This is a 'must see' film for anyone who saw the original "Pixote" and felt at all touched by the stories of the children portrayed there. The talented and unforgettable young star, Fernando Ramos DeSilva hoped that his work in one of the most important Brazillian films ever made, would help change the direction of his difficult life. And it did, but not in the way that he expected, and this is his story. In this effective docudrama, we see the difficulties Fernando had in breaking from the character he portrayed, 5 years before. Showered with attention, money, and praise, receiving awards all over the world for his performance, Nando's dreams of glory and a better life isolate him from those around him, especially his own family, whom we get to know intimately here. This is a tragic tale of broken dreams and life disappointments. Actor Cassiano Carneiro gives a passionate and believable performance as Fernando DeSilva, and the sweet and delicately pretty Luciana Rigueira gives a heartbreaking performance as Cida, the one girl that loved, and never stopped believing in a boy that she met as an actor, but learned to know as a real person, with flaws and insecurities. Their love story is a centerpiece of the film, and their young and indestructible love is something to behold. Admittadly melodramatic at times, as is the norm for Brazillian cinema, this is a fascinating story from start to finish, and the performances are all impressive. DiSilva wanted, more than anything to continue with his acting, and make a difference. Though he never got the chance to act again, this film about his life is a beautiful tribute, and a sign that he will not soon be forgotten, by the millions of people who saw his film, and later, this film, and were affected deeply by his story. Unforgettable!
4 Reviews
Who Killed Pixote is a film that breaks your heart into a million pieces..
l9rae16 November 2000
I saw the original film 'Pixote' and felt kicked in the stomach after it was over. Life in Brazil seems so hopeless for small children. And seeing the follow up makes it even more devastating to know that this young mans life amounted to not much. The fact that this story is true makes it that much harder to watch, translation: brilliant. The only thing was that there was no real cinematic composition, and that would have really made the film that much more moving. But, it's a great film all the same.
Watch Pixote first (or instead!)
chocolatebutter857 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Who Killed Pixote? is a weak film. It is very melodramatic and feels like a soap opera. There was little attention given to the process of making Pixote. However, there is repeated mention of how Fernando felt trapped by his movie role.He appears to lack courage and the ability to make sound decisions. The plight of how his semi-literacy affected his ability to progress garnered my empathy. He deeply desired to grow into an actor with longevity.( He idolized James Dean.) I disagree somewhat with the other reviewers. This could have been a brilliant piece. Pixote hit devastatingly. This picture contains so much softness that it becomes saccharine. The concept of broken dreams is captured but ultimately not well-developed.
Brilliantly made moral of social factors behind crime in the third world
RogerKapur23 April 1999
This film won the prize for best Latin American film (shared jointly with "Guantanamera") in the Gramado Film Festival in 1996. It deals with the events leading up to the death of the real- life Fernando Ramos da Silva, the child actor who represented a small-time child criminal who grew up in the slums of São Paulo, Brazil.
The original film told the story of how Fernando ("Pixote" = little kid) after getting in trouble with the police is sent to FEBEM (children's reformatory) as Brazilian law prohibits children from going to prison. The original film (which won many international awards) shocked Brazilian society by showing how FEBEM, far from being the kind and reforming institution that it was meant to be, was actually a vicious training ground for criminals, run with an iron hand by cruel and unscrupulous guards. As well as an impassioned indictment of FEBEM the film examined the social conditions which lead to crime. To reinforce its message, it used a real-life slum-dweller to play the central character and ended without any climax, suggesting that the outcome of its protagonist would be decided by all of us i.e Brazilian society.
José Joffily, director of Quem Matou Pixote, continues the story, which reflects the theme of life imitating art, by showing how the adolescent Fernando, no longer a slum-dweller but poor and semi-literate, is drawn to a life of crime by a lack of opportunities. This might initially appear to be a somewhat predictable story but it is lifted well above the average by several factors.
One is the way that Joffily develops the implications of the social and economic factors in modern Brazil which produce criminals i.e. devastating urban poverty, police corruption, violent methods of police "investigation" which use remnants from the days of military dictatorship, including torture and summary execution. He also shows society's apparent indifference over Fernando's fate. Fernando, for example, has to beg Hector Babenco, the director of the original film in which he starred, to get him a part in a Brazilian TV soap. The rest of the cast belittle and distrust him. His tears when he hears their condescending words are very poignant. The director of the TV show is furious over Fernando's inability to remember lines but assumes that the young man is simply an idiot. When Babenco realizes that the problem lies in Fernando's poor ability to read he reacts in a resigned manner as if to say "what can anybody do for you". Fernando has been abandoned by everyone.
