Your last blog assignment asks you to compare and contrast two recent movies from Brazil: Cidade de Deus and Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo? These movies seem to share several thematic concerns: the representation of poverty and social marginalization, the representation of violence as an everyday phenomenon, corruption within the police force and the government, and the representation of the favela as a culturally important space within urban society. Nonetheless, it seems that there are also important differences between these two films, both in terms of the way that these themes are represented and in terms of the overall message. In this last post, comment on what you notice about the relationships between these two films. How might they speak to each other?
350 words or so.
Having known very little about daily life in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro before watching these two movies, I feel that “City of God” created a much darker and more shocking version of the messages that the movies were trying to send. For instance, the representation of violence in the “City of God” was very memorable: each scene more gruesome than the last. Many of the characters throughout the movie were brutally murdered, but the storyline continues on, accustomed to the violence. In “Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo?” violence was only suggested as a tool of the past, or the audience sees the violence from a distance. The second movie focused more on the corruption present in the authority figures of the city. This message came through by showing the greedy charity owners who worked for personal gain, and not community gain. In “City of God,” the corruption found on the police force plays a vital role in the storyline of the movie, but the main focus remains on the children living in the favela, and their stories. One other difference between these two movies is how the favelas are represented. In “Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo?” the favela did not stand out to the audience. We are shown many shots of peoples’ homes that are able to afford servants, but not much of the favela. In the first movie, we are pretty much only shown the favelas. When the children of the story talk about the city, the city is still considered part of the “slum.” This would suggest that the favelas could be growing, or that the children can never escape them.
ReplyDelete“City of God” was definitely a much more entertaining film to watch, but I do not know if the level of violence that is depicted in the story accurately represents the favelas of Rio de Janeiro, so the movie could have gone too far.
Both of these movies show the extreme aspects of life in the favelas, but they do it in slightly differing ways. I will start with Cidade de Deus.
ReplyDeleteIn Cidade de Deus, life in the favela is shown in a more violent and shicking manner than it is in Quanto Vale. This is acheived through using the life and experiences of an actual favela resident that knows many of the key players in the violence and crime that takes place in the favela. His experinces are absolutely shocking and disturbing to people like us that live in safe and somewhat wealthy environments, but to him they are just eevryday norman life. This movie does a great job of portraying that fact to us. The violence in the favela is presented in a manner that is shocking, but also in a way that shows us the nonchalance of the favela's residents towards this violence. The residents don't even show surprise or fear when they come in contact with armed thugs walking the streets, and they don't even react to dead bodies most of the time. These things are that much a part of everyday life. Police corruption is also a major factor in this movie. The police were taking payments from the drug dealers and gun runners to stay out of their business. There was a type of status quo between the cops and the criminals that was very corrupt. The message of this movie is the hard life that favela residents lead.
Quanto Vale presents the government and corporate side of the hardships of the favela. This movie is about the ways that corporations are using the favelas to make profits for themselves. A company that portrays itself to be helping the favela and its residents is actually taking advantage of it for profit. A citizen of the favela is shown to be fighting this corruption to no avail. I believe that this is a metaphor for the way that the favela is treated in real life. It is looked down on as the lowest form of the human condition, and it is taken advantage of, never actually helped. Corruption leads to this. This film also shows the daily presence of violence, such as when the armed thugs who had just killed a man helped the two corporate guys get their car out of the mud. Violence is so common that the killers aren't even worried about these two being witnesses against them or calling the police on them.
Both of these films were very well done, and I think that they speak to many issues in the favela, most notably corruption and the prevalence of violence in everyday life.
Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo was a more muted portrayal of Brazil’s culture and violence compared to City of God. It was interesting to see that both movies started with a barbecue that represented what was to come in each film. In the City of God, the barbecue was a chaotic event filled with the killing of chickens and blood. The music was more upbeat and put the audience more on edge. However, Quanto Vale had a classier barbecue that was more civilized. They had fruit trays, dressed up individuals, and a birthday cake. This classier barbeque was absent in City of God. City of God’s storyline was propelled by the violence that was chaotic and bloody. Violence became the focus of the film and it seemed that violence was in every scene. The bloody chickens represented the many people that would end up dying in the film. Rocket could be considered the chicken that got away because he was always around the violence but ever seemed to get hurt. His ability to avoid major involvement in crime and stay alive is just like the chicken in the opening scene. This was contrasted in Quanto Vale was a more dramatized screenplay with less violence compared to City. There was violence that occurred in Quanto Vale but it wasn’t the focus. The story told more of the story of people’s lives than the violence that took place in them. The scene of the boy you got shot in the street is a perfect example of how violence was a side story in the movie. When the men got their car stuck in the ditch, the gang men were called to help out. They just killed a boy but they decided to help push the car out. The audience does not witness the murder nor do we meet the victim in this case. This absence is what City of God would include. This large contrast between the two films portrayal of violence shows the different views of the favela and Brazilian culture today.
