MovieChat Forums > Ônibus 174 (2003) Discussion > Wish Sandro shot the sociologist instead...

Wish Sandro shot the sociologist instead!

posted 21 years ago by Manicheus
43 replies | jump to latest

The only annoying part of this well-balanced masterpiece...just wouldn't let go off the sociologist's robotic "comentary"...the usual ranting...Marx...Freud...upbringing...society...always blame it on somebody else! Liberalism is a malady, is it not? Hiding from their academic fortresses, shedding crocodile tears, they feel so sorry for poor Joe Schmo...disgusting!! Liberal hypocrisy is far worse thanany form of fascism...America leads the way...down in the gutter...victims...always blame somebody else for your own criminal impulse...help! I am a victim! Bring in the professors...show and tell...all the same...fat and stupid...the usual mantra...Marx...Freud...ugly crap...

[–] thewrathofgatts 21 years ago

overuse of "..." but yeah the sociologist was annoying.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Verbal-17 21 years ago

You said it, Manicheus. All of the other people interviewed clearly had a contribution to make to the story- either about the hostage situation, or the world that Sandro grew up in that led him to that event. But the Sociologist just wanted to preach about how poor people are not responsible for their own actions. He added nothing of value to the narrative and what's more, his interview was completely unnecessary- the testimon of Sandro's family and the images of the Candelaria massacre said all that needed to be said about Sandro's situation. But he still made a conscious decision to put those people's lives in danger and the film at least recognized that, even if the Sociologist couldn't because he was too busy speaking his rhetoric to do so.

"Now get your patchouli stink out of my store!"

[–] mvan_lee 21 years ago

I completely agree, Verbal. I don't know if all that he said was "crap" as earlier posters have mentioned, but it was completey unnecessary. All the other things you mentioned got those points across much more powerfully and more meaningfully. The sociologist was a classic example of "telling" rather than "showing." A minor flaw in what is otherwise a powerful film.

[–] joFFeman 20 years ago

i agree that the sociologist seemed to revel in the way the situation played out, he seemed very detatched from the human element of it, and instead of focusing on sandro himself, he focused on the same rhetoric that you hear over and over again until it doesn't mean anything from the intellectual elite. i'm a commie, i'll be the first to admit it, but people like that guy, living well in the face of all of the shxt going on in the world, but spouting propaganda are a reality in the mainstream parts of the socialist movement. they actually hurt the movement, in my eyes, by contributing to the public perception that the well-off, over-read, self-righteous professor type are the only type who believe socialism is a solution.

what he is- someone who loves to talk about how much they care, but doesn't do anything about the situation that removes him from the comfortable position he has in society- actually makes the film more powerful to me. he 'tells' rather than 'showing' the ideal, but he himself as a subject truly does show part of the problem: those who remain apathetic in action but love to listen to themselves speak about how much they care. the female social worker seemed a lot more down-to-earth, and i feel she represented a much more positive side of the same coin.

love,
joFFeman

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] doxadramas1958 20 years ago

The interview was not completely unnecessary - it made the experience of watching the film more complex and memorable, that's why there's a debate going on about it on this message board. Of course the sociologist added nothing of value to the narrative, that wasn't the point. He provided a theoretical perspective that was provocatively juxtaposed with the personal reflection and the archive footage. The film would have been less interesting without it, and as a result this message board wouldn't exist. Loosen up. Live and let live, and enjoy a bit of diversity.

[–] [email protected] 20 years ago

Thank-you Freedomfile. Your words hit home for me.

If truth be told, I was partly hoping Sandro would come out of the mess alive. I really felt for him given what his life consisted of and the fact he did not intend to kill anyone (key word being 'intend'). However given the situation following his arrest, death was the best option.
It disgusted and tormented me to watch the police smother him to death.
It made me sick.
The cops get away completely free after their wonderful botched attempt at taking control of a situation. Scott-free after murdering Sandro.

My heart goes out to those prison inmates who have a complete hell-like environment. I don't think any human being deserves that kind of treatment.

Corvidae

Inspire whimsey in everyone you meet

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gregy55902 19 years ago

Analogous to "burrito"

Also, a barrel roll is a maneuver for airplanes.

Ask a stupid question...

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gregy55902 19 years ago

Proper sentences should end with a period, not a comma.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seross 20 years ago

The sociologist may have been a little annoying, but his contribution to the discussion was 100 times more interesting than your nonsensical lunatic rant at the top of this discussion board.

