Movies, feminism and postfeminism

So, a confession: I've never really liked biographical movies about women I otherwise admire. I'm not entirely sure why - there's something about the cliches they indulge in, the Hollywood-isation. (She lapses into total vagueness revealing, yet again, that she actually don't know much about movies or how to analyse them.) Not long ago, I read a book by a woman I know, Te Whanganui-a-tara/Wellington-based scholar, Bronwyn Polaschek, about bio-pics of women. The book was based on Bronwyn's doctoral thesis and I was thinking of reviewing it. But because of above-mentioned inadequacies, I didn't think I could do it justice. Instead, I decided to do a Q&A by email with Bronwyn to post here for anyone who might be interested in some seriously serious film criticism, analysis, discussion. So, here goes: 

The Postfeminist Biopic: Narrating the Lives of Plath, Kahlo, Woolf and Austen

By Bronwyn Polaschek. Palgrave/Macmillan 2013.

Q: In your book, you argue there’s a specific category of biopic that should be considered “postfeminist”. But you acknowledge that the word “postfeminist” itself is one people disagree on. The way you prefer to understand it is as an “epistemological shift”. By that I take you to mean, among other things, that postfeminism isn’t just a backlash against feminism or somehow “after” feminism, but is its own thing. As you put it in the intro to your book, it is an “intersection of feminism with postmodernism, poststructuralism and post-colonialism”. (Let’s not try to define all those contested words for now!) Or, to put it yet another way, postfeminism doesn’t just challenge the things the so-called “second wave” feminists were challenging, it also challenges the “second wave” itself, which I think everyone agrees needed to happen. In terms of movies, then, these are biopics that clearly contain feminist elements, but also much more than that including some critique of those elements, and as such they really do demand their own category, a category you’re calling the “postfeminist biopic”. What made you begin to think that calling or categorising these movies – and the ones you look at primarily are Sylvia, Frida, The Hours and Becoming Jane – as postfeminist (rather than, say, just “feminist”) was necessary?

A: I started with the films. They seemed interesting to me, but I wasn’t sure what I had to say about them, or whether they were linked in any particular way. As I worked through the scholarly literature, I found certain theoretical tools were useful to me in thinking about the films (like, Laura Mulvey’s idea of the male gaze or ideas from feminist film critics about the symbolism of windows, or the effect of the voiceover etc) but I also found the pessimism in much of this material didn’t accord with the vibrancy and intensity of the films themselves. I also felt that many aspects of the films were not captured by applying a feminist lens, including elements that were internally contradictory. Coming across the less well known definition of postfeminism that I use was exciting because it provided a way to make sense of the films, and to see the links between them and with other films being released around the same time. I found I was able to articulate the distinctive features of these films, what separates them from earlier biopics about women. So, to answer your question, it was a long process before I realised the category was ‘necessary’, but when I found it my disparate arguments seemed to fall in line. I started with the material, but had to look to find the right theoretical tools to make sense of it.

disney: being brave is not enough anymore

i first learned about what disney was doing to merida, the main character from "brave", from this post.  i really recommend you go over there to see the pictures & the explanations of why it's so wrong.

i had mixed feelings about the movie itself, which i wrote about at the time.  as i said then, it's not the best film ever, but there were still plenty of positives and i thought it was a huge improvement on many of disney's previous efforts.  now, if only they could keep all those positive characteristics, and have the main character not be a princess. although, mulan was apparently not a princess, so maybe they get a couple of points for that one.

but regardless of what you think of the film, it's not like merida was significantly different to the shape of other disney female characters - she's still pretty slim, lots of hair, big round eyes (ok, again with the exception of mulan).  but her traditional image is less sexualised & more of an action figure.

so why the need to make her skinnier still, with the head tilt, the arched eyebrows & the loss of her bow & arrows?  why change something that was working?

there's now a petition against the change, which you can find here:

The redesign of Merida in advance of her official induction to the Disney Princess collection does a tremendous disservice to the millions of children for whom Merida is an empowering role model who speaks to girls' capacity to be change agents in the world rather than just trophies to be admired. Moreover, by making her skinnier, sexier and more mature in appearance, you are sending a message to girls that the original, realistic, teenage-appearing version of Merida is inferior; that for girls and women to have value -- to be recognized as true princesses -- they must conform to a narrow definition of beauty.

as with the changes that were proposed for dora, it's important to fight back against the constant pressure created by images presented to us of female characters.  we all deserve better.

marigold hotel

i went to see "the best exotic marigold hotel for the elderly and beautiful" last week. it was recommended by a friend, and well worth seeing. in fact, it's the only time i've ever seen queues at the lido cinema in hamilton, with shows being sold out. so i'm expecting that many people will have seen it by now.