ReplyDeleteThese two films represented the favela in a way that made it an important part of Brazilian and Latin American culture. Both films show the poverty, corruption, and gang presence however City of God makes this way of a life seem more interesting. In City of God, the gangs are represented by gold, money, and power. If in a gang or doing a favor for a gang it is shown that you can get nice new clothes or bling. This appeals to many young children because it is an easy and fast way to make money. By showing this "glamorous" side of the favela it represents a positive side to being in a gang. However, they also show the fast pace change in loyalty that occurs in the gangs in the favela. People are constantly killing each other if they do something wrong or are threatening. This creates this constant war occurring throughout the favela. The corruption of the police force is also showed throughout this movie. At the end, they let Lil Zee go because of money. This is concerning and shows the bad aspects in the favela and how it is difficult to clean up the streets because of these problems.
ReplyDeleteIn Quanto Vale they represent this favela in a more boring way in my opinion. The favela does not seem as exciting but is focused on the poverty, not so much the gangs. They do show a couple scenes where the gangs are prevalent. Especially, when the social workers car gets stuck and the gang comes over to help with their guns right after they killed someone. This scene happens so non chalantly that it is almost uncomfortable for the audience. Besides that scene the movie is mainly focused on showing these poor kids and how they need help to have a good life. The corruption of this movie is not shown through cops but through the charity organizations to help raise money and provide a better life. These organizations are shown as not always caring about the favelas that much, which relates back to why the gang life is so appealing to the children.
These movies speak to each other in different ways. They both show the struggle of the people in the favelas but one from the perspective of the children and another from the workers that are trying to help the favela. I believe they both leave an important message that help needs to be provided for the kids and families stuck in this lifestyle. The corruption however reduces the amount of help that can be given. At the end of City of God, the boy who sells the photos says, "One photo could keep me safe and one could be a front page photo" in relation to the cops helping out the gangsters. This corruption shows the limitations of help that can be assisted to the favelas.
Prior to viewing these films, I had only heard stories about the favelas through a roommate who spent a semester abroad in Brazil. He told me about the cultural differences, and how not many of the “city folk” interacted with them unless they had to. It was interesting to screen City of God and see some of his descriptions come to life. My roommate once told me a story about a man being chased down the city streets simply for looking like he was from the favelas. His description became even more real to me during the scene when the police officers chased Rocket’s older brother and his companions. I was also surprised by how little I had heard about the violence that occurs in the favelas. Unlike, Quanto Vale: Oe E Por Quilo?, the City of God gives a more violent and gruesome description of gang life. Quanto Vale seemed to put distance between violence and the viewer; perhaps that was part of a major message to suggest that violence and crime in the favelas is still a big issue? Aside from a few shots, the viewer does not get the same sense of being in the favela that is provided through viewing City of God.
ReplyDeleteWhat I really enjoyed about City of God is how the film shows just how difficult it is to avoid violence in the favela. Rocket tried keeping his head down and staying out of the way. He even tried to get a job, yet he lost it. It seemed that everything he did he could not escape the violent favela. However, Rocket finds his way of walking the line between the gang violence in the form of a camera. This gave me a sense that members of these favelas have the power to change their predicament. On the other hand, Quanto Vale seemed like a calling for more support. The images of the poor and sick were much more prevalent than the gang violence.
Both of these pictures try to focus on poverty and the impoverished lives in favelas but go about very different means to represent them and what is being shown to fix them.
