A Fine Moment from Our Finest Hour

Forever The Moment

Alternative Titles: Our Finest Hour, Uri Saengae Choego-ui Sungan

Year: 2008

Country: South Korea

Runtime: 2 hr and 4 min approx.

‘Forever the Moment’ (also known as ‘Our Finest Hour’) from South Korea, is a partially true (some events and characters are fictional) story of the events surrounding the South Korean women’s handball team and its journey to reach the finals of the 2004 Athens Olympics.

Like most movies made out of sport, this too, follows the worn down line of showing the team’s genesis, individual struggles of some players (and how they eventually overcome it), how they find motivation in the darkest of hours, and eventually triumph (?).

Spoilers Follow – The movie’s climax has been revealed.

If you followed the Athens Olympics, you’d know that Korea lost a close encounter in the finals to Denmark. In the movie, this match comes down to the line, with a penalty shootout determining the fate of the two teams involved. In a make or die situation, Mi-Sook, arguably the protagonist of the story, misses her shot, and Korea has to settle for the silver.

You’ve seen various winning and losing moments in a sport film. But I’m sure you haven’t seen a brilliant take like this. Instead of showing her penalty and the works (the goalie, the shot etc), all we see is Mi-Sook and the people behind her. We DO NOT see the goalie and the goal. And 2 seconds after the ball leaves her hand, the result is obvious. We DON’T see her missing the shot. From the same camera angle, we see Mi-Sook’s shoulder drooping, her face losing all the energy and her legs giving away, her eyes not wanting to believe what just happened, her team-mates aghast, disappointed and the Denmark bench in raptures, predictably ecstatic. The shot becomes even more pronounced considering the fact that every other shot of the penalty shootout is shown in its entirety.

Sport movies often tend to hype the final play, the grand finale, and prolong it to an extent where it becomes unbearable. For someone who’s seen movies like this that tend to make a grand show of ‘THE MOMENT’, it was refreshing to see such innovative screenplay. The guts to not show the moment, the audacity to not tell the viewer directly that the shot was a miss… it was wonderful if you ask me.

M - ... Wow!

M

Year: 1931.

Country: Germany.

Principal Cast: Peter Lorre, Otto Wernicke, Gustaf Grundgens and others.

Directed by: Fritz Lang.

Runtime: 1 hour 50 minutes approx.

Fritz Lang’s classic psychological thriller.

Have I ever told you that I’m a sucker for serial killer movies? I haven’t? Well now you know.

Infact, I’ve even grown to classify them into a few types.

For me, a good serial killer movie is an engrossing tale about a person committing crimes in quick (not necessarily so) succession. It is often a story about who the killer turns out to be, and how they (the police, private investigators and you know, the works) catch him. Some movies choose to reveal the killer’s identity eventually, while others continue the suspense and mystery with an open ending which leaves us with no clear ideas whatsoever on the killer.

A great serial killer flick has all this, while subtly trying to tackle some other issue of relevance. The best example I can provide at the moment is ‘Memories of Murder’ where apart from the usual serial killer escapades we were subject to dark humour predominantly circulating around the then police practices and the methods they used to ‘catch’ a culprit. Such a movie keeps you engrossed, but makes you think even after its runtime. Not necessarily about the killer alone, but that subtle message that it wanted to air.

‘M’ is without doubt, a great serial killer movie.

The movie begins with a take of a few children playing around singing ‘Just you wait a little while, the nasty man in black will come. With his little chopper, he will chop you up!’. A wonderful way to introduce the plot, if you ask me. Children are rapidly disappearing in a German city and chaos ensues in an attempt to nab the child murderer. As expected the police are pressured in a big way and the whole force is galvanized into finding this one man who is responsible for the death of 5 children. As you might expect, the rest of the rest of the movie focuses on how the cops eventually find the culprit.

Whoa, hold it. I did tell you this was a great movie, right?

