In our discussion of misrepresentation of indigenous tribes through cinema, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom acts as a perfect example of a complete ignorance to indigenous tribes of India. In fact when I have to admit the first and only time I watched the film, I came in halfway through, and was sure that the indigenous people were from South America. But I digress. Aside from the dinner scene which is just a comical representation of the culture there was something that I couldn’t get over and that was the use of Voodoo Dolls in the film. As we watched it I felt as though something was off,  so I decided to investigate and looked up the culture origins of Voodoo dolls. And the reality is it’s something that comes from New Orleans and can be traced back to Western African cultures. But the film uses as a action ploy to heighten the tension. It’s true that the film does much worse but it’s interesting to note how far the creators of this film takes the audience ignorance in order to create an action packed block buster.

In this article, the authors begin by stating that films dealt with effect, not cause. There was a belief that revolutionary cinema cannot exist before revolution. With this in mind, the authors set out to establish third cinema, which aimed to break from these norms and transform the masses into a revolutionary group of people.

Before divulging into the goals of third cinema, the authors give a brief overview of what came before it. The type of films described above fall under first cinema, which predominately came out of Hollywood. These films sought to generate ideologies such as neocolonialism and capitalism. The viewer of these films is a passive consumer. Second cinema was in reaction to this first cinema. From what the authors wrote, I gathered that second cinema was “art-house-esque,” in that they were attempts at independent film. However, second cinema was generally devoid of politics. Second cinema also operated within the System’s (meaning capitalists) distribution chains, causing it to fail as a movement. Third cinema (or cinema of liberation/guerilla cinema) arose when artists and revolutionaries began working together. Their meeting ground of the political and artistic vanguards was the struggle to seize power from the enemy.

Oftentimes in first cinema, imperialists and capitalists sought to create images of reality. These images, according to the authors, rarely reflected the actual reality. Instead these images created inaccurate stereotypes of those oppressed in order to justify oppression. Third cinema sought to deconstruct these images of reality and construct narratives that were actually true. Documentary, the authors declared, was the main basis of revolutionary filmmaking, and thus an intrinsic genre in third cinema.

In order to be successful, filmmakers needed to establish their own voice that sought to create a transformative worldview. In the middle of page 931, the authors include a quote from Marx which reads: “it is not sufficient to interpret the world; it is now a question of transforming it.” By creating their own distinctive revolutionary voices, filmmakers could do just that.

At the bottom of 931, the authors include a quote that I feel best summarizes the goals of third cinema. It reads: “The effectiveness of the best films of militant cinema show that social layers considered backward are able to capture the exact meaning of an association of images, an effect of staging, and any linguistic experimentation placed within the context of a given idea. Furthermore, revolutionary cinema is not fundamentally one which illustrates, documents, or passively establishes a situation: rather, it attempts to intervene in the situation as an element providing thrust or rectification To put it another way, it provides discovery through transformation.”

The authors then divulge into the roles that one has within third cinema. As a filmmaking process, third cinema democratizes it. Thus, everyone is expected to be familiar with all equipment. The continuity of making third cinema rests on an underground base structure with a loyal audience. Without an audience, third cinema loses its purpose. Furthermore, unlike first cinema, the audience of third cinema films is expected to be active. They are no longer spectators, but rather actors. Those who watch third cinema films are transformed into revolutionaries.

The end of the third to last paragraph of page 939 best summarizes the power of third cinema. It reads: “The filmmaker feels for the first time. He discovers that, within the System, nothing fits, while outside of and against the System, everything fits, because everything remains to be done. What appeared yesterday as a preposterous adventure, as we said at the beginning, is posed today as an inescapable need and possibility.”

I will also post my discussion question that I thought of for this article. It is: Based on my reading of the piece, third cinema sought to mobilize the masses to enact change that would alter their lives completely (i.e.: no longer operating under neocolonialism and thus no longer subjected to U.S. bourgeoisie capitalism). Do you think this type of third cinema still exists today?

I was discussing Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom with one of my friends from Sri Lanka, who told me that the movie was filmed there. Upon doing some further research, I discovered that it was filmed in Sri Lanka rather than its initial location, India, because the Indian government refused to allow it. The government found the content to be racist and offensive, and even banned its release in the country. After viewing the film, it is no wonder that the Indian government refused to allow filming. Dark skin in this movie equates to a demonized ‘Other,’ with white skin symbolizing civility and heroism.

