After much thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m still not over the ending of Boys Don’t Cry. I meant what I said in class–when the camera cuts to Brandon laying on the ground in the fetal position then shows John and Tom approach him, give him his shirt back while John physically lifts him up and puts his arm around Brandon, it was safe to say my jaw dropped. It wasn’t until after John says, “If you keep our little secret, we’ll stay friends.  Right little buddy?” and Brandon replies, “Yeah of course.  This is all my fault. I know,” that I literally had to pause my Netflix and thought, what just happened. 

Watching the rape scene was treacherous in itself.  I felt myself get goosebumps when John jumps up and cheers, adrenaline flowing after he finishes his turn with Brandon; a lump in the back of my throat after hearing Brandon’s cry over and over again, in hopes that this moment would end.

You hear about rape victims placing blame on themselves and it seeming pretty ridiculous, but actually watching a rape (which was treacherous in itself) and then hearing Hillary Swank say that (s)he knew it his fault was overwhelming to say the least.  Brandon wasn’t ‘asking for it,’ he wasn’t dressing provocatively, or egging John and Tom on like we saw Bridget do in The Last Seduction, he was doing quite the opposite of that actually when he starting dating Lana.  But then there is the argument (solely for the sake of one) where one could say that had Brandon been dressing provocatively in girls clothes and hitting on the boys instead, they wouldn’t have raped him, because this was considered punishment for tricking them (again this is for the sake of argument-not my stance on the matter).

Does that sounds contradicting to anyone else or just me?

And then there is the fact that John and Tom say that they and Brandon are going to be friends after the entire rape scene, or else they would kill him.  I’m sorry, what? That is the most messed up part in my opinion.  There were five people in their circle of friends, three of which were involved in this rape.  That means every day, all three of these people would see each other and be reminded of what had happened, and in Brandon’s case he would most likely relive it every time.

After the two kill Brandon and film ended, I had a very terrible feeling about the whole thing, but I think I would have felt even worse had they not killed him and instead just gone on with their daily lives, causing Brandon to relive his rape and causing even more of “punishment” for him to live with.

This afternoon I was describing the screening of “Where Should the Birds Fly?” to my roommate, and when I was doing so I thought of Professor Sikand’s comment in class about considering the violence that Fida included in the film. .

As a viewer, I really appreciated the violence of the film. I think that in order to be true to the conflict and the realities of the conflict, which to me is what Fida truly tried to do, she needed to include the graphic violence of the attacks on Gaza. Additionally, going off our discussion in class about the images we often get from the mainstream media, I don’t think we are truly shown the horrors and the graphic nature of war. Scenes and images from the film were horrible and difficult to watch, but I’m glad she didn’t take the edge off when considering which scenes to cut and keep in editing the film. I’m glad we got to see the whole reality, even if it was immensely difficult to watch.

I’m thinking particularly of the scene with the teenage  boy in the hospital who had been hit with the white phosphorous bombs; I’ve never seen images or videos which depicted the real, raw, graphic wounds sustained by civilians during a war. I’m thankful for him for allowing himself and his pain to be documented and shown – I don’t think the effect would have been the same if Fida simply had an account of the injuries he sustained or described them for us. Instead, we saw a real boy writhing and crying in pain after sustaining injuries because of a conflict in which he plays no part. Similarly, the scenes with the wounded and dead Palestinians in the street, being carried or covered with sheets, were also powerful. And the shot of the man looking at the dead children, these were all horrible and horrifying but truthfully documented what it is to live in a war zone and to be a Palestinian civilian.

Finally, I appreciate the inclusion of Mona and her story through time within the film, like some people mentioned today in class. In representations of conflicts and war zones, I think that we see more often just quick snapshots of the destruction and damage. Fida included the scene with the father shouting for his son Mohammed (and in the Q&A remarked that this raw display of emotion in the moment was against the cultural prescriptions for men and thus important to share) – and this is more along the lines of what I have seen in news coverage/viral stories about the effects of war and violence on civilians, in Palestine and around the world.

While that particular scene was gut wrenching and highly emotional, I’m glad we also got to see Mona. How many times do we see coverage of a bombing or an attack or a raid, and then never consider it again? With Mona’s story, we got to see the long-term effects of being a Palestinian enmeshed in this violence. We were presented with this little girl whose life will never be the same, and returning to her multiple times really brought home that point for me. Our experience with the conflicts and violence in the Gaza strip could end when the movie stops – it will never end for Mona and for everyone else Fida included in her footage, and I definitely took that away from watching the film.

