crossingfrontieres

Start here

Thought-provoking cinema on gender selection & rape

In Satyamev Jayate we learn – for those of us who didn’t know, including me – that finding out the sex of your child is illegal in all of India. I know that girls are not favored over boys in some parts of India, but I didn’t know that sex determination technologies are illegal: cell-free fetal DNA testing, chorionic villus sampling, amniocentesis or ultrasonography . In other countries, we take for granted and have the option to know the sex of our baby to prepare for his or her arrival: clothes, friends’ and family’s gifts via baby shower etc. And in Trinidad, with a 50 percent majority Indo-Muslim population – from India – that isn’t practiced; there is no law banning knowing the sex of your child. Whether it is a girl or boy the child is welcomed, and parents joke often that ‘once the child has 10 toes, and 10 fingers’ they are happy. That is not to say that boys aren’t shown or given more attention, but girls aren’t killed off or regretted. Nor are daughters walking price tags if they live. It comes as a big surprise then that in this 21st century, this IS a law elsewhere.

Why would there a need for such law?

In rural parts of India – Maharashtra, Haryana, Jammu, Kashmir etc [Child Sex Ratio in India], female foeticide had become a huge problem. That’s not to say that in other urban parts of India or its diasporas that sons aren’t preferred over daughters nor that it was/is not a problem. But female foeticide had to be banned in 1994 in India.  The Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act law was only passed 22 years ago, but men and women had been killing fetuses in parts of India forever upon discovering that the child was a girl.  Matrubhoomi: Nation without Women [Manish Jha, 2003] is a stark exploration of this phenomenon.  In the film, female infanticide causes an entire village to be without females, and one father, brave enough to not kill his daughter – Kalki – raises her in hiding, learns to disguise her as a boy until she reaches puberty and can’t look like a boy anymore. But Kalki is discovered and married off for money to a young man who shares her with all of his brothers and single father – the subtext of the the film is Draupadi and the 5 Pandava brothers story in the Mahabharata, which is sacred for Hindus, but which the director also asks us to reflect on. The entire village in the film lusts after Kalki, and rapes her. It is brutally visual, and at times so repugnant that you must turn away from the screen, like a Gaspar Noe’s film with 15 minutes of brutal rape [Irreversible, 2002]. The sexual exploitation and subjugation of Kalki are far from entertaining, and forces us to watch unflinchingly at this barbaric socio-cultural gender discrimination. I cannot include a trailer, for the reality of this problem and the scenes of this film are too visually sickening: there isn’t one single redeeming moment in the film, and no saving grace for girls raped or killed off just because of their gender.

Nine years later, in 2012 Aamir Khan brought to light this issue of female foeticide in Satyamev Jayate because it has not disappeared with a 1994 law. This episode informed us of the reality of the act of pre-natal gender detection followed by foeticide cutting across class and cities, and we saw how mothers today, who want to keep their female child alive face torture and abuse at the hands of their families and others [http://www.satyamevjayate.in/mumkinhai.aspx?uid=E0RIV4]. We also see how doctors blatantly flout the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Determination Techniques (PCPNDT) Act for monetary gains [http://www.satyamevjayate.in/mumkinhai.aspx?uid=E0RIV4].

In 2014, a short film Anamika: a short film dedicated to Women [Mahesh Madhu, 2014] shows the husband wanting a girl, but his wife, Anamika doesn’t. But she doesn’t want a girl for a very different reason. A reason that probably wasn’t considered at all into the making or enacting of the Prohibition of sex-selection law in 1994.

