You will work on organizing a screening and implementing an outreach plan on or off campus. You will be asked to try to make a difference in the world outside of school! For this project, you can work individually or in groups of 2 – 3 people. You can work on a film that you would like to bring or, you can work with one that is already scheduled to play (at Stephens, another college, at another local venue, or elsewhere). Look to see if there are any films coming to the True/False Film Fest (March 3 – 6) that you might be interested in supporting. Specifically, you might want to work with the True Life Fund which supports the work of subjects featured in a social change documentary. (This year’s recipients will be “The Interrupters”). Also check for films at Stephens College (Film Club and other clubs, etc), Ragtag Cinema, and the University of Missouri (various departments and clubs). Last off, contact any filmmakers you might know to see if you can help them promote/organize a screening of their work.
You could win $5,000 by making a positive impact on your campus:
Shoot a 2-minute video describing an initiative that helps your campus go green. The most innovative, impactful, creative submissions will earn their college or university a $5,000 award. Winning ideas will even be featured in a documentary. So get started! Grab a camera. Set the scene. A sustainable future begins today.
Ya know, I was looking forward to Kirby Dick's This Film is Not Yet Rated with great anticipation. A month ago indie flick Blue Valentine was arguing with the MPAA over their initial NC 17 rating for a sex scene with little nudity but intense emotional impact. Apparently parents could not be expected to handle kids asking about scenes with great emotional impact? Anyway, after great protest and an official appeal the rating was downgraded to an R. A few days ago I became aware that the The King's Speech was rated R because of a scene wherein the stuttering king is advised by his doctor to say several expletives in order to expel tension. One of the expletives is "Fuck". Their appeal to downgrade the rating to PG-13 failed. A look at Wikipedia gives quite an interesting look at rating process which compares several films' contents and their contradictory ratings.
I especially appreciated the two articles "HUAC... and the Censorship Changes By Jeanine Basinger" and "American Film Censorship" from The Film Reference Encyclopedia because they gave me the background of rise of censorship in the USA and the ways in which it has changed to what we know today. I was also interested in the long interview with Kirby Dick, the director in Cineaste and I was interested to see his vision realized on screen. I was rather unsettled by the use of private investigators to track down members of the film board, however, because I tend to like my privacy, though I do understand the reasons why they decided to do so. And so I waited to see what would happen.
Having now watched the film, I am somewhat underwhelmed. I think I expected something somewhat more polished than what I got. I didn't like the animation of the MPAA lawyer and Chairwoman because I thought that the constant eyerolling of the animated characters was probably not an accurate representation of them, as people. I reread his interview and saw that he'd added it for humorous effect. Unfortunately, the humor did not work for me. I was bored by the long takes spent on the private investigating work as well. I liked the fact that the investigator was middle-aged and lesbian, lord knows that most of them as portrayed on tv are usually male and middleaged and presumably straight, so yeah for diversity; but after dealing with that, the rest her scenes just bored me, when I wasn't being discomfited by the tracking down of the MPAA workers. I must confess to being an utter hypocrite here. My sense of privacy rights clashed with my understanding that people need to know the who are making the decisions as to what they get to watch.
(At this point I have to break for class, will come back to this later)
Salt of the Earth was a very interesting movie that I think is the perfect example or why films can affect society. If the United States had not been so terrified of what that type of media could do to in our nation then Hollywood never would have banned the film. Also, had the film been shown, I feel our nation would have benefited sooner from its knowledge.
I thought the movie was good, with a strong message. Whether or not the director was involved with communism fails to explain why the film was considered bad.
I alsoreally respected the directors decision to use non professional actor in the film. I think that it was a brave but successful decision.. Using the families of the actual miners sent a really powerful message in the film making the viewer connect with these real life people
This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated however had a little more spice in it. A film about the MPAA rating system impacts not only the individual lives of the raters, but also film makers and movie goers across America. While the film is very well done, and thorough in its research and direction, I found that the reveal of the raters makes the director an accomlice to any of the murders that miht take place to those who have given so many NC-17’s. Ha… I’m sure many people across America would love to hunt them down.
The film was a big step as well for Kirby Dicks career, because that could possibly affect the raters opinions on his future films. Gutsy and well planned, the film questions the ethics, standards, and circumstances under how they rate films. Whether the affects of sex, violence, and sexuality are enough to control distribution and success of a film remains to be unanswered, but tested by Dicks film.
Next week, Stephens will have two visitors on campus who will be able to share information about Study Abroad programming. Stop by and ask questions.
TUESDAY – February 1: International Studies Abroad – programs all over the world In Columbia Foyer from 9:30-11:30am
THURSDAY – February 3: ProWorld – programs in Central and South America, India & Africa In Columbia Foyer from 2-3:45pm
Students who are interested in Study Abroad (Summer 2011 or Fall 2011) are to set up an appointment with me ASAP! Contact me at: LBaumgartner7704@stephens.edu
A reminder that the first part of the Interview Project is due tomorrow in class.
Monday 1/24: Your questions for the interview are due. Look at the questions in the project description (blog, email, handout) and write them in your own voice. Feel free to expand on them as well. Incorporate information you have about your (potential) interview subject(/s) into your questions (i.e. their background or expertise).
Wednesday 1/26: You should have an arranged interview (or time and location for “(wo)man on the street” approach). Also, be sure to include back–up plans and back–up subjects.
Monday 1/31: Edited interview due in class (AIFF file, tested and ready to play).
