communism were present in much of the world, including Brazil. And that the military response, with the support of most politicians, the press and especially the population, as can be seen in the newspapers of the time, was necessary to prevent a revolutionary dictatorship in Brazil, and as the history of the 20th century showed, it would have devastating consequences in the largest country in Latin America.
The period before the Counter-Revolution of 1964 is detailed by the Brasil Paralelo team to show that the tentacles of communism were present in much of the world, including Brazil. And that the military response, with the support of most politicians, the press and especially the population, as can be seen in the newspapers of the time, was necessary to prevent a revolutionary dictatorship in Brazil, and as the history of the 20th century showed, it would have devastating consequences in the largest country in Latin America.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
