PCC, Secret Power: When a Work of Sociology Becomes an HBO Series

It all came from the series producer, Gustavo Mello. He rang me on the day of the launch of Irmãos, before even having read the book. He was interested in the approach the book takes to the issue, particularly its non-sensationalist view of the PCC. It’s relatively rare to meet a producer who really understands your research, so I immediately got on board with the project. One week later, we began looking for a director. We were hoping to find someone who knew the situation personally. Since we couldn’t find anyone with that specific experience, we approached Joel Zito Araújo, who wasn’t familiar with the PCC, but who had experienced racism and segregation. He read the book and, within a week, we had a roadmap for the documentary, which took us up to its release four years later. We were joined by another producer, Adriana Gaspar, and all four of us were involved in the making of the series: working on the script, negotiating with streaming platforms, filming etc. For my part, I commented on all drafts of the script, liaised with the person in charge of researching witnesses and archived material, and was able to attend some interviews. During production, which ran for about a year, I spent almost half of my time on the shoot. It was a fascinating experience for me as a researcher, particularly in terms of thinking about the formal differences between the book and the docuseries.

The book tells the story of the PCC from a sociological perspective, which means the narrative is interspersed with academic insights. The first thing Araújo, the series director, told me was that we wouldn’t be able to replicate that structure if we wanted to appeal to platforms like HBO or Netflix. Sociology would provide a framework, but the characters and script would have to carry the narrative. That meant no sociologists on screen and no journalists or police officers either. We had to detach ourselves from the police narratives, which already saturated the public discourse, whereas my work was unique in presenting other points of view: those of favela residents, PCC leaders and rappers. Araújo was keen to add a fourth perspective into the narrative: that of government officials. This confrontation of accounts from anonymous people and from the state (the latter being dichotomous: good guys versus bad guys) brought out a paradox: despite being a criminal organisation, the PCC actually works to reduce the number of homicides on the ground and protects favela residents.

Some of the documentary’s protagonists are people I’ve been communicating with for several years, while others we met while preparing the documentary. In academic research, whenever you interview, observe or communicate with people involved in criminal activity, you always guarantee them anonymity. For the documentary, meanwhile, we only wanted to interview people who were willing to speak on camera. To a certain extent, that made finding interviewees more difficult. On the other hand, when we explained that this was an HBO series, people understood that their interviews would be made into a high-profile production, and that their friends and family would be able to watch.

It was the most watched series on HBO Max Brazil across all genres for two weeks (ant it also ranked second across all Latin America), and it stayed in the top ten for a long time after that. Beyond this commercial success, it also generated a genuine public debate. Previously, the PCC had always been portrayed as a very violent, covert and fringe organisation. The documentary provoked strong reactions, both online and during post-screening discussions. For the first time, people living in favelas were able to see their experience on screen. Meanwhile, viewers unaware of that reality were moved by the impact of the narrative. I was invited to participate in debates by the Brazilian police, and also in favela. My research had already opened doors for me with the authorities, and the series opened new ones. It also helped to bring the federal police into contact with academics, even leading to the introduction of a master's programme for the federal police on organised crime and illegal markets. 

Journalists are generally interested in facts and events. My work as a sociologist, by contrast, is essentially focused on social processes: the first episode of the series examines a situation of “war” and how this was resolved; the second and third explore the process of legitimising the PCC, first within the prisons and then outside, and the fourth addresses the group’s international expansion. This structure allowed us to connect events, characters and different narrative lines, which together offer a picture of the PCC’s organisation and social function. We could have told the story chronologically based on news headlines. But, once again, that would have involved spotlighting the sensational side of the phenomenon. We wanted to do something different, and show that, paradoxically, the PCC actually helps to reduce violence in the neighbourhoods where it operates by instating an informal, but very legitimate, justice system among prisoners and favela residents. Every conflict gives rise to a debate mediated by brothers of the PCC, which aims to resolve the situation in the fairest way possible. If you only show instances of violence, you miss that aspect. 

So while Saviano and I may share a similar understanding of the subject, our roles, objectives and methods differ. In terms of methods, academic researchers don’t go undercover or use hidden cameras. It’s a much longer process: you have to convince people you’re trustworthy, and then come back multiple times. I could work with a hidden recorder and get information more quickly, but that doesn’t interest me. What I want is to develop long-term relationships, to avoid being threatened and to have people recognise themselves in the work that I do. I want to lay out as many viewpoints as possible, particularly the different stakeholders’ justifications of their actions. In terms of roles and objectives, Saviano and I share the goal of contributing to public debate, but go about it in a different way. Journalists denounce a situation in the hope of spurring governments to act. As sociologists, we try to understand how society arrived at that point: our work is complementary and it also informs government decision-making