City Of God: Meaning And Response (Aesthetics)
There are two contrasting aesthetics in The City of God, the slums in the film are where it is represented as grey with tall walls, giving the sense of being trapped in the slums. There are a lot of low angle shots and the use of natural lighting which reinforces the shadows and the reality. The hand-held cameras show the constant movement and shaking which reinforces this disorientating feeling of the city.
There’s not a lot of wide shots in this city so we are generally focused of close ups or closer shots to link to the idea of this oppressive, confined area that these people are living in. Right from the beginning of the film there is the idea of the urban hell scape area.
There is a flash back at the beginning to the slums in Rio from the early 1960s-70s where poverty is presented in such a different way. It beginning with this open area of a football pitch where we see the streets of the slums needing on this open area, And implies that they can get out of this city to this football pitch and there are wide shots of the sky to reinforce this idea. It gives a totally different feel and when we see the boys go into the city we see when wide roads and all the houses are detached (indubitably houses) showing everyone has their own place.
This city is patrolled by police cars showing this sense of social order. As the audience we are left in no doubt that there has been a decline overtime, the aesthetic of the flashback shows this culture in decline that the situation has got worse to everyone which contributes the the idea of this path everybody is led down which is inescapable.
The aesthetic of these two representations are not represented through sound or the other key elements of film form specifically, it is all through the aesthetics of the film and our cultural knowledge to allow us to see the decline through both slums.