Day 120: Hamoun - & the world beyond!

حامون

The film Hamoun begins with the words, "I am at the seaside, with known and unknown people."

Thus begins an Iranian film from 1990 about a graduate student who is trying to understand where his partnership went awry. His wife leaves him. And he doesn't understand. I get where you're at, Hamoun.

Bad news, Mom, I am developing a serious thing for Iran. I don't know why I can't ever get obsessed with places you'd be ok with me visiting. First it was the photography and the art. Now the cinema. And I'm looking into Farsi classes...

I am grateful that the world is so large and beautiful and wonderful and hidden and open ...and there is more to discover, always. For that, I am so grateful.

Replaying racism

I recently was drawn (backwards, kicking & screaming) into a debate about the movie "Avatar." My response to the film when it came out is here. It has been a few months (ok, several) and this year has been incredibly busy to boot, that I found myself struggling to recall the specific prompts that had made me respond the way I did, and why I consider the film racist. I was also holding back my tongue while speaking to members of my soon-to-be husband's extended family, not wanting to fight with them. My interlocutor told me he didn't see why the movie was racist, and that he left the film with a message of peace and better understanding between peoples.

The next day while watching tv I saw "Scandalize My Name," a film about the ways that McCarthyism wrought havoc on the black community and was often used as a justification for not supporting civil rights for all. Because communism supported rights for all, many civil rights advocates were dismissed as communists. One of the commentators said, "Racism is most dangerous when it is invisible."



That was it. That was exactly what I had been groping for in my argument over "Avatar." The film cloaks its racism so insidiously, allowing the "natives" to win but portraying them in degrading ways, always nature lovers, without science or technology, wearing simple clothing associated with barbarism or caveman style (loincloths, anyone?) and lacking the means to function in the modern world. They inevitably are ruled or dominated by someone from a more "sophisticated" world, a white militarized capitalist world, who infiltrates their community, learns their ways, and then leads them to victory (which they could not achieve on their own). Most insultingly, at the end of the film, the main character ATTAINS indigeneity, rendering it a commodity that can be won by the white man. The "secret ways", the indigenous identity, can be explored, discovered, and its secrets opened to a person who can become indigenous. All of these tired tropes and stereotypes abound in "Avatar," but they are carefully hidden and concealed so most walk out of the theater without realizing that yes, yet again, native peoples are being represented as backwards, timeless, nature lovers, unmodern, etc...and these tropes internalized by new, younger audiences who will then regurgitate them. This is unacceptable. Racism is dangerous, but fatal and insidious when it is invisible. That is truly frightening. We as audiences cannot be afraid to peal back the layers of the image to unfold the meaning within, and speak out against it.


I find it troubling that children and adults alike are watching this film and internalizing these stereotypes. Writing more blog posts is unlikely to change the world...but I must use my voice however I can to speak out against this continued exploitation and representation.

Film Review: Let's Talk about Sex

Well, Sex and the City 2, that is.

There has been much written about this film - denigrating it as yet another blithering Hollywood sequel, a trashy chick flick, and a neoliberal (oh my god, more about neoliberalism? I thought I was done with my thesis) plot to rake in the bucks and exploit women's buying power. At the risk of adding to establishing social commentary and believing I have something unique to say, I'll keep going.