ReplyDeleteIn City of God, the favelas are shown to be left to themselves. Gangs fight and create bloodshed, people homes are pillaged, and some people are even raped. For the most part though, the favelas are strictly left to themselves without much or any outside intervention. Being left to its own vices, the life within the favelas does not show signs of improvement and may have even worsened throughout the movie. The idea of the favelas being left to itself is dramatically different from the way that Quanto Vale attempts to portray the favelas. In Quanto Vale, the majority of the story consists of interference from the upper class trying to improve the lives in the favela. No good deed is without its price though, and this film really hits on the idea that the intervention from the upper class is less of a charity and more of a publicity stunt. This stunt is not out of the goodness of the wealthy's hearts but rather out of Greed.
These two films go about drastically different ways of portraying the favela and both films visit the extremes of the levels of interference in fixing the favelas. On one end of the extreme, there is no intervention in the City of God. Without any intervention though, a large amount of blood was spilled and life worsened in the favelas. On the other is is an over-abundance of intervention as portrayed by Quanto Vale. There is so much intervention in the more public setting of the favela that nothing actually gets resolved. This inevitably leads to more violence and greed by the wealthy class.
These films really speak to each other in how the methodology of fixing and improving lives in the favelas is not clear and obvious. The main thing each film can take from each other is that either end of the extreme is not an effective methodology to solving the problems in the favelas.
Both films fight economic inequality in the country of Brazil. They build off each other because all they advocate for a better and greater Brazil. They differ because City of God portrays the favelas different than Quanto Vale. The favelas in City of God are seen as extremely violent with many shootings and robberies. However, in Quanto Vale, the favelas show too much government intervention causing the people to feel overwhelmed and often helpless as well. Overall, the favelas are the central talking point of both films. Everyone realizes the problems associated with the favelas and the effects it has on Brazil's future, especially with such a growing population. The films spoke to each other to fight for the favelas out of kindness. Not because you want to get the public's attention, not because it will help you get elected, but because it's the right thing to do for Brazil and for your country. At the end of the day both films want to show that it's up to the wealthy and the poorest of the poor to finally come together so Brazil can prosper in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe corruption in City of God is seen with the cops as the lead character says this picture will get him out of the favela and the other will get him killed. It goes to show that the policeman need to be paid more so they don't get corrupt or just hire better individuals overall. In Quanto Vale, politicians and nonprofit companies are the corrupt people who are advocating for Brazil to the public. However, it was all a publicity stunt to make more money. It goes to show the state of Brazil and the corruptness that shadows all social classes.
ReplyDeleteCity of God and Quanto Vale are similar in their representation of poverty and corrupt power within the two societies represented. Both films also share similar strategies of illustration. Both films narrate multiple points of views and different characters. Another similarity between the two films is the way the film is divided into sections with each section representing a theme.
ReplyDeleteIn City of God, poverty is depicted by run down buildings, dirty streets, and burglary. The people characters are seen living in small shabby home in crowded areas. There is constant burglary and drug dealing in City of God, which illustrates that, these people have to resort to this way of living without being involved in any civil social structure. In Quanto Vale, poverty is illustrated by depicting some characters having to resort to endless labor.
Little Z being the main power because he simply kills whoever is a threat illustrates the representation of corrupt power in City of God. Also, there is a corruption in the police force in City of God. In Quanto Vale, the wealthy businessmen have a corrupt organization that screw over other people. Both of theses forms of corrupted power illustrate a common theme about these areas of the world.
The similar format of the films is the idea of a narrative voice illustrating themes in the film. These 3rd person illustrations gives the viewer a better sense of the motivations of some of the characters in the film, and a better understanding of what is really going on in each scene. While there is some physical representation by the actions of the characters, the 3rd person narrative illustrates the social inclination so the actions.
The difference in the films would be the type of society that is represented. In City of God, the Favela seemed a little more dangerous and uncontrolled. It seemed to be a city full of uncontrollable youth. The Favela in Quanto Vale seemed to be depicted as poor families struggling with finances more than violence.
Cidade de Deus and Quanto Vale both focus on life in the favelas—dealing with poverty, violence, and corruption within the government. However each film goes about representing that in different ways.
