This is a movie about the lower middle class grind. Upward mobility is not easy to come by, even if you are young and recently graduated from a University. Success is even harder when one lies about achievements. Singapore is like the United States only richer (per person) and more modernized. Wearing a tie and suit doesn’t mean life is going to get any better. Only through the miraculous intervention of the lottery does the patriarch of a family make it out of these economic doldrums. The middle class is feeling the squeeze in Singapore. One character is forced out of financial necessity to consult his high school yearbook to find people to sell insurance to. Singapore is very clean. There isn’t any litter. There doesn’t appear to be any homeless people, Just government projects and repo men. The poverty is in terms of debt not personal possessions.
Singapore is flat, hot, and tropical. There are a lot of people and not much space. If you are rich you can have access to golf courses and better-looking prostitutes (if that is your thing). But in the 270 square miles of Singapore (wikipedia) those with and those without inhabit the same areas. The symbols of success are accessible to anyone who is approved for a credit card. If a person dies rich enough paper mache mansions and sports cars are set afire in honor. Status is very important in Singapore. The economy is thriving but international competition has made “making it” difficult.
Modernization, fierce competition, and the disintegration of the family explain, in part, why there is such rampant urination in the elevators of Singapore. This quiet and wet act of defiance helps highlight the anonymity of life in this country. Nobody seems to have any friends. The family that we witness in this movie is small and they don’t particularly love each other. In the process of spending their collective days scraping by, going to work, cooking, and dreaming of a better life they don’t take the opportunity to understand the people that surround them. The character that returns from “graduating” college has a difficult time viewing his parents as something other than a source of cash. The people of this movie dedicate their lives to the acquisition of money. It is a hard task to succeed in, and those who win die spontaneously, or are later left out in the cold.
This movie is a social critique on the dangers of modernization. The needs of the human soul (like being treated with love and respect) are in low supply in this movie. Intimacy is outsourced to a sympathetic Chinese prostitute. Family stories are told only after, and not during, the life of a loved one. Nobody puts much effort to give a damn about anyone else. There are exceptions to this. But the subject of money is rarely separate from the words and actions of the people presented in this film.
This movie shows the struggle of a group of people trying to live beyond poverty and love the people around them.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
South Africa
The rural areas of this film are sparse grasslands. They are uninhabited, except for people journeying around the dirt paths. But then again Tsotsi’s home can be seen as the country. The town isn’t typical. It has a country feel to it, but populated by masses of displaced people. Black people are squeezed into tight confines by the South African government. Blacks are forced to live in one of ten designated districts. Tsotsi has flashbacks of his childhood life on a farm. This is all greatly different than city life. An international airport is close enough to walk to. The city is modern and rich and in stark contrast to the life of people living in cement cylinders.
Like Once Were Warriors whites are seldom seen except in positions of authority. When they cops do a bust on Totsi’s shack there are two cops (one white one black) and the white guy happens to be captain. But apart from the airport scene white people are not present in this movie. That doesn’t mean their influence isn’t felt. Apartheid, the white power structure, has divided society, and has created the poverty that is seen. Apartheid is the major element running throughout this movie, but the white hands dividing the people are not seen. Only the results of forced segregation are seen.
The baby symbolizes Tsotsi’s redemption. AIDS has left Tsotsi an orphan. To survive he robs with his gang of baby faced thugs. Everybody is missing important people in their lives. Tsotsi and his friends don’t seem to have any family. The baby is Tsotsi’s chance to give a normal happy childhood, a childhood that wasn’t granted to him. He adopts a proxy mother who breast feeds the child. He provides food, clothing, and warmth, in the end he gives up the child to the rightful parent. So the baby represents Tsotsi’s misguided desire to live out a descent childhood. The baby is also stands for the typical existence of a child in South Africa. Though Totsi kidnaps (although unintentionally) the child, his actions could be seen as representing the way AIDS, poverty and Apartheid has stolen the lives of young South Africans. That may be a stretch. For sure the baby could be seen as the route of survival for South African children. That tremendous adversity will be subjected to the people of South Africa, but that something good can arise from the most terrible of circumstances. It is hard to discover what the directors meant to symbolize with the baby, but the baby was convenient in showing all the different ways people live in South Africa.
