Introduction to City of God and Pan's Labyrinth
City of God and Pan's Labyrinth are part of a two-film study in Section A: Global Film on the second exam paper Component 2: Global Filmmaking Perspectives.
You need to write about City of God alongside Pan's Labyrinth, though there is NOT a requirement for you to compare both films. Instead, you should focus half of your essay on this film and the other half of your essay on Pan's Labyrinth.
In the exam you will answer one question from a choice of two. You should spend 60 minutes on your essay - roughly 30 minutes on City of God and 30 minutes on Pan's Labyrinth. The questions will be on one of the Core Areas of Study such as an aspect of film form (focusing on any of cinematography, mise-en-scene, editing, sound or performance), representation (of gender, ethnicity, age or social class), aesthetics (the overall style and feel of the films), or contexts (social, cultural, political, institutional, economic or technological). There is no Specialist Study Area for this section.
Clearly, then, there is a great deal to cover and regardless of the question you must make explicit references to key scenes from both City of God and Pan's Labyrinth to support your points.
City of God is an example of Brazilian national cinema. It is also an international film that secured worldwide distribution and critical acclaim. Its settings in a Rio de Janeiro favela are ‘authentically’ Brazilian and the language is Portuguese, but there are enough genre characteristics to invite comparisons with Hollywood ‘hood’ films. The flamboyant and stylish spectacle of violence and poverty is narrated by a man/boy/observer of the action Buscapé/Rocket the photographer.
The huge success of City of God reflects the resurgent popularity of Latin American/Brazilian cinema, and World Cinema in general in the 21st Century. Since the coming of DVD, audiences have had a much greater opportunity to view films that were once limited to small-scale releases at arthouse cinemas, and as a result of this interest many foreign language films are now gaining much wider releases, with some even appearing at our multiplexes alongside conventional Hollywood blockbusters (eg Hero, The Lives of Others, Hidden).
Mainstream audiences have flocked to see Latin American films such as Amores Perros, Y Tu Mama Tambien (both Mexico) and The Motorcycle Diaries (a Latin American, American and European co-production directed by Brazilian filmmaker Walter Salles) – and there is belief amongst critics that Latin American films are set to rival the popularity enjoyed in recent years by Asian films (especially those from Hong Kong, China and Korea), reflecting the increasing globalisation of cinema.
City of God was well received by journalists and audiences alike, though the film is not without criticism. Some suggest that rather than reflecting a national identity, that the film is too similar to the Hollywood model (something that is often used as a criticism of British films, for example Notting Hill, Love Actually). The style of City of God has been compared to that of Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction) and Martin Scorsese (Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas) – though I would question whether either of these directors make typically mainstream Hollywood films. Whilst many critics praised the film’s hard-hitting depiction of life in the favelas, others accused the filmmakers of voyeurism in its depiction of violence. The flamboyant and stylish spectacle has been criticised as using a nation’s poverty as entertainment, with the audience positioned as passive spectators of ghetto culture, with the inhabitants’ misery made entertaining through the use of MTV-style tricks. NB – you need to think about how far you agree with these statements as questions often focus on the duality of the film as entertainment/informative.
The film made an immediate impact at Cannes (where it was hailed as a masterpiece) and the London Film Festival (both in 2002) and was nominated for Best Cinematography, Best Editing and Best Adapted Screenplay at the 76th Academy Awards in February 2004. Fernando Meirelles was also nominated for Best Director (it didn’t win but the very fact that it was nominated for such high profile awards suggests the impact the film made globally).
On its initial release in the US in January 2003, it appeared on only 5 screens (this exclusive release pattern is typical of foreign-language films in America – it was released on 76 screens in the UK). Rave reviews meant that the film followed the release pattern of many independent films and gradually gained a wider (though still limited) release (NB – this is almost the opposite of the release pattern of a mainstream Hollywood film which generally receives a saturation release [3000+ screens] and then appears on fewer and fewer screens as the weeks go by).
Sold to 62 countries the film has taken over $25 million worldwide (particularly impressive considering its budget was $3.3 million).
