Movie: Fantasia (1940)

Posted on November 30, 2020 by admin

Fantasia and the “Disney Acid Sequence”

Fantasia is an interesting film because it was created at a time when film was highly experimental and the sky seemed the limit on what new genres of art would be created by the technology of moving pictures. Fantasia imagines what the symphony of the future might look like: instead of going to the philharmonic, you might go to a movie that functioned as a concert that combined imagery with musical performance. Combining animation and song had long been a staple of early animation and film and still is, but it usually came in the form of short, humorous musical segments rather than a full-length, two-hour “concert.”

Fantasia consists of seven animated segments visualizing Classical, Romantic, and Modernist music, interspersed with stylized live-action sections introducing the conductor, the orchestra, and the various pieces of music. Each of the animated segments has its own style and mood, ranging from purely abstract (Toccata and Fugue) to concrete imagery without much story (Nutcracker Suite) to a coherent story (The Sorcerer’s Apprentice) but overall the art style from segment to segment is coherent enough that moving from one piece to the next isn’t too jarring. The result is a work of art and beauty that’s truly an experience to watch.

Fantasia didn’t turn a profit, but it got a second life when the psychedelic aesthetic came into vogue because, frankly, the visuals of the movie can be quite trippy, featuring dancing mushrooms and flowers, hippos and ostriches doing ballet, Dionysian orgies, and brightly-colored circles and lines moving across the screen in ways that, when combined with music, seem oddly… threatening at times? It seems that music plus the combination of drawn art and movement that animation consists in can become a quite trippy experience, especially as the art becomes more abstract/experimental or less photorealistic. This phenomenon is captured fairly well by the concept of the Disney Acid Sequence.

It’s important to note that sequences where the animation becomes detached from reality don’t necessarily indicate that the characters are under the influence of mind-altering drugs, that the animators are under the influence of mind-altering drugs, or that the viewer has to be under the influence of mind-altering drugs in order to appreciate them. In fact, I think the opposite is true in all cases:

First, while it’s true that the art style suddenly getting weird can be an effective way to indicate an altered mental state visually — see: the drunk “Pink Elephant” hallucinations of Dumbo — they are just as often used in non-altered state scenarios such as daydreaming or to indicate someone is relating a tale/fantasy (where an art style change is used to indicate a story-within-a-story). So the narrative purpose of Disney Acid Sequences extend far beyond just the depiction of altered mental states and include things like nested storytelling.

The Pink Elephants sequence is an example where a change in art style is used to convey altered mental states and dreaming.

However, Disney Acid Sequences can be used to depict lucid mental states. For example, “You’re Welcome” from Moana uses stylized animation/art to convey a story-within-a-story. “Sing, Sweet Nightingale” departs from realistic art to convey Cinderella’s daydreaming.

Second, in terms of what’s happening on the animators’ side, it’s true that the end results of art style experimentations frequently look very trippy. However, the motivation for making them is much more mundane: it’s just normal artistic/creative experimentation. A Disney Acid Sequence may be a great excuse to do a loving pastiche of a particular art style, for example.

In addition to conveying daydreams, the “A Girl Worth Fighting For” segment from Mulan is an excuse to have the animation imitate Chinese ink wash and calligraphy, while the “Almost There” segment of Princess and the Frog pastiches the look of art deco advertising. Image credits: Calligraphy; painting by Shen Zhou. Art deco poster, Rolls-Royce ad

Finally, so-called Disney Acid Sequences are often the most fun and entertaining musical segments of a Disney movie in a way appreciable to everyone, not just the stoned, because of the amount of care, creativity, and art-style homage that may be put into them, and because stylized, non-photorealistic art styles are just… really cool to look at! This is not strictly a Disney Acid Sequence, but some of my favorite credit sequences are the credits for WALL-E and Ratatouille because of the stylized visuals and visual storytelling. (Try to name all the art styles featured in the WALL-E credits!)

Anyway, this is all to say that the whole of Fantasia is a Disney Acid Sequence, and that is what makes the film stupendous to watch (no drugs needed!).

Fantasia 2000

While originally Fantasia was intended to be a movie continually re-released with updated/shuffled segments, in fact it would not get an update until around 60 years later with Fantasia 2000. While this sequel to Fantasia certainly kept the bold, experimental spirit of the original, it falls short in terms of artistic achievement / the quality of final product. As a result, it is a bit of a disappointment to watch.

Core to both the creative energy and the disappointing results is the use of computer-generated (CG) animation. Experimenting with this (at the time) emerging technology and combining it with traditional animation was bold, putting the movie’s animation at the intersection of art and cutting-edge technology. However, CG animation at the time was still pretty crude and had not caught up to the visual standards of hand-drawn animation. Even now, even though CG animation has gotten much more fluid and visually impressive, the ability of CG animation to portray the non-photorealistic and/or abstract styles best exemplified by the “Disney Acid Sequence” is still limited when compared to hand-drawn animation, and often needs to be combined with hand-drawn animation in order to achieve the same level of quality.

In any case, while there was clearly effort and artistic vision put into Fantasia 2000, the technology wasn’t ready (and perhaps still is not ready) to rise to the level of the stunning visuals of the original. The idea was sound, however, and I hope that Disney plans to continue to update Fantasia and its type of musical/visual storytelling as the technology gets yet more mature.

(There are of course many more examples of beautiful stylized animation both inside and outside of Disney. Just a short list of examples I’ve encountered: Destino’s Dali-inspired art, the storybook art of The Tale of Princess Kaguya, a film about Vincent van Gogh done in the style of his paintings, and the look of Into the Spider-verse inspired by comic books and pop art.)

Unfortunately, the dream of Fantasia becoming the future of the symphony didn’t really pan out — but if you go to the symphony, they will sometimes make use of picture screens, so that at least has come true.

Movie: Knock Down the House (2019)

Posted on October 30, 2019 by admin

This compelling documentary follows the primary campaigns of four progressive women who are not career politicians, but each, after seeing a need for change in their communities, decide to run for U.S. Congress in 2018. All four women are coming from powerful personal stories that compelled them to put themselves out there and run for office. While they each have their top issues they are fighting for based on their stories, this film does a good job illustrating the intersectionality of these issues as they disproportionately impact marginalized and working communities. The 2018 midterm elections saw record numbers of women and people of color who ran for and won seats—including the first-ever Native American women and Muslim women to serve in Congress. Even though Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (also known as AOC) is the only one of the four featured in the film to succeed in her race, it is still inspiring to watch each of their journeys. And as AOC says herself, “For one of us to make it, a hundred of us have to try.”

This documentary teamed up with the left-wing populist groups Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress, which are both focused on recruiting and supporting progressive outsiders to challenge corporate politicians. Largely born out of the momentum of Bernie Sanders’s people-powered 2016 Presidential campaign, these groups are working to address the political corruption of Washington D.C. and get money out of politics. Both groups back candidates that refuse financial contributions from corporations and billionaires in order to have politicians who will truly serve the interests of their constituents.

“The Squad”: From left-to-right, Rashida Tlaib (Michigan), Ilhan Omar (Minnesota), Ayanna Pressley (Massachusetts), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York)

Justice Democrats was formed after the 2016 elections with the mission to rebuild the Democratic Party by replacing every corporate-backed member of Congress. In addition to AOC, 6 of the 78 other candidates endorsed by Justice Democrats went on to win a seat in Congress in the 2018 election cycle (including the other three young, progressive women of color who now make up “The Squad” with AOC). Justice Democrats supports long-shot challengers of established Democrats in their primaries to say that not all Democrats are equal. Since these newcomer candidates don’t have the name recognition of a career politician nor the corporate funding for their campaigns, it is an uphill battle against the Democratic Party machine. Other major platforms these candidates tend to run on include an end to fossil fuel extraction, abolishing ICE and the school-to-prison pipeline, cancelling student debt, and ensuring universal education and healthcare.

Brand New Congress is focused on recruiting working people and community organizers as a way of lifting the voices of the marginalized. Of the 31 candidates on their slate who trained together for the 2018 cycle, AOC was the only one to win.

The four women featured in this film were endorsed by both Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress. Even though they didn’t all win, each of these women inspired others by having the courage to step up for their communities. This film also does a good job highlighting some of the additional scrutiny women in politics have to constantly navigate—how they choose to dress and present themselves, how to use emotion without being accused of being too emotional or a bitch, and always having to prove their qualifications and credentials.

Amy Vilela decided to run in Nevada’s 4th congressional district after her daughter died from not being able to receive the health care she needed. Now her biggest fight is for Medicare for All. Amy’s story also includes her gratitude for the support of federal programs like WIC and food stamps when she was struggling as a single mother. She says she knows how to work with others, but makes it clear she is not willing to budge on universal healthcare.

Cori Bush got her start as a community organizer through the Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, marching in the streets and providing medical assistance as a nurse after the violent response by the police. Cori decided to run in Missouri’s 1st congressional district—a predominantly black district—against Lacy Clay (who is also African-American). Lacy Clay has held the seat since 2001, after essentially inheriting it from his father, who had held the seat since 1969. Because of this, Cori is up against an extremely well-established political name, where voters election after election gravitate toward the familiar name. However, Cori makes the argument that, despite having a black representative for 50 years, police brutality is not being addressed and working families are still struggling with poverty in her district and across the nation. Cori lost her 2018 primary, but will be running again in 2020.

