I re-watched Miss Representation, a film many of us watched in our Intro to Film course. I chose to do this because it relates to a lot of what we’ve discussed during this semester, exposing some of the most important problems in mainstream media and its portrayal of women in front of the camera, let alone in positions of power.  I believe Paul Haggis, an academy-award winning writer/producer, puts it best as he explains that “What happens is, these studio chiefs like myself (writers, producers, directors), we see the world in a certain way and we don’t really challenge that often so we just replicate the world we grew up in without really asking why we’re doing it.” He’s really acknowledging a lot with this statement, and it stems from privilege. He hasn’t grown up on the other side of the white-male dominated industry that produces and perpetuates the existing injustices and limitations. He’s only been on the side that benefits from the media that’s produced. Although there are many reasons to question the world we live in, if it’s benefiting you, or isn’t harming you, why put effort into changing it. (this is only a guess as to what he might have been thinking, or a justification for his actions)

Therefore, the cycle is continued in each generation. Men are given negative messages from the media, just as women are. The youth are led to believe that what they’re viewing are actual depictions of reality. Katie Couric, an anchor for CBS evening news conveys that “the media can be an instrument of change, it can maintain the status quo and reflect the views of the society or it can hopefully awaken people and change minds. I think it depends on who’s piloting the plane.”

I also think this principle can extend into The World Before Her, and the Hindu Fundamentalists who strive to keep things the way they are, rather than allow greater freedom and opportunity for the people being limited. I believe the fear of the unknown is very relevant in this case, and when it seems as though the world or some force is trying to impose on existing beliefs, conflict arises. There are those who will attempt to save the older values at whatever cost, just because it’s all that they know. But from that, there will be forces who only wish to break apart from what’s been deemed as ‘normal’ in order to do more with their lives.

I believe one of the most important moments in the film is when one of the women are speaking to the fact that she doesn’t agree with a lot of the pageant’s practices. She stated that she personally doesn’t like wearing a bikini, but she must do it for this title, so she does. That was only one woman’s opinion. I’m sure one, if not more, had an issue with the skin whitening sessions, botox injections, and constantly objectifying herself, all covered with that “Miss India” smile to say that they’re happy to be there. It’s cruel that so many women must use this as their only opportunity to make a life for themselves and their families.

As for Prachi Trivedi, it might be said that one can see the uncertainty in her responses to some of the questions she’s asked through her ‘half-smile’/ facial expressions after she’s done speaking. She says that she’s willing to die as well as kill for her beliefs, saying that she will help construct a bomb if the time comes, but she isn’t convincing in how she articulates her reasons for feeling so passionately. Ultimately, I believe both groups of women are trapped in their society and are searching for an escape, whether they wholeheartedly stand by their actions or not, I believe they’re just looking for options out of the lives that have been prescribed to them.

Ultimately, watching The World Before Her was disheartening. For the women putting all of their hopes and aspirations into becoming Miss India, even before the winners were announced, I was sad. The only thing that kept playing in my mind was the statement “They can’t all win.” Yet they all believed they would win. I don’t want to say that they each had a false sense of reality, maybe that’s the only way to remain confident in a time like this. But the film made it clear how much winning this title meant to each of the women, and because the majority of them were going to lose, I couldn’t help but feel sad. Some of them did it to create an identity, a “personality” for themselves, but in the process lost their dignity. In the scene where they each had to use bags to cover their heads and bodies for the purpose of only seeing their legs, I expected at least one of them to give it up and say that she could no longer disrespect herself or her values, but clearly that was absurd. And for the Hindu Fundamentalists who receive their identity and their culture from their parents, they also pass over the chance to create their own identity. They spend their whole lives living for India and preparing to kill because of the threat of Westernization. I don’t recall the name of the woman who spoke to the idea of trading more than just products with different nations, but she had a good point. In a World that’s developing so rapidly, we’re also trading ways of living. “Just because an American takes up Yoga doesn’t mean that they’re becoming Indian, just as an Indian who wears jeans and a tank top isn’t becoming an American.”

