The of the City of God - Movie Review Example

City of God: City of God is a critically acclaimed film directed by Fernando Meirelles. It received widespread praise upon its release in 2002. The film is not essentially about childhood, but still much has been written about the way this sensitive subject has been depicted in it. It introduces the viewers to a group of contemporary children based in the slums of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil who come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. The story is an overwhelming “assault on the senses” (Bradshaw) as it is set in the city slums and begins by focusing on the living conditions of children which can only be characterized by inexorable suffering. Due to a unique economic situation in Brazil, the state of childhood as depicted in the film speaks volumes about troublesome conditions encountered by children since a very young age. Rio in particular is a city where violence is institutionalized due to a damaged economy in which a handful of elite groups rule over a majority of people from lower social class (Carlsten). Poverty is one of the major issues encountered in developing economies. The film criticizes both Brazilian society and economy which benefits a few at the expense of lives of many (Calrsten). It is due to such conditions that children in the City of God are shown as individuals engaged in the battle to eliminate poverty and upgrade their living conditions. Life is extremely cheap in the ghetto (Bradshaw) which forces children here from a very tender age in life to deal with the necessity of finding an escape from poverty and helplessness. The main theorist included in the following discussion is Richard Mills. The film itself is based on a novel written by Paulo Lins who narrates real events in his story. Depiction of childhood in the film will be explored in the light of perspectives of childhood illustrated by Mills in his book. Many perspectives are addressed by Mills each of which will be scrutinized in relation to City of God’s representation of childhood in this essay. Main structures of childhood which will be assessed in following discussion are related to class and poverty. Such research based analysis of childhood is critically important because it helps to understand the intricate nature of this phenomenon. Childhood is a very deep subject which is open to multiple interpretations. Structured analysis of this subject is important to gain familiarity with its distinguishing features. Different definitions for childhood are found in literature. Legal definitions of childhood conflict with “socially or culturally prevalent models of childhood” (Wells 3). According to one source, childhood is a period which extends from birth to age ten. The famed social historian Walvin differs and claims that childhood is a period extending from birth to age fourteen. Miles even further stretches this period of childhood earlier defined by other writers claiming that it includes “the years up to eighteen” (Mills and Mills 8). Childhood is considered a social construct which is known for arbitrariness of the definition. It is due to this arbitrariness that it is very difficult to precisely define childhood or “mark out its possible boundaries” (The International Law 32). It is stressed in research literature that being able to define childhood is of critical value as otherwise it can be a particularly daunting task to determine which rights apply to the status of childhood and which legal measures can children benefit from as a class. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) refrains from defining childhood in terms of age. Rather, it popularizes this view that “a child is an individual who is not yet an adult” (Child Rights 51). According to ECHR, it is impossible to accurately define the construct of childhood because everywhere in the world it is found laced with “religious, cultural, physical and psychological practices and beliefs” (Child Rights 51-52). It is important to perceive childhood as a kind of social and historical construction which is continuously shifting and “has significance for its present, as well as the past and future” (James and Prout cited in Mills and Mills 9). Research confirms that childhood is essentially ‘constructed’ in society (Butler and Hickman 26). Six perspectives of childhood are illustrated by Mills in his book. These perspectives show that different ideas about childhood have “existed at different times in the past” (Horne 7). The first perspective popularizes children as innocent and in need of protection. From this perspective, children are perceived as innocent like God’s angels and it is thought that they can only bring good in the world. This view emphasizes “natural goodness of children” (Mills and Mills 10). In contrast to this view, review of childhood history reveals that another perspective has been remained very influential in the western world which talks about willful, conniving, and very mischievous nature of children. In accordance with the Christian view which focused on accentuating the angelic nature of