In the film This Film is Not Yet Rated, Director Kirby Dick reveals the inner workings of the mysterious world of film rating. This world is filled with anonymity. This world is filled with censorship. A dirty word, I know, but one that must be addressed. Through the eyes of a Lesbian PI named Becky, we learn all of the details of the board that rates movies for our viewing pleasure: Their names, their license plates, their families. They're supposedly kept anonymous to keep them from being corrupted by the views of others, but the choosers of said board went a bit, well, overboard. The literacy rates of the people who make decisions for us is dangerously low. This Film is Not Yet Rated strikes a chord for everyone. The chord maybe somewhat discordant, but it is struck. The reactions ranged from a standing ovation (Sundance) to scathing critiques (James Bowman, Crockumentaries). Mostly, however, it seemed to get thought. The dreaded NC-17 rating, known for it's sales stopping power, was brought into the light of day. Before now, I'd never even heard of NC-17 as a rating. I suppose it's thought of as a "Porn rating", but anything over the smallest amount of intercourse between people will get you there. In fact, before it's completion, This Film is Not Yet Rated was submitted for rating. Guess what it got... That's right. NC-17. That was the point of submitting it, we found out in the finished version, to show just what it took to make that rating.
I look rather forward to seeing the movie. I'm not surprised at the amount of censorship in films, nor the amount of violence you can slip through. We are a country of people who prefer violence to love. That's what it seems to me, anyway. I hope to see just how they managed a narrative documentary. I've always been curious as to what it took, and now is my chance.
What angles did he use: Inside the car, outside the car, backseat or shotgun? Really, I'd like to know. I'm also curious to see if it's really so one-sided as the critics say. They act like it's purely Kirby's side, the independent side, and none of the studio or raters' sides.
Now for some vocabulary.
censorship:
suppression of published or broadcast material: the suppression of all or part of a play, movie, letter, or publication considered offensive or a threat to security
suppression of something objectionable: the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable
ancient Roman office: the office, authority, or term of an ancient Roman censor
distortion:
misleading alteration: the describing or reporting of something in a way that is inaccurate or misleading
reconfiguration from correct shape: the bending, twisting, stretching, or forcing of something out of its usual or natural shape
misshapen part: a part of something that has been bent, twisted, stretched, or forced out of its usual or natural shape
PS. Salt of the Earth was great. The cinematography was amazing, especially for the time and the hardships faced in the making. Even past that, though, shown the amazing impact of the women as they marched, holding their own against all that befell them and driving the Sheriff mad in the process. Truly, Salt of the Earth is a movie that should be more widely shown in any venue possible. It deserves it.
Salt of the Earth: This film was interesting to me, after reading all that stuff about it, because to me the issue of women's rights completely outweighed the theme of overall equality. Maybe the fact that I am a woman makes me notice that issue more, I'm not sure, but for the most part I was completely frustrated about the hypocritical way that men handled women in that movie. It was really annoying to watch all these men complain about their work conditions, and then not listen to the women or allow them to help. The women had to practically wrestle the men into letting them save their necks, and the whole time there is the men doing the chores and suddenly having the same viewpoints as women. I really didn't like that whole aspect of it, which I guess is why the women's rights issue definitely was what I noticed the most. I thought it was amazing that most of the people in the movie weren't actors. They did such a great job! I remember thinking the whole time the movie was playing how depressing it was that the actress Rosaura Revueltas got deported after the film was over, because she was a talented actress.
This Film Is Not Yet Rated Summary: The first couple of articles talks about how Kirby Dick's film was rated NC-17 by the MPAA and how he included this into the final version of his film, which is, as the title says, not officially rated. The MPAA didn't like that Dick and his crew tried to use investigators to figure out who was on the ratings and appeals board. Basically Dick shows us that a majority of the people on the board have no more right to judge the content of movies than a random person on the street. Also his film shows that the board treats homosexual films way more harshly than heterosexual films. He uncovers the fact that there is strong motion picture studio executive and religious influence on the way films are rated. The article Whimpers and Whines shows the other side of the argument, saying that everyone involved in This Film Is Not Yet Rated claims that any rating they give the film is "censorship." It argues that there must be a bureaucratic system of protection in the film industry. It says that Dick has no right to try and find out information about the people on the ratings and appeals board. Also, this article argues that Valenti's rating system actually was put into place originally to prevent the government from interfering in the filmmaking industry, allowing filmmakers to express their own political viewpoints. He argues that films with NC-17 ratings don't even really suffer any loss of viewing or money because media still promotes them, especially alternative press which is the most common way of promoting indie films in the first place. The article HUAC is about how films were constantly being black listed in the 50s in the time of McCarthyism and the Cold War. The government was afraid that filmmakers would insert communist propaganda into their films. Filmmakers started to shy away from social issues in their movies altogether. Banks were only really getting involved with movies that had conservative and safe topics. Eventually filmmakers were just releasing their movies without bothering to get ratings, knowing that the board would find the content to be inappropriate, so the MPAA was made to rate movies that were going to have these "explicit" things in them anyway. The article MPAA Ratings, Black Holes, and my film: This article tackles a lot of different issues involved with the MPAA rating systems. It talks about how filmmakers are tired of having to defend films for their content, when they are made specifically for an adult audience. Also how the the ratings are much harsher on homosexual relations, and how sexuality in films is always given harsher ratings than violence in films. One can't help but wonder how the restrictions on these specific themes in movies will have an effect on our culture. People are made to feel that homosexuality, women's sexuality and sexuality in general is something to be embarrassed or ashamed of. This article raises the question, is it more important to point out how many times someone says a bad word, or takes off their clothes than to actually listen to the moral and intellectual ideals represented in the film?
