alexdonovann

[alexdonovann]

The Colonialist and Male Gazes in Beau Travail (Claire Denis, 1999)... or lack thereof?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8lR4LXPzY2ia1nkiIEMtqGXaWD4P8a7/view?usp=drive_link

Beau Travail (Claire Denis, 1999), is a French film loosely based on the unfinished 1888 novella Billy Budd by Herman Melville. The film revolves around French Foreign Legionnaires stationed in Djibouti, East Africa under the command of Sergeant Galoup. Subverting traditional forms of linear storytelling, the story is told from the perspective of Galoup from his home in Marseilles some time in the future as he reflects on his life in Djibouti. After being established in 1831, the Foreign Legion shortly became a force for French colonial expansion, specifically in North Africa. Therefore by setting Beau Travail in contemporary Djibouti, just 20 years after it gained its independence in 1977, Denis is actively setting her narrative against a backdrop of racism and colonialism. 

In their 2009 essay, titled Colonialism, Racism, and Representation: an Introduction, Robert Stam and Louise Spence discuss how racist and colonialist representations have permeated film. Stam and Spence define “colonialism” as the measures by which the European powers (including the United States) acquired economic, military, cultural, and political dominance in much of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. From this definition comes an understanding of the “Third World” as the “colonised, neocolonised or decolonised nations of the world whose economic and political structures have been shaped and deformed within the colonial process” (753). Colonialist representation was, of course, not new as of the invention of cinema but is conversely “rooted in a vast colonial intertext, a widely disseminated set of discursive practices” (754). Depicting the relationship between the Third World and the First World on film presents complex issues as the medium of film is voyeuristic by nature: lending it to becoming a tool used to further longstanding practices of oppression and “othering”. Stam and Spence state that “Europe constructed its self-image on the backs of its equally constructed Other—the ‘savage’, the ‘cannibal’ —much as phallocentrism sees its self-flattering image in the mirror of woman defined as ‘lack’” (754). This logic relates ideas of the colonialist gaze to the idea of the male gaze as understood by Laura Mulvey in her 1975 essay titled “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Mulvey posits that the voyeurism of cinema stems from the three gazes that it demands be enacted. The first gaze is the camera’s view which is inherently male (assuming a male cinematographer and/or director); the second gaze is the active surveillance of men within the film that reduce women to the passive objects of their look; and the third gaze is the onlooking of the male viewer that either imitates or takes the same position as the first two gazes. The gaze of the Djiboutian women in Beau Travail explores colonialistic representation in cinema, and the male gaze, via simultaneously subverting the First World’s voyeuristic gaze that renders the Third World objects to be studied, and the active male gaze that renders women passive objects. 

Beau Travail notably lacks fully fleshed out female characters; the only woman the audience is even somewhat introduced to lacks character traits other than being Galoup’s girlfriend. That being said, the first people seen on screen during the opening sequence are, in fact, Djiboutian women dancing in a club. The scene is shot by focusing on the womens’ faces, not their bodies, and they each glance into the camera establishing them as holding the power to look. Only once the women have been established does Denis introduce the viewer to the Legionnaires via the women allowing the Legionnaires to dance with them as equals (00:01:44). This opening sequence introduces the viewers to intersectional ideas of race, colonialism, and gender and localizes the Legionnaires as foreigners within the landscape of Djibouti.

The film then tosses the viewer into the throws of the intense military training and rituals that the Legionnaires perform. At one moment, the Legionnaires are deep in combat training when the camera cuts to show puzzled Djiboutian women looking on. It is assumed that they are looking at the Legionnaires until the camera cuts again to show their true focus: a man repairing telephone wires (00:15:40). This is an interesting moment that begins by subverting the expectations of gaze and who has the power to look versus who is confined to the position of being looked at: only to ask us to discard of our preconceived notions a second time and accept that the Legionnaires are actually not the center of attention. This concept of looking versus being looked at arises again with another sequence of shots showing the Legionnaires setting up their camp while puzzled children look on (00:47:28). The children are poised and steady, they are not threatened by the Legionnaires, but they are not welcoming of them either. To them, the Legionnaires are a curiosity: they exist as objects to be marveled at and observed but not interacted with.

These ideas of looking versus being looked at emerge again with a sequence of exchanged stares when a van of Djiboutians drives by as the Legionnaires are digging (01:04:00). The Legionnaires look at the Djiboutians and the Djiboutians (prominently a woman and child) look at the Legionnaires in a standoff that only ends when the Legionnaires are reminded to get back to work. It could be argued instead that since the Legionnaires stop to stare at the Djiboutians, their gaze is not a subversion of the objectifying colonial gaze but simply feeds into this trope. This argument might be valid if the two groups were on even playing field but since the Djiboutians watch the Legionnaires relatively comfortably from their van while the Legionnaires do manual labor in the sun, this moment represents a reversal of the supervising colonizer and the working colonized. This series of shots that utilize gaze to suggest power structure cement the Legionnaires as foreigners and remind the viewer of the absurdity of the Legionnaires taking themselves and their station in Djibouti so seriously considering that Djibouti is no longer a French colony.

While reversing themes observed by Stam and Spence of the First World’s voyeuristic gaze that reduces the people of the Third World to objects of spectacle; Denis gives women control of the gaze which additionally subverts Mulvey’s idea of the trifold cinematic “male gaze.” Denis, working with cinematographer Agnès Godard, gives the camera an inherently female gaze in place of the male gaze that Mulvey maintains. This female gaze is apparent in the elegance and softness with which the harsh landscape and grueling physical and mental tasks that the men have to perform are filmed. Denis and Godard worked with French dancer and choreographer Bernardo Montet who choreographed the many dancelike scenes of the Legionnaires. Denis also reimagines the internarrative male gaze by placing men as both the active surveyors of one another and passive objects of their own male gazes. For example, Galoup’s Commandant, Bruno Forestier, is always watching Galoup, and Galoup is always watching his soldiers, who are in turn watching each other and Galoup. Unable to relate to either the gaze of the camera or of the men within the narrative, the third male gaze of the viewer that Mulvey posits is therefore deconstructed. 