I really enjoyed Christine Vachon’s visit to campus, not just because of her attitude and approach to producing films, but because it provided an insightful look to yet another aspect of filmmaking. We’ve already covered female directors, actors, and cinematographers, but getting the perspective of the person who puts everything together for production to occur was something that was quite enlightening. (I actually had no idea that producers worked so closely with casting and directors prior to Christine’s discussion, so her anecdotes about her work alone made the event worth it.)

Something that Christine’s visit made me curious about was the representation of women in film production altogether. Obviously, the field is far from being as welcoming to women as we’d like it to be and hearing from women in every step of a film’s production would be helpful to identifying the institutionalized problems in the industry. For the rest of you, I’m wondering: What jobs within film that we haven’t delved as deeply into would you like to hear more about in this regard? (I, for one, would like to learn more about female editors since that position holds a great deal of power over the final cut of a film.)

I am disappointed I missed class today due to illness.  I am sure people had a lot to say about “The World Before Her.”  I really enjoyed this film because I think it fairly showed both arguments on how Indian women should act and be portrayed.  For example, in the beginning of the film we hear Indian women state two contrasting views: “our past is our roots, we cannot leave our roots…” and “[a]s much as a love and respect my culture, I think of myself as a really modern young girl.”  These statements set the stage for the rest of the film, which takes a look at women in both pageant and fundamentalist camp life.

After watching the film, I thought back to the former two quotes and wondered why only the pageant beauty life was considered “modern.”  Many of the speakers in the film discussed how Indian women either should or should not join the modern Western world.  It is interesting to note that both the pageant and camp women talked about things like “making their parents really proud.”  I was surprised to hear that the pageant world was not just about individual success and beauty.  Instead, many of the women related their pageant success to core family values.

It was really powerful to see all of the upbeat pageant scenes in contrast to the more serious scenes of the women in camp.  One of the women talked about how if the condition came, she would do anything to defend her religion.  This woman was stated to have gone to the camp for about twenty-one years.  Her father described her as “trained” and “mature.”   It was clear that she too was making her family proud.

Personally, I believe the “modern” girl should be allowed to do as she pleases, as long as she is not hurting anyone.  I could see why Hindu fundamentalists are worried about the objectification of women in their culture, but I do not think women should ever be restricted in their opportunities.  If Indian women want to be in pageants, they should be allowed to.  Furthermore, if Indian women want to join fundamentalist camps, they should also be allowed to.  I would like to think that the “modern girl” anywhere in the world is the girl who has freedom of choice and abundance of opportunity.

So I have to say I really enjoyed the film we watched on Friday. I thought it was captivating, and I found the material very interesting. I am wondering though, in terms of content, if anyone else picked up on the double standards that were directed at the females? I know it applies to more than this movie, but I feel as if every feminist conflict can be looked at in two ways.

So let’s take these pageants for example. On one hand you can look at it as an empowerment to women. They are taking control of their bodies and self image. Furthermore, they are preparing themselves to express their femininity in a way that will be beneficial in the future. On the other hand, you can look at it as exploitation. These women are being paraded around being judged mostly on their looks. My response to this though is, aren’t the women choosing to do this? However, is this the only way they can be somewhat successful?

I think the film does a good job of showing both sides. You have the view of the contestants, who find the programs to be a positive for women. But, they also have the view of other people outside of the competition.

Something very apparent in the film, The World Before Her is the use of strategic devices to overcome oppression. Women in India, who are faced with constant gender oppression seek to transcend that treatment. In this film specifically, there are two strategic devices that are outlined. One, utilized by women entering beauty pageants, is using their beauty to gain fame, power, money, and thus independence. In terms of the oppression in their given environment, this device seems helpful in the fact, they channel some sort of agency by opposing ideals that want to keep women covered, hidden, domestic, and subservient to men.  On the other hand there are other women that return to the very basis of their religion, and seek independence by immersing themselves into the progress of their religion. Although both tactics in this film give the women involved some type of agency, there seems that no matter what they do both parties agree that marriage is inevitable.

