Zoop

I appreciate Gaines’ criticism of feminist psychoanalytic theory and Marxist feminist analysis in pointing out that early/dominant feminist canon is built on male/female opposition and leaves no room to consider (actually “encourages us not to consider”) sex and gender alongside race and class in a way that reflects social reality. In relation to ego/libido and the consumption of women in film, her consideration of the lesbian gaze (as opposed to the assumed male audience [and the black male and hetero-female as sort of secondary, illicit voyeurs]) I found to be particularly powerful in contradicting Mulvey’s essentialist thesis on the Freud of it all.

(Honestly this kind of stuff [-isms?] boggles my brain, and at this point I have dropped my other GWS course and much prefer Borden’s concept of anarcha-feminism as an anti-ism-ism.)

Anyway, like others have already posited, Born in Flames had a slew of cool moments, but here are a few that I didn’t write down in my movie notes:

1) The montage format as a solution to low-budget filming over a long period of time was hugely successful to my untrained eye balls; any physical changes I picked out through the lo-fi clouds of grain I interpreted as signifiers of the passing of time within the film’s narrative. At face value I found this style to effect breaks in voyeurism, calling audience attention to our innate desire to project ourselves onto/consume/fetishize characters and thus destructs (or at least deconstructs) the idea of cinema as an appropriate medium to do so. The montage and low-budget aesthetic become symbolic of the movement and similar rebellions against the mainstream as grassroots activism.

2) The wrapping meat scene that cuts to wrapping more meat was very entertaining and just a clever way of illustrating traditional gender roles while addressing class distinctions and diving hand first into Borden’s criticism of the division and isolation of women groups.

3) The single Asian woman who appears for all of two seconds during the film, who embodies the flatness, invisibility and hyper-passivity of Latin and Asian women in every other mainstream cinematic experience even today. Initially this moment made me especially uncomfortable; but if we are to look at the film as a self-reflexive, culturally sensitive feminist artwork and activist statement, in which tropes of gender/sex/class/race are emphasized as contemp social criticism, I can see it fitting the bill. Borden asserts in a couple of interviews that the film was created with silenced minorities in mind (and particularly women of color). But I just thought of this now. What do you think?

4) Okay I don’t have time to write more on this but it’s SCI FI. 😀

Advertisements

Thoughts on resistance, violence, and the gaze

After seeing the film Born in Flames and having multiple discussions with groups in class, my best friend, and even having internalized discussions with myself during morning showers, I am still grappling with the idea of the representation and our collective perceptions of “violent” women. I think many of us on this blog have invoked the scholarly likes of Spade and hooks and I continue this pattern by interpreting their voices that center around forms of resistance as our guiding theme for the first three weeks of class is after all: representation and revolt.

In the film we saw feminist bicycle gangs addressing rape culture, women with guns forcing men to play a reel of real talk, and a woman planting a bomb in a capitalist structure. We watched and stitched the seemingly haphazard film, I assume, with a critical gaze. Even after verbalizing the violent actions women took in this film, we as a collective in class created an atmosphere that implied some women went too far. Was it necessary to use guns or bombs when a “please and thank you” paired with batting eyelashes wasn’t enough? I think what I’m trying to say is that even in this film I don’t know and experience firsthand the everyday realities of Adelaide, Honey, Isabel, Zella, the white women editors of Socialist Youth Review. And this largely has to do with my male privilege. Women in the film and women in real life (queer, trans*, (im)migrant, undocumented etc) face what Willse and Spade had emphasized as peacetime violence. Forms of resistance against peacetime violence vary and we see some of these forms in the film.

A clip of an incarcerated Angela Davis in the documentary Black Power Mixtape comes to mind when I think of the use of violence. A white reporter questions Davis’ approval or condoning of violence against oppressive structures. She’s taken back and awesomely calls him out on his ignorance of violence implicated on her communities. Sure we don’t see “much” violence imposed by certain systems or folks in power on the women, but we can infer that they have been pushed to the margins and are willing to do whatever it takes to take down the system that belittles, silences, and dehumanizes them.

bell hooks explains the gaze as an oppressive tool utilized early on by white men and adapted by varying other groups like men of color. This oppositional gaze has been used to silence and dehumanize women and especially women of color. I can’t say that the women in the film took things too far because my gaze only grazes the surface of their reality. These thoughts are definitely unfinished and hopefully y’all can unpack them with me.

