Pages - Menu
Pages
Pages - Menu
Silent Rain or It Stopped Raining (2019) - Ryûtarô Nakagawa | In the Dark, in the Midst of Vastness
A letter from Dostoiévski to Bresson...
From Book to Film
A text about adaptations using Dostoevsky and Bresson as a foundation
What Does It Mean to Go Beyond?
What does it mean to go beyond what is expected? In theory, it is surprise, change. However, there are cases where adaptations are nothing more nor less than a certain way of changing the medium of a format.
In our case, we will use the film 4 Nights of a Dreamer as our foundation. Robert Bresson's film is the narrative that shapes the main character based on the book White Nights by Fyodor Dostoevsky.
The adaptation itself is a copy. Yet, there are caveats that turn Bresson's narrative fidelity into something almost original. The eternal question that remains is: how is it possible to adapt without losing the author's originality?
The Freedom of Adaptation
In its literality, adaptation is the author's freedom to modify a structure, not necessarily to create something from scratch in order to be original and worthy of recognition.
What I mean is that, just as there are cases of true narrative twists (such as video game movies, like Resident Evil), there are also cases where the source material is what truly enriches the work being adapted.
For example, we are in 2026, a year where adaptations reign in the film market, such as superhero movies and soap operas. However, there is a parallel importance to this discussion: the way of adapting to present works to different audiences.
Bresson's Subtlety
And so we come to exalt Bresson's subtlety and honesty. The film 4 Nights of a Dreamer is important for presenting a classic from the 1800s to a new generation. In this case, the reinvention of art for what was, at the time, the newly discovered seventh art.
It is for these functions that the technological revolution needs to revive, highlight, and exalt classic works through new media, the main reason being the rebirth and rediscovery of works that often fall into oblivion.
But why does this happen?
The New Versus the Classic
We humans have a logic planted in the structuring of society—in the form of a market—that believes the new is better and should be more valued than the old. However, we fall into the phase of difficulty in distinguishing novelty from nostalgia.
In theory, classics are works that are difficult to access largely because of the way they are presented to us. Paulo Freire, an educator and philosopher, advocated for presenting classic works based on the student's reality.
What does this mean? Let's go: the reality of a young person in the 2020s is essentially about stimuli. With that, we have some options for adapting a Dostoevsky to such a reality. One of them is cinema. But let's not just throw out information; let's try to go further...
Cinema as Stimulus
Cinema was born with the function of recalling moments, through the "spoken image," which is, in fact, a multiple stimulus. Cinema has the ability to stimulate various senses, including vision, hearing, and psychological effects, such as emotional stimulation—for example, the effect of nostalgia.
Therefore, when we present classic works through cinema, we are speaking directly to entire generations who, being present, need adaptations to their reality, whether that reality is good or bad.
Faithful or Original?
With that, is there a truth in the discussion between faithful and original adaptation? No!
The faithful adaptation is functional for such a presentation. It re-signifies through media why the interdependence of a work with a new version is necessary.
The reality itself is that the way of telling a story automatically generates a new version. What I mean is that, regardless of whether it is identical to the source work or not, any work that changes authors is a new work.
So, if you are looking for a work identical to Dostoevsky's in 4 Nights of a Dreamer, you will be disappointed. The world was different in Bresson's time, and he had to adapt to that. Do you understand how the correlation of a work with the time in which it was produced is more than functional depending on the objective?
Authorial Works
"What about original works?" Original works have something a bit more subjective. When we speak of authorial subjectivity, we have in mind a mechanism that is, in theory, free. But the foundation will be present 100% of the time, whether in structure, concept, characters, or dialogue.
A classic example of this are the films of Christopher Nolan, a director known for his bold decisions, which, somehow, gave the director a consolidated image. Today, if Christopher Nolan decides to release an adaptation, we all know it will have an authorial way of telling a particular story.
And that is why, through authorial adaptations, we have a new way of telling the old, a way that both retells and tells at the same time.
The Importance of Visions
Ultimately, the importance of both forms is highlighted when the source work gains new visions. And by vision, I mean a new way of seeing a particular universe: with each look, each soul that touches those adaptations and works becomes a fusion of visions. After all, as stated, a work that changes authors is a new work.
So, when people say an adaptation is bad, or that it doesn't do justice to the original work, go with the idea that works are individual, and within these individualities reside experiences, visions, and relationships that we cannot even imagine.
And when 4 Nights of a Dreamer tells the story of Dostoevsky's novella, it also tells a little about French cinema, about the distorted view of reality through which Bresson saw the world (and even similar to Dostoevsky's melancholy).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the book is one thing, the film is another. In the worst-case scenario, consume both and draw your own conclusions!
PORTUGUÊS:
Do livro ao filme
Um texto sobre adaptações utilizando como base Dostoiévski e Bresson
O que é ir além?
A liberdade da adaptação
A sutileza de Bresson
O novo versus o clássico
O cinema como estímulo
Fiel ou original?
