The Brazilian film, Cidade de Deus, or "City of God" follows a young group of children who come of age in late 1960s/early 1980s Brazil. An international darling when it was first released in 2002, it has become one of the best-known films from Brazil since its release, and also went on to receive four (4) Oscar nominations at the 76th Academy Awards (Best Cinematography, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Film Editing). It's a film that I really find to be terrific, and I would like to take this opportunity to delve a bit as to why I find it so.
Tourism
-To start, I find the aesthetic of the film be fairly impressive. I love how the cinematography makes the slums nice to look at in a general sense, yet also reminds you that these slums are...well, slums. As in, there is a sense of life that can is quite palatable, but also doesn't hide the dog-eat-dog mentality that the residents of the slums inhabit. The "beauty-and-the-horror" balance cinematography is one that is tough to pull off, as many filmmakers use it just as an excuse to make a film look ugly, but City of God manages to find it. Bonus points as well for all of those beach shots.
-The production design also works well in tandem with the cinematography, as the former is a great example of location scouting, and I think several set pieces in the film add a lot to the narrative (the ending chase, the birthday party, the beaches, the newspaper offices.)
-On a written & directed front, both of these aspects are also great in crafting the world that the film wants to take you to. Fernando Meirelles's direction is one of the key main factors in creating an epic, as his choices really add a sense of life to the slums (the birthday party, yet is also capable at finding the terror (the child murders) and/or the nuance when he needs to (a key reaction from the films' main villain, who I'll be getting to.) The screenplay also adds a lot of detail to each section of the film, and it really makes you feel like you *know* the places on a personal level, without bogging the thrust of the film down.
-One more note: the kinetic editing of this film is some of the best you'll ever see of its' kind. It properly creates the madness & chaos that you'll see in the slums, yet also doesn't throw you off or confuse you.
The Ensemble
Many of the actors in the film were...well...non-actors before they joined the cast, however, you would honestly believe this to be the case, as everyone in the cast just seems to inhabit the setting the film naturally. Although more an ensemble in nature, the film does have a sort-of lead in Rocket (Alexandre Rodrigues), as a young man who is just trying to make an honest living in the chaotic world of the slums, as a photographer. Besides him, the cast is filled with other vivid characters that are integral to the complexity of crime in the slums, such as:
-Benny, a friendly drug dealer who, like Rocket, wants to be free from crime, and who generally gets along with everyone.
-Carrot, also a drug dealer who gets along with Benny, and does just enough to survive in the slums, but doesn't "fully" operate on the 100% level of viciousness that many others in the slums do.
-Knockout Ned, a ladies' man who gets roped into a life of crime unwillingly and demonstrates that not everyone can escape the punishing slums, both physically and metaphorically.
And of course...
Uhh...don't let this picture fool you...
-Lil Ze, played by Leandro Firmino da Hora, is the main villain of the film, as a psychopathic drug lord in the slums, who simply loves what he does and takes great pleasure. If you ask me, that latter aspect makes him all the more scarier. Anyways, Firmino gives an impressive performance that manages to capture many traits that take him past being a standard drug lord.
- A sense of unearned bravado, as he acts as though he owns the slums and anyone who crosses WILL die.
- An urge to do crime and ONLY crime, since once you break it down, it's the only thing he really knows how to do.
-Vulnerability, as one of my favorite scenes in the film is when he doesn't know what to do when shooting someone or crime in general isn't an option.
Key Scene
Here, we take a closer look at the friendship between Benny and Li'l Ze, as we see two common archetypes of criminals at play here: one who ONLY wants to keep doing crime, and one who wants to get out and live a better life. I particularly love the look on Li'l Zes' face when the girl refuses to dance with him, and especially his reaction afterwards, as he wants to leave the party and just start doing crime stuff again.
Conclusion:
Overall, I find City of God to be an excellent film, one where the stylistic choices really amplify the story, and one where the story itself is just pretty entertaining while also being t\\ interesting as we follow the lives of these young lads, as they become men in the City of God.
5/5
Have you seen the film? If so, what do you think of it?
Sam Mendes's filmography to date has been rather disparate over the years, in terms of scope & subject matter, although in a weird way, it actually makes me more interested whenever he has a film project in the works. He's a filmmaker that has always curiously had my attention, since he can be as capable of hitting a home run just as much as he can strike out...or even a solid base hit up the middle. With that in mind, I would like to take this post to go into further detail as to how each of his films have fared with me so far.
