Case Study "Blue Gold: World Water Wars

Case Study for Cinema and Social Change
Blue Gold: World Water Wars




Canadian film Blue Gold: World Water Wars is a 2008 documentary film based on the 2003 book Blue Gold: The Fight to stop the Corporate Theft of the World’s Water, written by Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke.

Synopsis:

Fresh water is a precious and precipitiously dwindling commodity on our planet, due to wastage, pollution, damming, overusing it, interfering with the water cycle and using building methods that send rain runoff straight into the sea. Large water companies would like to profit off this shortage by laying claim to the naturally recurring resource, which they then charge astronomical amounts of money for; while continuing to add to the overusing and polluting problems that we are already recklessly doing. All of this political and economic manuerving is being to affect poor people very badly, and if we continue in this fashion all of us will be in serious trouble. In addition, countries are making foreign policy and national policy to protect their access to water and this has the potential to lead to all out friction and possibly all-out war, as various regions and groups argue about how much water each is allowed to take. As a result of this, activists across the globe are taking matters into their own hands and are raising awareness and fighting companies and governments to fix the current problematic water policies now in place. The movie breaks down the issues in detail, from the way we get our fresh water, to profiles of some of the fights that have and are already taking place over who controls the future of our water supply, and includes interviews with water experts and activists such as the writers of the book, ecofeminist activist and physicist Vandana Shiva, and Oscar Oliveria, one of the leaders of the Cochabamba revolt in Bolivia against widescale water privitization.

How the Movie Was Made:

Director Sam Bozzo had never made a documentary before Blue Gold, and have no intention of making one before he picked up the book. The information in the book galvanized him, however. In a 2009 interview with Blue Living Ideas, GTR: Blue Gold: World Water Wars Director Sam Bozzo (Part 1); Mr Bozzo informs us that he was actually working on a sequel to a sci-fi narrative film “The Man who Fell to Earth” when he was sidetracked:

When I um, I mean I actually did a narrative films. My background at film school and short films. And I was writing a script with a producer for the…a sequel to the sci fi man who fell to earth, and that’s an old sci fi where David Bowie was an alien whose planet was running out of water and they came here looking for our water. And we thought we’d be clever and think about twenty years from now what if we started running out of water which seemed…you know…just preposterous to us. And Si the producer found the book Blue Gold. And I read it. And that's when I um…and like you, I was just blown away. What was actually happening, had already happened…um, was, was bigger than anything we were coming up with for a science fiction. And um, you know, that's when we put down the project. MORE

He continues on to report that luckily for him, he had just won a camera from a Kevin Spacey film contest and the book publisher had managed to lose the film rights to the book; which meant that the authors retained those rights. Ms Barlow and Mr. Clarke were quite willing to allow him the latitude to make the film, and so he set out to acquire producers and funding. Unfortunately, his funder backed out at the very last minute, leaving him on the hook for thousands of dollars in plane tickets and maxed out credit cards. On the night before he was to leave for his trip, he seriously contemplating calling the whole thing off. Fortuitously, one of his children came downstairs and asked him for water, thus inspiring him to embrace being on the verge of bankruptcy and do the film anyway. Then he got lucky. In an interview with Green Muze interview, he notes that he won another film camera from a Matt Damon film competition during the two years it took him to film and edit Blue Gold. The book's authors helped him to source two grants, which helped to ease the financial pain somewhat, though the difficulties of shooting the film did not stop there. Mr. Bozzo details the problems that he ran into as he tried to get the story filmed in The Making of World Water Wars; from having to bribe guards in Mexico to shoot footage of farmland being irrigated with river water choked with sewage, to risking life and limb to track down the story of who murdered a water-activist in Kenya, by himself, since he couldn't afford a crew. A rough edit of the film managed to net him the executive producing help of the directors of the film "The Corporation" Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbot, as well as Si Litvinoff from the film "Clockwork Orange", plus the offer of narrating services from Malcolm McDowell, also of "Clockwork Orange". After some hard editing and polishing work, they were ready to take it to the world.

Distribution, Marketing and Outreach:

I am not sure of how much money Blue Gold made back for its makers, because it appears that they never entered it into theatres. Instead, they entered into a series of partnerships with various people and organizations and proceeded to make the film accessible to as wide a variety of people in as many places as possible. Mr. Bozzo and his merry band of backers started by making the usual round of film festivals. A look at his very impressive website locates the information that the film premiered at the Vancouver International Film Festival in October 2008 in competition, which it promptly won. It also won at the European International Film Festival and the NEwport Beach Film Festival. In 2009 at a Toronto screening of the film, Bozzo met Martin Robertson of the non-profit organization Ideas in Motion. Ideas in Motion helps to promote and produce do-it-yourself documentary screenings and festivals. Mr. Robertson used to live in Britain, until he migrated to Canada in 1980 to protest then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's attempts to privatize the public water supply. He too was inspired by the Blue Gold: The fight to stop the Corporate Theft of the World's Water book and had been taking steps to raise awareness. In a interview with the Canadian newspaper, The Star he explained what happened next :Film shines spotlight on the fight for water

In 2003, after reading Canadian activist Maude Barlow's Blue Gold: The Fight to Stop the Corporate Theft of the World's Water, Robertson bundled together six films on issues raised by the book for a screening in Kyoto, Japan, site of that year's world water forum.

The screening inspired Robertson to keep promoting films highlighting environmental threats, but the momentum crashed to a halt when he was diagnosed with cancer in 2004.

He has slowly recovered and is focused on his next project: self-financing the screening of a documentary based on Barlow's book.

"I thought, `You're not going to live to use all your savings, so what can you do?'" he explains. "I want to do something useful in countries where they need help. But I'm not good at going and building schools in Africa. I can't travel well. But film can travel."MORE

Mr. Robertson offered to organize extra screenings of the film in as many countries as possible. In four months his hard work paid off and the film screened at 101 locations in 37 countries, including a giant simultaneous twenty country screening for on World Water Day on March 22, 2009. The film not only screened at film festivals, but in churches, at activist meetings, at private parties and in other venues.

In addition to Mr. Robertson's invaluable help, the markers of the film partnered with organizations such as peakwater.org and artists united for a better world. PeakWater.org describes itself as:

...a global water news aggregate, an awareness-building collective, a forum for public discourse, and an outreach organization specializing in politically, economically, and ecologically marginalized communities. All media featured on this site is compiled by a concerned team of scientists, professors, students and global citizens. Additionally, we profile localized water conservation and management initiatives to promote water literacy through NGO, governmental, and academic partnerships.an awareness building

It continue to promote the Blue Gold DVD and the book on its website in advertisements and links, and when the film was released their bloggers did posts promoting it to its readers.

It appears that Mr. Bozzo joined nonprofit Artists United for a Better World in 2010, or least that is when his documentary shows up in their Projects from our members archive. The company claims to create high quality events to raise awareness and affect our thoughts about particular subjects, and then donates the proceeds of their labor to nonprofits and causes that deal directly with the issue itself. The film is displayed on their website alongside several others.


Executive producer Mark Achbar did some crosspromotion with his film The Corporation, by giving Blue Gold The Corporation's Stamp of Approval and they sell the DVD in their Canadian web store, though not in their US web store, interestingly enough.

Then they did a lot of press. They put up an interesting and conveniently set up Blue Gold: World Water Wars website. That website includes links to a presskit and lo-res photos and banners as well as the rather long trailer:

Blue Gold : World Water Wars


which makes full use from executive producers' Achbar and Litvinoff's previous work "The Corporation" and "The Man Who Fell To Earth" in order to encourage their fans from those films to see this collaboration.

They also have links to Facebook (with currently over 8000 likes) and Twitter (currently over 300 followers), which are still regularly updated with water news from around the world. Methods of watching the film are conveniently located at the top of the webpage, ranging from a link for buying the DVD to watching the film on Itunes, Netflix and Amazon Demand, as well as on the Sundance Channel. Clicking on the Contact link reveals which companies are distributing the film. World TV and Educational rights belong to Filmoption International Inc., a Canadian company. US video and digital rights were bought by PBS video. Their worldwide sales agent theatrical and home video sales agent is Wonderphil Productions, based in California, and Canadian rights belong to a company with the rather unprepossessing name of Mongrel Media.