The Djiboutian women in Beau Travail play a crucial and often overlooked role in drawing attention to colonialist and gendered power dynamics and representations. It’s the Djiboutian women after all who first introduce the viewer to the world by commanding the camera’s attention with their direct gazes. They are also the ones surveying the men and furthermore making money off of them by selling them goods. Though the portrayals of Djiboutian women are limited (likely because they are simply not the focus of the film), their presence is essential in opening up discourse regarding colonialism and gender.

[alexdonovann]

Do hierarchies/divisions/conflicts emerge within the Oms or within the Draags or is all of the conflict between the two species?

La Planète Sauvage (1973) Race in the Imaginary

René Laloux’s La Planète Sauvage (1973), an experimental animated science fiction art film, is as strange as it is dense with implications. The politically charged dissonance of psychedelia combined with the film’s Dali-esque surreal cutout stop-motion animation universe, realized by French avant-garde artist Roland Topor, has solidified this film as a seminal work of animation and a cult science fiction feature. The film is set in the hallucinatory landscape of the planet Ygam, where gargantuan blue humanoid creatures called Draags who rule the planet enslave humans (called Oms–a play on the French homme)--Terr, an Om who has been kept as a pet since Traag children killed his mother in his infancy escapes from his child captor and bands together with a band of radical escaped Oms to resist the Draag regime and impending genocide. The film is markedly allegorical for its use of imagined alienness to establish otherness and marginalization, and the techniques the Draag use to subordinate the Oms evoke historically significant racist discriminatory practices. Simply, it feels like a movie that is bluntly about something beyond what it appears to be, and the slight heavy-handedness of its messaging reifies its goal of engaging in racial discourse.

The racial politics of Fantastic Planet are strange in that the broadness of the trenchant sociopolitical commentary imminent in the dynamic between oppressor and oppressed has led critics to draw comparisons between the plot and the narrative around “animal rights” and the (mis)treatment of domesticated animals, yet the human-ness stitched into the film’s fabric positions it as a text specifically interested in the ways humans create divisions among themselves. The Draags and the Oms, despite their vast difference in physical size, do resemble one another and take on different forms of the corporality of a human being, and for this reason and many others, Fantastic Planet seems to be a film about how we could recognize ourselves in one another and still splinter into factions and enforce senseless violent domination.

Terr’s captor, a girl named Tiwa, has given him a collar to control him as he attends “school” with her, which involves her wearing a headset that transmits facts into her brain, and a defect in his collar inadvertently allows him to learn the same knowledge as Terr, knowledge he ends up using to save the Oms. Intelligence is the gateway to capital in Ygam and the Draags are highly intellectualized beings who pride themselves on their inborn wisdom and biological superiority that allows them to far outdo the meager Oms in their knowledge–the film comments on the complications of the racialized bioessentialist understanding of knowledge that would posit that being smart, and subsequently having value, is a fixed innate biological trait. The Oms navigate the world through cunning, outwitting the Draags practically in ways they might fail to do so intellectually and the Draags and Oms counter one another in the film on what “counts” as knowledge: the Draags favor transcendental meditative practices that imbue them with highly complex perspicuity, whereas the Oms argue that their knowledge is more useful for the ways it enables them to survive despite their circumstances. The Oms are made alien not only through their physical inferiority but also because they exist in a society that was not built for them. Fantastic Planet depicts an idea of home that is stringent upon exclusivity and requires technical superiority to belong; shoring up racial politics, Fantastic Planet deploys a social constructionist standpoint that colors these divisions as the products of structural forces benefitting only those who erected them.

[alexdonovann]

You mentioned the influence of the crack epidemic of the 80's, does the film reflect any other cultural/historical influences?

They Cloned Tyrone

They Cloned Tyrone is a sci-fi mystery drama that follows the story of a drug dealer named Fontaine, who discovers a shocking conspiracy that his entire neighborhood is a part of. Starring John Boyega as Fountaine, Teyonah Parris as a sex worker, Yo-Yo, and Jamie Foxx as a pimp named Slick Charles, the film follows Fountaine and the gang as they try to figure out the truth while finding themselves sinking deeper into the rabbit hole of lies and secrets spread farther than they’d imagined. Fountaine, who was shot in a drive by shooting, came back the next day as if nothing had happened. Slick is shocked because he saw them murder him and immediately knows something is up. When they go to get Yo-Yo's help, they are led to an abandoned house where they find an underground lab where these scientist are running human cloning experiments. This is where they find Fountaine's dead body, the one that Slick had seen the day before.

Fountaine realizes that he is a clone and that the government is surveilling all of Glen, the fictional town in which they live. Slick finds a white powder in the lab which he figures out if being put in the chicken they eat, the hair relaxer at the salon, and in the juice they give out at the communion. Along with this, the music is also a factor of hypnotism against the black community.

In the end it is revealed that the government has made clones of most people in the community of Glen, specifically people like Fountaine and Slick, who are drug dealers and pimps, in order to damage the well being of the people. It is revealed that these simulations are running in multiple cities around the U.S. including L.A, Chicago, and Detroit(all cities with majority Black populations). The ending shows that Fontaine, Yo-yo, and Slick are nowhere near finishing what they started. The movie deals with topics such as free will, community, and personal responsibility. They indirectly address issues that the government has set up against the black community, such as gentrification, the crack epidemic, and police brutality.

