I can kinda see why your mad Lira. But it's not just a Brazil thing, Scotland always gets a bad image from films, i.e. Trainspotting?

What other exposure to Scotland do people have? Kilts(translation, man skirts?)?

What else? Whisky?

Forget about inventing the TV, Telephone, Fax Machine, GTA (gotta lighten it up a bit) and many more things, cloning the first animal and a rich history of research with some of the oldest universities in the world.

Not bad for having a population of 5 million drunk football hooligans who wear man skirts?

Films in genral are not made to inform, only entertain. Thats why they are always full of shit. And worse news is starting to follow the same trend.

People like being entertained.

Films are made to make money.

Until either of thouse statements is untrue films will always be full of shit.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

^^^never thought of that, yay for irony^^^

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

right ...im about to watch that atm...see ya

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Because he is jewish and to be mad it him for profiting off of a movie about the holocaust we would have to also be mad at the people in Israel for getting a country because of the holocaust, and well, thats just not very politically correct these days.

you're a very smart emo but what about mel gibson and passion of christ?

There was a book written first on this by Paulo Lins so I haven't seen you mention him for his "exploitation".

quote:

You know, I have a hard time trying to understand what can someone even dare to say it is a good film.

I say it's a good film.

---

Goodfellas. Also a film based on real people and also a "pop corn flick". Violent, humour, everything's in that film similar to COG. Is Martin Scorsese to blame for taking the harsh reality's of that life and putting it to screen?

Take Hotel Rwanda, that can definitly be described as "exploitation" and it's a shame that film has to be used to bring light to certain situations. But you know what? I'm sure before that film came out 1/2 of America was unaware of the fact that genocide even took place there and knew the harsh reality of what it was. Instead of looking it negatively, maybe now they're doing something and trying to take action.

Boys N Da Hood. Written / Directed by John Singelton. This can also be called "exploitation" since it was also also a "pop corn flick" and showed the harsh reality's of being in proverty and living in the ghetto. The ghetto's also been around for quite a while and I'm sure will always be there as well. You go into certain parts of any city and there is a ghetto and like yourself, you have to take certain security measure's.. That's everywhere. But Is John Singelton to be blamed for trying to use the entertainment field to bring attention to this?

I could go on and on. But I say what's worse. A movie that can open the eye's of other's to certain situations they know nothing about or having nothing and be blinded by it..

I saw Sin City last week and thought it was a good movie.. That is even though I don't think people should be killing eachother and other people shouldn't treat women like that. I also thought that Pulp Fiction was a good film and the same can be said in that situation. I know that neither of these films can compare to what's going on with people in proverty, yet I think some people will get my other point that films are supposed to be for entertainment even though you don't agree with what's being pushed across morally.

JaY

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lira You know, I have a hard time trying to understand what can someone even dare to say it is a good film. The director turned one of the saddest realities of Brazilian poverty and into a banal pop-corn film. He made a lot of profit from the film and, during these three years, the greedy cunt never engaged on any sort of solution to help. Meanwhile, the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro are becoming the hell on earth, and the news are hardly shocking anymore. We've seen it all on the telly. It's become a parallel reality, ordinary, and we then need something stronger to shock us. What for? First of all, the problem is not new. The slams of Rio de Janeiro have been around for quite a while. Poverty is nothing new, neither in Brazil nor in developed countries. Yet the "exotic sight" of a slam from Rio de Janeiro makes it all far from us (except you do live in Rio). Rio is a charming place, after all, everything a gringo wants to see. Beaches, carnival and the poverty we like to export so we can show we're just the remains of a ruined colony. While the first Americans were looking for a new place to live, the Portuguese just wanted to get whatever they could find here and return to Europe. Then there was the slavery and, as soon as England realised they needed more consumers, they fought for freedom (as if), and there we were - millions of former slaves, in a place where people could hardly live on their own. Obviously, it's not that simple, but this is the main colour of the portrait. The film never ever mentions whatever happened before the XX century. The slam was "just there", as the government wanted to "clean" Rio de Janeiro. Then it just shows all that cruelty as if it were something that we had never heard of. Instead, it just makes "art" out of the most depressing acts human beings can engage on, and thus having us being used to that. Pot-heads will still smoke their bloody ganja, deluding themselves, as if those behind the sales aren't the ones who might kidnap their beloved ones. The film isn't there to change anything. It's not a warning. It's just an attempt of making poverty look as magical as Mickey Mouse. And guess what: it is not. What really saddens me though is that this is all my country exports. Countless foreigners came here and said "WTF!? Where are the slams and the jungle?". If it weren't so late, I'd keep talking, but any word would be just pointless, pretty much like the film. But, unlike that horror show, this is not freaky. This is an average person just ranting so tomorrow I can wake up and try to do something other than shocking people. If someone can convince me of the contrary, I'm willing to read.

