A trash classic of sorts, "Cute but Ordinary" is another twisted story coming from the dark corners of Nelson Rodrigues plays where he exposes the naked truth behind
the false moralisms of a decadent society. For those unfamiliar with his plays and film adaptations one could easily compare him with Tennessee Williams since they both expose
characters who live on the margins of society, the excluded ones such as poor people, homosexuals, prostitutes, sexually repressed women (and the opposite too); difference being
that Williams doesn't sound like a conservative man who's too critical of those figures. There's way a support for them whereas with Nelson it feels like he's being judgemental.
Anyway, forget about the brainy aspects mentioned since the story of this movie is so weirded just as it is fascinating, and the weirdest aspect of it all: they make it look like a comedy despite its countless dark and twisted elements.
In this 2nd filmed version of same story, Edgard (José Wilker), a simple bank worker is chosen by his superior Peixoto (Milton Moraes) to become the fiyance of a 17-year-old girl (Lucélia Santos), daughter of a wealthy businessman (Carlos Kroeger), his boss basically. Lots of money, benefits such as stay with his job without bothering showing up, and the girl wanted him too, so what's to catch? It turns out that he's a very honest man who doesn't like such fixings, he's already committed with another woman (Vera Fischer) who has a complicated life of her own with a sick mother and three teen sisters, and Edgard's presence in reality it's just a way to "neutralize" the young teen who was brutally raped by five black men.
Throughout the story, Edgard is confronted by his conscience and by a memorable quote from Otto Lara Resende (hence the subtitle of the movie) that says the people from Minas are only supportive in cancer, meaning only through tragedy and disgrace that one can be considered a person of value. That quote is used in a such ad nauseum way that at times it feels forced and either badly written or badly acted.
If made in a serious dramatic manner I'd definitely find it a quite superior and relevant work showing about the human conditions and the way moral and ethics can influence or not a person's life and behavior. Obviously that Edgard could enjoy all the goods that could with such new wife, of whom he doesn't love. He's poor, humble but not dumb, and when he gets humiliated by the wealthy fart - in the infamous "contínuo" scene which is an hilarious meme these days - he's more than inclined to abandon all, including job. But when a big check comes his way he's torn apart the woman he loves (a sufferer in so many ways and her story gets far more dangerous as the plot moves along) or living a safe life. The inner conflict he has with himself alone could make a very worthy movie but the makers decided to include some spicy stuff, many things that either can appeal to audiences in a weird way or make them repulse and reject the film overall.
And that is the raunchy scenes of sex and rape, highly exploitative and the heavy use of humor. Maybe I'm thinking too much like Edgard and I can't find anything funny about such scenario - but I had my share of laughter because there are really funny scenes. But when you have a speech course and dire situations as the ones faced by the major characters in this corruptible world you couldn't make it as a full comedy. As a satire it could be accepted, but they were all funny as a real comedy with some steamy sequences.
I think this duality of sorts can hurt the viewing for not open minded people or contemporary viewers. Not sure if Nelson's play actually goes into humor since most of what he writers it's never treated as a comedy, but if does contain this level of humor than it's his fault that the story cannot be admired to its entirety.
I liked the movie, trust me. But it's one of those experiences where despite the serious tones and themes, it was made in a such a bizarre manner that you have to accept it lightly rather than darkly. It's so unpretentious that you simply don't care about a more elevated piece. But it works. 6/10.
Anyway, forget about the brainy aspects mentioned since the story of this movie is so weirded just as it is fascinating, and the weirdest aspect of it all: they make it look like a comedy despite its countless dark and twisted elements.
In this 2nd filmed version of same story, Edgard (José Wilker), a simple bank worker is chosen by his superior Peixoto (Milton Moraes) to become the fiyance of a 17-year-old girl (Lucélia Santos), daughter of a wealthy businessman (Carlos Kroeger), his boss basically. Lots of money, benefits such as stay with his job without bothering showing up, and the girl wanted him too, so what's to catch? It turns out that he's a very honest man who doesn't like such fixings, he's already committed with another woman (Vera Fischer) who has a complicated life of her own with a sick mother and three teen sisters, and Edgard's presence in reality it's just a way to "neutralize" the young teen who was brutally raped by five black men.
Throughout the story, Edgard is confronted by his conscience and by a memorable quote from Otto Lara Resende (hence the subtitle of the movie) that says the people from Minas are only supportive in cancer, meaning only through tragedy and disgrace that one can be considered a person of value. That quote is used in a such ad nauseum way that at times it feels forced and either badly written or badly acted.
If made in a serious dramatic manner I'd definitely find it a quite superior and relevant work showing about the human conditions and the way moral and ethics can influence or not a person's life and behavior. Obviously that Edgard could enjoy all the goods that could with such new wife, of whom he doesn't love. He's poor, humble but not dumb, and when he gets humiliated by the wealthy fart - in the infamous "contínuo" scene which is an hilarious meme these days - he's more than inclined to abandon all, including job. But when a big check comes his way he's torn apart the woman he loves (a sufferer in so many ways and her story gets far more dangerous as the plot moves along) or living a safe life. The inner conflict he has with himself alone could make a very worthy movie but the makers decided to include some spicy stuff, many things that either can appeal to audiences in a weird way or make them repulse and reject the film overall.
And that is the raunchy scenes of sex and rape, highly exploitative and the heavy use of humor. Maybe I'm thinking too much like Edgard and I can't find anything funny about such scenario - but I had my share of laughter because there are really funny scenes. But when you have a speech course and dire situations as the ones faced by the major characters in this corruptible world you couldn't make it as a full comedy. As a satire it could be accepted, but they were all funny as a real comedy with some steamy sequences.
I think this duality of sorts can hurt the viewing for not open minded people or contemporary viewers. Not sure if Nelson's play actually goes into humor since most of what he writers it's never treated as a comedy, but if does contain this level of humor than it's his fault that the story cannot be admired to its entirety.
I liked the movie, trust me. But it's one of those experiences where despite the serious tones and themes, it was made in a such a bizarre manner that you have to accept it lightly rather than darkly. It's so unpretentious that you simply don't care about a more elevated piece. But it works. 6/10.