Anamika might not have been killed off as a foetus, but lived only to be raped as a child. She reaches adulthood and is having a baby, but wants to have a boy like a lot of first time traditional mothers in India and other traditional male dominated societies. But she only wants a boy because she thinks that uncles can’t rape boys; they can only rape girls. We see this not only in this film and Matrubhoomi, but also in Monsoon Wedding [Mira Nair, 2001]. And like Anamika, Ria in Monsoon Wedding grows up also keeping the silence of her rape, also by a close uncle. And although Naseeruddin Shah saves the film and day by cutting ties with his molester-brother over this sexual abuse scandal, a woman in the wedding party wonders why the scuttle over such a “small” matter [as sexual abuse]. Thankfully, this is a powerful subplot among all the festivities taking place in the film. But what is salient in the two films and in the two girls is that neither Ria nor Anamika told anyone they were raped as girls, because of women like this woman at the party. Sexual abuse is a shame only for the girl abused, and never for the males who rape. No one would believe the girls if they spoke, including doctors, police and often even their own families. Anamika – powerless then to do anything – does the only thing she could do-she wants to stop that cycle of silence and rape, because she believes that having a girl would repeat history, and the cycle of rape would continue. But, Anamika is trapped by laws: the anti-abortion laws set in place in 1971, and the Prohibition of sex-selection law in 1994. The film shows this ‘hopeless trap’ in which she finds herself not because the film’s intention is to break the law, or is advocating foeticide as in Matrubhoomi, but the real intent is for Anamika to prepare mentally like we do in the US, except that it will take more than a village to protect this girl from sexual predators.

Sex-selective abortion and rape are huge problems and a big crime, both of which we must fight with images and words since laws fail. Dowries drain families of monies they don’t have to marry their daughters so they prize sons instead. But even educated families would abort girls if they could according to one study of an Indian health care group Mamta Health Institute for Mother and Child[Little India Vanishing Land of the Girl July 2006]. And even though a law had already been passed some couples would pay $450.00 to find out the sex of their child, and others would stay inside the house to hide their pregnancies until they knew it was a boy [Little India Vanishing Land of the Girl July 2006]. The sex selection was so uneven in Punjab that the government pays families $11.20 a month for a girl in school [Little India Vanishing Land of the Girl July 2006] to encourage them not to get rid of girls but also to educate them. By taking initiative to make shorts on Pocket Films and Youtube etc young women and men are opening up dialogue to raise awareness because cinema – and social media – is an extremely powerful medium. Films can help change the way we see and look at something by evoking anger, rage, antipathy, disgust, revulsion, driving us to tears and the desire to act and do more than just view passively. Both self-made and commercial directors know that they have to become agents of change before Mother India ends up a mother to only sons, and not daughters, as Aamir Khan rightly suggests. They must continue making shorts, films and using social media because they know that cinema is a temple of desire, and by the same token, it can also provoke desire in people to act, to against women’s silence, against women’s abuse, and for women’s human rights. They know that if women are denied speech their experience cannot be known, their questions cannot be asked nor answered, and they cannot influence the course of their lives, nor of history.

Transnational females gaze at daughter of keltoum 

amazigh film fest

La Guardia Community College hosted its 2nd Amazigh/Berber film festival a few days ago, where brilliant shorts and feature films were shown. The goal of the festival was to ‘break borders’. The discussions were lively and border breaking, all expect for the Daughter of Keltoum [Mehdi Charef, Algeria, 2001], a film I had already seen, and which didn’t trouble me, as I have seen many like those. But on the last day of the film festival, its impact on some left me troubled but wanting more, both during and after the Q&A.

Daughter of Keltoum is the story of 19-year-old Rallia, a Swiss-bred, Algerian-born girl who comes back to trace her roots, but who really is in search of her mother, Keltoum, and not father. She wants to ask her mother why she abandoned her. Her mother’s family lives in a desert of high mountains: a punishment for those whom God doesn’t love according to Nedjma, her aunt. Nedjma tells Rallia that God loves her, because she doesn’t have to climb the hard mountains for food, water, or to catch the bus to go elsewhere. The trek for water is in fact relentless and often overwhelming with the threat of a drought always looming near. Rallia participates in family life while waiting for Keltoum to visit the family, which she does on Fridays. Keltoum works in a luxury hotel in El Kantara, a town with a luxurious hotel. But after weeks of waiting, Rallia decides to go look for Keltoum, and Nedjma follows her along to protect her. But during her journey to El Kantara, we are privy to the many injustices that exist in Algeria, against women. This includes a woman who’s repudiated by her husband: he is on horseback and she on foot, tied with rope like a donkey walking behind him in the hot desert roads. This woman is killed because she recognizes a revolutionary who wanted to [further] silence her so he would not be caught. Rallia meets another westernized girl like herself, who is looking for her father and who is battered for not wearing a veil. Rallia must wear a veil otherwise she, too would meet that fate. Then they hitch a ride from a truck driver who wants to rape Rallia, but Nedjma offers herself instead. After this treacherous journey to get to El Kantara, they finally meet Keltoum, but Rallia discovers she was not abandoned, but sold to buy a donkey to fetch water for the family. The donkey was the only means of survival for the family. She also discovers that it is Nedjma who is her mother, the “Mad Woman” of the village as she’s [not] affectionately known, and who lost it when they took away her child – Rallia – from her. The family made Nedjma sleep with a white soldier and she had Rallia, who looks mostly white. In fact, Rallia is an international model, but incomplete because she has no roots.

