From City of God to City of Men: The Representation of Violence in Brazilian Cinema and Television
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the representation of violence in Brazilian cinema and television through analysis of the TV seriesCity of Men(2003-7), which is a follow-up to the filmCity of God(2002), with the same actors, sets and non-linear narrative. The project began with the production of the TV episodePalace II(2000), which was developed intoCity of God’s script. After receiving international acclaim, it resulted in the production ofCity of Men. In this context, it is important to emphasise the relationship between cinema and television and their particular features as products of the Brazilian audiovisual industry’s renaissance in the 1990s. The representation of violence is analysed not only as a thematic issue common to Brazilian favelas but also as an aesthetic element of TV drama. The representation of the oppressed has been well known in Brazilian cinema since Glauber Rocha’s manifesto “Aesthetics of Hunger” (1965), in which he argues that films need to be aggressive in order to truly expose poverty. The main point to be addressed, however, is whether the representation of violence in this series conveys, criticises or reflects about what is really happening in Brazilian favelas or if it merely offers an aesthetic look into poverty for the delight of audiences in Brazil and abroad.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".