there's so many things to love about this film, from the cast and performances, to the comedy, the plot etc etc. i loved that it was funny without being demeaning. the racism was funny because it was poking fun at racism, and i loved maggie smith's character. the underlying concept of the film is hardly new - the british traveller abroad, dazzling the locals with ignorance, or finding themselves in an exotic land. but the execution was very good.

if there were any downsides (come on, nothing's perfect!), for me they were the whole forced marriage thing, and the cliched presentation of india. as regards the former, it's so stereotypical - young people falling in love with someone without parental approval, and being pressured to marry a more suitable candidate they hardly know. it's almost like this is the only way indians ever get married. would be nice to see a film where a couple agrees to an arranged marriage and live happily ever after. it happens quite a bit after all.

but having said that, probably two thirds of bollywood films have the same plot line. it seems every culture keeps wanting to see variations of the star-crossed lovers theme, the romeo & juliet (or in this case, salim & anarkali). so it's hardly unfair to criticise this particular film for having the same old story.

as for the cliched presentation of india, well actually it was mostly accurate. but the colours aren't anywhere near as bright as the movies would lead you to believe, and some kind of self-fulfilling enlightenment isn't generally to be found around the corner. it's a place, like most places around the world, filled with beauty and ugliness. maybe this is just a hangover of the whole eat pray love thing, where a privileged western woman finds enlightenment in india, and all the indians were asking "so where are we supposed to travel to for enlightenment, and how are we supposed to pay for it". there were some really good critiques of this by indians, which i can't seem to find just now.

still, i really did love the film. and speaking of films, i was directed to this article about an obscure piece of music that was used in the hunger games:

An underground legend—not only for her excellent music, but also for her engineering work at Bell Labs and her invention of the Music Mouse program for Macintosh computers—Spiegel deserves to be brought as far above-ground as can be managed. Countless synthesizer-driven acts in Brooklyn are, right this very second, criminally unaware of the debt they owe her, as she helped develop and codify the approach to a variety of early synths....

In addition to suffering from the persistent sexism of the music world—in the orchestra scene, women composers are still rarely commissioned—Spiegel has been the victim of straight-up theft, too: If you search for “Sediment” on Amazon, the album that will show up is volume 4 of An Anthology of Noise and Experimental Music, which never paid Spiegel for the song. How do I know? Because Spiegel reviewed the album on Amazon.

Help yourself

I went to see “The Help” tonight, after reluctantly reading the Kathryn Stockett’s book a couple of months ago. I just wasn’t sure I wanted to read central Black characters as imagined by a white woman. The ambitious, sprawling exploration of racism in the American South in the 1960s, told from the point of view of Black women working as domestic maids and a white woman struggling with her own complicity with racism, changed my mind. Signposted with reference to the murder of civil rights activist Medgar Evers, Jim Crow segregation laws are described, and the employment conditions of Black domestic workers exposed.

What works in the book is the interweaving of institutional oppression – laws, segregation, the state ignoring the murder of Evers – with families, and in particular, women, surviving. The extraordinary irony of white children being brought up and loved by Black women they are taught over time to treat as second-class citizens, in order to fully enjoy white privilege. Black women scarcely seeing their own children, or having to send them out early to paid work while they look after white children.

I can well believe the loyalties in these situations would have been fractured and complex. I can imagine loving a child I was looking after – because children are often very easy to love – at the same time as hating the racism and class privilege keeping me poor and unsafe. And I can imagine being a child who was loved by someone I was eventually taught to see as less than me, and struggling to imagine how to do that differently when everyone around me was stepping into the white privilege line.

Turns out though, “The Help” may have been written by a white woman stealing from a Black woman she knew. And astonishingly, the movie misses out on the subtlety and richness of the book by simplifying the storyline, picking only pretty people to appear, writing out some narratives completely and glossing over aspects of the 1960s social structures.

So both the movie and the book are controversial, which as ever with issues to do with power, is not necessarily a bad thing. I agree with African American media activist Jamia Wilson when she takes comfort in “The Help” promoting talk about race:

The Help comes at a time when white people are increasingly paranoid about “reverse racism.” From the classroom to the Supreme Court, more and more white people feel targeted by discrimination. Meanwhile, resentment of President Obama has manifested itself in bigotry toomanytimes. Racially motivated violence still happens in Jackson, Mississippi—automobile worker James C. Anderson was murdered in a hate crime just a couple of weeks ago.

But can we see this as a learning moment if what we’re learning is historically inaccurate? The Association of Black Women Historians have come out guns blazing:

Despite efforts to market the book and the film as a progressive story of triumph over racial injustice, The Help distorts, ignores, and trivializes the experiences of black domestic workers.