It is interesting to consider that there are a multitude of strategies to overcome oppression, but according to a specific cultural context and mindset those tactics are very different. Both sides can argue that the other are problematic, in the sense, both reinforce oppression in some way. I think this film asks us a good question, that being: What is oppression? How do we fight it? How can combating oppression be problematic in certain cultural contexts?

I think the cartoon that I inserted below could be helpful in understanding cultural relevancy, in terms of gender oppression.

I decided to borrow the DVD for the film “The World Before Her” and watch it in the library. I found the film to be extremely interesting and much more complex than expected. Sabira Merchant (Diction Expert for the Miss India World pageant contestants) mentions that there are “two Indias”. One India has the people who think that India needs to keep up with the rest of the world. The world is constantly changing, and with globalization, pieces are other cultures are adopted and new culture is formed within India. The other India believes that western culture is ruining the young generation of the country. Women are degrading themselves and forsaking their values and beliefs for the new, shiny customs of the western world. Both sides are presented within this documentary, as we follow contestants in the Miss India World pageant, and young girls training in Hindu nationalist camps (Durga Vahini).

I found the film very interesting to watch because both sides of the story had their own distinct points of view. The women in the pageant all believed that they were working hard to follow their dreams. Winning the pageant would open up many kinds of opportunities for them including contracts for movies and commercials not just locally but globally with other Asian or European countries. On the other hand, the leaders of the Durga Vahini camps say that models only wear skimpy clothes as they strut down the catwalk, bat their eyelashes and receives prizes. They teach the girls in the camps self defense should they ever need to protect themselves. They also teach the girls noble prayers and songs, as well as practices of the Hindu religion. They are nurturing the girls to retain the Indian tradition and culture that has existed for many years.

On one hand, the pageant is not great because it is essentially exploiting the women’s bodies. A great deal of it is all about external beauty. The pageant director, Marc Robinson says many lines that reflect this such as when he gives out instructions for the girls to walk and then pose in front of them (the judges) for 4 seconds so they can get a good look at their bodies, and even when he makes them wear sheets over their entire top half so that their legs can speak for themselves. The models undergo botox sessions and burn away their melanin with  skin whitening products. This is because no matter how eloquent and intelligent an answer a model gives, she will not win the competition if she is not beautiful. On the other hand, a woman gorgeous woman could get by on a not so perfect answer. Yet still, one of the scenes in the film greatly distressed me. A  woman in the film speaks out to the girls in the camp and says that girls should be married at 18 because by the time they get to 25 they are too strong-willed and cannot be tamed. Another conversation was during one of the scenes in the camps when the woman was on the podium shouting into a mic as she addressed the young girls. Her booming voice discouraged the girls from pursuing independence and choice or free will. She said things such as if leaving your house and parents to pursue a career was really necessary. I believe that, as the contestants said, women should have the choice to decide what they would like to do with their lives. Pachi’s father added to those ideas when he said that his daughter will get married because it is her duty. He is saying that she has no choice because she is a woman. Pachi gets upset during that interview with her father.

I think that Pachi really is a very interesting character. She describes herself as neither man nor woman, but both. She is an only child, raised in a traditional family, where it was normal to kill your daughter for nothing more than the fact that she was female. Pachi feels an eternal gratitude for the fact that her parents chose to raise her and not try for a son after, but settle with her as their only child. She is very close to her father and it is clear that they share many of the same ideals in terms of how women should behave, as well as cultural norms and customs. The interviewer brings up the question towards the end of the film and she addresses it. She is raising young girls to grow up with what her father is enforcing: they must grow to be women who will be married and have children. They will grow to choose child bearing and taking care of the house affairs instead of choosing a career and working hard to achieve thier own personal goals. That is what Pachi is teaching these girls at the camps. Yet despite this, she is upset with her father being adamant about her marrying. She wants to devote her life to the Hindutva (The Hindu movement). She does not want to be married. She does consider herself solely female. She believes that God does not have marriage and children in mind for her life. Yet despite having these separate desires for herself, she trains girls to grow up not having them.

