The Official Story

Write a brief biography of the young girl in Official Story; she would now be in her mid-late 20s.

At 26 Gabi Ibanez is a pleasant yet earnest woman. Upon meeting her you would never guess at the controversy that surrounded her childhood.

Kidnapped as a newborn, Gabi was adopted by one of the families that was complicit in Argentina’s “dirty war”. From 1976-1983 thousands of people were tortured and killed by the ruling military junta. Some of the casualties of this policy were the children who were born in prison. After her birth in 1978 Gabi was taken by Roberto Ibanez to raise as his own daughter. Without questioning the events surrounding her good fortune Gabi’s new ‘mother’, Alicia devoted herself to creating a happy, loving life for the family.

Five years later, as the military began to relinquish control of the country the real story of Gabi and “the disappeared” started coming to light. Although many question Alicia’s complicity in turning a blind eye to the atrocities, she tirelessly searched for the truth of her daughter’s origins. This truth destroyed the only family Gabi had known.

Roberto Ibanez fled the country in 1984 leaving Gabi with Alicia and her biological grandmother, Sara.

Gabi didn’t learn about her birth parents until she was 16. At which time Alicia and Sara decided that she deserved to know the truth. Although the information was shocking and painful, she says her life has been very good. She always felt loved and supported by both her mother and grandmother.

Gabi is a junior associate at a law firm in Buenos Aires where she still lives with her mother Alicia.

Missing

You are the attorney for the US government attempting to prove no role or complicity on the US government’s part in the death of Charles Horman.
Briefly summarize your case by listing 3–5 key arguments you will make in court on behalf of your client.

The military coup in Chile created an atmosphere of chaos. The curfew forced people to find short term shelter if they were caught too far from home at sundown. The arrest and confinement of thousands of people at the National Stadium added to the general confusion.

Charles Horman was arrested by the Chilean military with thousands of other people. He was held at the National Stadium. The United States has no control over who the military arrested or how they conducted interviews.

There is no proof that the US government knew of Charles Hormans situation after he was arrested. The only witness who claims he saw Horman with Chilean military and U.S. advisors cannot definitively prove that the prisoner he saw was actually Charles Horman. There is no evidence to prove that the United States or its emissaries ever saw or allowed one of their citizens to be executed by the Chilean military.

The United States government resolutely denies having any part in the coup that took place in Chile. The presence of US military personnel in Vina is not proof that they were part of any military action. Vina del Mar is a very busy port city that might naturally have a large naval presence. This is not evidence of US collusion with the military junta.

Personally, I have no doubt that the US was involved, either as instigator or collaborator, of the military coup in Chile in 1973, however without corroboration from some other, more objective, sources there is no real evidence that the US was complicit in Charlie Hormans death.

The question of protecting our “way of life” is obscene. Any sovereign nation should be free to choose its own politics and policies. The audacity of America to believe that our lifestyle is more important than anyone else’s is the ultimate in egocentrism. The United States should be more willing to negotiate than force their will onto those who disagree with them.

I was lucky enough to live in Santiago for a year (1999). Twenty six years after the coup the scars were still evident. Friends of ours who were children in 1973 remember family members who disappeared or others who were taken away and came back physically and emotionally scarred after being tortured. The evidence that the violence of this era still affects the entire country was vividly illustrated when Pinochet was arrested in London. The riots that surrounded the Chileans demand for his return were fierce and more than just a little frightening. The fervor that the people felt was indicative of how deeply wounded the country still is by Pinochet regime.

The knowledge that the United States is, in some way, responsible for this national pain just reinforces my belief that the US should not dictate, as I stated above, the politics and policies of sovereign nations.

Lumumba

Blog query: Let’s play “What if” history: imagine that Lumumba had managed to overcome the challenges to his rule and stay in power. How do you think his presidency would have unfolded? Would he have succeeded in keeping Zaire from falling apart? Would he have established the country as a democracy or would he most likely have become a dictator ruling for many years?

Lumumba’s passion for independence would have forced him to strive for democracy. However, passion is no substitute for political experience and this lack of experience was his downfall. The UN had agreed with the Belgians not to intervene in Katanga so Lumumbas only other option to maintain control would be to use the Russian military. If he had succeeded in getting Russian support to invade Katanga he would have used that same support to put down the military rebellion and reduce Mobutu’s power. Mobutu, having seen his chances for power undermined, would have turned to the US, who had already approached him to overthrow Lumumba because of his relationship with the Soviets. Lumumba and Mobutu would have clashed, starting a civil war that I don’t know who would have won.

If Lumumba had won, I believe he would have tried to create a democratic republic. Even when debating the value of using the Soviet military he did not think Communism was the right choice for Zaire.

Book Review - We Wish to Inform You...

Write and post a brief review (500–100 words) of the book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda by Philip Gourevitch. Focus in particular on your reaction to the reading and on any changes you might make to the film Hotel Rwanda based on your reading of the book.

As he tries to understand what happened in Rwanda in the summer of 1994 Philip Gourevitch explores the historical roots of the Hutu/Tutsi coexistence. He traces the cultural, social and political development of Rwanda weaving colonial intervention with biblical stories to help explain how the Rwandans see themselves and each other.