Paula Jean Swearengin organized previously with the Sierra Club and for Bernie’s 2016 campaign. As a daughter of coal miners, she has personally witnessed the devastation of the nature and communities of Appalachia as a result of intensive coal mining. She decided to run for Senator in West Virginia to call out how their representatives have turned their backs on their constituents in favor of the money from the coal industry. She hopes to fight for all of the people in her community who suffer or have died from cancer and black lung disease due to the harsh environmental conditions of working in or living near the coal mines. Her run was against incumbent Joe Manchin, who served as the Governor of West Virginia before moving over to the Senate in 2010. Manchin is a conservative Democrat who has voted against same-sex marriage and in favor of reducing access to abortion, has consistently supported coal and oil development, and received a “A” rating from the NRA. In her concession after the primary, she plainly reminded Manchin, “People are dying.” Paula Jean is running for Senate again in 2020, this time against a Republican incumbent.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after running a truly inspiring campaign, won her primary against 20-year-incumbent Joe Crowley in the 14th congressional district of New York, which includes the Bronx and Queens. Crowley, like Lacy Clay, was essentially handed the seat through an arrangement with his predecessor. He hadn’t had a challenger since 2004 in a primary (which therefore means no real challenger given the solidly Democrat-leaning district). Serving as the House Democratic Caucus Chair in 2018, Crowley was the fourth-ranking House Democrat and set up to potentially be the next Speaker of the House. Given all of this, AOC’s 14-point win over him in the primary was a particularly huge upset victory. When people questioned AOC why they should vote for a newcomer instead of the incumbent who was rising up the ranks, she smartly poses the question, “And what is he using that power for?”

AOC attributes her politics to her Puerto Rican upbringing and her time spent at Standing Rock with the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters. She proudly references her time working as a waitress and bartender, saying it gave her the grit to work long days and an understanding of working people that most politicians seem to have lost touch with. Knowing that she couldn’t compete in regards to campaign financing (Crowley’s campaign was operating on a budget of over 20 times as much as AOC’s campaign), AOC ran a truly grassroots campaign that focused on going door-to-door to talk to voters and convince them that something other than the status quo is worth fighting for. AOC is an incredibly eloquent and passionate speaker. Throughout her campaign, she always clearly contrasted herself from Crowley and had a beautifully made ad that captured her story and what she stood for.

As the youngest woman to ever serve in the U.S. Congress, she brings fresh perspective as well as centers the concerns of the next generation in her bold calls for climate action, the defunding of ICE, campaign finance reform, and Medicare for All. AOC is particularly impressive and effective on social media and has used her platform to drastically change how we talk about what is possible. In the film, there is a scene where she expresses her fear of being eaten by the machine of D.C. While some who canvassed for her from the beginning might be disappointed by some concessions that she has had to make, overall, I think AOC has done an incredible job of bringing her lived experience as well as those of her constituents to the table. AOC and her proposed Green New Deal for climate action have unfortunately been tremendously demonized by the right and moderate Democrats as some sort of socialist nightmare destroying the soul of our country. AOC is up for re-election next year for her seat in Congress, and I sincerely hope that she is able to keep doing good work and fighting for her constituents. I also hope Cori Bush and Paula Jean Swearengin are able to join her in 2020.

AOC recently endorsed Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary out of the many candidates running for President in 2020. In her endorsement, she says that Bernie’s campaign helped her believe that she actually deserved better working conditions and that people like her could even run for office. AOC and Bernie both identify as Democratic Socialists. Democratic Socialism is about centering the universality of rights to housing and health care, building a mass movement that empowers people to work together for a better world, and demanding that Democrats have the guts to stand up to corporations that have been putting profits over people for too long.

When the four campaigns of this film were starting, they were all long-shots and it must have been a bit of a gamble for the director to decide which four races she was going to follow since it is hard to predict which ones would gain momentum. The director could not have asked for a better demonstration of the power of working people than with AOC’s upset victory against Crowley—who is such a perfect manifestation of the establishment, corporate Democrat machine. It is really great that this documentary was able to be there at the beginning of the journey and capture some of the momentum as it was starting to build.

This film aptly concluded with Sharon Jones’s soulful rendition of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land.” This song is often used to patriotically celebrate the beauty of America, but this version includes some of the original stanzas that are often left out of white-washed versions of his song which question who is allowed to access this beautiful America. Woody Guthrie was a strongly anti-fascist folksinger, and the Woody Guthrie Center in Tulsa, OK carries on his legacy of working for social justice.

Woody Guthrie with his iconic guitar

As I was walking
They tried to stop me
They put up a sign that said
Private Property.
Well, on the back side, it read nothing.
So it must be that side was made for you and me.

One bright sunny morning
In the shadow of the steeple
Down by the welfare office
I saw my people.
As they stood hungry
I stood wondering,
If this land was made for you and me?

Movie: La Jaula de Oro – Golden Dream (2013)

Posted on March 21, 2019 by admin

This Mexican film is a very powerful and sad movie, full of both beautiful images and heartbreaking realities. It is a story of four kids who venture on the long and dangerous journey from Guatemala to the U.S.—the land of the free and of opportunity—in hopes of a better life. Even though this movie is fiction, a similar story is sadly true for countless people who risk their lives trying to escape their dangerous country—be it Guatemala, Venezuela, Ukraine, Burma, Syria… This is another entry that I started a while ago that got harder for me to finish as the content only got more relevant to the situation in our country.

The movie starts with one of the kids, Sara, cutting her hair (to pass as a boy), packing her few possessions and money, and walking through the poverty-stricken streets with her other two friends. As they set off, it is clear that they are not leaving much behind (they don’t appear to even have any family who would notice their absence). The kids seem to have a romantic feeling that, as they leap into the unknown with nothing to lose, things could only get better for them. Throughout their journey, there are small sweet moments of hope. People alongside the train tracks throw fruit to the weary travelers on the train and wish them good luck; they encounter a kind farmer and a priest who feed the children and let them stay in their homes; or when they first arrive in Mexico (early enough when the children are still optimistic and it feels almost like a fun adventure as tourists), the kids treat themselves to some snacks and take silly photos together. But then they lose everything they have—several times—on their journey. It’s horrible that people take advantage of and steal from vulnerable people who are already have so close to nothing.

This movie also depicts the discrimination against the indigenous population that is still present in Mexico and Guatemala. On their journey, the friends meet Chauk, a native Mayan boy who speaks his native language instead of Spanish, so there is a language barrier. Initially, Juan is very rude to Chauk, calling him a “primitive Indian” and telling him he can’t travel with them (even though he is a boy of a similar age and all alone on the long journey to the U.S!), but Sara is nicer to Chauk and finds ways to communicate despite the language barrier. Juan’s upsetting behavior shows how culturally deep prejudices towards indigenous groups can run in people from more urban settings and alludes to the long history of violence and oppression toward indigenous people. Eventually, Chauk “proves himself” to Juan by having useful skills such as knowing how to kill a chicken for food or using natural remedies to help Juan when he is injured. This movie gently reminds us of the diversity of the “Hispanics” hoping to cross into our country.

This is definitely not a Hollywood movie, and I imagine it may not sit well with many U.S. audiences. There are no happy endings for anyone. (If you care, the rest of the paragraph is a spoiler). Their friend Samuel gives up and turns back at the Guatemala-Mexico border after they lose all of their possessions. Sara gets taken away by ruthless men when they realize she is a girl instead of a boy. In a Hollywood movie, there probably would have been an incredible and serendipitous reunion with Samuel down the road and a dramatic rescue mission to save Sara. But in reality, all of the characters are helpless and have no resources. When Sara is taken away, they have no way of knowing where she was taken or what happens to her. Barely hanging onto life themselves, there is nothing they can do except try to continue onward towards the U.S. border. Chauk is killed at the border by Border Patrol and that is the end of his story. In Hollywood, this movie might have been some touching coming-of-age story. It is true that the kids have to learn a lot living on the road, experiencing new things and learning some dark realities. But there is no rosy achievement of adulthood or caring mentor for these youths. Characters are gone and the movie just moves on.

The cinematography of this film is attractive. There is not much dialogue in the film and many scenes are filmed with a “rough documentary” style, with a shaky camera that is often very close to the characters. Many scenes show the vast landscapes of Mexico on the train, crossing bridges and through deserts. Imagery of snow is seen throughout the movie. At first, there is wonder and still some optimism in their eyes. In the last scene, though, the snow feels very lonely.

The last scene is very powerful. Juan, after everything he has been through, has made it to the U.S. We see him working in a meat factory in an oversized uniform (he is probably not even old enough to be allowed to work in such an environment), covered in blood, shoveling up pieces of meat and fat. Other immigrants work the line, hacking away at chunks of cow, working through mountains of meat, packaging the meat, and injecting it with preservatives. (Side note: This is the ugly reality of the meat industry that supports our diet filled with meat in the U.S.). These are the kind of jobs “immigrants are taking away from Americans”—jobs that no American wants. These are the inglorious opportunities that await someone who may have risked their life to get here. This is the exploitation of a vulnerable population that has to work for low wages, since undocumented individuals constantly have to live in fear of being deported and replaced by someone else. This is the reality of the American Dream for many.

