a visual defense of city of god

[ono]

but it's still a big hit.

That's news to me.

Deja vu.

[Gold Trumpet]

Sad how so many people get away just saying they don't like something.

I have in the City of God thread and brought it up in the Man on Fire thread.

The aesthetic doesn't fit the content.

You have, but with every criticism of the film for style, all I feel is people want this film to be something it is not. 03 did the best job up above really critizing the film.

[ono]

You have, but with every criticism of the film for style, all I feel is people want this film to be something it is not. 03 did the best job up above really critizing the film.

I commented in the City of God thread about its shortcomings, which only become more egregious as time passes.  I find it ironic, though, that your complaint about people wanting the film to be something it's not is the same that modage cited about your dislike of Shaun of the Dead.

SHAFTR really did give the best criticism in the thread he mentioned -- he summed up my thoughts before I could put them to words.  The more I think about the film, the more empty it really is to me.  The overhype didn't help, sure, but I don't let that sway me too much.  It stylizes violence and the lifestyle when it shouldn't be stylized.  It lacks sincerity.  And, because of all this, it loses focus on what's important because of that stylization and lack of sincerity.

[Jeremy Blackman]

It stylizes violence and the lifestyle when it shouldn't be stylized.  It lacks sincerity.  And, because of all this, it loses focus on what's important because of that stylization and lack of sincerity.

A few questions:

Why should violence and "the lifestyle" not be stylized? Is this a moral conviction, i.e. assuming that stylizing necessarily makes the subject positive?

If you can't put your finger on the point of the movie, how do you know that it lacks sincerity? What should it be sincere about that it's not being sincere about? Is it possible that the stylization is the point of the movie, and that it's perfectly sincere stylization?

Given all of this, what do you mean by "what's important"? What is important in this movie?

[ono]

Why should violence and "the lifestyle" not be stylized? Is this a moral conviction, i.e. assuming that stylizing necessarily makes the subject positive?

Of course.  Stylization leads to glamourization.  It ameliorates the blow the violence creates to ease the audience and generate comfort.  Sure, though, the scene where the kid is shot in the foot (and then the head) isn't too stylized, but a lot of other scenes are.  And either way, for me, they leave a bitter taste in my mouth, which, I admit, is because of my own predilection towards violence.  We are all way too desensitized anyway.  I'm less desensitized myself, and we all should question whether that's a good thing or not.  That these things happen -- why should we eventually become okay with seeing it?  We're uncomfortable with (the obvious example) sex, but it's okay to (say naughty words or) blow someone's head off -- well, not the whole head as Lynch would tell you -- you've gotta obscure it a little with smoke and mirrors, 'cause even the MPAA has its limits there, though they're much more lenient than with sex.  End tangent.

I never said I couldn't put my finger on the point of the movie.  I said I couldn't quite sum up what was wrong with it until SHAFTR said so.  Until then I was circling around the words like I was a great white shark and it was a little anchovy.  So that kind of answers your questions about sincerity.  Except for this: it should be sincere about violence and the repercussions.  About keeping an unflinching eye on the problems and offering outs (and it does, in the photographer's case, which is why I didn't find it a total failure).

Is it possible that the stylization is the point of the movie, and that it's perfectly sincere stylization?

Sure, it's possible.  But doesn't that make it the empty movie I purport it to be?

Given all of this, what do you mean by "what's important"? What is important in this movie?

LOLZ, sometimes you slay me.  (And that's sincere, not pejorative -- wouldn't want to get me confused with Meirelles or Lund.)

Given that you're actually serious, I'll humor you with an answer - what's important is what the viewer wants to get out of the movie.  What is intimated, versus what the filmmaker is after.  I think the filmmaker really wanted to address this problem and enlighten people.  Problem is, he's only halfway there because he flinched too many times through the nauseating camera work and overstylizing of subject matter that deserved better than MTV brand seasick patches.  Which brings us back to the first paragraph, etc. and so on forever and ever (Amen!).

[Gold Trumpet]

You have, but with every criticism of the film for style, all I feel is people want this film to be something it is not. 03 did the best job up above really critizing the film.

I commented in the City of God thread about its shortcomings, which only become more egregious as time passes.  I find it ironic, though, that your complaint about people wanting the film to be something it's not is the same that modage cited about your dislike of Shaun of the Dead.

