L'America

L’America depicts Albania during its time as a transitional economy. The country had recently experienced a political change which was characterized by a shift from communism to capitalism. The communist’s regime which was oppressive and limiting had been eliminated and replaced by an emerging free market, but capitalism wasn’t without its problems. As we see in L’America, capitalism spawns individualistic attitudes which cause men to prioritize their own financial success over the community. In L’America we see the worst aspects of capitalism. As two men, Fiore and Gino enter Albania seeking to exploit others to profit off of government grants used to strengthen and rebuild Albanian economy.

The plot in L’America begins with two corrupt Italian businessmen named Fiore and Gino. The two men are hoping to establish a phony business in Albania to take advantage of the Albanian government’s grants. In order to receive grants, however, the chairman must be Albanian. The two men carefully chose their chairman, who was in their eyes an Albanian prisoner who was psychologically ill, but had no known relatives (at least at the time of his hiring). The two men would use the chairman for nothing more than his signatures to gain the paperwork necessary to gain investments. Therefore, Michele unknowingly became the puppet chairman for the two con artists.

When put into historical context, the film is very depressing. Albanians had suffered under a fascist regime, which was later overthrown by communist, only to be change once again into an open market. However, once the open market concept was introduced there were already people there waiting to exploit the situation. It’s no wonder why L’America shows Albanians eager to enter Italy. They felt hopeless for a number of reasons which made them want to flee Albania rather than to rebuild its economy.

We Wish to Inform You of your Government’s lack of Involvement when Needed Most

The book, We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda, by Philip Gourevitch was both chilling and disturbing. Like the movie, Hotel Rwanda, We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda, tells the story of the Rwandan genocide. Unlike Hotel Rwanda, Philip Gourevitch delves deeply into Rwandan history to explain why divisions exist between Hutus and Tutsis. According to Philip Gourevitch, division among ethnicities was created when the Belgians chose Tutsis as the master race. Disturbingly, Tutsis were chosen because of their likeness to Europeans –their lighter skin tone and narrow nose. In the eyes of Belgians, these physical characteristics proved that Tutsis were superior to the more African looking Hutus. The Belgians used Tutsis to command the Hutus into forced labor, which created a large divide among Tutsis and Hutus. Upon giving up colonial rule, Belgians left power not to the Tutsis, which it had utilized in the past, but to the majority –Hutus. Hutus had experienced years of oppression and forced labor by way of the Tutsis, which incited acts of retaliation eventually leading to genocide.

Historical aspects leading up to the Rwandan genocide were difficult to read, but what was more difficult to fathom was why the world stood by and watched this take place. Through this course we have learned of a few failed attempts at colonial rule. Rwanda was an extreme example of mismanagement first by the Belgians, then by the United States, and all other countries that comprise the United Nations. The lack of involvement from the west reminded me of the famous quote by Henry David Thoreau which reads, “How does a man to behave toward this American government today? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it.”

Hotel Rwanda, as I stated in our discussion board, failed to explain the cause of division between Hutus and Tutsis. In short, it was too vague. We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda was not nearly as vague. It told of the story of Odette and Jean-Baptiste; however, unlike Hotel Rwanda, the book addressed, in much greater detail, western influence that caused division among Hutus and Tutsis. It also attacked individual countries for their lack of involvement –particularly the United States under the direction of President Clinton. Hotel Rwanda only told of the outcome –that the UN was going to leave Rwanda; it did not fully explain why? The book was much clearer; Hotel Rwanda would have been a much better film had it included the west’s involvement in creating tension, then the west’s lack of involvement in bring the genocide to an end.

What can be learned through the movie Hotel Rwanda are only half truths. The movie provides only one perspective and that is of the Tutsi victims. It doesn’t show the years of oppression that Hutus suffered, which ultimately contributed to the violence against Tutsis. Adding this aspect to the film would not add entertainment value, but would make the film more informative and not so one sided. This isn’t to say that Tutsis deserved to be murdered, but there are multiple perspectives concerning what took place in Rwanda and this film only addresses one.

Paradise Now

Paradise Now is a controversial film that has caused tension among Israelis. The movie attempts to explain the Palestinian perspective of the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, Israelis, among others, believe that the movie portrays murderers (suicide bombers) as victims. Others claim that the movie glorifies suicide bombing. This form of terrorism is very real for Israelis, which is why they are worried that the film might mislead those that watch it. For this reason there is a petition to revoke Paradise Now from the Oscars.

Throughout the year there are several controversial films created. Therefore, revoking Paradise Now will cause an onslaught of petitions to revoke other movies from the Oscars. The movie has been made, is on sale throughout the world, and will be viewed by millions. Revoking it from the Oscars does not change anything. It only opens the door for more petitions.

I agree that films can be dangerous if they seek to mislead, however, revoking a movie from the Oscars does not keep the movie from misleading people. Instead, why not create a response by filming the Israeli perspective? I’m sure many people would enjoy watching the Israeli perspective as well.

"Zinat"

The most revealing scene took place at the well. Hamed’s mother made the comment, “this is not a man’s work” referring to drawing water from the well. This statement clearly emphasizes that there are responsibilities for women and men. The two do not work to assist one another, but rather hold one another accountable. In the film, Zinat had broken with this tradition by becoming a doctor, which was a predominantly male occupation. Hamed’s mother was not proud of her for this, but instead held it against her because she could not work and serve her husband. The older generation (parents) were clinging to tradition while the younger generation was challenging existing norms.

Throughout the movie there is dialogue between several women who fear that Zinat may miss the opportunity to marry. One woman stated, “Go after your own life.” while another said, “She must have a husband”. Why the insistence on being married. It seems that women in this society cannot live meaningful lives without men to lead them. The highest achievement in life appears to be marriage.

The ending of the movie was inspirational. Hamed chooses to side with his wife and leaves his mother. This symbolizes Hamed’s break with traditional authority. He now understands his wife’s usefulness to the community. Because he witnessed her save a life, he may now understand the greater value and potential for women in society.

If I were to change the ending of Zinat than I would extend the movie to make the message abundantly clear. I would also film Hamed’s future confrontation with his parents as to provide a strong argument for others that may be in a similar situation. I might also add script to show the year and region where the story takes place. I might also follow the movie with statistics that highlight woman in the workforce or other woman’s rights issues in Iran.

"Gandhi" Blog

The movie “Gandhi” was reviewed by several sources; however, two perspectives were written about heavily. The first perspective was one in which the movie was praised for capturing the life of one the most interesting characters in the twentieth century. Much praise went to the director for his efforts in filming Gandhi’s accomplishments from the beginning in South Africa to his death in India. I agree that the director succeeded in capturing Gandhi’s over character, demeanor, and accomplishments. However, I favored the more critical reviews of the movie for a few reasons. As many reviews pointed out, Muslims were portrayed poorly in the movie. On several occasions the movie showed acts of violence then quickly moved to a scene showing Jinnah as to almost connect him to the violence. One scene shows Jinnah’s impatients while he waits for the Hindus to finish their prayers. Still other scenes display Muslim leadership as actively promoting violence. The conflict between Hindus and Muslims was not one sided, but I fear that anyone who watches the movie would be led to believe the Muslims were to blame for the violence. The director should have done more to make the picture more historically accurate.