His search for answers in Rwanda is a courageous tale. Gourevitch’s book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda gives testimony to the atrocities that took place and forces us to recognize the complicity of the West in one of the most heinous acts in the past 50 years.

The individual stories are the real power of this book. Gourevitch interviews survivors, those accused of genocidal acts and military commanders from all sides. His interviews bring us face to face with the horrors of the genocide. We sense the helplessness and bewilderment of those who experienced it first hand and still can’t believe it. Reading these first hand accounts allows the reader to feel the desperation of the Rwandans who were abandoned by all their supposed allies.
Gourevitch relates the history of this genocide through the eyes of Odette Nyiramilimo. She recounts her life in “a hopscotch fashion…sometimes skipping several years when they knew no terror, sometimes slowing down to name the months and the days” (p.64). Her story describes Hutu/Tutsi actions against each other through the years. At one point, in a foreshadowing of the future, a schoolteacher employed by the United Nations “described the massacres…as a veritable genocide and he accused European aid workers and church leaders in the country of an indifference that amounted to complicity in the state-sponsored slaughter” (p65).

The book lays a thorough groundwork for the movie Hotel Rwanda. There is ample information to build a story that is marketable to the world yet still powerful enough to do this story justice. Using Paul Rusesabagina as a focal point for the movie shows the horror of the events that surrounded him as well as the power of one man to make a difference.

As a whole the movie balanced these themes exceptionally. One of my few questions or additions to the film would have been some reference to the timing of the genocide. During the movie we get no real sense that just a few months passes between the time the refugees begin arriving at the hotel and the time the UN ushers them over the RPF lines. To realize that this entire event took place over just a few short months makes the entire story even more appalling.

Another point that Gourevitch focuses on in the book that is not stressed in the movie is the role the French played in provoking and arming the Hutu leadership. Besides one mention of the French arming the FAR the film overlooks the historical significance of the French involvement in Rwanda.

We wish to inform you…is one of the most candid accounts of the Rwandan genocide. This book holds no punches in laying blame for the inexcusable actions (or inactions) of the West. Gourevitch builds a substantial case against all the developed countries that should have responded including the Belgians who helped create the ethnic disparity, the French who, as mentioned above, incited and armed the Hutus, the United Nations who stood by and watched while the genocide happened in front of them and especially the United States who refused to admit that acts of genocide had occurred and dragged their feet when they finally agreed to assist.

Paradise Now

Do you agree more with the petition to have the film removed as an award nominee or with the counter-petition? What are you reasons for favoring one side over the other?

While I do not particularly agree with the counter-petition I could not support the original petition either. I think the petition to have the film removed as a nominee is swinging the pendulum too far towards censorship. Even though you might not like the message you cannot stop someone from delivering it though acceptable means. I think this is the crux of the issue –Palestinian suicide bombers use unacceptable practices – filmmakers do not.

I don’t agree that the Palestinians have no other means to deliver their message and they movie did not make me sympathetic to the cause of a terrorist. If anything the film was more interesting for it’s portrayal of ordinary people living in an extraordinary situation. I think the creators of the original petition are more afraid that this movie might allow viewers to see that the Palestinians are not all religious fanatics bent on killing all Israelis.

My objection to the counter-petition is the statement that “The movie outlines the struggle Palestinians face under the Israeli occupation and how the use of their bodies has become the only form of resistance made available to them”. I don’t believe this statement is true; even though they have the right to express their opinion, I don’t feel I could sign a document that makes this type of declaration.

One of my random questions/thoughts on the Israel/Palestine issue is: if the Palestinians spent more time and money spinning the press than perpetuating violence would they have a better chance at the equality that they are looking for?

What was your reaction to Khaled’s first taped statement?
Khaled’s first taped message angered me. It is full of ‘angry young man’ rhetoric and half truths that ensure the recruitment of the next bomber. My anger is directed more at the organizers of these missions than the bombers themselves. The people who agitate and provoke these young men to perform such inconceivable acts are as guilty if not more so than the bomber himself.
The second take of the message seemed much more natural, more of the real Khaled than the first one. This second take makes me wonder if Khaled is going on this mission because he really believes in it or because he has been led to believe that this is the only answer.

Enemy At The Gates

In his review of Enemy At The Gates, Godfrey Cheshire lambastes the movie as an ode to Stalin and Communism produced by leftist French (read: anti-American) ideologues. Whether the movie portrays a true historical account of the battle for Stalingrad is incidental to his dislike of the filmmakers. Chesire fails to look beyond his own democratic tenets and see that the film is highly critical of Stalin.

Cheshire claims that the movie is “a big-budget paean to Soviet Communism under the gallant leadership of Joe Stalin.” However within minutes of the opening scenes we see the brutality of Stalin’s leadership. The young soldiers are ordered into battle to fight for Russia and if they retreat, even if retreat is the prudent action, they are shot by their commanding officers for cowardice. Through out the film we are shown that Stalin was a vicious leader who was more concerned with winning the battle than using common sense. In a scene that introduces Khrushchev as Stalin’s envoy the commanding officer is offered suicide as an option rather than face the wrath of Stalin. Later we hear Khrushchev on the phone telling his commanders to win continue fighting even if they lose all their troops. Rather than glorifying Stalin these scenes illustrate his brutality.