[alexdonovann]

Strange Days (Kathryn Bigelow, 1995)

Strange Days (Kathryn Bigelow, 1995) is a science fiction thriller set in Los Angeles during the last two days of 1999. With the general consensus being that the end of the world is imminent: Los Angeles has devolved into a warzone of debauchery, violence, and crime. The film centers around ex-cop Lenny, who deals SQUID devices on the black market. SQUIDS are illegal devices that record peoples’ physical sensations and memories from their cerebral cortex onto a mini CD disc that allows them to be played back and experienced by anyone. 

Lenny’s ex-girlfriend Faith’s friend Iris ends up recording police murdering black rapper and activist Jeriko One. The audience has only briefly been introduced to Jeriko via a speech he gives on television protesting the police state that Los Angeles has fallen into and pushing for peace. Since Jeriko’s character is not further developed before he is killed, he exists as more of a symbolic placeholder for all of the innocent black people that police have murdered. Iris is then chased by police but ends up getting the tape to Lenny before she is brutally raped and murdered. Lenny and his driver/bodyguard/friend Mace (who is also in love with him) then have to run from everyone who’s trying to kill them and Mace gets the tape of the murder to the police commissioner. 

It’s interesting that even in this apocalyptic, end-of-the-world setting, racially motivated violence and police brutality are still prominent. Bigelow has discussed in interviews being motivated to begin production following impactful incidents in the 90’s such as the Lorena Bobbit trial and the Rodney King verdict and the riots that followed in 1992. Multiple of the characters in Strange Days are overtly racist (ie. the cops/murderers), but more subtle racism also permeates throughout. When trying to figure out how to get the video of Jeriko’s murder to the public, Mace and Lenny go to Lenny’s “friend” Max (who will turn out to be an awful person) for help. Max says simply that Lenny and Mace should not show the tape because there will be riots. In this moment Max is willing to silence the story of police murdering a black man to avoid causing a more than warranted uprising.

Bigelow seems to have intentionally sought to explore the intersection between race and gender as she stated that she created Mace’s character to examine "valuable connections between female victimisation and racial oppression." Mace proves to be stronger and more confident than Lenny; she repeatedly saves their lives and gets them out of tricky situations, yet she is still reduced to the role of his bodyguard/driver, and not given much of a story outside of Lenny’s world. At one point when they are in the car, she points out this dynamic saying “driving Mr. Lenny,” a reference to the film Driving Ms. Daisy (Bruce Beresford, 1989). Mace is additionally in love with Lenny because he stepped in and helped her take care of her son when the kid’s father was no longer around. Despite Mace being a strong, smart, and badass, black woman, her story is somewhat reduced to being the white man’s sidekick. She is also in love with Lenny for the entire film and when they eventually kiss at the end, it feels like she has now only existed to be his love interest.

[alexdonovann]

Roundtable Presentation- Coming to America (John Landis, 1988)

Coming to America (John Landis, 1988), is a rom-com based on a story by Eddie Murphy (who is also the lead). Eddie Murphy plays Akeem Joffer, prince of the fictional kingdom of Zamunda, who travels to Queens in New York City in search of a woman to marry. 

Within this predominantly African American cast, “otherness” is explored through the fictional country of Zamunda which appears to serve as a stand-in for a stereotype of an African kingdom. The film presents Zamunda as a sort of “old world” with obsolete beliefs regarding women. The film starts on Akeem’s 21st birthday when he meets the woman he has been betrothed to. She is presented to him with what is assumed to be a cultural dance, and as she walks to him, a song accompanies the spectacle that talks about how she is an object meant to serve the king. This ceremony exoticises and fetishizes the traditions of Zamunda (albeit a fictional place, still a stand-in) in an Orientalist manner. Akeem breaks tradition and refuses to marry her, seeking an independent American woman instead. 

In “othering” Akeem and his friend and servant Semmi (played by Arsenio Hall), and everyone else who visits America from Zamunda, the rest of the African American cast does not signify otherness. Akeem’s love interest, Lisa McDowell, is the older daughter of Cleo McDowell: the owner of his own restaurant. The McDowells are well off and have made a name for themselves within the restaurant industry, so much so that McDonalds feels McDowells is a threat. When showing off his spacious home, Cleo describes how he used to live with his entire family in a space no larger than his current living room. His description of working from nothing and achieving social mobility despite the discrimination and marginalization he likely endured, hints at issues of systemic inequality; an idea one might not expect a rom-com to touch on. 

Gender roles are also subverted in that Lisa is smart, capable, and independent; she refuses to live on her boyfriend Darryl’s money and takes pride in working at her family’s restaurant. Darryl and Cleo go behind Lisa’s back and announce that Darryl and Lisa are engaged. This moment sets up a parallel between Akeem’s betrothal and Lisa’s which in turn dissolves the boundaries between the backwards “old world” and the progressive “new world” of America that the film initially presented. 

An interesting note on casting is that supposedly Paramount Pictures insisted that there be a white actor in the cast and gave Murphy and Hall the choice between three white actors and they chose Louie Anderson (who plays a McDowell’s employee) because they liked him. 

@theuncannyprofessoro

[alexdonovann]

Roundtable Presentation- Coming to America (John Landis, 1988)

Coming to America (John Landis, 1988), is a rom-com based on a story by Eddie Murphy (who is also the lead). Eddie Murphy plays Akeem Joffer, prince of the fictional kingdom of Zamunda, who travels to Queens in New York City in search of a woman to marry. 

