The film "American History X" had a profound effect on my maturation process. It was released in 1998 while I was a junior in high school. Written by David McKenna and directed by Tony Kaye, the film takes place in modern Long Beach, California and focuses on the Vinyard family. I had not heard of this film until I was taken by a friend to the theatre. The film is an overtly graphic depiction of racism and neo-nazi rhetoric. The film begins on the day Dereck Vinyard, a former neo-nazi played by Edward Norton, is released from prison for killing two black gang members who were trying to steal his car. The main theme of the movie revolves around Derecks initial involvement with white supremacy, his idealogies, and general "successes," i.e. the basketball game to 'win' the courts away from blacks; as well as changing his younger brother Danny, played by Edward Furlong, away from the moral and intelectual trappings of ethnocentrism.
The amazing aspect of this movie is the dialogue and points it conveys from both sides of this volitale issue. I have seen this movie several dozen times and everytime I watch it, I cannot believe that I partially agree with some of Norton's points about racism. Rodney King was a convicted criminal and was hopped up on Angel's Dust when the cops pulled him over, and most of the riot crime was black on black. But I also think him being black led the cops to beat him even worse. I do not think it is a uniquely American problem that whites dominate politics, education, and wealth. I believe most folks in America are conditioned to immediately judge and evaluate other people and themselves based on a decidedly screwy system of priorities and perspective. We elevate ourselves over others on the basis of money, skin color, creed, material things, and beauty just to name a few. It was simple and convenient for Dereck to blame all of America's problems on minorities and elevate himself above the lower class criminals who are destroying white America. In the end, Dereck finally realizes that humanity is more important than his 'bullshit' rhetoric and anger.
I initially couldn't believe this movie was chosen for Best U.S. Film. I still don't agree that it should have been chosen, but I am glad the message was exposed to a much larger cross section of the population. The movie helped me formulate my own views on race relations and helped me aggravate my high school history teacher for a semester. I always considered American History X as one of the best movies, but it does not accurately potray America to foreigners, most of us don't curb people. Overall, the movie's effectiveness is tied to the graphic scenes of violence and racism.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Latin American Historical Perspective
Continental Drift
“Diarios de motocicleta”, or “The Motorcycle Diaries” (2004) was directed by Walter Salles and great Robert Redford executive produced the story of Ernesto Guevara de la Serna and Alberto Granado’s great trek across Latin America. Ernesto Guevara, better known as Che Guevara, was a famous communist revolutionary in Latin America and Africa in the 1950’s and 60’s. The film follows 23 year old Che, a semester away from graduating from medical school, and Alberto, his 29-year old biochemist “chubby” friend as they depart on “The Mighty One,” a 1939 Norton 500 motorcycle. The film is a beautiful look at a defining moment in Che Guevara’s life. Ernest Guevara de la Serna the man, the myth, and the legend has become synonymous with revolution and fighting against the system. His face adorns merchandise today and the youths who embrace his image seldom understand the man or the world he was trying to change.
The film does an excellent job of staying true to Che’s original narration, which was translated into English in 1996 but has been a best seller in Spanish for decades. Che was an asthmatic, a rugby player, and this amazing trip did forever change his life and his ideologies. The main aspect I believe the film was trying to convey was the inequities Che witnessed in his travels that affected his future roles in communist revolutions. I personally have much sympathy for and understand only too well how unfair and inequitable the treatment has become in the world. Che noticed the unfair land speculation, private property, and socio-economic class-ism that was being waged and fought to change the power balance. The dichotomy of Che’s legacy was quite evident to me in the film when he continually showed great empathy and compassion in the film over Alberto’s more self-serving nature. But although this movie paints a wonderful picture and it was said that in his campaigns he would care for his enemies wounded, he remained an advocate of armed violence as a means to an end for change. Sam Russell, a British correspondent for the socialist Daily Worker interviewed Che a few weeks after the Cuban Missile crisis and he was puffing on a cigar and taking blasts from an inhaler, he told Russell that if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them off at major U.S. cities.[1]
I enjoyed this movie immensely and actually own it. The magnificent and breathtaking view of the mountains, valleys, dustbowls, oceans, and rivers, as well as the ancient roads, ruins, and indigenous people lends strongly towards use in our academic setting. Gael Garcia Bernal portrays a Che with both a strong sense of compassion, and yet exudes the conflicted, exuberant and fiery youth Che must have been, i.e. his farewell speech about a United America at the leper colony leading into a lunatic swim across the Amazon River at night.