[–] guileite 20 years ago

As a Brazilian who's just received a call last week telling that my apartment building will be robbed in the next few days and some people who live there will be kidnaped, I believe the violence level in the country has reached a point where the only thing we can do is try to live our day to day life and hope nothing bad happens. With that being said, I believe a great part of the problem down here can be traced to people like the sociologist that, with their line of thought, think these people should not be held accountable for their actions. Of course the environment plays a giant role in how these kids grow up, but in the movie some kids who knew Sandro are shown, and they turned up fine. This guy, as it is mentioned in the movie, had only one goal, and that was drugs. It is wonderful for some people to use that line of reasoning, until something bad happens.

[–] PaulMorel 20 years ago

Como se diz trote em inglês?

[–] howcanyoubesure 19 years ago

É prank call mesmo. Também fiquei a pensar nisso.

[–] AssetsonFire 10 years ago

Seross already said what I was going to.

~.~
There were three of us in this marriage
http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

[–] flasuss 20 years ago

The sociologist is Luis Eduardo Soares, former Secretary of Public Security (is that the correct translation?) of the state of Rio de Janeiro. If these kind of people are the bosses, you can imagine who are the others.

[–] killingentelletilti 20 years ago

Seriously. Much more annoying than the sociologist, was the girl with the glasses, who bragged about her ability to therapize Sandro... "I wanted to create a friendly atmosphere, so I said..." THAT's annoying. Yet understandable. I'd probably be telling that story a lot too. heh.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fileboy2002 19 years ago

"Liberal hypocrisy is far worse thanany form of fascism"

Yeah, right. Tell that to a holocaust survivor.

The sociologist was not making excuses. No one in the film denied what the hijacker did was a crime. T

The sociologist was trying to get past the kind of self-rihgtious, simple-minded, I-am-good-and-you-are-evil crap Manicheus is spewing. Trying to use morality to understand human behavior is like trying to perform brain surgery with a pick-axe. Morality is a blunt, crude, and primitive tool unsuited to the task of figuring why people do what they do.

Any society that lets kids starve in the streets, or lets shopkeepers hire assassins to kill children as they sleep is far more evil, than the desperate act any one man. How about saving some of that holier than thou attitude for the people who kill thousands?

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] howcanyoubesure 19 years ago

I think eevryone is missing the point.
The sociologist's footage was selected by the director, he didn't have to be on the film. He is just a part of society himself, like the lying police murderers.

Open your eyes , free your mind, or die and deserve it.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] howcanyoubesure 19 years ago

Your post is not enlightening at all.

It only says a lot about yourself.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] howcanyoubesure 19 years ago

The sociologist being in the film is not telling us that we have to think like he does.
You say de film is not so good because the sociologist is telling us what to think.
I don't think so, I think it is great that he is in the film so that we know about this person who has reaponsability by his position in the institutions.

The director is not using him to tell us waht to think, but, like the rest of the movie, to tell us to think about what we are watching and listening to.
It depends on yourself, ultimately and your atitude towards watching a film.
You can always say that the director wants you to think this or that, but the truth is you only think what and you, yourselg want to or are acapable of.

That's why your post was redundant and not enlightening at all and you should be a bit less arrogant. See ? That's telling someone to think about something, but I can't make think like I do just by telling you to.

[–] cannotlogon103 19 years ago

If I were to guess the director's purpose in giving the sociologist's perspective (and, yes, guessing is a pretty pointless exercise...though, one could say, so is posting on an internet message board...), it would be to show yet another social tool for dealing with the types of social problems that gave rise to Sandro and those like them and the rash acts he undertook that fateful day on the bus. I don't think the director of the documentary was putting his imprimatur on the sociologist's theories by airing them, so much as he was, perhaps, showing how removed those theories are from the problems at hand, and how ultimately they do NOT address the immediate crisis.

That said, he was really annoying.

[–] mobje 19 years ago

lying no, police incompetence defintly yes. more blame on the govt for having such low priorities towards the whole justice department. I mean when the jails are that old and overcrowded and the police have no trainig or even radios, not to mention the admittance most police are guys who only took the job cause they couldnt get any other? thats pretty sad.
If you want to talk about liars the conditions were sickening but if you believe everything coming out of those criminals mouths you are a sucker.

[–] Makandal 18 years ago

"If you want to talk about liars the conditions were sickening but if you believe everything coming out of those criminals mouths you are a sucker."

Yeah and the jail guard showing the prisons and explaining the situations those prisoners are in must be lying too of course.