Within this predominantly African American cast, “otherness” is explored through the fictional country of Zamunda which appears to serve as a stand-in for a stereotype of an African kingdom. The film presents Zamunda as a sort of “old world” with obsolete beliefs regarding women. The film starts on Akeem’s 21st birthday when he meets the woman he has been betrothed to. She is presented to him with what is assumed to be a cultural dance, and as she walks to him, a song accompanies the spectacle that talks about how she is an object meant to serve the king. This ceremony exoticises and fetishizes the traditions of Zamunda (albeit a fictional place, still a stand-in) in an Orientalist manner. Akeem breaks tradition and refuses to marry her, seeking an independent American woman instead. 

In “othering” Akeem and his friend and servant Semmi (played by Arsenio Hall), and everyone else who visits America from Zamunda, the rest of the African American cast does not signify otherness. Akeem’s love interest, Lisa McDowell, is the older daughter of Cleo McDowell: the owner of his own restaurant. The McDowells are well off and have made a name for themselves within the restaurant industry, so much so that McDonalds feels McDowells is a threat. When showing off his spacious home, Cleo describes how he used to live with his entire family in a space no larger than his current living room. His description of working from nothing and achieving social mobility despite the discrimination and marginalization he likely endured, hints at issues of systemic inequality; an idea one might not expect a rom-com to touch on. 

Gender roles are also subverted in that Lisa is smart, capable, and independent; she refuses to live on her boyfriend Darryl’s money and takes pride in working at her family’s restaurant. Darryl and Cleo go behind Lisa’s back and announce that Darryl and Lisa are engaged. This moment sets up a parallel between Akeem’s betrothal and Lisa’s which in turn dissolves the boundaries between the backwards “old world” and the progressive “new world” of America that the film initially presented. 

An interesting note on casting is that supposedly Paramount Pictures insisted that there be a white actor in the cast and gave Murphy and Hall the choice between three white actors and they chose Louie Anderson (who plays a McDowell’s employee) because they liked him. 

@theuncannyprofessoro

[alexdonovann]

Diasporas Marking Identity: Minari (Chung, 2020)

Minari, is a semi-autobiographical film, based on Korean-American director Lee Isaac Chung’s own journey of moving to Arkansas in the 1980’s. In Minari, parents Monica and Jacob are Korean and have moved from Korea to California and now to Arkansas in the hopes of giving their children, Anne and David, the best lives they can. The family encounters Paul, a kind and hard-working (if extremely religious) war veteran who helps Jacob start his farm. Monica is (not-shockingly) unhappy and unfulfilled in their new home, so they decide to bring her mother, Soonja, over from Korea to live with them. 

It’s interesting to note that Minari is set in the 1980’s but does not explore the prejudice, oppression, and violence that Asians and Asian-Americans were facing in America following the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the Tiananmen Square massacre in June 1989. Instead, themes of diaspora, cultural identity, migration, and arrival are explored largely within the family’s home.

When Soonja arrives, David, for no apparent reason, has an immediate dislike for her saying multiple times that she is not a “real” grandma according to his definition. He seems to carry a sort of sojourner mentality wherein he singles Soonja out as alien and strange to him, despite the fact that she is his grandmother. Soonja in response loves David unconditionally (even when she should maybe be a bit harder on him), and seems to have no problems with this accommodation to this new lifestyle and place. 

The family lives in such a remote place that their house and land begin to serve as sort of a “third term” according to Stuart Hall. They all share elements of their Korean heritage and culture, but have also all assimilated into American society to different extents. It’s implied that David and Anne were born in America, David almost only speaks English and rejects his grandma and the Korean foods she brings them.

Jacob and Monica came to America to help each other and build a life together, but they are frustrated that they have been working the same jobs for years and do not feel like they have gotten anywhere. Soonja has just gotten to America from Korea and is excited to share her culture with her grandchildren. The family navigates the nature of cultural identity as a process of both being and becoming, while acclimating to their new surroundings and working through interpersonal tensions.

----------------------------------------

What do you make of David's insisting that Soonja isn't a "real" grandmother? Do you think this reflects on him or on her? Is this opinion just because of her character or is it motivated by their cultural differences?

What are your thoughts on the minari plant itself? What images/ideas might it invoke in the viewer?

Do you feel that this movie accurately represents the journey of migration and arrival and the notions of cultural identity as fluid that Stringer discusses?

@theuncannyprofessoro

[alexdonovann]

Diasporas Marking Identity: Minari (Chung, 2020)

Minari, is a semi-autobiographical film, based on Korean-American director Lee Isaac Chung’s own journey of moving to Arkansas in the 1980’s. In Minari, parents Monica and Jacob are Korean and have moved from Korea to California and now to Arkansas in the hopes of giving their children, Anne and David, the best lives they can. The family encounters Paul, a kind and hard-working (if extremely religious) war veteran who helps Jacob start his farm. Monica is (not-shockingly) unhappy and unfulfilled in their new home, so they decide to bring her mother, Soonja, over from Korea to live with them. 

It’s interesting to note that Minari is set in the 1980’s but does not explore the prejudice, oppression, and violence that Asians and Asian-Americans were facing in America following the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the Tiananmen Square massacre in June 1989. Instead, themes of diaspora, cultural identity, migration, and arrival are explored largely within the family’s home.

When Soonja arrives, David, for no apparent reason, has an immediate dislike for her saying multiple times that she is not a “real” grandma according to his definition. He seems to carry a sort of sojourner mentality wherein he singles Soonja out as alien and strange to him, despite the fact that she is his grandmother. Soonja in response loves David unconditionally (even when she should maybe be a bit harder on him), and seems to have no problems with this accommodation to this new lifestyle and place. 