It's a movie... take a chill pill!! .. so many moives have been done based on Slavery, africa, and so and so and so on.. look @ all the Holocaust movies... you know how much money is made from those movies?!?!... but it's a film, and least they expose to the rest of the world something from Brazil that it's only seen there, and ppl elsewhere wouldnt even think about it been there perhaps.. hence Brazil reflects this beach, tourist, carnaval, soccer spot.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

Lira have you seen Carandiru ? what do you think of it ? was it based on real events ? thank you

___________________
"A style that's impossible to define. Prog? Hardly. Tech house? Not boring enough. It's like trippy twisted acid house but deep and funky. See, I told you - impossible."

Why did Lil' Zé have to die at the end though? He was such an astoundingly great prick.

JayD, Paulo Lins wrote a book. It had no special effects whatsoever. It wasn't "exploiting" the reality, as he was within it. It was his side of the story he actually lived. Not some director who decided - "hey, nice story, can we make a blockbuster out of it, have cameras panning and have some people from MTV adding some special FX, perhaps, and then we can make this reality look completely fictional and/or entertaining? We should focus on the foreign market as well, so let's add a little bit of sex right in the beginning, some cool violence scenes and let's make Benny look like those black power stylish guys from the 70's, that would be tottaly wicked!".

As for being an eye-opener, good, now you know what we see everyday on the telly. Can you come up with a solution? Do you know Brazilian history and how we could have a better social development? If you thinks the films made in America were helpful - great - but I can't see the Brazilian reality being changed by them. At all.

I feel I'm repeating myself already....

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 Lira have you seen Carandiru ? what do you think of it ? was it based on real events ? thank you

I haven't seen Carandiru yet, but the story is real.

It all happened in Casa de Detenção, in São Paulo, because the prisoners were rebelling. As I recall it, more than a hundred prisoners were killed as the guards who were sent to calm the riot down decided to "clean things up", if you know what I mean. Like Bus 174, that was broadcast live on TV, reason why I know about the film. Like City of God, it was inspired on a book (written by a doctor who helped the prisoners). See? This is what I fail to understand. The book is a good way of getting to know what happened other than what we saw on TV, but this kind of film is really superfluous, as there was a book already, after all. It's not like we were completely oblivious to this event in the first place.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira JayD, Paulo Lins wrote a book. It had no special effects whatsoever. It wasn't "exploiting" the reality, as he was within it. It was his side of the story he actually lived. Not some director who decided - "hey, nice story, can we make a blockbuster out of it, have cameras panning and have some people from MTV adding some special FX, perhaps, and then we can make this reality look completely fictional and/or entertaining? We should focus on the foreign market as well, so let's add a little bit of sex right in the beginning, some cool violence scenes and let's make Benny look like those black power stylish guys from the 70's, that would be tottaly wicked!".

I think you've totally missed the point of my post.

As I said earlier, there have also been books on similar situations and then turned into what you call "blockbusters". Either American cinema or Brazilian cinema, it's all done the same. Morally it may be incorrect, but as said it's a film in the end. So if he'd done a straight story on the book with no camera work and no editing then that would be a good film and not exploitation?

ex·ploi·ta·tion Audio pronunciation of "exploitation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ksploi-tshn)
n.

1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
2. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.
3. An advertising or a publicity program.

I know that posting a dictionary definition on a word isn't exactly going to make any difference but I'm just trying to make a point that I can name plenty of people who've written books after the fact. So there not exploiting what happened's?

It's a good film. That's it. You know how many people hate Michael Moore but look at Fahrenheit 9/11 as a good film even thought they don't agree with it?

Let's see how you take that.

JaY

___________________

City of God was a "blockbuster"? I'd never even heard of it until, on a whim, I saw it at Best Buy and decided to buy it because the synopsis sounded interesting.

I doubt any of us are going to change one anothers' minds here though. So I encourage all of you to see the movie and make a decision for yourself.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.