The film City of God engages the critical problem of the representation of power through violence and how it is contrasted with the representation of power through choice, that is, empowering oneself by making the difficult but ‘better’ or ‘right’ choices. This essay will argue that the scene directly before the final battle between the gangs juxtaposes the two different kinds of power, and will show, through close textual analysis of mis en scene, sounds and cinematography, that it forces embodiments of different kinds of power to face each other.
City of God (Cidade de Deus) is a Portuguese film made in 2002 about a housing estate in Rio de Janeiro of the same name. The City of God is where the Brazilian government sends the poor and the homeless to avoid dealing with their problems and preserve the picture postcard image of Rio de Janeiro, and it is one of the most dangerous places in the country. This film tells the stories of some of these characters through the eyes of a single narrator, the young Rocket, a poor fisherman’s son. Rocket claims he is too scared to join the gangs that plague the city, and instead discovers a talent for photography which offers him an escape, and offers us a way to see his world. Across three decades, violence reigns, and the struggle for power controls the city.
The key problem which is explored is the issue of power and how it is acquired, and represented on screen. Gerbner et al. argue that on screen ‘violence is the key to the rule of power. It is the cheapest and quickest dramatic demonstration of who can and who cannot get away with what against whom.’[1] Goffman states that ‘society is organized on the principle that any individual who possesses certain social characteristics has a moral right to expect that others will value and treat him in an appropriate way.’[2] We can apply this to film where characters who act in a particular way (here, violence) ‘expect to and likely will be treated with respect and a degree of deference to the ‘power’ implicit in their behaviour’.[3] The most obvious way that characters wield power in City of God is through aggression and violence; the most feared gangster, Lil Ze, holds court in an atmosphere of fear and brutality, and criminality runs rampant in this city because ‘crime is associated with power’.[4] The problem of this representation of power is that, without analysis, it seems to be the overriding force; it seems to be the only way to fight and win in the City of God. Michel Foucault speaks of power as being defined by forms of resistance to it[5], and in this situation we could argue that the two representations of power in City of God stand as opposition to each other. Each of the opposing groups must actively take up one form of power; they are ‘subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving... may be realised’.[6] We must acknowledge that it is a choice in itself to assert power through violence, but in this film it is viewed as a passive choice, while the decision to take a different path is an active one.
This pursuit of power through violence is juxtaposed, albeit subtly, with power through choice. Rocket, who actively chooses not to join the gangs, to focus instead on his photography and look for a way out of the City, is seen at the end as the one character that is empowered by his actions. His choices are often not the easy ones, he chooses a path quite different from all the other characters in the film, but because he makes the choice and takes action against his environment, he finds true power. Although this is not proved in the scene analysed, directly afterwards we see that by the grace of his choice not to be involved in the gangs, Rocket is one of the few who escapes the battle with his life.
The scene just before the final battle between the gangs is very interesting in terms of this issue of power. It comes at the climax of the film – the gang war has reached epic proportions and we have just seen Ze handing out guns to little kids, arming them to fight on his side. In the scene just before this, a huge feast is being prepared and the chicken, guessing its fate, escapes and runs away. The gang is chasing it when they run into Rocket. This scene encompasses the ideas of power through violence versus power through choice in the mis en scene, cinematography and sound.
This scene begins with a shot of a chicken running to escape being crushed by a truck, then cuts to Rocket and his friend walking and talking about Lil Ze. This is immediately followed by Lil Ze’s gang appearing on the street in pursuit of the chicken. The first key shot is a close up on Lil Ze holding up a gun - the shot becomes slow motion and sound all mutes out. These elements, the close up, the slow motion and the silence all combine to give this character significance, and more importantly, power. This shot is followed with a similar one of Rocket – an extreme close up with muted sound – but his facial expression of concern makes him a less powerful character. The camera cuts back to a wide angle shot of the gang who are all armed and taking up the whole street and almost the whole frame. Their guns, confident swagger and sheer numbers give them a sense of power. A few seconds later, the police show up, and the scene turns into a standoff between the gang and the police. Rocket is shown as being caught between the two figures of power by physically being placed between them on the street. These shots could be read in two ways. Since both the police and the gang are armed, we could say that Rocket was caught between two representations of violent power; or we could say that Rocket was caught between the criminality and violent power of his birthright and the power of choosing to escape and live a better life as represented by the police.
