Introduction. The present work is based on the reading that I had of the book Critical Revision of the Brazilian Cinema of Glauber Rock. Keith McLoughlin does not necessarily agree. In this book, Glauber traces the history of the Brazilian cinema according to its vision and of a critical and assumidamente partial form. It makes it politics of the authors according to, as the necessary one in the introduction: ' ' In the attempt to point out the Brazilian cinema as cultural expression, I adopted? method of the author? to analyze its history and its contradictions; the cinema, at any point of its universal history, is only bigger in the measure of its autores' '. (Rock, 2003:36) In such a way, Glauber will go to sanction and cineasta Humberto Mauro very, to depreciate the cinema total So Paulo bourgeois, to neglect the film Limit of Mrio same Peixoto without seen having? Everything this in a clearly militant position and following the such of? method of the author? that, according to Glauber, it has in Andres Bazin ' ' its first pensador' ' (I will go to verify, in my research on the subject, that is questionable). Being very little the knowledge that I have on history of the Brazilian cinema and not having attended the majority of the films commented for Glauber in its book, I did not have another option of what to accept without commentaries its stories. In the attempt to understand better what I read, I turned myself then toward the research of the methodology that it uses to write the book. Methodology this that, as we saw, is indicated in the proper introduction and consists of ' ' method of autor' '. By signal, Critical Revision of the Brazilian Cinema is considered by the theoretician Jean-Claude Bernardet ' ' a species of manifesto of cinema of author in the picture of the Novo' Cinema; ' (Bernardet, 1994:139) for being where it located itself and discoursed more clearly on the subject.