 

At the Q & A, an American man, shocked at what he saw against women, asked if what we see is true. Two Algerian women and one Algerian answered this question saying that what we see in the movie doesn’t exist, that women aren’t treated like that because they’ve never seen that.

Does that mean the abuse of women, poverty, the rage of a young woman “abandoned” by her birth mother, rape of Berber women by men, women repudiation do not exist because they haven’t seen it where they come from? Is it possible that they come from a place in Algeria like the luxury hotel in El Kantara where that may not be seen, since it caters to a western crowd? Maybe they don’t know about research done on inhumanity against women? Maybe they deny that what we see in the film exists because to exoticize Algeria now that they live in the US, à la “Algerias of the mind” [like Rushdie’s ‘Indias of the minds’]? Or do they see from the “male gaze” that doesn’t acknowledge women’s inhumane treatment? Maybe they’ve been conditioned to not see it or find anything wrong with it? But even if someone is blind, does that mean their reflection doesn’t exist in a mirror?

My Algerian friend says that mistreatment against women exists, and in fact her family calls the hijab “cache misère” as it covers up many injustices against women. Her family migrated to USA to end future misery for their daughter. Film studies also believe such injustices against women exist. The lack of women directors – compared to their neighbors Tunisia and Morocco – would certainly point to some problem and lack of freedom for women to make movies on women when Morocco and Tunisian female directors are doing it. Mehdi Charef made the film because he wanted to highlight the injustices against women in Algeria, as few filmmakers were doing it.

The reasons why Algerian women aren’t following up or making films like we see in Tunisian and Morocco need to be opened up. We need to explore the unanswered questions some had at the close of the film with regard to the freedom of women and the freedom to make films on women, to allow them to tell their stories, to bring them to center screen, like Charef did in Daughter of Keltoum, and like other women filmmakers form the Maghreb are doing since the late 1970s, and which Algerian author and filmmaker Assia Djebar was doing from the USA and France, as an academic; it is possible she couldn’t do it in Algeria.

There is a reason why borders remain unbreakable for Algerian women in a country that was ruled for more than 170 years by the french and which left it in political, economic, psychological and gender shambles. When we hear women and men in the audience who represent “all Algerian women” telling us that women are not mistreated, raped, spat upon, repudiated etc. and when others are writing and speaking in other countries about this, including America, we need to ask more questions. Denying eyes and ears that look at border-breaking films which we present in american auditoriums and theaters to start a conversation and awareness on human rights may be a hindrance to that very conversation and awareness, as well as a hindrance to women of Algerian descent to come forward and make [more] films on women.

 

 

We have a serious problem. Trump can still win

From Douglas Mcgrath “We have a serious problem” New Yorker 18 January, 2016:

Trump: Excuse me? You’re telling me I gave the Mexicans-are-rapists speech, which was one of the worst pieces of out-and-out racism ever uttered by a non-Southerner and my numbers have gone up?

Jeff [Trump aide]: by a lot

Trump: Let’s review. I said that Megyn Kelly was menstruating. I insulted Carly Fiorina’s face. I did a routine about Ben Carson’s’ belt that should have provoked a psychiatric intervention. I proposed internment camps for Muslims already here, and then I said we should bar all other Muslims from entering the country. And you’re telling me that my numbers are what?

Jeff: the highest ever

Trump: we have a serious problem. I might win.