This is where ‘M’ throws an interesting plot twist at you. Indirect consequences of the urgency to arrest the child murderer include maximum security, unprecedented police raids and the like… all of which disrupt the hitherto smooth activities of the criminal underworld. In what I can only describe as a masterstroke, the crime lords conspire to work together to catch the murderer. The rest as they say is a movie well worth your time.

Much of that credit goes to the cast and the writer-director team of Thea van Harbou and Fritz Lang. Peter Lorre as Hans Beckert is perhaps the first (?) and most definitive portrayals of a serial killer. A character that must have set a precedent, for we often see serial killers in the same shade. Beckert is perfection. A guy who is as normal as they come, whose killer instincts and motives are best described by the movie as being triggered by an ‘instantaneous impulse’. There are other clearly discernable characters such as Franz, Lohmann and Schranker but I’ll stop here. Suffice to say that ‘M’ is so filled with characters that you’re bound to like. Elsie’s mother, the blind beggar, the guy who trails Beckert, the old guy who’s mistaken for the murderer… there are many more! Harbou and Lang must have spent quite some time developing the populace, and they seem too have done an excellent job of it.

The usual characterization and plot apart, there are several little things I love about this movie. Some scenes, a few portrayals and the dark typically noir-esque ambience it successfully creates. In doing so, ‘M’ carves a niche for itself.

For example, take the scene where we first meet the killer face to face. His introduction is synchronized with a graphologist’s description. (“The very particular shape of the letters indicates in this man a very strong and pathological sexuality. Some of the broken letters reveal an actor’s personality which can be indolent or even lazy.”). Telling us in the clearest of ways, how aptly the character can be described. Or the scene where the distraught mom shouts her daughter’s name. ‘Elsie!’, we hear the name three times, each time the frame shifts to a new location… locations that were perhaps frequented by the girl, poignantly signifying that something is amiss. And to confirm our worst premonitions in the most wonderful way, we see her toy, a ball, rolling out of a few bushes and her balloon stuck on electricity wires. ‘M’ takes its sweet time to develop its plot, but it marvels in sequences like this. Sequences that speak volumes without actually saying much.

Infact, one of the best things about the cinematography, in my opinion, were the sudden muted sequences that the screenplay was brilliantly interspersed with. Introduced a few times, they are perfect examples as to how cinema can show so much without actually saying anything. I also loved the way the camera, in a few instances focused on WHAT was being said, rather than WHO said it (For example, the scene where Lohmann recounts the damage to the office). That aside, the lighting was perfect in nearly every scene making you believe that this is every inch a dark thriller.

And to cap it all, the final scene in the dilapidated refinery where the ‘criminals’ decide to ‘judge’ the killer. Pure genius. I can’t begin to say what I liked more. There is the inherent irony of criminals trying to pass judgment on a criminal so that they can peacefully resume their criminal activities. There is the attempt to make it as legal as possible, with even a defense council (yes of course, he’s a criminal too) and the like. And finally there is the way the killer justifies his insatiable craze. Lorre’s must surely be one of the best portrayals I’ve seen. Irrespective of how he was throughout the movie, his acting in those 10 minutes really made me take pity on him. Yes, that good.

And finally there’s this inescapable fact that the movie works splendidly as a drama too and not just some serial killer fare. The way in which the murders have unexpected repercussions on the crime world is fascinating. Another instance of fabulous writing is the place where criminals seek the help of the beggar’s union to help them nab the killer. It might sound incredulous, but it was so well done to the point that it seemed very believable. Ultimately, ‘M’ transcends from being just another serial killer film to a classic drama cum film noir feature woven around a German city.

‘M’ is cinematic brilliance at its very best. What’re you waiting for?

Dial M for Murder - Plan B Never Seemed so Delightful

DIAL M FOR MURDER

Year: 1954

Country: USA.

Cast: Ray Milland, Grace Kelley, Robert Cummings, John Williams, Anthony Dawson and others.

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock.

Runtime: 1 hour 45 minutes approx.