The family lives in such a remote place that their house and land begin to serve as sort of a “third term” according to Stuart Hall. They all share elements of their Korean heritage and culture, but have also all assimilated into American society to different extents. It’s implied that David and Anne were born in America, David almost only speaks English and rejects his grandma and the Korean foods she brings them.

Jacob and Monica came to America to help each other and build a life together, but they are frustrated that they have been working the same jobs for years and do not feel like they have gotten anywhere. Soonja has just gotten to America from Korea and is excited to share her culture with her grandchildren. The family navigates the nature of cultural identity as a process of both being and becoming, while acclimating to their new surroundings and working through interpersonal tensions.

----------------------------------------

What do you make of David's insisting that Soonja isn't a "real" grandmother? Do you think this reflects on him or on her? Is this opinion just because of her character or is it motivated by their cultural differences?

What are your thoughts on the minari plant itself? What images/ideas might it invoke in the viewer?

Do you feel that this movie accurately represents the journey of migration and arrival and the notions of cultural identity as fluid that Stringer discusses?

@theuncannyprofessoro

[alexdonovann]

The gif you used here is just too good lmao. I completely agree with your analysis and I like your use of the sister's wedding/soccer final day as an example of Jess being able to do it all. A heartwarming moment from that day was watching Jess's teammates come together to help her get dressed again to go back to the wedding (crazy that she went from playing soccer to looking perfect in like 5 minutes). Similarly, it was nice to see her father let her go to the soccer final and help cover for her.

Bend It Like Beckham

Throughout Bend It Like Beckham, female soccer is not regarded as serious by men, limiting the ability for Jess and Jules to play. Even their coach says he applied for a promotion to be assistant coach on a mens team. While men who play soccer are seen as strong, women are regarded as too masculine, and therefore undesirable. Jess and Jules are assumed to be in a gay relationship twice, showing how the closeness of their friendship is regarded as homosexual. Because they play soccer, they are regarded as masculine and therefore gay. Jules mother even says that playing soccer turned Jules gay. This shows how gender expectations are associated with sexuality, pushing Jess and Jules to appear more feminine. Both Jess and Jules are impacted by their parents' perceptions of what girls should be acting like. They disapprove of their daughters playing soccer because they fear it will impede their social desirability and attractability to men. Jess’ parents assume that because they face prejudice, they need to protect their children and make sure they are afforded with the most opportunities possible. Once her father sees that she has a talent at soccer, he lets her pursue it, showing how this film is more than a reductive representation of Indian immigrants. Mary Chacko writes in her analysis of Bend It Like Beckham that the title of this film is a “ metaphor for the ways in which girls like Jess attempt to bend the rules prescribed by their cultural backgrounds to achieve their goal”. Jess is able to subvert cultural and gendered norms through her talent and dedication, showing she is more than a stereotype of girls or of Indians. She attends both her sisters wedding and her soccer final on the same day, representing her ability to fulfill her cultural expectations and also play soccer.

[alexdonovann]

I completely agree that the ending involving Joe is unfortunate. It does definitely feel like Jess is regressing back to the controlling patriarchal norms that she fought so hard to escape. I also don't like Joe because he does not make an effort to understand and hear out the discrimination and harassment that Jess experienced on the field. A moment I can't stop thinking about is when Jess tells Joe (who is still her coach and should be standing up for her!!) that someone on the opposing team called her a slur and his only response is that he understands because he's Irish. Like Joe this is not about you!! Shut up!!!

Bend it Like Beckham Viewing Response

In Bend it Like Beckham, Jess is constantly having to fight against the assumptions that are being made about her based on her love for soccer. Her family fears that the fact that she wants to play soccer professionally means that she is less of a woman and means that she will have trouble finding a man to marry. They also see it as a rebellion generally and worry that it is the beginning of the end of Jess abiding by their rules and expectations. We see this kind of fear and judgement coming from Jules' family as well. Jules' mom says that boys won't like Jules because she dresses more masculine and accuses Jess and Jules of being in a romantic relationship. Whether or not there is a queer undertone to the film, the sheer fact that Jess and Jules want to play soccer is completely unrepresentative of their sexuality, gender expression, or ability to "find a man." Ultimately, Jess's parents see how happy it makes her and allows her to go with Jules to play soccer professionally in the US. This feels like such a freeing moment for Jess. She will be able to begin the process of finding herself when she is free from her parents expectations. That is why, to me, the ending being her kissing the coach for the first time was really disappointing. It felt like a step back towards the life she was living and the things that were holding her back. We see the coach playing with Jess's dad in the ending montage, suggesting that maybe he has found a place in her family and will be there for her when she gets back. Her relationship with the coach feels like a regression to the things that kept her silent and lying all the time. She had an opportunity to be completely free and start over with her best friend, but ultimately the movie had to end with her finally getting the man, rather than just living out her dreams.