children, John Earle in 1628 presented his childhood perspective in these words, “The child is the best copy of Adam before he tasted of Eve or the apple;” (Shipman cited in Mills and Mills 10). This perspective overlooks every other factor but natural innocence found in children. However, childhood cannot be always characterized by a high degree of purity or angelic goodness. For example, according to the Protestant perspective about childhood, there is no natural goodness in children, rather it is a combination of different factors which determines if they will become civilized or aggressive adults. Social atmosphere, education, and literacy are some of such factors. Also, families are every important in this regard because they are seen as “the most important instillers of social values” (Wall 142). Besides Christian views about childhood which have some fundamental errors, Mills also illustrates other perspectives like children being in need of protection always. This perspective presents protection as the most significant factor which can help to preserve innocence of childhood. The literature of childhood innocence focuses on preserving ignorance in children as well for which purpose adults are advised to guard some things strictly from the world of childhood. Many times children grow up too fast when reality about certain subjects of life is not kept secret from them (Mills and Mills 12). Developing familiarity with secret knowledge is one thing which guarantees premature transition from childhood to adulthood. Therefore, society should prevent children from acquiring secret knowledge to protect them from seriousness and problems associated with adulthood. It is important to illustrate the nature of these secrets which hold the potential to expose children to risks prematurely. These secrets are related to “sexual relations, money, violence, illness, death, social relations and language” (Mills and Mills 12). Use of careless language in front of children does not work out right for protected childhood either. Most people agree that “children depend on adults for protection” (Gal et al. 264). Children’s happiness is dependent on such protection which also helps to improve quality of childhood (Kellett 42). In a society characterized by common use of profane language, violence, brash fights over basic needs of life, and death, there is no innocence or childhood as is depicted in the film City of God also. More commentary on the depiction of childhood in the film will be presented later. A world in which children can easily witness via television depiction of issues like incest, death, and other secrets and get degraded consequently is considered a lost world (Postman cited in Mills and Mills 14). Another childhood perspective which does not consider children individuals in their own right emphasizes the potential of children as valuable human resources. The perspective which promotes children as apprentices suggests that there is no intrinsic good in children. They can be only considered potential human resources as long as they are trained in a conscientious manner. This perspective functions on the foundation of a richer relationship between adults who are teachers and children who are learners. It suggests that different family conditions “contribute to a different construction of childhood” (Mercer 78-79). It is easy to appreciate in the film that the city of God in Rio de Janeiro seriously lacks any sort of relationship between adults and children. It is due to such inadequacies in that societal structure that children become prone to engaging in crime because they get no guidance from adults most of whom are violent themselves. It is not uncommon to find dead bodies scattered around the city most of whom happen to be children usually (Bradshaw). Children in the film hail from poor social class marked by a dangerously low literacy rate which makes disorganized activities appear normal to them. Childhood literature also emphasizes that “social class is a major determinant of what is, and is not, acceptable” (Mills and Mills 19). Another perspective illustrated by Mills considers children persons in their own right. Here, a kind of view of childhood is promoted which puts individual uniqueness and features of children above everything else. This view disregards rigorous training of children claiming that too much attention can devalue childhood itself (Mills and Mills 21). This does not hold true in case of the film because clearly, it is lack of training and guidance which pushes a group of children in the city of God toward a world of crime. Criminals in this city look very young, even pre-pubescent (Bradshaw). This is because childhood is devalued in the city due to absence of training. In a city tarnished by economic and physical violence known as the city of God or Cidade de Deus, a group of children is shown living in deplorable conditions characterized by extreme poverty (Carlsten). Apart from Rocket who is revealed as an incredibly disadvantaged child in the 1960s through a flashback, three other similarly disadvantaged kids called Shaggy, Clipper, and