Is this the man she was waiting for… or the man who was waiting for her?

Before I start raving about ‘Dial M for Murder’ I have to confess that this movie wasn’t vintage Hitchcock, but it was well worth the time spent on it. I’m reviewing it as a standalone Hitchcock movie and not in comparison with his other masterpieces.

Over the years, I’ve come to like some stereotypes and hate others. One character I enjoy watching is the calculative person, who bides his time when plotting something big. Typically an ideal conversationalist and a master manipulator, he’s cunning and quick to improvise. I’d classify some outstanding villains (most notably Lee Woo-jin from Oldboy, whose name strikes me first) and a maybe even a few protagonists under this class.

For me, ‘Dial M…’’s Tony Wendice occupies a well-deserved position in that list of movie character staples.

You can take my word for it. Irrespective of whether you love or hate the movie, I’m sure you’re bound to notice the guy who plots to kill his wife in a systematic fashion.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings us to the plot. It’s tough to recount the plot without possible spoilers so let this serve as an early apology. When Tony Wendice (deftly played by Ray Milland) learns of his wife Margot (Grace Kelly, presumably Hitchcock’s favourite female lead)’s affair with leading crime novelist Mark Halliday (Robert Cummings), he decides to kill her and use her money for his own needs. As simple as that. After blackmailing an old school mate (Anthony Dawson as Charles Alexander Swan) into carrying out the execution, and planning everything to the minutest of details, he sets things in motion. And as most of you would’ve already guessed by now, the film takes the things-did-not-go-as-planned route and Margot ends up killing Swan in self defense.

Seems ordinary right? This is where ‘Dial M…’ shines as a movie. The quick thinker that he is, Wendice cooks up an impeccable plan B that highlights Margot killing Swan, not in defense, but with motive. Things seem to be going Wendice’s way at last, but Halliday’s persistence and the introduction of the annoying Chief Inspector Hubbard (John Williams) seem to throw the proverbial wrench in Tony’s machinery. Does Wendice succeed in his brilliantly improvised plan? Or is he eventually found out? There you go, ‘Dial M…’ in a nutshell. Well okay, a very large nutshell.

Character-wise the movie is flawless. Right on top of the pyramid sits Millard with his absolute portrayal of Wendice. Persuasive in conversation and almost artful in his moves, he is every inch the diabolical stereotype I’ve grown to love. Along with Kelley, he forms the perfect couple, while Halliday plays the paramour with finesse. Williams does credible work as the meddlesome cop who thankfully doesn’t get on our nerves. Dawson too, justifies his selection by making his character look so real that you almost feel sorry for him. Such good characters, under Hitchcock’s reins, make for a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

Spoilers follow. Read at your own discretion.

Characters apart, I loved the way some of the scenes were made deliberately outlandish. To me, it almost seemed like Hitchcock saying, “This MUST happen only in the movies.” or something to the extent. The perfect segment that summarizes what I’m trying to say is the entire ‘What if’ conversation between Halliday and Wendice. In this scene, Halliday asks Wendice to save Margot by assuming certain things about the crime. In what must be a stroke of pure Hitchcock, Halliday highlights everything that Wendice actually did to frame his wife. Right from the motive to the stocking. After he theorizes all this, it does not strike him that his hypothesis is a very accurate description of what actually happened. Not by a long shot. I’ve seen quite a few detectives and their deductions but I’ve never seen anything as zany as this!

I was also appreciative of the fact that Hitchcock wasted no time on trivial details. While most directors would have spent hefty portions of the runtime in explaining the delicate situation that surrounds the Wendices, Hitchcock takes all but a minute to drive his point home. At breakfast, Margot reads a clipping about Halliday coming to town. And after a quick shot of an ocean liner, we see them kissing. And that’s that. Everything else is left to the viewer. I love it when directors do that sensibly.

By all means go ahead and watch ‘Dial M for Murder’. You might find some hidden feature of the movie that I didn’t.

