Miyazaki Month: Howl’s Moving Castle

Written by Myrna Waldron.

Howl's Moving Castle travelling through the mountains

The next film featured in my “Miyazaki Month” retrospective is Howl’s Moving Castle. It was the successor to Spirited Away, which was supposed to be Miyazaki’s Swan Song, but then again so was Princess Mononoke. Dude’s never going to retire, and that’s just fine. It didn’t repeat Spirited Away’s success at the Oscars (losing to Curse of the Were-Rabbit) but is still a fan favourite. It’s also one of his few films to be an adaptation (Ponyo’s retelling of The Little Mermaid being the other one) though it doesn’t even try to be faithful. I have read the original book by Diana Wynne Jones, but it’s been a few years (Yes, I promise to re-read it soon). I do know for sure that the war subplot was definitely not in the novel. TV Tropes says that Miyazaki was incredibly upset by the US invasion of Iraq (as any sensible person would be) so he wove that into his adaptation. Environmentalism isn’t a theme his time (beyond lavish depictions of nature, but that’s a Ghibli thing) but pacifism and feminism make a reappearance.

• So far, the English dub script is the most accurate of the three films I’ve reviewed. I suspect this is because this film is an adaptation of a Western novel and, as such, includes a Western understanding of Fantasy Tropes rather than Japanese. Far less localization would be required in adapting the script. No Captain Obvious lines this time, thank goodness. There were a few line changes I took notice of, however. In the Japanese version, Sophie says that she hired herself as a cleaning lady. In the dub, however, she says that Calcifer hired her because he couldn’t stand how messy the castle was. Not really sure why the change was necessary here. Another change irked me a little. When Howl is telling Sophie about his past with the Witch of the Waste, in Japanese, he says, “She seemed quite interesting, so I approached her. But she terrified me, and I ran away.” In English, he says, “She was once quite beautiful, so I decided to pursue her. But I realized she wasn’t, so, as usual, I ran away.” The Witch is extremely overweight, but until her powers are stripped by Suliman, she’s clearly still beautiful. This script change reinforces the bullshit that fat women are automatically no longer beautiful.
• Spirited Away’s English cast is still better than this film’s. I honestly really do not like the casting of Christian Bale as Howl. I’ve never liked his Batman voice, and that’s honestly all I can hear here. And really, for a character who is a flamboyant, foppish pretty-boy, they chose Christian Bale? Still, at least he had prior experience as a voice actor for Disney. Jean Simmons and Emily Mortimer are fine as Old and Young Sophie. Though it’s a little distracting that Sophie is the only one with a British accent here. And as a fan of old movies, I loved being able to hear Lauren Bacall’s husky voice again.  As for Billy Crystal, well, I think they just gave him a basic translation of the Japanese script and told him to go nuts. Calcifer’s dialogue diverges from the original script the most, and definitely has an improvisational air to it. But I don’t mind, since his performance makes the movie. (He also had prior Disney voice acting experience.)
• If I had one big complaint to make about this film, it’s that the 3rd act is a MESS. It’s taken me several re-watchings of the film to make heads or tails of it, because there is just way too much going on and very little is explained. This is a problem that is in a lot of Miyazaki films, but it’s particularly bad here. I believe the film’s ending diverges almost completely from the book’s, too. The really mindbending thing is that the film contains a causal loop. Sophie travels to Howl’s past via the black portal on the door, and witnesses him making the bargain with Calcifer. No reason is given for him to make this decision. She’s able to manipulate the events of the past rather than just watching them, and says that she knows now how to save both of them, and asks for him to find her in the future. And the first thing he ever said to her was, “I was looking everywhere for you.” But it is not explained how the black portal can travel to the past. And it is the black portal that Howl exits through when he’s out sabotaging the bombers. So…what exactly does that black portal DO? Was Sophie only allowed to go to the past because she was desperately trying to find a way to help Howl? This stuff still confuses me 10 years later. I know that showing rather than telling is an important filmmaking principle, but there’s a limit here.

