Earth

Who among the reviewers did you agree with more and why?

In his review Zarminae Ansari writes that “the movie will undoubtedly offend both sides, since it spares neither, nor holds one as morally superior to the other.” Apparently C.J.S Wallia is one of those offended by the movie.

I believe that Wallia’s criticism that the film is “simplistic” misses one of the points of the movie. If the events surrounding the partition of India were difficult for the decision making adults of every caste, religion and ethnicity to grasp, then they must have been incomprehensible for a young girl. Earth is “story of a child’s confusion about the partition, which embodies the confusion of the millions who are eventually affected by it.” (Zarminae Ansari)
Deepa Mehta has taken a moment in history that encompasses very complex of issues, such as religious, ethnic and nationalistic allegiances, and tries to illustrate the challenges that faced the newly independent India. Without simplifying to some degree, telling this story would be impossible.

Both reviews accept the concept that the Ice-Candy Man as a scorned lover wants to exact revenge on is rival as well as Shanta, but this depiction ignores the role the escalating violence and the murder of his family played in his evolution from a carefree rogue to lethal enemy. The convergence of events created an opportunity for everyone to choose how they would react – The Ice-Candy Man chose extremism and violence.

Wallia also condemns the movie for poorly developed characters and distorting the historical role played by the British, Muslim, Hindus and, in particular the Sikhs. While the film did perhaps present the characters in generalized terms it did portray each group as the majority would have reacted. There are exceptions in every instance, not all Muslims were radical and violent and not all Sikhs were fanatics.I believe that the movie gave the viewer a rounded picture of the major factions as well as showing that not everyone split directly on religious or ethnic lines.

Indochine, part 2

Based on your viewing of the film and the Unit 5 online lecture material, how would you compare or contrast the French and American experiences in Vietnam?

The differences in the French and American experiences in Vietnam seem to be the final goal of the invading force. The French were colonizing the country and trying to maintain a profit center. The American intentions were strictly political. American involvement in Vietnam was motivated be a desire to contain communism.

The French invaded Vietnam in the 1800’s as a colonial expansion. The intention was to profit from the resources of the country. The Americans had no interest in colonizing or invading until after WWII when Ho Chi Minh, an ally in WWII, proclaimed Vietnamese independence. Fearing communist expansion into Southeast Asia the U.S. began supporting the French.

The battles fought by the Western countries could be almost interchangeable. “The Vietcong relied on guerrilla warfare, as had the Vietminh before them in its wars against the Japanese and the French.”(Lecture Material, part 3) None of these technologically advanced forces were able to defeat the Vietnamese guerrilla warfare.

In his review of Indochine Roger Ebert sums up the similarities of the French and American experience in Vietnam when he wrote “The film seems to suggest that the French still do not quite understand what happened to them in Vietnam. Well, they're not alone.”

Indochine, part 1

Respond to the following assessment of Indochine by Panivong Norindr: "Critical and popular acclaim notwithstanding, Wargnier’s representation of Indochina exerts a dangerous fascination precisely because it brings visual pleasure without questioning or subverting any preconceived ideas about French colonial rule in Southeast Asia. Indochine merely displays beautiful images and should only be remembered as a symptom of the current French fad for things exotic." Do you agree? Why or why not?

I agree with Panivong Norindr’s criticism that the film Indochine should not be taken as a literal representation of events. This portrayal of the colonial French as kindly benefactors who only punished the colonists when they were disrespectful is not an accurate description of the French colonial period. Indochine looks at history through a gauzy covering. Wargnier vividly illustrates “something bittersweet and decadent about the dying days of [the] colonial regime”. (Roger Ebert) The past is fondly remembered without the substance of reality.

The allusion to a mother-child relationship between France and Vietnam may be accurate from the French perspective but the Vietnamese were never satisfied with their subjugation by the French. The film chooses to ignore this fact.

Rita Kempley suggests that the consignment of Camille’s story to Eliane confirms that this is a tale of history as the French want to see it, not an accurate description of the period. She writes that “Director Regis Wargnier seems far more interested in what the white folks are doing back on the plantation. As with other potentially enlivening events, we hear about it from the coolly aristocratic Eliane. [This is] a form of cinematic colonialism”.

The revisionist history in this movie validates Norindr’s contention that Indochine is a beautifully filmed work of fiction. The backdrop of Indochina and colonial French rule is merely a prop, not an accurate depiction. Norindr’s fear is that moviegoers will choose to accept Wargnier’s version of French colonialism seems justified.