Questions: What would be a better way of rating films? Is there a better way? Who is qualified to rate a film? Why is it that sexuality is such a bigger issue in films here than in Europe? Will people ever get over homosexual issues in films?? Why are people so O.K. with watching violent films, but squirm and say 'ew' when two girls kiss? Is this whole issue getting better or worse?
Class discussion ideas/ analysis: Is this issue getting better or worse? It seems to be a bigger and bigger thing that people complain about, how things are getting more and more censored, but is that really true? I mean, to me it seems like things are getting more and more perverse in today's society anyway. The first thing that comes to mind is reality T.V. I mean, there doesn't seem to be any limit of censorship on reality T.V. shows. The most that happens is that something gets blurred out or a curse word is bleeped out, but people of all ages watch things like Jersey Shore, where there is all sorts of "morally corrupt" things happening, but there doesn't seem to be a big stink about that. Also, I think it is pretty clear at this point that if you give a film a really bad rating, like NC-17 or X, it just makes people want to see it more. If anything it almost promotes the film more effectively than if it was just a rated R movie, just like it says in the Whimpers and Whines article. Another thing that these article brought up in my mind is who should be rating movies? I don't really have a clear answer. Dick argues that the member on the board deciding these ratings are people with no kids, or adult children, who don't have any sort of expertise in film or media... basically just average people! Is this a good thing? I can't decide! In some ways it's good to have a clear and unbiased view on films, but I don't think there's any way that a person wouldn't have some sort of biased against a film. For example, if it's a movie that is bashing the Catholic church, and one of the board members was a Catholic Priest. I feel like they would be inclined to judge that film more harshly than a non catholic.
New Terminology: Kafkaesque: A term used to describe something as in the style of Franz Kafka, the novelist. It describes something as being senseless, or disorienting due to its incomprehensible complexity, or an intentional distortion of reality by and unknown power force or bureaucrat.
When I read about Salt of the Earth without having seen it I wondered if the main social issue was union rights or women's rights. After seeing it I have my answer, but I'm not sure if it's because I am a woman and I am not a member of a union. I felt much more strongly about the women's rights aspect of the film. It seems so ahead of it's time to have shown women being as strong and independent as they were in Salt of the Earth. It was also interesting to see the men being so blatantly horrible to their wives. However, I was very excited to see that the women didn't just take it. Though it was difficult for Esperanza to defy her husband for the good of the union, she eventually did and brought about change for everyone. Seeing those women march was so nice!
I was also very impressed with the crew's dedication to making such a unique film for those days despite the opposition they faced. I can't imagine dealing with the problems of communist accusations and jail time that members of the crew had already faced and pushing through on a film that was unlikely to get released. My hat goes of to them!
The reading that struck me the most was the Film Resources Encyclopedia article about the history of American ratings.The article went into the details of the different ways the US film industry has tried to regulate movies.
Though this particular article was mainly historical, it really made me think about why we censor and rate movies.The article mentioned that when movies started gaining popularity there was concern about the appropriateness of movies for children.That was when various ratings systems started being implemented.This made me think about the appropriateness of other forms of art and media.Before movies there was still theater.Of course, not all theater pieces are appropriate for children.However, no ratings system was implemented for theater.Despite its strong adult language and themes I was allowed to see Avenue Q when I was 15.A movie version of that musical would most likely be rated R at best.Other forms of media like books were also not given a rating.Despite the fact that book and theater were and still are easily accessible to kids, there are no ratings put on them.It makes me wonder if the introduction of technology into entertainment made people concerned because it was new and they moved their concern onto the appropriateness of the movie.
I think the lack of ratings in books is most hypocritical.So many of the teen and young adult books out there have the same kinds of themes as movies, but they are not restricted to older kids or adults.Again, the visual and technological aspects of movies make people more concerned that their kids will be corrupted.
I believe today’s society should take advantage of the technology it has.Perhaps ratings should be replaced by a website where clips of potential objectionable scenes are shared with parents who can then make their own decisions about their children seeing the movie.I think parents are often lazy in researching what their children see and want to see.Working at 9th Street Video I see parents not allowing their kids to see movies that are not inappropriate just because of a PG13 rating.What makes something suddenly okay on a child’s 13th birthday?A lot of children are also allowed to see things they probably shouldn’t.The musical Avenue Q is a good example of something a lot of parents (and everyday theater goers) did not research.A warning had to be put on the doors to the theater for parents who took their young children to what they thought was a cute puppet musical.They didn’t do any research to find out what it was really about.Similarly, some adults who went to the show did no research, were offended, and walked out.A lot of controversy could be avoided if people would do their research and find out what a book, movie, or play is about before they decide to enjoy it or not. Do your research people! Computers are everywhere.
I'm not sure if this is the kind of term you're going for, but I enjoyed the work horsehockey used in the negative review of the film. I don't know that I'd ever heard that term before, but I love to know silly phrases like that, so I've decided to look it up. According to Urban Dictionary "horsehockey" is more commonly written as two words, "horse hockey". No, it doesn't mean polo. It means horse crap. Someone who is spewing horse hockey is full of nonsense.
After watching Salt of the Earth, I found the film truly inspiring for women. The way they took on the roles of the strike in order to win the injustices that were put upon their families. Especially at a time when women’s rights were scoffed at and considered ridiculous by men. This kind of film paved the way for women to be successful at work and at home. I believe this film was made before its time because it was not fully recognized by women in the US. It wasn’t until the social changes, including the feminist movement, that films like Salt of the Earth were recognized for empowering women.
