Page 1 of 1

A city of God

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:54 am
by Mik
I don't understand, how it could climb up so high so quickly?

Re: A city of God

PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 4:02 pm
by HenryGinsberg
It needs a minimum of 80 votes to get on the list. When a film first aquires 80 votes, most of the people who have seen it are people who were attracted to the subject matter and cinematic style. People who aren't so attracted to the themes or style of City of God will be encouraged to see it because of it's high place in the top 100. Not being so into COG's particular style they are likely to rate it lower than those who have already seen it. I predict that a month from now, COG will have droped out of the top 10.

Re: A city of God

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2003 3:13 am
by auteur
The film is technically brilliant but shallow and exploitative. I hope Henry's right because [i]City of God[/i] does not belong in the Top 100, let alone at #5!?!

Re: A city of God

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:57 pm
by HenryGinsberg
I would not agree that City of God is shallow. I think that there is a popular thinking these days that a film is shallow if it isn't a complex study of the human condition or an alogory on contemporary American society (infact we sometimes label a film as being shallow if it isn't anti-American). City of God is a (reletively) simple "crime doesn't pay" drama, which also manages to say quite a lot about the notion that we all in one way or another have our time at the top. On those strengths, I think it is a great film and certainly isn't shallow. And I don't think that calling it exploitive is a valid criticism, because that's what the film is supposed to be.

Re: A city of God

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:17 pm
by Gaz
Hmm, this raises the question: is there ever an instance where exploitation can be viewed in a positive light? Henry thinks so, I'm not so sure, though I haven't seen City of God so I can't comment on this particular film.

Re: A city of God

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:42 pm
by HenryGinsberg
Ok, when I said it is sopposed to be exploitative...that's not what I meant to say (infact, now I'm not atall sure what I was trying to say at that point). What I should have said is that it is not fair to say a film is bad because it is exploitative when it is inevetable that a film of this type will present us with a situation where we could argue weather or not it is exploitative. You could argue that City of God exploits Brazilians in the same way that you could argue that The Godfather exploits Italians, but I'm sure that the intention of the director in both of those cases was not to be exploitative. The argument I think could be made about COG is that it takes Brazilian slum districts and uses them simply as a platform on which to stage a gangster film. However when we see a film like Goodfellas, we don't imediately think of it as exploiting Italian Americans because we have already seen The Godfather. We have become familiar with a certain portrail of Italian Americans (which may well be unnjust)and the mafia has become a popular topic for American cinema. Since we have rarely or never seen a Brazilian gangster film, it is easy to single out COG as an exploitation. Incidentaly, when The Godfather came out and it was one of the first films to focus specificaly on Italians, it caused anger among the Italian American community, to the point that Francis Ford donated them a percentage of he film's profits and deleted the word "mafia" from the script.

I don't think that exploitation can be viewed as posotive, but I think it is justifiable when it is aplyed to art. If COG had mearly aimed to entertain a large audience, then I would be inclined to say that it was wrong.

Re: A city of God

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 4:47 pm
by john-5
I had heard so much adulation for the film i was more than a little disappointed with it. Exuberant style etc but it simply wasn't to my taste.