Tag Archives: cinema

“Rights, not privileges, its that easy!” Happy International Women’s Day

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCJ3Q_PcFI8?wmode=transparent]

I just finished watching, once again, “Made in Dagenham” the powerful movie (one of my favorites in recent years) about the fight for equal pay for women in the UK which started in the summer of 1968 with 187 women sewing machinists going on strike in the Ford factory in Dagenham, and ended with the landmark Equal Pay Act of 1970. Stirring stuff for International Women’s Day, which, after all, started as International Working Women’s Day in the first place. It is worth remembering that history lest this day loses its power to become just another hallmark greeting card day when you bring flowers and chocolate to the women in your lives. It should be much more than that!

I am particularly glad I was able to share the film with two of my favorite people who played a huge role in helping shape my social conscience in my youth – my sister Vaijayanta and her husband Anand – and their son Kaustubh. At a time when politicians and corporations are colluding to roll back every hard fought human/worker’s right, especially for women, this is a movie everyone must see, to remind ourselves of those fights that won us the precious rights we do enjoy, and what it takes to keep hold of them.

Here’s one of my favorite moments in the film, when the well educated upper class Lisa Hopkins, married to the manager of the Dagenham Ford plant who treats her like a fool of a trophy wife, tells Rita O’Grady, the woman whose “gob” has made her the leader of the machinists, to make history, and to tell her what that’s like:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv2hRfqlJaE?wmode=transparent]

As for the men reading this post who are (and also those who aren’t) supportive of women’s rights, and perhaps feel a bit smug about how much they do (including poetry) to support the women in their lives, here’s a little reminder that that is as it should be!

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbjSOt7NxIY?wmode=transparent]

“Rights, not privileges, its that easy!”

Indeed it is, lads, indeed it is that simple. Let’s remember that.

Happy International Women’s Day!

Harking back to Matewan (in which I got to ask John Sayles a question!)

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwEMIvDEFy4]

The above scene from Matewan – indeed, the entire movie – is well worth revisiting today, as them that don’t” work, but rule the country (and indeed much of the globalized world) are dragging the US back to a century ago, to the days of the Matewan massacre and the bloody birth of labor unions in this country. Why, ordinary Americans, “them that work“, may no longer even be relevant to the ruling oligarchs in this country today!

I saw Matewan in 1989, just a few months before leaving India to come to the US, seeking to shape my own future as a graduate student. As a lifelong cinephile growing up on a steady diet of Bollywood and Hollywood films, I – like most of my friends – had mostly envisioned life in the US through the lens of Hollywood glamour. The global marketplace of films doesn’t really have room for anything other than big studio blockbusters and thrillers, rom-coms and raunch-coms. Realistic Indie films like Matewan rarely get worldwide theatrical releases – heck, most of them don’t even make it to the multiplexes of Fresno today! I’m glad I stumbled upon Matewan in a video rental shop in Dehradun. A few years earlier, John Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath” had given me my first major jolt of awakening towards the reality of ordinary Americans’ life and history – as opposed to the celluloid dreams. John Sayles sucker-punched me with his powerful retelling of a turning point in American history – one not often told in our history textbooks. He described it thus during an extended interview with Amy Goodman broadcast on Democracy Now this morning:

JOHN SAYLES: Yeah, Matewan is a movie about a labor strike, a coal miner strike in 1920 in West Virginia. The way that the coal operators tried to keep workers divided in those days was what they called a judicious mixture, which would be to hire a third hillbilly miners from West Virginia, a third immigrants from Yugoslavia, Italy, wherever, and a third black miners from the South, where the mines were just tapping out, and they would come up and be—trying to use them as strikebreakers. Often housed them in three different places, put them into the mine from three different places so that they couldn’t even meet on the job. And they thought, “Well, these people will never get together and form a union.” But in fact, the conditions were so bad and the pay was so bad that they found ways to find each other and ended up forming—the UMW was one of the most integrated unions of that time.