One of the problems here is that revisioning history always gives “victims” of history subjectivity – we are encouraged to examine choices that are made, agency that is exerted – even, to paraphrase Marx, when it’s not in the circumstances of our choosing. That’s real life – no matter how oppressed we are, we make choices – which is abundantly clear in “The Help”. The central Black characters choose to tell their stories, they choose to wrestle with faith in a time period characterised by brutality, they choose to stay with or leave violent men, they choose to take revenge on bullying employers or buckle down because they need the money. This is what I like about the book, that we see how oppression is unknitted by how we live, even as we also see how it is knitted. I don’t agree the racism of that time is trivialised by the book, feel more ambivalent about the movie, and positively love that it is Black women in the foreground.

Another issue for the Association of Black Women Historians is the portrayal of Black men:

The black family, in particular provided support and the validation of personhood necessary to stand against adversity. We do not recognize the black community described in The Help where most of the black male characters are depicted as drunkards, abusive, or absent. Such distorted images are misleading and do not represent the historical realities of black masculinity and manhood.

Yet civil rights activist and Black feminist philosopher Audre Lorde wrote in 1980:

Because of the continuous battle against racial erasure that Black women and Black men share, some Black women still refuse to recognise that we are also oppressed as women, and that sexual hostility against Black women is practiced not only by the white racist society, but implemented within our Black communities as well. Exacerbated by racism and the pressures of powerlessness, violence against Black women and children often becomes a standard within our communities, one by which manliness can be measured.

I guess revisionism happens in all kinds of directions.

loving nz films

one of the results of attending the office of ethnic affairs ethnica conference ten days ago was going to watch "my wedding & other secrets" on friday night. the reason i was so inspired was because i listened to roseanne liang talk about her film on the friday before that, as well as her showing clips of her film.

she's an amazing young woman, and i already thought so having watched the documentary which the film is based on. it's called "banana in a nutshell", and i saw it a couple of years ago. even if you see the film (and if you haven't seen it, i strongly recommend you do), the documentary is worth watching as well.

i guess it resonates with me because i have that experience of growing up in nz, caught between two cultures but not really belonging to either one. i lived in some kind of strange in-between space, being misunderstood and doing a lot of misunderstanding. the people i got on best with (and that continues until now) were those who also occupied that in-between space. this could be other child migrants, or it could be people who married into another culture, or even those who converted to another religion.

i can't say that i had the boyfriend issues that are the heart of this film, but i know what it's like to be struggling to keep everyone happy and mostly failing, for various reasons. one was that i couldn't really get a grasp of what each particular group wanted, i didn't understand the nuances of either culture so would end up putting my foot in it more often than not. but more than that, in trying to keep others happy, i couldn't be true to myself. i couldn't be who i wanted or needed to be, and that is more soul-destroying than anything else.

these days, i've gone beyond keeping anyone happy, and pretty much expect people to take me as i am or to just p*ss off and leave me alone. those are the only two options, as far as i'm concerned, i'm done with compromising who i am and what i believe just to keep the peace. well, most of the time. there are days when keeping quiet is the easiest option & i don't have energy to take on yet another battle, but i guess that's true for all of us.

i really watching emily battle her way through her issues. and my goodness, i could so totally understand her fears and her courage. the film was beautifully done and so... authentic, true to life, absolutely real and realistic.

i'm loving that we're getting access to stories like this one and "boy", from local film-makers. i love the diversity, the look into cultures that are all part of nz now. i want our government dollars to be going towards stories like these. that $33 million which warner bros absolutely did not need could make such a huge difference to emerging film-makers. peter jackson has already made it (with a whole heap of government support along the way), he didn't need more.

i'm really looking forward to seeing more from these and other nz film makers. i'm really sorry to have missed "currymunchers" because it was only on for a very short while, but am really heartened by the quality and quantity of films being made.

Feminist Event: Dress for Success fundraiser in Welly tonight!

Apologies for the late notice, for some reason I overlooked the email until this morning, I hope this boosts ticket sales a bit!


Update:  SORRY FOLKS, JUST HEARD IT'S ALREADY SOLD OUT! 

What:  Eat Pray Love screening at Penthouse Cinema Brooklyn 

When:  Thursday October 14 at 5.30pm

Tickets:  $20 include one glass of wine or bubbles and light snacks.  Tickets available at Dress for Success Wellington office or p://www.dashtickets.co.nz/event/251 

For more info:  Call Dress for Success Wellington at 04 473 2940 for further details.  