I feel that how the film portrayed good and evil was like black and white. It was obvious that the company was at fault for the treatment of their workers. I wonder if there were small conferences about how to make changes to make it more equal and safer for the mine workers? It is hard for me to sympathize with big companies that are solely interested in higher profit at the expense of their workers. Though some may think that the portrayal of the strike was slanted too far in favor of the social workers to make it truly realistic, I believe that the portrayal was justified; in lieu of the social injustices dealing with workers and women occurring at that time.
This Film is Not Yet Rated
This film is about the rating system of films that are distributed in the United States at public viewing. The documentary is directed by Kirby Dick and he has interviews with majority of filmmakers who have had problems with the MPAA ratings’ of their films. The content of their films in question by the MPAA deals with the distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual relations and the debate about violence versus sex in relation to the rating system.
I watched this film about a year ago and found it highly interesting in the way it raised questions on how the only system of rating films was unknown to the public. I never thought specifically how a film was rated in regards to specifics of language, sex scenes, and violence and how that ultimately turns into a cut and dry rating.
It’s interesting in how the prejudices of our society is reflected and justified in ratings because that is how some parents think. If a parent does not want their child to see a film with sexual content why don’t they read about the film and make their own judgement not based on a group of parents that make the rating of the film for them. I feel that this is a valid point made in the interview article with Kirby Dick.
The dangers of uncensored media could cause the validity of certain sources to be questioned and not considered useful information. It would be difficult to decipher between what is actually true factually relevant information and what is made up. It should come down to what you think personally is right and wrong and be able to judge between what you know is right and just.
Terminology:
Nefarious: (typically of an action or activity) wicked or criminal
Vacuous: having or showing a lack of thought or intelligence; mindless
I am one of those people who prefers to watch a movie without any preconceived idea of its content. In this manner, I am able to gather my own information and make my own inferences without any outside influence.
That being said, I feel as if my introduction to the film, Salt of the Earth (Biberman, 1954) was blemished, in a sense. I already had a detailed review and analysis of the film, thus I feel very apathetic or unmoved by its presentation.
It was all very redundant. Yes, the film was created to display corruption, injustice, gender equality issues, racism, etc. This was information I had already assessed. Now, all I had to do was watch the film unfold in its raw glory. I cannot say my perspective changed after the viewing. Perhaps because this is not a film that represents values that appeal to me.
True to its reputation, it created a whirlwind of controversy. I understand the important role it played in challenging the country's social norms. However, today, it is something I feel very out of touch with.
There were things in the film that bothered me. It was one of those cases where you can apply the quote, “Friend, how can you say, 'Let me take that speck out of your eye,' when you cannot see the log in your own?” The miners were all in a huff about their unjust treatment from the overhead when they, themselves, were regarding their own wives unfairly. To me, it was just a “he said/she said” argument that escalated to a federal level.
There are always two sides to a story. Is one ever more virtuous than the other?
Salt of the Earth's plot is the most thoughtful people-centered, power-examining film that I have ever seen in my life. Now in my life I have watched very few films, but I would be very surprised if anyone can point out to me many films that have been released by Hollywood that touch in themes of collective action and solidarity in order to fight capitalist oppression, race and unions, gender and unions and all against a background of what US territorial expansion meant to the people who were living their lives on the ground, all in the same film! And the issues discussed ignited my curiosity about the historical base which inspired them. Herewith therefore, are the results of my research.
Hollywood has done films about activists using collective action to pursue a goal before. The latest that I can remember is Milk and Iron Jawed Angels. Most films made about the civil rights movement cannot avoid the topic at all, so there's Malcolm X and Rosa Parks. But Hollywood is way more drawn to David and Goliath stories, that ethos that individual acts of resistance can bring down entire evil companies/empires/etc. So we have tons of action movies in which some guy runs around with guns blazing and or superpowers and saves the world from evil and gets the girl as a reward. (Bourne Identity, James Bond, every Sylvester Stallone Film EVAR, most Arnold Schwartznegger films, most superhero films, (though X-men could be said to grow into their own version of collective action.:) Or we get some crusading journalist like Erin Brockovich or lone man or woman who grabs a lawyer and goes to court like in North Country and Mr and Mrs Loving. In fact, Hollywood is so attracted to the whole "one person saves the world" trope that they appropriated the story of how collective action by Bolivians, known as the Cochabamba Water Wars forced the government to un-privatize their water supply and basically turned it into James Bond saving those poor Bolivian victims in Quantum of Solace. But Hollywood isn't the only media industry that thoroughly avoids all mention of collective action and unions, except to demonize them. Most literature pumped out by the publishing industry, except for leftist presses, completely ignores the rich history of labor organizing in the US. Television shows like to go into the past, but they ignore that part of history with a 33 foot barge pole. For the most part, America likes to pretend that we do not have class issues at all and that the current economic system is extremely problematic for a whole lot of American families. Hollywood is interested in the business of making money in that same capitalist system that is thoroughly critiqued in this film, and is not at all interested in killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Therefore stories of this nature are mostly left to leftist activists and historians to tell in books usually published by small leftist presses, or passed down as oral history to the kids and grandkids of those who were there.
