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.