a visual defense of city of god

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.

I think I was getting at something else... did its stylization offend you?

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 . . . Maybe not so much glamourize it intentionally, but that was the side-effect I saw.

This may be a totally subjective thing, because I have never heard from anyone else that the stylization in City of God is glamourous. (Plus, the only characters that are glamourized turn out to be definite sad and tragic figures.) So (especially in context) I can't find any glamourization. If you're saying that stylization is inherently glamourization, that's just silly. What about something like Requiem for a Dream?

And the most serious scenes of violence (Lil Dice being a child murderer, the "hand or foot" scene with the kids in the street) aren't even stylized. Perhaps you're making a wide connection here--that because the movie is about violence, any stylization is indirectly stylizing violence.

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 . . . 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.

Isn't this another one of your false dichotomies, Ono? Style vs. Substance? Unless your definition of "style" is superficial, I don't think that's an actual conflict. And why are you defining film based on how much of the image's original purity has been lost? I couldn't disagree with that more. The cinematic image is a modification, not a filter. I think of it as a new image, not as a lesser version of the original image. So in that sense, the modification, the "style," is the image. I think the idea of a "filtered image" is inherently biased because it connotes a kind of deteriorating subjective convenience. Like it isn't really the image, it's just your convenient version of the image. I don't believe in the purity of the image. Does every image captured by a camera have an original purity? And wouldn't that attach motivation to the camera?

[©brad]

jb i could kiss you right now.

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?

YES! and this is the same question i ask to all of the oliver stone haters who bitch about the same thing.

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?

absolutely!

i do not understand how u peeps can call urselves cinephiles or movie buffs (or whatever nomenclature u prefer), and be sitting here bitching about the visual asthetic of this movie. you're thinking and living in book terms. film is such a medium of the eye. why not, as a filmmaker, use every tool to your advantage to make your film live, breathe, influence, etc., as long as your visuals do not overpower the story (which in this particular case, i firmly believe they do not. the visuals take the story to another level (a much more visceral level) and in turn distinguish this film from the generic, made-for-HBO, drug-gansta war films we get all the time).  

and pickles, i love u buddy, but jeremiah is right. whatever your opinion on the finished product maybe, the fact that you experienced those feelings prooves that the visuals are working.

[picolas]

and pickles, i love u buddy, but jeremiah is right. whatever your opinion on the finished product maybe, the fact that you experienced those feelings prooves that the visuals are working.

my reaction has been misinterpreted. they were such unnecessary, meaningless shots that i felt BAD watching them. my feelings were as removed from the story and characters and themes as the visuals were. the visuals didn't make me feel bad about the situation and dumb violence and gangs etc. the visuals made me feel bad about the visuals.