But even leftist presses have a rather large blind spot. When I went looking for Latino experiences with unions, I found very little literature to peruse. Most of what I found had to do with unions as they were founded by and affected white men. Some literature focused on how white women fought for their place in unions, and some portion with the African American experience therein. But except for the occasional article such as Labor and Labor Strikes:Historical Background, Latinos and Latinas, American Unions, and Workers' Movements and a google extract from a book which I will get to in a minute, I wasn't really able to find a lot of good stuff on the topic, which is quite annoying since I am now quite curious:). But first, the article. The first thing that interested me was the kind of push pull relationship that unions and Latinos had. For example:
The AFL at first provided assistance to Mexican workers, as in the 1903 Oxnard, California, strike, but as the numbers of Mexicans in the United States increased, organized labor came to oppose further unskilled emigration from Mexico.
In addition to this, Latinos brought a much more radical critique of societal norms with them to America:
Latino and Latina workers brought with them a labor organizing tradition steeped in the dialectics of anarchism, socialism, and nationalism. Many Mexican workers were followers of anarcho-syndicalism, and Puerto Rican and Cuban labor newspapers and workers' clubs censured local bosses, the colonial elite in the homeland, and the whole system of U.S. imperialist exploitation. Mexicans and Cubans joined the Holy Order of the Knights of Labor because this American labor organization embraced racial equality. However, because of the racism in the U.S. labor movement and their own strong ethnic identity, Spanish-speaking members of the Knights formed separate local assemblies.
The bolded line annoys me somewhat. Comparing racism with someone's pride in their ethnic identity is comparing apples with oranges. There are times when disprivileged people need a safe space to congregate, and that need is dramatically stronger when one is faced with oppression from the dominant majority, especially when they are supposed to be on your side, and then betray you. And as it happens, "Salt of The Earth" provides an example of how do run an integrated assembly of whites and Hispanics, with Spanish and English being spoken and occasionally translated for the benefit of non-speaking workers of either language. This commonsense setup was breathtaking to me in light of the current rightwing rhetoric around Hispanics on a whole, and it makes me curious about the current setup of integrated labor organizations and how they navigate the different languages that their members speak today. I can note that I am seeing some activism around combating the dominance and privilege of English only communication in some of the spaces of which I am a member, in the form of articles written in some magazines that provide two translations, one in English, one in Spanish; and articles and literature that incorporate both languages, sometimes without translation.
The article continues to give an interesting historical breakdown of the history of Latino union organizing, including the obstacles and conditions that they were facing from the employers. For instance:
Mexican workers joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) to resist their exploitation as second-class workers. Through the United Mine Workers of America, the struggle between Mexican miners and the coal operators culminated in the 1914 Ludlow Massacre. In 1917, Mexican copper miners in Jerome and Bisbee, Arizona, went on strike against the Phelps Dodge Corporation and met opposition from the oppressive syndicalist laws passed to break the IWW unions.
Naturally, if people have no idea that unions have a strong history in the US, they tend to have no idea what strong tactics were applied to break their power for the temerity of asking that they stop being exploited.
This scene that tells what happened to the women was not exaggerated and worse could and did happen. (SALT OF THE EARTH (1954) 7/10)
And this was NOT an isolated event. A quick look at A People's History of USA by Howard Zinn (yes, kids, the entire book is online:) @ least for now), particularly in chapters 13 through 15, give a very eyeopening and somewhat stomach churning view about how far the state and employers were prepared to go protect their profits. There were several massacres of unarmed protesters with women and children not at all spared, in addition to harassment, prison terms, deportation, beatings, firings and many and varied other means of social control. A hell of a lot of people paid a VERY high price for what we have today, and its not as if there is not a hell of a lot more that needs to be done.
Of course, considering the derth of information that is easily available for latinos in unions as a whole, information about latino women in unions is even scacrer. However, google has an large excerpt from the completely AWESOME book Latinas: Hispanic Women in The United States by Hedda Garza, is CHOCK FULL of information on Mexicans and Mexican Americans in Unions and women in particular, including the delicious news at the last paragraph on page 73 that some Latina women actually became copper miners briefly during during the Second World War! (The link takes you to page 74, just scroll up!) They ran headlong into sexism because the men didn't want to enroll them in the unions, so they organized wildcat strikes (not endorsed by an official union) themselves for better wages and working conditions and an end to sexual harassment by the foremen. Unfortunately, after the war, they lost the battle to keep their jobs when the men came home from the front, and they fell out of recorded history for a while. Starting from page 77, the book chronicles the united efforts of the government and corporations and the press using the methods mentioned in the above paragraph, and also chronicles the fighting back that Latinas engaged in against FBI and CIA hounding and deportation. On page 81, Garza provides the historical story behind the Mine-Mills Strike in the 1950s, which is even more fascinating than the movie version. It was that piece of history that led me to acquire the book in order to read the whole story, but for those who can't afford that right now, a significant chunk of it is on google.
Finally, I was fascinated by the mention by Ramon and Esperanza that two generations ago, Ramon's family had actually owned his own land, and that the town's was San Marcos. I could identify with the fact that in two generations the town had been renamed the unattractive "Zinc Town" and had become a company town and Ramon and his family found themselves pretty much living by the will of his greedy employers who locked his oral history as "claims", because it reminded me of British colonialist history and present cultural appropriation being practiced right now, "justified" by the greedy and sordid idea that land and other resources could and still can simply be stolen at will by the stronger party and in this new day copyrighted and sold back to the people who owned the darn things in the first place! I just had to confirm that the war which probably sealed the Quintero family's fate was probably The Mexican-American War or the American Invasion of Mexico. I am still interested in the precise means by which the Zinc Company got ahold of all the land in town, so I intend to look that up for my own edification, even though I am sure that it is going to make rather stomach turning reading.