-Christian Alfaro

“It’s Just a Movie”, Diversity of Interpretations

After reading Greg M. Smith article “It’s Just a Movie”: A Teaching Essay for Introductory Media Classes, I realized viewers own interpretations play a significant role when analyzing a film. Similar to when we discuss films in class I feel like everyone’s own interpretations are really important in comparison to the director/film maker’s intentions. If films were meant to only have one meaning, what would be the fun in that?

Smith says that if we were to solely arrive to the meanings that came directly from the filmmaker, we are limiting ourselves, and thus losing much of the complexity of how movies work, make meaning and provide pleasure to our society.

I agree with Smith’s viewpoint, and would say that this could apply to novels and other forms of expression as well.

At a glance, the quality of the movie Born in Flames doesn’t seem like the finest out there. As a viewer, I couldn’t help but wonder if the producers simply had to run on a low-income budget for the film (likely) or it was deliberate to demonstrate the way in which women are constantly disenfranchised and not given attention or funds for big, pressing issues such as racism, sexual harassment and feminism.

Smith also presents the notion of “reading into” films which basically means the way we as audiences have been conditioned to expect certain things to happen in films before they happen. For example, we expect the imminent death of a character in a horror film when they wander off by themselves. Similarly I read into the film Born into Flames towards the ending when the camera shifted between various imprisoned women, to Adelaide Norris dead in her cell. I expected that she would be dead, however I did not expect her to commit suicide to make a final statement. This scene could be read a lot of different ways, because we as viewers do not know for a fact how her death happened. Her death was very interesting because she was wearing a dress although she normally would not dress that way. Could this mean that she didn’t kill herself?

        Overall, I feel like Smith’s article provides a lot of insights on the way in which a film can be very complex and have a variety of different interpretations. 

“Terrorism” Stole The Spotlight

To be quite honest, watching the screening of Born in Flames was an experience. The quality was obviously lacking and the content of the film was radical. From the beginning to the end, my description of the film could be wrapped up into one word, chaotic. First, it was absolutely chaotic watching the film as things shifted quickly. The Women’s Army reason for fighting was also a chaotic matter, because of the many obstacles the army had to face, in order to have their views heard and seen. However, the chaotic nature of the film was only inevitable with its feministic foundation. Leaving class, I wasn’t really sure of the state of my feelings towards this movie not because of it poor quality but because of its message.

The message of the film seems to be about “Women Power”. The women throughout the film encourage each other to fight for one another as well as standing strong in their own grounds. One scene that stuck out to me was when a woman was getting openly assaulted by two men and then a swarm of women on bicycles coming to the rescue. That particular scene struck me in the sense of confirming and breaking women stereotypes of “being weak/helpless”. First, there’s a woman who is obviously helpless and vulnerable because she is physically unable to fight back the men. However, the Women’s Army show power and strength as they come one to help someone in need. Of course, for being a woman myself, the unity found in amongst women that was portrayed in that scene was invigorating. However, my feelings began to change as the women slowly became terrorists then later bombing the twin towers. Then I wondered, what is the the true message of this film? Is it purely women’s rights, or is it about using violence to get what you believe is right?

I understand how others can look beyond the terroristic acts because it was a fight for Women’s Rights as well as a lack of options except violence. But then I felt like the film then conveyed a message that was almost excused violence for its reason. The film’s story is fictional but I couldn’t help but relate the terrorist acts with today’s terrorists act. To us, the crimes done to our country is unforgivable, but for those that have committed them, they believe they were fighting for something they were sincerely wrong about. If viewers believe that the Women’s Army actions were reasonable, then what is to say about terrorism in general?

