Social, Cultural and Political Contexts of City of God and Pan's Labyrinth

“Cinema is an incomparable vehicle for the assertion of cultural idiosyncrasy and the presentation of difference in a world where cultural variety is being rapidly assimilated into deadening, dehumanising monotony”

Julianne Burton, Cinema and Social Change in Latin America

Clearly part of the film’s popularity is due to the fact that filmgoers, particularly those in the 18-25 demographic, were able to somehow connect with the film through its style and genre features which allowed them to absorb some of the more serious political and social issues that the film raises.

The reputation gained by City of God was for much part that of a film that reveals the true facts about poverty in the slums of Rio de Janeiro and the endemic nature of the violence that accompanies it. Given the publicity it received, the nature of some of the rave reviews (which you must read!) and the stated intention of the filmmakers it can be seen as a political film with a message. At the same time it relies heavily on the artificiality of cinematic techniques and a complex narrative structure, not the realist style formerly associated with films about social deprivation.

NB: You should think about the form that a film’s message should take, and whether such films should contain suggestions as to the possible origin and remedy of the social inequality they represent – and consider whether the poverty and violence of the underdeveloped and exploited world as ‘aesthetic objects’ in an ongoing search for entertainment.

Brazil is part of the “developing world” and the largest country in Latin America, covering about half the continent. It is the fifth largest country in the world in terms of both land area and its population of about 163.7 million. An estimated 20 % of the population (32 million) live in absolute poverty. The disparity between those living below the poverty line (who receive 2% of the GDP) and the top 10% (who receive 50.6%) is greater than most other countries in the world.

Brazil is part of the ‘developing world’, and the largest country in Latin America.

Fifth largest country in the world in terms of land area and population (164 million).

20% of the population (32 million) live in absolute poverty.

Despite this poverty, the Third World status of Brazil was not the image shown to the world in Hollywood films, where the country provided a colourful backdrop to escapist fare, such as a number of musicals (eg Flying Down to Rio), where the Brazil was portrayed as a playground for the wealthy. Alternative views of Brazil in American films were that of a country that was full of passion and sexuality – being Latin was (and some would argue, still is) a metaphor for sexual prowess. Neither of these ‘exotic’ views of Brazil hinted at the reality of the poverty of the country, and as a result gave a false representation.

Cinema Novo – “an idea in your head and a camera in your head” – Glauber Rocha. In the 1960s Brazilian cinema became an agent for social change rather than profit as political, social documentaries dealing with domestic problems subverted the escapism and resolution of the classical Hollywood narrative. This movement became known as Cinema Novo. The Brazil shown here was one of exploitation, violence and deprivation.

As various political upheavals rocked the country, filmmakers continued to respond, drawing attention to the failure of subsequent political parties and military dictatorships to deal with the social problems (low employment, poverty, crime, poor education, poor housing etc) that were affecting the country.

From the mid 1980s cinema audiences fell dramatically as sever economic recession impacted on the poor who formed the popular audience, and cinemas closed in impoverished parts of large towns and rural areas. By 1990, Cannes Film Festival Director (and Brazilian filmmaker Hector Babenco) pronounced that ‘Brazilian cinema is dead’.

In the 1980s Brazil only produced 5 or 6 feature films a year but by 2002 (thanks to a number of government initiatives) the country produced 45 films.

The New Brazilian cinema of the 1990s revisited many of the themes of Cinema Novo, and Brazilian films began to receive critical acclaim as well as commercial success. Were it not for this revitalisation of the Brazilian film industry it is unlikely that City of God would have been so successful.
Economically dependent and dominated by the USA in the 20th century. In 2002, the year the film was made, ex-metalworker Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva was elected as President on his fourth attempt. Head of PT, the Worker’s Party, he led the first left-wing government to be in power for more than 40 years. He promised economic prosperity fairly distributed to all Brazilians.
Use Knockout Ned as an example of someone who is drawn back into a life of crime as a result of the government etc

A major social and political message of City of God is that poverty leads to crime... Knockout Ned is assured and handsome. He has lived outside the favela as he served for the military, as well as this his job as a bus fare collector also takes him into the outside world. He has no thought of antagonising others. The rape of his girlfriend and the murder of his brother and father draw him back in. He contrasts with Zé in his appearance, a fact commented on by Rocket. Whereas Ned is tall and handsome Zé is pequeno (small). Unlike Zé, who is given no motivation other than inherent evil, Ned’s fall into violence is motivated by the need for revenge. Ned is the tragic hero, drawn into gang warfare and forced to use his physical prowess and skills as a marksman when he embarks on his quest for retribution. Described by Rocket as a hero who takes on the bad guy, initially welcomed as some sort of saviour or champion by the inhabitants of the City of God, he is transformed into a kind of terrible avenging angel.

Latin American Cinema

Post World War I – USA cinema dominated Latin American Cinema and national film production diminished. Hollywood dubbed versions of their own films and also made some films in Spanish and Portuguese. Latin Americans often portrayed as villains in these films.

During World War II – Hollywood exploited the Latin American market to offset poor performance in Europe. Propaganda films made by Hollywood and distributed to Latin America to counteract the pro-German/Italian population in Brazil and Argentina. Spain and Portugal, both ruled by right-wing fascist dictators, had close spiritual and linguistic ties with the continent. Politically as well as economically the USA required South America to be on side. In order to maximise the appeal of Hollywood movies the films had to do two things – provide a more sympathetic portrayal of Latin Americans (rather than the villainous stereotype) and produce Latin American films featuring Latin stars and Latin American themes and locations.

Post World War II – domestic film production increased, particularly in Mexico and Brazil (still the leading powers in Latin American film production). Rising nationalism and militancy in the 1950s and 1960s meant that attention was focused on social change and many Latin American directors explored cinema’s potential to create awareness of political issues bring about change. Cinema became seen as an important weapon in terms of reflecting social inequalities – and a new kind of cinema was born that used a documentary style and rejected the Hollywood type of studio-based production. Working with a minimum of equipment filmmakers felt that they uncovered a more genuine national identity previously obscured by more stylistic studio production.

Third Cinema – “I know that cinema can’t change the world, but I still feel that it’s the most important means of expression in this century, because it directs itself to the emotions and the subconscious of the people. Cinema has not changed the world, but the way of understanding the world in this century.” – Carlos Diegues, The Mind of Cinema Novo.

The calls for a new kind of cinema, one that reflected indigenous culture and opposed mainstream practices (a sort of social documentary), led to what was known as Third Cinema. Low cost, activist cinema, that remained true to its national roots, meant more freedom of expression for filmmakers compared to the Hollywood studio system, and did not have to appeal to a universal market – instead it could therefore address particularly relevant social issues. Third Cinema was defined by its difference to Hollywood, in terms of both content and the way that the films addressed their audience:

1. First Cinema – the ‘industrial’ cinema of classical Hollywood = a producer’s cinema that encouraged passive spectatorship

2. Second Cinema – an individualist ‘auteur cinema’ = an intellectual practice that also positioned its audience as passive

3. Third Cinema – a ‘militant’ socialist cinema = interact with the audience and rouse the spectator into political action

City of God certainly shares some of the elements of this earlier Latin American cinema movement (political in nature, a style and narrative structure different to Hollywood, dealing with social issues, the refusal to have the problems that are addressed solved by the actions of one individual, no neat or easy conclusive closure) BUT remember that much of the criticism of the film suggests the style is too flashy, glorifying the violence and social deprivation, and that the film has been criticised for failing to address the causes of the problems (a key function of Third Cinema).