In addition, the website contains a wide selection of newspaper reportage links, and a click at Water News shows the curious visitor four tv film clips and the links to facebook and twitter.

The link The Action Plan offers a great many ways for fired-up would-be activists to start doing something to help, from working on decommissioning damns to boycotting bottled water, to supporting local farming; and much more.

Finally, a click on the DVD link offers the many ways in which one can acquire the DVD of the film.



In addition to 2008, Mr. Bozzo got himself a youtube account and placed the trailer there. It has gathered of this viewing over 154, 000 views. Throughout the years, he has occasionally uploaded new clips from the movie, including about six deleted scenes in 2010, like this one detailing the brewing water trouble in Mexico:

BLUE GOLD - DELETED SCENES - MEXICAN CARAVAN



Audience Reaction and Film's Effect:

Mr. Bozzo himself mentioned in The Making of the World Water Wars that his audiences seemed to contain "least one person afterward who is so shocked and moved by the film that I can see they are forever changed, as I was in making the film. I believe that is the most rewarding experience any filmmaker can achieve. The film’s theatrical release in Tokyo, Japan was perhaps the most professionally rewarding, as I was interviewed by nineteen reporters in four days and saw firsthand how a country, not yet exposed to the film, received information about such a vital topic." A great many of the news clipping he links to on his site use commentary that indicates that the reporter feels that the film will be life changing to those who watch it. In fact, Mr. Bozzo reports that it was audience pressure that made him put up the Action Plan link on his website, and of course, the story of Mr. Martin Robertson's reaction to the film has already been told in the distribution section. Mr. Bozzo's activism on the films issues continue as well, as he sends out a Water Issues Newsletter and keeps raising awareness on his Facebook and Twitter about issues that were covered in Blue Gold. As an audience member myself, I can report that the film solidified my own inclinations towards activism on this front, and I have been raising awareness in my own quarters. I am also planning to screen the film here at Stephens next term as an awareness raising exercise coupled with using the Action Plan in order to encourage the audience to also do something in reaction to the film.

The biggest reported action directly influenced by the film, however, was reported by the Coast Magazine in August of 2010: Water Wars:An Irvine filmmaker's documentary about water rights becomes an arsenal in grassroots efforts to battle water privatization.

Apparently, the city council of the town of Marion, Indiana started debate on whether or not to privatize public utilities water in order to get more money for their budget. Residents who were not enamored of this idea formed anti-privatization organizers, and created a Facebook account to broadcast their annoyance. They were informed of Blue Gold's existence, which they then tracked down and requested Bozzo's permission for a free screening for their city council and fellow residents . The film convinced said city council that privatization was a bad idea. Not bad for a documentary that almost didn't get made, huh?

Conclusion

This film was hard to make, and relied on hard work, jumping off into the unknown with faith that it would work out on Mr Bozzo's part, perseverance and some amount of luck in that his film managed to galvanize several partners with contacts and cash who could help him with funding and distribution. The film was distributed with a focus on making it seen as by many people as possible, but outside of the theatre-release pattern system. So a combination of film festivals and partnering with organizations and private viewings and other alternative methods were used to get people to see the film. The focus therefore was not on making back the money that went into the film, but on raising awareness about the film's issues. I wish that there was more information on precisely how many people saw the film, however. I found it because I am already interested in those issues of sustainability and the fact that we are messing up our planet. And I am guessing that since the film uses new media like Facebook and Twitter at least some of those people will have seen the film. But I would have loved to have information about the amount of DVDs sold, for example, and how many people actually saw the film at the festivals and screenings. The information I am after is exactly how much did the film actually penetrate the mainstream culture in the US and Canada, so as to confirm if I am right about my feeling that the film was not seen or heard of outside of a relatively small group of people. The thing with documentaries like that are meant to provoke widespread change is that they need to be seen or at least known about by a huge amount of people to provoke a movement large enough to trigger the kind of fundamental changes that ist message tells the viewer is required. The most famous documentary that managed this was former Vice President Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" which was one of the drivers of getting climate change on the radar of most Americans. Of course, not many documentaries can get a narrator with that kind of high name recognition. As documentaries that tackle large and important topic continue to get made, it appears that the problems of funding and distribution will continue to require creative solutions.


Bibliography

Barlow, Maude and Tony Clarke. Blue Gold: The Fight to Stop The Corporate Theft of the World's Water. New York:The New Press, 2002.


Bozzo, Sam. "The Making of World Water Wars" Our World 2.0 March 19, 2010. Web. March 31, 2011.


"GTR: Blue Gold: World Water Wars Director Sam Bozzo (Part 1)" Green Talk Radio
Blue Living Ideas.com April 20, 2009. Web. March 21, 2011. Transcript.


Green Muze Staff. "Blue Gold: World Water Wars. An Interview With Film Director Sam Bozzo." Green Muze.com August 27, 2008. Web. March 25, 2011.


Sam Bozzo. "Past Screenings" Blue Gold.com Web. March 25, 2011


Bozzo, Sam. " Blue Gold Contact" Blue Gold.com Web. March 25, 2011

Bozzo, Sam. "Blue Gold Action Plan" Blue Gold.com Web. March 25, 2011


Liddane, Lisa. "Water Wars:An Irvine filmmaker's documentary about water rights becomes an arsenal in grassroots efforts to battle water privatization." The Coast Magazine.com The Coast Magazine. August 24, 2010 Web. March 25, 2011

"Peak Water: When the Politics of Water Produces Change In Access." Peak Water.org Web. March 25, 2011.

Robertson, Martin. "Blue Gold World Water Wars Location" Ideas in Motion.com Web. March 25, 2011


"The Company: Artists for a Better World" Artists for a Better World.com Web. March 25, 2011


Wallace, Kenyon. "Film Shines Spotlight on the Fight for Water" The Star.com. The Star. Jan 30, 2009 Web. March 25, 2011.

Proposal, Project and Evaluation of 1st Event

Proposal

Film and Panel Discussion - The Union: The Business of getting high.

Why?

I think the film is informative and entertaining, and controversial enough to get people's attention in this climate of low attendance at school events

Needs:

Flyers- cafeteria tables and billboards. Color on the billboard flyers to stand out, but color expensive so black and white on cafeteria tables

Panelists- Police, NORML, politicians

Booking a room- Charters

Leadership points

Targeting - Whole campus, some sections of downtown

Project

poster and film trailer here Though the picture in the poster is gone for some reason and I can't fix it. Picture that was used looks like this.

Evaluation

After choosing and discarding two films because I lost interest in one and the filmmakers got back to me too late on the other, I picked The Union because it was controversial and I thought that that might get people in the seats in a situation of general low attendance at events. I booked the space in Chateris Auditorium first thing, and was worried about learning to work the equipment, but that turned out to be quite easy. The leadership points thing was also quite easy, contrary to my fears. I had the most trouble with panelists. None of the police returned my calls, and the politicians were too busy. NORML however were very helpful and also offered panelists that could speak to the effect of the drug war on the criminal justice system, which I happily took. Spoke to prof and class and they suggested security. Head of security is former policeman. He agreed on condition that it was made clear that he was not speaking as head of security at the event. That was fine with me.


Made the posters, put them out, waited with bated breath. In the end about 19 people came, Stephens students, no downtowners. I was satisfied with the turnout. Some left early cause movie was long, but about five people stayed to ask questions. I adjudicated and the panel went well, though Head of Security was kinda outnumbered by the activists, of which there were four. I did try to make sure that everyone got to have their say and I think I succeeded. We spoke for fifteen minutes and then adjourned since by now it was quite late.