The title directly translates as “the golden cage.” This is apt to describe their home country of Guatemala, beautiful but with limited opportunities and people work tirelessly to escape. “The golden cage” also describes the U.S. The U.S. is supposed to be a golden land of opportunity, but in reality, an undocumented immigrant such as Juan has limited and grim options. Many people have left their home and family behind in hopes of safety and work here in the U.S. In the Mexican song with the same title La Jaula de Oro, there is a line that translates to: “I have my wife and children whom I brought when they were young. They’ve already forgotten my beloved Mexico, which I will never forget and to which I can never return. What good is money if I am like a prisoner in this great nation?”

To understand why so many people are trying to flee Central America and seek asylum in the United States, we need to look at the long history of violence and dictatorships, and the role the U.S. played in this.

We will start in El Salvador. The Salvadoran Civil War between the military-led government and a coalition of left-wing groups (FMLN) started in 1979 and continued until 1992. For much of the 20th century, El Salvador saw growing socioeconomic inequality and electoral fraud, resulting in increased unrest and activity of populist groups. Fearing a communist takeover, the U.S. administration, starting with President Carter and continuing with Reagan and George H.W. Bush, contributed around 4 billion dollars of aid that helped maintain the Salvadoran military dictatorship. The U.S. support was influential in tipping the Salvadoran Presidential elections in 1984 and 1988 to maintain the military rule. By the end of the Civil War, over 70,000 civilians died and over a million more were displaced from their homes. The government carried out targeted assassinations of human rights advocates, leftist activists, and religious figures providing humanitarian relief. There were also indiscriminate massacres like the one in El Mozote, where nearly 1000 civilians including women and children were tortured and killed; the U.S. covered up the existence and repressed media coverage of this event. Finally, with the Cold War drawing to a close and after over a decade of back-and-forth violence, peace negotiations began and the Chapultepec Peace Accords were signed in 1992.

During this violence and instability, many Salvadorans, displaced by the violence in their country, came to the U.S. Most of them, however, were not granted asylum due to a disproportionately low approval rate for Central Americans. Many of these “illegal immigrants” ended up in Los Angeles. There we have the birth of MS-13. MS-13 began as a brotherhood among young Salvadorans during a time when they were strongly discriminated against. Unfortunately, this morphed into something much more violent, escalated by other gang presence in LA.

In the 1990s, many gang members were arrested and deported back to El Salvador, which was recovering from a (U.S.-funded) civil war. El Salvador had a broken police force, an unstable economy and high unemployment, and a dangerous amount of leftover firearms. In an attempt to reduce gang violence, the Salvadoran government granted amnesty or lighter sentences to convicted members in exchange for surrendered firearms, but this resulted in the opportunity for the gang to organize, recruit, and expand. Consequently, a gang presence and gang-related violence has spread throughout Guatemala and Honduras, susceptible due to their own political and socioeconomic instability.

From 1960-1996, Guatemala was dealing with its own, longer civil war. By the turn of the 20th century, Guatemala was a quintessential banana republic: under authoritarian rule that served U.S. corporate interests, namely the United Fruit Company. In addition to major tax exemptions for corporations, the government passed legislation that took land away from the native population in Guatemala and essentially trapped them in indentured servitude to the new landowners. The United Fruit Company particularly benefited from these exploitative labor laws and the new land gifted to them. By the 1930s, under the particularly repressive regime of Jorge Ubico—who self-identified as a fascist, admired leaders like Hitler, and was backed by the U.S. government—social unrest was mounting and labor unions and farmers (primarily indigenous Mayan) were actively protesting. After a popular uprising, Guatemala reached a moment of relative stability and had two consecutive fairly and democratically elected Presidents: Arévalo and Árbenz.

Arévalo implemented minimum wage laws, greatly expanded voting rights, and increased funding for education. Árbenz continued this legacy and went a step further by implementing land reform. At this time, 70% of the land was owned by 2% of the population in Guatemala; Árbenz’s reform took uncultivated land plots from these large landowners/corporations and distributed them to over 500,000 poor and landless peasants (primarily indigenous) to be able to become productive farmers. The Red Scare in full force, the U.S. viewed this land reform as communism; President Truman started the motions while Eisenhower was the one to fully authorize the CIA to spread anti-Árbenz propaganda and organize a coup to remove Árbenz in 1954. Not coincidentally, members of Eisenhower’s administration had major investments in the United Fruit Company, which was very unhappy with some favorable legislations being reversed.

For four decades, the U.S. government continued to support a series of military dictatorships through millions of dollars of military aid and using the CIA to train paramilitary death-squads in Guatemala. The Guatemalan government targeted and tortured any suspected enemies of the state, censored the press, and reversed many of the democratic reforms of Arévalo and Árbenz—once again taking land away from small farmers and eliminating democratic elections. One of the dictators even stated, “If it is necessary to turn the country into a cemetery in order to pacify it, I will not hesitate to do so.” Around 1980, violent rebellion from armed leftist guerilla groups peaked; in response, the government cracked down more and authorized a widespread genocide of hundreds of rural Mayan communities for suspected sympathy to the cause. By the end of the Guatemalan Civil War, nearly 200,000 people died and a million more were displaced, many of which were indigenous people.

Homicide rates in Central America

Finally in 1996, the U.N. negotiated the peace accords, intervening due to the atrocities especially committed against the indigenous Mayan population. Some of the guerilla fighters received land in exchange for disarming. The country has been rebuilding since, but there is still lots of crime, corruption, and poverty. All of this has made the country susceptible to the expansion of the gangs such as MS-13 since the 1990s.

The U.S. also established a military presence in Honduras in the 1980s to provide extra support for the military dictatorship in El Salvador and suppress rising leftist groups in Honduras. While spared a full-on civil war like its neighbors, Honduras today still struggles with economic disparity, crime, and sexual violence. As recently as 2009, Honduras had a military coup, which has reduced political stability and reversed progress made on the issues of poverty and unemployment.

Today, the U.S. continues to remain very involved with affairs in Central and South America. In particular, Venezuela is currently an extremely unstable authoritarian state that was built on its large oil reserves; it is clear things cannot continue as they are for the people of Venezuela. The U.S. recently appointed Elliot Abrams—who advocated to aid the military dictatorships in both Guatemala and El Salvador and denied many of the acts of violence committed by the governments during their respective civil wars—as the Special Representative for Venezuela. I fear how the U.S. might choose to intervene and use the disarray of the so-called socialist state of Venezuela as an example. All eyes are on how the world will intervene with Venezuela.

A print produced by a revolutionary art group in Mexico. It graphically depicts how people die on the journey to the United States. It also criticizes how we dehumanize people to simply which foreign country they are coming from.

I spent a month at the U.S.-Mexico border, where every day hundreds of families (mainly Guatemalan, Salvadoran, or Honduran) crossed and legally submitted themselves to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in hopes of being granted asylum from the (U.S.-supported) instability and violence of their home countries. Many were young parents traveling with their children. Despite everything these families had gone through, they often lost their few possessions, either to the disingenuous people they had paid to help them reach the border or during ICE custody. Many of the families from Guatemala were indigenous Mayan, speaking one of the many native Mayan languages in addition to Spanish.

This is a note that was left by one of the families I met at the border. Parents just want safety and opportunity for their children.

The continued demonization of a whole region of people and cruel policies such as separating families at the border has done little to reduce border crossings, nor activity of gangs such as MS-13. In La Jaula de Oro, there are heartbreaking scenes where immigrants are hunted and shot down by snipers. The movie also depicts more realistically what these supposed “caravans of criminals” really are: a group of weary travelers, young and old, on a train or often just walking by foot, with little more than the clothes on their backs, hoping for a place to call home. As the debate in the U.S. continues about border security and keeping out the “bad hombres” invading our country, perhaps we will successfully reduce immigration by killing the idea of the American Dream and the image of the U.S. being the Land of Opportunity for all people.

Movie: Crazy Rich Asians (2018)

Posted on February 27, 2019 by admin

This movie is basically a generic Hollywood romantic comedy that uses several common tropes: an overly-protective mother who threatens the relationship during a dramatic meeting-of-the-family, a catty bachelorette party and bro-y bachelor party, the setting of a friend’s wedding as an opportunity for the main couple to realize how much they love each other, and even the ostentatious professing of one’s love as their lover is about to fly off in a plane. The thing that differentiates this movie from any other generic romcom in the United States is simply that is has been Asian-ified.

First, this movie is filmed throughout Malaysia and Singapore. Singapore is seen today as a prosperous, technologically and financially innovative hub. Singapore has also been rated by The Economist as the most expensive city to live in for the last five years. There are a couple of scenes that are a nice celebration of the luxurious city of Singapore, featuring the bustling street food district, mansions with beautiful décor, and glamorous dresses worn at the parties.

