Contemporary Media Analysis

1. What does the media say about the world we live in?

I could have been very graphic with this picture, but
that would defeat the purpose of my argument of the
acceptance of violence. 

The media can do its best to represent the world we live in, but it can never be a complete and real representation of the world we live in. That being said, if I had to pick one thing that I think the media is saying about us, I would say that media says that we love violence. Not only seen through the films and TV shows, it also references violence happening in real life. There were talks about Syria and whistle blowers in multiple presentations. People are not sure if someone should be classified as a hero or an enemy. Our media glorifies war and violence and we love it. That is completely obvious after a close inspection of the box office from the previous years. There is a reason the top 100 highest grossing movies of all time (as seen here ) primarily consists of violence filled movies. I find it shocking that most of these movies came out in the last decade. This just goes to show our world's obsession with violence today.

2. Do you notice any one trend that keeps resurfacing through multiple media forms?

One of the trend that resurfaces in different forms of media and also was present in the presentations was the concept of "blurred lines." Although it was only one group who put emphasis on this, multiple groups talked about enough that it should be mentions. Media today cannot put into just black or white areas. No longer do we live in a time where movies and TV shows make the "bad guy" full on evil or the "good guy" the perfect human being. Although this has been happening over the years, it is more common now than ever before. TV shows today explore deeply troubled protagonists who have gotten themselves in some sort of trouble because of their own doing. So many TV shows have not dived into the troubled mind of a character like they today in shows such as 24, Breaking Bad, The Wire, Supernatural, Game of Thrones, Justified, The Walking Dead and so on. The protagonist is no longer an all-knowing being whose troubles are over by the end of the episode. TV shows have become more cinematic than ever before and therefore are in deep competition with film.

Another common trend that came up was the acceptance of violence. Men kill other men to show that killing other men in wrong. Okay, it may not be that simple. But, still. A majority of the highest grossing films of the past years (especially those who past the $1 billion mark) have been action movies. One of the movies that comes to mind is The Avengers. Don't get me wrong, I loved that movie...on my first watching. Second time around, I realized how much mindless action there was in the movie. The final battle, although incredibly epic and put on a grand scale, fell flat because there was no fallout from the fights. The heroes were barely getting injured. I just didn't feel like I should be fearing for these character because I was thinking something along the lines of "they can't kill him. They still need this character to milk out some more cash." Similarly, Man of Steel had the same issues, but I was bothered by it just on my first watching.

One group mentioned that media loves to expose American stupidity. Even though that may be true to an extent, it is somewhat misleading. Some people love to see something "stupid" once in a while. This could refer to shows like Here Come Honey Boo Boo where a family is exploited (they seem fairly oblivious to the impact of what they say), specifically the daughter. This is reality TV show and it adds to the conversation of stupidity. However, it would be incorrect to just say American stupidity. Stupidity exists everywhere. It's just that the media has exploited it here in the States more than anywhere else in the world. Also, it is a false representation of society. It only goes to heighten the stereotype that Americans and fat and dumb. As Gino's group mentioned, many times the people on the show are told to act a certain way simply to get the shot the filmmakers want to get...and here is was thinking that THIS IS REALITY TELEVISION. I guess even our sense of reality is falsified in media today.

3. What do you see as the best and worst of what media portrays?

The media can do its best to influence society, but it can never represent it as a whole. That is where the major fault for the media lies; it exaggerates human interests. There are channels, TV shows, video games, and movies for every type of audience. Most of the reality TV shows, which as apparently supposed to show events happening in some real person's life, shows fake people. Shows like Keeping Up With the Kardashians does have real people, but these people are so not grounded to reality that they are living in their own world. Most people don't live their lives like the Kardashians do because most people don't have so much money. Additionally, the family rarely faces big issues and they usually just become bitter over small things like Kim not feeling like talking to anyone. In that sense, this show (Along with many many more) shows the worst of of media's portrayal.

One of the best thing media has started to portray today is a general acceptance of all kinds of people. By that I am referring to all the LGBT people in the world. Shows like Glee are leading the way in this cultural change where acceptance in not just preached, but also acted upon. In TV Shows and movies, the LGBT group is represented more and more. That, I believe, is one of the best things media has done today with its portrayal of society today.