Che Guevara is a fantastic figure to study in today’s classrooms. His life and words exposes the world to an unsightly reality, poverty, disease, and ugly United States involvement in South America.
(1) Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 545
“Diarios de motocicleta”, or “The Motorcycle Diaries” (2004) was directed by Walter Salles and great Robert Redford executive produced the story of Ernesto Guevara de la Serna and Alberto Granado’s great trek across Latin America. Ernesto Guevara, better known as Che Guevara, was a famous communist revolutionary in Latin America and Africa in the 1950’s and 60’s. The film follows 23 year old Che, a semester away from graduating from medical school, and Alberto, his 29-year old biochemist “chubby” friend as they depart on “The Mighty One,” a 1939 Norton 500 motorcycle. The film is a beautiful look at a defining moment in Che Guevara’s life. Ernest Guevara de la Serna the man, the myth, and the legend has become synonymous with revolution and fighting against the system. His face adorns merchandise today and the youths who embrace his image seldom understand the man or the world he was trying to change.
The film does an excellent job of staying true to Che’s original narration, which was translated into English in 1996 but has been a best seller in Spanish for decades. Che was an asthmatic, a rugby player, and this amazing trip did forever change his life and his ideologies. The main aspect I believe the film was trying to convey was the inequities Che witnessed in his travels that affected his future roles in communist revolutions. I personally have much sympathy for and understand only too well how unfair and inequitable the treatment has become in the world. Che noticed the unfair land speculation, private property, and socio-economic class-ism that was being waged and fought to change the power balance. The dichotomy of Che’s legacy was quite evident to me in the film when he continually showed great empathy and compassion in the film over Alberto’s more self-serving nature. But although this movie paints a wonderful picture and it was said that in his campaigns he would care for his enemies wounded, he remained an advocate of armed violence as a means to an end for change. Sam Russell, a British correspondent for the socialist Daily Worker interviewed Che a few weeks after the Cuban Missile crisis and he was puffing on a cigar and taking blasts from an inhaler, he told Russell that if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them off at major U.S. cities.[1]
I enjoyed this movie immensely and actually own it. The magnificent and breathtaking view of the mountains, valleys, dustbowls, oceans, and rivers, as well as the ancient roads, ruins, and indigenous people lends strongly towards use in our academic setting. Gael Garcia Bernal portrays a Che with both a strong sense of compassion, and yet exudes the conflicted, exuberant and fiery youth Che must have been, i.e. his farewell speech about a United America at the leper colony leading into a lunatic swim across the Amazon River at night.
Che Guevara is a fantastic figure to study in today’s classrooms. His life and words exposes the world to an unsightly reality, poverty, disease, and ugly United States involvement in South America.
(1) Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 545
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
We're all Dreamin
The co-directed film “Mei man ren sheng,” or “Singapore Dreaming” (2006), by Colin Goh and Yen Yen Woo might just be the best representation of not only the specific Singapore culture, but also the general Western capitalistic systems effect on humanity. The movie was originated from the directors' essay "Paved with Good Intentions" which was published in 2001 in the book Singaporeans Exposed. They received numerous e-mails from other Singaporeans who identified with the characters frustration and expectations.
The movie centers on a family living in public housing in Singapore. The father, Pa, a collection agent for the government, is the head of a family of disillusioned, disappointed, and unhappy folk. His wife, Ma, a woman from the country who moved into the city and eventually married and settled into a life of herbal tea, cooking, and cleaning never expected her life to be so changed by the end of the movie. She is a great surprise at the end of the movie.. The family is rounded off with their two children and significant others. Seng, the prodigal son has just returned from a worthless University in the United States, where he did not graduate and wasted not only his own families money but also borrowed heavily from his girlfriend Irene. Irene stayed faithful and even supported Seng while he was away in the hope he would return and marry her and have children. Mei, the married and extremely pregnant daughter is a hardworking passive aggressive secretary for an executive named Simon Koh. Her husband C.K. is a passive former military man who tries to sell insurance over the phone to former classmates regrets leaving the army and wishes he could still play music.
