'City of God' (2002) Represents Violence and Poverty as 'Spectacle'.
Some scholars criticise Cidade de Deus / City of God (2002) on the grounds that the film represents violence and poverty as a ‘spectacle’ and fails to relate these issues to the wider socio-political context of contemporary Brazil. Is this criticism justified?
‘There are…two kinds of film makers: one invents an imaginary reality; the other confronts an existing reality and attempts to understand it, criticise it…and finally, translate it into film’
Fernando Biri, 1979[1]
Fernando Meirelles’s City of God (2002) has provoked critical discussion concerning its representation of the Brazilian working class since its release[2]. The film has been described as both disturbing and electrifying for its brutal realism and inspired cinematography[3]. Whilst it was eagerly received by critics the world over, others have film questioned its worth as a production for Brazil’s people. City of God became the focal point of a battle of representations concerned with the ‘real’ and the imagined working class society. Internationally distributed by American company Mirimax, many have accused Meirelles of fashioning a fetishized ‘tour’ of favela life and catering to Eurocentric stereotypes of a criminal black underclass[4]. Several Latin American commentators felt that distinctive aesthetic style of the film diminished what Ivana Bentes calls the ‘aesthetics of hunger’ in exchange for pure ‘cosmetic’ artistry[5]. In order to obtain an adequate understanding of the debate which surrounds City of God, it is essential examine various subjects. I firstly wish to obtain sufficient contextual knowledge of the modern favela in Brazil. The Cinema Novo movement similarly documents such issues as the poverty and the violence of the cangaço lifestyle addressed with in City of God[6]. This essay will focus on Meirelles’s work as a modern depiction of life in Brazil’s favelas. It will consider the interaction between narration, cinematography, postproduction and music in order to judge
‘There are…two kinds of film makers: one invents an imaginary reality; the other confronts an existing reality and attempts to understand it, criticise it…and finally, translate it into film’
Fernando Biri, 1979[1]
Fernando Meirelles’s City of God (2002) has provoked critical discussion concerning its representation of the Brazilian working class since its release[2]. The film has been described as both disturbing and electrifying for its brutal realism and inspired cinematography[3]. Whilst it was eagerly received by critics the world over, others have film questioned its worth as a production for Brazil’s people. City of God became the focal point of a battle of representations concerned with the ‘real’ and the imagined working class society. Internationally distributed by American company Mirimax, many have accused Meirelles of fashioning a fetishized ‘tour’ of favela life and catering to Eurocentric stereotypes of a criminal black underclass[4]. Several Latin American commentators felt that distinctive aesthetic style of the film diminished what Ivana Bentes calls the ‘aesthetics of hunger’ in exchange for pure ‘cosmetic’ artistry[5]. In order to obtain an adequate understanding of the debate which surrounds City of God, it is essential examine various subjects. I firstly wish to obtain sufficient contextual knowledge of the modern favela in Brazil. The Cinema Novo movement similarly documents such issues as the poverty and the violence of the cangaço lifestyle addressed with in City of God[6]. This essay will focus on Meirelles’s work as a modern depiction of life in Brazil’s favelas. It will consider the interaction between narration, cinematography, postproduction and music in order to judge