In the film City of God, how

Another reason that the backdrop to this movie is violence is shown by the complex narrative solely focused on violent crime. The only reason characters bear any relevance in the city is through their criminality or violent behaviour. This is excellently shown by the “character profiles” given to us by Rocket, and these are further highlighted by the technical codes of a still shot of the character accompanied by a tagline of their name. Although some argue that the representation and depiction of violence is necessary in maintaining the verity of the plot, others feel that this backdrop of violence is futile, and such graphic representation is not needed. This is shown by the conflicting quotations, firstly, “The distinction between the depiction of violence and its exploitation is paper-thin.” However, others view this representation as simply Meirelles’ strong degree of realism throughout the film, and feel that this particularly violent representation is justified as he is presenting us simply with realism, “The violence never feels exploitative; the only thrill you feel is that of being in the hands of a masterful storyteller opening your eyes to a world you feel truly exists.” It is clearly evident that Meirelles’ direction has induced controversy, raising the question whether this representation is simply closely represented realism or simply excessive and gratuitous violence to titillate audiences.

Another key factor which one must heed when considering whether the representations in City of God are excessively violent is the way the violence is contextualised, as this does largely affect the way we read the violence. In this movie, as I previously mentioned, violence is shown as a backdrop to the city, directly affecting how city life is controlled. This is shown in extensive detail in the film, particularly by the key to understanding the narrative is derived through the narration, which is totally focused on the violence. This gives the audience the impression that violence is the centrifugal part of the narrative. With regard to this contextualisation, it is apparent that the violence is essential to the narrative as a main theme, as we are dealing with an insight into a violent world; however, this does not mean that it is justified or needed. Also, the fact that this representation is so explicitly violent, it raises the question whether an implicitly violent film could still achieve the same desired reading, that we are entering a violent world. “Meirelles’ message is important, but the telling quickly becomes monotonous,” this shows that there is clear evidence to exhibit that some believe that although violence is a key theme to the narrative, Meirelles over-indulges in it as a way to tell the story.

However, I feel that a positive message is achieved through this violence, and this message is summed up by the tagline of the movie, “Fight and you’ll never survive. Run and you’ll never escape.” This sums up one of the key themes throughout the movie, and possibly and plausibly justifies the explicit violence, as it shows the raw danger of the environment, encapsulating the issue of violence. This tagline anchors the themes in this film; “It should be considered required viewing by anyone who seeks to understand how violence begets violence.” This shows that there is a prevalent social message through this violence, and this is characterised through the tale of Knockout Ned in the film. This is especially effective through the performance codes (he is reluctantly forced into violence and his situation escalates uncontrollably until his death) and is accentuated by the technical codes (such as the addition of a still shot and caption which highlights his averse introduction into this world). This could be regarded as an obvious theme however, and therefore not entirely justifiable of the violence used to illustrate this point.

The direction of the film is also one of controversy with regard to the theme of violence, and this argument is particularly substantial as it concerns the directors choice of violence in accompany of such a young cast. The fact that the plurality of the film’s violence is between young teens has an even more striking effect, and one scene in particular typifies this. The scene in which a boy of aged 9 is forced to decide whether to shoot one of his friends in the foot or the other in the hand. This scene is made further disturbing by the performance codes of all the youths crying intensely and the harsh screaming of the older members and their encouragement. Also the technical codes of the harsh lighting and heightened diegetic sound of the crying, accompanied by fast editing and close ups on the screaming boys all work perfectly together in creating a disturbing and brutal scene of violence. Also, this scene is made to seem natural in this environment, as we become almost desensitised to this extreme violence as the film goes on, its only the decorous editing and diegetic sound that make that scene particularly resonate with us. This scene is recognised as a particularly disturbing and violent scene, “the most challenging scene in the film…This chilling scene is vital to the film as the viewer witnesses the choices the kids have in the slums.” This is an example again of how Meirelles authentically represents the “character” of the favela through the violence and the situation the setting puts these kids in, where violence are the primary, if only choices for them.    The quotation, “Difficult to watch but hard to look away from,” this shows the nature of the direction and the representations dealt with in the film. This shows the violence is almost excessive but also implies it is needed, pointing out it is a shocking film, but one that should be seen, with the excessive violence as it is. “A well-made but pointless picture, it is a non-stop orgy of senseless violence, as teens and preteens slaughter each other like animals.” This quotation supports some believes that just because the direction of the film is good, and the violence is handled with authenticity and well directed, it is not justifiable. It shows how the violence can be perceived as obviously excessive, and “slick direction” does not conceal the raw and gratuitous violence.