Second, it seems like all known and up-and-coming Asian actors are featured in this film. The main character Rachel is in ABC’s series Fresh Off the Boat; the protective mother Eleanor is best known from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; the cousin Astrid starred in BBC’s show Humans while the cousin Bernard stars in Silicon Valley; cousin Eddie is comedian Ronnie Chieng from the Daily Show; Rachel’s friend Peik Lin appeared in the recent Ocean’s 8 movie; and there are cameos by actors like Harry Shum Jr, known from Glee, and Ken Jeong, known from Community and Hangover.

After some negotiations, this film was distributed by Warner Bros and the director was allowed free rein on casting. (One prospective producer was pushing for a white actress for Rachel, but the author of the book the movie is based on insisted on a different producer.) The director, the cast, and the author were all thrilled to see that this film had an all-Asian cast and a big theatrical release. This movie made good box office money ($238 million worldwide) and received lots of positive reception and press for its take on the standard romcom. The cast includes Asian actors from around the world, simultaneously displaying a diversity of Asian actors and uniting them through a shared experience in the historically white-washed industry of Hollywood. (There was some controversy about casting choices such as Sonoya Mizuna—of Japanese and Argentinian decent—as a character who is supposed to have grown up in Singapore, but overall people have celebrated the diversity displayed on the big screen.)

Third, this movie heartily leans into some stereotypes. Rachel is the epitome of an immigrant success story in America, where the parents (in this case a single mother) worked themselves to the bone to provide their child with opportunities; Rachel then goes on to get a stable, intellectual job (a professor) in a well-respected field (economics) at a well-respected school (NYU) among the Asian-American community. I’m sure many Asian-Americans can relate to the sacrifices made by their parents for the opportunities given to them, as well as the guidelines presented to them as acceptable professions to pursue. (Humorously, most of the actors in this movie confessed how they had to go against their parents’ wishes for them when they decided to pursue their career as an actor or comedian).

But then there is another level of success and prestige presented. Nick comes from one of the richest families in Singapore, and his friend’s wedding is basically “the event of the year” in Singapore. Nick’s cousins are all multi-millionaire successes (eg. one is a banker, another is a fashion icon, another is big in the movie industry, and all seem to own at least some property). In comparison to this extravagance, Rachel’s success appears humble and middle-class, but the concern for prestige and constant comparison to peers is the same. Nick’s mother also defines herself by the sacrifice she made for the sake of her family, though obviously the expected fortune of the children is on a different level than for families like Rachel’s.

Rachel grapples with the cultural identity struggle of “not being Asian enough,” having grown up in the United States and having never been back to any part of Asia. She fears being seen as a “twinkie” (sometimes people say “banana,” but basically when you look Asian but act white), and has to prove herself while making dumplings, speaking the language, or other tests of her “Chinese-ness.” Since Rachel grew up in the U.S., Nick’s mother thinks of her as different, saying that Americans only think of their own happiness instead of being able to sacrifice for their whole family. There is certainly some truth in this difference in mentality in how much value is placed on personal happiness and the pursuit of the American Dream. This is sometimes a point of tension between generations. This is also sometimes why immigrants choose to live in America.

With the Asian cast and setting, many Asian-Americans found this movie to be one of the first to really represent them on the big screen (given that the character Rachel is American, this story probably resonates most with Asian-Americans). This movie normalizes things like making dumplings as a family, playing mahjong, or the experience of being raised by your grandma because your parents had to work in a different country. The scene playing mahjong even requires an understanding of the rhythm of the game, as it functions as a face-off between Rachel and Eleanor and the viewer needs to appreciate the significance of Rachel forsaking the 8 to let Eleanor win instead of winning herself.

Other than the uniquely Asian aspect of the movie, the movie does not offer too much with its storyline (as it goes with many romcoms). The whole “test” of the relationship could basically be resolved by better communication. The fact that Rachel knew so little about Nick’s family and upbringing means that Nick and Rachel probably don’t know each other well enough to be committing to spend the rest of their lives together, especially since they both think family is very important. I find it hard to be convinced that a relationship can be fixed by dramatic demonstrations of your love rather than improved, honest communication, so the idea of an ostentatious proposal as a fix after a big fight seems concerning to me.

I also had a hard time relating and empathizing with most of the characters due to the extreme amount of wealth. In general, this level of wealth is a level of wealth I can’t and don’t wish to comprehend. Even Astrid, who supposedly is the one with the biggest heart, seems out of touch with normal people and simply gives a lot of money to charities. She is obsessed with materials things, obsessively buying nice shoes and jewelry for herself. When her marriage is breaking down, she does not seem to understand why her lifestyle might be incompatible with her husband, who is from a more humble background instead of a family of money. He is clearly suffering from constantly feeling like a failure for not making enough money and damaging the prestige of her family. The only way she seems to know how to deal with his pain is by buying him more things or hiding the things she bought for herself. While she should not be responsible for his feeling of self-worth and happiness, she is quick to blame him for not being enough of a man rather than acknowledging his pain. Their breakup is presented as a “strong independent woman” moment (she says it is “not her job to make him feel like a man”), but that is quickly cancelled out when the ending credits show her exchanging glances with a new man as the conclusion of her story arc.

As a side note, there is also the weird part when Peik Lin’s little brother creepily takes photos of Rachel. It is spun as comedy and endearingly awkward, but I believe it is quite creepy and should not be encouraged with laughter, on or behind the screen…

Overall, I am happy that this movie was made, as it represents our society’s constant push for and increased value placed on diverse representation in different industries. The storyline is nothing special, but I appreciated the little touches that speak especially to Asian-Americans.

Movie: Brother Bear (2003)

Posted on October 3, 2018 by admin

Brother Bear is an animated Disney movie released in 2003. It is part of Disney’s post-Renaissance phase from about 1997 to 2008, a period of films marked by experimentation with the Disney Renaissance formula, most noticeably a move away from European fairy tales and the “Broadway musical” format. During this era, Disney sought out a broader base of source material and inspiration, drawing from novels, non-European fairy tales, Japanese animation, and genres such as sci-fi and action/adventure, and diversifying their casts of characters. Brother Bear is very much in this experimental style. Deciding to set their story in prehistoric Stone-Age Alaska/Canada/some northern part of North America, and drawing upon the folklore of what would be their distant descendants (Inuits), there is not a single main character who is racialized as white aside from two comic relief moose. Most notably, it is one of the very few Disney movies to have neither a villain nor any kind of love interest or romantic subplot (Inside Out is another). That’s not to say that the movie is boring by any means — the story is one of the most dramatic, featuring major character death and near-fratricide. The emotional core of the movie is platonic love, including the motivations of the movie’s main antagonist.

It also helps that the main character, Kenai, is highly unsympathetic (he starts out as an immature daredevil with fairly toxic notions of masculinity) and most of the movie is focused on his personal growth. He commits a crime that so offends Nature (the “Great Spirits”) that he ends up being cursed with the body of a bear. His one saving grace, however, and a major motif of this movie, is that he would do anything for his brothers.

In the advertising of this film, the filmmakers had multiple choices about how to pitch this story, and I think they settled on a “fun, family-friendly romp about understanding what’s really important in life” playing up Kenai’s bear form, Koda (the precocious bear cub who adopts Kenai and goes on a Character Growth Road Trip with him), and the comic relief moose as the main characters. That’s arguably a reasonable way to interpret the core of this film, but ultimately I think it’s plainly incorrect. The emotional core of this movie (to me) is three brothers whose love for each other transcends life, death, distance, and form. To leave Denahi out of publicity materials — as was repeatedly done with this movie — even though he is narrator, antagonist, and has one of the most moving emotional arcs in the film, is to misunderstand or misrepresent what this film is.

What Brother Bear says it’s about: talking animals. What Brother Bear is actually about: Human characters never depicted in publicity materials; gratuitous shots of Alaskan wilderness

Motifs

This movie is littered with recurring motifs that create a cohesive arc from start to finish. The first is the question of man vs. monster. This theme is one that was earlier explored in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, where Quasimodo and Frollo are foils that represent ostensible monstrosity but inner humanity (Quasimodo) or its opposite, ostensible humanity and inner monstrosity (Frollo). The same goes for Beast and Gaston in Beauty and the Beast.

Who is the monster and who is the man?

Here, however, the motif is overloaded in multiple ways. In addition to contrasting with “monster”, the “man” part of the dichotomy also contrasts with “boy” and portrays this story as a straightforward coming-of-age story for Kenai. The “monster” part of the dichotomy contrasts with “man” in two ways: the bear as a monster in the frightening world where a run-in with Nature can leave you dead (man vs. monster as a man vs. nature conflict), and the inner monster that describes the ways in which humans fail to embody humanity. Kenai shifts through man, bear, and monster identities throughout the movie, although it’s only at the end that he has the maturity to truly see the identities for what they are.

This thematic motif is given visual form with the repeated image of the human handprint and the bear pawprint overlaid on top. The human handprint is a symbol in Kenai’s culture of having attained manhood (as opposed to boyhood); the awe of Stone Age cave paintings including the handprint and the depiction of a man vs. bear hunt (a beautiful moment in the movie) is itself a testament to the achievements of man (as opposed to nature). Throughout the movie, however, Kenai is confronted with the image of his own pawprint that he leaves behind that shuts him out of both kinds of manhood (adulthood and personhood). Also, I should note that the image of linked hands is a symbol of both humanity but also fraternity (familial love) — this echoes what was done with hands pressed together in Tarzan.

