Portabella's cinema is very close to Sartre's understanding of human beings. In Sartre's philosophy, human beings have some sort of plasticity which means a human being can become whatever he/she wants to be; his/her essence is not pre-determined. Franco regime was a direct attack on the creativity of artist and the essence of cinema; it demanded "order" in art and Portabella's response was chaos: Cinema can become whatever she wants to be, something surreal, something formless, something unharmonius, an avant-garde film, a documentary, a fragment from another film, a protest.
Half documentary, half deconstruction, Jesus Franco's film DRACULA through the lens of Portabella. How did Portabella get Franco's permission to be in the set? It's a mystery. Probably Franco had no idea about Portabella's intention?
Wish MUBI showed the original film too, but of course this might have defeated the purpose. Portabella's "version" is like a gate to the audience's subconsciousness. It's like how our always-deconstructive subconsciousness views the original film. A true protest.
What is commodity's sui generis feature?…
"Story" based on Nietzsche's (spotted a book from the philosopher in our couple's library) "eternal recurrence" theory: Energy is immortal and if we do exist that means we existed and we will exist. That's the summary. For cinema, I must say, this is the most original film I have seen in a long time. "Economic" story-telling (e.g. car crash) & minimalism, things I enjoy very much in cinema. And what was written on that paper is a massive msytery!