ReplyDeleteCidade de Deus focuses more on the perspective of someone living in the favela. There is one narrator telling his story as well as the stories of the other people in the favela. Quanto Vale alternates by telling historical stories involving slavery in Brazil and modern day struggles for life in poverty. In Cidade de Deus, the narrator is a part of the story, whereas in Quanto Vale, the narrator is unrelated to the plot of the story. In Cidade de Deus, the narrator is actually a part of the story. He doesn't take an active part in all of the events that occur, but he lives in the favela and knows the central characters in the gangs. Using him as a narrator makes the movie seem more like a personal look at life in the favela. The narrator in Quanto Vale resembles narrators often associated with public service announcements or commercials for companies like Save the Children, saying things like: “For only 25 cents a day you can save this child's life.” This symbolic use of the narrator makes it seem like the director is trying to make the whole movie like a PSA—showing what's going on behind the scenes of those ads of ethnically diverse children.
Cidade de Deus focuses more on the individual characters involved and how they perceive the corruption in the police force. The most poignant example of that is at the end when Rocket takes the picture of the police and says “This one will get me killed.” That moment is very important when discussing the corruption of the police. He takes pictures of very violent and powerful gang leaders, and he says those will get him a job or get his picture on the front page. In Quanto Vale corruption is shown more within the NGO charity. The corruption there is shown in a more complicated way. Whereas in Cidade de Deus, the police are only every portrayed as mean and corrupt to everyone in the favela, the executives of the charity are shown in a more complex manner. While they pocket money for themselves and don't give the programs all the money they promised, the one man gives the old woman money to go visit her son in jail. One moment for me that exemplifies this more complex manner of corruption of the executives is when the group comes to protest at the gala, he says they are all his guests and invites them to join the party. He lets the woman leading the protest yell and disrupt the party.
One other difference is how they go about portraying life in favelas. Cidade de Deus goes for shock value. Only a few minutes into the movie we see young children with guns and murdering people. It shocks the viewer into thinking about this lifestyle. Quanto Vale goes for a more subtle approach—sometimes they use straightforward voiceover with images that contrast with what they're saying, sometimes they use historical comparisons. Both films show violence as an everyday part of life, and that in and of itself is shock value. In Cidade de Deus, the violence is more graphic and blatant. In Quanto Vale, the violence is just everyday—we see gang members who just shot someone immediately go over with their guns to help the charity workers get their car unstuck.
The films Cidade de Deus and Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo? both share many distinct similarities and differences. I hadn’t seen either of the films before they were shown in class and I wasn’t familiar with the daily life of Rio de Janeiro so I found this unit very interesting. Both of the films presented the poverty, corruption, and gang presence, but each in a different way. In City of God the violence shown was a lot more vivid. As viewers we saw many murders, mostly of younger or middle-aged kids. The violence in Quanto Vale: Oe E Pro Quilo? was a lot more distant and not the center of the movie. We were shown scenes of slaves getting mistreated, but there weren’t any gruesome killings shown up close, like in City of God. The representation of the favelas in the films were also a lot different. City of God’s storyline focused mainly on the children living in the favelas and how they lived their daily lives. The favelas were a lot more violent and simply putting it, scary. The story was told through looking at the life and experiences of boys actually living in the favela and how their daily lives looked. The boys never showed fear when they were in dangerous situations, which made it seem as if they were used to it and it was normal for them to witness murder. In Quanto Vale: Oe E Pro Quilo? we were not shown as much of the favelas and more of the homes of the wealthy people who were able to have servants or “slaves.” We were shown the government side of the “slums.” One thing in this movie that really shocked me was that the companies who were supposed to be helping the favelas were taking it for benefit and trying to make profit off of it. They would set up commercials to look as if they were making a big difference to the favelas, but they actually weren’t. The two films are similar to each other, but they also have many differences. Personally, I think Quanto Vale: Oe E Pro Quilo? is a more tamed and muted portrayal of Brazil’c culture compared to City of God. Because of this, I thought City of God was a lot more entertaining to watch, but I still enjoyed both of the films.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have seen City of God previously, I did thoroughly enjoy the film a second time through. I find it to be a very interesting film, of course that could easily be because I enjoy gang style films. Quanto vale was a bit different. Initially I was confused while watching it. Around midway through the film, I realized that the director was attempting to draw a relationship between the ancient slave trade, and the current status of the favelas. I think the point that both films are most easily comparable is the acceptability of violence in the favelas. In City of God, it takes some time for any real violence to occur. And then Lil Dice goes on a killing spree and many deaths occur after that, and for nearly the entire movie killing is the norm. Until Lil Ze kills the several of the Runts, the viewer does not feel upset in the slightest at any of the killings. Which I believe is the point. Similarly in Quanto vale, when the aid workers get stuck on the road, the gang casually moves the body of the person they just killed out of the way and helps push the car out of the mud.