Cheshire’s assessment is that this movie is just “glossy, anachronistic propaganda”; he refuses to grant that Enemy At The Gates actually condemns Communism. Throughout the movie the commanding officers and the press officers encourage the foot soldiers with the ideal of fighting for the glory of the motherland. However, Koulikov’s description of losing his teeth while being tortured demonstrates that the ‘motherland’ and, by extension Communism, is not the panacea they are led to believe.

Another criticism, made by Cheshire, is that the movie “proffers good guys and bad guys for our rooting enjoyment. Only, here the good guys are Soviet minions doing Crazy Joe's dirty work.” The problem with this accusation is that in that time and place the Russians were the good guys. Cheshire seems to have forgotten that the Russians were our allies during World War II. His own ‘democratic’ dogma blinds Cheshire to the fact that this movie is not about communism or democracy, but a battle in which the Russians and the United States were allied in their goal to defeat Hitler and Nazism.

Cheshire’s xenophobia is obvious as he disparages the movie and the filmmakers. He points to the “moral blindness of the French” and declares that the French left views America as “just another rightist foe, much the same as the Nazis, if perhaps not quite so malign”. He writes that the film is nothing more than an attempt “to wreak a little snotty revenge [by making] a war movie that rips off Spielberg's at every turn….that features Soviets as heroes and has as its Nazi villain an American star”. He asserts that the French need revenge because Saving Private Ryan “is a reminder that Americans helped save the French not once but twice in the last century”. This criticism is petty and small-minded. Cheshire has no issue with whether or not the movie is historically accurate his abhorrence of the movie is strictly because of its origins. He refuses to see past his own doctrine and view this movie objectively.

Mr. Cheshire’s review of Enemy At The Gates ignores the films obvious efforts to show Stalin as a brutal and vicious tyrant and instead focuses on his dislike of the filmmakers. While he disparages the movie for it’s portrayal of Russians as heroes, his review fails to recognize that the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad was probably the turning point in the war. His aversion to the French has eclipsed his ability to view this film impartially. Instead of seeing a battle to defeat Nazism Cheshire perceives the movie as a slight to America and democratic values.

The Day I Became a Woman

The Day I Became a Woman.

The movie is shot as three vignettes. The first part starts as a young girl, Hava, wakes on her ninth birthday. Her friend Hassan arrives to play with her and is told that today is the day she becomes a woman. She is no longer allowed to play with her male friends and must start wearing a chador and hiding herself from male non-family members. Hava negotiates with her mother and grandmother for an extra hour to play with Hassan. She goes to find Hassan only to learn that he is now being forced by his sister to stay inside and finish his homework.

The second part, called Ahoo, begins with a man galloping through the countryside, along the coast. We find he is chasing his wife, who is in a bicycle race. He tells her to stop riding. With little or no dialog from her she just keeps on pedaling. As various male figures ride up to her, threatening her with everything from divorce, to losing her family she just continues on. After each threat she seems even more determined to continue and we see her cycle into the lead. Finally, she sees her brothers waiting on the road for her and she finally stops. As they approach her and start arguing with her the camera moves farther and farther away. We never find out how this story ends.

In the final story an old woman gets off an airplane and is carted around by a young boy on a wheelchair or rickshaw type vehicle. He asks her where she wants to go and her reply is that she wants to go to the market to buy furniture.
She wanders through shopping malls buying “whatever she never had”. She finally sets up all her purchases on the beach. The story has no real ending.

As Hoora floats off, with her purchases, to a boat in the distance there is no clear indication of how this story will end. This theme is repeated in each of the stories. We see the characters walk off toward their futures, but get the feeling that the future is not necessarily written yet.

Farewell My Concubine

The most powerful scenes in Farewell My Concubine occur as the main characters deal with the uncertainty of the Cultural Revolution. We finally get to see Dieyi and Xiaolou confront the realities of the changing political atmosphere.

The Cultural Revolution defines the characters in the movie. Through the majority of the film their status as stars of the theater protects them but as Communism envelops the country thier prominence sets them up for betrayal. Throughout the film we are shown how these two men survive by bending to the whims and will of those in power. In the end Xiaolou and Dieyi both choose to save themselves rather than stand up for their beliefs.

The movie portrays Juxian as a schemer who keeps Xiaolou from offending the governing forces. Her guidance (interference) helps to keep herself, Xiaolou and even Deiyi safe and her intervention saves each of them at one time or another.

In the end she chooses not to bend to the fanaticism of the Cultural Revolution. She refuses to declare her mistakes and seek forgiveness from the mob. Instead she chooses to leave Xiaolou and Deiyi to each other and makes the “noble” choice. (see Adrienne Middlebrooks’ comments on the Discussion Board – From the Taipei Times: "the country... often embraced it (suicude) as a way of preserving honor and proving moral purity.")