City of God contains a so many subplots that are inevitably set in the crime setup of the Rio de Janeiro slum. The movie’s inescapable portrayal of helplessness, misery and murder makes the ethically conscious ask some questions of it. For example, the desperation of the impoverished masses of City of God makes them lose perspective about all moral considerations. This no holds barred violence can be difficult to comprehend for the audience. But, with a little conscious effort, one can see the inevitability of the criminal culture in the given social and political context. When seen in the backdrop of a failed and corrupt political system of the Brazil of the 1960’s, it is easier to understand the goings on. In this sense, the film is a major achievement for Fernando Meirelles and his team. Although the movie is an indigenous one with an all Brazilian cast and crew, its appeal is universal. This is vindicated by the recognition it received in the Academy of Motion Pictures the year subsequent to its release. It shows to the audiences in the First World, what life could be like in the depraved parts of the Third World (Kavanagh, 2002).
The movie’s unsuitability to women audiences is further supported by one particular scene, where Li’l Ze rapes the wife of a local bus conductor. This makes the bus conductor very bitten and forces him to set upon a course of revenge. Again, this sub-plot contributes to the already overflowing depictions of violence. Cinematographer Cesar Charlone has done a splendid job in employing sophisticated camera wielding techniques, although there is nothing sophisticated about the action being captured. Also, every actor do their designated roles to perfection. In the words of a renowned critic, “Every actor contributes. You sense each knows his character inside and out and would never betray that identity. Mantovani’s script makes its points within the context of its storytelling. Nothing is gratuitous, exploitative or heavy-handed” (Margolis, 2004). Nevertheless, the movie is a tragedy to the core, although some of the events are not quite tragic. In it, the principal characters fully accept violence and quick death as a way of life. Quite ironically, the ambient visuals of the relaxed Brazilian atmosphere fail to dispel the hellish image that the story depicts (Kavanagh, 2002).
City of God shows audiences in the western world the bitter realities of a world that they would never have imagined existed. Usually, any references to Rio de Janeiro are associated with pleasant, exotic vacation spots; and not a shanty town under the control of wild and temperamental hooligans. The film succeeds in the realistic and natural portrayal of these gangsters, which is not a surprise given the fact that the directors employed actual people from the slums of Rio de Janeiro to make it “an eye opening experience” to the sinister aspects of impoverished urban settlements. In this regard, the film fulfils its purpose. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, the movie’s contribution in bringing together disparate social classes and reducing the friction between them is minimal to non-existent (Margolis, 2004).
There are comparisons made between City of God and the Hollywood super-hit Goodfellas. To an extent it is an accurate description of the movie, but there is more to it than that. The most striking difference between the two classics is the lack of a Protagonist in the former. The movie, based on real-life events in Rio de Janeiro of the 1960’s is quite an accurate account of gangster lives in that period. But there is another area where the movie appears a little redundant. For example,
“In other words, it all feels a little too familiar. Too bad it just doesn’t seem fresh. Despite being about Brazilian gangs, a topic most audiences probably don’t think much about, one gets the feeling that, no matter the location in the world, a gang is the same anywhere you go – worshipping guns, money, power, and pride. And the depiction of such a lifestyle seems to be the same from movie to movie, including this one”. (Margolis, 2004)
In essence, to appreciate City of God is to “experience what is so intoxicatingly alluring about the criminal life” (Harazim, 1997). As a result, the discerning patrons of motion pictures can only watch this film with a sense of detachment. What works perfectly in the movie are the depictions of all the characters involved. The various characters don’t confirm to any stereotype but rather exhibit individual traits and personalities and, more interestingly, “make a case for the theory of hard-wired human behaviour” (Harazim, 1997). Also, each major character in the film has a recognizable personality and the audience gets an indication of “how deep each one’s inclination toward crime is due to natural-born tendencies as opposed to social and economic influences”. For instance,