ReplyDeleteOne of the key differences in each film is the overall message that the film sends to the viewer. In Quanto vale, it seems to be that many of the overall themes of slavery still exist in Brazilian society, and those that live in the favelas are still looked down upon by the rest of society. City of God does not really deal with this aspect of society. It focuses more on the rise to power of a gangster and how Rocket is able to achieve his dreams despite growing up in complete poverty. While both films have this difference, they are similar and I do think that they do speak to each other. Both portray the complete poverty of the favela and what it takes to survive in the favelas. In a bit of a stretch, City of God shows how the rest of Brazil looks down on the favelas by how the entire police force is corrupt. In Quanto vale, the view of the favela by the rest of Brazil is more overt. The Aid agencies only exist to make the upper tier of the agency rich and actually provide little aid to the favelas.
The first major difference I noticed between Cidade de Deus and Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo? Is the way the narrative was told. In Cidade de Deus, the narrative is told by one person throughout the film. In Quanto Vale, the narrative is switched multiple times throughout the film. The similarity in these two films is that the narrative is told overhead for most of the film, even though there is dialogue in these films as well. There are multiple perspectives in both these films but the main difference is the one narrator vs multiple narrators.
ReplyDeleteThe main similarity in both films is that they tell the story of the favelas in Brazil. Although they are told differently, they both seek to show the truths of the favelas in their own way. The differences in these stories is that in Quanto Vale, the nonprofit organization is seeking to help the people in the favela while in Cidade de Deus, the boy from the favela is trying to put out the truth through photographs. Both of these stories hide some aspects of the truth, while the photographer doesn’t give all the pictures to the newspaper and the nonprofit organization distorts some of the images. The biggest distortion of the truth in Quanto Vale is the scene where they give juice to the homeless people and they start to vomit it up and film this vomiting to help get sympathy for them.
The last difference I will talk about is the violence that is portrayed in these films. In Cidade de Deus, there is more violence shown as well as more of a prevalence of violence. There is not much emotion shown in the deaths that happen in the favelas with the exception of one or two scenes. In Quanto Vale, there is less violence but more emotion shown in the deaths. When the nonprofit workers were going to the computer opening, they get stuck in a situation and the viewer can clearly tell that the workers were not comfortable with the situation. This is the total opposite in Cidade de Deus when a character is presented with violence; they don’t show that much emotion and are not really surprised by it.
ReplyDeleteThe films City of God and Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo?, the cultural problems present in the Brazilian slums is put in very noticeable light. It is clearly shown how there is violence everywhere you look in the city. In Quanto Vale, a man gets killed in the middle of the street by a gang of men, but the gang is nice enough to help the businessmen in the story in getting their vehicle out from being stuck. It just goes to show that being cold-blooded murderers is commonplace in the city, even common enough to not faze the nice guys. This commonality of murder is a more central theme in City of God. It seems like there is never a scene in the movie where someone is not shot or killed by the drug-dealing gang.
A second common theme that can be seen in both films is the way that businesses dominate the poverty-stricken areas. In Quanto Vale, the business men selling overpriced computers are the clear monopolizers of the area, getting awards for doing business that seems good to the wealthy public but is really corrupt. In City of God, the business runs the town. If you weren’t in it, you did not mess with anyone involved, because that was just like asking to get killed. Even the police were involved in the scandals of the dealers. There was no way to stop the dealing, and there was no way to stop the relentless killings. The two movies portrayed the injustices of the slums quite well.
I really enjoyed watching City of God much more than the other mostly because it had quite a similar format to Fight Club in how the narrator is the main character, you see the last scene first, and the side stories fit well with the main story. I’m also a sucker for some violence.
