Monday, October 15, 2007

Cidade de Deus

Making a multi-faceted movie is not easy and almost never done. In the case of Fernando Meirelles's City of God, multi-faceted is its middle name. Thematically, it crosses many genres; coming of age, drug, thriller, social scrutinizing. It is almost impossible to label precisely. City of God is namely a story of the narrator, Rocket, an inhabitant of a favela (kind of like a Brazilian shanty town), which happens to also be the titular reference, City of God (or Cidade de Deus in Portuguese). He is very much exposed to drugs and violence and corruption, but he avoids getting mixed up in the gangs by exploring his passion: photography. Interestingly enough, the photography of the film has been praised and was nominated for Best Cinematography at the 2002 Academy Awards, along with three other nominations.

It should have won Best Cinematography. Fricken Lord of the Rings.

The neo-realistic vision set forth by the director of photography, César Charlone, is not necessarily revolutionary, but definitely effective. DISCLAIMER: Unfortunately there are no special commentaries or behind the scenes on the DVD or any reliable websites, so this post is purely based on observations, which are limited due to my being a human and everything.
Right from the beginning, the camera acts as another character in the movie, offering insight that would not necessarily be emphasized. A gritty, raw filter is used to accentuate the dismal city. The general mood is pessimistic, heartbreaking. Children are shooting children. Friends are dying over feuds whose beginnings have been lost. Power is mistaken for love. Most of the scenes are filmed with a Steadicam, but the real gems are the handheld scenes. Most notably was the use during a death shot – imitating the position and movements of someone being shot, then eventually fading out, as if eyes were closing. Although this technique has been used before, the integration of the camera as a character with a classically defined “point of view” breaks up the monotony of just tracking or just panning. The shots reflected an unadulterated portrayal of the violence experiences of the particular area, but the amount of violent acts shown were appropriate and not overdone, which could have easily been abused.
Meirelles wanted to keep the energy and general atmosphere of the ghettos so he hired all natives as actors in the movie, with the exception of Matheus Nachtergaele. The combination of authentic Brazilian citizens and altruistic shots of Brazilian slums made the movie just plain interesting. Thankfully, Charlone and Meirelles’s skillful range and appreciation for the storyline made the movie worthy of artistic praise, as well as thematic acclaim.

Charlone will be directing photography for the upcoming Blindness, based on the novel by José Saramago. (Kind of nervous about the adaptation, not gonna lie.) Basically, the novel depicts a situation where an entire city undergoes a white blindness epidemic, meaning a piercing white is all people can see. It will be interesting to see what choices he makes with how to convey the blindness, as well as incorporate the sight of the only person who does not get affected by the plague, an ophthamologist's wife (ha). The book also dealt with rape and murder, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there were cinematic essences of City of God repeated in Blindness.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

You mention that the so many genres can define this movie? What though do y'all think about genre? By that I mean, is genre something that the director should be totally cognizant of when filming a movie, or really pay no attention to how it will be categorized prior to filming. That strayed away completely from your post, sorry Quansh.

Preston said...

Sounds cool. I like the idea of making the camera a "character." always makes it seem like you're right there in the action. I'll have to see this sometime...

~PSH

whitney! said...

in regards to genre... i definitely think directors should not think about what genre they're filming, unless their whole objective is to make a good ___(insert genre)___ movie. If they're just trying to make a good movie, then why should genre confine them? and personally, as a movie viewer, i would prefer there to not be a genre on movies because it totally messes you up. You might go into a 'comedy' movie, not laugh, and be dissapointed, whereas if it was just a movie, no 'comedy' requirement, then you might enjoy it for what it is.

Kate said...

Wasn't this movie phenomenal?!