The way hands and the man vs. monster contrast are used throughout the film

That brings us to another motif: sibling love. In particular, there are many brother relationships in this film, where, on the surface, the brothers are obnoxious and irritating to each other, but also at the end of the day willing to go to the ends of the earth for each other. This dynamic is present throughout the opening scene in very subtle, unremarked-upon ways, where Kenai gets on his brothers’ nerves (particularly middle brother Denahi), but is also constantly being rescued by them, even at great risk to themselves. This dynamic of combined irritation and devotion recurs throughout the film.

Finally, there is the motif of “seeing through another’s eyes.” This phrase appears in the lyrics of a song, and is also visually represented via a gimmick in the format of the film itself, where the film changes its aspect ratio and color palette about one-third of the way through, after Kenai wakes up as a bear. Literally, the world looks different to him (and to the viewer) after he has been transformed. It is also significant that Kenai’s transformation not only turns him into a bear (and gives him a chance to see his own actions through the eyes of other creatures) but also forces him into the role of an older brother, a role that requires maturity from him and also helps him understand his older brother better.

Music

Brother Bear‘s soundtrack is an attempt to partially escape the musical format of 90s Disney movies. It has original songs with lyrics, but they are for the most part sung by various musicians who serve as a narrator, rather than by the characters within the film. The composer and lyricist here is Phil Collins, whose lyrics are very different from the Broadway musical style of the Disney Renaissance lyricists like Howard Ashman, Tim Rice, or Steven Schwartz. If you’re looking for clever wordplay like “As a specimen, yes I’m intimidating” or rhyming “Adonis” with “croissant is”… this movie doesn’t have that. It instead has lyrics that sound like the immediate thoughts of the characters whose mind they’re meant to give voice to, very often monosyllabically and with meter, but often no rhyme (example: “This has to be the most beautiful, the most peaceful, place I’ve ever been to. It’s nothing like I’ve ever seen before.”).

Phil Collins’s songwriting and lyrics are extremely polarizing. At one end, Phil Collins is considered basically a talentless songwriter with a grating voice and musical style and painfully basic lyrics. At the other, his voice is considered unique and his songs catchy or even powerful. I’m more at the second end — I think his songs work for this movie, with the instrumental pieces building up dramatic moments, and his lyrics delivering raw emotional punch in the form of someone directly expressing their feelings. And even someone who hates the sound of Phil Collins’s voice will be spared some pain — half of the songs are not sung by him, which gives the movie more vocal variety than Phil Collins’s previous collaboration with Disney, Tarzan.

Caveats

As much as I love Brother Bear, it is a film that I have difficulty recommending without disclaimers. The first disclaimer (mentioned earlier) is the comic relief moose. This movie objectively would have been better without them. They add nothing to the movie aside from padding some scenes. There was a weak rationale for their continued existence in the movie (apparently, the makers debated back and forth for a really long time whether to keep them in) in that they are brothers and fit the whole “brothers” dynamic that keeps recurring throughout the film, and come in at a key moment in the film to remind Koda of what it means to be brothers. It’s… very weak, though, and I think the movie would be more economical and much stronger without them.

The second disclaimer is that this movie leans pretty heavily into a New Age aesthetic. The focus on Native American spirituality, the heavy-handed moralizing about how important it is to See Through Other People’s Eyes, including the fact that animals have the same moral worth as human beings (just don’t think about all the fish that the bears murder…) can be very grating.

Still, overall, as long as you’re capable of mentally erasing the moose from this film through sheer willpower, I think Brother Bear is a forgotten movie that’s worth a second look. It’s a movie from a period of time when Disney was actually doing some interesting experimentation, and overall the movie provides some great moments that are rare in Disney movies before or since.

Movie: King in the Wilderness (2018)

Posted on August 25, 2018 by admin

This entry is about a recent documentary that focuses on Martin Luther King Jr’s final years. There was a distinct shift in the mid 60s as King expanded his efforts against poverty and violence. This pulled King in many directions and unfortunately made him some enemies. This documentary was released on HBO on April 2, 2018 in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the death of King. This documentary weaves together original footage of King’s speeches with modern interviews of some of his close friends reflecting back on the days they worked alongside King. This entry piggy-backs off of my entry about the historical drama film Selma.

The timeline in this documentary starts in 1966 when King went to live in a run-down building in Chicago. This was the beginning of his movement to End Slums in Chicago. With all the attention on demonstrations in the South, there was a common sentiment that a place in the North like Chicago didn’t have race issues. However, the dilapidated building infested with rats and sometimes lacking heat or electricity that King stayed in was not uncommon in Chicago; King was calling attention to the poor housing conditions and interrelated lack of access to education and employment in these poor and predominantly black neighborhoods in the West Side of Chicago. King patiently marched and organized community leaders to demand that folks should not be denied decent housing because of the color of their skin. King said the strong resistance he faced in Chicago by white folks showed the true colors of the U.S. Slums like the one he was staying in were being created and upheld by the system. In one speech in Chicago, King said point-blank, “We are tired of being lynched physically in Mississippi, and we are tired of being lynched spiritually and economically in the North.”

King faced many angry and violent protesters (seen in the footage holding signs like, “We Want Wallace”), yet was always resolute with his commitment to nonviolent resistance. King was calling for a restructuring of society and said this movement, “might be the biggest thing since our march in Selma.” As the third largest city in the U.S., he figured if the problems in Chicago could be solved, these problems could be solved everywhere. In contrast to the amicable relationship between President Johnson and King seen in Selma a few years prior, here we hear conversations between Johnson and Robert Daly (the mayor of Chicago at the time) about how to “handle King.” Since the march on Selma, President Johnson and his administration felt that King was overstepping with his demands. This only worsened when King later spoke out against the Vietnam War.

For a while, King–as advised by his close friends–refrained from publicly taking a stand against the Vietnam War. People on his staff were wary about him getting involved in other movements because they felt he was biting off more than he could chew, and some of the protests against the Vietnam War were violent and disorganized. In addition, speaking out against the war was seen as anti-American and adversarial towards President Johnson, an ally in the Civil Rights Movement. King and his associates were already being closely surveilled by the FBI, so they feared that speaking out against this war alongside his essentially socialist empowerment of working-class people would be flagged as Communist amidst a Red Scare.

Coretta Scott King was actually vocal against the Vietnam War first, joining in some protests without her husband. Martin Luther King Jr. kept some distance from the movement, but anti-war groups continued to request his support. As an advocate for nonviolence and for all people, King felt he could not in good conscience remain silent on the war. In 1967, King gave a powerful speech at the Riverside Church where he said that he could no longer speak out against the violence and injustice within his country without also speaking out against the violence his country—“the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”—was responsible for abroad. His speech against the Vietnam War highlights the interrelatedness of everything he fought against. Poor men–disproportionately people of color–with no other choice were sent abroad and died for a country that wasn’t supporting their communities or their own liberties. King argued that these issues are all related in his movement for peace.

After this speech, the media and even some of his allies turned on him, saying things like he had “no right having an opinion on foreign affairs,” or questioned his audacity to speak out against “issues beyond civil rights.” King is rightfully celebrated for his fight against segregation and racism, but when he founded the Poor People’s Campaign and supported anti-Vietnam War protests, some people felt he was rocking too many boats. In this documentary, his friends recalled somberly how heavily the betrayal weighed on King when those around him did not support him in this decision.

Meanwhile, King was also trying to manage a significant split that was happening within the Civil Rights Movement. Stokely Carmichael, head of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and a participant in the march from Selma, felt strongly that the key was to empower Black Power to fight back. To him and a growing number of black activists, nonviolence was a tactic appropriate for some situations, but fighting back meant using violence if needed to get change. King always advocated for only nonviolent protests, but he understood that people were frustrated. He supported the protests led by Carmichael and marched alongside him in hopes that he could keep them nonviolent. As the Black Power movement gained momentum, though, King was left trying to manage this fire among all the others.

This divide that was happening 50 years ago is still very relevant to the social justice movement today. In his famous letter from the Birmingham Jail, King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” King tirelessly fought against injustice, and he knew that the fight against racism, poverty, and war were all connected. Despite knowing that he was being spread too thin, he could not turn his back on any of these fights. Carmichael, on the other hand, believed that it was not actually possible for black people to gain power within a system made by white people. While he agreed that racism and poverty were deeply connected, he felt that rising to middle class meant assimilating into the “white world” and then turning your back on your brothers. The fear that, after helping your brothers up, they will immediately pull the ladder up behind them and leave you to suffer is common and understandable, but has always splintered working-class movements. King’s Poor People’s Campaign was a very intentional effort to unite all working-class folks, regardless of their color or background, through their shared desire for improved living conditions.

Martin Luther King Jr. was truly an inspirational leader, full of compassion and always committed to nonviolence. Even when someone threatened his life, King had no hate for them and continued to believe that all people are on the same side. He viewed racism like a sickness and preached that we mustn’t blame the sick, but try to cure the sickness. In this film, his friends talk about how he did not fear death, and even used humor to address the reality that the nature of his work would likely eventually kill him. King beautifully said, “If you truly want to be free, you must get over the love of wealth and the fear of death.”