-Christina Kim

A Closer Look: Born in Flames

 

Born in Flames, the first documentary we filmed in class served as the introduction to our course with good reason. The highlighting of the Women’s Army showed the hard work and dedication individuals from all classes, races, and genders upheld in times of terror and downfall. According to Willse and Spade, “…the film felt truly shocking: lesbian feminists building multi-strategy responses to heteropatriarchy through an analysis of racism and poverty, debating connections and disjunctions between community organizing” (2013).  One of the scenes that truly struck out to me was when women on their bicycles came with blowing whistles to counteract and push away a man who was attacking a woman on the street. In addition, after the radio stations’ buildings were burned down, the fact Isabel continued her show showed true merit on how dedicated she was to get her story out to the community. Without these key players in the Women’s Army, it would be even more difficult to break down barriers and to frame the problems and resistance in our society. The Women’s Army tried to remain united with the purpose of being strong so there could be progress. On the other hand, the range of different groups of people working on these goals pose problems simply because of their differences.

Before filming the documentary, we warned not to be concerned about the quality of the film, but rather the content. I feel the narrative is scattered and confusing which is parallel to the information and organization of the Women’s Army of being scattered. As discussed in my small group, we agreed it would have been exceptionally more difficult to be involved in an activist movement years ago without the use of today’s technology. Born in Flames documented transitions of women’s life in a day-to-day format. This tactic was still powerful because the following of the Women’s Army is a story of movements; always changing and improving. I enjoyed watching Born in Flames because it showed me the ‘behind-the-scenes’ footage of activism, and what it took in order to be involved in the Woman’s Army.

tomorrows class.

Hello Everyone, I am sad not to see you tomorrow but feel that it would be irresponsible to hold class tomorrow evening with the predicted temperatures. So here’s our plan. Please watch Thelma and Louise on your own time (i know it is on Netflix and I will make sure on Wednesday that it is available to watch at media reserves.) and we will double up on lectures. I will send you viewing questions for Thema and Louise later tonight. You are still responsible for your postings on word press and I will see you soon. laura

These Revolutions Will Be Televised: Divergent Perspectives on Feminist Film Critique

All film carries with it a socio-political context, that when properly deconstructed can expose a given moment in space in time. In an effort to simplify my own interpretation of Born in Flames I looked to our readings as a source of focus and motivation. The socialist revolution in the film can be interpreted as a metaphor for the gaps and flaws in western feminist film critique. Just as the socialist revolution carries with it a facade of forward-thinking, progressive momentum, so does the supposed advancement of women in film.

Born in Flames problematizes both of the aforementioned notions in two ways. First the film widens the gaps in Marxist theory by highlighting the inability of a universalist progressive movement to ameliorate the conditions of all people. Second, women of color are placed in central roles of power. The women in this film are non-essentialized and carry with them various interlocking identities. Current feminist film critique has been accused of not obliging an intersectional analysis. Therefore the assumption is that the advancement of women’s role in film (filmmaker, character, etc.) is still assuming a conventional assessment with discussions on patriarchy, heteronormativity, and white identity being at the fore. In sum, the films message of a safe, popular socialist revolution being threatened by an aggressive guerrilla led movement represents the split between contemporary white feminist film critique and women of colors insistence upon the use of an intersectional lens.

 

 

“It’s Just a Movie”: A Teaching Essay for Introductory Media Classes

It’s Just a Movie”: A Teaching Essay for Introductory Media Classes, brings attention to the tedious construction of a Hollywood Film, proving the often asked question of “do you really think that every little thing in the film is there for a reason?” to be quite a naive statement. Greg M. Smith, a professor of Media Studies, highlights ideas that the audience may or may not be aware of in an interesting way by providing examples of how the audience interprets film, and that they are able to actively participate in the viewing of the production.