The film was released a few months earlier in Brazil where over 3.2 million people saw it in its first three months (a record for a Brazilian film). Meirelles toured Brazil, visiting universities to promote the film and its message and during the 2002 Brazilian Presidential Campaign the film was shown to the Brazilian Cabinet. The successful Presidential candidate, Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva, is on record as telling the director that the film changed a number of his policies. NB – it is useful to think of the film in this light as it allows for discussion regarding City of God as entertainment or the film as one with an overtly political/social message. You should ask yourselves what do you feel the director’s intentions were?
City of God is an example of Brazilian national cinema. It is also an international film that secured worldwide distribution and critical acclaim. Its settings in a Rio de Janeiro favela are ‘authentically’ Brazilian and the language is Portuguese, but there are enough genre characteristics to invite comparisons with Hollywood ‘hood’ films. The flamboyant and stylish spectacle of violence and poverty is narrated by a man/boy/observer of the action Buscapé/Rocket the photographer.
The huge success of City of God reflects the resurgent popularity of Latin American/Brazilian cinema, and World Cinema in general in the 21st Century. Since the coming of DVD, audiences have had a much greater opportunity to view films that were once limited to small-scale releases at arthouse cinemas, and as a result of this interest many foreign language films are now gaining much wider releases, with some even appearing at our multiplexes alongside conventional Hollywood blockbusters (eg Hero, The Lives of Others, Hidden).
Mainstream audiences have flocked to see Latin American films such as Amores Perros, Y Tu Mama Tambien (both Mexico) and The Motorcycle Diaries (a Latin American, American and European co-production directed by Brazilian filmmaker Walter Salles) – and there is belief amongst critics that Latin American films are set to rival the popularity enjoyed in recent years by Asian films (especially those from Hong Kong, China and Korea), reflecting the increasing globalisation of cinema.
City of God was well received by journalists and audiences alike, though the film is not without criticism. Some suggest that rather than reflecting a national identity, that the film is too similar to the Hollywood model (something that is often used as a criticism of British films, for example Notting Hill, Love Actually). The style of City of God has been compared to that of Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction) and Martin Scorsese (Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas) – though I would question whether either of these directors make typically mainstream Hollywood films. Whilst many critics praised the film’s hard-hitting depiction of life in the favelas, others accused the filmmakers of voyeurism in its depiction of violence. The flamboyant and stylish spectacle has been criticised as using a nation’s poverty as entertainment, with the audience positioned as passive spectators of ghetto culture, with the inhabitants’ misery made entertaining through the use of MTV-style tricks. NB – you need to think about how far you agree with these statements as questions often focus on the duality of the film as entertainment/informative.
The film made an immediate impact at Cannes (where it was hailed as a masterpiece) and the London Film Festival (both in 2002) and was nominated for Best Cinematography, Best Editing and Best Adapted Screenplay at the 76th Academy Awards in February 2004. Fernando Meirelles was also nominated for Best Director (it didn’t win but the very fact that it was nominated for such high profile awards suggests the impact the film made globally).
On its initial release in the US in January 2003, it appeared on only 5 screens (this exclusive release pattern is typical of foreign-language films in America – it was released on 76 screens in the UK). Rave reviews meant that the film followed the release pattern of many independent films and gradually gained a wider (though still limited) release (NB – this is almost the opposite of the release pattern of a mainstream Hollywood film which generally receives a saturation release [3000+ screens] and then appears on fewer and fewer screens as the weeks go by).
Sold to 62 countries the film has taken over $25 million worldwide (particularly impressive considering its budget was $3.3 million).
The film was released a few months earlier in Brazil where over 3.2 million people saw it in its first three months (a record for a Brazilian film). Meirelles toured Brazil, visiting universities to promote the film and its message and during the 2002 Brazilian Presidential Campaign the film was shown to the Brazilian Cabinet. The successful Presidential candidate, Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva, is on record as telling the director that the film changed a number of his policies. NB – it is useful to think of the film in this light as it allows for discussion regarding City of God as entertainment or the film as one with an overtly political/social message. You should ask yourselves what do you feel the director’s intentions were?
Comments
Post a Comment