12 posts from May 2008

Khadak

A few days ago, I watched the the movie Khadak, ostensibly a movie about the relocation of Mongolian nomads into communist mining compounds where they are to mine coal for a pittance. It was for a better understanding of this story that I rented the movie but I found quite soon that this was not really the story the movie was most interested in telling. I will let one reviewer, Rob Gemen, on the Internet Movie Database tell my story about watching it as it was fairly similar.

"This movie lacks about everything what a movie needs for being a movie. First of all, it tells no story. It is an endless array of non-coherent scenes where every scenes lasts for at least 20 seconds. There is very little sound in the movie. People do not talk, there's no background music and there is hardly any sound from the backgrounds. Most scenes are staring people to 'god knows what' or very empty sceneries. It bores you to death.

If should want to compare it with more 'down to earth' objects, then: It's like eating soup without ingredient. It's like Music without rhythms or melody. It's like a bicycle without a frame. It's like a novella without characters. It's like food without taste. It's like a car without an engine or wheels. It's like a holiday in which you have to work for 17 hours a day. It's like sailing without a boat. More of all: It's like a movie without a story."

I had suspected that I might be ambushed by a cultural lack of understanding of Mongolian religious-philosophical  beliefs and I think I was right. Preciently, I had stopped to ask my friend Mike, the Anthropologist, to watch it with me and unfortunately, he had been unable to do so leaving me, veritably unarmed.

Another reviewer at the Internet Movie Database who came back to the movie with a better understanding of Mongolian Shammanism than he had at the first viewing, substanciated my suspicion that my instincts had been right to invite an anthopologist to watch it with me.

"The first time I saw it, I was bowled over by the gorgeous visuals, but couldn't follow the narrative, especially in the last half. I got the feeling this was normal, that there wasn't really any narrative except in the magico-realistic sense, that the movie was meant to be viewed impressionistic-ally. Then I absorbed just a bit about the history of Mongolia and Mongolian shamanism at home, and saw it again. The second time the narrative was clear throughout. The gorgeous visuals were still there, but now they weren't the only thing.

One key was understanding that shamanism was heavily discouraged when Mongolia was a Soviet satellite for decades. Another was understanding just a bit about shamanism itself: that the giant blue sky is almost a personality; that poles and clefts and even trees can be entrances to the world below; that shamans are called by their first trance experience, which often manifests as an illness, and trained by the previous generation's shaman; that shamanistic trances and epileptic fits are similar; and most importantly that the highest calling of a shaman is to "restore balance" with nature for an entire people.

More imagery made sense with the understanding that going under water meant death from this world (and perhaps birth into the world of nature). The parallel between a woman traumatized by the relocation to modernity and a peeled potato going under water in a basin became clear."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475241/usercomments

Clearly, a story is a better story when you understand that it is a dream and this movie may be more like a dream than a story and when watched as the latter, is probably bound to disappoint. It will however go into my list of movies to see again and maybe even to use in classes in dealing with the subject of spiritual displacement.

Question for Comment: What is your general relationship to things that you do not understand? Is it to become familiar with the context so that the understanding eventually arises? Or is it to classify that thing you cannot understand as inscrutable? When is the last time you confronted something that seemed senseless from your frame of reference?

Once

Thats the theory I guess. One of the songs on the DVD talks about falling in love in these words:

Water (2 DVD Special Edition)

Tonight's movie was Water by Deepa Mehta. I will definitely be seeing more of her films. What I like about this film is how universal its themes are. It clearly does not attack Hinduism but instead exposes the way it has been used to exploit people, indeed, to wreck their lives. It is not a story that is any different really than the story of Martin Luther. Or even Jesus.

Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone."

 Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.

 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

The point here is NOT, it should be understood, that Christians are good guys and Jews bad. the point is that every religion eventually is infused with exploitive and legalistic elements. There is no better place for bad people to hide than good religions. Interestingly, the filming of the movie Water created such a controversy (Imagine the Last Temptation of Christ by Martin Scorsese in a fundamentalist Hindu context) that they had to shut the whole thing down and recast and refilm in Shri Lanka.