The movie is open ended on the future of South Africa. Poverty, the nearly invisible black middle and upper class, class segregation, and the disintegration of traditional families are all issues that are brought up. Orphans are caring for other orphans. The effects of AIDS and Apartheid are horrific in South Africa and this movie. This film is an indictment on the South African government, and the policies and inaction that led to the poverty in the black communities. And in making such a critique, perhaps the film is hoping for a better future for South Africa. Tsotsi ends up arrested, but in the process of the film he undergoes great personal development. The movie depicts life it is in South Africa. The creators of the film see a problem and hope for change. But the change for a better society is done by making a film for a global audience and reflecting to the world the way life is in South Africa.
Like Once Were Warriors whites are seldom seen except in positions of authority. When they cops do a bust on Totsi’s shack there are two cops (one white one black) and the white guy happens to be captain. But apart from the airport scene white people are not present in this movie. That doesn’t mean their influence isn’t felt. Apartheid, the white power structure, has divided society, and has created the poverty that is seen. Apartheid is the major element running throughout this movie, but the white hands dividing the people are not seen. Only the results of forced segregation are seen.
The baby symbolizes Tsotsi’s redemption. AIDS has left Tsotsi an orphan. To survive he robs with his gang of baby faced thugs. Everybody is missing important people in their lives. Tsotsi and his friends don’t seem to have any family. The baby is Tsotsi’s chance to give a normal happy childhood, a childhood that wasn’t granted to him. He adopts a proxy mother who breast feeds the child. He provides food, clothing, and warmth, in the end he gives up the child to the rightful parent. So the baby represents Tsotsi’s misguided desire to live out a descent childhood. The baby is also stands for the typical existence of a child in South Africa. Though Totsi kidnaps (although unintentionally) the child, his actions could be seen as representing the way AIDS, poverty and Apartheid has stolen the lives of young South Africans. That may be a stretch. For sure the baby could be seen as the route of survival for South African children. That tremendous adversity will be subjected to the people of South Africa, but that something good can arise from the most terrible of circumstances. It is hard to discover what the directors meant to symbolize with the baby, but the baby was convenient in showing all the different ways people live in South Africa.
The movie is open ended on the future of South Africa. Poverty, the nearly invisible black middle and upper class, class segregation, and the disintegration of traditional families are all issues that are brought up. Orphans are caring for other orphans. The effects of AIDS and Apartheid are horrific in South Africa and this movie. This film is an indictment on the South African government, and the policies and inaction that led to the poverty in the black communities. And in making such a critique, perhaps the film is hoping for a better future for South Africa. Tsotsi ends up arrested, but in the process of the film he undergoes great personal development. The movie depicts life it is in South Africa. The creators of the film see a problem and hope for change. But the change for a better society is done by making a film for a global audience and reflecting to the world the way life is in South Africa.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
City of God
Violence can happen at any moment in the favella. The movie (filmed around 2002) introduces us into the drug wars of the City of God from the 1960s to the 1980s. The gangs, drugs and the everyday life are shown by following Rocket’s life and witnessing his evolution from a child to a photo journalist. Rocket’s personal biography along with his telling of the stories of drug dealers, family members, and just regular people of the city help orient the audience to what is going on in the favella.
Many people die every day in the City. This movie bears witness to this common place violence. Poverty is universal in the favella, even the drug lords live in decrepit houses with concrete floors and walls. Children totting guns, and massive street fights against rival gangs and police does not seem to come from real life as opposed to the gory imagination of an ambitious film director. Statistics pop out when reading about life in the poor side of Rio. Things are better now the articles say. In the 1980s 40 people were murdered a day, now 12 or 14. Also, since the camera films the life of Little Ze we are going to be subject to more bloodshed than normal. He is a remorseless killer with a good business sense. He wants power in one of the most violent places on Earth, and in order to get this a lot of people are going to die. At the end of the movie TV clips are shown of the real Knockout Ned, and the comparisons between that and the cinematic version are incredibly close. This movie looks genuine. However, I don’t think the most accurate way to get a view of life in the favella is of the personal testimonial of some British tourist who gets lost.