My major qualm with the film is its representation of the Middle East. First, that it was filmed in Morocco but claims to be Abu Dhabi: these are two opposite ends of the Middle East with very little in common other than (different strains) of a religion. Moroccans and Emiratis speak different languages, too - the Emirati Arabic far more mainstream Arabic, and the Moroccan a hybrid of Spanish, French, Arabic, and Berber. Not all Arabs are crazy conservative, as the film would suggest (and I can think of plenty of regular old white-bread Americans who would be horrified at Samantha's public sexual antics, not just the sheikhs in keffiyehs and robes). While Carrie and co stumble onto a group of women who wear very trendy fashion under their hijab and niqab - perhaps a cinemographic attempt to hint at the diversity and forward-thinking of Muslim/Arab women - for me, it fell flat. From my time in Syria, I know that Syrian women are encouraged to be uber-sexy for their husbands and there is a bustling very naughty lingerie trade. Sexuality isn't seen as incongruous or dangerous with womanhood - just that it should be constrained within marriage (much like in the other Big 3 religions). I don't think Muslim women would see being trendy as incongruous or shocking; after all, women do not veil in their homes and socialize with other women uncovered as well. Additionally, the Middle East takes a lot of crap for laws perceived to be heinous. But the truth is that PDA is illegal in the Emirates - so if you go there, you should obey. You can't say anything against the government in many states, including Turkey. Violators pay a $600 fine for throwing bubble gum on the sidewalk in Thailand, and anyone pretending to conduct sorcery goes to jail for a year in Ireland. In Sweden, prostitution is legal but it's illegal to solicit or use a prostitute. Countries the world over, "developed" or not, have rules that don't quite make sense. For some reason, though, Americans and Westerners chafe under the laws of Middle Eastern countries and feign that they are more strict than elsewhere. Truth is, Americans could work on their cultural sensitivity anyway - being respectful and polite in another country is just the same as being respectful and polite to your in-laws. Most of the time you don't quite get it, but you just keep your mouth shut and appreciate it for what it is. So, on the whole, I didn't feel that the movie fairly represented the Middle East, Arabs or Muslims, lumping them all together in a homogenous grouping that would horrify my NYU professors.
(Also Miranda's Arabic was atrocious, but that's beside the point).

On the other hand...
SATC2 validated women's choices, in the larger tradition of the series which blazed a trail in that regard. In particular, the film validates the choice not to have children. Carrie and Mr Big, I mean - the Prestons, choose not to have children and have difficulty conveying their choice to unbelieving acquaintances ("We love kids, but that's just not for us"). American society expects us to grow up and get married, have 2.5 children, a Golden Retriever, and a house in the 'burbs with a white picket fence. There aren't really a lot of women out there, on the big screen or otherwise, who stand up and say it's ok not to have children if you don't want them. If you don't want kids, you really shouldn't have them - it's a recipe for disaster, and I know plenty of unwanted kids who grew up angry and mistreated because their parents didn't have enough discernment or wisdom to understand the burdens and responsibilities (and the honors of) parenthood. I remember telling my therapist during college that I didn't want kids, to which she responded, "Well that's abnormal." (I'm pretty sure her job was to tell me exactly the opposite, and help me deal with why I thought I'd be a poor mother rather than offer judgment.) Statistically, people are happier married than single, but that happiness quotient doesn't increase with having kids. Marrieds without kids are happier than marrieds with kids. So, for those of us waiting for our biological clock to kick in but perfectly happy every year that it doesn't, thank you, Carrie - again you're leading the way to help us express ourselves better, and free up our discussions.

Film Review: L'heure d'été/Summer Hours

This French film examines possessions and legacies, and what happens when someone passes. The family matriarch, now in her 70s, has an impressive collection of art and decorative furniture in a beautiful country house outside of Paris. Her three children, now coupled adults, have their own commitments and are unable to visit her often. When she does pass, the children differ over how to deal with her estate, which she has left to them in equal thirds. The eldest son wants to keep his mother's legacy intact, and because he remains in the area imagines that the family will continue to revolve around the house. The other two children don't live in France anymore - they live in China and the US, and for them it becomes impractical to own a home in the Parisian countryside. The children struggle to appropriately allocate their mother's estate, and ponder what to keep and what to allow to pass.

For me, the film spoke about the life that animates the things we own - and that things become valuable because of the sentimental value we affix to them. It also showed the way spaces become invested with meaning. A scene at the end of the film is particularly poignant, as one of the granddaughters throws a party at her grandmother's house the weekend before the house transfers to its new owner. As she walks with her boyfriend through the nearby fields, she reminsces over how her grandmother taught her how to pick berries there. She remembers her grandmother telling her, "Someday you will teach your daughter to pick berries here." Now that future is lost.

This film is a thoughtful, yet realistic look at grief and legacies and how we move on in life. It is an interesting film at this point in my life, with endings and new beginnings and trying to make sense of it all...