Would I do this again? Yes. I find that I build up fears and bogeymen in my mind when I try something for the first time and invariably I am proven wrong. Since it isn't so hard to do I will be able to stop worrying so much and enjoy myself more. I think the film itself was informative but as Head of Security Tony Coleman pointed out, it was somewhat one sided. I regret that there wasn't a stronger contingent of "No Legalization Panelists" for more balance, but honestly I feel that either way they would have had an uphill battle because the facts marshalled were strongly supported. I think I would have put the posters out earlier if I had to do this again, especially the downtown ones, but quite frankly I would have been satisfied with 10 people showing up, so I am not too worried about the numbers. I basically held this as an awareness raising thing instead of an activist setup, but now that I know how to do this, I will probably use the format to promote some kind of activist-oriented film-based event in the future.

The Story of Stuff, and Judith Helfand's work to change the ending...

The Story of Stuff and Blue Vinyl complement each other quite well. The Story of Stuff give a macro view of the toxic and unsustainable manufacturing system and Judith Helfan's Blue Vinyl serves as a trenchant example of the argument. The Story of Stuff is quite short, about 21 minutes and 25 minutes; engagingly animated and succinctly explained. In short, the video tells the story of how our stuff gets manufactured and sold and what happens to it when it is thrown away. The story is not edifying. The environment and many people are hurt especially during production and disposal, and sometimes even during the use of the product itself! And yet, the reason why people keep on buying those products is that they are cheap. Of course, the reason why they are cheap is because… tada! They ARE destroying environments and people!

The Story of Stuff (2007) - Teaser #1


And in the current way in which the economy is set up, green, sustainable manufacturing products are not very affordable, as Judith Helfand found out in Blue Vinyl.

Blue Vinyl Trailer


Ms. Helfand had an unfortunate encounter with dangerous chemicals in a product that was considered safe, which left her unable to have children. Therefore she became suspicious when her parents decided to change out their wooden shutters for cheap vinyl ones. She made a documentary which followed her investigations across America and the world, and decided to not only start a campaign to deal with the vinyl problem, but to work on helping films concerned with social justice get funding when they needed it through Chicken and Egg pictures. Her efforts have been incorporated into the social justice sphere of filmmaking , in which activists try to make films specifically to help fight for a particular topic. These films tend to come with websites that not only showcase the film but also the activism surrounding the film, so that viewers can do something if the film moves them. Blue Vinyl’s website, for instance has a link for screenings and events and “My House is Your House”, the name of her No Vinyl campaign. One thing I appreciated was the fact that the viewer had a choice between a low bandwidth and high bandwidth versions of the site, which is a boon for people with low dial-up.


The question I have after looking at My House is Your House and PVC the Poison Plastic’s websites though is: How sustainable are these campaigns? The websites dont seem to have been updated for a couple of years now although there have been some victories against the PVC industry. I hadn’t thought of the fact that if I were to make documentaries and build campaigns around them, I’d need to make a choice at some point between following that campaign or going out to make other movies, among other things. So what happens next? The websites are still up and the information is still available for those who search. And My House is Your House contains information on Green Building Practices, which, if they keep it updated, should also have practical use. But I am somewhat uncomfortable about them just being left there. Something to think about for me: Seriously consider how to make my future films and campaigns self-sustaining so that they can continue without me as a figure-head. In any case, Ms. Helfand decided to leave the film and its campaign as an artefact of the fight and turned towards doing other complementary things.

Everything's Cool (Bullfrog Films clip)


A look at Ms. Helfand’s other enterprises reveals that the fact that she made a sequel to Blue Vinyl which chronicles her parents move to a vinyl-sided over 55 retirement community, thereby illustrating that change is very very hard when it racks up against convenience. She also co-created a company called Working Films which helps social justice films with making campaigns to help effect change alongside the showing of the film, basically a complement to Chicken and Egg Pictures which funds the films’ production. I think that those moves were very fine ideas, especially if we are in the business of using films to change the world. Maybe, with the proper combination of marketing and activism, the answer to that vexing question will be yes! She also has her own film company Toxic Comedy Pictures, whose goal is to make entertaining and informative social justice films. A documentary on climate change in 2007

Everything's Cool (Bullfrog Films clip)

was her last physical environment-related film after which she produced a short documentary on a foot soldier of the civil rights movement. The film was called the The Barber of Birmingham.



The Barber of Birmingham highlights one of the many people who fought and suffered in the civil rights movement, but whose contribution was not wellknown outside of his local community. James Armstrong was interviewed about his life and struggle against the background of the historic presidential elections. As someone who has serious issues with Mr. Obama’s performance since then, I found the film somewhat heartbreaking to watch. I remember that time, though for me the feeling was one of guarded optimism rather than uncomplicated joy. We could have a whole ‘nother essay on the business of what happens when the results of fighting and not quite what we are looking for. However, I enjoyed the history lesson, and I hope that more projects like this spring up to document the lives and struggles of the activists who were not in the limelight. After all, Martin Luther King could not have led if there was no one to follow.

And while Ms. Helfan herself continues to led, I will cheer her on, and follow in at least some of her footsteps.

Final Project: Proposal, Project, Evaluation

Proposal:

What do you want to do?

Make an edited short film fleshing out ideas for a possible doc. on the causes and solutions for hunger in the world.

How long?

Not sure. Depends on what I decide to cover.

What are the issues?

How hunger is imaged... naked, starving emaciated brown and black children. As if white children don't suffer from it too.
The structural reasons underlying hunger: The Green Revolution and overall chemical use, genetically modified food, speculations by greedy banks leading to food price leaps, Biofuels etc. The entire concept of the free market is a problem because food is a commodity that is a privilege of affordability.
Colonization and globalization's part in the hunger crises. Land grabs by wealthy nations, leaving the poorer inhabitants screwed.
Overturn the prevailing paradigm that only whit Westerners are the experts when it comes to fixing global problems, often caused by the foreign policies of their governments. Overturn the idea that the people of the global South are disempowered victims who need to be helped. Overturn the idea that white Westerners are not victims of unequal food policy too. Hello 1/8 Americans in NY on food stamps!
How hunger can and has been solved, by a city of several million people. This is important because too often we think that alternative solutions can only be small-scale. There's a gap between theory and practice sometimes and its heartening to see that that gap can and has been closed.
The inadequacy of the World Food Programme

Details

Gathered lots of video on youtube. Have been reading articles about the issue for several years now, so continue with that.
Acquired a voice recorder.


Project:

How to Solve Hunger

How to Solve Hunger from level headed on Vimeo.

password: my docs (exactly like that)


Evaluation.

This is a very personal project for me. I was feeling rather overwhelmed with bad news from around the world a few days ago when someone linked articles on Yes Magazine The City That Ended Hunger. it was a concrete manifestation of the fact that all the food policy talks I'd watched and the books I'd read were not just theories, they were perfectly workable, and not just in small projects either. Belo Horizonte's is a significant city of several million people in Brazil. If it could work there, then there was hope for many other cities of comparable size, and definite hope for ways for even bigger cities to change.

Having had prior knowlege of the issue, I knew I wanted the badass Vandana Shiva to be a part of the film. She is an excellent speaker, environmental activist, physicist, philosopher, eco-feminist and all-around heroine of the revolution. I decided to try to make the film as comprehensive as I could. I needed to lay out the structural problems of the food system as it currently operates, to point out every systematic shortcoming, so that when I presented the radically different method Belo Horizonte chose to implement, viewers would understand why the success of their method of feeding people was so important. Bonus points came when I stumbled upon the World Food Programme adverts and became aware of that corn and soybean abomination, and then I found the PBS short doc on malnutrition and I knew it would make a GREAT contrast with the grain and fruit and veggies and meat, served in Belo Horizonte. Finding out through the Al Jazeera news cast that it was all as cheap as it was made me nearly dance in the editing lab, especially when I considered the potential that had for undercutting arguments about how expensive changing our ways was going to be. Overall, what I learned from this documentary is that solving the food crisis needs to start with changing our world view entirely. We need to see food as a right of all and not a commodity to make people rich. Start with that, and suddenly ways of fixing our problems open up.

Things I should have done better: I underestimated the time the vid would take to edit. And then at the last minute, an aesthetic addition ruined the carefully wrought arrangement of the thing, so that took up the time during which it should have been presented. In addition, I wanted to find a video pointing out the fact that food crises were one of the main issues behind the current Arab Spring, but I located that video after the whole thing had been Quicktime movied.

