Ideas Shown in City of God

Here’s a random article: http://brianair.wordpress.com/film-analysis/city-of-god/

Here’s a random summary:

After summarizing the complicated plot of City of God, the writer of the article presents numerous different theories that could be used to interpret the film. He talks about montage editing, the use of a homodiegetic narrator (Rocket), along with others, and discusses how it applies to the film. Some of the theories mentioned include Todorov’s Theory of equilibrium, “of an equilibrium, followed by a disequilibrium, then a new equilibrium”. Among others mentioned were Roland Barthe’s theories of action and enigma (L’il Ze’s massacre) and Claude Levi-Strauss’ theory of binary opposites (the slums and mainstream Rio), to name a few.

The next section talks about the main characters and what they represent within the film. Rocket represents a middle ground between good and evil, and of escape, while on the other hand L’il Ze symbolizes hopelessness with his crimes. The writer goes on to discuss the roles of Bene, Carrot, the Tender Trio, and the women in City of God.

The last section discusses the ideology of the film, “the wish for social change”, which is expressed through the violence that permeates the slums of Rio and corrupts its people. The film ends on a positive note but also with a negative one, with the younger children taking up the mantle of violence. The writer concludes the piece with a mention of how the film became so popular, first through the film festivals and then through Miramax.

Out of all of the things discussed in the article, what I find most relevant to the research I am doing is the role of violence and crime, especially within the cities. Also important were the numerous film theories used to describe the film, which I can imagine will become useful when comparing City of God to a second film.

The History of Brazilian Cinema

I suppose today is as good a day as any to randomly summarize the history of Brazilian cinema as written by a film reference site, divided into sections.

The first section discusses the early days of Brazilian cinema in the early 1900s, in which “Brazilian films dominated the domestic market, and documentaries and newsreels constituted the most important filmic productions.” The choice in production was influenced by the beginning industrialization and urbanization of Brazil, when cinema was just beginning to become an industry. However, as the Hollywood industry began to encroach upon international markets, “The technical expertise and slick production values of Hollywood movies were regarded as the standard, and it served to discourage indigenous filmmaking.” The beginning era died, but films continued to be made either way.

The second section talks about the period following this, during the years of the Great Depression in which Hollywood continued to reign over the film industry. Films made in Brazil during this era were largely influenced by Hollywood, attempting to copy its style while at the same time remaining rooted in Brazilian tradition, like the chanchadas, “musical comedies inspired by Hollywood musicals but rooted in the Brazilian carnival and burlesque theater.” During this time several director specific film companies were established, like Atlântida in 1943. Most important of these companies was the Vera Cruz company. “For the first time, Brazilian cinema would be internationally distributed, with quality films and a consolidated internal market.” However, it failed later on, being overambitious for still developing Brazil.

The next section “Cinema Novo” contains a much more detailed analysis of the historical context of the 1960s. It talks about how new social thought influenced the ideas shown in Brazilian cinema, along with techniques used. Along with the new authoritarian regimes, the film industry in Brazil was deciding on a shift from the studio system, which was too expensive for the developing economy at the time. “Film journals and cine clubs fostered a critique of Brazilian cinema and a debate about whether to build a strong film industry with state support or to pursue a low-cost production system that would encourage experimentation.” The article then talks about the filming styles adopted during this period, along with the subject matter, which often involved the lower classes. Cinema Novo was limited, however, by its attempt to combine appeal to the masses and attracting political awareness. In addition, Brazilian films rarely appealed to those outside intellectual circles and the “festival circuit”. Also, this section discusses the work of a specific director, Carlos Diegues.

The next two sections go into great detail concerning the three phases of Cinema Novo. The first phase “was a formative period dominated by a sense of political urgency aptly captured by neorealist, documentary-style narratives that went out to the streets to film popular subjects.” Many films of made during this phase focused on the theme of hunger, and its connection to Brazilian culture. The first phase ended with the coup of 1964, and the second phase, despite being surrounded by military control, still flourished due to the industry being sponsored by the state, which provided equipment and funding. The section after this focuses on the third phase of Cinema Novo. “The year 1968 fragmented the artistic milieu and nurtured the emergence of new aesthetic strategies of resistance: cannibalism, Tropicalism, and the aesthetics of garbage dominated the third phase of Cinema Novo. Cannibalism was a rebellion against imperialist values, while tropicalism “rendered patriarchal, traditional cultures anachronistic using the most advanced or fashionable idioms and techniques in the world, thus producing an allegory of Brazil that exposed a real historical abyss, a junction of different stages of capitalist development.” It rejected the support of the authoritarian regime and the censorship it provided, and some filmmakers at the time were against state support altogether.