One of the things I noticed in the reading was that some viewers tried to categorize the movie as dealing with one strand of leftist politics. Thus some people see it mostly a feminist movie, and some people see it as mostly a movie about class issues. I think that people who think that way are highly mistaken. The joy of the movie for me is its acknowledgment that oppression is multifaceted and intersectional and that the system is kyriarchal rather than just patriarchal. Class and Race and Gender all intersect and compound oppression in those characters' lives, and while the film didn't get around to mentioning it there were sure to be disabilityissues as well. Trying to simplify this film into being about just one of these themes is to commit the same nonsense that has contributed the to splintering of the left for so long, namely to ignore and deny the experiences of various people who are at the center and the margins of the various crosscurrents of oppression. A disabled Latina union member cannot throw off any of her identities, and shouldn't need to. I think that had this film not been censored, the left might have learned a bit more quickly to stop shooting itself in the foot and start doing the hard work of learning to serve all its members and not just a privileged few.
Upon perusing the articles for this week's reading, concerning the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating system, I found myself focusing in on one issue: Did the American public get what the asked for?
In order to answer this question, I consulted the American Film Censorship (from the Film Reference Encyclopedia) article. The article summarizes how “the content of films being viewed by unaccompanied children” in nickelodeons gave rise to concerns about what was being displayed on screen. The “dark venues” had no system for monitoring what was/was not appropriate for a diverse audience, thus social reformers took action and demanded that some sort of system for film censorship be implemented.
“As more states adopted a practice of film censorship, the US film industry formed its own national regulatory body.” At first, the system was too loose. It did not censor enough. Whether this was the opinion of the public or the Roman Catholic Church is unclear. Regardless, the Roman Catholic Church took matters into their own hands anyway and created a list of guidelines and prohibitions. This, essentially, served as precedent to what is now the MPAA. The issue now is, instead of film censorship being too lenient, it is deemed as too harsh or hindering.
As times change, so does propriety. What was once regarded as inappropriate may not hold water today. Does this mean that the criteria for film censorship needs to be reevaluated? Has it been reevaluated? If yes, then by whom?
The article MPAA Ratings, Black Holes, and My Film: An Interview with Kirby Dick implies that, under the opinion of Kirby Dick (This Film is Not Yet Rated, 2006), the MPAA is not open to sharing their method of procedure to the public. Dick describes the whole affair as a “black hole” where information stays within the confines of the people running the show (i.e. former MPAA president, Jack Valenti). Dick claims that “the ratings are simply announced with little or no explanation...NC-17, when it was initiated around 1991, meant 'No children under 17.' Now, it means 'No children 17 or under.' The MPAA shifted it without ever making an announcement...No ones knows that they just changed it.”
The idea of including or excluding a viewer who is 17 years of age within the NC-17 rating seems like a superfluous accusation to address. However, Dick's discovery seems to insinuate that the MPAA is reevaluating the censorship system, but only on a very, very minute scale, if even at all.
My real concern is this: If people want some form of censorship, why can't they just do it themselves? We all have different criteria for what is/is not appropriate. There is no way a national rating system can adhere to everyone's personal preference. Therefore, why not research the film themselves instead of relying on a system that seems to be tainted anyway?
This is the real problem. People demand that changes be made (i.e. censorship) yet they don't want to do the work themselves. Instead, they want to rely on some institution to make the decisions for them. Clearly, this cannot be said for every individual, but are the masses truly content with being fed what they are told? Is the sky blue because you perceive it as such, or because you have been told as much?
Sometimes, I am under the impression that people are afraid to think for themselves. Where does this fear come from? Are we afraid if we do something viewed as unconstitutional or expressive, it will violate some hidden law that we will suffer consequences from? Be brave and test the waters. Question things. Explore for yourself. Never think that anyone has more authority or intelligence over your own.
Words of interest:
Anti-Semitic- hostility to or prejudice against Jews
Ageis- the protection, backing, or support of a particular person or organization
Menage-a-trois- an arrangement in which three people share a sexual relationship, typically a domestic situation involving a married couple and the lover of one of them.
Palpable- able to be touched or felt
Vacuous- having or showing a lack of thought or intelligence; mindless
For my summary of the film, I’m going to quote myself from my first blog post, because I felt that my summary was pretty accurate. “Salt of the Earth is a fictional film based on the true story of a zinc miner strike in New Mexico. The miners are fighting for better working conditions and racial equality, and when their wives join in the strike they add better living conditions to their list of demands. Ultimately the film becomes a story of the struggle for gender equality as well; the women want to join the in strike, but the men are adamant that the wives stay out of it.” In the end, the men and women discover that the best way to gain a better life for everyone is to join and stand together against the forces oppressing them.
After viewing the film, what stood out the most for me was how hypocritical the men were. They were so determined to put an end to the oppression against themselves, but they never even realized that they were oppressing the women in the exact same way until the women finally stood up and said something. In my opinion, and in my experience, the problem with “equality” is that no matter how far society comes in terms of making everyone equal, there will always, always be people in the world who are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. I constantly come across people (men) who make comments like, “Oh, that’s a woman’s job” when referring to something like cooking, cleaning, or sewing, or they make jokes about the kitchen being “the woman’s place.” There are still work places that pay women less than men, and men that won’t hire a fantastic employee because she’s a woman. I work at a pizza place back home, and my boss won’t let any of the female employees work as delivery drivers; “our job” is to look pretty for the customers. So the issues of racial and sexual discrimination depicted in the film are definitely still relevant, if on a much smaller scale than they were back then.