 

From Jason Shaltiel “Rudy slams Beyoncé” AM 9 February, 2016:

Former mayor Giuliani blasted Beyoncé’s super bowl performance for its ‘black power’ references. Beyoncé donned black panthers-styled berets and formed an X with her dancers.

Giuliani: I think it was outrageous… I don’t know what the heck it was. A bunch of people bouncing around and all strange things. It was terrible…this is football not Hollywood, and I thought it was really outrageous that she used it as a platform to attack police officers who are people who protect her and protect us, and keep us alive…

Giuliani also cursed Tarantino last month over the director’s stand against brutality, saying he will boycott his movies.

 

From “Trump, Bush tussling” AM 9 February, 2016:

Donald trump on Jeb Bush: This stiff, Jeb Bush, he’s a total stiff…He’s like a child. A spoiled child.

We call Bush a child for not insulting women. We criticize and berate Beyoncé’s song for its supposed “indirect” political message, but we let Trump rave, rant, alienate, hate, insult, call names, pull out of debates, push women back to 100 years ago. We vote for him.

Presidential run speeches vs song. One directed towards all Americans and everyone else on Trump’s hit list and the other, a song sung by one person for herself, for entertainment, even if it has a message. Hasn’t there been a bloody fatal spate in police shootings of innocents and unarmed black boys & girls and men? If Beyonce likes her negro nose with Jackson Five nostrils, who does that offend? It’s on her own person, not impinging on anyone’s existence or rights; NOT a direct address or harmful to others – women [American or otherwise], good police officers, foreigners, Americans of different faiths-  as Trump’s twitterature proves:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/100000004173782.app.html?nytapp=iphone&_r=0

Beyonce’s message for trigger happy police is publicly criticized. Her platform, was Superbowl. Trump’ s winning New Hampshire is not seen as problematic. His platform is all of America.

We have a serious problem indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

Silence of the majorities

Media today makes plenty of noise. Media is greedy for news, information, and angry when it doesn’t get noise, but on silence it says nothing. Trump constantly refers to the silent majority, a group that speaks, can speak, has spoken, will speak. And which votes, so has veto power. This silent majority is not at all silent.

But there is a silent populace whose story media doesn’t like to tell. Not the voluntary silent type, of sages sitting and meditating: Buddha under the Bodhi tree, or Gandhi keeping days of silence. Gandhi’s silence and silent fast were a strategic defense against the British masters; it was their solidarity and resistance, which was complimentary to speech, and which didn’t need words. This silence was noise and strength against the British. But forced silence is the kind of silence that media doesn’t like to tell: the silence of women who are shamed or dishonored or marginalized peoples.

Forced silence goes beyond muteness to speechlessness because of rape or other dishonor in the case of women. Because of loss of virginity, which is a girl’s entire identity or worth in some cultures. A silence that could speak, even protest, but whose speech is like a dying spark without the fire. A silence desperate for speech. For listeners. But the absence of which condemn them to more silence. An eternity of silence. And if, pray tell, they try to speak then men silence them with threats, blows, stonings, imprisonment, rape and other violence, which further rob them of an identity, memory, and make them even more vulnerable to silence. This forced silence is culturally constructed.

What do we do with the silent? The dishonored? The child bride? The raped? The mutilated genitally? Widows in some places? The displaced? The old? The deterritorialized? The marginalized? The subaltern? The homeless? Whose silence is just another form of pain?

The more we become digital the more they become silenced. The more we don’t converse with them, but instead with the Internet, the more they become silent. The speed and noise of the scientific & information age silence the old, the forgetting, the shamed or the dishonored into helplessness and despair. Sometimes their silence grows like a cancer until it is too late, and we never hear the stories of the silenced.

“There is no such thing as the “voiceless”. There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard” [Arundhati Roy]. Roy says this in reference to Indian women and Dalits, but this applies equally to all who are forced into silence everywhere. For whom voluntary silence has become their defense, not because they have nothing to say, but who, due to habit, have lost their tongue and need storytellers to tell their stories, and to break the silence. NYC subway ads and announcements say if you see something, say something. There are many ways to say something today with omnipresent media: post, tweet, retweet, share, blog, speak up or act out, or stand up for those silenced, as this young man does in this video:

visual vocal tantrumps

Recently, we were worried about keeping traditional americanization alive in America vis-à-vis letting immigrants in, but the Americans favoring Trump were not worried about him closing all kinds of borders [cultural, multicultural, political, gender borders etc]. They did not see that he stood against the principles of the constitution we hold so dearly. And even if they were not worried that he was alienating Muslims, Chinese, Mexicans & others alike, weren’t they concerned about his hatred & sexualization of women in a country where feminism has come a long way since 1872 when it was first introduced in France, yet has made the greatest strides in America?