4. Where do you see yourself contributing to the conversation?

My group talked about the acceptance of violence over sexuality, specifically in American culture. We live in a world where it is unacceptable for a child to see someone's butt, but being literally ripped apart from limb to limb is a little more acceptable. As mentioned, European TV shows are more lenient on expressing sexuality than showing extreme violence. Although women are shown to wear very minimal clothing in much of American media, it is still frowned upon if any sexual acts are shown. A documentary called This Film is Not Yet Rated, made an attempt to look inside the MPAA which includes members who control what the rating for every single movie will be. The documentary explains that they say that they are trying to protect children with this, but they associations accepts violence far more easily than they accept sex. Because of this, filmmakers who wanted their films to be rated R get NC-17 and many theaters refuse to play them. Due to this, all the hard work the filmmakers put into their film goes down the drain simply because the MPAA says the content was too graphic. The media could potentially play a powerful role here by exploring this issue. 

Top 5 Films of All Time!

Warning: I will be overusing gifs....this entire year. 

Asking someone, especially students studying film, what their favorite movie of all time is will almost always never get a direct response. "How can I choose one?" "There are so many masterpieces." yada yada. In reality, I'd say the same thing too, but since I'm pressed for points, I can come up with at least 5 movies that I can always watch and watch and never get bored of.

Be aware that this list is in no particular order.



The very first movie that popped in my head was Back to the Future. Some people don't exactly enjoy the trilogy and regard the first movie as a classic. I'm not one of those people. I agree that they aren't as well polished, nor do they have such a new and exciting concept as the first, I love every single movie in the trilogy. I really hope Hollywood doesn't go ahead and decide to reboot it. If it does, one of the things that needs to remain is the charm of the movie. Today, everyone is going after the Nolan grittiness. Every movie doesn't need to be dark people...The original film has a certain nostalgia factor that still hits you even if you weren't living in the 80s or the 50s. I simply adore the 1950s time period. I'll watch any movie taking place in the 50s if it has that nostalgia attached to it. While not everyone can recall going back in time, we can all relate to the stories from the moral implications during the pursuit of sciences to bullies to forbidden love. Plus it has a simple heart filled message: "If you put your mind to it you can accomplish anything." The best part about the movie is that it still stands today. Marty Mcfly has defined pop culture and for that reason the movie is still relevant today.

It's still cool to have a delorean and rock those future nikes from Back to the Future 2









Kick-Ass is a fairly recent movie. (HEY, recent movies can be good too. Those old directors can't always dwell on the past. There is a whole new generation growing up with movies like this rather than Citizen Kane). This is one of those instances where I believe that the movie improves on the original comic book. I head this from a certain youtuber (Comicbookgirl19) and I'd agree completely. Here we go again, this movie is different from the hundreds of other superhero movies coming out today because it is colorful in terms of story as well as visuals. Comic books are supposed to be full of color (well Batman doesn't count or Punisher or some more but you get the point). Even though it's colorful and seems cheerful at first glance, does that mean this movie isn't realistic? NO. This is the most realistic superhero movie I've ever seen. It seriously looks at what would happen if a normal guy went out and tried to be a superhero. Well, he'd get his "ass kicked" right? (get it? I'm sorry). In fact, the lovable character of Dave, AKA Kick-Ass, is quickly beaten and left for death. With instances like this, this movie explores the dark side of the normal person. Would you just stand and watch someone being mugged or would you do actually get in there and stop it. Most likely than not, we wouldn't do anything. Still, Kick-Ass DOES something which is admirably about the character. He gets beat up over and over again and he realizes he's way out of league, but that doesn't stop him from fighting for the good of society. The action scenes in the movie are crazy good and even Nick Cage brings his A-game.