This film includes some footage from King’s funeral. Coretta is seen standing stoically at the funeral, which was open-casket and open to the public. It must have been very hard for the family to have to mourn publicly, but Coretta knew that his death was hard on everyone and that the people needed this funeral as a chance to mourn as well. There is a heart-wrenching moment when Martin Luther King Sr. is overcome with grief when he looks at his son’s casket.

A commemoration like this film is a good reminder of the progress we have made and how much more work needs to be done here in the U.S. I am so thankful of the progress made due to the fearless struggles by those before us and continued by people today. I attended a service at a Baptist church near me that was also in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of King’s death. The service featured three members of the church who had participated in the March on Washington. One woman talked about how she, in her twenties at the time, had marched alongside an 82-year-old woman who marched with such enthusiasm because of how important that moment was to her. Both of them looked at all the people gathered around them and were filled with hope. Reflecting back during this service, this woman was also grateful for all the progress that had been made in the past 50 years. I hope many more leaders carrying the mantle of nonviolent struggle against racism, poverty, and imperialism arise.

Movie: Selma (2014)

Posted on August 25, 2018 by admin

This entry is about Selma, a historical drama film made in 2014 depicting the events around the voting-rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, led by Martin Luther King Jr. in 1965. To be honest, I started this entry on Selma years ago when I watched it, but the themes addressed have only gotten more relevant to the current state of affairs in the U.S. that it was difficult for me to finish this entry. When I watched a recent documentary about Martin Luther King Jr. (King in the Wilderness), I felt it was time to write about them both. The two entries are very closely tied, but in order to keep each one focused and a reasonable length, I kept the entries separate.

Selma’s director Ava Marie DuVernay became known for her break-out film Middle of Nowhere (2012), for which she won Best Director at the Sundance Film Festival. Selma was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, making DuVernay the first female African-American director to have her film even nominated for this Oscar. (Women still remain largely unrecognized in the Best Director Oscar category). The nomination was well-deserved, the film complete with beautiful cinematography and a powerful soundtrack. The acting was also quite solid and not overly dramatic, despite the gravity of the events being depicted.

Like Spielberg with Lincoln, it is interesting which story director DuVernay decided to focus on. Both films focus on quite short time frames that exclude some very famous moments, so perhaps benefit from some explanation of the context. Like with Lincoln, I think this choice is intentional in order to show how hard-fought these battles for change were and how things weren’t simply fixed with Lincoln abolishing slavery or King’s “I Have a Dream” speech in Washington.

The 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870, declaring it unconstitutional to deny someone the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” By the time of the march from Selma in 1965, African-Americans technically had the right to vote for nearly a century. However, methods ranging anywhere from unreasonable literacy tests, to steep poll taxes, to blatant intimidation were used to greatly limit the ability for black Americans to actually vote. Even after the abolition of slavery, the Jim Crow laws–implemented throughout the former Confederacy states of the south–were used to legally enforce racial segregation, with “separate but equal” facilities for black and white folks. While separate was certainly true, equal rarely was. From restrooms to schools to buses, the facilities for black people were often underfunded or sometimes even nonexistent, effectively depriving many rights and services from free black men and women. With these laws, people were still legally allowed to discriminate and deny service solely based on the color of someone’s skin, and the registrar could discriminatorily deny the right to vote through inconsistent scrutiny.

After World War II, African-Americans began to demand more rights. Many had chosen to fight alongside their fellow citizens, and justly felt they deserved full rights for their service. The Civil Rights Movement fighting against segregation and racial inequality began to gain momentum, and was enhanced in the 1960s by other groups also fighting for more rights. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed, outlawing on a federal level any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This was an important step towards finally tearing down segregation, ending the Jim Crow laws, and providing equal employment opportunities. The march from Selma depicted in this film was specifically focused on getting the government to actually enforce the 15th Amendment and crack down on the discriminatory barriers keeping blacks from voting. Selma is in a county that was and still is over 50% African-American, but, at that time, only 1% of African-Americans in the county were registered to vote. The film begins with Annie Lee Cooper (played by Oprah Winfrey) being denied once again when attempting to register to vote. We also see the tragic deaths of four young black girls in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing of 1963 by a KKK member. With this, director DuVernay successfully sets the stage.

Throughout this film, we are able to see the great and pragmatic leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. King works on several fronts. With local leaders near Selma, he leads demonstrations demanding increased protection of constitutional rights–particularly voting rights–of African-Americans; meanwhile, King works with President Lyndon B. Johnson to push forward a voting rights bill at the federal level. After the unjust and violent death of Jimmie Lee Jackson during a peaceful protest, King works with leaders of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) to organize the march from Selma to Montgomery to increase their voice for their demands. When Alabama Governor Wallace denounces the march and says he will use whatever means necessary to prevent it, King asks President Johnson for federal protection of this protest. During the first attempt on March 7 to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the way to Montgomery, the marchers are brutally beat down and tear gassed by state troopers and county police in what would later be known as “Bloody Sunday.” In the second attempt, the marchers are joined by allies—white and black—from churches and other activist groups around the country. Still without federal protection, however, King chooses to not lead the march across the bridge. With the third attempt on March 21, President Johnson promises protection, and the protesters arrive to the capital of Alabama on March 25.

By the time of the events of Selma, King was already well-respected and had received the Nobel Peace Prize for his nonviolent activism. King had the power to inspire people to rise up with his moving speeches; but with that, he remained aware of the risk he put people in by asking them to protest with him and always emphasized nonviolent protest. In the film, King at times struggles to decide how best to act and is criticized by some activists for not doing enough. However, he carefully considers how to increase the impact of each protest. He is able to direct the emotional pain of losing a loved one and the feeling of injustice to rally a community as well as any sympathizers, saying in one speech, “I am appealing to men and women of God and goodwill everywhere, white, black, and otherwise… If you believe all are created equal, join our march against injustice and inhumanity.” King also harnessed the media coverage–such as the televising of the horrific violence of “Bloody Sunday”–to increase support from the people and put more pressure on the President.

There was some criticism of this film for portraying President Johnson too negatively, given that he is often respected for his work focused on eliminating poverty and racial injustice. However, I appreciated the realistic portrayal of President Johnson. In the film, he is certainly not glorified as a civil rights hero, but he is still a man led by his principles. The mutual respect between King and Johnson is shown as King is seen several times trying to convince LBJ of the need to act, both for the sake of civil rights and good politics. LBJ pushes back against King’s request for voting rights protection legislation; Johnson fears meeting a high amount of resistance, especially so soon after the hard-fought passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, President Johnson firmly condemns the violent handling of the march by Governor Wallace, telling him, “I’ll be damned to let history put me in the same place as the likes of you.” Johnson is seen as a politician trying to balance policies through turbulent times within the country as well as overseas in Vietnam. Even the sheriff and Governor Wallace–while, in no uncertain terms, are unlikeable for their role in the violence and support of segregation–aren’t portrayed as unrealistic villains, but rather as dangerously led by their segregationist ideals such that they believe they are justified in their violence.

After the march from Selma, President Johnson addressed Congress in a powerful speech appealing that this was not an issue just for the South, Democrats, or black Americans, but rather all Americans. He also reminded the country that, although slaves were freed over a century ago, the events of Selma were a reminder of how African-Americans still don’t have the rights of a free man. President Johnson was a strong voice because, as a devout Christian from the South, he argued for the moral importance for people all across the U.S. to uphold the country’s promise for freedom and opportunity to all peoples. After his moving speech, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was successfully passed, which outlawed many of these discriminatory devices that historically disenfranchised racial minorities. Since the Voting Rights Act, voter registration of African-Americans has significantly increased, as well as the number of African-Americans holding an elected position. This Act of course also helped reduce barriers for other minorities, including Hispanics and Asians.

Behind the scenes, there were a couple of things that made the production of this movie interesting. The first is that apparently the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. are copyrighted by the King estate, meaning the exact words of his speeches could not be used in Selma. Therefore, DuVernay had to write the speeches in this film that captured the essence of King without using his words. This must have been extremely difficult because King gave such strong and compelling speeches with carefully selected words. The original movie script was written by Paul Webb, but DuVernay made significant changes to it, including reducing the focus on President Johnson and increasing the role of female characters. (The original apparently solely consisted of one phone call from Coretta Scott King). As mentioned before, this choice resulted in some criticism, but DuVernay did not want to make a movie celebrating the accomplishments of one white politician, but rather the collective impact of many black men and women.

In an interview, DuVernay commented on her intentional choice to call upon the people of Selma for both the black and white extras in the marching scenes. She said watching everyone work through these tough scenes together was an important way for the people of Selma to address their painful past and underlined for her how important it is to keep telling these stories.

Director DuVernay has gained a lot of acclaim with her recent works. Middle of Nowhere had a budget of $200,000, while Selma had a budget of $20 million. She said the big jump in budget and crew took some getting used to. DuVernay’s newest release A Wrinkle in Time had a budget of $103 million, so I’m sure that took some getting used to as well. She created an independent film distribution company (ARRAY) as one way to encourage other African-American filmmakers.

