The aim of the present article is to deconstruct a specific line of argumentation used by Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes (2010) to support what is usually called the movement theory of control. Such line of argumentation involves the assumption that null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese are “controlled” in the sense that they are derived by A-movement out of finite clauses. It is shown that the postulation of finite control in Brazilian Portuguese requires assumptions that are not empirically supported. An alternative analysis is discussed and argued to be theoretically and empirically superior to movement analyses. That alternative analysis takes null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese to be elided topics.