 You know what, there is a reason everyone is trying to bank off of the success of the Dark Knight trilogy. Christopher Nolan is a genius and his vision of the rebooted Batman has made Batman cool again. No longer is Batman given silly weapons and sidekicks. This movie is looked from the perceptive of what Batman would be like if he existed in the real world (okay given that Nolan's world in Batman isn't EXACTLY the same as ours). Not only is this a great superhero movie, it is a tremendous political drama. The best thing going for this film in my opinion, Heath Ledger's depiction of the Joker. Again, just like Batman, the Joker isn't a silly joke any longer. He has upgraded to a psychotic monster who just want "to watch the world burn." Although Batman Begins isn't the best demo reel for Nolan's action scenes, he improves on cinematography in the Dark Knight as well as with the script. This film is arguably one of the most quoted films of all time. Also, you admire Nolan's decision to use film instead of digital to shoot a superhero film. That is simply non-existent today.





I'm basically a sucker for heart-felt movies. By that I don't really mean romantic comedies (although some can be really good), I mean movies that leave an emotional impact on me long after I'm done watching them. If that movie can include both comedy and serious moments with an interesting story, I'm all in. This is why The Truman Show is one of my all-time favorite movies. I saw it for the first time on Netflix when I had nothing else to watch, but this movie just stuck with me. It takes a look at the issue of privacy as well as the idea of one's control of own destiny. Truman lives in a world that he believes to be real, but every single person is his life is an actor. Every single life decision in his life has made for him. He has a "seemingly perfect life," but it makes you wonder "Do I really want a perfect life like this?" This might possibly be Jim Carrey's best movie.  His performance is brilliant. There is a tragic undertone to the film. Truman can have anything we wants in his life, except the he really can't. All he wants is the love of his life; he just wants a REAL emotional connection because he begins to pick up on everyone being a phony. It's incredibly interesting to see Truman's desperation to discover the truth and he is constantly just being denied and manipulated, and you can't help but feel for the guy.




Even considering that I haven't many of the greatest films ever made, it was still tough coming up with this list, but for my final selection I'll say Forest Gump is among the best movies I've seen. Again, this is one of those movies that I never skip if it is playing on TV. I find movies like this, that tell fictional life stories, very interesting. This include movies like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Shawshank Redemption. I'm not double dipping here. I'm admitting that Forest Gump is my top choice among those films. The most interesting aspect of the film is the main character, Forest. He is likable, caring, honest, and just good human being. As it spans generations, the film covers a multitude of issues on American such as race, bullies, war, and so on. However, the theme of love remains constant throughout the film. I guess the best way I can describe it is by saying the film has heart. Forest Gump is a story of an underdog. We love the underdog. That's why we keep cheering for him and even learn to appreciate his naivete. Because of this it is amazing to see him succeed in the way he does. Not only that, I really do appreciate the amount of complex visual effects they filmmakers used to further the storytelling. They even went as far as to use real footage from Birth of Nation ( click here to learn more about that) and integration Forest's great grandfather. If I start talking about Tom Hank's brilliant performance, I won't stop talking so I'll end it here.
 

What makes a great film?

Ahhhh....the blog posts. So they begin once again...

For me, a film can be considered a good film in many different ways. Realistically speaking, there are no set rules for what makes a good film, there is secret recipe to a good movie; everything is subjective.

I went to see Transformer: Dark of the Moon in an IMAX theater and 20 minutes in, I just wanted to get up and leave. I know for a fact that I'm not alone on this one. Still, this movie raked in over $1.12 billion dollars worldwide. So how can a movie that so many people despised make so much money? Well, that's because there are the same amount of people, if not more, who loved this movie and went to see it 2-3 times (like my cousin who was the one who dragged me with him).  This reinforces the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder which can certainly be applied to film.

That being said, there are certain aspects a film could have that could not only keep be interested, but also be an actual good movie. This can be applied to short films as well.