Message from the organisers:

Dress for Success Wellington is a registered not-for-profit organisation that supports women in their goal to become employed by providing them with work appropriate clothing for no cost and on a more intangible level giving women confidence in themselves to succeed with this ambition and other goals they have in their life.

war & peace

is it just me, or are there a whole lot more war dramas and programmes on tv than their used to be? i've avoided pretty much all of them, i think.

it's not that i don't like war stuff per se - i watched stuff like the manchurian candidate (denzel washington version), enemy at the gates and other stuff i'm sure, that i thought were good. but what concerns me is that there are so many more stories being told about war than there are stories about peace.

i'm also concerned that many of the war stories are told in a way that don't glamorise war as such, but glamorise aspects of it. i'm finding it difficult to word this the right way. it's not a bad thing thing to show stories of courage under fire, and of people committing noble acts in absolutely awful situations. but unless those stories also show the horror and suffering of war, the impact on civilians not just from loss of life but also loss of infrastructure, and the severe trauma on combat personnel, i'm afraid that those stories tend to make war sound a little bit like a good thing, a noble thing even.

tie this in with the increasingly jingoistic nature of anzac day, and it becomes a development that i'm a little uncomfortable with. i've often said that if we spent as much on peace as we do on war, then the world would be an infinitely better place. but it would also be helpful if we could have more stories about peace, and if we could celebrate those stories a lot more. i'm thinking about stories that show tense situations solved by negotiation and compromise. i'm pretty sure those can be pretty intense and interesting viewing - i'm thinking for example of those hostage-type dramas where a kick-ass negotiating team saves the day.

the thing is that unless we have a greater focus on peace and celebrate peace, we're less likely to achieve it. in order for that to happen, peace making needs to become a part of our popular culture. it needs to be a greater part of our public discourse. it should be part of a public holiday where we spend time sharing stories about and commemorating peace and peace-keeping initiatives.

fortunately, there are other people in the country who think like i do, and who have been actively doing something about it. the aotearoa nz peace & conflict studies centre trust (yes, quite a mouthful) have successful in setting up the national peace & conflict centre at otago university. their july 2010 newsletter isn't online yet, but you can read previous newsletters here. they're currently looking for "an experienced fundraiser to help us generate
more support from individuals, businesses, and charitable trusts". another initiative is:

... a workshop on Peace Education in New Zealand early childhood, primary and secondary schools on the 29th and 30th October in Dunedin. The aim is to bring together teachers, providers, and the Ministry of Education to discuss what has happened in the field of Peace Education in NZ, what is happening now, and what needs to happen.

all good stuff. i'd also love to see nz on air and the film commission providing specified funding for film and programme makers to develop peace-related material - documentary or fiction. and wouldn't it be nice if we actually had a ministry of peace with funding equal to that of the ministry of defence. ah well, dreams are free.

in case i don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening & goodnight

**spoilers**

i just sat down and watched "the truman show" again tonight. it's one of my favourite ever films, one of those films that gives me something more every time i watch it. i'm not generally a jim carrey fan, and have given most of his comedic films a miss. but he is quite brilliant here, as is ed harris as the director.

i know the main themes of the film are around media manipulation, the lengths a society will go to for the purposes of entertainment and a dig at reality tv shows, with a whole heap of religious imagery thrown in. but to me, the relevance of this film is more to real life.

"the truman show" mirrors the lives of many people i've seen, particularly many asian people. possibly not so common among other cultures, but feel free to share if it sounds familiar. i see many parents who map out their childrens lives from a young age, directing them towards a safe career, choosing for them (or encouraging them to choose) a safe spouse with a very similar cultural background and similar values. they help the couple into a nice, safe suburban family home; the two of them have nice, safe jobs that provide the nice, safe middle class lifestyle.

it's a path that is chosen for children, and they are encouraged down it through the passing on of values such as: success = nice home, latest material possessions, and 2 or 3 kids (& please try to make sure at least one is a boy); familial responsibility and duty to parents; family traditions and cultural traditions.

and the thing is that it is all so well-intentioned, wrapped up in the utmost love and wanting the best for their kids. sometimes there's also a little bit of living vicariously eg i never got to be a doctor due to lack of opportunity, so i'm going to make sure my child becomes a doctor. and there's certainly a strong dash of power and control - the need to control and direct life towards a safe and happy future. and often a strong dose of self-sacrifice ie parents going without so that their children can have the best of everything. that last is a great tool for emotional blackmail down the track: "i gave up so much for you, so you could have this or that; how can you not do what i want/expect of you".

despite all of that, there is no maliciousness involved. these parents genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, and getting the right result for their children. it is exactly like christos, the director of the trueman show, who loves truman even as he directs and controls truman's life.

where it all unravels is about the age that truman is when the film starts. around 30, mabye a bit later, even up to 40. this child looks around at her or his life, and finds that it wasn't what they imagined their life to be like. it's a life of unfulfilled dreams, nice and successful but extremely bland and unsatisfying.

what then? how many have the courage to leave? i think there are a fair few that don't, who then go on to live vicariously through their own children, and who try to get some sense of power and control by directing their own children's lives.

then there are the ones who do walk away, but the cost is pretty high. broken relationships, hurt children and spouses, heartache, and a whole lot of painful soul-searching. that's the part of truman's life we never get to see. we're sort of left with the impression that he has escaped oppression and will live happily ever after with his true love. except that christos warns him that the world he's going into is as full of deception as the one he is leaving, and we (the audience) know that this is completely true.