The main theme of this movie seems to be image, expectations, materialism, status, disappointment, and disillusionment. The main events in the movie are Seng’s return from the United States, Pa winning 2 million dollars in the lottery and his subsequent death outside the country club. Each character has different hopes and dreams in their lives. Pa hoped and dreamed to win the lottery, because he believed it is acceptable and expected of everyone to want to live in a nice condo and join an elitist country club. I think it was the directors purpose to make him seem like a man who was miserable in his public housing with a wife that seemed to only be concerned with housekeeping tasks. At Pa’s funeral the directors introduced the characters of a woman and child that Pa allegedly provided for, although it is never actually confirmed by anything. Mei is just as miserable and disillusioned in her expectations. She has felt Seng has always been treated better than her, being given the money to go to the United States for school. Which in Singapore seems to be a very high esteem until Seng goes for his interview and finds out the degree he didn’t even earn wasn’t worth much anyways. Mei is representative of people who are always trying hard and never feel like they receive the credit, respect or admiration they deserve; yet it seems the credit, respect, and admiration are what motivate them to work hard in the first place. She is disappointed with her husband because he fails to live up to the expectations of acceptable society and she feels he needs to work harder. C.K. is just trying to adjust to life outside of the military and to find a good job, of which there are very few for someone without a degree. Seng is by far the worst character in the movie. He is the representative of the group of people who believe everyone else is only around to serve their needs. Seng takes advantage and takes for granted his parents and especially Irene. Irene expected him to marry her when he returned from Idaho, but Seng never seemed that interested in marrying her and was a manipulative, lying, and shallow person. Irene on the other hand was by far the best character in the movie. She was a genuine good person who tried to do right by her boyfriend and his family. She cared deeply for Ma after her initial shock from the death of her husband. Seng just expected his parents and Irene to do whatever he needed, his dreams dissolved when his mother only gave him a thousand dollars at the end of the film.
The film certainly depicts specific Singapore characteristics, but I still maintain the issues the characters are dealing with are very much relevant to Americans. Ma was a female immigrant into the city, a trend in Singapore. The language of Singapore is Malay, but English is the language of commerce and administration. It was interesting the way the film weaved the two together. You would catch tidbits of English words intertwined in the Malay dialogue. The urinating in the elevators is also a Singapore issue. My overall point is that the family contained a lot of emotional issues very relevant to every capitalistic country. The many western company logos that were scattered through the film is evident enough that they are probably under the same constant stream of advertising and indirect messages. The media tells us what’s cool, what’s not, what’s true, what’s not, and what is acceptable. I think its greatest weakness is telling us what we should aspire to and expect from life. Each character had to alter their original dream and expectations, which lead to anger, tears, and most of the emotional interaction in the movie. I believe the movie was very well done and depicted the disillusionment and screwy priorities our society of immediate gratification and unrealistic ideology.
The movie centers on a family living in public housing in Singapore. The father, Pa, a collection agent for the government, is the head of a family of disillusioned, disappointed, and unhappy folk. His wife, Ma, a woman from the country who moved into the city and eventually married and settled into a life of herbal tea, cooking, and cleaning never expected her life to be so changed by the end of the movie. She is a great surprise at the end of the movie.. The family is rounded off with their two children and significant others. Seng, the prodigal son has just returned from a worthless University in the United States, where he did not graduate and wasted not only his own families money but also borrowed heavily from his girlfriend Irene. Irene stayed faithful and even supported Seng while he was away in the hope he would return and marry her and have children. Mei, the married and extremely pregnant daughter is a hardworking passive aggressive secretary for an executive named Simon Koh. Her husband C.K. is a passive former military man who tries to sell insurance over the phone to former classmates regrets leaving the army and wishes he could still play music.