Firstly, the protagonist(s) should be a dynamic character. By that I mean, he/she should have transformed in some way by the end of the story. I'm sorry for doing this, but I have to reference Breaking Bad again. I understand that this isn't a film, but it is has a cinematic tone. Think of it like a movie franchise which comes out with a sequel after sequel, but each sequel only improves on the past movies. Vince Gilligan, the creator and main writer of the show, stated that we went into the show with the intention of taking this character, Walter White, from Mr. Chips to Scarface. This is exactly what the creators have done. Every single character in the show, not just Walter, is evolving in some way. No character is the same or thinks the same way as the time they were introduced in the show. This constant evolution keeps me interesting in the characters. If I'm interesting the characters, then I'm usually willing to let the story slide a little bid. However in the case of Breaking Bad, there is a combination of brilliant story telling with excellent characters all thanks. I believe that if you start with an interesting character, the story will come to you because once you understand your own creation, you can start taking it to places the viewer will find interesting. Last year, this is one aspect, I did not focus on. All the characters in my short films were one-dimensional and unrelatable which made the whole story rather boring to watch. In the case of Walter White, he is relatable because he as redeeming qualities. He's truly most interested in providing for and protecting his family. No matter how far off he goes off-course of being only in the business of cooking crystal meth for his medical bills and future of his family, the viewers thinks back and says that Walt is a good guy. The character is changing for the bad, but the viewer's interest in him always keep him on their side (most of them at least at this point). A character cannot be always good or always bad....he/she must be a combination of both. Being flawed is part of being a human.

"From Mr. Chips to Scarface"




Characters are great and all, but I cannot stress the importance of a good story. The story can be as simple as possible, but it has to be enganing. It has to keep the viewer interested in watching the movie. In the case of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, all it did for me was provide eye candy and big explosions with lots of action which was only fun was a total of 10 minutes. Heck, I can't even remember what the story was about. (something about changing Earth to Cybertron). This is also a feature lacked in my short films last year. The story was always so convoluted that viewers lost interest in everything.

The Black Hole is a great example of a very short film with an idea so simple that it's genius. Not only that, in the little times provided for the story, the filmmakers are able to make us (the viewers) question human morality, abuse of powers, and natural greed. We get all that from a guy who finds a mini black hole in a paper. Not only that, it teaches us a lesson. I suggest you watch it yourself since it's only about 3 minutes long.

Finally, I'd like to add that there should be an emotional investment and connection in the film. The filmmakers, which all the tools available to them such as cinematography, gear, props, music/score etc., should make me feel a certain way at the end. Sometimes, a happy ending isn't always the best way to go for this. For example, (SPOILER ALERT FOR FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS) Every single football movie I've seen revolves around a band of misfits or outcasts from society who join together to stand for themselves and their cause until they finally win at the end. In Friday Night Lights, however, all of the hard work of all of the characters and their losses are not paid off because that's just life. It's based on a real story so it makes it that much more believable that everyone wasn't having the time of their lives at every turn. It's a realistic look at the obsession of football culture from a perspective of a town who lives and breathes high school football.
In the clip above, everything comes together for the team and it seems like that their last chance at a state championship is tangible. Then, quickly it's all brought to an end. Throughout the movie, you are complelety invested in the characters and their lives outside of football that it results in an emotional reaction. Even if you don't ball your eyes out, there is an emotional impact that sticks. All of this is heightened by the tools available to the filmmakers especially the camera movements/shots along with the music.

Again, I'd like to point out that picking "What makes a great film" is highly subjective and there are no specific ways that you could create a perfect film.

Independent Research Script Reflection- "Saving Private Ryan" & "City of God"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eYM29SGiDj6rdbkjdELzgDIXtVEBgsuUesHDqrm2Hz8/edit

Although I made attempts at referring to film history, these attempts were not developed as well as they could have. I introduced the evolution of war photography. I stated that everything involving war began with the people believing it to be real. Even though it was staged, the audience had no idea. However, as time progressed, they learned to get used to the constant bombardment of violence and therefore the standards of  photographing war were raised. This could have been a good time to dwell into some aesthetics of the genre and talk about some theories involving it, yet these ideas were not talked about.

If this was turned into a documentary, there would probably seem a disconnect with the audience. Not enough was done to get and keep the audience's attention. Reading it, it seems more like an essay rather than an engaging piece for anyone to enjoy. Although some of the arguments have depth in them, they fall flat in scope. For example, there is clear information on the story behind the film and the struggle of the actors, yet there is nothing that connects it to the bigger picture.