This video shows a lot though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3TLm0ubeZM
The favella and the outside world both have their rich and poor. Wealth is shown through gold jewelry and nice clothes in the favella. The ability that each person has in accumulating guns, drugs, and power determine where someone stands in the class structure. Outside this world being rich is the same as being rich anywhere else. This class structure is shown at all the successful business men in the hotel with their wives, girlfriends, or prostitutes. The same trappings of success are there as everywhere else. The other side of the class structure is the hotel workers, fish salesman, and truck robbers of the town. In the countryside besides a few business men or tourists, people are poor and similar in economic class. There is wealth outside the favella, and the class structure is broken down the same way there as anywhere else in the world (but with a lower GDP) There is wealth in the favella but it belongs only to the drug lords.
This film is shot in a slick way. It is done beautifully. The movie has good music, and is done in a hip way that gives it a style of a Tarintino movie. So here lies the trouble. Making a movie about a favella in the actual heart of the favella is going to be next to impossible. Houses are stacked on houses balanced precariously on the side of a hill. This is not the easiest place to put a film crew who wants to portray a way of life in both an accurate but also aesthetic way. So the film crew films, possibly, in the less favellaish, more open spaces. When I witnessed a brief clip on youtube of a gun battle between police and people in the favalla I saw something different than in the movie. I saw people jumping off of roofs, hiding and emerging from ledges and stairwells. The cameraman must have had tremendous difficulty capturing the moment. In the movie the violence takes place on a flatter surface. But who cares? The life of people is shown in an accurate way, even if the movie films more on areas that are more conducive to camera crews. The favella is more dense and cramped than shown in the movie. But it does give a sense of what it is like there. The countryside is in certain pockets thick with vegetation (as rainforests tend to be). The people of the country live in a barren area marked with homes reminiscent of the suburb with its repetitious construction. There are jungles here and there, but the rural folk live mostly in a dusty, poor world.
Many people die every day in the City. This movie bears witness to this common place violence. Poverty is universal in the favella, even the drug lords live in decrepit houses with concrete floors and walls. Children totting guns, and massive street fights against rival gangs and police does not seem to come from real life as opposed to the gory imagination of an ambitious film director. Statistics pop out when reading about life in the poor side of Rio. Things are better now the articles say. In the 1980s 40 people were murdered a day, now 12 or 14. Also, since the camera films the life of Little Ze we are going to be subject to more bloodshed than normal. He is a remorseless killer with a good business sense. He wants power in one of the most violent places on Earth, and in order to get this a lot of people are going to die. At the end of the movie TV clips are shown of the real Knockout Ned, and the comparisons between that and the cinematic version are incredibly close. This movie looks genuine. However, I don’t think the most accurate way to get a view of life in the favella is of the personal testimonial of some British tourist who gets lost.
This video shows a lot though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3TLm0ubeZM
The favella and the outside world both have their rich and poor. Wealth is shown through gold jewelry and nice clothes in the favella. The ability that each person has in accumulating guns, drugs, and power determine where someone stands in the class structure. Outside this world being rich is the same as being rich anywhere else. This class structure is shown at all the successful business men in the hotel with their wives, girlfriends, or prostitutes. The same trappings of success are there as everywhere else. The other side of the class structure is the hotel workers, fish salesman, and truck robbers of the town. In the countryside besides a few business men or tourists, people are poor and similar in economic class. There is wealth outside the favella, and the class structure is broken down the same way there as anywhere else in the world (but with a lower GDP) There is wealth in the favella but it belongs only to the drug lords.
This film is shot in a slick way. It is done beautifully. The movie has good music, and is done in a hip way that gives it a style of a Tarintino movie. So here lies the trouble. Making a movie about a favella in the actual heart of the favella is going to be next to impossible. Houses are stacked on houses balanced precariously on the side of a hill. This is not the easiest place to put a film crew who wants to portray a way of life in both an accurate but also aesthetic way. So the film crew films, possibly, in the less favellaish, more open spaces. When I witnessed a brief clip on youtube of a gun battle between police and people in the favalla I saw something different than in the movie. I saw people jumping off of roofs, hiding and emerging from ledges and stairwells. The cameraman must have had tremendous difficulty capturing the moment. In the movie the violence takes place on a flatter surface. But who cares? The life of people is shown in an accurate way, even if the movie films more on areas that are more conducive to camera crews. The favella is more dense and cramped than shown in the movie. But it does give a sense of what it is like there. The countryside is in certain pockets thick with vegetation (as rainforests tend to be). The people of the country live in a barren area marked with homes reminiscent of the suburb with its repetitious construction. There are jungles here and there, but the rural folk live mostly in a dusty, poor world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)