The main theme of this movie seems to be image, expectations, materialism, status, disappointment, and disillusionment. The main events in the movie are Seng’s return from the United States, Pa winning 2 million dollars in the lottery and his subsequent death outside the country club. Each character has different hopes and dreams in their lives. Pa hoped and dreamed to win the lottery, because he believed it is acceptable and expected of everyone to want to live in a nice condo and join an elitist country club. I think it was the directors purpose to make him seem like a man who was miserable in his public housing with a wife that seemed to only be concerned with housekeeping tasks. At Pa’s funeral the directors introduced the characters of a woman and child that Pa allegedly provided for, although it is never actually confirmed by anything. Mei is just as miserable and disillusioned in her expectations. She has felt Seng has always been treated better than her, being given the money to go to the United States for school. Which in Singapore seems to be a very high esteem until Seng goes for his interview and finds out the degree he didn’t even earn wasn’t worth much anyways. Mei is representative of people who are always trying hard and never feel like they receive the credit, respect or admiration they deserve; yet it seems the credit, respect, and admiration are what motivate them to work hard in the first place. She is disappointed with her husband because he fails to live up to the expectations of acceptable society and she feels he needs to work harder. C.K. is just trying to adjust to life outside of the military and to find a good job, of which there are very few for someone without a degree. Seng is by far the worst character in the movie. He is the representative of the group of people who believe everyone else is only around to serve their needs. Seng takes advantage and takes for granted his parents and especially Irene. Irene expected him to marry her when he returned from Idaho, but Seng never seemed that interested in marrying her and was a manipulative, lying, and shallow person. Irene on the other hand was by far the best character in the movie. She was a genuine good person who tried to do right by her boyfriend and his family. She cared deeply for Ma after her initial shock from the death of her husband. Seng just expected his parents and Irene to do whatever he needed, his dreams dissolved when his mother only gave him a thousand dollars at the end of the film.
The film certainly depicts specific Singapore characteristics, but I still maintain the issues the characters are dealing with are very much relevant to Americans. Ma was a female immigrant into the city, a trend in Singapore. The language of Singapore is Malay, but English is the language of commerce and administration. It was interesting the way the film weaved the two together. You would catch tidbits of English words intertwined in the Malay dialogue. The urinating in the elevators is also a Singapore issue. My overall point is that the family contained a lot of emotional issues very relevant to every capitalistic country. The many western company logos that were scattered through the film is evident enough that they are probably under the same constant stream of advertising and indirect messages. The media tells us what’s cool, what’s not, what’s true, what’s not, and what is acceptable. I think its greatest weakness is telling us what we should aspire to and expect from life. Each character had to alter their original dream and expectations, which lead to anger, tears, and most of the emotional interaction in the movie. I believe the movie was very well done and depicted the disillusionment and screwy priorities our society of immediate gratification and unrealistic ideology.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Tsotsi
Gavin Hood transformed the Athol Fugard novel about a young gang leader in Johannesburg into a hard, unflinching film in 2005. Tsotsi (2005) is an urban slang in Johannesburg for "thug," and the film centers on a character whose name is simply Tsotsi. This Tsotsi, or David as we come to find out, is a black youth whose childhood was absolutely terrible. The most powerful scene is of his flashback to when his mother, presumably dying of AID's, was trying to call out for him and his father came in and eventually broke the back of his son's dog with two kicks. I was almost physically ill watching and hearing that scene. It was so disturbing and utterly sad. The flashback memory eventually set David off and he beat his friend Boston.
The film's basic plot was that David and his three friends would go to the train station, find someone with obvious money and follow and rob him or her. The cold blooded malicious death of the older black gentleman, where Butcher actually stabbed the older man and brought the blade up under the breast plate into his heart was the chilling opening of the movie. During a car jacking in an obvious well-to-do neighborhood, David steals a luxury car with a baby in the back. The little boy becomes the focus of the change and issues the movie portrays through David. David's childhood is dredged up and in his odd choice to take the baby back to his shanty, he finds he is unable to care for it, hence the entrance of the female matriarchal figure with a baby of her own whom David coerces into feeding his stolen infant.
When I began watching the film, I assumed there was going to be an obvious cultural reference to apartheid, yet I did not really see one in the film. The rich couple David stole from should have been white in most obvious ways, yet it was black, to develop David's dynamic struggle over his own childhood of poverty and hardship with the obvious life of luxury this little black boy was certain to lead growing up in wealth. David's first home after he ran away was living in drainage cylinders, where he actually tried to take and give the baby to the new group of kids living there to take care of it. I was also surprised by the role, or lack of, whites in the movie. The only white really represented was the cop with the moustache, who seemed honest and less violent than his black partner, who I noticed was going to bash Boston's head in when they stormed David's apartment looking for the baby and found him there recovering from the beating David gave him. The rich black man and woman seemed like proud and decent people, which Boston's had spoken about was his biggest concern, the lack of decency surrounding him. The two main issues in Africa were left alone, although it might be implied that apartheid was the reason for David's poverty, and his ruined childhood due to his mother having AID's.