This is one of the things that was done well. There are constant references to multiple different and reliable sources in the forms of articles, essays, and videos. Not only do these come from the people involved in the film (such as the actors and directors), but also from outside sources who have looked closely at the film and analyzed it bit by bit. The only issue here is that although they are relevant, they just need to click together a little better. Yes, they are linked to what I am talking about, but they could be linked together in a better way.

Compared to the audio, the video elements seem a little tenuous. The audio is written well, but again it seems too much like an essay and not an engaging and interesting piece ready for a real documentary analysis of both of the movies.

Both of the films (Saving Private Ryan and City of God) clearly relate to the topics of war photography and preserving realism in film. Now that I look back at it, the term "realism" could have been defined as well. In the definition, I could have talked about early 20th century film movements that led to the creation of this term and the basic conventions that it follows in terms of editing and cinematography. Nevertheless, I'd say that there were insightful comparisons made between the two films but the precision of these comparisons can debatable. I would say that the comparisons could have improved. There wasn't that much too improve on, but they could still have flowed better with better transitions used between them.

End of Year Reflection

My strength would be my knowledge of not just movies, but TV shows as well. I constantly referred to TV shows and their interesting story lines as film as their usage of filmic techniques. Honestly, there are people in the class who has seen way more films that I have, but I am still able to talk about the research. When researching, I would like to say that "ebscohost" helped, but I did honestly did not help me find the research I was looking for. The only interesting article it ever provided for me was when I was researching the film Psycho. I always looked, but I never found good articles. Sometimes, I never found any relevant articles. That is the area I would say I need help in. I'd say that I only needed help finding scholarly writing during my research throughout the year. I don't think there is a set way to teach students how to research, but maybe exposing students to more reliable sites could prove helpful.


My strength approaching the oral presentation was the amount of time I put into the research for the film. This time, "ebsochost" proved to be helpful due to the vast history and impact of Psycho on the film industry. The blog posts we did forced us to research early if we didn't want to start so early. Next year for my presentation, I think I just need to work on presenting it in a way that I sound like I know what I'm saying. Also, I need to stay focused on the real life events of the film rather than the real life events of the people it was influenced by. Next year, it would help if we were also forced to do this research because it would force us to no procrastinate. Also, I know this is hard to do, but I feel like we should get a little more time to work on it. I felt like presentations came too quickly.


This year, I got a chance to work with gear that I had not thought would use. For example, I used sliders, steadicams, audio gear (H4n) , lenses, cameras (7D), and lights. The most I learned from was using the lights I used in El Camino, the first short film we made this year. Not only did I learn about the Noir genre, but also the many of ways to light a scene to make the image more appealing. I was able to use this techniques I learned during that and improve the lighting in the documentary I made (Youth and Government). The are I need to work on in my filmmaking is the story-telling aspect, which is a HUGE area. I know the filmmaking techniques, but I cannot tell a good, visual story. I honestly don't know how to improve my storytelling because if I knew, I mostly likely already would have tried it.

Brazilian Cinema and City Of God

Todorov’s theory of an equilibrium.

According to this theory, disequilibrium arrives after equilibrium which then paves the way for new equilibrium. This can be easily seen reflected in City of God. When the movie begins, there is peace. Although it is not the way normal society is used to seeing peace, it is peace nonetheless. However, is is soon disrupted after the massacre in the brothel by Lil Dice. This results in the eventual downfall of the members of the "Tender Trio." When Lil Dice becomes Lil Ze and takes control of the city, there is equilibrium again. Although he used years of violence to get to where he his, he has achieve peace in the City of God. However, his further involvement in the violence leads to an all out war in the middle of the city between Lil Ze and Knockout Ned's gangs. Finally at the end of the movie, everything is restored. However, the director shows little children walking away from the camera talking about killing someone they dislike because they are the ones in power now. The shot is static and everything is visible in the frame due to the deep focus. This allows for the audience to soak in all the action they just witnessed only to see the cycle repeat itself all over again.