i often wonder how truman's life on the outside would have gone, and would dearly love to see someone write that book. of course, if we extrapolate from the movie, truman is already famous and would no doubt earn heaps from interviews with various media and probably a best-selling book or two. he would definitely find his girlfriend and it no doubt would end up reasonably well.

and i think, in the end, it usually does end up well for the people that have the courage to walk away and build up a new life for themselves. even after all the heartache, there's that sense of personal freedom that is extremely precious, and the endless possibilities there for the taking (but only if you feel like it). the people close to you, who truly love you, they eventually learn to accept that they can't control and channel another person's life - but that is a difficult lesson to learn when they've spent a lifetime doing just that.

the thing is that a cage is cage, no matter how pretty you make it, and none of us can be truly happy living in a cage. that's the essential message i take from this film, and probably why i love it so much.

Interesting cinema in the NZ International Film Festival

Or the Fillum Festival as Kim Hill would say.

Docos on women's issues:

• Love, Lust and Lies
• Salam Rugby
• His and Hers

Movies on women's stuff:

• Scheherazade, Tell Me a Story (I really want to see this!)
• Women Without Men

And heaps of other films made by women film-makers, including these ones made by/about New Zealanders:

• After the Waterfall
• Asylum Pieces
• From Poverty Bay to Broadway
• Gordon Crook
• The Free China Junk
• The Rainbow Warriors of Waiheke Island
• There Once Was An Island: Te Henua e Noho (produced by a friend of mine, I really want to see this too)

The NZFFl starts in Auckland on July 8th, and then travels around the country until late November. You can find out more at their website.

SATC 2: not for me

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

saturday night at the movies...

on saturday night i went to see "the blind side", which is the movie sandra bullock won an oscar for, in case the name is not immediately familiar to you. i hadn't intended to see it after reading a couple of posts on blogs written by african-americans. they were mostly upset that gabourey sidibe hadn't won the best actress oscar for precious, but also concerned that ms bullock had won it for yet another role where white person saves person(s) of colour (looking at you, james cameron).

however, i'm glad an american friend persuaded me to see it and sent me this link to a new york times story about michael oher, published back in 2006. and i have to say that i really enjoyed the film, more than i enjoyed "precious" in fact, even though i wouldn't say that it was a better film.

partly, it was because i had a crappy week and it was exactly the pick-me-up i needed. but it's more than that. there are several key differences between the two films. they are similar to the extent that they bring out the reality of life for african-americans who live in poverty. they create a consciousness of the struggles of what it is like to grow up without the loving support of a cohesive family unit, without access to decent education and in the midst of extreme violence and crime. in both cases, i think the films succeed very well.

the key difference to me is that precious is the story of an african-american, told from the point of view of an african-american. we see the world through her eyes, and share her experiences as she felt them. blind side, on the other hand, is not actually michael oher's story even though that is how it's promoted. it is actually the story of leigh ann tuohy, in which mr oher features prominently. the story is told from her point of view, how she sees michael oher, what she understands of his situation, how she helps and supports him to become the successful person we know today.

and because blind side is her story, we actually don't get any graphic details of what mr oher's childhood was actually like. we get brief flashbacks, and a couple of scenes where he's back in the old neighbourhood. but not too much, not enough to seriously disturb. compare this with precious, where we get much more of the full force of her experience - the violence she suffered from her mother, the scene of her father raping her, the abuse from kids on the street because she was fat, the violation of her privacy by her social worker, the abuse of the system that punished her for her situation.

precious was so much more accurate and honest as a portrayal of a person's suffering. it gave us the full picture, and hence was so much more difficult to watch. so, while there's no doubt that it was a much better film than blind side, in a way it's less accessible. what i mean is that it's harder for someone who isn't poor or a person of colour or overweight to identify with precious. it's much easier to identify with leigh ann tuohy, because most of us have some experience of donating money or time, and of trying to help others who are less fortunate than us.

it seems to me that this is a pity, because really, precious is the story we should be watching and learning from. precious and michael oher are the ones who need our understanding the most, because it is people like them, and particularly those who didn't get the happy ending, who need for us to be on their side. it's only when we're on their side that we will advocate for better public policy that provides proper support and opportunities for people in similar situations. it's only when we understand their experiences with the full tragedy and horror this involves that we shake the notion that poor people deserve to be poor, or are lazy bludgers who could get out of their situation if only they tried hard enough.

in that sense, i thought "pursuit of happyness" (which i also loved) failed a little. [**spoiler alert**] the film itself did a great job of showing how wrong it is to judge people when they find themselves in a situation where they depend on the charity of others. but the ending could be interpreted to show that anyone in that situation would succeed if they only tried hard enough. the reality is, of course, that the majority of people in that situation will fail, and it is only through an extraordinary combination of opportunities and luck that a person might succeed.