The overall theme and growth of David through the movie finally develops with the last scene. As he has finally faced his violent, turbulent, and hard life against the backdrop of the future of the baby and the homeless crippled man's simple pleasures in poverty, David decides the descent thing to do would be to give the baby back to its loving family. The film ends with David giving the baby back and holding his hands up in the air, a symbolic gesture representing his giving up his anger, resentment, and his hope for the future.
The film's basic plot was that David and his three friends would go to the train station, find someone with obvious money and follow and rob him or her. The cold blooded malicious death of the older black gentleman, where Butcher actually stabbed the older man and brought the blade up under the breast plate into his heart was the chilling opening of the movie. During a car jacking in an obvious well-to-do neighborhood, David steals a luxury car with a baby in the back. The little boy becomes the focus of the change and issues the movie portrays through David. David's childhood is dredged up and in his odd choice to take the baby back to his shanty, he finds he is unable to care for it, hence the entrance of the female matriarchal figure with a baby of her own whom David coerces into feeding his stolen infant.
When I began watching the film, I assumed there was going to be an obvious cultural reference to apartheid, yet I did not really see one in the film. The rich couple David stole from should have been white in most obvious ways, yet it was black, to develop David's dynamic struggle over his own childhood of poverty and hardship with the obvious life of luxury this little black boy was certain to lead growing up in wealth. David's first home after he ran away was living in drainage cylinders, where he actually tried to take and give the baby to the new group of kids living there to take care of it. I was also surprised by the role, or lack of, whites in the movie. The only white really represented was the cop with the moustache, who seemed honest and less violent than his black partner, who I noticed was going to bash Boston's head in when they stormed David's apartment looking for the baby and found him there recovering from the beating David gave him. The rich black man and woman seemed like proud and decent people, which Boston's had spoken about was his biggest concern, the lack of decency surrounding him. The two main issues in Africa were left alone, although it might be implied that apartheid was the reason for David's poverty, and his ruined childhood due to his mother having AID's.
The overall theme and growth of David through the movie finally develops with the last scene. As he has finally faced his violent, turbulent, and hard life against the backdrop of the future of the baby and the homeless crippled man's simple pleasures in poverty, David decides the descent thing to do would be to give the baby back to its loving family. The film ends with David giving the baby back and holding his hands up in the air, a symbolic gesture representing his giving up his anger, resentment, and his hope for the future.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Cidade de Deus
Fernando Meirelless tells the story of a real life photographer, Wilson Rodrigues from Cidade de Deus, "City of God," a desperate slum outside Rio de Janeiro. The movie was released at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2002. Rocket, as Wilson is known in the film witnesses the downfall of the Tender Trio in the 1960's. Shaggy, clipper, and Rocket's older brother Goose hold-up a motel and use Lil Dice as a lookout. Lil Dice murders unrepentantly and eventually kills Goose at the beginning of the film. Fast forward to the present, Lil Dice became Lil Ze, the drug lord of the City of God, and Rocket is just trying to get laid.
The movie depicts the favella's of the outlying hill area of Rio de Janeiro, amassing an incredible number of people in a shantytown, decrepit, poor outskirt. There is no electricity, hot water, or paved roads. But there are plenty of guns, drugs, and hopelessness. The homes are cobbled together shambles of any material on hand, built right next to each other and on top of each other as well. The countryside seemed dry and inhospitable in the 60's part of the film, whereas the urban concrete sprawl and the map of the City of God, was a contrast to the green picturesque view of Brazilian rainforest.
There were many themes in the movie dealing with class, poverty, lack of opportunities, and the general destiny young boys in the slums of Brazil face as they try to grow up. The general distinction in the slum is you are either a worker or a hood. Shaggy and Bernice had a great dialogue about what a hood is really all about and the idea that people can or won't change their basic nature. An interesting scene in the movie was when Benny sent Tiago to go get clothes for him to make him a playboy. I noticed Tiago was a red head, more Anglo looking character; he must have been more acceptable in the "popular" section of Rio. Overall the movie's overall message was fantastic. I was impressed with the filming, acting, and music.
The movie depicts the favella's of the outlying hill area of Rio de Janeiro, amassing an incredible number of people in a shantytown, decrepit, poor outskirt. There is no electricity, hot water, or paved roads. But there are plenty of guns, drugs, and hopelessness. The homes are cobbled together shambles of any material on hand, built right next to each other and on top of each other as well. The countryside seemed dry and inhospitable in the 60's part of the film, whereas the urban concrete sprawl and the map of the City of God, was a contrast to the green picturesque view of Brazilian rainforest.