“I couldn't make Water until I stopped being angry" says the director, Deepa Mehta

"... it took me five years to get over my anger. Why are we so scared of showing the truth? Why can't we question aspects of our tradition that aren't so great? . . .. “To make 'Water' was akin to climbing Mount Everest -- a hard journey.””

One sees this clearly in the words of the apostle Paul who, in his earliest letter to the church at Corinth insisted that the congregations should not follow HIM.

"My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?"

But by the end of his life and ministry, you can see a certain amount of calcification. He believes himself to have arrived somewhat. He instructs his leading disciple in his last known letter before his execution, to "guard" the assertions and doctrines that he has laid down.

"What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

Somehow ... when I see a movie about the way that the laws of Manu were being used in their Hindu context a half century ago, it is not hard to see how laws of any religion can be similarly used against the health of the people who adhere to the faith that is so often used against them. The movie does not seek to destroy faith but to restore the essential connection between conscience and faith and faith systems so often disconnect.  (And it should be noted that it is a period movie. It does not set out to describe life in India TODAY).

Ghandi, who used to campaign against the practice of holding Indian women in a state of perpetual widowhood, once said "“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” I suspect that one might be tempted to say the same of Hinduism after watching a movie like this. No religion should be known only by the character of the people who have exploited it in the past.

And this is where this movie gets even more interesting. There are many Indians who will watch it and bemoan the fact that its principle issue, the sequestering of widows, is almost entirely a non-issue in India today. I suppose watching it could be seen as similar to watching Iron Jawed Angels (the Alice Paul story) and not knowing that American women can now vote. Though watching Iron Jawed Angels will get you to thinking about contemporary issues.

Here is a comment from one of these critics:

Though the film attempts to illustrate issues facing women in late colonial India, Mehta falls into orientalist imagery. She endorses notions of 'colonial benevolence' that helped rationalize the British administration of India. Imperialists have used the plight of the 'oppressed Eastern woman' to justify their exploits. Sati (widow burning), oppression of widows and child marriage were particularly isolated as examples of the backwardness of indigenous culture and the need for intervention; superior European morals were needed for a civilizing mission."

. . . Mehta further constructs a male savior as the route for redemption through Narayan. At one point in the film, Narayan and Kalyani discuss the changing nature of tradition, and how to retain 'good'  traditions while casting away the 'bad.' When Narayan poses the question as to who will decide which traditions are to be kept and

which ones are to be discarded, Kalyani answers, "you." Here we see a male, educated within the colonial system as a lawyer, come to save the tragic beauty from the backwardness of tradition; a male who once again, holds decision-making power. Indeed Gandhi occupies a similar position in the film: he is a colonial-educated lawyer who also comes as savior, preaching Hindu reform and national unity while also touching the heart of Shakuntala. Both Narayan and Gandhi represent enlightened, educated men rescuing the oppressed from Hindu culture.

What can you do? We think you have done enough, thanks.

The question and answer period was an experience in itself. We were in the presence of Deepa Mehta herself, who had changed her flight to make the screening. She said her intention in making the movie was to "move people." Indeed the question asked by an audience member, "What can we do for them from here?" appeared to appreciate this goal. This question is the result of representing women as being so helpless and that they need outside help. Her story is crafted in such a way that no other responses except paternalistic concern can be expected. Indeed his question ignored the powerful women's movement in India that, among other things, has challenged the legal status of widows. Luckily, Mehta replied that it is important first to fix "our world" before treading out to sea."

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/002344.html

One also should note that all of the characters in the movie who find love are beautiful. And in that sense, there is an extenuation of the idea that the beautiful (as opposed to the British or the Brahmans) have rights to the good life that others don't.