SHAFTR really did give the best criticism in the thread he mentioned -- he summed up my thoughts before I could put them to words.  The more I think about the film, the more empty it really is to me.  The overhype didn't help, sure, but I don't let that sway me too much.  It stylizes violence and the lifestyle when it shouldn't be stylized.  It lacks sincerity.  And, because of all this, it loses focus on what's important because of that stylization and lack of sincerity.

First off, modernage didn't understand my criticisms of Shaun of the Dead and in that vein had those criticisms. I know what Shaftr means by stylization being ill tempered for this subject (even if very arguable), but when you just disregard the style of the entire, don't you overlook the depth of pure filmmaking that is in this movie? I argued the film having depth of just story, but I've never seen a more powerful and brutally honest movie (besides The Son) in having the filmmaking really capture the reality. I don't believe this movie is bound by a typical story as its strength. Its really in how the filmmaking captures an essence to this culture that most stories couldn't convey. JB up above debates whether or not the style is even wrong for this story. I don't think so. Not only is this film masterful in artistic filmmaking, but I believe its captures a zest of life that everyone who was involved in the greed of the gangs wouldn't argue. And besides, I've been to Brazil. I've even been to Rio De Janiero where the story is set. There's a weird mixture of poverty and joy of life in the larger cities. Its an amazing thing.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Stylization leads to glamourization.

What's your opinion of Goodfellas?

It ameliorates the blow the violence creates to ease the audience and generate comfort.

That's an odd thing to say. Doesn't picolas' explicitly discomforted reaction disprove that? I don't find stylization (as a general thing) comforting in any sense.

We are all way too desensitized anyway.  I'm less desensitized myself, and we all should question whether that's a good thing or not.

The question is what we're being desensitized to. Subtlety? Well then who says there isn't enormous subtlety in stylization, especially City of God's kind of stylization?

Is it possible that the stylization is the point of the movie, and that it's perfectly sincere stylization?

Sure, it's possible.  But doesn't that make it the empty movie I purport it to be?

Absolutely not. It's amazing to me that people think stylization is meaningless. Why do people never complain about stylization and unecessary visual originality in paintings? Is the story somehow a precious essence that should not be visually tampered with unless it makes complete and obvious sense? What about mysterious visual technique that has emotional or unconscious effects? Isn't the very feeling that picolas experienced proof that these effects work?

I think the filmmaker really wanted to address this problem and enlighten people. Problem is, he's only halfway there because he flinched too many times through the nauseating camera work and overstylizing of subject matter that deserved better than MTV brand seasick patches.

I don't think stylization is "flinching." It doesn't avoid the image, it is the image. (perhaps you're biased by what you think the image is.) And it doesn't have to be just a means, it can be the end.

[ono]

What's your opinion of Goodfellas?

It's a decent film, though it is overrated.  It doesn't hold up to repeat viewings.  The first time through, I genuinely loved it.  I made the mistake of watching it a second time, and was bored.  Maybe I need a third.

It ameliorates the blow the violence creates to ease the audience and generate comfort.

That's an odd thing to say. Doesn't picolas' explicitly discomforted reaction disprove that? I don't find stylization (as a general thing) comforting in any sense.

I think of stylization as visual (and audial) flair.  And I find that is supposed to comfort and lull people.  It can be used to upset people, sure, and that's where I think we differ.  To me, he was trying to stylize violence to glamourize it (and that statement seems ironic given the context of the movie, I know -- it's one of those intangible things about the movie, any movie, that makes it succeed or fail -- that he tries so hard, maybe, to say something about the unfortunate violence of this place, but because he (over-)uses style he fails to live up to his message).  Maybe not so much glamourize it intentionally, but that was the side-effect I saw.  To others, he was trying to make people uncomfortable and succeeding.  I don't think picolas' reaction disproves anything -- it just shows we react in different ways to different things.

We are all way too desensitized anyway.  I'm less desensitized myself, and we all should question whether that's a good thing or not.

The question is what we're being desensitized to. Subtlety? Well then who says there isn't enormous subtlety in stylization, especially City of God's kind of stylization?

I think we're being desensitized to violence, and I didn't find a whole lot of subtlety in City of God.  I guess that would be considered by some as evidence of the very subtlety I couldn't find.  Oh, the irony.