There were many themes in the movie dealing with class, poverty, lack of opportunities, and the general destiny young boys in the slums of Brazil face as they try to grow up. The general distinction in the slum is you are either a worker or a hood. Shaggy and Bernice had a great dialogue about what a hood is really all about and the idea that people can or won't change their basic nature. An interesting scene in the movie was when Benny sent Tiago to go get clothes for him to make him a playboy. I noticed Tiago was a red head, more Anglo looking character; he must have been more acceptable in the "popular" section of Rio. Overall the movie's overall message was fantastic. I was impressed with the filming, acting, and music.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
What a Bolly
The film Veer-Zaara (2004) was a ridiculous endurance festival to finish. I was amazed at the movie, thinking mid-way through how weird it is what India finds entertaining. The movie was as difficult to get through as any I've watched in my lifetime, with the woman's singing voices haunting my dreams that very night. It was only after having a moment of reflection that I was finally impressed with the undertones Yash Chopra, the director, infused into the film. There was a very important message about tolerance, peace, and reconciliation in the movie.
The basic plot consists of an overtly dramatic love between Veer Pratap Singh, a Hindu Indian, and Zaara, a Muslim Pakistani. The British leaders of India had split the population into groups, sending Muslims to Pakistan. Zaara meets Singh after the bus she was traveling on has an accident. She was traveling into India to intern her "Bebe's" ashes at a sacred Sikh river in India. A Bebe is essentially a nanny, but she was a good character because it brought into the film a Sikh, as well as a Hindu and Muslim. There is probably no more serious situation in the world right now than the conflicts over religious beliefs all over the country. The India/Pakistan stand off is extremely volatile due to each country being a nuclear power and having such immense populations. I really was touched by the director’s message of reconciliation and similar values between the two groups. Zaara's quest to intern her Bebe's ashes led the two to become travel companions and Veer took her eventually back to his small village to celebrate the Lodi festival with his "parents," actually aunt and uncle. Zaara has similar value and those are what was accepted by the Hindu's, the fact that she is a good person weighs more than her being a part of a certain group, which is a powerful message in this day and age.
I was very impressed with the scenery of India. My only real look visual representation of India was always Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, but during the "My Land" performance, I was really struck with the beauty of the countryside. The major metropolitan areas were not represented, I believe it was intentional to appeal to the simplicity of the people, and I imagine the cities are not in very good shape and look as ascetically pleasing as the rolling plains, rivers, bluffs, and mountains. The movie is certainly a Bollywood work, the length, over the top plot and dramatic scenes, as well as zero nudity or physical contact between genders. I thought it was interesting they used female actors who looked whiter than typical Indians. I originally had no idea why they were dancing so much in the film, but I came to find that the definition of acting in India is already inclusive of both acting and dancing, they are an integral part to the artistic and cultural expression of the society. The last note I made on the movie was in regards to the style it was made in, the Bollywood aspect. From early readings, the first major motion pictures that were released to a world audience were Jaws and Star Wars; both of these movies had amazing scores. I noticed the director constantly had panoramic shots of the countryside and had a sweeping score to only increase the epic ness of the film. It was also interesting to notice that English was used as the polite language, with the language switching to English for decent language, such as "please," "thank you," and "I'm sorry." This made me think that Indians, in their caste system, never had to use manners or respect when dealing with everyone, because historically it indicates a general prejudice or inequality in their society.
The basic plot consists of an overtly dramatic love between Veer Pratap Singh, a Hindu Indian, and Zaara, a Muslim Pakistani. The British leaders of India had split the population into groups, sending Muslims to Pakistan. Zaara meets Singh after the bus she was traveling on has an accident. She was traveling into India to intern her "Bebe's" ashes at a sacred Sikh river in India. A Bebe is essentially a nanny, but she was a good character because it brought into the film a Sikh, as well as a Hindu and Muslim. There is probably no more serious situation in the world right now than the conflicts over religious beliefs all over the country. The India/Pakistan stand off is extremely volatile due to each country being a nuclear power and having such immense populations. I really was touched by the director’s message of reconciliation and similar values between the two groups. Zaara's quest to intern her Bebe's ashes led the two to become travel companions and Veer took her eventually back to his small village to celebrate the Lodi festival with his "parents," actually aunt and uncle. Zaara has similar value and those are what was accepted by the Hindu's, the fact that she is a good person weighs more than her being a part of a certain group, which is a powerful message in this day and age.