Goose are also introduced to the audience as gang members involved in petty crimes. Rocket emphasizes in the film while reminiscing about his childhood on the feelings of abandonment and exclusion felt by residents of the city slums (Carlsten). He spent his childhood in the company of such torturesome feelings. Children in this city learn to use violence and sexual degradation as tools of social control at a very young age. The police officials themselves are corrupt as in one scene, two officers are shown arguing over how to treat two members of the Trio who hide after a robbery. One officer shows interest in stealing the loot, while other simply wants to exterminate the two boys because they are worthless niggers (Carlsten). This suggests that violence in the city is regulated by police and gangs together. There is no room for innocence of childhood in such a violent city. The film shows how kids with criminal tendencies are protected by people of the city because they share their loot with them. The gang formed by the three boys is called the Tender Trio which is idolized by many younger boys in the city as well who have highly impressionable minds. They begin to witness through their eyes depiction of violence, robbery, deceit, and crime since a very young age which makes what they see seem acceptable to them. This is the reason why strategies devised by these children to survive happen to be themselves violent (Carlsten). The film shows gang violence among children in a city where there is actually no God. It is claimed that these children reside at “the very bottom of the marginalized left-behinds” (Sweeney 350). There is a very bad youth culture shown in the film (Shary and Seibel 134). It is because violent things seem acceptable and even glamorous to children in the film due to a flawed youth culture that they idolize petty gangs like the trio. This pattern depicted in the film sits well with the childhood perspective discussed above according to which social class is a major determinant of what things are considered acceptable by children and which remain unacceptable. It is because children shown in the film hail from the city slums that they are exposed to a higher risk of losing themselves at a very young age. Violence is used to define coming of age experience for children in the city. The film shows that instead of letting children be children, violence is used to drag them toward adult life. The more violence a child demonstrates, the more mature he is considered in the city (Holden). For example, in one scene, a boy is asked to decide by gang members where he would like to shoot two other kids. This is a ritual for gaining entry into a gang. Each boy is shot in the foot in the end which signifies extreme brutality. Such is the depiction of childhood in the film City of God. The boy who is asked to shoot two other kids who are mere toddlers to prove his manhood is named Steak & Fries. The film’s depiction of childhood is spine-chilling because Steak & Fries who is himself a mere kid expresses himself in these words to prove to a gang that he is a man, “I smoke, I snort, I’ve killed and robbed. I’m a man” (cited in Holden). Children in the city become violent because a constant sense of exclusion haunts them as shown in the film (Carlsten). To get free from the clutches of exclusion, they become determined to get along however possible and develop an appetite for murder among other crimes (Holden). Also, this trend among children of idolizing activities of troublemakers like Shaggy instead of showing interest in education proves that adults are not able to protect them from violence or crime in the City of God due to which their childhood and innocence ends prematurely. Depiction of childhood in the film serves to illustrate the reality of this claim that children are not inherently good and possess no angelic qualities. Children in the city are seen carrying around “real guns as though they were toys and chattering excitedly about murder” (Holden). Children in the city are not known for their innocence, but for their evil intentions. This is obvious from the way a young boy in the city named Li’l Dice takes actions to urge the Trio members to go bigger than usual and rob occupants of a local motel. This attitude of children in the city sits well with the Protestant perspective according to which children are unbridled creatures capable of extreme mischievousness and aggression. It is due to devilish circumstances that people in the city of God dream of leaving this city, but their desire is never realized (Carlsten). The beach is the only place in the whole city where children who have not yet fallen prey to gang violence run off to find refuge and live the innocent lives of children for some time. Other children, meanwhile, are shown armed while swarming through Cidade de Deus or the City of God (Holden). The kind of childhood depicted by Meirelles in the film does not even have a shadow of innocence, simplicity, or beauty which forms the hallmark of childhood memories normally. Rocket’s flashback presents an ugly, polluted, and warped picture of