Obras autorais
A importância das visões
Conclusão
The Dresser (1983) - Peter Yates | The Third Act Of A Legend
"In the end, it was I who needed you"
Introduction: A Film About Legacy
The Dresser is a film about legacy, but one that nevertheless transforms such a story into something greater. Norman's relationship with art is superficial, yet it hides a possible memory that, at some point in his life, he dreamed of being on stage. The film is a character study, but before we delve into the engaging and depressing narrative of this British feature, let us together decipher what this so-called "character study" actually means.
What is a Character Study?
In cinema, we have various narrative approaches, and despite what theorists and critics might say, each film has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other filmmaking methods. A functional analogy is the human fingerprint. No human being has the same fingerprint; perhaps this reinforces the idea that each body requires something different, each blood composition, each desire guided by the conscious mind. Everything, everything is the result of a single way of telling a story, and so it is with film.
A recent example would be Guillermo Del Toro's versions of Pinocchio and Frankenstein, films that greatly resemble the past, where we had the famous "classical narratives," but which, in the director's versions, gain a different soul. They are narratives with the same foundation, yet always unique. And it's not about being good or bad, but rather about verifying and analyzing individualities. So, returning to The Dresser, what is unique?
The Film's Theatrical Individuality
The film's individuality is based, primarily, on its theatrical form. Throughout its history, cinema has maintained a relationship of dependency with theater, being its main source of talent, such as, for example, James McAvoy, an exceptional actor who, even after becoming a cinematic star, still performs his roles in theaters. I emphasize this because the film itself is filmed theater. However, this characteristic is not perceptible, because it is through sensory stimuli, including screams, cries, and the expression of anger, that the feature film goes through narrative highs and lows, thus creating a seesaw effect: one moment we are on edge, and the next, we are holding back emotion.
Norman: The Invisible Protagonist
Emotion is a crucial factor for the film to work, because it is through it that Norman, our first protagonist, finds himself dependent. He dedicates his entire life to being support, a withering role, a sort of cannibal of his own emotions, which, willingly or not, crown his reason as an unconscious sidelining. That is, no matter how much he tries to neutralize that hypocritical environment with alcohol, he still must maintain reason, which is frequently oscillating.
But when Norman is called upon, he is always there. Not only because he is an excellent professional, but because, at some point in his life, his life became about being an assistant. And when Norman tries to break free from this, he retreats. He retreats because that life is aggressive enough: they do not see him as a man, as a human being, nor as a functional assistant, but they see him as a tool, an accessory.
The "Sir": The Voice of the Artistic World
On the other hand, we have a possible redemption. "Possible." But why "possible"? Well, we are talking about one of the greatest representatives of classical literature in the world, a theater that urges, resonates through none other than Shakespeare. Portraying the greatest name in dramaturgy in human history is not an easy role, because the role of the "Sir" is to be the spokesperson for the artistic world.
Not even the war made people stop coming to see him, but the mind takes its toll, stress has consequences, and he who once lived for art fights to keep it alive, even if that means abandoning his own destiny. And that is why the phrase "The Third Act of a Legend."
The Intertwining of Stories
So, when do the stories come together? They are intertwined by decadence and ascension. The ascension, rarely mentioned, is the stagnation of success; after all, as long as there is an audience, success exists. On the other hand, the relationship between the two protagonists is exhausting. Suddenly, we, as the film's audience, watch that metalinguage with a certain pessimism. We hold back tears, fear, and endure the growing tension. We are immersed. This immersion is what enhances that narrative.
Linear Narrative as the Film's Lifeblood
Linear narrative is not just an option; it is the film's lifeblood, because it is not based on the three acts, but rather on the gradual decay of a group. And this group as a whole has no personality, but it has a sub-nucleus that lives through this group. Just as the theater legend and Norman have a dependency, without both, the group would not exist. It is noticeable that the film forces this incessantly: the director wants us to know that the repetition, the created tension, and the long monologues are intentional. But what is the purpose?
The Viewer's Immersive Experience
I often find myself thinking: what to expect from a film? The expectations we create are reflections of an idealization, often based on a title, a synopsis... But still, we are the ones responsible for these expectations. Ultimately, the film is as it should be. Therefore, when talking about The Dresser, we don't expect much, because the premise is simple, but its experience is unique.
Have you ever imagined yourself in a dark room, 40-degree heat, and you can't even move? That's the feeling of the film. You endure the tension, you want to cry, but not out of sadness, but because you feel pity for how degrading that environment has become. And in the end, the conclusion...
The Conclusion: Legacy and Emptiness
The end celebrates the legacy, but re-signifies Norman's entire journey, who concludes all his effort with... nothing. Norman wasted time, he made an effort, because it was all he had. But try explaining to a "god" that the loss of a single creature is enough for an entire ecosystem to fail. He wouldn't understand, because he is not the ideal individual. And this is the relationship between Norman and the legend, between a government and its population. And, finally, the analogy of what is the creator and the creature.