Jeeves and Wooster in Blackadder - A Hidden Reference?

JEEVES AND WOOSTER IN BLACKADDER

Blackadder, quite simply one of the most hilarious shows to ever light up the screen. Jeeves and Wooster… a rib tickling comedy, based on a delightful series of novels. Stellar shows in their own right. A connection between the two seems improbable right? … WRONG!

In what was a revelation of sorts, good friend Loonan had the following observations to make: Laurie’s mannerisms in seasons 3 and 4 were suggestive of another role he was to play pretty sure, that of Bertram Wooster. The 'tally ho’s and the ‘pip pip’s and the pomposity have Wooster written all over them. As if that weren’t enough, Stephen Fry’s General Melchett constantly refers to George’s ‘Uncle Bertie’… In the centre of the Jeeves and Wooster series is a pair comprising a rich dumb guy and his enterprising butler. Structurally, it seems similar to… yes, you guessed that right, Blackadder the Third. Well well well…

An inside joke?

After extensive research (ahem), here’s the timeline. Blackadder the Third, which was when Laurie came into the limelight, released in 1987. The first episode of Blackadder Goes Forth ran in September, two years later. The first episode of Jeeves and Wooster was broadcast in April 1990. So it all comes down to this: were the Blackadder cast aware that Laurie was going to play Wooster in say 3 years? Was this intentional?

Start exaggeration. COULD THIS BE THE INSIDE JOKE OF THE CENTURY!? Stop exaggeration.

Kudos to Loonan whose keen intellect spotted this. In case you’d like to thank him, do send him a bag of grade A manure. :P

Glengarry Glen Ross - Worth its Weight in Balls of Brass

GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS

Year: 1992.

Country: USA.

Cast: Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, Kevin Spacey, Alec Baldwin and others.

Directed by: James Foley, screenplay written by David Mamet.

Runtime: 1 hour 40 minutes approx.

The hardest thing in life is sell.

Cinema has always been reflective of the then prevalent culture. Each era has garnered in its share of politically and or socio-economically germane films. ‘Glengarry Glen Ross’ is one mighty fine example.

Story

‘Glengarry Glen Ross’ is a no holds barred look into a real estate sales office. We have Ricky Roma (Pacino), the hotshot salesman and the guy who’s on top of his game currently. We also have experienced Shelley Levine (Lemmon), who seems to have run out of his professional charm. Then there’s Dave Moss (Harris), who’s had it with the inefficient management and the gullible George Aaronow (Arkin), who isn’t performing upto expectations either. And to supervise them, John Williamson (Spacey). We understand that things aren’t going too well at the office. People aren’t ‘closing’, and not many signatures appear over the dotted lines. As a ‘promotional’ strategy, a new gimmick is added to the month’s sales contest. First prize, a Cadillac Eldorado. Second, a set of steak knives. Third, a pink slip. So it all amounts to the fact that, the office will be two employees less, at the end of the month. What ensues forms the bulk of ‘Glengarry Glen Ross.’

Characterization

Jack Lemmon commented on this being the best cast he was ever a part of. And not without reason. Lemmon, Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, Kevin Spacey, Alec Baldwin… if this isn’t a star cast, I don’t know what is. Veterans of the trade, all of them sink into their character’s shoes. Yes, a star cast that actually works! As Alec Baldwin’s Blake would say, ‘Oh, I have your attention now?’

It’s not difficult, but impossible to rate the performances. While Arkin and Spacey underplay their roles with such precision, the others make merry with the space they’ve been given. You can’t help but mention Blake (Alec Baldwin in a deliciously over the top role), who mesmerizes you in the short time he’s on the screen. Harris is wonderful as the guy who’s fed up with his job and refuses to stay quiet about it. Pacino imparts to his character a certain respect, an authority that doesn’t wane even after the movie ends. Lemmon is simply brilliant as the venerable, berating, lost-the-touch Levene.