Hey, NHS, I fixed your poster. pic.twitter.com/xbCCfySYRg

— Tyrannosaurus jess (@neverjessie) August 1, 2014

Here is the tweet I was talking about in class if anyone wants to look.

Where Should the Birds Fly was a powerful documentary, not only in the sense that it captured some of the emotional repercussions of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, but also in the way that it demonstrated and acknowledged the power of film-making.

There was one line that really caught my attention. In the narration, director Fida Qishta says, “My camera is my only weapon…I feel safe behind my camera…it will capture the bullet that will kill me.” This statement portrays the power of capturing moving images, and the way that documentary film can be a powerful tool to show real experiences. A statement, like above, really captured the position of the filmmaker in this particular instance. In the midst of a political/social conflict, an average citizen (and woman) given menial tools was able to effectively tell a story. But while she told that story, she realized her responsibility, being that she had the means to document the conflict and its effects. Both these aspects of the film come together to make an influential and emotional film, which holds a lot of power to make a difference.

As another blogger already posted, I too investigated the recommended The Brandon Teena Story (1998) of Netflix. Director Susan Muska chronicles the real footage and story of Teena Brandon. Watching the documentary absolutely reaffirmed the actors accurate portrayals of the real people involved. Little things all the way down to how the actors/actresses dressed and reacted.

But what really left me conflicted was the actions of Brandon. In the Brenda Cooper article, she is arguing that Boys Don’t Cry (1999) the film rewrites/challenges the heteronormative narrative through 4 channels (dismantling the myth of “America’s heartland”, problematizing heteromasculinity, centering female masculinity [instead of heteromasculinity], and blurring the boundaries of female masculinity). I can see how one could take that stance and argue it but, how do the masses respond to a movie like this. My real interest sparked when I thought about the specific decision and responsiblity the director had to make Boys Don’t Cry. The image of Brandon Teena was not a golden one: he forged checks, drank, flirted with any girl, smoked, etc. Being that this was a breakout film, what image did that lend to the national uncovering of transexuals? or even the midwestern part of the states? The conflict is…was this the story that should have brought attention to this social crisis.

( I will be adding to this post, stay tuned lol)

Eyes on the Prize – 05- Mississippi, Is This America, 1962-1964 is a documentary about the efforts of citizens organizing and protesting for civil rights in Jackson, Mississippi, with a lot of the episode dedicated to fighting for African American voting rights. After watching this, I completely agree with Melissa Harris Perry’s opinion about The Help, which takes place in 1963 Jackson, Mississippi (the same time and location of the episode). The Help negates the very real, public, community efforts of organizing for social change that the people of Jackson took part in, which resulted in actual changes.  In mainstream media and pop culture, the amount of pieces that focus on African American female domestic workers living in the south during the 60’s is minimal.  I can’t even think of another example besides The Help. Since this topic is underrepresented, I think there is an obligation to ensure that the content being shown to the public is an actual representation of the lives of these women during these times. Racial inequality is still alive and well in this country, but at the end of The Help there is a feeling that things are going to be just fine for everyone, when in reality in the context of our society, things are still rough. For example, according to Michelle Alexander, mass incarnation rates of African Americans are the new Jim Crow laws.
An argument saying it’s fine for The Help to not be historically accurate is that there isn’t enough time in a movie to tell the whole story.  Eyes on the Prize – 05- Mississippi, Is This America, 1962-1964 told an historically accurate story in under an hour. Another argument is that it’s just a movie, and it’s meant to entertain. But when there are so few examples of this topic in mainstream media, The Help becomes associated with the reality of African American female domestic workers living in the south during the 60’s. This is dangerous territory.  The Help only barely touches on the terror of living in the south as an African American during this time and never shows any public, community organizing and protesting efforts.  The Help doesn’t convey the reality of living in the south during this time period, but it can be mistaken as the reality which I think is disrespectful to the people who protested for civil rights and fought for change.

There’s a subtle element to Boys Don’t Cry that I really think elevated the film and its intentions in creating a sympathetic biopic about a transgender subject: how the characters around Brandon refer to him. One of the first scenes in the film follows Brandon fleeing from some Lincoln residents and calling him a “dyke.” Right away, we have a clear sign of who the antagonists are and what defines them: their unwavering attempt to define another’s gender, even to the point of violence when that person does not share that same definition.