PORTUGUÊS:
O Terceiro Ato de uma Lenda
"No final, era eu quem precisava de você"
Introdução: Um Filme sobre Legado
O que é um Estudo de Personagem?
A Individualidade Teatral do Filme
Norman: O Protagonista Invisível
O "Sir": A Voz do Mundo Artístico
O Entrelaçamento das Histórias
A Narrativa Linear como Vida do Filme
A Experiência Imersiva do Espectador
A Conclusão: O Legado e o Vazio
Melancholy as a Narrative Tool
Melancholy as a Narrative Tool
Why Does Cinema Turn Pain into Poetry?
Historically, melancholy represents the intrinsic poetry of the human being. It is the way the body and the mind express themselves without leaving physical marks. However, sadness becomes a poetic feeling when it is moderated: it is allowing the world to hurt you, a contact with the surface of life that is often denied by fear.
Within those fears live traumas. But after all, what causes trauma? In its rawest form, pain is the moment when expectations are broken; it is when beliefs built over an entire lifetime collapse. What once was a teenager’s fear becomes an adult’s reality. So the question that remains is: what about society?
Society as the Origin of Trauma
Society is the progenitor of trauma. Within this worldview, we enter the debate about suffering in relation to the global system of life: capitalism.
Under capitalism, the version of happiness we are presented with is nothing more than acquisition and the accumulation of goods. In other words, human beings are led to believe they need financial power to fill an existential void and thus achieve happiness—while, on a larger scale, continuing to turn the wheel of a system that increasingly oppresses them.
But why emphasize the political system? Because within it lies the idea of meritocracy, the supposed mechanism that defines reward and pleasure. Yet this pleasure is as temporary as the production of the very goods that promise it. Trauma lives within this failure.
The gap within capitalism dictates what a human being can or cannot become. A clear example appears in the film Lilya 4-ever, where, after being abandoned by her parents, a young girl begins to make dangerous decisions, playing with luck and finding excitement in danger.
The irony, however, lies in the possible solution: a secure system. In such a system, we are not speaking merely about theoretical concepts, but about something capable of recognizing cases like Lilya’s—where melancholy is not poetic and yet can still appear beautiful, not because of the pain itself, but because of the possibility of care and treatment.
And this is what cinema brings into focus: the cinematic vision of social loss—or, more precisely, abandonment.
Abandonment as a Narrative Turning Point
Abandonment in cinema acts as a “turning point,” because it conveys a central idea: the human being is being forced to evolve.
Evolution does not necessarily mean progress or regression—it means adaptation. Returning to Lilya 4-ever, the evolution of that young girl was to embrace pain. If you cannot fight it, you join it. And that is exactly what she does.
Social abandonment transforms melancholy into an inhuman escape. It is not about overcoming reality, but confronting it.
There is a significant difference between films that seek to criticize the system surrounding sadness and those that seek to offer a lesson. Both possess their own characteristics, yet they create impacts that are equally subjective and functional.
Suddenly, the ending of The Perks of Being a Wallflower differs from that of Lilya 4-ever, not because it is “less worthy,” but because it chooses a different method to communicate its message.
Thus, melancholy appears in two forms: the frontal and the passive.
Frontal Melancholy in Cinema
Frontal melancholy is the kind that strikes directly at the viewer’s emotions. When we construct a cinematic universe centered on pain, we create a reality that can either pull us out of that suffering—like in The Perks of Being a Wallflower—or trap us within it, intensifying feelings of discomfort.
Therefore, when defining melancholy in cinema, we are essentially discussing a chain of cause and consequence between a micro-universe and a macro-level problem.
In this sense, the true source of the problem lies in the human ego, shaped by political visions created by thinkers whose perspectives, from a social standpoint, may be deeply flawed.
This error is not hypothetical—it reflects a reality where people go hungry every day, sleep on the streets, and search through garbage in hopes of finding food.
So the question remains: is cinematic melancholy beautiful?
The Beauty of Cinematic Melancholy
Cinematic melancholy is not reality—and that is precisely why it can appear beautiful. It functions like a reflection, a universe where the creator does not think merely as an individual but as a kind of parent to the story.
When a filmmaker directs a film like Lilya 4-ever, the primary concern is not how kindly the character is treated, but rather how the narrative message of the film can reach its intended impact.
So whether the audience is pleased or disturbed, if discomfort is the goal, what is wrong with achieving it?
Conclusion
In the end, the beauty of something does not negate its necessity or importance. It is simply another way of telling a story with a specific purpose.
Melancholy becomes beautiful not because of pain itself, but because it reflects humanity. And humanity, in its essence, is beautiful. It is beautiful to be human and to feel passion, empathy, fear, and sadness—although reality itself could be different.
When a film ends, reality inevitably returns. And that character who appeared to be a victim of the system gains a certain poetic weight because they reflect the viewer.
The beauty of pain is only possible through identification.