childhood to the audience. He narrates many acts of violence which he personally witnessed as a child. He also becomes an eventual participant in these acts (Carlsten). This is because he along with other kids of the city had to grow up in a kind of societal structure which did not let children revel in the beauty of childhood. Instead, it is a kind of society which overlooks the potential held by a serene childhood in healthy spiritual and psychological development of children. This is why the youth of this slum became connected by acts of brutality and violence. The twisted kind of childhood which children in the city of God did experience was one in which the usual harmless activities were replaced by criminal conspiracies, shootouts, and police raids. Children had no choice but to bear this kind of childhood because everyone in those slums in which they grew up had poor social backgrounds. Violence in this city was beyond escape (Carlsten). This is why children remained foreign to the kind of childhood that is characterized by carelessness and tranquility as theirs was based on this ideology, “if you run away, they get you, and if you stay, they get you too” (Carlsten). The city is actually like a hell where children have no parents or concerned adults let alone childhood experience (Bradshaw). One thing is clear if the film’s version of childhood is explored through the lens of Mills’ perspectives of childhood that the children of the city of God appear as persons in their own right. These are the kind of children who do not take orders from anyone, but are fixated on transforming their lives anyway they can in a kind of depraved society in which they are unfortunate enough to be born. Concluding, depiction of childhood in the film City of God is quiet spine-chilling. Analysis of film’s depiction of childhood in the light of Mills’ childhood perspectives illustrates the importance of concerned adults who should be there for children to guard them from social evils. In the absence of such adults, children are rendered unable to experience childhood. Eventually, they become gang leaders like in the film to take hold of their lives and turn around their impoverished situations. Childhood is irreversibly tied to several other factors like class, race, gender, and time. The fact that the families of these children are of very low social standing, they are seen frenetically struggling to survive in deplorable living conditions. Mills emphasizes that training also plays a very important role in determining what route childhood will take and if children will grow up to become responsible and law-abiding citizens or not. If no training or guidance is available like in case of kids raised in slums, the probability of them transforming into crime organizers later in life becomes higher. The film shows that families in the city slums lack privileged lifestyle and resources required for good upbringing of children. They only know, like the adults and children of the city of God, that they have to get by somehow and that they have no one in the world to depend on but themselves for getting by. This is why many children in the film had to make bad choices to be able to live comfortably in youth and they are later shown living with their consequences as they grow up. Works cited: Bradshaw, Peter. “Film: City of God.” The Guardian. Theguardian.com, 03 Jan. 2003. Web. 05 May. 2015. Bueren, Geraldine V. Child Rights in Europe: Convergence and Divergence in Judicial Protection. Council of Europe, 2007. Print. ---. The International Law on the Rights of the Child. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998. Print. Butler, Ian, and Hickman, Caroline. Social Work with Children and Families: Getting Into Practice. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2011. Print. Carlsten, Jennie. Violence in The City of God: The Fantasy of the Omniscient Spectator. Cinephile.ca, 2005. Web. 05 May. 2015. Gal, Tali, Gal, Tali, and Duramy, Benedetta. International Perspectives and Empirical Findings on Child Participation. Oxford University Press, 2015. Print. Holden, Stephen. “City of God (2002) FILM REVIEW: Boys Soldiering in an Army of Crime.” The new York Times. Nytimes.com, 17 Jan. 2003. Web. 05 May. 2015. Horne, Jackie C. History and the Construction of the Child in Early British Children’s Literature. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013. Print. Kellett, Mary. Children’s Perspectives on Integrated Services: Every Child Matters in Policy and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Print. Mercer, Joyce A. Welcoming Children: A Practical Theology of Childhood. Chalice Press, 2005. Print. Mills, Jean, and Mills, Richard. Childhood Studies: A Reader in Perspectives of Childhood. Routledge, 2002. Print. Shary, Timothy, and Seibel, Alexandra. Youth Culture in Global Cinema. University of Texas Press, 2007. Print. Sweeney, Simon. Europe, The State & Globalisation. Routledge, 2014. Print. Wall, John. Ethics in Light of Childhood. Georgetown University Press, 2010. Print. Wells, Karen. Childhood in Global Perspective. Polity, 2009. Print. Read More