City of God

Odd that the best picture I could find was perhaps the only lighthearted moment of the entire film. Nevertheless, I disagree with the charge that the film is amoral or actively immoral, if only because the revenge that is set up at the beginning of the film never materializes. One of the more curious moments of the film shows the protagonist noticing and then abandoning a chance to avenge his brother. The point is obviously that he only escapes the slum through transcending slum values, and his photography (or witnessing--a parallel act to making a film about it) suggests that he is the one who pays attention, who sees the pointless cycle of violence and revenge for what it is. (But is there any convincing reason presented for his "goodness?") It's appropriate then that near the end he captures on film the true roots of the problem. Having Lil'Ze avoid the apocalyptic fate we desire for him is an effective way of making just that moral point. We aren't given the satisfaction. (Knockout Ned's story is in some ways the bizarro version of the protagonist's--once he goes for revenge, and getting our hopes up for a comeuppance, he falls into a near-equivalence with Lil'Ze. His corruption is already absolute the moment he decides on revenge.)

The style is the real point here though--but for all it's wizardry and high energy storytelling some of it felt a bit tired. Just some though. For the most part I though it was wonderful, and I wonder whether a more traditional style would make this already dark film too depressing. The final shot explores the real roots of gangster violence and nihilism better than any Scorcese film I can think of.