so, to end a longish post, i'd actually recommend all three films i've mentioned here. i think they all give us something valuable, in different ways.

nostalgic? not me!

i finally got around to getting a broadband connection earlier this year, and have recently found out what a great timewaster youtube can be! ok, i know i'm a little behind the times, but i do evolve, just a little slower than others...

anyhow, i found that there is a whole heap of bollywood stuff available, and while i have generally given up on bollywood movies in the last few years, i couldn't resist going back to look at a couple of my favourites like taj mahal and sholay. i also caught up on a couple of movies that had caused a huge stir back in the 70s for being very risque. one was called bobby and the other julie.

well, aside from reminding why i hate so much of what comes out of bollywood, these two movies also surprised me from another angle. the main characters in both films are young girls from an indian christian background. in fact, julie's mother is anglo-indian. and it is this background that is the excuse to have these young girls wear skimpy clothing (because of course that's how all christian girls dressed in the 70s - not!). and in bobby, it was the first instance of an indian heroine in a bikini - the actress was only 16 at the time.

but more than that, the christian background also appeared to be an excuse to portray the fathers of these girls as drunkards. and in julie, the heroine complains about the disgusting smell in her house consisting of alcohol and meat.

i don't know how it seemed to audiences at the time, but i found both of these films to be promoting a significant level of bigotry, and wonder whether there was any significant protest from the local christian community. i have no memory of this, mostly because i was very young when the films came out but also because i was living in nz so have no idea of the reaction in india.

to me, it's an interesting case of a world-view colouring the portrayal of a community that the majority in that country wouldn't have known too much about. maybe it's a study of how a majority group views a minority group in that society. or maybe it's just a product of the sexual revolution of the 70s and producers were looking for an excuse to bring that to india without offending the local traditions and views of how women should be portrayed.

whatever the reason, the films didn't sit well with me and i certainly don't feel any better for having watched them.

giving it a miss

i saw the trailer for the next movie instalment of the twilight series the other day. it's called eclipse, and i'm not going to link to it - you can go and search you-tube or one of the twilight fan sites.

i've read all the books, and i've seen the two movies that have come out so far. but the third book is the most disturbing for me (although the others aren't all that wonderful either). in eclipse, our heroine (of sorts - she doesn't do anything heroic until the end of the fourth and final book) is basically stalked by a young man (jacob) who loves her and thinks that he is better for her than her current boyfriend. and is sure that she loves him (ie jacob) but just doesn't know it yet.

and so you have dialogue in the film trailer that goes along the lines of "i'm going to fight for you til your last breath" coming from jacob, while bella (our "heroine") looks down in distress. i just found this sickening when i watched it. in the book it's worse - he forces her to kiss him in what is basically an assault (and her father laughs when he hears about this, because he prefers jacob to the boyfriend), and in a later scene threatens to commit suicide if she doesn't kiss him.

it's classic stalker behaviour, dressed and presented as romantic and supposedly sweet. and of course, in the book, somehow it's all bella's fault because she has apparently been leading jacob on and sending out the wrong signals. never once do we hear jacob talk about or think about what bella might want, or acknowledge the fact that she might know what she wants better than he does.

sick, sick, sick. needless to say, i won't be going to watch eclipse. i don't think i could stand it.

wonderful wonderland ending

i saw my first ever 3-D movie this weekend, the full imax experience (whatever that last actually means). as you can guess from the post title, i saw alice in wonderland, and though i can't say that i totally loved the film, i did totally love the ending.

the rest of the post has spoilers, so i've hidden it below just in case you don't want to know what happens.


so, what i loved most about the ending was that alice didn't run off with a "prince charming" type character. in fact, she had no romantic involvement at all, and went off to a future where she determined the course of her life. YAY!!!!

it actually reminded of the ending of yentl, which was another great movie. and the film itself reminded me a little of the golden compass. in any case, it's nice to see a film with heroine doing all the cool stuff, finding herself and finding her courage. all in a blockbuster hollywood film. double YAY!!!!

i'd have drooled about johnny depp's performance too, but i've gone off him ever since he made statements supporting roman polanski. still, i totally enjoyed the 3-D thing, and i'm thinking that i'll have to try that again.

well done, kathryn bigelow

it's a little late, but i thought we shouldn't let kathryn bigelow's win at the oscars for best director and best picture go unmentioned. not that i have anything particularly profound to say about that (other than i think it's great), so i'll just copy and paste bits of what other people have said.

from here:

Her win will not be devoid of controversy. Kathryn Bigelow has charted an atypical career for a female director. She doesn’t direct “chick flicks,” never has, and most probably never will. She works outside the gender box that so many women get stuck in.