Here is an excerpt from an article [http://mentalfloss.com/article/56881/20-fun-facts-about-indiana-jones-and-temple-doom] with more information on India’s ban of the film:

All of the film’s locations were found in India—and then they couldn’t shoot there.

Producer Robert Watts and production designer Elliott Scott traveled to India to scout the interiors and exteriors for the film, which had a budget of $28 million. All of the exteriors—including the Maharajah’s palace, which was to be shot at an existing palace called Amer Fort—and most of the interiors—including the City Palace in Jaipur, which would also stand in for the Maharajah’s palace—were found fairly quickly. But the local government rejected their permits because they found the script to be offensive to Indian culture.

Some deals were made: The production initially agreed to change the locations in the script to a principality on the border of India, and they wouldn’t use the word “maharajah.” But the Indian government balked and demanded final cut of the film in order to censor what they deemed unworthy, which forced Watts and Scott to pack up and leave.

Later, the team decided to shoot certain exteriors in Kandy, a Sri Lankan city, while others—most importantly, the Maharajah’s palace—would be shot on the Paramount backlot and expanded using matte paintings. Further interiors, like the temple itself, would be constructed on soundstages at Elstree Studios in London.

After its release, Temple of Doom was banned in India, but the ruling has since been rescinded.

In “King Kong and the Monster in Ethnographic Cinema,” Rony discusses the portrayal of native or “exotic” people, specifically relating ethnography and cinema in the context of King Kong (1933). Rony writes that the “Ethnographic is seen as monstrous because he or she is human and yet radically different.” When describing the savage depiction of the Skull Islanders in King Kong, Rony writes, “[they] are dark-skinned, fierce, lustful, and yet childlike, afraid of guns…[and they] are represented as the most Savage of men.”

Like King Kong, Stephen Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) , as mentioned in Chapter 15 of Understanding Film Theory, portrays foreign culture as primitive, unsophisticated, and savage. The most glaring example comes when Indiana Jones, Willie, and Shorty arrive in an Indian village by an emergency raft. The Indian villagers wear robes, sandals, and live in huts. The villagers put there hands all over the three characters as if they are of a higher existence. Indiana explains that the food they are given is “more food than these people eat in a week.” They also hold the belief that Siva sent them there and believe in a magic stone. Although the villagers are seen as primitive people, the Thuggees in the Temple are seen as violent savages. At dinner, these people eat: leaches from the belly of a snake, beetles, eyeballs in soup, and monkey brains. Later in the sacrifice scene, their worship of Khali is perceived as tribal, violent, and demonistic through the ripping of a man’s beating heart out, the drinking of blood, and the misty, red lighting achieved from the lava fire.

The representation of Indians in the film are reminiscent of the natives from King Kong and other stereotypical ethnographic films, problematically contrasting foreign people from Westerners as being violent, primitive, and barbaric.

Alex brought up an awesome point in his post regarding the Inglorious Basterd’s scene where the SS guard talks about the journey of King Kong to America being synonymous with that of the African American. Heres the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIBDomdpK7Y

Thinking about this further, Tarantino makes a really interesting point in just a few simple lines of dialogue. I also found it really interesting that Tarantino makes one of the great modern analogies of Slavery while African American filmmaker Spike Lee claims Tarantino is a racist who throws around the n word without understanding what it means. I’ve always been in the camp that Tarantino could care less about race… he cares about characters. If those characters happen to have a certain racial or religious background, he will use it to his satirical advantage and explain their hardships through absurdist, intricate dialogue that allows the character to be larger than life, break the mold of other similar characters, and point out issues going on in America. Like he did in Django with Jaime Foxx, Django is the protagonist and Dicaprio is the antagonist. Tarantino goes to great lengths to make Django appear smarter, faster, and tougher than his white counter parts, but also juxtaposes images with the brutality of slavery and the fear of slaves who were subjected to torture. Perhaps a better representation of slavery is found in 12 Years a Slave, which takes a hyper-realistic historical approach to the true story of Solomon Northup.