One is again reminded of how many ways there are to see and feel a film:

"Throughout the showing of the film, we were bombarded with audience-members around us making "tsks-tsks" and sympathetic noises. In the act of making a film about colonial India, Mehta adopted the role of the 'native informant' who exposes to the Canadian audience the reality of our backward, culture. We occupied an awkward relationship in that room: though we were represented on film, many around us sounded like they wished to save us from ourselves. In that space, we, like the characters in Water, became subjects of colonial benevolence."

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/002344.html

Question for Comment: What is a religious tradition that you think works counter to human health and happiness?

The U.S. Demographic Visualizer

http://demo.idvsolutions.com/apps/censusdemo/flash/map.html

It is interesting to see the different ways in which American society is not really an "American" society. There are many Americas. I submitted the following discussion post to a class today. It makes me wonder, do we ALL agree to distinctions being made in an ad hoc way? Are we all hypocrites in some way?

"Our society likes to find ways to make distinctions between groups
of people."

What is interesting is that so many of us can find ourselves in the
position of pots calling the kettle black on this. There are some rather
weird inconsistencies. For example, social conservatives would say that
it is WRONG to draw a distinction between a baby and a fetus but would
definitely draw such a distinction between a heterosexual couple and a
gay couple. A liberal might argue that it is WRONG to draw a distinction
between a heterosexual couple and a gay couple but that distinctions
between wealthy people and Middle income people MUST be drawn for tax
purposes. 

etc. etc. 

Do we ALL do this? are we all guilty? Are any of us really consistent?
Thanks for getting me thinking. 

Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy

I just spent the last two or three hours evaluating the documentary Commanding Heights with the boys. I feel like they have a much better grasp of globalization, free-market capitalism, planned economies, socialism, and communism than I ever had. It has been really fun watching them struggle with economic ideas and their cause and effect relationships and watching how these ideas play out in the global marketplace.

What is even more interesting is to talk about the place they think they would like to play in that economy. Whether they want to make money off other people's work by organizing them? Or if they want to make money by acquiring some skill or knowledge that they can sell over and over again (like I do)? Or if they want to invent or create something that can be sold many times? Or if they want to perfect some process? ... etc. etc.

As I watched the movie, I was reminded of what Ken Bain said about people needing to see that their constructs of reality don't work.  Systems that have too many layers of people paid to manage too many people unmotivated to work by lack of reward simply cannot work indefinitely. Similarly, systems where too few people get ALL the profit because they have figured out how to eliminate middle management AND  relocate them into the exploited class ... and where they have figured out how to externalize costs onto the tax-payer will eventually fail too.

I find myself wondering how I managed to land where I have in the economy. And what choices I need to make to move ahead.

Blue State

Tonight's movie was a romantic comedy, I guess, about a disillusioned young Kerry campaign worker after the 2004 election loss. In a slightly inebriated state of expectation, John Logue swears to move to Canada if Bush wins again and wakes up with both a hangover and a commitment he has not intention of keeping. John and a young woman he meets after interviewing a bunch of kooks for his ride share  trip to Manitoba  take off in his Volvo for the excursion after discovering a website (MarryaCanadian.org or something like that) promising to hook up disillusioned American Democrats with left wing Canadian partners.

So, they drive a thousand some odd miles just to discover that there are some disturbing realities about the sorts of people who would marry an American just to save them from their too conservative habitat. So John and his "girl" turn around after one or two nights (and after John decides to marry and then NOT marry someone he has slept with for one night) and head back to the states.

John is totally opposed to the Iraq War and will only fill up his car at gas stations serving Venezuelan gas (which means he would rather run out of gas than go against his principles though he will burn through tanks of gas for a hairbrained commitment he makes while drunk, a commitment he rather uncharacteristically feels he needs to keep though he will leave an engagement at the drop of a hat.

Its just a bizarre look at the interesting ethics of political extremism sometimes I guess. There does not seem to be a rhyme or reason to when and where a person has to act on principle.  He will give up his citizenship on principle but divorce a person in spite of it. He will refuse to buy oil from the Middle East but burn a year's supply of Hummer fuel escaping to Canada for a few days.