In spite of the deep and abiding desire to see a woman break through this particular glass ceiling, the real possibility that the first Oscar award winning woman director will win for making a war film is almost a kick in the gut to many who make the types of films that most interest female ticket buyers. Bigelow works in a male paradigm and is being rewarded for that. Sasha Stone of Awards Daily said: “…the Academy and the industry are the ones to fault here for paying attention to a film directed by a woman because it is about men. The only thing that’s new about it is that a woman was able to make a film every bit as good as a man would have.” The honest truth is that women’s experiences and lives don’t rate at the same level with men’s, and Bigelow is just another reminder of that fact.

One of the big reasons why The Hurt Locker has vaulted to the top is precisely because men love this film. In an email, awards watcher Pete Hammond wrote: “No matter how crass this sounds, (the film) actually looks like it was directed by a man. We don’t often see gritty war movies with female directors.” There is almost a sense of awe mixed with condescension that a woman could have directed such a movie.

and a bit of gushing from here:

I remember when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first female Supreme Court justice; I remember when Madeleine Albright became the first Secretary of State; I remember when Shannon Faulkner became the first female to go to the Citadel; I remember when Eileen Collins became the first woman to command a space shuttle mission; I remember when Nancy Pelosi became the first female Speaker of the House.

And I will remember last night.

I will remember it because it came on the dawn of International Women’s Day, when many of us pause and think about the struggles that many women and girls in the world go through each and every day just to survive.

We all know that last night was symbolic, that one woman winning an award won’t help all the other women working each and every day to get their films made. But I am betting that this morning women directors around the world will walk a little taller, smile a little brighter, and feel a bit stronger and more confident as they sweep up the glass that Bigelow shattered last night.

and finally, i really liked this comment at shakesville:

About The Hurt Locker: First, what a surprise: the first time a woman wins best director and picture, it's for a movie about dudes. Shock.

Fortunately, it's rather brilliant about dudes. IMExperience--and I've got a bit--what Bigelow did was really unique for movies about men: she showed men, not as they want to be portrayed--and no matter how "honest" they try to be, I think just about every movie made by men ultimately does this--but as how they actually are, oftentimes, especially the kind of men portrayed in her film: desperate for bonding and love, but doing so--and becoming only able to do so--over shared pain.

The other thing about The Hurt Locker is the Chris Hedges quote at the beginning, which is from his terrible and beautiful book War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. It's not there for decoration. The Hurt Locker is almost the novelization of the book, or at least its main theme: that war, and the adrenaline rush it gives, and the sense of engaging in an activity that unlike so many others in industrialized society actually has meaning make it a desperately addictive drug, one that become harder and harder to give up. (Hedges talks movingly and at length about his own struggle to stop going back out into battle zones again and again.) That's the journey of Jeremy Renner's character, and it's why he acts the way he does--which I agree is not particularly military at times--and why he makes the choice he does at the end.

It's a desperately poignant story about men and the pressures they impose on themselves and thus transcends in a way relatively few movies have the constraints of the "war movie" genre.

so there you go. and if you didn't manage to catch the oscars (like most of us in nz, i would think), here's a rather elongated you tube clip of the best director bit:

yeah, idiots all right

i've just done a write up on the bollywood film "my name is khan" on my own blog. as i wrote there, i've pretty much gone off bollywood films, but have managed to catch 2 in the last month. the other one is "3 idiots", which was recommended to me by several people who thought it was hilariously funny.

well, yes, it was laugh-out-loud funny in parts, and yes, it did deal with a very serious issues for young people in india: the pressure to study (and excel) a degree course chosen by your parents with very little input from yourself. it pushed boundaries for a bollywood film, particularly in terms of the child birth scenes, with detailed diagrams and all.

but the one thing that soured it for me was the inclusion of rape jokes, reasonably liberally throughout the film. not just because i don't like them & particularly not in the way that these jokes were presented, but also because this is not a part of indian culture. at least not what i've seen of it.

i haven't heard rape jokes in bollywood films, unless by the evil villain to show just how wicked he really is. it's not something that normally happens in conversation amongst the indians i know. this seems to me to be a definite import from western culture, and that's what annoys me the most. there are so many wonderful aspects of western culture that could happily be adopted by bollywood, but somehow they always seem to take the worst of MTV and appatow movies and present it as if it's all so edgy and modern. spew.

and just as an aside, i really am not interested in watching people sitting with their pants down on the toilet, in hollywood or bollywood films. what is it with that? nowadays, we even have to get shots of them wiping their bums (bollywood hasn't got quite that far yet, but this movie has started moving in that direction), and really, i'd put it under the category of "too much information". but i suppose that's just me.

Playing princesses, Disney style

The Princess and the Frog came out this school holidays, featuring Disney's first black princess, and is perhaps the closest, plot-wise, to feminist that such a tale has got thus far.