Back to the original point that Alex brought up in his post, Tarantino’s best skills lie in his ability to use dialogue to express his points even more loudly than his images. Words can change the entire conversation. When you look at the simple scene above in Inglorious, a disgraceful SS guard makes such a relevant point about one of the great cinema characters of all time… King Kong is quite simply a 1933 commentary on America’s dark past… traveling to a place they were unwanted and unrightfully taking something pure and subjecting it to indentured pain.

The outcome of the scene where Ennis attempts to retrieve Jacks ashes from his family to carry out his final wish of having his remains scattered throughout Brokeback Mountain conveys a crucial message. Firstly, the ambience of Jacks parents’ home, in addition to the demeanor of his parents reflects an extremely monotone and stark tone, which is an immediate indicator of the hostility Ennis is about to face. After presenting the purpose of his visit, Jacks father counters his request stating that Jacks ashes will be scattered on his home plot, ultimately denying him of this wish. This denial demonstrated another example of the lack of control that was present in Ennis and Jacks relationship and the restraint they faced numerous times throughout their time together. Despite being dead, Jack is still being controlled by an outside force.

Another aspect of this important scene exists in the interpretation of Jack and Ennis’ shirts. Since Ennis is denied the ashes, he instead walks away with a memory of their relationship in the form of clothing. Upon further investigation, it is apparent that the meaning of this memoir is tremendous. The literal intertwining of the shirts obviously represents their relationship, however the blood also depicts the death of Jack, and the placement of the shirts outside the closet reflect Ennis’ newly gained acceptance with his homosexuality. Lastly, the shirts are left hanging on the door along side a picture of Brokeback Mountain relaying the idea that their relationship is a thing of the past, and currently existing solely as a memory.

The film effectively interweaves subtle messages within the settings, actions and objects making the effect of the film more meaningful than just the immediate face value.

Response to Color Adjustment

Marlon Riggs’ thought provoking documentary, Color Adjustment, presented various credible arguments about the portrayal of African Americans on television. One of the most intriguing inquiries posed in the film was the idea of defining the positive image of African Americans on film. If they are portrayed as lower class families struggling in a repressed society with no career opportunities, does this realistic and relatable simulation find more applause than one where a whitewashed upper middle class African America family is thriving? It is also crucial to identify the audience for this question as the answer to this most likely varies based on the spectator’s role in society.

This discourse relates to our class discussion on whether any representation is better than no representation. I personally think it is dangerous for such a popular medium such as television or any other forms of media to be responsible for molding the identity of a group of people. This holds especially true in early history when the two separate races were not integrated and for many, the only interaction and relation Whites had with African Americans was what they were exposed to on television. When entire groups of people are categorized by a few characteristics, it can often lead to the formation of a stereotype. If the traits are negative, the result is detrimental. For this reason, I have a hard time agreeing with the phrase “no press is bad press.”

While watching Color Adjustment I found it incredibly interesting that some of the first groundbreaking African American shows on Television, like The Nat King Cole Show and The Cosby Show, were somewhat troublesome because rather than representing black culture accurately, they whitewashed African American daily life so it carried to white audiences. I thought this was especially interesting in the context of the Cosby Show because in the film they discussed how the Cosby Show represented a false reality by presenting the idea that many African American families were living in luxurious home and were being given great career opportunities, when it reality this was not the case at all and inequality was still a very prominent issue in society. The world that the Cosby Show portrayed on screen existed for some African American families but this show was very much an attempt to assure viewers that racism and the income gap between whites and minorities had dissipated even though in actuality many African Americans were still struggling against oppression, as evident in shows like Ray’s Place which aimed to address these issues head on rather than sweep them under the rug and pretend they did not exist. Even The Nat King Cole Show, which was universally viewed as a great program because it allowed an African American singer to showcase his musical skills and have creative control over his show, still was problematic because it ignored the racism that was running ramped in society. After watching this documentary I was amazed to see that African American shows that were seen as groundbreaking and revolutionary still didn’t depict an accurate portrayal of African American life because the networks felt their priority was to please white viewers over represented reality.