Another is the way in which Fernando is portrayed as a vacillating, almost Hamlet-like character, unable to decide between making an effort to pursue a career as an actor or a criminal. He makes half-hearted efforts to be honest (despite the increasing severe threats being made by the police) but continually lapses into petty crime to pay for his few pleasures in life (his motorcycle, marijuana). In the end he is redeemed by the love of his wife but it is too late.
Finally, the film owes much of its power to the extraordinary interpretations provided by its two leads Cassiano Carneiro and Luciana Rigueira representing Fernando and Cida, respectively. Cassiano manages to make Fernando both the smooth but likeable rogue who courts Cida and the pitiful failure who vividly describes police torture to his girlfriend and who begs for comprehension as an aspiring artist from the very policeman who declare "ham actor" after shooting him dead in a set-up (they intend to allege that they killed him in self-defense). Rigueira's performance is no less impressive. She is evolves from the charming and simple girl who marries Fernando and the wife and mother who tries to exert a moral influence over him to the grieving widow who saw Fernando neither as criminal or actor but as husband and father.
To criticize the film's only weak point, rather flat photography and visuals seems superfluous for a film with a memorable story and characters whose moral is made brilliantly.
The original film told the story of how Fernando ("Pixote" = little kid) after getting in trouble with the police is sent to FEBEM (children's reformatory) as Brazilian law prohibits children from going to prison. The original film (which won many international awards) shocked Brazilian society by showing how FEBEM, far from being the kind and reforming institution that it was meant to be, was actually a vicious training ground for criminals, run with an iron hand by cruel and unscrupulous guards. As well as an impassioned indictment of FEBEM the film examined the social conditions which lead to crime. To reinforce its message, it used a real-life slum-dweller to play the central character and ended without any climax, suggesting that the outcome of its protagonist would be decided by all of us i.e Brazilian society.
José Joffily, director of Quem Matou Pixote, continues the story, which reflects the theme of life imitating art, by showing how the adolescent Fernando, no longer a slum-dweller but poor and semi-literate, is drawn to a life of crime by a lack of opportunities. This might initially appear to be a somewhat predictable story but it is lifted well above the average by several factors.
One is the way that Joffily develops the implications of the social and economic factors in modern Brazil which produce criminals i.e. devastating urban poverty, police corruption, violent methods of police "investigation" which use remnants from the days of military dictatorship, including torture and summary execution. He also shows society's apparent indifference over Fernando's fate. Fernando, for example, has to beg Hector Babenco, the director of the original film in which he starred, to get him a part in a Brazilian TV soap. The rest of the cast belittle and distrust him. His tears when he hears their condescending words are very poignant. The director of the TV show is furious over Fernando's inability to remember lines but assumes that the young man is simply an idiot. When Babenco realizes that the problem lies in Fernando's poor ability to read he reacts in a resigned manner as if to say "what can anybody do for you". Fernando has been abandoned by everyone.
Another is the way in which Fernando is portrayed as a vacillating, almost Hamlet-like character, unable to decide between making an effort to pursue a career as an actor or a criminal. He makes half-hearted efforts to be honest (despite the increasing severe threats being made by the police) but continually lapses into petty crime to pay for his few pleasures in life (his motorcycle, marijuana). In the end he is redeemed by the love of his wife but it is too late.
Finally, the film owes much of its power to the extraordinary interpretations provided by its two leads Cassiano Carneiro and Luciana Rigueira representing Fernando and Cida, respectively. Cassiano manages to make Fernando both the smooth but likeable rogue who courts Cida and the pitiful failure who vividly describes police torture to his girlfriend and who begs for comprehension as an aspiring artist from the very policeman who declare "ham actor" after shooting him dead in a set-up (they intend to allege that they killed him in self-defense). Rigueira's performance is no less impressive. She is evolves from the charming and simple girl who marries Fernando and the wife and mother who tries to exert a moral influence over him to the grieving widow who saw Fernando neither as criminal or actor but as husband and father.
To criticize the film's only weak point, rather flat photography and visuals seems superfluous for a film with a memorable story and characters whose moral is made brilliantly.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