The movie gives the cast a great deal of opportunity, and they shine in their respective roles. Here are 6 despicable characters. On a normal day, you’d hate them, but you can’t help but appreciate the first rate portrayal that everyone’s come out with.

Screenplay

For a movie that boasts of dialogue as its major forte, the screenplay has to be nothing short of excellent. And excellence is what David Mamet provides. The movie sparkles with corrosive dialogues, monologues, one-liners… you name it, and it’s there. Perhaps the greatest achievement of the movie is a perfect screenplay to match the star ensemble. Not for one moment do you think that a frame could’ve been better done. Every scene is worth its weight in gold.

It’s futile to pick a moment that epitomizes the movie, but Baldwin’s short diatribe is as close as one can get. His Blake gets a grand total of 10 minutes, but makes the most of it. I’ve seen quite a few powerful lines, but this acrimonious bit tops it all. What a way to give your employees an inferiority complex!

Conclusion

‘Glengarry…’ makes a lot of promises, and lives up to them. It blows you away with some sublime acting and heavy dialogue that complements it nicely. This, ladies and gentlemen, is powerful cinema. Entertainment guaranteed.

Personal Opinion /Discussion (Heavy Spoilers!)

Very few movies impress me on account of their dialogues alone. At this moment I can only think of a few: Tarantino’s ‘Pulp Fiction’ and The Marx Brothers’ ‘A Night at the Opera’ and some of the Python outings. While ‘Glengarry…’ is neither as zany as the former nor is it anywhere near to being as humorous as the latter, it has a tendency to leave you spell-bound, with sharp, strong lines. Placed at the right time and delivered with expert correctness.

Another endearing fact is the gutsy portrayal of a salesman, if not the whole environment that cares shit about people in the lower echelons. Blake is the personification of a callous top management (“You can't close the leads you're given, you can't close shit, *you are* shit, hit the bricks pal, and beat it, 'cause you are going *out*.”). And we have Williamson, who’s frequently on the receiving end of a lot of shit, but shows his true face towards the end (“Because I don’t like you.”).

Another perspective that ‘Glengarry…’ portrays oh so effectively is how human tendencies change when a difficult situation is thrust upon them. Shelley resorts to bribing, Moss will stop at nothing short of crime, and Spacey is at his double-crossing cum judicial best. It’s anything but new; we’ve seen it in so many movies. Despite that fact, ‘Glengarry…’ comes across as a breath of fresh air.

American Psycho - Of Bale and Brilliant Acting

AMERICAN PSYCHO

Year: 2000.

Country: USA.

Principal Cast: Christian Bale, Chloe Sevigny, Reese Witherspoon, Willem Dafoe and others.

Directed by: Mary Harron.

Runtime: 1 hr 41 min approx.

Killer looks. Evil never looked so damn good.

Mary Harron’s American Psycho caused quite an uproar when it was released. It was slammed by the censor board and consequently various segments of the movie had to be edited. Nevertheless, it went on to become a runaway hit.

Unlike many thrillers, American Psycho wastes no time in introducing the antagonist in question. Patrick Bateman is one of those everyday executives with everything from a high rise apartment to a successful job at Wall Street. Ultra-egoistic and competitive, Bateman’s thirst to stay on top transforms into a bloodlust of sorts, making him a psychotic killer.

It takes all but one monologue to know Bateman inside out. The thrills here are derived from action and eventual course, rather than identity. American Psycho isn’t about investigations; all the action is seen through the killer’s view and not some aftermath, through some arbit cop’s eyes.

Patrick Bateman represented a complete turnaround of sorts for Bale. The actor sinks into his character and makes the most of the scope offered. Bale’s Bateman is seen in a multitude of shades, all of them equally fascinating. Be it a suave businessman, or a ruthless psychopath, Bale essays it with ease. Reese Witherspoon as Evelyn, his supposed fiancé, Chloe Sevigny as Jean, his secretary and Willem Dafoe as Donald Kimball, a detective, do just enough.