I did notice that there are parallels between the content of the film and the story of “the making of.” In the film, the miners stand up for what they believe in, going against a figurative giant (the owners of the mine). They get beaten down again and again but they persevere, and they eventually come out on top. This is very similar to the filmmakers’ story; the blacklisted filmmakers go up against the giant that is Hollywood, as well as the government and much of America who viewed them as Communists. They fight for something they believe in, something they are passionate about, and though they continually get beaten down, they keep pushing forward and eventually the film becomes a success, even if it was years later.
In the reading for This Film is Not Yet Rated, there are several different opinions about the film. Some people despise the film and the way Kirby Dick went about making it. They claim that he invaded the privacy of the MPAA. Armond White says that “no one involved with This Film is Not Yet Rated thinks intelligently” and that the film requires viewers who don’t think intelligently. Kirby Dick was curious about all of the secrecy surrounding the MPAA Rating Board members, so he hired a private investigator to find out who the people on the board were. Sexual content is one of the main concerns of the rating board; the more sexual content, the higher the rating. Some filmmakers claim that the reason for this is that the industry is male-dominated and the men are not comfortable with female sexuality. The filmmakers say that raters pay more attention to what parts of the body are visible than to the “intellectual and thematic content of scenes involving sexuality.”
The problem with a higher rating is that it limits distribution. Hardly any theaters will show an NC-17 film (Blue Valentine is a good recent example), and big chain stores such as Blockbuster and Wal-Mart refuse to carry NC-17 films, or even explicit music. Once upon a time, I went into my local Wal-Mart looking for a CD, but the only one they had was the censored version. I approached an employee and asked if they had the non-censored version. He gave me a disgusted look like I was some kind of vermin and said, “This is a family-oriented store.” These limitations created a problem for This Film when it was given an NC-17 rating for including a clip of an NC-17 film.
The most surprising thing I discovered (though I suppose when you think about it, it’s not really all that surprising) was that the Rating Board was made up of people who don’t know anything about filmmaking. I guess that makes sense, because the audience majority will not know anything about filmmaking either, but this still bothers me. How can a group of people who know nothing about filmmaking judge how films should be rated? And why are they so concerned with sexuality above everything else?
Answer: Because out of almost everything else in the world, people are the most uncomfortable dealing with sex. There has always been a stigma attached to sex; even when sex is brought into the public eye through news stories, the stories are always about sex scandals. So even though the story is usually “so-and-so had an affair with someone other than his/her significant other,” the message that people are receiving is SEX = BAD. However, I really think that since we already know that drugs, violence, and foul language are bad, we don’t care as much. We’re a desensitized society. Drugs and violence are literally everywhere, and they’re in the news every single day. And profanity is such a normal part of everyday conversations now that no one thinks twice when they hear someone swear. So drugs, violence, and language are more easily glanced over by the Rating Board because those things aren’t big deals.
So I guess the biggest question here is this: Is censorship necessary?
My answer: Big picture, yes. Absolutely. I have two little brothers, and there have been times when I’ve said, “No, you are absolutely NOT watching that, it’s not appropriate for you.” But that’s different; they’re kids. Adults have a choice, and can make their own (usually) intelligent decisions. I do agree with some censorship on television, or on the radio, because you don’t always have a choice; you could be flipping through channels and accidentally come across something you didn’t want to see. But I don’t think that films should be discriminated against because of their ratings. If people want to see the movie, they’ll see the movie; if they don’t want to see it, they won’t. It doesn’t matter what the rating is; if I don’t want to see a movie, if I don’t think it looks interesting, I won’t go see it, regardless of if it’s rated G or NC-17. There should be a rating system so that people will have an idea of what the content of the film is, but that should be the ONLY reason for the rating system in my opinion. People who complain to me about the content of a movie get one answer from me: If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.
"I just want someone to hear what I have to say. And maybe if I talk long enough, it'll make sense." -Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
**New Terminology**
Proscriptions: [proscribe] forbid, especially by law
Subversive: seeking or intending to undermine the power and authority of an established system or institution
Perjuring: willfully telling an untruth when giving evidence to a court
Kafkaesque: of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or resembling the literary work of Franz Kafka; marked by senseless, disorienting, often menacing complexity
Felicitous: well chosen or suited to the circumstances; pleasing and fortunate
Prurient: having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters
Jape: a practical joke
Jejuneness: [jejune] naïve, simplistic, and superficial; (of ideas or writings) dry and uninteresting
Salt of the Earth was an oddly entrancing film that made me laugh and get a little angry. It was a film from 1954, so its pace was a bit slow, and its style a bit crude, but I was able to overlook that accept the story for what it was. The idea of women fighting to get their rights, not only against their outside oppressors, but against the men who control their lives as well, is one that any culture in any decade can understand. It seems that no matter how hard we try, we must always work harder than the boys to be respected as equals.
Salt of the Earth had many very comedic moments when the men had to do "women's work", and when the women were locked in the jail and got so annoying that the Sheriff refused to arrest them again. These are things that are still portrayed on sit-coms and comedy films today, and they make contemporary audience laugh just as hard.
