When it comes to cinema there are now two things that are more irrelevant to me than anything else: a filmmaker's intentions and the reaction of others to the film.  I mention this because in a recent discussion with a friend, who happens to think City of God is a near-masterpiece, he brought up the point of filmmaker's intentions and had me thinking about my initial reaction to this film by making me consider the possibility that what a director tries to achieve should affect how I see what it is he actually does achieve.  I have no doubt that Fernando Meirelles had the best of intentions when making City of God nor do I doubt the passion and effort he put into it.  The problem is that in cinema the only thing that can or should be judged is the final result - of course when talking about lost fragments of a film, any cut of Greed, etc. it's a whole new ball game - and here that is all I will discuss. 

Set in the City of God - a Brazilian slum where killing is both the means and the end - the film concentrates mostly on the activity of the two rival gangs that run everything within the border.  The narrator (I hesitate to call him the central character because he is so often not the focus) is Buscape, a young boy who somehow manages to stay clear of the gangs yet always knows what's going on.  There are no rules here unless they are written by the gangs and these are certainly made to be broken.  The most horrifying point of the film is realizing that most of the gang members are minors either forgotten or abandoned by their parents.  Left to their 'Lord of the Flies' of the slums, everyone has a gun and is ready to kill at the drop of a hat.  So far we have the possibility of a great and powerful film, but it is director Fernando Meirelles' decisions that take this film in the wrong direction.

Shot in a slick, cool style with fast-editing and upbeat music, City of God aims to put the viewer in the shoes of these desperate kids so we see their world through their eyes.  Unfortunately Meirelles didn't see the danger of doing this beforehand and ends up exchanging our rational mindset with an irrational, detached and insensitive one.  The violence becomes almost entertaining because death has no meaning.  This is all a game to them and hence a game to us since they are our eyes.  The horror of their circumstances and the depravity of their existence fail to seem urgent and lack the emotional punch they should have because the films only perspective is from people who think this is the norm.  As I watched scene after scene of events that would normally be powerful, I was disturbed at how easy it was for me to brush each one off as if nothing had happened.  Clearly this was not what Meirelles intended, but with the stylistic liberties he has taken these are the results that can come of it. 

With as many problems I have with the film, I don't want to completely dismiss it.  Despite the lack of emotional involvement and the unsettling inability to empathize with the kids, there were a few poignant moments when Meirelles toned the film down and a flurry of wonderful performances that somewhat hold it all together.  The few tender sequences - a boy attempting to gain the interest of a girl he likes or a friend speaking frankly to his gang partner for what seems like the first time - work wonderfully, but also serve as a reminder of how good this could have been if made in a different manner.  In the end, City of God is worth seeing for, more than anything else, its depiction of a part of the world that has remained unseen by most people (unless you have seen Pixote) though it is unfortunate that what should be an emotionally-engaging film is so completely unaffecting.