@theuncannyprofessoro

[alexdonovann]

Bend It Like Beckham (Chadha, 2002)

My least favorite part of Bend It Like Beckham (Chadha, 2002) was Joe’s character. He seems harmless enough and his intentions are likely good, but his intense interest in Jess feels inappropriate and detracts from the story. While it’s implied that Jess and Joe are about the same age, Joe is still in a position of power as Jess’s coach. Nevertheless, Jess becomes infatuated with him and he takes a particular interest in her. Joe crosses a line when he shows up at her home unannounced and speaks to her parents. It’s not his job to “save” Jess and it feels intrusive and creepy that he appears without warning. As Chacko writes in “Bend It Like Beckham: Dribbling the Self Through a Cross-Cultural Space,” Joe’s appearance at Jess’s home invokes notions of the colonizer who “took it upon himself to liberate the oppressed and long-suffering Indian woman” (Chacko, 82). Joe clearly does not understand the familial and cultural dynamics of the space which he inserts himself into, and is therefore unable to relate to Jess’s family. Joe’s disconnect is made even clearer when Jess is venting to Joe about how during the soccer game, a girl on the other team called her a slur and Joe says he understands because he is Irish. Not only does Joe intrude on Jess’s family life, but he impacts Jess’s friendship with Jules. Jess and Jules fight because they are both into Joe, but they have chemistry with each other that suggests that maybe they are projecting attraction to each other onto him. This film completely missed its opportunity to tell a queer story by placing a man at the center of the women's attractions. 

@theuncannyprofessoro

[alexdonovann]

Do you think the film would have had a different impact if it had excluded the conflicts regarding men? Is the conflict important to the film? Does it affect the relationships between the women? Was it a conflict that actually happened to the real Skate Kitchen and therefore important to telling their story?

Multiracial Companionship in Skate Kitchen

Skate Kitchen (2018) seamlessly integrates interracial friendships into its storyline. It is set in New York City and follows 18-year old Camille as she navigates her love for skating and a difficult relationship with her mother. Camille is Colombian and lives in Long Island, New York, with her single mother. She longs to be a part of “Skate Kitchen” which is a girls skate group in the city. After suffering a fairly serious injury due to skating, her mother prohibits her from doing it, but Camille continues her love for skating against the permission of her mother. She begins to sneakily take the train out to the city to meet up with the “Skate Kitchen” group and spend the day skating with them. Camille immediately befriends Janay, Kurt, Ruby, and Indigo, a racially diverse group of girls in their young 20’s who share her passion for skating. They all come from different economic and familial backgrounds, but come together under this one common identity and lived experience. 

Camille continues to lie to her mother about her whereabouts by telling her she is studying at the library, but eventually her mother finds out where she has been and confiscates her skateboard. This doesn’t stop Camille from going out to the city, and when she returns to the skatepark to tell her friends what happened they come together to help her assemble a new one. This is indicative of their relationship with each other and how they will do anything to help a friend in need. Janay also offers to let Camille stay at her house, which becomes more of a permanent move when tensions between Camille and her mother build. Her mother finds Camille at the skatepark and scolds her in front of the whole group, eventually slapping her across the face and humiliating her. Camille and Janay grow closer through their time living together, deepening their bond and their trust in one another. In a way, this was a sacrifice Janay made for Camille, but it was framed in an act of love and was a mutual agreement between them. 

After leaving home, Camille gets a job at a grocery store so she can start providing for herself. She befriends her coworker Devon, who is a part of the boy skating group that she always sees at the skatepark. They start to develop what seems like a romantic relationship, but is later proven to only be seen as romantic by Camille after she gets rejected by Devon when trying to make a move on him. Camille finds out that Devon also used to date Janay, which causes Janay to get upset and tension between them arises, ultimately harming their relationship and Camille’s status in the group. This leads Camille to move back home with her mother, and she finds herself reconnecting with her. Her mother encourages her to reach out to the group and apologize, which Camille does, and the film concludes with a cinematic scene of the entire group skating down the busy streets of Manhattan.

The Skate Kitchen friend group has a shared interest that brings them together and transcends their varying racial and ethnic backgrounds. Something that is important to note is that although this movie is depicting a fictional story, all of the actors are real skaters and play a character not too far from their authentic self. This is very telling in the way the film portrays their dialogue, interactions with one another, and overall lifestyle. It depicts real, authentic experiences of the cast members which is why the interactions feel so natural and realistic. Their individual races and ethnicities are not really talked about throughout the film, and it just exhibits them existing together as friends despite their backgrounds. Ed Guerrero, in his essay, “The Black Image in Protective Custody: Hollywood’s Biracial Buddy Films of the Eighties”, states “But in the future, perhaps the most important factor in broadening and equalizing the representation of all non-White peoples on the commercial screen will be the dialectical pressure exerted on Hollywood by the humanized, culturally complex, self-fashioned images of people of color in their emergent and independent cinema practices”. This film is directed by a woman and the crew is predominantly women as well, which shapes the lens that it can be viewed through. I think Skate Kitchen is a very authentic piece of media that depicts realistic relationships and conflicts between young adults and smoothly incorporates a diverse array of people into its story.

Discussion questions:

This film tells a fictional story but is based on a real group of people - How does this affect the way their characters and identities are portrayed on screen?

Do you think this is an empowering film for women?

Why is it important to have a diverse group of people behind the camera as well?

Can you think of other movies or shows that authentically depict an interracial group of friends? 

[alexdonovann]

I haven't seen this film so I'm curious as to the extent to which race is acknowledged; Do the Clovers call the Toros out on their explicit appropriation of the Clovers' cheers? Are there any black characters with relevant storylines on the Toros' cheer team or at the Toros' school?

Multiracial Companionship: Bring It On (2000)

Bring It On is a film focusing on the new captain of the predominantly white Ranche Carne Toros cheer team, Torrance Shipman(Kirsten Dunst). The Toros have won the national championship five years in a row and Torrance, as captain, is determined to get the team to win for the sixth year however, unbeknownst to her the previous cheer captain ‘Big Red’ has been plagiarizing cheers from the predominantly Black and Latino cheer team, the East Compton High Clovers. The Clovers, led by their captain, Isis(Gabrielle Union) will be competing in Nationals for the first time so the Toros are forced to confront their unoriginal and illegitimate skills while coming up with their own cheers comparable to the very squad they relied on for the past five years.