There were two profound differences to me in the Quanto vale and City of God. One was the time. City of God took place from the 60's to the 80's, where as Quanto Vale was a story that compared modern day (around the late 90's it looked like) Rio to the Brazilian slave era. The beauty of the films was that they had the same goals. It was as much to gain awareness, as to entertain, and I feel that in Quanto Vale, the goal was more exclusively to inform. This brings us to the other major difference: the lighting and style. City of God had such a distinct lighting, everything was very warm feeling. As if the sun shone brighter there. Quanto Vale had pretty basic appearing lighting, yet some of the shots in the slave era were very stylized and emphasized specifics. I also love the way City of God was shot. The quick cuts and changing camera angles to retell the same story from different perspectives was great. I could not help be reminded of another movie I enjoy about criminal underworld: Snatch. Overall it seemed that City of God was more intended to be enjoyed, and Quanto Vale was to inform, but maybe that is just because I enjoyed City of God more.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main things that I found similar between the two movies was the idea of corruption within the local authorities. In City of God the end of the film shows the police taking money from Lil Ze and Rocket explains that the photo he took of them would get him killed. In Quanto Vale we are shown the corruption of the local authorities as well. This sheds light on the fact that pretty much everyone in these films is 'dirty' to some degree. Both films are full of complex individuals that walk the line between good and evil. Showing this relationship between the slums and the authorities sheds that on the fact that there are multiple areas that need cleaning.
ReplyDeleteA difference between the films is the way that the films express their message. City of God does a good job a showing the audience the uncomfortable and uncanny idea of child soldiers. It engulfs you in a story about a kid who is stuck living in these slums. By giving you this personal experience in the slums it is much more gritty and violent. Quanto Vale feels like it has a more overhead view from a distance. This view is a realistic from the audience's perspective. By having this view it seems to really point out that while it may look nice there is really a lot going on here. I preferred City of God just becuase it gives you that crazy and unsettling feeling of a story from inside the slums.
For me, these films were very different from each other. I think the reason they were so different from each other was the fact that they were portraying opposite sides of the issue. In City of God, they showed us the violence first hand and the focus was on those directly involved with the violence. In Quanto Vale, we’re shown these people almost on the outside of the problem. The closest we get to the type of violence shown in City of God is when those people get their car stuck and see a little boy shot dead on the ground. What I did notice in Quanto Vale is that same attitude about violence. Both films portrayed this frame of mind that violence is and everyday occurrence and almost that it’s inherently who they are. City of God presented the violence in a very raw way that sort of created this feeling real time, like if we were there this is exactly what we would be seeing and feeling. The quick cuts made it fast-paced and edgy. Quanto Vale is much more slow moving. It’s almost as if the pace of these films symbolizes the quickness of the action taken by both parties to resolve the issue of violence.
ReplyDeleteAnother obvious difference I noticed was the representation of the favela. The main focus in City of God is the favela because that’s where everything takes place, that’s really all we see. However, in Quanto Vale they don’t ever really show the favela to its full entirety. I think that further enforces the feeling of characters being ‘outsiders’. In City of God the favela is their whole lives and in Quanto Vale it’s merely that area of violence and poverty. In the end, both of the films desensitize violence but still illustrate the urgency to solve the issue. They differ in their aesthetics but still leave the audience with the feeling that there is something very wrong going on in Brazil.
In City of God, the film traced the lives of multiple different young boys living on the street in a specific time (the 1970’s). Therefore, the film only offered one lens on life in a favela. In Quanto Vale, the film traced many different lives, including those of the poorest and the wealthiest in Brazil. The film also offered flashbacks to times of slavery, which provided a unique perspective on the history of poverty. Quanto Vale allows the viewer access to multiple different views on the situation of poverty.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there were multiple lenses on poverty in Quanto Vale, City of God allows a unique way for the audience to both identify and develop a relationship with the characters, that wasn’t necessarily as prominent in Quanto Vale. Despite the fact that City of God was extremely fast moving and chaotic, the fact that it maintained stability in the type of characters the film followed (young, ‘hood’ boys), offered depth to each of the characters. I also think it was important that we watched these two movies next to each other, because Quanto Vale covered a lot of the broader problems (such as the class system that has been enacted since slavery, and the government’s neglect for the poor).
I think Quanto Vale helped to develop the characters from City of God even further. It’s possible for people to understand the violent behaviors of the characters more, because Quanto Vale depicts the neglectful treatment of those living in poverty in Brazil.