On the whole though, this was a pleasant experience and I do think that I would actually make this movie. In fact, I am currently looking at sources of funding and mentally putting together books and articles for research, as well as creating lists of possible interviewees. Thanks for assigning this, Prof!

Born in Flames refreshingly Scorching (yeah I know thats cheesy:)

Born in Flames Trailer


Born in Flames




The articles provided on the blog pretty much described what the film was about and lauded it for its fresh and relevant material. American cinema by and large stays away from strong overtures of feminism, and socialism is also a definite third rail. In addition to that, the film incorporates a number of styles which are not typical of a usual Hollywood product...the shooting style is defiantely lowbudget, the actors are for the most part not professional, and the lighting made me wince a lot. (For a great deal of the film I kept having the urge to yell "Throw more light on the subject!!!") Nevertheless, the reviews conclude that the film's content was sufficiently well tackled and was thus made it worth watching.

I did track down an interview with her: Arachna Filmaker Lizzie Borden Interview in which she spoke about it the film's politics and the circumstances under which she shot the film for a bit. This interview helped me to lay to rest my concerns about the visual look of the film, because she shot it for very little money and over a long period of time and so made a virtue of necessity. In essence, she used the disjointed shots and problems with continuity to create an aethestic that amplified the themes of explosive change and energy in the film. She also comments on how hard it is to get films like hers made, between the censorship of nudity and distributors and film boards, to acquiring financing to make the film in the first place, to getting distribution at all, since distributors are focused what they think will sell and thus tend to make conservative picks. She comments that the hardships are soul-draining, but ends by saying that she would go back to making her films by shooting once a month if she had to.

Useful questions:

1. How has the feminist theory evolved from what it was at the time Ms. BBorden made her film (1983)

2. Suggestions for how women can hold on and expand their gains in the post revolutionary period of societal change (possible comparison with Arab Spring today)

3. Cost differences between making films today and now? I am almost sure that she could have made it cheaper now than then.


4. Terrorism as a tactic of social change? One man's freedom fighter another mans terrorist.

5. Violent action vs Peaceful action especially the fact that protesters actions are most often tagged violent while State violence is normalized and go mainly unnoticed, or is blamed on the protesters very act of protesting.


For class discussion.

1. The diversity content in the film, possible comparision of the diversity content in todays films.

2. The extreme hardship involved in making and distributing films with this kind letfist political content in the USA. (Possible comparisons to Salt of the Earth?)

3. Discussion of terrorism of the World Trade Center in light of 9/11

4. Socialism as discussed then and now.

5. Bechdel test: women in movies talking to each other about something other than men.

6. The embrace of complexity in the film, as in: its the portrayal a movement instead of a simple heroine, and all different groups have their own way of working towards their goals, but they are able to come together on a few key issues.


There were some things that I liked about the film, and things that I didn't like so much.
Let me start with the things that I liked first. It was extremely refreshing to watch this film, especially since it put into action some of the thoughts I have been mulling over the past few months. I have been growing increasingly uninterested in having social movements represented on film as simply one hero or heroine inspiring and leading the masses to glory on the mountain. I think this is a problematic narrative because it erases the hard work of the collective, and in many cases, the person who ends up being hailed as the hero is not the one who started the movement or even did the lions share of the work. Its the person who is most charismatic and speaks pretty speeches who tends to collect the heroic plaudits and the lions-share of attention, whether or not said person's contribution has been large compared to some. In addition, because of the various isms in our society, many of those crusaders are privileged in relation to the group that they are representing.

For example, I learned recently that the Black Panthers was apparently a majority women organization, but you couldn't have told that from the iconic images that have been left to us. Most of the leaders were male, while the women shouldered the burden of the work behind the scenes. Moreover, many social movement have and had differing opinions among their ranks about what change looks like and how to get there. This complexity is more commonly exposed in books rather than films, because many filmmakers are not good at handling multiple story lines so that they flow well enough for an audience used to straight narrative to follow. In addition, our individualistic culture responds well to the simple storyline of "the chosen one."Born in Flames" however, tackles that problem quite well by managing to show a diversity of women activists with different opinions and ideas as to how to bring about change, and then having them merge to do something about the death of Adelaide Norris. One does end the film  wondering  what else the group is going to do after that piece of terrorism on top of the World Trade Center. Are they going to bring down the government entirely or will they settle for reform?

I also liked the portrayal of diversity of color and body type, as well as sexual identity of the actresses. One of the great problems I have noticed in films and tv series set in New York is that the directors have the strange notion that New York is full of whites, with the occasional person of color sprinkled in (Hello Friends and Sex in the City and a heck of a lot of independent movies!). Born in Flames did well to acknowledge the fact that a lot of people of color live in New York, though I think that they could have done an even better job at it. There's a strong Asian population as well as Hispanics, and lots of others, and these groups experiences and interpretations of how to fight for women rights would add even more depth and breadth to the argument.  Of course, Born in Flames is pretty radical compared to what we have now. And the progress is even slower on the different body type and sexual identity front. With the exception of The Wire and lesbian films which are pretty much indie by definition, butch actresses are VERY thin on the ground. I was especially struck by the image of the black woman shaving her head off onscreen. Long hair is a strong sign of femininity in this society, and balding one's head as a female invites discomfort and comment from many sections of society. It was nice to have some validation as a woman who wears short hair and occasionally  goes fully bald.  In addition, the frank portrayal of lesbian relationships and sex,  still very hedged about with caution and ridiculously adult MPAA ratings currently was even more refreshing.  The fact that the shots did not pander to the male gaze

Finally,  I really loved  the portrayal of situations of rape and harassment being called out for what they were and intervened in by pissed off women. I felt extremely empowered by those scenes in particular and really would like to work towards a society where that happens in real life, and then no longer has to happen at all.


There are many things that I did not like about the film, however. The  protrayal of the politics of the era has issues. First socialist democracy in the world? I don't think so. I am almost certain that Latin American countries would have beaten America to it, before we decided to overthrow their governments,   I think that Black Feminsim was not as well represented as it could have been, either. For example, because black women suffer from racism as well as sexism (among other intersections), the strain of women-only feminism that many white feminists adopted  was not as popular in Black feminist thought. Actually, now it occurs to me that the film did not point out the grave problems with racism that the feminist movement suffered from, though an argument can be made tha this is science fiction and so racism would have magically disappeared.  To which I would reply that isms reinforce each other, and its a failure of logic  to think that entrenched sexism would somehow hang on while racism was just handwaved away. In addition, while there was a diversity of thought re: white feminism, the diversity of thought in black feminism was not addressed.  To make matters worse, why on earth were the representatives from Western Sahara credited as African man and African woman?  Finally, while I think the point of using socialism as a backdrop ofor the films events reminds the viewer that simply chaging government styles does not necessarily lead to justice for all, I must comment that in view of America's history of marginalization of that political philosophy,  using that as a backdrop was not particularly brave. Where is the biting narrative filmic critique of the capitalist system  as it stands now?  

In the end, I am well aware that one film cannot be all things to all people. But I think that while this film is revolutionary, there was room for improvement. Nevertheless, I salute its achievements, and am inspired to follow somewhat in its footsteps. Who knows? Maybe we can start a genre of films that intensely engage with the ideas of  politics of the world.

Hair Spray of Boredom’s one saving grace is that it uses humor to attack the status quo.

Let me get this out of the way early. Hairspray bored me to tears.

Hairspray 1988 Trailer


HAIRSPRAY Official Trailer 2007


(*winces* And it looks like the newer one worse than the first)

Oh, I get that it was deliberately kitschy and pastel because it was satirical. I did like the fact that the lead character was fat and comfortable with it and that that her mother was played by a drag queen. (More of that PLEASE in today’s entertainment!) The dancing was ok and the pastel colors weren’t all that bad. But I like witty banter with great puns and the writing was nowhere near that ideal. In addition, the racial politics therein espoused has been done to death. The whole “white saviour” thing might have been fresher in 1988, but after years and YEARS of the popularity of that genre of movie (see The Blindside and the upcoming The Help), I’d just had enough of it. This stuff was metaphorical porridge, when I have been jonesing for baked chicken for years. In brief, I don’t think the political comedic potential was fulfilled, and having read the articles, my disappointment was even more profound.