It would be unfair to write a review about the movie without giving due credit to the environment it is based in. In what is an in-your-face depiction of an 80’s America, the film comprehensively captures everything from posh restaurants to the lowly nightclubs. It also adeptly portrays a cut-throat competitive profession. Perhaps one of the film’s best sequences is when the executives compete over something as trivial as who has the best business card. The sequence isn’t important, but it succeeds in doubling up as a summary of the film’s theme and tone.

Excellent screenplay is also a definite plus. With dialogue that sparkles with wit (“I’m into murders and executions, mostly” as opposed to mergers and acquisitions) and power, Harron makes sure that the movie isn’t lacking in this department. That she did have source material (the novel by Brett Easton Ellis) is a different story.

Despite being described best (by the movie) as illusory or simply not being there, Bale’s presence ranks the movie among the best serial killer fare to date. Powerful, and gut-wrenching, American Psycho is a to-be-watched film.

Personal Opinion – Up for Discussion (Heavy Spoilers!)

Bales’ character apart, the open ending is the most significant factor that makes the movie such a treat to watch. The end credits start to roll after a close-up of Bateman’s eyes. Prior to this he says that his punishment still eludes him and that the confession hasn’t meant a thing.

Now here's what viewers can interpret from the ending.

1. The whole sequence was a dream. It all happened in his head.

2. It's bloody (no pun intended) real.

The first interpretation has a lot of plot devices going in its favour. For example, how did Patrick get away with all those murders (the old woman, cops et al)? What happened to all the corpses in Paul Allen’s apartment? The easy way out: it never happened. After all, we ARE talking about a psycho here.

While the first viewpoint is pretty firmly rooted in logic, it is the second perspective that holds my interest despite being slightly outlandish. A few people opine that all the murders were real. The old woman in Allen’s apartment disposes of the bodies so that she can sell the place to prospective clients. This also explains her reaction when she meets Bateman. Logical. And the other murders? Here’s where it gets interesting. While the movie focuses predominantly on a single character, it is something about the cast that comes into play. To describe the phenomenon in one word: self-involvement. The characters are too preoccupied with themselves to notice anything else happening. Yep, every man for himself. Paul Allen mistakes Bateman for Marcus Halberstram. Again, Bateman is mistaken for Davies, by his lawyer (“Bateman’s such a dork…”). And the rampage… ditto. As I said, interesting. And outlandish.

Apparently, Hanson did state, in an interview, that everything was real. Some fans however, still find it hard to digest that fact.

Cidade de Deus - Brutal... and Effective

CIDADE DE DEUS

Year: 2002.

Country: Brazil.

Alternative Title: City of God.

Director: Fernando Meirelles, co-directed by Katia Lund.

If you run it will get you. If you stay it will eat you.

Introduction

A Brazilian favela (slum settlement) was not a happy place to live in. It was impoverishment personified and was a picture of violence and chaos. Drugs, rackets, mobs, gang wars and the like were the order of the day. And the fact that it housed an eclectic collection of people didn’t help. Numerous favelas were found clustered in and around Rio De Janiero. And it is in one such favela that our story begins.

(The movie is a recount of events that transpired in the ‘City of God’ during the 60s and 70s. It is an adaptation of Paulo Lins’ novel of the same name. Lins was an actual resident of the favela in question.)

Story

‘Cidade de Deus’ is a foray into life in a typical favela. It commences with an amateurish trio stealing from more affluent sources, proceeds to depict a little tyke’s metamorphosis into a notorious gang leader and culminates in a fierce gang war. The movie can be considered a biographical presentation of Lil’ Ze’s life, his rise to fame as an ruthless gangster and his disputes with rival gang lords like Carrot, and Knockout Ned. Interlaced at critical junctures, are shorter stories that play significant roles in contributing to the overall story.

The narrative is set to the voice of Rocket, who despite hailing from the favela, chose to tread on the rarely walked path of non-violence. Within minutes of its commencement, the movie shifts into flashback mode, as it describes the elements and events that have made the favela what it is today. The movie is divided into a number of shorter sub-segments, each with a seemingly trivial name. However, and to the director’s credit, these segments are sequenced quite effectively.