Looking at this movie, it is wonderful to be reminded of the progress the United States has made. However, this movie is also a reminder that this fight is still happening. The Jim Crow laws have been outlawed, but the New Jim Crow (as described in author Michelle Alexander’s book) is the disproportionate incarceration and therefore disenfranchisement of black men due to the War on Drugs. Also, some states still have discriminatory legislation, such as photo ID requirements that are supposedly to reduce voter fraud, but actually disproportionately impact minorities and working-class individuals who aren’t always able to acquire one of the approved IDs.

Additionally, there has recently been more media coverage about the unwarranted violent treatment and too often death of black men and occasionally women by police officers. Filming for Selma started before the deaths of Mike Brown and Eric Garner, but by its release, Selma deeply resonated with the important conversations that were happening around the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The BLM protests in Ferugson are alluded to in the ending credits song (“Glory” by Common and John Legend, which won an Oscar): “This is why we walked through Ferguson with our hands up.” There is certainly a need for action—notably nonviolent action—today. The BLM movement is addressing how a deep-rooted, systemic racism—such as disproportionate incarceration rates and violence by the police force toward black people—still exists in the U.S. today.

After the death of Jimmie Lee Jackson, King gives a moving speech calling for action against the injustice that allowed his death. He makes it clear that non-action supports the problem when he says, “How many fingers were on that trigger? Every person who allows this to continue.” All the progress we have made has been due to people bravely fighting against the status quo.

Movie: Trash Dance (2012)

Posted on October 1, 2016 by admin

This documentary is beautiful and very heartwarming, and I deeply appreciate the sentiments of the movie. This movie impressively combines two seemingly incompatible things: trash and dance. These, oddly, happen to be two of my interests, so watching this movie was a no-brainer for me. For anyone who cannot believe how those two things can go together, or how this movie could be heartwarming, I hope to convince you that this movie is definitely worth watching. The artistic visions of both the director of the film and the choreographer of the dance piece were very impressive. In short, the choreographer is able to appreciate a beauty in the routine movements of collecting trash and, more importantly, spread her appreciation of the work of invisible laborers.

In this movie, the choreographer shadows trash and recycling workers in Austin, Texas for a year and designs a dance piece using the motions of the workers and their vehicles. The choreographer—as a Caucasian woman working in the arts—is definitely looked on suspiciously as an outsider when she enters a workforce that is primarily black and Hispanic men. You can see the cynicism and disinterest of the workers at first, but slowly the workers warm up to her and her vision. To the workers’ surprise, the choreographer learns about all the different departments and incorporates the unique aspects of each in the dance piece. Her genuine interest in their jobs and them as individuals is able to convince them to spend extra time for rehearsals for the dance piece. The choreographer also calls upon the unique talents of individuals (breakdancing, harmonica, rapping, etc.), making the dance for the workers, not just for herself. It means a lot to be appreciated for the hard work you do every day, as well as for the parts outside of work that you are proud of, and the viewers can see how excited the workers are to be seen as individuals. It is wonderful seeing the light and excitement in the eyes of these underappreciated workers when they talk about how it felt to perform in front of their families and thousands of other people.

This movie also highlights the out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality regarding trash our society has. People view trash as gross and to be avoided. Trash collectors are looked down upon by many because their work is thought to be dirty, mindless, dead-end work, but trash collectors are actually doing tough physical labor—often at odd hours and with stuff most people don’t want to go near—and our society relies on these workers to keep our streets and homes clean. I have often heard people use jobs such as trash collectors, janitors, or burger flippers as the ultimate failure to achieve the glamorous American Dream. It is dangerous to equate these “bottom-rung” jobs to failure, though, as it can make us falsely believe that these people—these real people working these jobs—are lazy or uneducated. Through this movie, we are reminded how incredibly hardworking these people are. Many of them work two or more jobs just to make ends meet and support their children. The most heartbreaking moment in the movie is when a father says that his little girl loves to see his trash truck because it is so big, but he knows that someday she’ll be embarrassed by it and its smells once she understands the place trash holds in society. This hardworking father should not be made to feel embarrassed about his work. Instead, we should be thankful whenever others do important work that we wouldn’t want to do—whether that be fighting fires, performing surgeries, or picking up trash.

Through the dance piece, there is an appreciation for the anonymous blue collar workers that keep our society running, as well as a beauty given to a profession that is looked upon with disdain and disgust. The choreographer says her main intention of this project and her dance piece is to make people feel a connection with the people around them that may cross paths with but never know. Thousands of people showed up in the rain to watch this show live, and I think they left with that feeling. The director of the movie also deserves recognition for being able to capture the charming personalities of the different workers. I could not help but be drawn into their stories.

I think the sentiments of this movie are particularly relevant today in the United States where there is a huge disparity between the wealthy and the poor, and extremely hard-working people can stay stuck in poverty. I also think we can’t continue avoiding the trash we are producing by having poorer people deal with it. Personally, it is hard for me to speak of these things without some anger. The truly great thing about this genuine and artistic documentary, though, is that it is not angry or heavy-handed. Instead, this movie touches on these ideas by simply giving life to ordinary people you might not initially find relatable.

Sakuranbo

Movie: Boyhood (2014)

Posted on April 11, 2016 by admin

This movie has a very interesting concept: a coming-of-age story filmed with the same actors over the course of 12 years in order to actually show a boy growing up. The movie tells the story of Mason Jr. growing up from the age of 6 to the age of 18. It is a fictional story, but all of the same actors are used for the characters, and footage across this 12 year period of the boy actually growing older is pieced together to make this movie, Boyhood.

It is a very interesting approach to film, and I respect the director (Richard Linklater) for his patience and commitment to this idea. It is said that his idea for this movie was to try to capture all the little moments over the years that happen that allow a boy to grow up, rather than a few dramatic moments that happen years apart. The film was very well-received, nominated for five Golden Globes (winning Best Motion Picture in Drama, Best Director, and Best Supporting Actress) and for six Academy Awards (winning Best Supporting Actress); Linklater also won the Silver Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival. I imagine Linklater must have taken many, many hours of footage over the years that had to be shaved down to the two and a half hour film. Also, while editing, the director would not be able to go back in time to re-film or film additional scenes with the actors at the right age. Given these challenges, I have respect for this movie and the director.

However, overall, I found this movie to be disappointing.

The most disappointing part of the movie was the portrayal of the mother at the end of the movie. The mother is a young, single mother who goes back to school to pursue and achieve a career that can support her children. She also has the strength to leave an abusive relationship and start over somewhere else. This is very admirable and shows how much children mean to a mother. The movie, however, goes on to have her soon marry and divorce another mean man, and ends with her having a breakdown in front of her son about how little she has done with her life and how alone she is. I realize this movie titled “Boyhood” is about the boy Mason Jr. growing up, but I would’ve liked to have seen a sense of self-worth from the mother who has a lot to be proud of at the end of the film. In an interview with the actors, Patricia Arquette (Mason Jr.’s mother, and winner of a Golden Globe and Academy Award for this film) reveals that she was also a young, single mother, so I am even more confused why the director chose to end the mother’s story arc with her weak and feeling like she needs a man in her life, rather than strong and proud of what she has accomplished for herself and provided for her children. In contrast, the father is portrayed as cool, caring, and the emotionally supportive parent who teaches the kids about life and love while the mother is too busy worrying about money. (Of course, as a responsible single mother, she is worried about money!) The father seems to pay a bit of child support and he offers one time to chip in for the son’s large graduation party, but then doesn’t actually because he doesn’t have any cash on him.

My other criticism of the film is that it ambitiously tries to cover 12 years of a family’s life, so a lot is included in the movie that may not be followed up on. For example, there is one scene of Mason Jr. being bullied, some scenes of random girls talking to him at parties, and one scene of 15-year-old Mason Jr. coming home high and drunk. I suppose these scenes are experiences that may happen during adolescence, but since we don’t see how the characters respond to these situations, I don’t know what significance or growth any of the characters gain from them. Also, what happens to the other children of the abusive man? I hope they are able to find a good home since they are never mentioned again. Throughout the movie, the audience may also wonder where the movie is going. Various somewhat non-dramatic events happen one after another and seem to build up to the drug-induced musings of an adolescent boy, which seems like a weird way to end a coming-of-age story. Coming-of-age stories normally have the main character maturing or finding themselves; however, Mason Jr. seems pretty lost and restless still at the end of the movie (regarding his career choice in photography, his sexuality and view of love, or what responsibilities he has) and I am sure his personal growth in his next few years in college and after graduating will be even greater than the 12 years shown in the movie. Given today’s society, many adolescents don’t enter “the real world” as young adults until after they graduate from college or are able to find a job that allows them to be independent from their parents.

As a side note, President Obama revealed in an interview that Boyhood was his favorite movie of 2014. The scenes in the middle of the movie showing strong support for Obama during the 2008 elections might be why!