There is a clear intention of this film, and that is to display the aspects of cultural appropriation, which is “the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society”-- in this case, it is the Toros appropriating the cheers of the Clovers. 

There is a clear intention of this film, and that is to display the aspects of cultural appropriation, which is “the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society”-- in this case, it is the Toros appropriating the cheers of the Clovers. (20:40)

Isis's confrontation with Torrance forces her to face the fact that they have been cheating the past five years and their status of the ‘best’ has been based on complete lies. In this way, I sis as a black woman is acting as the vehicle for the white characters epiphany/character arc. Furthermore, Isis prevents Torrance from compensating for her guilt by declining the money Torrance got her father to sponsor the Clovers to go to Nationals with. 

The Toros do not win the national competition but are second to the Clovers. Rightfully so, however there were audiences that were disappointed in the outcome. Probably because they wanted the white group to win or because they love an underdog story; but the true underdogs of Bring It On are the Clovers–the ones who really got no spotlight and were in only a third of the film…

I think it is also worth it to mention that the only people who were against using the plagiarized cheers were all characters who have been ‘othered’ in a certain way. Torrance, the captain who has a sense of guilt and responsibility over the situation, Les, the only gay character in the film, and Missy, who was known as the ‘rebellious’ character through depictions of her crimped hair and fake tattoos. 

There is something that Gabrielle Union herself still regrets about this film. As the only Black person in the table reading, she was able to work with director, Peyton Reed, in modifying the dialogue of the Black characters, which were originally very stereotypical. However in doing so, Union felt as if she did a disservice to Isis’s character, as she restricted her from properly expressing her frustration and anger over the Toros constant theft of their cheers which brought them five national trophies. 

“We’ll call it even. I thought you had to give them grace in the face of the thievery. You had every right to ask them to come forward publicly about what they had done, seek forgiveness, and work toward justice. But I made you educate, yet again, people who absolutely know better and still refuse to do better.”

“I thought surrender was “class.” I didn’t know that I could give you “class” and dignity while also being very clear about holding people accountable. Beating them up may have been beneath you, but I wish I had even allowed you to be angry. To not muzzle any of that rage, including the justifiable anger of your teammates.”

Black people always have to take the high road to avoid stereotypes such as being “angry” or “aggressive.” The Clovers were not seen as villains but there are some Black viewers who felt they did not stand up for themselves well enough. 

Questions:

How would Bring It On be different if Isis had more openly expressed her anger?

Do you think Torrance would have had this urge of making things right if she did not have the role of cheer captain?

How do you see white fragility manifesting in this film?

[alexdonovann]

Do you think that had the filmmakers been people of color, there could have been a more critical portrayal of race and high school cliques?

Mean Girls

Mean Girls is a widely quoted and mainstream movie; in fact, it is one of the most well-known teen comedy films. However, for those who haven’t seen it, a quick synopsis is that this film is about protagonist Cady Heron, who moves from being homeschooled in Africa to a public school in an American suburban town and has to figure out how to navigate high school, and her new friend group ‘The Plastics’; all the while running into problems with her real friends, her love life, and even herself.

I've seen this film many times, and initially, it was one of my favorite films; however, when I rewatched it recently, I noticed many negative stereotypes regarding people of color being reinforced throughout the film, which definitely made the film more uncomfortable to watch than I had previously remembered. While I understand that this is a comedic movie that potentially utilizes these stereotypes in an attempt to mock American racism, it actually contributes to the issue by further reinforcing negative stereotypes to viewers. 

Especially when considering who directed, wrote and predominantly starred in the film and that few of these people were people of color, so this essentially reinforces negative stereotypes surrounding people of color, since these jokes are not used to provide a message and political context to the audience, but more for comedic relief at the characters of color expense, their individual identities compromised and refined to reinforce negative stereotypes for comedic relief. In particular, The 'Otherization' of the continent of Africa and the film's treatment of their Black American characters to serve as comedic relief reinforcing negative stereotypes made me uncomfortable upon a second watch.

For example, in this scene, the film is framing Black Americans as a collective whole by grouping all these individuals, silencing their identities and utilizing false and negative tropes to collectively personify them. The White characters, on the other hand, are framed as being dynamic people with complex feelings and emotions, and eventually, in the film, the main white protagonist Cady actually fixes the school clique problem by getting everyone to talk about their emotions at an assembly, which utilizes the ideology of Cady serving as the ‘White savior,’ to friend groups she isn’t even apart of. Furthermore, the scene that calls this friend group the ‘Unfriendly Black hotties’ is rooted in harmful racist stereotypes about Black People.

Additionally, as seen in this clip, the film also dehumanizes Africa and African people, labeling the continent as ‘wild’ and ‘uncultured,’ further perpetuating harmful Western and racist stereotypes surrounding the continent and using it for both comedic relief and as a way to showcase Cady’s naivety. 

In what way do you think that Mean Girls use of comedy perpetuates harmful stereotypes, and how do you think it could have utilized comedy to send a more meaningful and critical message about race to the audience? 

Why do you think this ‘otherization’ of Africa, framing it as uncultured and wild, is common in Western media, and what makes this trope harmful? Additionally, are there any films you can think of that utilize this damaging trope? 

Do you think that the Black characters in this movie could have been given a more significant plotline and individualized personalities, and how do you think that would have positively changed the film?