Is it possible that the stylization is the point of the movie, and that it's perfectly sincere stylization?

Sure, it's possible.  But doesn't that make it the empty movie I purport it to be?

Absolutely not. It's amazing to me that people think stylization is meaningless. Why do people never complain about stylization and unecessary visual originality in paintings? Is the story somehow a precious essence that should not be visually tampered with unless it makes complete and obvious sense? What about mysterious visual technique that has emotional or unconscious effects? Isn't the very feeling that picolas experienced proof that these effects work?

I still don't see how stylization can be the POINT of the movie and not have it be empty.  If there is style and no substance, the film is empty.  I admit, there is style and a little substance, but for the substance that was there, there was too much style.  Style has its place, sure.  The best films are all about the "how."  Amelie, an amazing film, has "how" in spades.  But its stylization is employed to create this fanciful world ripe for the tale being told.  Same with Spirited Away.  And Fight Club.  And even Magnolia.

I don't think stylization is "flinching." It doesn't avoid the image, it is the image. (perhaps you're biased by what you think the image is.) And it doesn't have to be just a means, it can be the end.

To me, it is the image, but it is filtered.  That makes it more palatable, more easy to digest.  And again, if we are left with stylization as an "end," what are we really left with?  That's right, The Boondock Saints.  Hi, cowboykurtis.

[Sal]

The visual style fits the content precisely for the reason the directors want to intimidate the viewer.  The relationship to this movie is not the same as the relationship you would have with Goodfellas, an example of a film that does not shy away from violence.  In Goodfellas, Scorsese is not out to intimidate...he is out to bring in.  He wants to include you in a certain lifestyle.  In City of God I would argue for the opposite.  The purpose is to exclude you from that lifestyle, to resist it.  This adds tension because if you want the main protagonist to escape this lifestyle, the thesis becomes as follows:  The only way out is through.  You do not enjoy your time in the City of God.  You are meant, however, to enjoy your time in Goodfellas.

[grand theft sparrow]

I still don't see how stylization can be the POINT of the movie and not have it be empty.  If there is style and no substance, the film is empty.  I admit, there is style and a little substance, but for the substance that was there, there was too much style.  Style has its place, sure.  The best films are all about the "how."  Amelie, an amazing film, has "how" in spades.

I'm a little confused about what you mean by "how".  Because if you strip the style of Amelie (a film I loved as well), you're left with a crappy rom-com fit for Kate Hudson to star in.  And by Amelie's style, I am talking about the style of the screenplay as well as the visual style. If ever a film embodied "style as substance", it's that one.  And I don't think that it's an empty film at all.  

Why did Amelie's style work for you and not CoG?  Maybe I should have given you a chance to respond to Sal's posting above because I think he's onto something about CoG's style (plus, I liked his subtle Nine Inch Nails reference ).  

But its stylization is employed to create this fanciful world ripe for the tale being told.  Same with Spirited Away.  And Fight Club.  And even Magnolia.

That's why I'm so confused.  I don't see the difference between highly stylized work of Fincher or PTA and CoG.  It doesn't have the derivative, bandwagon feel of all those mid-late 90's, neo-Tarantinos that came out.  I disagree with whomever posted earlier (Shaftr, maybe?) that said the aesthetic didn't fit the content.  It fit for exactly the reason that Sal said and also it fit for the rhythm of the music.  In the same way that everyone since Scorsese has used music to relate their characters to the audience, they edit their films to that music.  The rhythm of the streets, to be intentionally corny.  City of God is cut to the rhythm of the streets of the ghetto in Rio; I don't think it's any more or less valid than anything that has gone before it.

I'm really fascinated by this whole debate because I would never have expected this much negative reaction to the film.  I would have guessed it would be one of those universally adored films like... um... the one with the frogs in it, what's it called?

[Alethia]

jurassic park.

[03]

I would have guessed it would be one of those universally adored films like... um... the one with the frogs in it, what's it called?

it is #23 at imdb; and i didn't like magnolia either.

[grand theft sparrow]

i didn't like magnolia either.

No, just to clarify, I do like Magnolia.  are you trying to get me killed, 03?

[03]

i meant, in addition to me disliking city of god.

[RegularKarate]

it is #23 at imdb; and i didn't like magnolia either.

BANNED!


and just when I thought you and I had similar tastes (i.e. good)