Apparently this whole thing was based on a true story in which a group of kids organized to invade a real life segregated dance show called “Buddy Deane Show”. It’s a good story, and rather hilarious too. Its plot in Hollywood movies is also clichéd, milquetoast and overdone. It’s comfortable, doesn’t challenge enough. Its comfortable to think you might have been that brave girl from the privileged majority who went against tradition and led the liberation of those poor people. Its easier to erase the work that groups of marginalized people did, going through hell and back to make the majority listen and pay attention. “See! Not all the majority were bad! And I would have been the right one! “

The problem is that I have seen that dynamic before. All those Great! White! Teacher/Moms/Social Workers/Police Officers/ everything else that have located their consciences and worked on behalf of people of color! Their stories get told and retold time and again in the movies. Heck, Sandra Bullock just won an Oscar for another darn iteration of the theme. I? Am bored. Bored bored bored bored. I don’t CARE about that one privileged person seeing the light. I care about the stories of those people of color collectives and heroes that were doing the work long before the spotlight fell on the white hero, and kept on doing it while that spotlight continued to shine on him/her/zie and will continue to do it long after that person is off elsewhere. I’ve seen enough solitary, outsider heroes come to save us all.

I also want groups and their dynamics to be focused on. You want drama? THERE is drama. Drama between the people, different ideas for achieving stuff, egoes, intersectionality clashes (disability vs racism vs sexism etc and god help the people inhabiting multiple intersections of the road). I want to hear about the people who did the heavy lifting, because mark my words, liberation tends not to come courtesy of the outsider no matter WHAT the stories from Hollywood and agenda-driven commentators and politicians say. The people affected do the most work, because no one else tends to care. And then they open the eyes of some privileged person who jumps in and due to said privilege gets the attention and the write up and the movie biographies and the book deals. And in many cases the work is made easier, the radical edges filed off, the message diluted so it can resound to a wider audience. Again, I say, I am bored.

Mr. Waters himself does seem to be an intelligent and fascinating person from his interviews though. I like his civic mindedness (he votes!! Really? And has intelligent things to say about politics! WHUT!) and I appreciate the fact that he clearly puts some thought into his films and their messages. I am not interested in the eating of dog-shit, but I do appreciate that his films seem to champion the non-glamorous, the normal and sometimes weird people who are rarely celebrated on film, especially today. I think it is encouraging that he continues to get funding for said films, but I found it interesting that Broadway seems to be where he met with most of his monetary success. I wasn’t aware that a career on Broadway had the possibility to be that prosperous! And it is in the articles focusing on him that I found fruitful topics for possible conversation.




Useful Questions:

1. The theme of trangression and reinterpretation and rebellion in John Waters work, how does in show up in Hair Spray?
2. Does hearing that Hairspray is based on a true story affect the way you look at the film?
3. Do you think Hairspray is relevant to today’s racial political climate? (If you have watched the reboot, maybe do a compare and contrast between political climates then and now?)
4. What do you think of how fat characters are portrayed in Hairspray, as opposed to today’s portrayal of fat characters, especially women, in television and the movies?


Class Questions:

1. Explore the idea of “reinterpreting what events should have been like”, John Waters making a movie that tells history the way he wishes it should have been?
2. Subversive Entertainment: John Waters is obviously something of an social activist in his films. Talk about the balance between entertainment and getting in political points without coming across as preachy.
3. John Waters says be believes that personality is an important part of his movies. What personality in Hair Spray stands out to you and why?
4. Mean pretty girls vs fat but pleasant girls in movie cannon. Tired of the stereotypes? Can fat and thin girls live together in harmony in our media, or at least with no body policing and boyfriend stealing? Yes this is reality, but shouldn’t we also strive to portray a better way too? Afterall, the comedies would have us think that any schubbly guy can get a drop-dead gorgeous girlfriend, and this is not exactly prevalent in real life. Why not have more movies in which women are friends regardless of weight and boyfriends?
5. Humor as political weapon, change the world by confronting unsettling realities using humor? Is that ever inappropriate? Careful; in case we end up reinforcing hierarchies instead of deconstructing them using humor.


I’d like to talk for a bit on the capacity of humor to effect social change or reinforce the existing hierarchy. Currently, there is some cultural conversation about political correctness in humor. There is a view that films that promote humor based on denigration of the marginalized are “edgier” than films like Hair Spray, which focus their fire on the privileged. I would like to register why I think this line of argument is bunkum. Humour has been used as weapons by both the marginalized and the privileged alike in the everlasting war for and against social justice. I recently found out, for example, that nursery rhymes, which I had considered harmless bits of funny fluff, had actually started life as trenchant critiques of social injustices and societal mores and well as current news. They were rhymed and coded by their authors in order to protect themselves from backlash from the subjects of their critique. On the other hand, racist, sexist, ableist and homophobic humor is part of the arsenal that the privileged humorist uses to keep up the wider societies disapproval of those and other facets of identity. When you can laugh at a person for who they are, you help to dehumanize that person, and thus you contribute to that person’s oppression.

But note that there is a great deal of difference between laughing at a person with institutional power backing them up, and laughing at someone who doesn’t have that. Laughing a greedy rich white man’s bungles doesn’t leave him as vulnerable as laughing at a transgender woman for being a transgender woman. One person is already being pummeled with messages by society that they are fundamentally wrong and thus society is well within its rights to harass and hurt and sometimes kill them. They are extremely vulnerable and the humor used helps to keep them that way. The other person has institutional power, including the privileges of the relative good will of wider society, and the money and power to insulate himself from even well-deserved critique. And he is usually the one issuing threats to people’s lives (hello Congress and unethical corporations), not receiving them, but if he does receive them he can be sure of having his complaints addressed by the justice system; unlike the aforementioned transgender woman. She runs the risk of being laughed out of the police station, or being abused or killed by the police themselves.




Put another way, the Social Psycology Lab has a blogpost which talks about research into sexist humor. I am pretty sure that the results apply to any other –ist humor:

Social Consequences of Disparaging humour

In our research we’ve focused to this point on the social consequences of exposure to sexist humor. Our findings demonstrate that sexist humor is not simply benign amusement. For men who have sexist attitudes it can create a perceived social norm of tolerance of discrimination against women, and as a result, increase personal tolerance of discrimination against women and even increase willingness to engage in sexist behavior without fears of disapproval.




Humor that attacks the marginalized is not edgy, because the status quo is that the marginalized deserve to be abused for being born that way. What those humorists are doing is reifying and supporting this mainstream society view. Laugh at “niggers” and “trannies” and whoever else, and you have dehumanized them in your mind. When stuff starts happening to those people, your capacity for empathy has already been undermined. Films like Hair Spray, for all its faults, are edgy because they are challenging the status quo. Make jokes about the privileged nonsense, and not only is it an escape valve for the stress that minorities face as a result of the system, it helps to illuminate the issues with that system and brings minorities up instead of keeping them down.

Hotel Rwanda and Darwin's Nightmare: Africa Through Western Eyes

Hotel Rwanda and Darwin’s Nightmare: Africa through Western Eyes



Hotel Rwanda tells the story of the Rwandan genocide. Darwins’ Nightmare tells the story of the environmental, economic and social impacts of the introduction to Lake Victoria area of Tanzania of the Nile Perch. Hotel Rwanda is a narrative film, Darwin’s Nightmare is a documentary. Both are a part of the trend of “message” movies, those movies that are marketed with an eye to help bring about social justice. And Westerners made both.

The gists of the articles on Hotel Rwanda were: 1. Why would anyone want to watch genocide? And oh my goodness, the relentless downer movies about Africa are creating social justice fatigue among the audience! 2. The film is good but it’s missing a whole lot of context. Here, have a quick history lesson! 3. Some Rwandans do not see Paul Rusesabagina’s real life role in as good a light as the movie puts it.

