Emma Vilarasau was walking and turned around

I always repeat it: I like stories about families, inside houses, "talking" movies, novels in which "it seems like nothing happens." I love Bullet Park, Long Day's Journey Into Night, Hanna and Her Sisters, Garden by the Sea, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie...

I started to see House on fire And the beginning with Vilarasau walking down the street and turning around twice, already nailed me to the seat. That face of hers, which turns around in a second, and shows us overwhelmed, suspicious, conspicuous, sad and cruel, is one of the images of the cinema that I keep with me. I could make a film of film clippings and this would be one of them. Vilarasau walking and turning around these two times: the summary of the film. What an immense acting.

I always explain to the reading clubs, and in these articles, that there is a reader, an infrequent (occasional) spectator who asks (especially in stories starring women) for the "quota of redemption." They want the aspirational idea of Queen's Gambit: a woman in a man's world, with a special talent, a troubled past, fragility in some aspect, and who -basically- will end up getting ahead. They don't want ugly endings.

A Music for burning hearts, from the great AM Homes, a married couple, who already hate each other, deliberately burns down the beautiful house in the residential neighborhood where they live. House on fire shares this metaphor with the novel. And by this I mean that the author did not have to be forgiven for suspicions of American bourgeoisie. The difference between costumbrismo and realism is the author's perspective. From what point does he look at it? A plot about a poor protagonist is not "more progressive" than a plot about a rich protagonist. But perhaps today's non-regular viewers and readers ask, above all, for aspiration and identification.