The longest shot in this scene is arguably also the most important, because it clearly articulates the problem in the film by drawing attention to the difference between the symbols for violent power and for the power of choice. The shot starts at a mid shot of Rocket, tracking around him to rest on the gang, blurring in and out of focus, then back to Rocket and around him to the police. It tracks back around to Rocket and focuses on his camera, with the gang out of focus in the background. Not only does this clearly place Rocket in a position of opposition to the gang (and arguably the police) but the focus on his camera is important because it is lending weight to the idea of his asserting power by choosing a different life. The shots following this alternate between the gang posing with their weapons and close ups of Rocket setting up his camera to take a picture. The way these shots are set up place huge emphasis on Rocket and his camera, the focus on his camera almost representing him making a choice as we see him look at the gang, then at his camera, then at the gang through the camera. This could be seen as Rocket weighing his choices, then, choosing the camera, taking a last look back at his old life from the perspective of his new life. Most of the sound in these scenes is muted, making the visuals of huge importance, and the shot tracks the camera as Rocket lifts it to his face. In these shots, Rocket has all the power; all we see is him, all we hear is the clicking of his camera as he adjusts it. The gang poses for the photo, Rocket presses the shutter... This shot, and the one following it are of vital importance because as soon as we hear the click of the camera, it cuts to a shot of the gang and there is a moment of confusion as we see a boy stumble backwards, hurt, before we realise that the crack we heard came from a gun. It is in this moment that the symbols of the two different types of power are inextricably linked – the click of a camera shutter is almost imperceptible from the gunshot – and this seems momentarily to give Rocket’s camera the same power as a gun.
This scene is an illustrative commentary on the problem of representations of power through violence and representations of power through choice. To the casual observer, the only representation of power in this scene is through violence – the gang of aggressive kids with guns seem to be in control of the scene. However, in the context of the whole film, and with close textual analysis, this scene takes on a second representation of power – the power of choice. The mis en scene is clever in the way it sets the characters up, showing their position in the issue, and the props it arms the characters with provide symbols for their type of power (camera versus guns). This scene encourages the ideology that power lies in force and brutality in the way that the gang is shown as stronger, louder and better armed, until the end when it is the boy with the camera that presses the button and the boy with the gun who is shot.
This dichotomy of power is not an unfamiliar one, by any means. It is an ideological battle which is waged across all genres and nationalities of films. Another example of a film which deals with the representation of power both through violence and through choice is New Zealand’s Once Were Warriors. This dark and brutal film focuses on the Heke family and the power struggle between Jake ‘The Muss’ Heke, a drunkard who controls his family through violence and fear, and his wife Beth who stays with her husband despite the abuse. Jake is feared by all, respected by some and loved by none as the only way he understands power is through brutality. In the end Beth finally makes the choice to leave Jake and takes back the power that she lost through years of abuse. ‘One of the film’s principle themes is Beth’s desire to break free of her predicament. Jake remains a slave to his self destructive behaviours, but his wife finds a way out.’[7] Once again we see the conflict between power through violence and power through choice – although the violent power is more clearly expressed, it is the power of choice which yields the greatest results.
The problem of representation of power in film is an important one, because without careful analysis, we only see the obvious assertion of power through violence – we must look closer to see that true empowerment comes through the power of choice. City of God with its constant struggle for dominance is a perfect example of this since violence seems to rule until the end when it is the character that makes the active choice to walk away from that option who survives.
Bibliography
Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson, Film Art. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008.
Eschholz, Sarah and Jana Bufkin, “Crime in the Movies: Investigating the Efficacy of Measures of Both Sex and Gender for Predicting Victimization and Offending in Film,” Sociological Forum 16, no. 4 (2001): 655-676
City of God. DVD. Directed by Fernando Meirelles. 2002; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Miramax, 2003.
Foucault, Michel. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Edited by Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Gerbner, G., L. Gross, N. Signorielli, and M. Morgan, "Television violence, victimization, and power," American Behavioral Scientist 23, no. 5 (1980): 705-716.
Goffman, E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books, 1959.
Gump, James O. “Review of: Once Were Warriors,” The American Historical Review 100, no. 4 (1995): 1217-1219
Messerschmidt, J. Capitalism, Patriarchy and Crime. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1986.
[1]G. Gerbner, L. Gross, N. Signorielli, and M. Morgan, "Television violence, victimization, and power," American Behavioral Scientist 23, no. 5 (1980): 708.
[2] E. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. (New York: Anchor Books, 1959), 13.
[3] Sarah Eschholz and Jana Bufkin, “Crime in the Movies: Investigating the Efficacy of Measures of Both Sex and Gender for Predicting Victimization and Offending in Film,” Sociological Forum 16, no. 4 (2001): 658
[4] J. Messerschmidt, Capitalism, Patriarchy and Crime (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1986), 44.
[5] Michel Foucault, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, ed. Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 211
[6] ibid., 221
[7] James O. Gump “Review of: Once Were Warriors,” The American Historical Review 100, no. 4 (1995): 1218
No comments:
Post a Comment