Hotel Rwanda Trailer


The gists of the articles on Darwin’s Nightmare were: 1. Some Tanzanians were annoyed with the film due to perceived sensationalism and inaccuracies. 2. Can film make change? 3. This Sauper fellow has a real knack for getting close to his subjects, doesn’t he? 4. The intricately connected historical and current reasons why Tanzania is in its present fix.

Darwin's Nightmare Trailer


Useful questions:
1. Is Sauper justified in making accusations that he cannot back up re: the alleged gun smuggling?
2. What WOULD an audience expect to get out of a film about genocide? Triumph of the human spirit? A warning so as to prevent the next one?
3. Narrative film vs documentary film at story telling? One reviewer of Hotel Rwanda said that it was truer than a documentary could be, because it didn’t pretend to encompass the whole truth about the incident. In light of that comment, how do we assess Darwin’s Nightmare? Sauper seems to have an intimate relationship with his subjects. But many people objected to his portrayal. How do we assess “truth” in media that is meant to be non-fiction?

Class discussion:
1. Compare contrast both films with Moolade. Westerners from US and Netherlands vs Sengalese. Authenticity? What stories do Westerners choose to tell about the continent of Africa? What nuances of culture do we miss when we rely on our framing of the continent as only a place of problems and victims? Nevermidn the historical propoganda that we fed ourselves that we are only recently beginning to dig ourselves out of ? What images come to mind when we think of Africa?
2. With both films, there were complaints of inauthenticity. There is a long long LONG tradition of Westerners culturally imperialistic and totally idiotic in the manner in which we portray people from non Westerner countries. Ways and methods to avoid that?
3. And a lot of the problems therein are our fault historically and currently. So many of the docs and narratives seek to make us aware of that. But why is it that we the audience don’t seem to respond by demanding that our leaders fix our foreign policy? Consider Rwanda for instance? Though the Nile Perch was boycotted so that’s definitely affected foreign policy.
4. UN was built to see if we could stop wars after World War 2. Genocide in Rwanda was ignored by UN due to America not wanting to get involved. 10 dead Belgians led to pullout of most of UN troops in Rwanda. How much should world peacekeepers be willing to sacrifice to keep the peace while they are under attack? Compare contrast Libya and Kosovo, if class knows anything about it. Can we stop massacres and genocides in other countries? Under what circumstances? Who decides whose worthy of being helped and why? Whose lives are considered valuable enough to save?
5. Are documentaries obliged to give us a roadmap so that we can know how to help?
6. Nile Perch and other invasive species, a world wide problem. Thoughts?
7. Nile Perch, economic benefits vs cost. Export-oriented economies lead to workers in their own country not being able to benefit from their resources. Boycotts are not a simple solution to the problem, because then people don’t get work. How to solve complicated problem?


Analysis:

Hotel Rwanda and Darwin’s Nightmare share several similarities. Both movies deal with complicated problems caused in part by the effects of colonialism. Both of them were made in the interest of social justice, trying to inform and enlighten and thus encourage a fixing of problems and a warning about history. Both of them are not movies that I want to watch ever again. And both movies made by westerners, both criticized by subject populations for perceived inaccuracies.

Non- Africans make the majority of films about Africa that Westerners know about. Heck the general impression of Africa held by people outside of the continent are shaped by Westerners. And Westerners have used their power many times for evil in that respect. Which is why, while I was struck by the intimacy that seems to exist between Sauper and the people he interviewed, there is that niggling sense of discomfort, a certain lack of trust. Did he get the story right? What did he miss? How would a Tanzanian have told the tale of Darwin's Nightmare? How would several Tanzanians have told different versions of that tale?

Hotel Rwanda was marketed as a fiction film so I expected stuff to be changed. But still, when that film is the mainstream world wide representative of a deeply hurtful period of Rwandan life, I wonder how it makes Rwandans feel? What nuances did the movie miss or misinterpret? What was changed, what was switched what was chopped to make the story work? How would a Rwandan have made that film? What stories would different Rwandans tell?? What would they have considered important? Consider for example the Holocaust, and the many different stories that have been told about this atrocity. Many of the tellers were themselves Jews. Many different facets of the tragedy were explored. The people who suffered the tragedy got to tell the stories, their ways. Many people in the West therefore, have access to some sort of nuanced idea of the atrocity. But usually, the stories of Africans are not told by themselves. Their voices are edited into the singular Western narrative of war and starvation and tribes and corruption and dictatorship and trouble and these stories advance stereotypes and misunderstandings that were created deliberately by colonial forces. Nuanced understanding is in very short supply, because the issues are raised once or twice in documentary or film, and then never heard of again until the next atrocity prompts another bleeding heart. In short, Africans need way more control over their stories and images. Luckily, some steps toward that have been in the works like this : New Hot Docs fund to nuture African films

On The Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival and newly-established Canadian prodco Blue Ice Film are teaming up for a CDN$1 million production fund that will provide financial support to independent documentary filmmakers based in developing African countries.

The Hot Docs-Blue Ice Film Documentary Fund aims to increase the quality and quantity of social, cultural and political documentaries produced in the region and to that end, will issue six to 10 grants per year over the next five years in amounts ranging from $10,000 to $40,000.

The initiative will also provide valuable resources and industry contacts for recipients, including a mentorship program that will allow selected African producers to work with international production partners in order to projects to international markets, festivals and broadcasters.MORE

New Hot Docs Fund to administer fund geared towards African filmmaking

Organizers of Toronto’s Hot Docs Festival will administer a $1-million documentary production fund geared toward nurturing emerging African filmmakers.
Hot Docs executive director Chris McDonald announced the new fund, backed by Toronto-based Blue Ice Film, on Wednesday.
“We’re seeing so many films that are set in Africa, but we’re not seeing many that are made by Africans,” he told CBC News. “We’re trying to address that.”

A volunteer selection committee of five, including African members, will decide who gets the six to 10 grants a year from the fund. One criterion will be that the money go to filmmakers based in developing countries in Africa.
‘It is this idea that we want to see local storytellers represented. There is such a rich culture, fascinating history, evolving political situation’—Chris McDonald of Hot Docs
“We will team up the African production community with a Canadian producer who will help oversee the project, playing a mentoring role, sort of,” McDonald said.A volunteer selection committee of 5, including African members, will decide who contains the six to 10 grants 12 months from the fund. One criterion will probably be that the money head to filmmakers based in developing countries in developing countries in Africa.
‘It is this idea that we want to see local storytellers represented. There is such a rich culture, fascinating history, evolving political situation’—Chris McDonald of Hot Docs
“We will team up the African production community with a Canadian producer who will help oversee the project, playing a mentoring role, sort of,” McDonald said.A volunteer selection committee of 5, including African members, will decide who contains the six to 10 grants 12 months from the fund. One criterion will probably be that the money head to filmmakers based in developing countries in Africa. ‘It is this idea that we want to see local storytellers represented. There is such a rich culture, fascinating history, evolving political situation’—Chris McDonald of Hot Docs
“We will team up the African production community with a Canadian producer who will help oversee the project, playing a mentoring role, sort of,” McDonald said.A volunteer selection committee of 5, including African members, will decideMORE

Hopefully, the fruits of their labour will be coming to my theatre, soon.

How To Solve the Problem of the MPAA, or an activists reaction to "This film is not yet Rated"

In November last year, a movie called The Kings Speech was rated R by the MPAA. The reason?

The Kings Speech - f**** speech


Yes, swear words.

British director Tom Hooper has lashed out at the MPAA ratings board after the board slapped his critically acclaimed movie The King’s Speech with an R rating for a scene in which a speech therapist encourages the future King George VI to let loose with a torrent of four-letter words as part of the therapy to cure his stuttering. Noting that the ratings board routinely gives films depicting horrendous violence PG-13 ratings, Hooper told Los Angeles Times columnist Patrick Goldstein, “What really upsets me is that the boundaries for violence have been pushed farther and farther back while any kind of bad language remains taboo. … I can’t think of a single film I’ve ever seen where the swear words had haunted me forever, the way a scene of violence or torture has, yet the ratings board only worries about the bad language.” MORE

The Kings Speech is a movie about friendship through speech therapy. There are no sex scenes and no violence. The words in question are things that kids hear and use every day, from at least primary school, and they weren't gratuitously used. And yet the movie was placed in the same category as American Psycho and Kill Bill Vol. 1.