Many components of film the audience is in fact aware of, it’s just something that they don’t take into consideration because they are able to escape from reality and get lost in the plot. With that however, that proves that it is unfair to believe that works of literature are worthy of being analyzed and are “allowed” to have everything incorporated for a reason, but film is not. Just like film, people lose themselves in literature. And just as the author of a story adds information to help the story progress, film makers carefully choose what they want to incorporate to compose the film they wish to present to their audience. Every little detail helps construct the final product, so as an audience, we should be able to give credit where credit is due.

Personally, I really enjoyed the example of the “girl who goes to shower” in a horror film versus in a romantic film. It perfectly demonstrates that the audience knows what to expect; that we actively participate in the way films are made. Without the knowledge or suspicion that she will probably be killed in the horror film, the created suspense would be nonexistent, and the film would be unsuccessful because no one would understand it. I appreciated that this was pointed out, because it proves that film is something we do deep-down understand, but on the surface is something we don’t think needs analyzing; it’s something we just do.

When is civil disobedience justified?

After experiencing Lizzie Borden’s 1983 film ‘Born in Flames’, I reflected on some of the radical choices that the ‘Women’s Army’ decided upon to rebel against sexism and racism during the 1970’s through the 1980’s. The film casted women that were of all colors and ages represented through documentary and media. Though the film was fictional Lizzie Borden used the media in a way that made the viewer feel that the violent acts and strong feminist revolution into nearly fact. After experiencing a ‘said’ suicide by one of the ‘Women’s Army’ leaders the ‘Army’ formed a rebellion through use of fire arms and irrational criminal force.

Craig Willse & Dean Spade’s article on Born in Flames reflect on the film by stating, “Members of the “Women’s Army” challenge state frameworks of multiculturalism that declare their problems addressed and call them selfish for naming and framing women’s problems and resistance. ” The state does not address the Women’s Army push to open Adelaide Norris’s suicide case. They believed in no way could she have killed herself in jail by self affliction. To ban together against the state they began to organize training regimes that taught women how to operate a hand gun and use brutal force. The group grew stronger and used all forms of verbal media abuse as the all encompassing date drew closer.

The women used their new found knowledge of fire arms to scare the broadcast television station into showing a film by the eldest african american leader of the group. She addressed Adelaide’s case as a murder by police officials and that the case be reopened. Around the same time they constructed a bomb to put in the twin towers to further address the ‘Women’s Army’ brutal force. Is this idea of brutal force necessary for the ‘Women’s Army to perform? The film does not show any such force on the other end by the police other than the ‘said murder’ or ‘surveillance’. Though they believed that radio and media coverage was not being heard and recognized by officials alike.

: Morgan Rae Stanley

The Play between Subject and Form in ‘Born in Flames’

After screening Born in Flames, my small group discussion focused on the scattered narrative of the film. Plot points, characters, acts of violence, etc. appear to jump from one moment to another. For example, the first 2 minutes of the film reveal an opening shot of a male broadcaster who commemorates the peaceful, political protest ten years ago, a montage of New York City, Isabel speaking into the camera from the radio station headquarters, women in an office and on a construction site (therefore at work), two detectives overlooking a projection of images, and finally Adelaide overseeing an in-house discussion. Just within those first two minutes of the film, the audience is introduced to a whole scope of “possible” issues (that can be labeled feminist) and a couple of key characters. In other words, those two minutes are loaded! At first glance, these scenes may appear to not have much connection to one another. However, if every plot point/scene is acknowledged as a whole, the connection is very much apparent to the message of the film.

Craig Willse and  Dean Spade’s ‘We are Born in Flames’ notes this message of the film. In the article they write, “The film depicts social-movement formations that include a diversity of tactics, and significant disagreement, without suggesting that these must be flattened, ignored, or resolved for action to unfold” (paragraph 6). The film makes clear of the disagreement among the feminist groups – the ones that want to violent, the ones that want to write, and so on. The fact that these groups hardly come to an agreement by the end of the film suggest what Willse and Spade pointed out. With these moments of disagreement and a “diversity of tactics” being depicted through a strung-out narrative structure, the message of a dystopia can be clearly projected on the screen. In other words, the format of the film neatly mirrors the subject at the hand.