Another part of Color Adjustment that I thought was interesting was the way in which archetypes change over time and characters that were either idolized or despised during the run of the show can now be seen in an entirely new light due to a change in social values. One example of this was prevalent in the All in the Family clip from Color Adjustment  in which Rob Reiner’s character argued with Archie bunker over the freedom of immigrants and the disenfranchised. In this clip Rob Reiner’s character is portrayed as an archetypal hippy figure whose primary concerns are fighting “the man” and advocating for social justice. This is evident by Rob Reiner’s disheveled, free spirited look and the fact that his nickname on the show is meathead because Archie considers his progressive ideas about racial equality and liberalism to be inane. When this show initially aired in the 1970s Archie’s character was idolized because he represented a racist american mentality that many individuals embodied during this time, but as time progressed and society became more political and racially conscious Archie’s character become a villian who represented many white american’s racist view of minorities while Meathead’s character become more reasonable because his message of equality embodied the mindstate that many Americans have come to possess . This just goes to show that as society progresses our view and values will change accordingly and led us to lookup to new, unlikely heroes that we may have never considered to be heroic before

During class I keep thinking of the recent film Birdman during many of the discussions we’ve been having.  It’s been relevant in several situations, most notably during our conversation on Monday about the burden of representations that you yourself cannot control.  Is it better to be represented poorly by someone who doesn’t belong to your particular demographic, or not be represented at all?  Is it better to have bad press rather than no press?  We talked about it briefly as it pertained to black representations in T.V. as white producers would be responsible for churning out popular content involving the gross stereotyping of black people.  We also talked about it in the context of homosexuality in film, where the mere transition to any representation at all on screen was enough to be considered a step in the right direction – even if homosexual characters were better characterized as caricatures.

In the context of Birdman, the main character, Riggan, is obsessed with recapturing the fame that he once had on screen playing a famous superhero (called Birdman).  He struggles to accomplish a level of sophisticated popularity by writing, directing and acting in a stage production, but he is constantly antagonized by a younger, stronger and more fit version of himself wearing the Birdman suit.   What Riggan is dealing with here is the desire to define his own existence in the entertainment world.  He wants to put his own image of himself out to the public, and gain a more desirable level of fame that he himself can come to terms with.  Riggan’s attempts to represent himself through entertainment are beaten and battered into the dirt at almost every corner – he can’t get a smooth production of his show at any point during the previews.  In one particular instance, he finds himself locked out of the theater in just his underwear after he had stepped out for a minute or two to have a cigarette.  In a crazed effort to get back into the theater in time for the final scene of the production, he marches straight through Times Square in front of hundreds of onlookers.  Within minutes, he is caught on dozens of outstretched camera phones, and he has unwittingly just starred in a youtube video that will go viral in a matter of days.

The irony is tangibly thick – despite his best efforts to avoid meaningless fame on screen, he is thrown right back into the midst of reluctant celebrity status.  Representation is funny in that way – no matter how hard you try to present your own image, or the image of those around you, the dominance of popular opinion will easily break the delicate path towards self satisfaction.  It feels this way with social justice in film – in spite of deeply emotional and concerted attempts to correctly and fairly represent the opinion of those who have failed to hold a voice, there will always be a more dominant effort to crush that movement and feed consumers what they want to see, and what they’re comfortable seeing.

Quentin Tarantino’s films typically have a break in the action where some characters point out something interesting — something that kinda makes you say, “wow! I never thought about it like that!” Here are some examples:

1. Kill Bill vol. II (2004): Bill talks about how Superman is different from all other superheroes in that he must put on a costume (Clark Kent) in order to blend in with society, whereas Bruce Wayne must put on a costume to become Batman. LINK
2. Pulp Fiction (1994): the “Royale with Cheese” scene comes to mind. LINK
3. Django Unchained (2012): the scene where Candy talks about craniology, or phrenology, being the justification for enslaving Africans. LINK
4. Reservoir Dogs (1992): You could say the opening scene where the men are talking about tipping is a scene which fits this mold. LINK

In Inglourious Basterds (2009), Tarantino brilliantly compares the character of King Kong to the story of the Negro in America. LINK. The comparison is absolutely fascinating and I would’ve loved to have brought it up during class, but the actual comparison didn’t fit with the King Kong article we read and I didn’t want to derail the conversation. Regardless, I highly recommend you watch each of these clips. They’re very entertaining and it’ll probably take you less than 15 minutes to watch them all.