Here’s a pictorial/digital portfolio of Trump who might’ve been president of the United States of America had he not lost Iowa.

On women:
trump on ivankatrump rosie

trump huffing
trump arianna

 

 

trump arianna

 

 

Global trump or Trump’s foreign [intersects with local] policy:

trump on mexico

trump n chinese

 

 

trump-syrian-refugees-tweet

 

 

 

trump on muslims sports

trump-quote-muslim_3520951b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On local/national policy:

trump on not losing voters.jpg make america great again

 

 

On what’s important:

trump 4

 

His great presence could have made the portrait of the president of the greatest country could look like this:
* racist, misogynist [therefore no women’s rights], dodger, bigot, hater, uninformed, nihilist, narcissist, protofascist [http://nyti.ms/2054RvX]…
* spent 25 plus years in the wrestling business and use low brow behavior of that job in his politics [David Brooks http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/donald-trump-professional-wrestling%5D.
* Acts and sounds like a frathouse partier, and is an outsider to governing, illustrating what political irrelevance is [Abdul-Jabbar “this is the difference between donald trump and bernie sanders” https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/09/02/kareem-abdul-jabbar-this-is-the-difference-between-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders/?tid=a_inl%5D.
 * Braggadocio with a lingua franca that reeks of 21st century adolescent behavior, trying to ‘fit in’, calling people he doesn’t like or who don’t agree with him ‘morons’, ‘idiots’, ‘bimbos’, ‘losers’, ‘slobs’, ‘disgusting animals’, ‘dogs’, ‘fat pigs’ – a demeaning and belittling language that bullies and some mean young adolescents use, which they grow out of in young adulthood. But alas! Trump is not a young adult. Nor is he in the wrestling ring. Nor running a beauty pageant. America might have become a reality show in his hands, with showbiz theatrics, making it look like one big circus.

And the winner goes to… NOT diversity

Charlotte Rampling, Sylvester Stallone, Matt Damon, Leonardo di Caprio, Rooney Mara, Brie Larson, Saoirse Ronan, Jennifer Lawrence…have more than one thing in common. They’re all actors & actresses, they stand to get nominees and/or Oscars for 2015 and…they’re all white. But does talent only come in this color?white oscars

 

There’s been a lot of noise about white oscars, so much so that critics launched the pointed hashtag #OscarsSoWhite, and aptly so. Not a single nomination for a minority actor/actress/director: Idris Elba in netflix-heavy Beasts of No Nation, Samuel Jackson for Hateful Eight, Ryan Coogler or Michael Jordan in Creed, any of the actors in Tangerine in a post Jenner trans era,  Will Smith in Concussion, Teyonnah Parris in Spike Lee’s Chi-raq or any of the actors in the much talked-about, positively reviewed, box office hit Straight Outta Compton. Not a single nomination or plaudit after last year’s grand tirade that America and Hollywood are ready for a change in Hollywood narratives.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Last year, the nominees and winners were not the typical awardees. Hollywood, for once, accepted plots and stories that weren’t told and didn’t revolve around youth on grand quests, or beauty or fast action. But rather edifying and intimate drama, depth of character, which included winners who were 50 year olds or twenty something yr olds [Julianne Moore, Eddie Redmayne]. The other nominees & winners were also older than the average past awardees: Keaton in Birdman, Arquette in Boyhood, Simmons in Whiplash etc. What all of these previous winners had in common last Oscars was their battle against infirmities and death, which they brought out by their talent, their acting skill. They found told/acted their story differently that garnered them the Oscar for best actor. And although the white movie industry did make up for years of neglect by recognizing 12 years a slave for best picture and bestowing statues on Forrest Whitaker, Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx, Halle berry and Mo’nique in the past, we cannot forget that since 1998 Oscars has been white. Nor can we forget that they snubbed David Oyewolo or director/co writer Ava du Vernay for the brilliant, award winning film Selma. It would seem that depute mvid industry’s craving for different stories the Selma story was not part of the line-up of those stories. Perhaps only one story gets to win an Oscar so we didn’t need to remember our dark history of slavery in Selma? We didn’t need to remember the wretched story that gutted and touched black lives told by a woman. Straight Outta Compton, Chi-raq, Creed or Beasts of No nation are not stories the industry liked last year, yet they liked the white writer of Straight Outta Compton and the white actor in Creed: #OscarsSoWhite that Rocky got nominated in a movie about Apollo’s son [Hari Kondabolu]. Spike Lee asks: “How is it possible for the 2nd consecutive year that all 20 contenders under the Actor category are white? 40 white actors in 2 years and no flava at all! We can’t act. WTF!” It seems easier to be president of the United States as a black man than to be the head of a studio, he says.