AMY GOODMAN: United Mine Workers.

JOHN SAYLES: Yeah.

Go watch the whole interview on the Democracy Now website, where the above remark was followed by another excerpt from the movie. As the conversation continued, I was pleasantly surprised to hear my own name on the radio! Read on for the questions I got to ask John Sayles, and his thoughtful response:

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of John Sayles’ Matewan. As you watch, what are you thinking?

JOHN SAYLES: Well, it’s interesting that that story hasn’t quite ended. The Matewan Massacre, which ends my film, was the prelude to an American incident called the Battle of Blair Mountain, which was the first time that bombs were dropped from airplanes. And in fact, they were dropped by American citizens on American citizens. And right now, as we speak, there is a second Battle of Blair Mountain, which is Blair Mountain had been named a historical landmark, then was unnamed because a coal company wanted to take the top of the mountain off. And a kind of coalition of people who think that it’s important history to keep this site the way that it was and environmentalists have joined together to try to fight the mountaintop removal of Blair Mountain. It’s a story that doesn’t end in West Virginia.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about the massacre at the time, that you cover in Matewan.

JOHN SAYLES: Yeah, the massacre, at the time, was one of the few times that the coal miners actually won one of these armed engagements, if you can say a massacre is ever winning anything. People on both sides—

AMY GOODMAN: The year?

JOHN SAYLES: This is 1920. And eventually, the Baldwin-Felts Agency—the two guys who were kind of beating up on people at the beginning of that clip were from the Baldwin-Felts Agency, which was very much like the Pinkerton Agency, kind of the Blackwater of the time—ended up marching into town to evict a bunch of people. At that time, they had threatened and shot at and beaten enough people that there was a bunch of miners hidden around town with guns. And when there was a confrontation between the sheriff and the mayor and the heads of the Baldwin-Felts Agency in the middle of the street, pretty much at high noon, the miners who were secreted when the shooting started—and it’s still unclear who started shooting—were in a better position to shoot at the people who were out in the street than the people out in the street were in position to shoot at them. So, more of the Baldwin-Felts agents got killed than miners and civilians did, but there were people killed on both sides.

AMY GOODMAN: We’ve gotten a question in on Facebook from Madhasudan [sic] Katti, who posted this question on Facebook: “Given that you directed one of my favorite American movies, Matewan, about the early days of the labor union movement in this country, I would like to know what you think of the current efforts to undermine unions. Are we being pushed back to the days of Matewan? And also wanted to know what you think about the general decline in the public perception of unions.”

JOHN SAYLES: Yeah, well, this is a long story, but I would say, you know, two things happened. Federal judges and state judges, under both Democratic and Republican regimes, have changed legislation in the favor of companies against unions for the last 30, 35 years. So it’s much harder for a union to go on strike without breaking the law than it used to be. Unions had a very, very brief moment in the sun, pretty much starting when Franklin Roosevelt got into power. And some of his appointees, judges, were more favorable to the right of workers to collectively bargain.

Right now, certainly the conservative Republican agenda is to undo the New Deal. You know, they’re not just trying to undo what recent Democratic regimes have put in; it’s to undo the New Deal, to take us back to something like the ’20s or the ’30s, when unions were pretty much outlaw organizations, considered outlaw organizations. And since so few people are unionized today, their thrust now is not necessarily against industrial workers, but against public service unions, starting with the teachers.

And I think that years of anti-union propaganda, plus mistakes unions have made, you know—and sometimes just mistakes they’ve made and sometimes things that they have not been able to avoid, like organized crime taking over their unions and using them for purposes other than what they should be used for—have undermined people’s kind of image of what unions are. And there are places like Wal-Mart, that if you’re going to work at Wal-Mart, you have to watch a couple weeks of anti-union propaganda in order to hold onto the job.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean?

JOHN SAYLES: They will literally say, “If you want this job, you know, for a couple hours a day your first week, you’re going to have to come and you’re going to have to sit and watch these movies,” and they’re anti-union movies.