@theuncannyprofessoro

[alexdonovann]

A HEARTBREAKING movie. I loved your summary and understanding of the scene where Nisha is meeting Adnan. This moment feels like such failure for her father that I think it informs his final scene where he lets Nisha run away and does not chase after her. They both realize that in the end she has to be free to live her life.

What Will People Say

SO many thoughts on this film. Iram Hariq’s What Will People Say broke my heart, made me cry and put us through a rollercoaster of emotions. 

Scene 1: When Nisha’s Mother says that Nisha has made her life a living hell and that this would have never happened if they had raised back home. “This” being Nisha exploring her sexuality as any teen does. Yet it did happen, and it played out even more horribly than when it happened in Norway. The whole film I felt for Nisha and just wanted to comfort her. Following the scene with her mother, Nisha’s sister, still innocent to the situation, hugs Nisha and tells her that she loves her.

Scene 2: When Nisha is betrothed to Adnan, her father is disappointed. At the beginning of the film, he boasts that his daughter will become a doctor or a lawyer, she has good grades and is saving up. After the incident with Daniel, he spends most of the film claiming that she ruined his life, and that she is ungrateful for all the sacrifices he made for her and her future. He says that he traveled all throughout Europe, went to jail, worked at a factory, all to give his children a better life. The better life he wanted and dreamed for his daughter has slipped away right in front of his face by no action of Nisha’s, but through his. Adnan’s parents insist that Nisha does not need to continue her studies since she will be married to a doctor. Housework, being a wife and a mother are all that should occupy her now. The film cuts from Nisha and her mom and future mother-in-law to Nisha’s dad. His disappointed and slightly panicked reaction to the conversation is telling of how he feels about the situation. The prejudice and judgment of their community and the shame he feels from it has pushed him to betrothe his daughter. He crushed his own hopes and dreams for his daughter’s future and he realizes it now. 

Sce 3: Following her betrothal, Nisha runs away. The scene of Nisha leaving her home parallel’s Daniel’s entrance to it. What started her problem is mirroring her ending it. Her dad watches as she walks away from her home, letting her go. Now that he’s realized that his actions were what would hold her back from seizing the opportunities and the better life that he fought so hard to give to her.

[alexdonovann]

I agree with your interpretation of the ending. It honestly seemed perfect. We know the Mirza is too stubborn to really ever love Nisha in the same way again and we know that not even her mother can be trusted to stand up for her. The main sadness that comes with her running away is that she loses connection with her younger sister but despite this it's definitely time for her to leave. As you stated, she just has to get out of there and be free.

What Will People Say Viewing Response

It almost seems like "What Will People Say" is going to end with Nisha submitting to the arranged marriage that her parents are planning for her. After countless encounters with unfathomable violence and attempts to silence Misha and prohibit her personal and sexual expression, we wonder if she will give in to her parents rules and let go of her attempts at resistance and freedom. Adriana Margareta Dancus discusses the debate around arranged marriage in Norway, stating that "the debate becomes increasingly emotional when Muslim women who are born and/or grow up in Norway are promised to men in the country of their parents' origin. The discussion centers on women's right to choose a spouse of their own preference, and it often portrays Muslim women as passive, submissive, helpless, and frightened. In contrast, Muslim fathers are hard, authoritarian, and, if need be, willing to kill daughters who refuse to submit to their patriarchal power." There is a power dynamic between Misha and her father that is completely impenetrable. As an immigrant, Mirza feels he has absolutely no choice but to protect the reputation of his family and abide by the expectations of what and who they should be, no matter how much horror he subjects his family to because of it. Throughout most of the film, we see no sign of care or regret in Mirza for the way that he treats Misha. At the end, though, Misha runs away. Mirza catches her through the window but doesn't attempt to stop her. Misha doesn't keep running right when she sees that she has been caught. Their prolonged, still eye contact says so much in this scene. I think they are expressing to each other a mutual understanding that the only way for Misha to move forward is to be free. Mirza may not have it in him to actually express this or directly let her go, but the lack of words or action in this moment say a lot. Misha needs to find her own path and connection to both where she lives and her roots in her own way. She can't do this with the weight of her parents fear and expectations. We don't know where Misha will go but I think that we all understand that she must be free.

@theuncannyprofessoro

[alexdonovann]

What Will People Say (Haq, 2017)

Wow! This film was a lot. I’m honestly still processing it and I’m not sure I’m even ready to ignore the sheer emotional pain and whiplash it put me through for the sake of intellectualizing it. There are many movies and tv shows where a teenage girl being caught sneaking in her boyfriend is a non-issue. Maybe she is yelled at, or grounded, or even forbidden from seeing him, but she is rarely disowned, beaten, shipped across the world to live with relatives, and screamed at to kill herself. This violence seems to come largely from Nisha’s father, Mirza, who puts his entire family’s reputation, and his own dignity, in Nisha’s hands. When Mirza catches Nisha and her boyfriend Daniel, Mirza clearly wants to hurt her. He restrains himself slightly, choosing to beat the shit out of Daniel instead. Mirza refuses to believe Nisha when she says over and over that they did not even have sex, and instead he assumes the absolute “worst.” When Nisha is caught with her first cousin Amir, all the blame is placed upon her, with everyone once again assuming the worst of her and letting Amir off the hook completely by saying she forced him. The image that Nisha’s family (specifically Mirza) has painted of her as this evil slut who coerces boys into having sex with her (despite the fact that by the end of the film she has still never had sex) is not based in any actual fact. In the scene where Mirza yells at Nisha to kill herself, it feels like maybe he’s projecting his own insecurities onto her. We see Mirza doubled over, almost falling off the cliff himself yelling at her and losing it while Nisha sinks to the ground looking at him with fear and bewilderment.

@theuncannyprofessoro