I have no doubt that conservatives have similar problems with consistency. I wonder what a good counterpart to this movie would be? Incidentally, this should not be regarded as a "hit piece" on liberalism. My point simply is that political people often differentiate in seemingly arbitrary ways when it comes to different policies that impact different demographics.

Yesterday's Faculty Collaborative had plenty to get me thinking in it. But briefly ...

1. Collin Ducalon's workshop on "Understanding by Design" reminded me of the importance of being clear about what the "Big Ideas" are in any class I teach.

2. Laurel Bongiorno's workshop on placement and structure in educational settings reminded me of how many messages are sent to students simply by the decision to set chairs and tables in a certain way or structure a discussion in a certain way. The Chalk Talk excercise was particularly useful and i hope to try it out this summer.

3. Michael Lang's presentation on multicultural-ization of a lesson was also stimulating. A number of creative ideas occurred to me in the course of our small group interactions. one of them was simply to ask students to take on a role and comment on other people's work  as though they were the person in the role.

4. Karen Klove's workshop on Gender in the educational context was a reminder that there is still a lot of pain around gender issues for many people and that one can never take enough pre-emptive action in creating a safe environment.

Cyrano De Bergerac

Edmond Rostand

"Lug your guts away salami, or stay and I'll remove you slice by slice!" Cyrano De Bergerac

Cyrano was someone of whom it could truly be said "He was so much cooler online". It is interesting how my literary interests all collided into one point this week. I have been reading Othello with the boys and clearly one of its main messages is how deceiving appearances can be. "Men should be what they seem" says Iago but clearly, as the play demonstrates, they never are. In the car, we have been listening to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and again, the whole issue of appearances comes to the fore. Victor Frankenstein meets his future wife, Elizabeth, when they are just children and she is welcomed into the family before she ever says a word, simply because of the "divine radiance" glowing from her blond Aryan hair. Victor Frankenstein relates:

"She appeared of a different stock. The four others were dark eyed, hardy little vagrants; this child was thin, and very fair. Her hair was the brightest living gold, and, despite the poverty of her clothing, seemed to set a crown of distinction on her head. Her brow was clear and ample, her blue eyes cloudless, and her lips and the moulding of her face so expressive of sensibility and sweetness, that none could behold her without looking on her as of a distinct species, a being heaven-sent, and bearing a celestial stamp in all her features."

As a result of this aesthetic inheritance, Elizabeth is warmly embraced by Frankenstein's family.

"When my father returned from Milan, he found playing with me in the hall of our villa a child fairer than pictured cherub--a creature who seemed to shed radiance from her looks, and whose form and motions were lighter than the chamois of the hills. The apparition was soon explained. With his permission my mother prevailed on her rustic guardians to yield their charge to her. They were fond of the sweet orphan. Her presence had seemed a blessing to them; but it would be unfair to her to keep her in poverty and want, when Providence afforded her such powerful protection. They consulted their village priest, and the result was that Elizabeth Lavenza became the inmate of my parents' house--my more than sister the beautiful and adored companion of all my occupations and my pleasures."

One is tempted to say with Lord Henry in Oscar Wilde's Picture of Dorian Gray that looks are everything. For indeed, when Victor Frankenstein creates his "creature" all it takes is one look from the "yellow" eye to know that this monster must be rejected. It can never find a home in a Frankenstein family reunion.

"It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs.

How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful!--Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips."

One cannot help observing that the poor creature would also be "so much cooler online". The only tenderness he ever receives at the hand of human kind is from a blind man. Like Cyrano, is is doomed to desire love, to know that he deserves to be loved, but to never be the recipient of love. cyrano is about to proclaim his love for Roxanne when she begins to tell him of her infatuation with someone else.

Roxane: His face shines with wit and intelligence.
He’s proud, noble, young, fearless, handsome. . . .
Cyrano: Handsome!
Roxane: What is it? What’s the matter?
Cyrano: Nothing. . . . It’s . . . it’s . . . it’s only a twinge of pain from this little scratch.