Depressing as it is to think about how the oligarchs are now turning the clock back on the rest of us, while making us irrelevant, we can take heart from Sayles’ parting words:

AMY GOODMAN: As we begin to wrap up, a question came to us by email from Pia Massey, who asks if you have any tips for sane survival for artist-activist types.

JOHN SAYLES: Well, I think the sane survival—one of the things is to think of your role not as somebody that, you know, if there are no final victories, there are also no final losses, and that things have gotten better. They usually haven’t gotten better because of what’s been going on at the top. They’ve usually gotten better because of what’s been pushing from beneath. You know, the politicians are only going to be as good as we force them to be. And that however small your audience is, however frustrating it is to get your version of the world or what you want to talk about out there, it’s part of the conversation. And if you shut up, the conversation is one-sided.

It is good for your sane survival to watch Matewan again – even though it is not available on Netflix or iTunes, and reasonably priced DVDs may be hard to find! You may find it in parts on YouTube, I think – just go to the page for the above video and look through the related videos list. 

And if you are in Fresno this summer, let me know if you want to watch it together! While we wait for Amigo to arrive (will it reach Fresno?).

Let’s keep the conversation from getting too one-sided, shall we? 

Things not to do in the cinema: the Wittertainment Code of Conduct (not in 3D)

http://s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/watch_as3-vflofTU0v.swf

You do listen to their (now miraculous and up-for-sainthood!) weekly show regularly, don’t you, if you claim to be any kind of cinephile?

Here’s the poster version of the above Code of Conduct for you to print out and share at your own local cinema:

Media_httpwwwbbccouk5_bdlwb

 

Keepers of the Water (a $500 movie)

What would you come up with, if someone offered you a video camera and 500 bucks to go shoot your own movie? The Toronto International Film Festival did just that, to find emerging filmmakers, and the above film Keepers of the Water is my pick from among the five finalists in the competition. Go see the film and the other four – they are all quite good – and cast your vote:

TIFF® Talent Lab presents the Emerging Filmmakers Competition in support of up-and-coming filmmakers. The idea was simple: give filmmakers a video camera, $500 and ask them to create something original on the subject of water.

TIFF’s jury panel has selected their top five, and now it’s your chance to vote for your favourite short and give an emerging filmmaker a shot at winning the Fan Favourite Award, which will be presented at the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival®.

After selecting one film of your choice, you’ll be taken to our contest entry page for your chance to WIN+ a TIFF Festival Red Carpet Experience worth $5,000!

 

Banglar King Kong rules!!!!… but what’s a loris doing in his kingdom?

A google search for Slender Loris somehow lead me to this improbably fantastic trailer! So did you spot the loris in the midst of the mayhem? What’s it doing there?!

More importantly, perhaps: can we get this special effects laden romantic action extravaganza in 3D please? That’ll knock James Cameroon’s socks off, surely. If the famous Assamese musical theatre adaptation of Titanic (complete with big ship sinking on stage) hasn’t already done so, that is.

Hitler and Eva, running around a tree, s-i-n-g-i-n-g?!

If there was once and again a successful musical Springtime for Hitler, then why not a Bollywood musical melodrama where he might get to chase Eva (in a wet saree?) around a tree, singing and dancing with an ensemble of colorfully (or khaki?) clad dancers?

But no. It seems Bollywood’s first attempt at a Hitler biopic will not be a musical (let alone satirical send-up) but a romance-drama focusing on, among other things, “Hitler’s love for India and how he indirectly contributed to Indian independence”!!! Really!!

I know fascism fascinates many people in India, and some there long for a dictatorship given the messiness of Indian politics (imagining themselves, of course, being in the dictator’s favor). Gandhi and his nonviolence are no longer fashionable, nor Nehru’s non-alignment (which Oliver Stone was longing for just last night on Bill Maher’s show), as various fundamentalisms and communalisms fight it out, often bloodily, over the country’s battered secular fabric. And people’s memories in India are as short as anywhere, if not shorter, when it comes to history, but surely, a Hitler hagiography is going too far?!