Narrative Enigma 

Narrative enigmas, or unanswered questions that mislead the audience, is one of the many techniques seen in the film. This is done through the audience's knowledge coming into account and predicting what is likely to happen. This hypothesis is made from the prior knowledge gained from the film. The best example of this is Tiago and Bene's race. From what we know about Lil Ze and his associates is that they kill for what they want. When Tiago arrives, he almost seems like a burden and the way Bene chases after him is not a good sign. Additionally, the use of quick shots and reverse angles with the framing getting closer and closer to the characters adds to this sense of anxiety. However, nothing happens at the end. The set-up leads to no true expected resolution, which makes this film unique in its own way. Although it is expected that the race is going to end with Tiago suffering, the exact opposite happens; Tiago and Bene befriend one another. This misleading scene shows that the characters in the story are not as black and white as they may appear to be. They all have layers that reveal them to be more than just a caricature.


Diegetic narrative devices



These devices include newspapers, photographs, music, and T.V. interviews. The film's inclusion of newspapers and photographs show the blend of the violent world in the rest of society. Rather, it shows the desire to be separate from this world of violence. Rocket, in a way, is dependent of the society's crave for this knowledge of the less known violent society. He gets a job and gets to lose his virginity due to the opportunity given to him. Additionally, the film has a blend of modern (for the 70s) music with almost no music at all. The music playing at Bene's farewell party bring all the different groups in the city together. This further signifies the importance of culture in modern society. What I find the most interesting is actually the lack of music in specific sections. What that does is that it creates a realistic tone in which the audience does not know what to expected because there is no music for guidance. This creates for incredibly powerful and emotional scenes such as the one where Lil Ze makes a kid kill one of the Runts.

The character of Rocket is what most interest me for my personal research. It is his role as not just the narrator, but his role as a character as well. More specifically, the idea that he uses a camera as a way to protect himself from the violence is what I find the most interesting especially because traces of its importance can be seen in hand-held voyeuristic cinematography. I am interested in looking at other films who use a similar technique or form of cinematography to tell something about the story and the characters. I don't want to looking at "found footage" films because although they have something similar to what is being done in City of God, it is not done for the same reason. Cinematography of a movie like Saving Private Ryan would seem more appropriate because the shaky camerawork adds to the brutality of war.




Source:



http://brianair.wordpress.com/film-analysis/city-of-god/

City of God: Cinematic Portrayal of Violence

City of God (2002) is a film directed by Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund. This coming of age story follows "Two boys growing up in a violent neighborhood of Rio de Janeiro take different paths: one becomes a photographer, the other a drug dealer" (IMDb). Although the film is much, much more than just that synopsis  that is what it comes down to at its most basic plot point.

The portrayal of violence is shown through the narrator, Rocket. Rocket witnesses this violence first at a personal level, but still far away from the action. Rocket, who grows up to be a photographer finds himself getting stuck in unwanted situations from his childhood days. In a way, he represents what the audience sees because he is the character who controls what we, as the audience, can see and know to be true. Rocket is like a link from the life in the favelas and the rest of the world because as stated by Rocket: "For the powerful our problems didn't matter. We were too far removed." Even the people who work in the newspaper with Rocket and write stories about the favelas don't enter because it is too deadly for them.

"The favela is also a site of gendered violence. The City

of God is represented as almost exclusively male, and

women's bodies simply provide another site for the men to

carry out violence against one another."

In the movie, the primary directory (Fernando Meirelles) uses women is a very limited way. Wom
en in the movie are a symbol of escape and freedom from the destructive live in the favelas. The lack of a major role for women shows the lack of escape from this life of violence. The two strongest female characters in the movie are Angelica and Bernice. They both encourage their males partners to escape for a life far away from the poverty and violence. Because of this, they both lose their man and therefore they are indirectly victims of the violence. These both incidents at two different time periods show that violence will always remain the same; as long violence exists, escape is not an option.

"Throughout the film, infact, the boys are told (most often by their victims) to stop

committing crimes and study. The story of Knockout Ned at

first appears to be a moral tale on the power of education,

but the tale unfolds very differently."