What happened last year with different narratives? Have we gone backwards from 12 years a slave? Or are we continuing the Selma trend of snubbing anything related to black America or black lives or history? Is the lack of nomination for any of the issues that these films raise not a powerful enough narrative for hollywood and its audience? How could Chi-raq not ring an urgent bell in our age of gun violence and killings when it used abstinence from sex to drive the point home of no violence? Is black history and hip hop culture in LA not worthy of story telling? Are stories told by child soldiers in Africa too far removed and too much for us to be interested in? Or black trans lives?

Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith are boycotting Oscars this year. Jada feels that people can only treat them in the way they allow. And on the 30th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr, Spike Lee announced his boycott reminding us of Dr King’s words: “there comes a time one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but he must take it because conscience tells him it’s right'”.

#OscarsSoWhite reminds me of what Jean-Luc Godard said in an interview for Goodbye Language in 2014 about Cannes Awards festivals when asked why he stopped going to Cannes. He thought he could find a cinema family there. But people would discuss ideas with him, lead him to his hotel, eat with him, then leave him alone. Jada feels used, too, like Godard: people of color are always welcomed to give out awards and even entertain but rarely recommended for their accomplishments. Spike and Jada are saying Goodbye to Oscars because those they & all the others actors, directors, writers etc of color consider their Oscar family leave them without a family. They don’t belong to that family.

War of the Images 

Fashion used to be shot in contrast. The clothes and accessories [bags, shoes, jewelry] were clearly the foreground and in the foreground. Everything else was relegated to the background which itself struck a harmony with what was being highlighted. It was the photographer and the designer who decided what to pay attention to and what should stand out.

normal constrast allure mag jan 16_7    est ouest 2   est ouest 6

 

But lately, there seems to be a battle of the images, a battle of the foreground over the background in fashion. My eyes have never been so busy. Nor have they had to compete for attention or to figure out what is the thing being advertised.

Allure [November 2015] has images where not only the bold colors compete, but ideas compete, too, and the eyes need to look hard to see the details of the centerfold, because there are so many other details around what’s being highlighted. There’s a kind of chaos and clutter to these images, which make it a bit difficult to settle on the clothes. and hopefully i did see what they wanted me to see. Clothes, right? Or is it bags?

allure mag jan 16_1allure mag jan 16_2.jpeg

 

 

 

Marie Claire [January 2016] features ads with colors so heavily saturated in the entire image that it is easy to see everything together, or everything else first, then the item being advertised. Then suddenly you realize  ‘ah! it’s a shoe or a bag they’re advertising! Not mini figures of characters of games.’

New York Times Style magazine [6 December 2015] had a similar idea where contrasts are all on the heavy side; no longer is there lightness against darkness, and no longer does the jewelry occupy frontal space but here it occupies a small space and everything else, the majority of the space of the whole image:

 

It is a very different way to shoot, photograph, edit or put images together, especially when your eyes have been trained to see the clothes and accessories being advertised easily. This new way to shoot images for magazines seems to imitate the era in which we live, a fast-paced technological era, where there is so much going on that is vying for our attention that we have to really focus on what we should see. Art imitates life!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 388 other followers