The Kings Speech won the Academy Award for best movie, R-rating and all, but in order to capitalize on this, the distributor (The Weinstein Company) decided to reedit the film to remove that scene so that kids could watch it. Tom Hopper flatly refused to cut the scene, and sothe MPAA decided that if 3 of the 5 instances of the word "fuck" were muted, they could get a PG 13 rating. In addition, a waiver was granted that allowed the R verion of the film to be withdrawn and replaced by the PG13 version almost immediately, instead of the usual 90 days.


Blue Valentine was hit with an NC-17 rating for one sex scene.

Blue Valentine Trailer

This sex scene was between a married couple who were trying to repair their relationship. In contrast Passion of the Christ and the SAW film franchise had a boatload of torture in them, but managed to snag an R rating, This film was also distributed by the Weinstein Company and so they hired a set of lawyers to combat the rating. Eventually, they too managed to get an R rating. For a sex scene between a married couple.

The 2006 documentary This film is not yet Rated focuses on the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) work in deciding how to rate movies so that movie goers can decide what to take their children to see.

Jack Valenti, who created the MPAA system, says it wasn't designed for producers, major studios, directors or critics. It was designed for parents, he says.

This Film is Not Yet Rated Trailer


These ratings are important because they dictate whether your movie can be played in certain cinema chains or advertise on network television or in certain newspapers. Of course, the ratings also restrict the audience of the movie as well. Unsurprisingly, as Director Kirby Dick and his stable of interviewed directors point out, there are some serious problems with the decisions that CARA makes. Violence is allowed more latitude than sex. Sex is graded on a heirarchy which sees heterosexual missionary position penis in vagina intercourse and male masturbation being given a less harsh rating than LGBT sex of any kind, non missionary position sex or female masturbation. (And they don't like people of color having sex either.) In addition to the talking head directors, Mr. Dick spends a lot of time filmimg the work of his private investigators to

The articles given were a mix of conservative reaction which could be boiled down to "oh shut up liberals!!" and progressive reactions which could be boiled down to " right on" plus a surprisingly thoughtful interview with Mr. Dick in which he expounds on the themes of the film.

Useful Questions

1. Was the film successful in portraying its message?

2. Was the use of humor including the cartoon images of the head of the MPAA a fine attempt at humor or ill-advised?

3. Did the private investigator subplot add to the documentary or was it a distraction?

4. Why a rating system anyway? Who should decide what your child is capable of watching, an individual parent or some faceless and not very qualified or representative board members with a couple of random religious leaders on the "side"?

Class Questions

1. How would we go about pressuring the MPAA to make the classification board more diverse and transparent?

2. If we were to make a new classification system, how would it work?

3. What is about the American culture that makes us so much less comfortable with sexuality than violence? Is it that violence can be impersonal, and sex can be very personal? Is it our religious roots?


Analysis.

I think that film and tv entertainment plays the dual role of being a shaper of reality, as well as being shaped by it. I think that censoring entertainment because of our discomfort with what it portrays in terms of different sexualities while allowing much more violence to be portrayed is bigoted and speaks to the privilege hierarchy in our society. Privileged white men’s ways of viewing the world are fed to consumers and they help to shape what we think and feel and how we act. It narrows our collective ideas of what could be, because the people who have those ideas did not have access to the megaphone that Hollywood does. Hollywood is in the business of making money. And thus their actions when faced with the possibility of government and citizen-led censorship were predictable and sensible, according to their goals of making sure that they had an environment that they could sell films in.

Activism against bigotry doesn’t pay the bills, after all, so I don’t really expect Hollywood to be the vanguard of change. But I do believe that we the people of these United States are less reactionary than Hollywood thinks, and so I have come up with a list of ideas that activists can do to challenge the MPAA:

1. Find out if movie theatres don’t carry NC 17 film, and ask why not. Make it clear the demand exists. Of course, make sure you support the films when they come through.
2. Work on getting television stations and newspapers to play NC 17 and higher films after 9pm as a compromise between those who are worried about kids and those who are mature.
3. Join groups that are working on the equalization of GLBT and other minorities, and that are seeking to change the way societal sees currently uncomfortable topics like women’s sexuality. Societal change is one of the strongest ways we will have to undermine the rationales of the MPAA.
4. Work on getting a diverse set of people to review films, including knowledgeable scientists, psychologists, lgbt, a range of religious leaders from conservative to liberal and as large of range of class, race and other signifiers in order to make sure that the vast diversity in America is represented.
5. Work on a much more transparent system. Less appearance of studio collusion because they fund the organization. Much less ridiculous secret meetings and intimidation. Chairlady of the board does to get to intimidate her staff.
6. Work to change the rating system, maybe to just drop ratings and say that what is in it: sex, violence and language .
7. Pressure stores to carry NC-17
8. Make your own films and boycott the MPAA in protest. It’s worked before!

Casey Martin Self Evaluation

Self- Evaluation

Wynde and I worked on creating a short Kick Starter for a long term project that Wynde has been working on. This project is for the third graders of Robert Lee Elementary School. To brief you on what has already been done prior to this kick starter, Wynde did a fund raiser at blue fugue, which raised enough money to buy all of the third graders each a camera and film. Then she collaborated with their art teacher and began teaching them photography. The kids all shoot pictures and write stories to go along with them.

At this point, the kickstarter which we are doing is to raise enough money (close to 800 dollars), to create a book for the kids photography. The purpose of this project is to show the children what an effect art can have on people, and to broaden their learning experiences of art.

We filmed the majority of footage at Robert Lee Elementary and then used animation to fill in the blanks. I also spoke with the owner of Beale Street, who is considering making a donation to the project after one of the graduation parties Friday night. We are proposing that a drink special be made, and that a portion of those earnings go to the project.

Along with a few television and radio stations in town as well as online media and social networking, we hope that this kick starter will be enough to raise the money needed to make this project work.

I think that it is a fantastic project and I am glad to be a part of something that is going to make such a difference. Wynde and I worked really well together, and I was proud that she let me be involved in such an honorable cause.

Self-Evaluation

For my final project, I worked with Lydia and Kelsey on the short film Normal, which gives a brief look into the lives of two young girls coming to terms with sexual abuses that occurred in their pasts. The film was originally a scene from a longer script that Lydia had written a few years ago, and she adapted it to work as a stand-alone short piece. We knew from the beginning that Lydia wanted to run the camera, that Kelsey would operate the boom and do sound design, and that I would edit. Lydia asked me to direct, and I agreed, but I asked her to co-direct because she was already close to the project and because there were logistical reasons for both of us to direct: She could decide if the shot was good while looking at the camera, and I could give notes to the actresses, so neither one of us would have to worry about a lot of things all at one time. The idea was sort of to give both of us a break by working collaboratively. We wanted to make it dogme-style because a) Lydia wanted to make another dogme film before she graduated and b) because the subject matter called for a gritty, raw style to make it more real.

Lydia was the one to suggest Melissa Boatright as one of our actresses, and I had no arguments about it. I had just worked with Melissa on Paper Girl, and she let us put her in a paper dress and spray her with a hose in 30-degree weather, so I knew she was up for anything. She was also wonderful to work with; she was always positive, never complained, and respected the decisions I made as director. We were originally going to use Mariah Lee as well, since Lydia (and by default, Kelsey and I) had worked with her on all three senior projects and knew her well, but she had some scheduling conflicts, so we used Monica Wood in her place. This was an excellent decision because Monica and Melissa were wonderful.