Furthermore, not even education is enough for an escape. There are many "Runts" running around in the city. They are incredibly young to involved in the violence in the caliber that they are. Many of the young, like those the age of the "Runts" are told to get an education and get out of the favelas. In this scene from the movie, the Runts are surrounded by L'il Ze and his men. The directed opts for the lack of music in this powerful scene to show the realistic effects of violence on children and their involvement in this lifestyle. However, escaping from that lifestyle is not so simple. Knockout Ned is a heroic figure to Rocket for being "too cool." He got an education and even served in the military, yet he ends up becoming a major gang leader. There is a glimpse of hope when the entire city begins looking up to him as someone who has the potential to stop the violence. However, he is corrupted by the power he gains by working with Carrot. He goes from not killing the innocent to shooting anyone who defiles his orders. Although there is still good inside him, he has gone too far into the world of chaos and disorder that there is no more return to his old honest life.

"Rocket uses the camera to obliterate his rival, Tiago,

composing his pictures and directing his subjects so as to

throw Tiago into shadow...His

amateur photography becomes the proof of status that

allows Rocket safe passage and a measure of respect;

while the other characters are perpetually armed with

conventional weaponry, Rocket is protected by his camera."

Although it is hard to escape from the life of violence, it is fairly easy for it to become the normal because after a while "you got used to living in Vietnam." Although everyone does not have something protecting them other than a gun, Rocket does; he has is camera. In a way, the camera is Rocket's gun. In that, it gives him respect from the biggest gangsters and a way to escape their wrath when the time came. When Rocket is about to take a photograph of everyone in the group in the middle of the street, a gunshot is fired at the exact time the shutter clicks to take the picture. His subject is shot from the gunfire coming form behind Rocket. This scene serves as a way to show that Rocket's camera is protecting him. Being associated with a camera gives Rocket a voyeuristic privilege. He gets to spy on others from a safe distance. This is reflected though the film's cinematography.  César Charlone, the film's cinematographer, goes opts to go for a hand-held look which reflect's the narrator's occupation as a photographer. Also, giving the film such a hand-held look makes it feel more personal and realistic rather than cinematic. The use of real locations in crowded buildings with sweaty men and minimal lighting adds to the sense of realism that Meirelles was trying to convey.

"The City of God is plagued by economic as well as

physical violence. Attempts by the poor to earn a living are

obstructed by the system, as when Rocket is forced to

abandon his fish, his family's livelihood, on the side of the

road."

In the City of God, violence and poverty go hand-in-hand just like in real life. From early on in the film, it feels that both crime and poverty are inescapable. "In the early segments of the film, shown as a direct response to poverty. In the first sequence, set in the 1960s, the 'Tender Trio' hold up a gas truck." Although this is an act of violence against the driver, it is also an act of heroism for the side of the city. They don't simply steal gas and money; they provide a small glimpse at escape from the poverty. The trio feels the need to do this because they are doing this to provide "money to the smaller boys and to their families." Although this is taken lightly to set up a comedic tone, it serves a greater purpose because it shows that all violence is not more violence. This is contradictory to Rocket's statement: "War was an excuse for everything." Even under L'il Ze's reign, the city is under protection and there is peace. This just goes to show that violence will not always instantly result in more violence; it is just inevitable in the future.

"The film in fact suggests that violence

defies not only representation, but also explanation.

Motives are suggested - evilness, vengeance, territorialism,

animal instinct, initiation, and self-definition - but none

seem adequate to explain the omnipresence of violence in

the favela."

As seen later on violence does erupt and it is to the max. Where once the 'Tender Trio' had once help up a gas truck to try to save the city, L'il Ze holds up a similar truck for his own escape. Prior to that, both sides (Knockout Ned's and L'il Ze's) are recruiting anyone willing to fight. This is shown through a montage which uses quick cuts with multiple close-up and medium close-up of young boys. They all sort of repeat a similar "unbelievable" reason to get a gun and fight. This is followed by quick gun shots and firefights and more young boys again. The quick moving shots in this montage not just shows the passing of time without any change, but also the intensity of the fights. These same quick shots are present throughout the movie involving any action. Combined with the hand-help camerawork, they become powerful tools in preserving realism in the film and its violence.  

Source:
http://cinephile.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/carlsten-cityofgod.pdf