I have to agree with the concerns expressed in this Guardian Film Blog:

Western productions have occasionally attempted to make fun of Hitler, ranging from successes like The Producers to fiascos like Heil Honey, I’m Home. But Dear Friend Hitler is not a traditional Bollywood musical, and makes no claim to comedy. “It aims to capture the personality of Adolf Hitler and his insecurities, his charisma and his paranoia during the last few days of his life,” Kumar says. In other words, this is Downfall – but with a positive spin.

For many westerners, Hitler remains history’s ultimate evil. In India, awareness of the Holocaust is limited. Characters in Bollywood films jokingly refer to bossy family members as “Hitler” – provoking a sharp intake of breath from many western viewers, who associate Hitler with crimes significantly worse than telling you to do your chores. In 2006, a Nazi-themed cafe opened in Mumbai with the name Hitler’s Cross. Bollywood actor Murli Sharma attended the launch party. Asked whether he found the name troublesome, he said: “I am not really agitated as I have not read much about the man. However, from what I know about Hitler, I find this name rather amusing.”

Dear Friend Hitler has not yet been made, and it is too early to say whether it will be any good or not. What can be said is that the reported comments of Kumar and one of his producers display a shocking ignorance of historical fact. Kumar’s assertion that Hitler had a “love for India”, and his producer’s statement that “if we should thank anybody for Indian freedom, it should be Hitler”, are not merely misguided – they are completely wrong.

Read the rest via guardian.co.uk.

What do you think?

 

On the grotesque portrayal of women in films

Over on ScienceBlogs, a kerfuffle has been brewing this week, starting apparently with a male blogger delving into some old literature on the psychological effects of pornography and what it says about male aggression and violence towards women. Not surprisingly, the dude got into hot water with fellow female science bloggers and feminists because the studies in question, and his original post, asked the wrong question: what are the effects of watching pornography on how aggressively / violently men may subsequently act towards other women?

 
But what about the violence already perpetrated against the first set of women, the ones already brutalized in the course of the making of the pornography
 
Apparently, says the dude (in a revised blog post), the two questions are separate, kinda like asking if drilling for oil in the deep ocean is bad in the first place vs. asking what are the effects of oil drilling when it inevitably fucks things up! Really?! As scientists, it seems, we should be interested in the potential effects of viewing porn on aggressive behaviors by men towards other women – but what about the actual violence that has already been perpetrated against the women in said porn? Which of the two questions should really concern us most as human beings and scientists? Why must science limit itself to the superficial male-centric question about effects, but not get to the root causes about violence against women? To put it back in terms of the oil spill metaphor du jour: is it enough if we ecologists merely focus on the after effects of the BP spill and clean up, but never challenge the whole notion of drilling in such dangerous ways for a substance we really shouldn’t be dependent upon in the first place? Why not work towards finding a good answer to that deeper question so that the more superficial one never has to be asked at all?

 
All this brings to mind some thought-provoking discussion about what pornography does to women, men, and healthy relationships between the two, which took place when Robert Jensen visited us at Fresno State last year. Rather than pontificate from my own limited expertise in these matters, let me to refer you to Jensen’s excellent book “Getting Off: Pornography and the end of masculinity” based on his own research and experience as a participant in the feminist struggle against pornography. I was surprised to find no reference to Jensen’s work on ScienceBlogs – and daresay that the male scientists/bloggers in particular should at least give him a read before shooting their mouths off. 
 
