For those who expect documentaries to be objective creatures, let me give you a little lesson in American film-making.<br /><br />Documentaries rely heavily on casting. You pick and choose characters you think will enhance the drama and entertainment value of your film.<br /><br />After you have shot a ton of footage, you splice it together to make a film with ups and downs, turning points, climaxes, etc. If you have trouble with existing footage, you either shoot some more that makes sense, find some stock footage, or be clever with your narration.<br /><br />The allegation that the filmmakers used footage of locales not part of the movie (favelas next to beautiful beaches) does not detract from the value of the film as a dramatic piece and the particular image is one that resonates enough to justify its not-quite-truthful inclusion. At any rate, you use the footage you can. So they didn't happen to have police violence footage for that particular neighborhood. Does this mean not include it and just talk about it or maybe put in some cartoon animation so the audience isn't "duped"? Um, no.<br /><br />As for the hopeful ending, why not? Yes, Americans made it. Yes, Americans are optimistic bastards. But why end on a down note? Just because it's set in a foreign country and foreign films by and large end on a down note? Let foreigners portray the dismal outlook of life.<br /><br />Let us Americans think there may be a happy ending looming in the future. There just may be one.