Anyone who has ever been in this position knows that it is not a "little scratch". It opens up your jugular and marinates it in battery acid.  

But my perfect storm of literary coincidences is not over. the blizzard continues. One of the novels assigned to the students in Champlain college's CORE curriculum is Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye. I was looking over it this week in the context of some work I am doing. Like the above pieces of literature, it too focuses on the use of externalities as a means of ascribing intrinsic worth to oneself. The main character in the book, a nine year old black child named Pecola, concludes that to have value, she needs to have blue eyes. Indeed, in a metaphorical sense, one could say that she determines that she must not only LOOK LIKE a white girl to be valued, she must also SEE like a white girl.  

"It had occurred to Pecola some time ago that if her eyes, those eyes that held the pictures, and knew the sights—if those eyes of hers were different, that is to say, beautiful, she herself would be different."

When superficial aesthetic value judgements are allowed to dominate the stock exchange of human communities, eventually, those values are internalized into all who seek to be valued (and who of us doesn't?)

It would be interesting to write an essay comparing and contrasting the different responses that the so-called "deffectives" have to the dilema that their physical traits bestow on them. Cyrano, Frankenstein's "creature", Pecola, and Dorian Gray are ALL having to deal with the thought of life in the "unbeautiful catagory" (though Dorian deals with it only in the hypothetical sense).

Cyrano resigns himself to getting whatever love he can, even if vicariously. He simply overcompensates by being his best self in conversation and writing ("In a poet's pocket you often find the product of an active imagination.")

Christian: I need eloquence, and I have none!
Cyrano: I’ll lend you mine! Lend me your conquering physical charm, and together we’ll form a romantic hero!
Christian: What do you mean?
Cyrano: Do you feel capable of repeating what I tell you every day?
Christian: Are you suggesting . . .
Cyrano: Roxane won’t be disillusioned!
Together, we can win her heart! Will you let my soul pass from my leather jerkin and lodge beneath your embroidered doublet?

The creature exacts his revenge on the society that so rejects and devalues him.

"Cursed, cursed creator! Why did I live? Why, in that instant, did I not extinguish the spark of existence which you had so wantonly bestowed? I know not; despair had not yet taken possession of me; my feelings were those of rage and revenge. I could with pleasure have destroyed the cottage and its inhabitants, and have glutted myself with their shrieks and misery. . . . I became fatigued with excess of bodily exertion, and sank on the damp grass in the sick impotence of despair. There was none among the myriads of men that existed who would pity or assist me; and should I feel kindness towards my enemies? No: from that moment I declared everlasting war against the species, and, more than all, against him who had formed me, and sent me forth to this insupportable misery." 

It is a simple solution, really. destroy the system that devalues you.

Pecola fantasizes that she DOES have blue eyes. Dorian takes a "Michael Jackson route" you might say, taking physical measures to insure the immortality of his beauty.  

Question for Comment: What is your response when you feel too homely to acquire the love that you want in life?

Motherland Afghanistan

Motherland Afghanistan follows the efforts of an American-Afghan gynecologist as he returns to Afghanistan to apply his skills and knowledge to the service of Afghan women after the demise of the Taliban. After watching the movie, I ordered a copy for my Middle East collection in the hopes of including it in my class this summer among other things. Afghanistan just seems to me to be a place where a population simply cannot afford to grow. I can't see where they grow food. And  yet there are all these people there in absolute need of basic water, medical services, and education.

This movie takes you into the pain in people's faces. The anxiety in their hearts. It is hard, no impossible for me to imagine really. How does one love a woman so much that they wish to have children together with her, knowing that the childbirth process has such a high risk attached to it? How do you say to someone "I love you so much I want to send a copy of you into another generation" when the process by which that happens is a minefield ... and the world the child is born into is as well?  Movies like this leave me wondering,

Question for Comment: "Is the world my family? Or is my family my family?"