Lamerica

Lamerica

“L’America: A Film Review” by James Berardinelli

Lamerica, by Gianni Amelio, examines the deterioration of a country that is left to re-build after 50 years of totalitarian rule. Without state controls the country falls into ruin. Capitalists arrive to take advantage of the situation and with them come the con men.

This is where Amelio’s story begins. Gino and Fiori arrive in Albania with a scam to con Italy and other Western contributors out of aid that is meant to help the country. Their plot involves hiring a “straw man” or a front man to display to the government. Their search to find someone they can manipulate leads them to Spiro Tozai. He was a prisoner of the communist government who has been in jail so long that he has forgotten the last fifty years, much like Albania who still sees itself as a subservient child of their parent Italy.

Spiro, and Albania, are much more complicated than they seems. The old “Albanian” is actually an Italian deserter from Mussolini’s army. And, like a majority of Albanians, all he wants is to return to Sicily.

Gino is ordered to stay in Albania to fix the details of the scam and watch over their puppet chairman. He is arrogant and disdainful of the country. He ignores the signs of poverty that pervade the country and truly believes, as we are shown in the newsreel at the beginning of the film, that the Italians are coming to Albania to civilize the nation.

Gino loses track of Spiro, who has decided to go home, and he must chase after him. On this journey Gino begins to see the country as it really is: poverty stricken and hungry. As he loses his ties to Italy, his car, his money and eventually his passport, he realizes that the only difference between him and the Albanians that surround him is his luck to have been born in Italy.

One of the themes that struck me most while watching Lamerica was the Italians patronizing attitude toward Albania. Throughout the movie we are shown again and again how Italy perceives Albania as a child – the newsreel at the beginning, Fiori’s attitude toward his interpreter when he realizes that one of the applicants is related to him, the scene at the orphanage where Gino wants to teach Spiro not to soil his car (rubbing his nose in it like a puppy!); they tell the nuns that Spiro is an orphan, the message is that Italy has more responsibility for Albania than just another country offering economic aid.

Burnt By The Sun

Burnt By the Sun

Analyze at least three different specific scenes that you found particularly important or revealing. Why are they significant and what do they reveal? Were there any aspects of those scenes or the film as a whole that you found confusing or unclear? If you had to rewrite the ending, how would you change it?

Scene 1
Mitya tells a story to Nadya

This scene reveals Mitya’s true motives. In the story he explains what happened to him. It answers the family’s question of why he left without a word and incriminates Kotov as the villain who forced him to leave the family he loved.

As the story progresses you start to feel more sympathy for Mitya, for the life he has lost as a pawn of the Revolution. This contrasts with the impression of him in previous scenes as a schemer with ulterior motives.

This scene is rife with symbols. From the names in the story being anagrams of Mitya and Marussya To the fiery ball that floats into the house and singes the family.

Scene 2
In the attic with Marussya

After Mitya tells his story to Nadya, Marussya runs off as she realizes that her current husband is the one who was responsible for dispatching her lover and causing so much pain in her life. Kotov chases her trying to calm her; after they make love she asks straight out if he was the one responsible for sending Mitya away. When she asks if he would have left as Mitya did he responds without hesitating that he would. He is a soldier by trade and more importantly he loves his country. Unlike Mitya who left out of fear, Kotov would have gone because it was his duty as a soldier.

This scene marks the difference between the two men. Kotov works for the government out of nationalist pride and love of his homeland whereas Mitya follows orders because he is afraid of what will happen if he does not.
When they are in the car Kotov scoffs at the man who is afraid that he might take his own life, as though such a thought would never occur to Kotov this is in direct contrast to what we already know of Mitya from the beginning of the movie.

Scene 3
In the car

After they leave the dacha, Kotov is still sure of himself and arrogant enough to believe that his friendship with Stalin will save him. He treats the men in the car with disdain, boasting of knowing Stalin’s private number and tells them that they will be in great trouble when they get back to Moscow.

After the men in the car beat him and Mitya has killed the innocent by passer, Kotov finally begins to believe that he is in real trouble. He recognizes that now he is at the Mitya’s mercy unlike 10 years ago when their roles were reversed.

As I mentioned in my group posting one of my questions about concerns the symbolism for the number nine throughout the movie. Nadya is nine years old, the dacha is #9 and the day Kotov leaves is the ninth day. The only correlation I could find in Russian history was Victory Day on May 9th, but this refers to the victory in WWII. The prevalence of the number suggests that it is important to Mikhalkov but I couldn’t figure out why. Anybody have any thoughts on this question?