One very interesting parallel in the film is when Esperanza has a meeting with some of the women leading the picket lines. Her husband is cranky from a long day of housework, and is so annoyed by her meeting that he goes to the bar. When he comes home, Esperanza is in bed when she says "I always wait up for you". Despite taking care of the chores that wore her husband out in one day every day, she always waits for him to come home from his meetings as a sign of respect, and yet he could not wait for her to get done with a ten minute meeting. This is one of many times that it is obvious the men do not respect their wives.
Something that I thought was interesting when doing the reading for "This Film is Not Yet Rated" is that the ratings board was created, according to Arnold White in "Whimpers & Whines: The doc that attacks the MPAA relies on new tricks of the trade", "partially to prevent dangerous government interference in filmmaking". It would seem as though "Salt of the Earth" would be a perfect example of why this intervention was needed, but it wasn't so much the government that caused the problems with the film, as it was the people of the United States. The government indirectly effects the box office performance by brain washing the citizens into thinking that the film was communist propoganda, and convincing that them that if they watched it their country would be at risk. But ultimately, the citizens of the U.S. and even Hollywood refused to accept the film on their own.
The reading that we did for "This Film is Not Yet Rated" was interesting, and gave me a new perspective on the film. Even before the film came out when I was in high school, I hated censorship on any sort of art, but this film gave my thoughts a voice . Unfortunately, I fell victim to the film's propaganda and let my emotions take the better of me.
The reading we were assigned described the films purpose, which was more or less to expose the MPAAs rating system as unjust. The film uses interviews with filmmakers, and follows detective hired by the director to figure out who is on the ratings board, and also examines the process that the film itself goes through to get a rating. The reading also includes the article by White that I will discuss in further detail later, as well as the history of censorship in the article "HUAC (House Un-American Acts Committee) and the Censorship Changes" by Jeanine Basinger. The later article gives a lot of in depth information about how the HUAC was able to effect films like "Salt of the Earth" and further determine what kinds of films came out of Hollywood. The scariest part of the reading, for me, was the part in which Basinger acknowledge that Hollywood executives had a two day secret meeting, during which time they decided to make anti-communist films in an attempt to avoid pickets an losing money. Luckily these films were not successful financially, so after about twelve of them, the trend died out.
The Film Reference Encyclopedia took the history of censorship back even farther, citing the type of content monitored in nickelodeons. In those days it was the police who had the power to censor films, which they eventually took for granted and began to turn a profit instead of focusing on what was best for the citizens. After this came the rise of Hayes who created the Hayes code, which eventually lead to many great films in the noir genre being littered with sexual tension from innuendoes, but also limited the ways in which artist could express themselves for many years.
After reading White's article I have come to realize just how easy it is to get caught up in Dick's propaganda and let your emotions speak instead of your intelligence. While I am not a supporter of censorship, "This Film is Not Yet Rated" does have its flaws, and is as one commentator put it "willfully distorted". Dick, as White points out, brought together a lot of "liberal think-alikes" to have the comment on the MPAA and their process. White claims that these independent filmmakers, such as Kimberly Piece and Darren Aronofsky, are being painted in an incorrect light as "fearless independent filmmakers," when in fact they are simply cry babies. While these directors do make good points during the film, I feel it is also necessary to acknowledge the fact that touchy subjects can be portrayed in artful ways that do not offend people. As a filmmaker myself, not of much accreditation but with a bit of experience, I am about to direct my first sex scene and have been stressing about it for a few weeks now, but something I know for sure is that I do not intend to show too much, because I believe the less you show in a situation like that, the more impactful the moment is on the audience.
One thing that I must point out, as a side note, is that White claims an NC-17 rating does not hurt a film. While it may still be shown or distributed, NC-17 films often do not get enough showings to be nominated for Oscars (as was the case with the recent Ryan Gosling film "Blue Valentine" that had to appeal its MPAA rating in order to get the showings to be nominated), and are pushed out of many communities, like those that exist in the heartland of the United States, because they have been dubbed as inappropriate. To me the NC-17 rating marks a film as unwatchable to many people, and this is not something that I believe anyone should have the power to do to a film that is not their own.
Thinking about the film as a propaganda piece will make me view it differently this time. Instead of being an anti-censorship filmmaker, I am going to approach it as a conservative thinker and see how it effects me differently. I'm sure the message will still ring true to the artist inside of me, as well as that little voice in my head that seeks to rebel more than to conform, but I think the film will also take on a less powerful influence when I think about censorship. White makes a good point when he acknowledges that Valenti created the MPAA, in part, to combat government interference in filmmaking. While censorship may be bad, it isn't as bad as Dick paints it in the film, because it does do some good as well.
In the first part of the reading, there is also a quote from an MPAA board member in which they say, "we don't create standards, we just follow them". To this I have to raise the question of whether or not that is acceptable. If we do not challenge things, they cannot be improved, and as the overseeing body that determines the morals of the film industry, I feel that the MPAA should question standards. Society is always changing, and that should be reflected in the boards decisions.
****New Terminology****
Postmaster General
This was the position once held by William Hayes, and since I had never heard of it, I decided to look it up. The position, according to the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, is "TheheadoftheUnitedStatesPostalService.Until1970,thepostmastergeneralwasheadofthefederalPostOfficeDepartmentandamemberofthepresident'scabinet. In1970,thePostalServicewassetupasanindependentagencyinplaceofthePostOfficeDepartment.ThePostalServiceisoperatedlikeaprivatecorporation, althoughpostalworkersreceivethebenefitsoffederalemployees."
This made it seem wierd to me that he would eventually create the code that would rule what was accepted as decent by the film industry prior to the creation of the MPAA, making a huge and undeniable impact on the history of film in the United States.