"I've directed a paper bag flying in the air, I got this."
8. American Beauty (2)
A film that I don't technically subscribe to the "haters" club, so to speak, yet I'm also not a fan of. Subsequent rewatches since I first saw the film have done it no favors, as I find the film to be messy and thinly-written, with a level of artifice that prevents the film from reaching any level of sincerity. Many of the characters outside of Lester are only given the sole trait of either "vapid" or "edgy". There is also a lot of smugness from Alan Balls' screenplay, as if the characters themselves are beneath him, which makes the film harder to take as it goes along.
With all that said, I still do like the cinematography & score, but even with those two elements I appreciate, it's a big "eh."
7. Revolutionary Road
More or less the similar thoughts as American Beauty, but with a couple of diversions here. One of them being Leonardo Dicaprio, who I wouldn't qualify as giving a bad performance, yet seems miscast as an everyman character from the 1950s. As for the film itself, I just feel it is too somber for its' own good and never really becomes interesting. The loud "Oscar" scenes are also too melodramatic for my tastes, and it makes the somber mood of the film even more jarring. It would really be on the same level as the above American Beauty for me, although I do kind of like Michael Shannons' breakthrough performance.
6. Away We Go (2.5)
A for-the-most-part mediocre indie film that you'd be surprised to believe Mendes directed, since it hardly distinguishes itself from other 2000s indie films. The film follows a couple, Burt & Verona (John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph) traveling around America as they seek to find an ideal place to raise their future child. The film works better when it really just stays with the main couple, as there is a sense of honesty to the proceedings as a couple who are at a crossroads in their life, and Krasinski & Rudolph are decent in these more-focused scenes. What really brings the whole film down however, is the caricatures that litter the supporting cast (Allison Janney, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jeff Daniels, Jim Gaffigan). The writing doesn't help either, but the film does lack in these scenes of the film, although a couple don't fare *as* bad (Chris Messina & Melanie Lynskey).
5. Jarhead (3.5)
A film I find to be fairly decent, as it has several memorable moments. I find its' atypical approach to be somewhat interesting, as it follows soldiers dealing with boredom & inactivity in the Gulf War of 1991. The cinematography here I think is effective in giving you a sense of "dull" without actually compromising the film itself much. Past that, there are several decent performances, such as Jake Gyllenhaal as Private Anthony Swofford, as a young man with no set path in life who stumbles into the Marines, and Peter Sarsgaard as the anxious spotter Alan Troy. While I would not quite consider the film to be great, as it can meander at points and there isn't too much of an emotional thrust, again I do find Jarhead overall to be a solid entry into the war genre.
4. Spectre (3.5)
It doesn't reach the heights of Mendes's first foray into Bond, though I still think it's a good enough outing in the franchise. One thing that I find curious about the film is that it tries to merge more "campy" Bond traits from older films in the franchise into the more grounded/darker tone that had been established in Casino Royale (2006). Whether or not those traits completely merge with the overall tone is up for debate, but for me, it's one that I don't really mind, as I'm still rather entertained by the film as a whole.
Past that, the film has action scenes that I would consider very good (the train fight, Mexico City, car chase through London), the film has a good villain in born-to-play-a-Bond-villain Christoph Waltz (though I can't help but feel that they could've gone even further with him), and also a memorable henchmen in Dave Bautista.
(P.S. I...actually don't mind the song much.)
3. Skyfall (4.5)
A fairly impressive Bond film for me, and one that I like a lot. The film has outstanding action scenes (the opening train chase, the gorgeously shot Shanghai window sequence and of course, the burning farmhouse at the ending of the film). Who knew Mendes would have a true knack for that? Also, the cinematography is terrific here, as it lends a grand sense of spectacle for the film.
Past the technical elements of the film, I find the film to be intriguing at a story level, as I find the villain aspect of the film to be interesting, as Javier Bardem is a lot of fun as the villainous Raoul Silva, who has an old score to settle with M (Judi Dench).