Characterization

To suggest that the film abounds in characters would be an understatement. Characters come and go in a flash, and they are interwoven so intricately around the story that sometimes the viewer is left wondering who’s who. The movie literally teems with characters who are introduced concurrently. Thankfully, most of them are pretty well defined and such strong characterization is one of the film’s fortes.

It would be really futile to attempt to describe ALL the artists who performed in the movie. Leandro Firmino as Lil’ Ze looks every inch a gangster. As a tyrannical leader, Firmino does tend to overact at some instances but for the most part of the movie, he skillfully portrays a man with unmatched arrogance and desire for power. Alexandre Rodriguez as Rocket has no solid role except for that of the narrator and is comprehensively overshadowed by Lil’ Ze and the others. But with what little scope the character offers, Rodriguez churns out a convincing performance. Other notable characters include Carrot (Matheus Nachtergaele) and Knockout Ned (Seu Jorge).
Perhaps the greatest character is the capricious city itself. On some occasions it is festive, and during others, it is a warpath, with casualties reaching all time highs and bodies strewn on every street. Ironically, the city is so alive when wars occur and deaths are frequent. Even more ironical is the fact that the place is named ‘City of God’… would God want to live here?

Screenplay, Cinematography and Background Score

The powerful storyline is accompanied by equally riveting screenplay and cinematography. The dialogues are kept simple but they have a resounding effect on the viewer. The tangential takes and flashback may seem a bit confounding, but they complement each other aptly. The camera seems to be handled consummately, in all scenes, without any discrimination. The accompanying music is pretty alluring and it perfectly matches the mood the movie takes at any given moment. The background score at Benny’s farewell merits special mention.

Personal Opinion/Discussion (Heavy Spoilers)

I liked the movie predominantly for a single reason. It was honest, brutally so. I expected a toned down version of events that transpired in the favela. What I did see, was an in-your-face presentation that is as close as one can get to the real thing.

The movie also portrays the contrasting nature of 2 people who were bought up in the favela at nearly the same time. While Rocket chose the path of non-violence, Lil’ Ze became an infamous gang lord, being the power hungry maniac that he was. To a good extent, the movie also shows gangsters who’d like to shed their violent ways and start afresh. Shaggy and Benny do it for the women they love, while Clipper does it of his own accord (guilt?). Love, lust, power, vengeance, angst… the movie is a skillful combination of these. And more.

Anarchy apart, the movie also had its share of comical moments and subtle humour. Rocket’s attempts to woo Angelica, his confusion when Lil’ Ze’s gang urges him to take more photos of them instead of killing him for publicizing their name, are a few instances. Also funny, to an extent, are the names the characters were given. Rocket, Carrot, Lil’ Dice, Stringy, Goose, Blacky, Shorty and more. The opening sequence is very suggestive too. A chicken that decides that it doesn’t want to die by the knife, is chased by scores of gangsters. Literally, it is hilarious! Metaphorically, this can represent the fact that the City of God provides no alternate choices. And yes, they get you. And contradicting that fact, we have our narrator Rocket, who chose to follow his lifetime ambition of photography and comes out unscathed.

‘I smoke, I snort coke and I have killed. Therefore I am a man.’

Another jarring aspect of the movie was the way it portrayed kids. During the gang wars, everyone who’s someone wants a gun. You see kids handling guns for superficial reasons like ‘he punched me in the face’. And the most poignant moment came at the climax, where the so called runts are shown carrying munitions, making a black list (consisting of enemies, including the Red Brigade). Just when you thought everything was going to be just fine, the movie ends on a pessimistic note. It begets a question: Will life at the favela ever improve? With the fall of one gang, rises another. And another. A vicious cycle.

Conclusion

Two minutes into the movie, this reviewer was sold. A must watch.