Allow me, then, to pull you in a different direction, and ask about the violence against women in mainstream (supposedly non-pornographic) cinema (or what passes for it in your nearest multiplex these days of summer). Especially cinema that is supposed to be about liberated women enjoying the fruits of the feminist movements of the ’60s and ’70s. I’ve been really troubled for some weeks by the egregious depiction of women in that supposedly post-feminist female centered mainstream movie, Sex in the City 2 – even the trailers made me gag, and I hoped, dearly, that women would turn against it en masse. Alas, enough viewers (women, mostly?) turned up to watch it worldwide to put it among the top 3 films when it opened. Mercifully, most film critics tore the movie to shreds – and sharply and entertainingly enough to the point I thought the reviews alone were worth the movie having been made! 
 
In particular, I want to share this incisive non-rant from my current favorite film critic Dr. Mark Kermode over on BBC:
 
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeQeHstrsc?wmode=transparent]
 
Lest you dismiss this as another (un)rant by another man, here’s the review by Lindy West that Kermode points out as being unreadable-on-air.
 
So, tell me, whatever happened to feminism? Why are we stuck between so much pornography on the one hand, and such ghastly fare in the mainstream “chick-flick” genre on the other?

Aren’t these enough to make you join Dr. Kermode in his rallying cry for another revolution?

Celebrate the end of finals week with Bad Astronomy at the Downing Planetarium this friday!

Join us as we explore the sky at the Downing Planetarium!.

This month, Movie Night at the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics will be held at the Downing Planetarium.

We will be seeing two shows. 

First is Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy”, a show that explores and debunks astronomical myths like the moon landing “hoax”, and alien visitors to Earth in UFOs.  Dr. Plait will also explain several astronomical errors found in movies. 

“Bad Astronomy” is based upon the book “Bad Astronomy” also by Phil Plait.  This is an excellent book for any rational thinker to read and understand why some fringe claims about astronomy just don’t make sense.

The second show is called “The Planets”.  This is a tour of the planets of the Solar System, based on the best data astronomers have currently gathered on our neighbors.  Find out how our solar system was formed, learn about hurricanes on other planets.  Also, we will learn about the extrasolar planets, planets that are orbiting other stars.

We will be attending the Friday, May 21st showing, which starts at 7pm.

To join us, you must call the planetarium to reserve your tickets.  Call the planetarium at 559-278-4071.

The Downing Planetarium is located on the California State University, Fresno campus.  The best way to get there is from Cedar and Barstow, drive to Maple and Barstow, and park in the Green parking area.  (Google map of location)  (Campus map for parking).

For more information, see the Downing Planetarium schedule.

We’re looking forward to seeing you there!

The real reason why Avatar didn’t deserve an Oscar!

It was all plagiarized from Bollywood:

Mumbai. Rajesh Khanna aka Kaka has finally broken his silence and has confirmed what was being widely speculated and rumored around in the Indian blogosphere – James Cameron’s latest blockbuster Avatar being a copy of Kaka’s 1983 Bollywood masterpiece Avtaar. In an exclusive interview to Faking News, the romantic superstar of the 70’s has accused James Cameron of lifting certain scenes from his movie without giving due credits.

Now I too, like everyone else, saw and found Avatar to be highly derivative, borrowing liberally from previous films including the obvious (Pocahontas, Dances With Wolves, smurfs), and the much-less-talked-about sources (like Miyazaki’s imaginative masterpieces).

But such wholesale borrowing from Bollywood, as meticulously documented, with pictures, in the above article? That’s a connection I hadn’t made!

Although, come to think of it, this is hardly surprising. After all we are talking about the “creator” of that previous box-office record breaking mega-blockbuster, Titanic, which is nothing more than an overwrought run-of-the-mill poor-boy-rich-girl romantically tragic Bollywood musical. Except, without the songs. Until, I believe, they were added back in, in a brave act of cultural reclamation.

Still don’t believe Cameron stole Avatar?

 

We leave our readers with these pictures so that they can decide for themselves:

Avatar vs Avtaar

“They copied the POSTER!”

Avatar vs Avtaar

“They even copied my paralyzed hand “

Avatar vs Avtaar

“Shabana’s faraway look, copied again”

Avatar vs Avtaar

“Do you need more proof?”

Hat-tip: Prem Panicker