Overall the film really made me think about how globalization has affected third world countries and all countries in general really. Cultures are threatened as others are strengthened and reinforced. Is it possible to find a balance between cultural appropriation and cultural retention? Shweta says that wearing a shirt and pants does not make her any more American than yoga makes an American any more Indian.

The Fawcett Society organized shirts that say “this is what a feminist looks like.” There have been accusations that these shirts were made in sweatshops by women who are extremely  underpaid and experience poor working conditions. If these accusations are true, this really highlights the disconnect between Western and Third World feminism. Mohanty argues that we need to look at the lives of marginalized women to understand how to find social justice for all because looking at the lives of the privileged leaves out those that are not privileged. I think this is a pretty good current example of what Mohanty argues.

http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/92115825.html

http://www.refinery29.com/2014/11/77203/this-is-what-a-feminist-looks-like-shirts-sweatshop

In her article Mohanty analyzes what is next for feminists at the beginning of the twenty-first century. She argues that the rise of religious fundamentalisms with their deeply masculinist and often racist rhetoric poses a huge challenge for feminist struggles around the world. This shed light on The World Before Her for me, because the Hindu fundamentalists are so eager to make sure their culture remains free from further westernization.

In the film, the fundamentalists’ main sources of anger are the beauty pageants in India. The contestants in the beauty pageant, such as Ruhi, have less traditional takes on the practices of Hinduism. On the other hand, Prachi, the leader of the camp that trains “proper Hindu women,” is a Hindu nationalist concerned with upholding the deeply rooted values of her culture. Initially, the film made it seem like these two, opposing sides were polar opposites striving for separate things.

However, in analyzing the film from a feminist standpoint, the two sides begin to blur together. Both groups of women face oppression from different sources. In the film, Prachi talks about her father’s mistreatment of her. At one point he chuckles at the memory of burning his daughter’s foot with a flaming iron…? He emphasizes her “duty” to marry and have children, while Prachi is more concerned with working full time for the Hindu movement. Prachi’s story is ironic because although she teaches young girls to be proper Hindu women, she herself is violating the norms of traditional, “Mother India” in refusing to marry and have children.

The contestants in the beauty pageant view the pageant as a means to escape this oppressive society highlighted by Prachi’s situation. However, the film did a great job of capturing how as these women leave one oppressive society, they quickly enter another. They find freedom from the strict boundaries of life as a traditional, Hindu women, and enter into an Americanized society that values consumerism and capitalism. This is ironic seeing as Mohanty believes that the theory, critique, and activism around anti-global capitalism has to be a key focus for feminists. At one point the members of the ‘Miss India’ pageant find themselves in a photo shoot where they place white sheets over their heads and upper bodies (so as to only emphasize and show off their legs). It is interesting to notice how the people who dictate these photoshoots (the photographers, etc) are all men. One woman questioned whether the loss of her dignity is worth it in achieving her dream.

Prachi and Ruhi represent two, paradoxical types of Indian women. For example, although Prachi claims to uphold the values of traditional Hindu life for women, she herself represents the hard-working, independent, non-traditional Hindu women. As Ruhi claims to strive for independence and freedom from the bounds of Hindu society, she finds herself under the objectification and degrading nature of American society in regards to women’s value. I think Mohanty is trying to suggest in her article that women should not bear the brunt of mistreatment in oppressive societies, but should also not buy into the brainwashing nature of capitalism either. The answer is a new, unrestrained feminism that can cross these boundaries.