Speaking of, I'd be remiss if I were not to mention Craigs' performance in both of his Bond films that were directed by Mendes. Craig delivers in creating a dynamic presence for both Skyfall & Spectre, as he emotionally anchors the film while of course delivering on a cooler-than-ice Bond.
2. Road to Perdition (5)
A gangster film that has grown quite a bit on me over the years, and I've come to really appreciate its' approach in trying to bring something new to a genre that has featured several iconic films.
On a technical front, I think it is marvelous at first & foremost in its cinematography. The film has a gorgeous aesthetic to it that really makes you feel like you're in the 1930s Midwest. The raining shootout is one of the best filmed shots of the 2000s, not to mention it being my favorite scene in the film. The production design is also fairly remarkable, and has several memorable set pieces, such as the Sullivans's house and the house by the beach at the end of the film.
The main aspects of the film that have grown on me would be the script and the direction. For the script, I find Michael Sullivans' (Tom Hanks) arc in dealing with his relationship to the mob to be compelling, as he has to confront his past with his pseudo-family while also escaping with his son (Tyler Hoechlin.) The main emotional thrust of the film is of course with the man who took him in (Paul Newman, in a great swansong performance from him). Daniel Craig is also memorable as the weaselly Connor, while Jude Law is also entertaining as Harlen, the man on the hunt for Michael Sr. and Jr.
On a direction level, one thing that really sticks out for me is that Mendes knows when to play his hand and when not to. For example, he knows that an encounter with Jude Laws' Harlen would elicit a more black-and-white response. This is shown in the hotel shootout scene, where the action here is more grittier than it is operatic. For me, I consider this effective as Mendes knows not to play his hand here.
On the other end, Mendes deftly knows when to play his hand in the aforementioned rain shootout, as here, the action is more operatic and it adds to the relationship between John & Michael. By that, I mean, the action itself is more about what is visually more so than it is spoken, and the only line featured here, "I'm glad it's you..." perfectly caps off the complex relationship between John & Michael.
Overall, a film that I might've handwaved on my first viewing, and one that I'll admit that not everyone might take to its approach, but for me, I felt it offered a different angle on one of the most iconic genres in film.
1. 1917
Mendes's best film to date for me, and one that I think shows what one can offer with cinema that other mediums cannot. As I've done a couple of times before with these director rankings, I'll break down the #1 film a little bit.
As written, the film is a great example of how one can do "straightforward" effectively. The mission of the two gentlemen (George MacKay & Dean Charles-Chapman) can be viewed as again, straightforward: relay a message to a battle post several miles away in order to prevent a charge with low odds of succeeding, if that. The mission itself is established properly, but what takes the film even further is the character development between Schofield & Blake, not to mention the several millitary personnel found at different checkpoints throughout the film.
As performed, the film has a strong emotional anchor at its core, that being George Mackay's Schofield. His performance is very essential to the film, as it takes it past being just a technical exercise, and one that adds the necessary gravitas & emotional heft to the story. MacKay gives a a terrific turn as he makes his journey tangible, while also granting a sense of who Schofield is as a man. I'd be remiss if I were not to mention his comrade Blake (Chapman) as his arc & performance also help in adding to the emotional thrust of the film, while of course developing a chemistry that again, aids in making the two gentlemen people we can understand & know. Other actors in the film such as Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, & Richard Madden also do a very good job in filling out the ensemble of millitary personnel.
As for the technical aspect of the film, I won't beat around the bush: the film stands as one of the best-made films of the 2010s.
The cinematography ranks among one of Deakins's best, which is really saying something, and proves that he can practically do just about anything, with this being his turn at-the-bat in regards to the continuous-shot attempt. Every shot in this film is, to put it simply, a painting.
The production design is also outstanding, as it gives you a sense of the place of where our two protagonists are. Whether it be the burning church, the exploding tunnel, or the climactic rundown at the trenches, all of these places add a lot of detail to the film.
The visual effects and overall sound design are also impeccable, as the effects are the type that isn't exactly "showy", yet are great at being "invisible." The sound effects & mixing also add in, again, putting you right where our two gents are, as every crash, explosion, yell and bullet make the whole experience of the more vivid.
Overall, a truly great masterwork of a film, and if Mendes only decides to make epics from here on out, I would be more than glad with that.
Cinema.
What is your favorite Sam Mendes film to date? Your least favorite? Answer off in the comments below!
