Lula, the Son of Brazil (2010)

Lula is the leading and agglutinating symbol of the "cultural revolution" that gave leftists complete hegemonic control of public discussions, to the point that virtually all ideological opposition disappeared from the big picture. To confirm Karl Marx's claim that historical tragedies recur as farces, one should write a play about Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Any student of Marxism who has properly done his homework realizes that, from the point of view of revolutionary strategy, Lula did nothing wrong. Instead. He followed the recipe faithfully, with a fine dialectical sense of objective conditions, moments and opportunities, succeeding in accomplishing what was almost impossible: to save the Latin American communist movement from extinction, and put it in action in a dozen countries. The FARC themselves recognized it emphatically in a letter of thanks sent to the XV anniversary of the Forum of Sao Paulo. Lula himself, conscious of the work accomplished, celebrated his spectacular ideological victory by arguing that Brazil had reached the perfection of democracy: all candidates were left-wing. It is easy to call him a thief, a con man, a devil. But the fact is, such critique is based on a criterion of administrative appropriateness which only applies within the framework of "bourgeois morality." Lula, like Allende in Chile, had to make alliances and concessions - including the vocabulary of "bourgeois honesty" - with a firm intention of throwing them away as soon as possible. He moved amid the ambiguities of an opportunistic conciliation between the strategic demands of the revolutionary movement and the objective interests of his capitalist allies. Not even personal illicit enrichment can be seriously alleged against him by the canons of revolutionary morality. It is an historical fact that all the major stars of the communist cast enriched illicitly - Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Pol-Pot, Allende, Ceaucescu - and it was a tacit norm that they had the obligation to do so, preferably with Swiss accounts, in order to have the means to protect themselves, and eventually restart the revolution in case of failure of any local project. Only Lenin was unable to enjoy a potentate status because some time after the victory of the Revolution, tertiary syphilis, fulfilling its fatal term, reduced him to a human rag. As per Yakov Stanislavovich Ganetsky, Lenin's financial mentor, "the best way to destroy capitalism is for us to become capitalists ourselves." The revolutionary movement has always relied on robbery, fraud, smuggling, kidnapping, drug trafficking, and, in democratic countries where it came to power, assault on public coffers. Lula did not invent anything, he did not innovate at all, he did not change anything, he only demonstrated an extraordinary ability to apply good old tricks. In the court of revolutionary ethics, therefore, not a word can be said against him. His Party (PT) was not a mere case of "corruption" like so many others, but rather a gigantic plan of appropriation of public money in order to give the communist movement full power over the continent.

This movie is garbage, and Lula is just a thief.Nothing more than political propaganda to fool innocent people.

The story of a man who have never worked in his entire life, purposely cuts his finger off to receive disability retirement. This gangster took advantage of the hope of work-people, destroyed the education, health and economy of the whole nation. The brainwashing caused by the Brazilian political mafia is of such a high degree that it is easy to find people in defense of these white-collar criminals. The film tells the story of what the Brazilian people call "the cancer of the nation". It is clear that the film was overpriced, made with public resources and against the will of the person of good. The movie should be called "The Destruction Of The Brazil" or "The Shame Of A Nation".

This movie is about the true story of a poor immigrant, syndicate leader, that became the president of Brazil. The story itself is amazing and deserved to be told. However, the execution here is way poorer than it should. There are many Brazilian directors capable of doing it.The movie is at all, really bad. The reconstruction of the period id poor, the acting is bad, the casting is at all misplaced. The preparation of the actors was really poor, the accents are wrong, the set is too bi-dimensional, the history set is shallow, it doesn't account for what was the dictatorial period the movie is set in.At the end, you can't understand or believe in the main character because the director was too much of a fan, or was unable to portrait the man as a real person.As the story is pretty good, It's is only a badly executed movie. It's a pity, hope this story gets to be told more properly in the future.