I was very impressed with the scenery of India. My only real look visual representation of India was always Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, but during the "My Land" performance, I was really struck with the beauty of the countryside. The major metropolitan areas were not represented, I believe it was intentional to appeal to the simplicity of the people, and I imagine the cities are not in very good shape and look as ascetically pleasing as the rolling plains, rivers, bluffs, and mountains. The movie is certainly a Bollywood work, the length, over the top plot and dramatic scenes, as well as zero nudity or physical contact between genders. I thought it was interesting they used female actors who looked whiter than typical Indians. I originally had no idea why they were dancing so much in the film, but I came to find that the definition of acting in India is already inclusive of both acting and dancing, they are an integral part to the artistic and cultural expression of the society. The last note I made on the movie was in regards to the style it was made in, the Bollywood aspect. From early readings, the first major motion pictures that were released to a world audience were Jaws and Star Wars; both of these movies had amazing scores. I noticed the director constantly had panoramic shots of the countryside and had a sweeping score to only increase the epic ness of the film. It was also interesting to notice that English was used as the polite language, with the language switching to English for decent language, such as "please," "thank you," and "I'm sorry." This made me think that Indians, in their caste system, never had to use manners or respect when dealing with everyone, because historically it indicates a general prejudice or inequality in their society.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Chinese Bicycle Boredom
Beijing Bicycle
The 2001 movie “Beijing Bicycle,” directed by Xiaoshuai Wang, is by far the worst movie we have watched in class yet. It might be that the cultural context of the movie was what turned me off from the film. The basic plot of the film is a boy from the Chinese rural country, Guo Liangui, who moves to Beijing and takes a job as a bicycle messenger with the possible benefit of owning the bike to earn a greater wage split. The main mode of transportation in China is the bicycle, with the movie showing a number of amazingly stacked flat bed bicycles to transport anything. Guo represents the growing problem in China of the mass movement of rural population into Chinese cities and the subsequent friction between the city dwellers and the rural folk. The turning point of the film is the day Guo is about to have his bike paid off, it is stolen and ends up in the hands of Jian, a lower middle class city dweller who stole his families savings to pay for a bike that had been promised to him by his father. Guo’s character to me is pathetic and sad. The film often describes him as stubborn, but I’d almost call him mentally handicapped, his passiveness amazingly annoying to watch on film. Jian, and his group of city school bicycle clones, is even worse, a self-centered, crazy boy who just ticked me off to watch them beat Guo for the bike and than his emotional tirade towards his own father after he had not only stolen from his father but lied to him about it as well. The director certainly wanted to show the dichotomy between the rural and urban population through each male character. Guo is humble, passive, and obviously ignorant of city life, he needs the bicycle to make a living and survive. Jian is an entitled materialistic and arrogant city dweller. He has low self-esteem, and initially only needs the bike to learn tricks on it to impress his friends and a certain female in his class. He is confronted by Guo and his own father, his tantrum is patently outrageous, leading him to strive to get the bike back simply not to be humiliated in front of his friends.
The most obvious examples of class structure in the movie are the treatment of Guo by his employers, and his experience looking for Mr. Zhang. The rural population is extremely poor, uneducated, working for very low pay or in some cases no pay at all, and living in Chinese shantytowns. There was a story of a worker killing his boss in the readings because he had not been paid in two years for his work. The city dwellers have much more education and money. They are depicted having cigarettes, nice bikes, clothes, houses, i.e. the beautiful country girl who lives in the giant house and wears her employer’s clothing. The city dwellers have a much more Westernized thought process; living in high rises and wearing suits, etc. I believe Guo was beaten at the end of the movie because he was not only an obvious country bumpkin, but seemed to be in league with Jian, who smacked the quintessential city boy with the nice bike, nice clothes, dyed hair, and ear ring with the brick. The only part of the movie I actually enjoyed was when Guo finally smacked the kid with a brick that was wrecking his bike. Guo was such a wimp, never taking a stand for anything, whereas Jian was annoyingly pompous and self involved. The movie doesn’t use dialogue very well at all, with Jian being an ass toward his girl and his friends having the vocal ability of a group of junior high kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