Overall, I think that the two films play very well off of each other by providing two different lenses on poverty in Brazil. They do a good job depicting how art can tell a lot about societal problems, and I think watching both films side-by-side allows a viewer to understand the social unrest in depth. While City of God provides a look into one specific gang and their specific members, Quanto Vale allows viewers to look at the problem as a whole. Watching the two together sends a stronger message for both movies.
There are definite similarities in these films with the prevalence of political figures being corrupt, and that the presence of violence in every day life is so common, that it almost goes unnoticed. I would like to believe that the display of violence in these movies was a hyperbole, but I believe the directors put the violence in an exaggerated manner to display to the audience that doesn't experience life in the slums how violent the favelas are.
ReplyDeleteAnother similarity is the display of favelas in the movies. Favelas are extremely prevalent, and a lot of what happens in them are very "hush-hush" so that people outside of the favelas aren't wrapped in them.
I think these two films show the culture of Brazil in current times. The favelas and the daily life that goes on in them seems to be a very important part of Brazil today. In “City of God” we actually get to go inside them and see what the lives of the people are like whom live and deal with the struggles every day. In “Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo?” you don’t see the violence and the real action first hand. You see it from a far and that is a big way that the two films are different. It is nice to see the same ideas in different perspectives, gives the audience more of the whole picture. If we only saw one of the films we wouldn’t have got the other perspective and might have missed the message. In both films we see the same ideas though, the corrupt systems and the violence being a large part of that. Personally I enjoyed “City of God” more, there was more action and seeing it up close was more enjoyable for me. I was able to follow the action more too, the corrupt cops and the violence stood out to me more. But without seeing “Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo?” I would not have had another view of the themes. Even though I didn’t enjoy it as much I think it was still valuable to see both films
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think that the two films' biggest themes revolve around violence and poverty issues. "Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo" main focus is on the wealth gap between the rich and the poor in Rio de Janeiro. "Cidade de Deus" focuses on the violence in the favelas and poorer areas of Rio de Janeiro. They both include aspects from both themes but choose to focus on one or the other.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, in "Cidade de Deus", the viewer can see how poor the families in the favelas are, and how tough of a life that they live. However, the viewer does no get to see the contrast of wealth like they do in "Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo". "Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo" shows the life of the poor and the rich.
Violence in "Cidade de Deus" is much more "in your face". It is quite graphic in some instances and shows the viewer how serious and grim the violence can get in Rio de Janeiro. On the other hand, "Quanto Vale: Ou E Por Quilo" does not include much violence. However, the little bit that it shows is quite powerful. It shows how much the violence becomes a part of Rio's citizens' every day lives.
These films together offer a form of insight to the problems that Rio de Janeiro faces on a daily basis. It does not just stop at Rio though. There are many cities in the global south that are in similar situations; most of the global north is either unaware of theses problems that exist, or they just do not care. Both of these films can be used to help open people's eyes and hopefully incite them to try and do something about it.
To me, both movies had very similar story lines and the two directors captured the same shots. Both movies began with a bbq and evolved into a violent viewing of life in Brazil. While City of God showed the violence that was seen in the favelas with little reference to the actual city, Quanto Vale was centered on the type of violence that took place within the city and only mentioned the outskirts of town. They both followed a main character throughout the film while showing multiple views of other people along the way. City of God illustrates this well and makes the different view points obvious where Quanto Vale did not.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest thing that I found interesting from one film to the other is that in City of God, they wanted to get out of the slums and away from the violence. Thinking that the city was the answer to get away from such a thing. We see in Quanto Vale that this is not how it works. Living in the city seems to be rough in order to get by and the violence is in a different nature. At this point, if you double cross the wrong person, they hire someone to kill you. This shows us that the violence doesn't stop at the favelas, but does talk about the drastic lines of crossing into them. The main "bad" guys in the film also have similarities as well as the main characters. In both films they main characters do work for the "bad" side and can talk to them. The only real difference seems to be that at the end of Quanto Vale, she is nearly murdered by a guy hired to kill her where Rocket was still seen as a helper for taking photographs.
Both films show a violent life and the hard times that happens in Brazil. They were very insightful and showed great aspects of living in such a violent prone country. This is something that many people may not understand or get to see since the US is sheltered by this