I realize that the class might be somewhat confused in how to refer to Brandon within the film (especially due to the fact that he’s played by Hilary Swank and at one point refers to himself as intersex). Given that he introduces himself as male to complete strangers and presents himself in a typically masculine fashion, I think it’s safe to say that he prefers to be called “he,” “him,” etc.

With this in mind, the other characters’ shift in pronoun use after they learn of Brandon’s biological sex marks their nature as ancillary protagonists or antagonists within the film. Lana is the only character unfaltering in her referring to Brandon as a “he.” (Like Ellen, I too noted the complaint the real-life Lana had when I did outside research and believe that Kimberly Peirce, the director, chose to reformat Lana into this role for its dramatic heft in the film’s conclusion.) Lana’s mom generally refers to Brandon as “it;” this is manifested in her complicit nature to Brandon’s murder, refusing to house Brandon after his rape and telling John and Tom of Brandon’s location. John and Tom, as primary antagonists, strictly misgender Brandon as “she.” In this film about freedom and identity, it’s rather fitting that those who serve as the antagonists are those who deny our protagonist the freedom to self-identify, a denial that ultimately proves fatal.

Cristina Degli-Esposti article begins with an understanding of the film and it’s uses of sign-functions. Sign-functions within the film are used as guides for the passing time as well themes. The author moves to defining the baroque style, which is expressed in literature, architecture, and visual arts. The next term she defines is the Neo-Baroque and how it’s used within the film Orlando. Degli-Esposti talks about how the film is an exercise in the changing perspectives and how it has a voyeuristic feel. There is a distinction between what is real and what is represented. With that the director is able to develop a new gaze for the audience. Potter focuses on the relationship between us and the character and how the character’s world and our world overlap. With this Potter is able to develop a new type of filmmaking while also using elements of the Neo-Baroque.

The Neo-Baroque movement is meant to shock and create a sense of marvel for the audience. In terms of Orlando Potter tries to shock the audience with the use of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny has themes. Rather than covering them with false pretenses Potter uses Orlando’s frequent looks into the camera as a stream of consciousness. With this the character Orlando is represented as uncanny by breaking the rules and modes of “aesthetic representation of the real”. Orlando is the fantastic figure that can change form between sexes and uncanny traits.

The article takes a deeper look into the idea of identity as well. According to the article we as viewer get into Orlando’s head and go on a voyage through his/her consciousness. Here is where we find gender blending and code switches. For example the author talks about the opening scene and how Orlando appears to be young man, but as the scene goes on we as the audience learn that Orlando is a man being played by a woman. In the novel it is never clearly stated if Orlando was man or woman. Rather it guides the reader through the life of a human perspective away from the idea of sex or gender.

In essence the film blurs the idea of identity. The author even argues that the film displays utopian possibilities when it comes to gender identification and possible changes. Though the film is not only about or for woman. It is also about liberation of men and breaking down the gender barrier and celebrating each sex.

Question:

Could the idea of no gender-identification only be accomplished in a utopian society?

What does it mean to viewers to have a woman playing a man in a film?

Like many of you, I was interested in finding out the true story of Brandon Teena after watching “Boys Don’t Cry.”  The ending was terrifying and knowing the plot was based on a true story made me really upset.  I had so many questions after watching the film… how did the community react to Brandon’s death?  Did the real Brandon have other girlfriends prior to Lana?  Did they know he was really a girl?  Was Brandon always this way?

Luckily for me, my Netflix recommended me to watch, “The Brandon Teena Story,” a documentary on the real Brandon Teena.  It was fascinating to see real interviews of Brandon’s friends and family.  I was completely blown away by  the police recording of Brandon’s phone call after being raped.  The officer seemed so insensitive to Brandon’s gender identity crisis and it made me feel terrible for him.  Furthermore, an interview revealed that Brandon’s worst fear was being touched by a man.

On a more positive note, the documentary revealed a side of Brandon that I loved.  Everyone described Brandon as being a total flirt but a gentleman.  He was described as being the perfect boyfriend because, being a girl himself, he knew what girls wanted.  I never considered this perspective and it interested me.  It was quite clear that Brandon was a likable person; he never would do anything to harm anyone.

I would definitely recommend the class to watch this film.  I am curious if people think “Boys Don’t Cry” was an accurate representation of the real story.   Watching the documentary made me appreciate the casting of “Boys Don’t Cry.”  Not only were the actors good at acting, but they looked like the real people they were playing.  I also liked how all of the small things, like Lana’s love for cows, were replicated in “Boys Don’t Cry.”