The last section summarizes the evolution of Brazilian cinema following the 1960s. Various administrations veered from supporting the film industry to cutting off support altogether, which was the case with Fernando Collor de Mello. Women filmmakers became more prevalent, and the film industry attempted to integrate with globalization, facing its problems. “One of the most obvious strategies to confront the effects of globalization is to obtain financial support from abroad, either in the form of coproductions or by securing a film's international distribution.” The article then finishes off with a list of the names of movies that tried adapting to an international audience, and films that stuck to Brazilian issues.

City of God: Cinematic Portrayal of Violence

The article “Violence in The City of God: The Fantasy of the Omniscient Spectator” written by Jennie Carlsten examines the usage of violence in City of God and how it is influenced by the narrative, the cinematography, the acting, the genre, etc.

In the first section of the article Carlsten writes about the setting of the movie, the slums of Rio de Janeiro, and how violence encompasses it through various mediums; for example, historically. “Brazil, and Rio in particular, suffers from particularly pervasive and institutionalized forms of violence: gang warfare, military brutality, and police corruption.” Carlsten is giving some historical background to the violence shown throughout City of God, and how that violence is grounded in reality. The favela, being the set for the majority of the film, is notorious for this, and Carlsten describes how this is shown through the cinematography; “Shots through gaps and from under objects are reminiscent of war footage and position subjects as if sniper targets, particularly in the later segments of the film.” Basically, the favela is given its violent qualities through manipulation of camera angles and positioning. When filming something in such a way, you give the set a constricted feeling.

In addition to the usual connotations associated with violence, Carlsten describes City of God as “plagued by economic as well as physical violence.” Along with gunfights, murder, and numerous other heinous acts, Carlsten describes how conditions in the slum forces individuals to resort to violence in order to stay alive and earn a living. Carlsten also makes an interesting observation of the use of Rocket’s camera being another form of violence, for example during the scene of City of God when Rocket is pinned between the police and the gangsters. “The editing of the sequence suggests not only that Rocket survives by 'shooting' the others, but that he is directly responsible for the deaths of those shot by real bullets.” In saying this, Carlsten implies that through the editing of the scenes themselves Meirelles gives concepts violent connotations.

Carlsten then discusses in more detail the motivations for the violence inherent in City of God. “Motives are suggested - evilness, vengeance, territorialism, animal instinct, initiation, and self-definition but none seem adequate to explain the omnipresence of violence in the favela.” Carlsten is suggesting that in terms of themes and narrative, there is no one reason for the violence present. By giving so many different motives Meirelles makes the true motivation ambiguous.  The writer of this article also makes a comparison to the Wild West in the United State, mentioning it in order to discuss how the film subverts the audiences’ expectations of the “good” characters, like in the following quote. “Audience expectations of the Western hero (like the 'good man' turned vigilante found in so many action films) may lead viewers to sympathize with Ned, judging his violence as less excessive than L'il Ze's. Meirelles problematizes this identification by showing the escalating nature of Ned's violence.” After discussing some of the more complex qualities of the violence in City of God, such as territoriality and its generational qualities, Carlsten moves on to the character of L’il Ze. “The uncertainty the film expresses towards the justification of violence is most profound in its treatment of L'il Ze”. In later parts of the movie, L’il Ze, instead of being characterized as a universal bad guy, is shown in a more sympathetic light when Benny is killed. Even though Ze kills indiscriminately, the audience knows that he has a kind of motive as well to do the things he does.

The second to last section of the article talks about the movies portrayal of alternatives to violence. Sports, for example, is shown as an escape for the children of the favela, only to be literally shot out of the sky. The story of the Tender Trio is also told to give perspective into the true feelings of people who use violence on others. Most importantly, Carlsten discusses Rocket’s attempts to escape the violence. “His ability to produce and frame its images for outsiders means that Rocket is dependent upon violence for his livelihood.” Rocket, by using photography to try and escape, is inevitably drawn back and becomes a critical component of the violence occurring in the favela.

The last section of the article discusses a major technique that Meirelles uses to film City of God. “The use of long shots and off-screen space prevents the audience from seeing much of the violence, and deprives the viewer of the catharsis that may be produced by seeing a violent act carried to its conclusion.” In effect, by not showing the action of the event, the audience is asked to imagine what is occurring, forcing the audience to take their own perspective. To really sum up the article, all of the components of the film have some hand in creating the violence in City of God, from the camera work to the audience itself.