Sakuranbo

Movie: Inside Out (2015)

Posted on February 24, 2016 by admin

The Destigmatization of Sadness in Inside Out

I’m giving Disney/Pixar an A in mental health awareness for their recent work. It seems like this is their pet topic these days, with Inside Out being the third movie running to tackle emotional health issues. First, in Disney’s Frozen, Elsa’s emotional issues and repression struck chords with people suffering from a wide variety of mental ails, such as depression, bipolar, and anxiety. Then in Disney’s Big Hero 6, Baymax makes it clear that his job as a healthcare robot is to attend to injuries both physical AND mental (the latter being the case with Hiro), and Pixar continues this pattern with Inside Out. Following the perspective of the well-meaning but unwise Joy, Inside Out contains a message about mental health that hinges on destigmatizing sadness and learning to appreciate its indispensable role in life.

I think my first impression of this movie is a representative starting place: When I first saw the Emotions introduced in the trailer — Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust — my thought was that it was strange that there was only one positive emotion out of the bunch. “Weird,” I thought. “I wonder why these are predominantly (4 out of 5) negative emotions.”¹ In a sense, my first thought that these are negative emotions was right — the other four emotions deal with / react to negative, unpleasant things in the environment (annoying things, scary things, disgusting things, etc.), and so we would just prefer to go through life not feeling them if given the choice.

However, the idea of the emotions other than Joy being negative is the exact myth that the movie aims to dispel. The beginning of the movie immediately gives them all a positive spin after each emotion is introduced. Anger helps Riley assert her space, rights, preferences. Fear keeps Riley safe from danger. Disgust keeps Riley from being poisoned, either physically or socially (i.e. keeps her away from low-quality things). It is only Sadness that the movie’s protagonist, Joy, has trouble understanding the positive side of.

Over the course of the movie, the lessons Joy learns about Sadness are ones the audience would do well to take to heart as well.

Lesson #1: There is a rational dimension to all emotions

One of the best scenes in the movie for me was the one in which Riley’s mother is able to change Riley’s mood by framing the current situation in a way where Riley’s perseverance through the difficult moving process makes the situation much more bearable for the parents, and how much they appreciate it. Before this moment, the “negative” emotions (Anger, Disgust, and Fear), like malcontent mutineers aboard Joy’s Happy Ship, were threatening to seize control from Joy, as there was just no way it was appropriate for Riley to look past all the disappointing, unpleasant, and awful recent experiences to continue to be cheerful (as she would if Joy were to have her way). However, upon hearing this speech, the three willingly give control back to Joy, saying, “Well, you can’t argue with Mom!”

As someone who has had a foul mood completely turned around by a little gesture of appreciation or a random act of kindness, I really liked this depiction of moods being able to suddenly shift despite an overwhelming amount of stress. Aside from that, though, I liked this depiction of emotions as responding to new information in the external world and able to be swayed by reason. Sometimes people depict emotion as the opposite of rationality, possibly because when we are overwhelmed by emotion, it’s hard to reason calmly. However, this is a false dichotomy because emotions not only (usually) have reasons behind them, but emotions are also influenced by the rational thoughts we think and how we conceive of the emotion. Rationality is present in emotions of all kinds.

In Riley’s mind, there is only one emotion shut out of the mood control process, and whose function Joy is not able to understand, and who does random “destructive” acts to Riley’s memories without being able to explain why she felt compelled to do so: Sadness. To all the emotions, Sadness’s actions — turning a happy memory suddenly sad, stepping up to the control panel without warning — seem random, intrusive, unwanted. But to the audience, it’s obvious what’s going on. Feeling down, Riley looks back on her happy memories, and finds (with some horror) that they’re suddenly tinged with sadness. And Sadness keeps absent-mindedly trying to take control because she senses on some level that she is needed, that her emotion is the one that makes the most sense for Riley at that moment — like sadness creeping in on the edges of someone who doesn’t want to admit that they’re sad.

This depiction of the “irrationality” of Sadness’s actions is a huge and important part of the film. When an observer (like Joy) cannot see, understand, or recognize the function/purpose/usefulness/role/reason behind the emotion of sadness, the state of being sad becomes frighteningly irrational/unreasonable/gratuitous/inscrutable/intrusive.

It is critical for Riley that Joy, over the course of the movie, realizes that Sadness has strengths and functions that make her indispensable, and reasons for her actions. The first lesson being…

Lesson #2a: Sadness is needed for empathizing
Lesson #2b: Sadness helps people move on

When Bing Bong loses his wagon, Joy tries to get him to power through or be diverted from his sadness using the techniques she knows — cheer-based techniques like pep talks, wheedling, optimism, amusement. She knows from experience that sometimes these techniques work (like in the above-mentioned scene), but this time it doesn’t. Sadness, however, empathizes with him and gets him to talk through what he’s feeling.

I like this very short video on the difference between sympathy and empathy, which almost reads like an explanation of the difference between Joy and Sadness’s technique:

Similar to what this short talk illustrates, sometimes it’s more meaningful or more helpful to someone not to offer humor, levity, or positive-thinking (or solutions), but to instead acknowledge their sadness or pain by getting on their level instead. This is one function of Sadness (and other emotions) in the movie — the ability to connect with the sadness that someone is experiencing. Each emotion can do this with their own emotion, but (for example) Joy cannot do it with other people’s sadness.

In addition, this scene hints at another function or purpose for sadness. Only after talking about his sadness is Bing Bong able to get over the loss of the wagon and move on to the next things.

I think this is also true to life. Having kept a diary since high school, the good that journaling has done me is very obvious to me. Writing an entry would let me organize my thoughts and get to the bottom of what exactly made me so upset in various situations, and after the painful experience of poking into all that was done (which pretty much involved an hour or two of crying), the productive next steps always became so clear to me. It’s difficult to figure out what course of action to take next when you don’t fully understand what’s upsetting you, so cutting that sadness short would have made it much harder to arrive at the point of clarity.

Small amounts of sadness or stress can be powered through without needing any closure, but sometimes you need to examine a sad event closely and deal with it before you feel okay with leaving it behind / moving past it / forgiving and forgetting. Suppressing it makes it smaller and less weighty, but means you still carry it everywhere.

Lesson #3a: Sadness is a plea for help
Lesson #3b: The suppression of sadness can cause mental harm

This is the biggest and final realization that Joy has about the function of Sadness.

In the pivotal scene of the movie, Joy discovers that a memory that she “won” (is joyful / yellow-colored) actually started out blue and sad. The way it was converted to a happy memory was by Riley’s parents and friends showing up to cheer her up after a failed game. Joy finally understands that Sadness’s main function is to signal to the external world that Riley needs something, that she needs support and help, that she can’t solve her problems by herself. That’s important because seeking help IS a good and sensible response to sadness and depression, and that connection (sadness -> seek help) is a good one for people to keep in mind. Pushing sadness down or trying to power through it means that you erase the external, detectable signals that you need help.

Aside from the suppression of sadness, the other issue related to the expression of sadness is that sometimes people DO express sadness, but they don’t receive support. They are dismissed, told they shouldn’t be sad, told their sadness is annoying or burdensome for other people, and so on.

And it’s true, dealing with someone else’s sadness is mentally/emotionally taxing. It very much CAN be a burden. Sometimes there’s just nothing that a particular person can do to help. People have limits. In such cases, it might be tempting to minimize or attempt to erase someone’s sadness in a lazier way by simply saying it doesn’t exist. However, this does not help the person at all, and instead makes it so they form a different connections about sadness instead — (sadness -> don’t seek help, because you won’t get it), or (sadness -> don’t be sad) — in their mind.

One thing that’s a bit odd about the Emotions in Inside Out is that it’s not clear if they are a part of Riley herself or if they have a caretaker relationship to her similar to that of a parent. Supporting the idea of emotions as sometimes-parents, Joy sometimes shows a sense of pride in Riley’s accomplishments or, when she replays a favorite memory, a nostalgic fondness for time spent “watching Riley grow up” — much closer to a parent than an ego. And like a parent/caretaker/someone who cares deeply for Riley’s wellbeing, Joy (and the other Emotions, even Sadness) hate seeing Riley sad. But it’s this (well-meaning) reluctance or determined resistance toward the idea of seeing someone you love sad that causes damage to that person.

I think that’s an important message — the attitude you hold towards emotions affects mental states. Many mental wellness handbooks start with the important step of learning to validate (acknowledge, non-judgmentally, the presence of) “negative” emotions, like sadness, embarrassment, hatred, jealousy, etc. If we can’t do this, we pathologically disrupt the function and role of sadness.

In conclusion, Inside Out contains an important message about the importance and value of the emotion sadness, by following the viewpoint and mistakes of the main character, Joy, who, with the best of intentions, tries to protect her human Riley from unhappiness, disappointment, or failure. The result of her mistreatment of Sadness, though, is Riley undergoing a severe mental breakdown. Even some of the reactions to this movie indicate a continued assumption that sadness is a “bad” emotion. Hopefully, sadness will continue to be destigmatized and be recognized as a health-promoting emotion.

[1] Of course, they’re based on Ekman’s basic six universal emotions, minus Surprise, so that’s at least one reason behind the choices… but that’s beside the point about how it’s important to question whether these emotions are actually negative!

Tapestry

Weaving history with people and movies

Category Archives: USA