But what did was a different rock.
Rui Cunha Pregal: That's already part of the people! (Laughs)
Many consider that the documentary is a minor art, hence the difficulties in obtaining financing?
Pires Jorge: No, the idea in Portugal of a documentaray is a type of film cheaper and not quite, is a different thing. How is a minor art who thinks that?
RPC: With the amount of documentary that is, with the diversity that exists in the market throughout the film and DVD, I think is huge and I do not agree that it is also smaller.
I say this because in Portugal there are filmmakers who criticize television for showing false documentaries, the background of a series of interviews and images edited in a hurry, within a week when is not so.
Jorge Pires: The theorists of the documentary, some at least, maintain that in any event in the documentary is an exercise in ethnography, such as our movie is too. This is a note of folklore of a given time in a certain place, with some certain people. We do ethnography. Now, that's what José was saying a program with interviews is not a documentary. But it was necessary to compare with the history of cinema and the documentary and what has been done over the years 30 and 40. There are certain types of movies that came out of the documentary and other results were given historically, for example, in the '40s became the first movie was about a train , with no people, has no dialogue, but you can do it if it's well done. You can make many kind of cinema and it is unfortunate when we limit ourselves to accept only one way, because it is unique, is poor. Throughout the twentieth century much has been made, which experienced several schools of cinema that have developed and all this is a panorama that has a richness that is worth exploring.
You are talking about national productions?
JP: In general, I am not interested to make a film according to people here, I want to be seen by an Eskimo who does not speak Portuguese and realize what you do. And to interpret this in that it can interpret, people do not have to interpret things the same way. The film should not be made in our room, for our gluttony. It has to be worthwhile, must be enforced as if it were for everyone. And the same thing for literature, to music. Picasso could not have painted pictures only for Spaniards.
But there's room in Portugal for the documentaries, there is spece for growing?
JP: Since the documentaries of Michael Moore that universalized such language, which exists as long as Nanouk, which is considered the father of ethnofiction documentary, and films are seen in commercial theaters and not only in festival. We are contemporary of this, not revival. And the fact of going on air or not, this has to do with the fact that the TV absorbs everything and anything, chew them and spit them out . Needs minutes, television turns out not to be important in this story.
PRC: The problem of television and RTP 2 is there is the idea that documentary is David Attenborough's the thing about animals in Africa. And it's not! The documentary is what you want to document.
JP: There is the example of Pete Barker's film about Bob Dylan in London in 1964, there is Julien Temple's documentary about the Sex Pistols , incidentally was one of the things that last until 2000.
