"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm surprised with the questions and issues this documentary has brought up in the reviews here, specially because they're indeed interesting questions. Surely, the ones who could best address it would be the makers of the film themselves. Nevertheless, I think I can shed some light upon something that I think has been overlooked, which is, in my opinion, the purpose of the film, what it is about and what it's trying to convey. What's its message after all? At the risk of pointing out the very obvious, I'll start saying the filmmakers have an intention. They're trying to tell a story, extract meaning out of it and get a point across. With this in mind, we can shoot down many of the criticized points, particularly the ones involving what people expected in contrast with what the filmmakers were really trying to show. Causes and consequences of violence? The film is not about that. It's not \"enlightening Non-Brazilian audiences\" about the Brazilian favelas' issue? Well, who wanted to do that? Is AfroReggae this or that and supported by whom? It doesn't matter in this context. Not enough women in the film for your tastes? It's not about equality or the feminist cause. Every little detail about Anderson's life, mother, son, family and all the aspects and the workings of the AfroReggae movement? Well, don't be so picky because it doesn't matter. There's just so much length a story can have before it can't become a film anymore. If the authors were to show everything everyone is expecting, they'd have to make a 6 months TV series instead. If you are expecting all that, you approach the film the wrong way.
The film is actually about two individuals who started a movement. Two individuals full of ideals. Two individuals who thirst for change. Two individuals trying to do something about all the wrongdoing going around them. Individuals who went rock bottom and wanted to get up again. It's all about finding purpose in life, drawing inspiration from misery, changing the destiny and becoming something else than what they were destined to be -- criminals and drug dealers for that matter. It's about achievement and hope and not about the cruel reality of violence in Rio de Janeiro, though it's an integral part of the film given that's what the characters are constantly surrounded by. Unexpectedly and not without a reason, the film ends up centered much more on Anderson's course through difficulties in life. This is because they were faced with Anderson's accident while they were shooting the film. I'm not sure about this, but they may have even seriously considered ending the filming right there, leaving behind all effort spent. But Anderson wanted to keep going. And so they did, risking to lose in having a film with a bit of an identity crisis, considering the sudden change of course, but gaining in showing someone overcoming such a devastating happening. It's very evident for who watches it that the film begins about AfroReggae and winds up about Anderson. It's very unique in this sense (the shift of the story line). Maybe their only sin is not making it evident upfront, which may initially rise expectations that will go unfulfilled.
As for the importance or ordinariness of Anderson, I'd say not everybody wants to change the whole world, end all violence, feed all the hungry, be like Mahatma Ghandi, be as known as Mother Teresa or whoever other known personalities there are. It's much easier to relate to and draw inspiration from someone who is, such as everybody else in fact, trying to transform his or her own harsh life, raising problematic kids, coping with permanent injuries or diseases and even managing to pay the bills by the end of the month. To understand the movie you have to see that's about leaving behind a past of involvement with drugs and crime, making up for it, and trying to persuade others not to go down the same troublesome path. Though you can criticize if the way they chose to do it is effective and doubt the ideology of the method, you cannot deny their intentions.
Also, the perception that Anderson is special or a chosen one may have partially something to do with the fact that the filmmakers became very involved in the lives of the characters they were depicting. As much as becoming friends with them. There's no way it wouldn't tint the whole movie with a more favorable light over Anderson. If a dear friend becomes paralyzed in an accident, it's not just a fact, you make a big deal out of it. And this is not necessarily bad. It's not much that they treat him like \"a chosen one\" as much as they go to great lengths trying to show him as a seed for transformation and source of inspiration.
In conclusion, don't watch this documentary for the scenes of the reality of poverty and crime it contains, watch it for what it is much more, an inspirational story.
Nike-Ad-like? Seems just damn good and professionally made to me and doesn't affect or detract from the intentions of the film. Romanticized? Speculate on its credential as a documentary if you will, but why not when it's supposed to cause reaction and inspire? Isn't trying to better people's lives through music and dance -- the essence of what the subjects are trying to do -- romanticizing the very own reality? Pardon me, but showing just the plain facts is what reporters do and you can watch it on TV every night.
If I wanted to become a filmmaker, I wish my first film would also be this great.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"