Film Review: The Art of the Steal

The Art of the Steal is about the Barnes Foundation's history and current move from Merion, PA, to downtown Philadelphia. Albert C. Barnes was born into a lower-class family in Philly and worked his way up, eventually working in the pharmaceutical industry and earning his fortune. With his new fortune, he began acquiring early Impressionist paintings - quickly and decisively. These paintings were not popular at the time, and when Barnes returned to display his new acquisitions at a show at the Art Academy, Philly's art critics denounced the works. Barnes never forgave Philadelphia's elite for their shortsighted negative reviews, and swore that his collection would never benefit nor sit in central Philadelphia. His foundation was built to house the collection as arranged by Barnes, and was a primarily educational institution, training painters, and was not open to the public.

Barnes' collection includes Matisse, Renoir, VanGogh, and other big names. It is now valued at $25-30 billion dollars. In the original building, Barnes commissioned Matisse to paint La Danse, a wall mural, so part of the art is literally integrated into the building.

Barnes died in 1951. As told by the film, central Philly power figures and politicians maneuvered carefully and diligently to dismantle Barnes' will. Slowly but surely, the powers that be removed Barnes' intermediary, Lincoln College, intended to keep the collection in Merion and out of control of Philly politics. With Lincoln College out of the way, power transfers and control of the board of the Barnes were steadily taken over. Through various legal two-steps, the film tells us, the Barnes' integrity was subverted and Barnes' final wishes ignored. Recent legal suits affirmed plans to remove the collection from its Lower Merion, PA, location in the original Barnes-designed building to central Philly. This, in the opinion of the filmmakers, destroys the integrity and experience of the collection as Barnes wanted it and dishonors Barnes' will and legacy. The people Barnes wanted his collection kept away from are now leveraging it for political and financial gain.

The film does raise some interesting questions: how long does a person's will remain valid? When it comes to property and collections, how are they to be managed in accordance with the former owner's wishes, and for how long? (One might ask the same questions of Leona Helmsley's dog) How long should Barnes' wishes be allowed to govern his collection? Art often is discussed in terms of "invaluable" cultural heritage that is often integrated into larger discussions of identity and citizenship (Duncan and Wallach's article "Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship," Tony Bennett's The Birth of the Museum). Furthermore, how is the arrangement of art and its display critical in the audience's perception and understanding of it? Furthermore, a common criticism and justification for a work's location is how many people will see it, have access to it (see: the British Museum on the Elgin marbles). Is having more viewers to a work better (ie, Philly location) or having an obscure location that only attracts more devoted viewers (Merion location)? Keep in mind that statistics show that the average museum visitor spends only 2.7 seconds (!) in front of a work on display.

The film raises a lot of these questions, and is unflinching in its criticism of the Barnes Foundation's move to central Philly. It is disconcerting to see the manner in which Barnes' wishes have been disregarded, and it raises the question of the utility and validity of wills and testaments. More importantly, the film looks at the value - both cultural and financial - of works of art that define our past and are an integral part of ideas about identity and citizenship. Whose art is it, and who gets to control it?

Film: The Art of the Steal

This is pretty much as exciting as it gets: a documentary about art, theft, money, and court cases determining how culture gets managed. This is a story about the Barnes Foundation, whose owner arranged and created a museum and left legal instructions on the management of the institution and its operation. Unfortunately those instructions aren't oriented towards profit, or the "revitalization" of Philadelphia - so the wishes of the collector and owner have been overrun by trust lawyers, and other plans.
Can't. Wait.


See the trailer here.

Film Review: A Serious Man

The film A Serious Man concerns itself with the details of a middle aged American life (circa 1967). Directed by the Coen brothers, the film offers its audience the standard Coen dry humor. The main character, Larry, a Jewish physics professor, suffers from a divorce, funeral, disobedient teenagers, work problems with tenure and misbehaving students, and a sick brother (I think that's all...). Larry searches for advice from friends and rabbis, trying to deal with his life as it continues to devolve. Like the rest of us, Larry can't seem to catch a break and all the metaphorical shit hits the fan simultaneously. The Coen brothers never give the audience quite what it expects, subverting our expectations. It would be easy to be frustrated with the film's inconclusive ending and walk away unsatisfied. The end can also be read as an attempt to break the audience of its desire for neatly answered, tied up endings, for stories that are coherent with happy endings rather than reflecting the world we live in and life as we experience it.

A Serious Man offers a glimpse of the rarity and humor in everyday life and breakdowns, and in purposely failing to give us the ending we want, reminds us that the best part of life is that we don't know what's coming next, but we are seemingly always blessed with second chances.