Of course, there were things that we could—and should—have done differently. We should have thought more about the lighting we had available and blocked our actresses according to that. Most of the scene is very dark, and when I attempted to color correct it to make it lighter, it ended up looking washed-out. I returned it to its original state with only a few minor adjustments, and I don’t think the dark quality takes away from the power of the story at all, so we ended up lucky in that department. However, there were instances when watching the footage in the lab when I thought, “We should have moved them closer to that light,” or, “We should have turned them further or cheated them towards us a little.” There were also things I wish I had paid more attention to during filming, such as continuity. I was not focused on where they were setting the bottle down, so there were a couple of shots where the continuity was off with that; I managed to work around it pretty well, so I don’t think it was very noticeable, but I had some trouble deciding where to place some shots: specifically the shot from behind the actresses, looking over the pool. They had the bottle in between them, so I had to place it around shots in which we couldn’t see the bottle at all, so we could pretend that it had always been in between them. We also should have positioned the actresses or the camera a little better so that we could see entire faces; in some shots, specifically more close-up shots of Melissa, Monica’s face and hair obscure part of Melissa’s face.

Overall, we received positive feedback from the class. There were some comments about lighting and color, which I expected (especially about the color), but no one really had anything entirely negative to say about the project. This is encouraging to me, especially because I had just come from directing Paper Girl, which is 110% different than Normal in almost every possible way; it’s reassuring to know that I can get positive feedback from two projects that are almost complete opposites. I enjoyed working with Lydia and Kelsey. The atmosphere on set was very lighthearted, especially considering the subject of the film, and we had a good time making the project. I loved working with Melissa as well; she has amazing range and is willing to do almost anything she is asked to do. Monica also did a fantastic job, especially considering she jumped in on such short notice when Mariah’s schedule turned out to be an issue. The subject matter of the film is difficult, but we tried very hard to not make it a preachy, in-your-face kind of film, but rather just a portrait of two young girls dealing with similar traumatic experiences. I hope that this film can make a difference for someone, and I am happy to have been a part of bringing it to life.

Final Project Self-Evaluation

For our final project, "Normal", I knew from the beginning that I wanted to run the camera. I wanted to take a step back from directing and have someone else call the shots. It had also been a while since I had done a dogme '95 project, and since that seems to be where I do my best work, I wanted to get some more practice.

Since I knew that Sydney Haven wants to be a director, I asked her to be part of my group. I knew that I could trust her to carry out her responsibilities as a director, and I knew that she would respect the story and do it justice. This piece could have easily been overdone, and since the script is something that I have been working on for about three years now, I wanted to make sure that the director didn't make novice mistakes that would cause it to be melodramatic. Sydney was the right choice.

Kelsey Eick is a great person to work with because she is so versatile and easy going. She is also a great sound person, both as a boom operator and sound editor, so we inviting her to join our crew was an obvious decision.

The idea for "Normal" actually came from a feature length film that I wrote as a sophomore at Stephens, and since I have always been interested in films that impact people, I had written this one specifically for that purpose. Once the group decided to go forward with the idea, I rewrote one of the more pivotal scenes and sent it to Sydney for revision. This was easy to do because I trust her opinion and know that any changes she makes is in the best interest of the script.

Casting the film was fairly easy, because we already knew that we wanted to use Melissa Boatright. Sydney had just worked with her on "Paper Girl", where she was delightful on set, and I had wanted to work with her since her freshman year, so we decided to ask her to join the project. After she was onboard, we wanted to have her perform opposite Mariah Lee, but when schedule conflicts made that impossible, we chose to use Monica Wood. I had worked with her in several projects, so I knew she could pull off the part, and she turned out to be an excellent decision.

During pre-production of "Normal", Sydney and I decided that we would co-direct the film. She could tell that I was really close to the project, and she was feeling a little burnt out after "Paper Girl". This was a decision we made together, and it was not because I thought she couldn't do the job. We collaborated on everything to make things easier on ourselves, and to try and get the best product. With this in mind, we decided that I would make the original shot list (which makes since considering that I was the one running the camera), and Sydney would change whatever she thought needed to be changed, and if there was something we disagreed on, we discussed it until we could find a solution. On set, Sydney did most of the working with the actors, leaving me to watch the camera and decide if a take was good or not, and to give the actors notes when there was something that visually stuck out on camera.

The scene that we chose for "Normal" was originally set in an abandoned train car. Since there isn't one of these in Columbia, we went back to the drawing board and brainstormed. As a team we agreed that the environment should not be a warm, comfortable one, because the conversation was not one you would have in your bedroom or living room where your parents could overhear. We wanted to environment to reflect the way these girls felt, and that was cold and abandoned. With that in mind, we decided to use the pool, and although there wasn't a lot of light in the space, it worked perfectly for the scene.

During the shoot, most of my focus was on running the camera. Everything was handheld, so I had to try and keep the camera steady, but also give it just enough shake to make it seem like a documentary. If I had let the camera rest on the ledge or something like that, it would have seemed like it was on a tripod, and then it would not match the other hand held shots, so the entire things was shot with me holding the camera. Another call that I had to make was when to use zooms. I didn't want to zoom during a character's lines, because if it didn't work we would have lost the line, but the scene called for a visual shift towards intimacy as the conversation grew more intense. Zooms would also add to the more documentary feel of the piece, since they are often used when the camera cannot be moved in due to time restraints and practicality. Luckily I knew when the tone of the scene was going to shift, so I could anticipate and plan when to zoom in. Ultimately I think the point at which I zoomed worked nicely, because even though you don't actually see the zoom in the film, the shots do get closer to the actors throughout the conversation.

One thing that I wish I had thought of while we were filming was cheating the actors more towards the light sources we had. The reason we put them in the pool was that it looked brighter, during test shots, than having them sit on the ledge of the pool. Once we discovered that we could turn on the lights inside the pool, I wish that we had thought to move them and turn them more towards those lights. We did cheat the actress a little towards the light source, but it just wasn't enough.

Overall I think our group did a great job. We worked together nicely, and we all pulled our own weight. There weren't very clearly defined roles for most of us because the crew was so small and everyone cared about the project enough to want to help improve it. We didn't have issues on set because we respected each other's opinions and we also put together a group that had nice chemistry. The finished product received good feedback, and in my opinion did justice to the real people dealing with the same issues.

Self Evaluation- Final Project

As you all know by now, Katie and I chose to do a five minute preview or trailer for what would be a documentary focusing on the representation of sex in the media, sex education in schools, and safe sex options. Naturally, Katie was the first one to come up with the idea of what to work on.

Originally, we thought we were going to make a modern-day sex education video that could be used in schools and for organizations promoting safe sex rather than abstinence only. That idea evolved into what we actually made, which was less educational and more informative. There is a difference. We wanted to focus on personal experiences, video examples, and voice overs. We touched upon several topics relating to sex and the media, just to show an example of what subjects would be in the longer finished product. The subjects we touched upon include sexual violence, sexual education for children, the glorification and stigmatization of sex in the media, and the use of sexuality in all forms.

Kate and I started by finding videos we wanted to use, spanning from music videos to commercials to movie clips to television shows. We spent about three to four hours just doing this "research" to prepare for the project. Although it was a lot of fun and it hardly felt like research because of that. From there, we decided who to interview. Katie and I interviewed Brenda and Brendan together, and she interviewed Sophia and Tiffany by herself. I also interviewed my mom and sister, but the tape was corrupt so the video quality wasn't good enough to use. This was fine, though, as we felt we had plenty of material to put together a short video. I had my dad record the VO for the beginning.

Once we had all the materials together, we got together to put it all in order in the editing lab. This was done over a few days, sometimes with just Katie and sometimes just me. But mostly we tried to edit when we could both be there since it was a collaborative project. We made decisions together and worked very well as a team. I guess we had already figured this out since we enjoyed working together for the TransCinema event.

We were very happy with the finished product, though didn't anticipate the audience reaction. Everyone seemed to be confused by Brendan's background. We chose this green screen background because Brendan uses this and other similar backgrounds for his show, Scientific Station, on CAT-TV. I guess we didn't realize that people may not know this if they don't watch his show, so we learned a lesson there. We also made some stylistic choices that were criticized, so another lesson learned. I personally still like the editing style and chose it because we wanted to have a fun, light-hearted, quirky video... Though still with a serious message. We will have to be more precise in the future and careful about how to execute this style on future projects.

Overall, I really enjoyed the project and loved working with Kate again. It feels good to have this project done and to feel proud of it.