Sadly The Princess and the Frog continues the ongoing tradition of princesses with waists so thin they would snap, eyes so big there surely wouldn't be much skull room left for brains, and a suggestion of legs so long that Princess Tiana would struggle to sit without hitting herself in the chin with her own knees:
What on earth would have been wrong with giving her proportions similar to the woman who voiced her? And yes, the Disney prince is pretty ridiculously proportioned too.

Things sure have changed since the first Disney Princess, Snow White, in 1937:

Scathing blog post about Twilight

By Fiona Imlach Guneskara at Pundit:

Based on Stephenie Meyer's blockbuster book, New Moon contains elements that are deeply disturbing, although little critique of the underlying messages pervading the Twilight series has appeared in mainstream media. At least one theme that recurs strongly in New Moon should be of great concern to those who work with young people, at whom this movie is targeted, and those working in mental health services.

...The most dreadful aspect of Bella’s insipid character is that she is entirely dependent on the males in her life. All of her actions revolve around them – everything she does is in response to Edward or Jacob. She plays the consummate damsel in distress, without any desire to save herself – how is this possible in the 21st century?

...Why has this story had such appeal to women, despite the dark undercurrents of violence and self-repression? Perhaps it is due to the tremendous pressure society places on women to be superhuman – to simultaneously hold down a job, run a home, be mother, daughter, wife and friend. The appeal of the superhuman man, who is not only unbelievably gorgeous, the perfect gentleman, sensitive, intelligent and wonderfully rich, is overwhelming.

Click through for the whole thing, it's well worth a read.

I haven't read any of the Twilight books although I'd been starting to think maybe I should. I was repulsed by Harry Potter, until I gave in and got hooked. Likewise with the Tomorrow When the War Began series, and Cross Stitch (although this one I gave up on part way through the fifth volume). But Fiona's caused me to reconsider.

What say you? Especially if you have read the books/seen the movies!

Annoying white naval cap thingy which you have to clean with toothpaste tipped in the direction of my dear friend L, via Facebook.

The Age of Stupid

I went and saw the documentary The Age of Stupid the other night. It is good. You should see it. And yes, I cried (for me it was the bit about the Nigerian village that did it). The film was at its best when showing how climate change is already affecting peoples' lives. The most shocking statistic for me was that while only 1% of scientists don't believe climate change is real, 60% of the general public remain unconvinced. (Interestingly, I read a statistic when I was in Australia a while ago that said that a large number of Australians do believe it is real, no doubt because people there are experiencing the effects on a national scale to a greater extent than elsewhere).

The film's Kiwi producer, Lizzie Gillet, had this to say in a NZ Herald review posted on the movie website:

"We wanted to make a film that had an impact," Gillett says "We didn't want to be preaching to the converted. More importantly, I think there is a lot of research out there and people know about climate change but are just not doing anything, so we tried to make a film that engages people emotionally more than intellectually ... to persuade them to do something about climate change.

I agree that the science is compelling, however, the one thing that disappointed me about the film is that it felt very light on what that something is that we need to do about climate change. We saw people from the rich world growing their own food, attending protests, thinking about how they can reduce their carbon emissions on an individual level. One man who was interviewed, the wind farm guy, referred to taking action on climate change as a "moral issue". I think that this misses the point; the best chance we have of addressing climate change at is by facing it as a political issue that can be addressed at the national level.

By talking about climate change as either an individual moral problem, or a global crisis, we miss the point that it is governments that will make a difference here with initiatives such as taxing pollution so that the real costs associated with production and distribution are being included in prices. Again, in Australia last week the news was full of the fact that food prices will be affected by their recently announced emissions targets and there was well-placed concern about the effect that this would have on the poor. To deal with this real problem the Rudd government announced that they would target social assistance to those families affected by increased prices. This is the approach we need to take here in New Zealand as well.

I recommend the film and hope you will have the chance to see it. However, changing behaviour on an individual level to seek to address climate change may feel good morally but what we need to do is to really make progress on this is to take this on collectively through our political processes.

Disgrace

Warning: triggering material

The film discussion on another post reminded me of the film "Disgrace", which I saw recently. The movie is based on the novel of the same name by South African writer JM Coetzee which won the Booker prize a few years ago. The film addresses the topic of rape: there is the rape of the student by the Professor/protagonist Lurie (because this is what it is, is it not, even though reviews refer to it as "seduction"). There is also the rape of the Lurie's daughter Lucy, who lives on a remote South African farm, by three young men.

As the review from the Sydney Morning Herald puts it:

The aftermath of this catastrophe forms the moral kernel of the film. Father and daughter react very differently. His first instinct is a desire for revenge but it's complicated by her silences. For once in his life, his intellect is no help to him. He can't work out what she's thinking and she won't tell him. Then at last, he begins to realise the sacrifices she is willing to make and they appal him.

For those who have read the book or seen the film, I would be very interested to know how you reacted to the ending in particular as I found it absolutely awful and am still not sure what to think.