There is the key theme in the film whether violence and gang activity is glamorised, and this carries heavy arguments for and against. Firstly, there is the aspect of not being part of the violence, and the key argument for this is derived from the inkling of hope for the viewer that violence doesn’t pay is in the form of the narrative of Rocket. From his “neutral” stance, and his uninvolvement in the violence throughout the film (although inevitably attached to the gang scene like all are in the favela; he maintains cut off from the violence throughout, which adds verity to his neutral stance) his escape from the favela is a success story. This is shown to us at the end of the film, where Rockets photographs of the gangs and the warfare eventually “buy” his way out of the slum. Although Rocket literally escapes the violence, Meirelles direction allows for interpretation that he is still metaphorically involved, although not explicitly. This is shown by the performance, symbolic and technical codes in the scene when Rocket is taking photographs covertly during a gang-war, in which his “shots” are quickly cut into the sequence of “shots” from guns that from this judicious editing it becomes difficult to distinguish whether it is a hood shooting a gun or Rocket shooting a photograph; the symbolic codes of the camera as a gun attached to the editing make it apparent that metaphorically Rocket is still attached to the gang scene. Philip French also argues that “Rocket escapes the slums by accident, not by any act of moral will or greater strength of character,” which goes against some of the opinions that ultimately it is Rockets detachment from violence which allows him to escape; and keeps in tune with the reading Meirelles hints at, that Rocket was just at the right place at the right time with a camera.

In contrast to this, there is the narrative of Bené and Lil Zé, which can be perceived as a glamorisation of violence. This is because in the film, these are two violent characters, and especially the sadistic Zé who unapologetically kills his way to becoming “self proclaimed Lord of the City of God,” and with this he becomes so rich and powerful that he almost owns the favela; and as this is all earned solely through violence. This raises the question as to whether violence is represented as “cool” and as a route to success, which is further anchored by the fact that the kids in the slums aspire to have Zé’s status, wealth and power; whereas Rocket is left as an unknown relentlessly trying to lose his virginity. This contrast in narrative by Meirelles is particularly effective in showing the difference between these characters and does potentially accentuate the issue of glamorised violence versus the pitiful humour of Rocket.

        These representations throughout the film are important when answering questions on the violence used in the direction, but I feel that it is ultimately the ending of film which either values or de-values these representations. In this case the ending does suggest that success in the favela doesn’t last as the theme of “violence begets violence” prevails, as all the powerful gang-lords are killed and the narrative continues as a new young gang take over the city, which again links with Meirelles key message that violence and the favela are inseparable, and that violence is the backdrop to the city. Meirelles chooses to end the film at the exact same point as it began, this technical code becomes a symbolic code as it suggests and connotes cyclic themes, illustrating the point of inescapable violence in the city, and that violence will continue in this cyclic way. However, I personally feel the film ends on a positive note in this grim tale, and this is done only by one brief performance code at the end, in which Rockets character says, “Oh I forgot to mention, I am no longer Rocket, but Wilson Rodrigues.” This is only a slight detail, however it carries much more meaning as the loss of his nickname from the favela suggests that he has actually moved out of the city and broken this cyclic theme Meirelles gave us.

        In conclusion, after looking at various views on the theme of violence in this movie, I feel that I have recognised that the violence in City of God is excessive in parts, and alongside the disturbing age of the characters, (“never before have criminals looked so young: pre-pubescent in fact; it is a cross between an orphanage and an abattoir,”) it does create a horrific view of the favela, but I feel that Meirelles was justified in using this violence in order to create this representation of such a place where there really is little choice but violence. This does show a grim reality of the favela and its cyclic, socially inherent violence, and the representations given to us by Meirelles are valid in this regard; I personally feel that as this is a place that actually exists, it was a moral obligation for Meirelles to take us there in all its honesty.