Sophie can no longer put up with Howl's vanity, saying she has never once been beautiful

• Sophie is another wonderful Miyazaki female protagonist. Like the others, she has agency, and drives forward her own story. Howl’s name may be in the title, but he’s a secondary protagonist to her. Her character arc is centred around her low self-esteem, and is a commentary on how women are pitted against each other in the interest of attracting men. She’s shy and relatively plain compared to her glamorous mother and sister, so she dresses dowdy and keeps telling herself that she’s not beautiful (even though anyone who sees her would disagree). The Witch of the Waste, who desires to possess Howl’s heart, is jealous of Sophie (and presumably any woman that gets mixed up with Howl), so she casts a curse to make Sophie become a 90 year old woman. We could probably divine some Freudian implications here - The Witch removed her rival by taking her fertility away. The properties of the curse are another thing that aren’t really explained in this film. As the story progresses, Sophie gradually becomes younger (usually appearing 60ish rather than 90ish), but in times when she shows confidence, reverts back to her true age. Her hair even reverts to its original colour when she’s asleep, suggesting that she has to be conscious of the spell for it to work. The explanation given on TV Tropes which makes the most sense to me is that she is unknowingly recasting the spell on herself every time she puts herself down, and that it actually broke long before. Thematically, it seems that this film is arguing that age is in many ways a social construct, and that you only sabotage yourself when you put yourself down. But I can certainly sympathize with Sophie. Lord knows I’ve been there.
• Although I find the ending convoluted, I enjoyed watching Sophie save the day. Howl only has his double-sworded magic to rely on, whereas she has a quick wit that she didn’t recognize in herself until she became old. It wasn’t until there was no reason to doubt herself anymore that she started gaining confidence. Much of her actions are because of her love for Howl, but she does not have a slavish single-minded devotion to him. Instead, her love makes her want to stand up for him, and to want to care for the others in their “family.” She even forgives The Witch and uses affection to persuade her to give Howl’s heart back to him. Only weeks before, she was enjoying The Witch’s struggles to climb the palace steps. It shows how far both of them have come. And I liked that two people who originally considered each other romantic rivals could find an understanding and an affection for each other as family. How often does that happen?

The Witch of the Waste's powers are stripped away by Suliman

• Speaking of The Witch of the Waste, I’m still not sure how I feel about her character. I wonder how necessary it was to make her grotesquely fat (admittedly, I don’t remember if she was overweight or not in the novel). She’s clearly the kind of fat person who never moves around at all (she doesn’t even walk if she doesn’t have to), but I am getting very tired of depictions of fat people that make us out to be as lazy as possible. It’s inferred that her outward appearance is a reflection of the ugliness inside of her, but again, is that kind of inference really necessary? It was also kind of sadistic that Madame Suliman forced her to climb up an enormous amount of stairs in order to debase the Witch and make her physically weak. Still, I do like that once again in a Miyazaki film, here’s a supposed villain with some moral ambiguities. She’s clearly not completely to blame for her predicament, or for her greed for Howl’s heart, as she, too, gave up her heart to a demon. And once she’s depowered, she’s a sweet, senile old lady - this is who she really is inside.
• Madame Suliman appears to be the real villain of this story. She allows the King to be a blustering, warmongering fool. She entices The Witch of the Waste into coming to the Palace with a promise that her powers will be respected at last, and instead springs a trap that removes The Witch’s powers (brushing it off as a punishment for The Witch’s selfishness). And she sends a royal invite to Howl under both of his pseudonyms, knowing that he cannot refuse and that both of them are him. She even plans to blackmail Howl into fighting for the Empire, or she will depower him just like she did to The Witch. Suliman is a total tyrant, and yet she gets away with it at the end because she’s planning to stop the war. Bit of an anticlimax there, but then again, there was already too much going on in the 3rd act. I wish I knew more about her, especially her time as Howl’s teacher. Surely some of the “War is bad!” stuff could have been dropped for a little more character development for her. (I’m already sympathetic to that message, after all.)

Howl presents to Sophie a beautiful field filled with  ponds and wildflowers

I sound like I dislike this film more than I do. I really do love the fairy tale story, Sophie and Calcifer’s characters, and the trademark sumptuous visuals. I love the steampunkiness of the setting (which appears to be Victorian Germany). I love that this is a fairy tale where the heroine is the one who drives the story forward, and makes everything all right in the end. I remember reading some bullcrap from the screenwriter of “Oz: The Great and Powerful” complaining that there aren’t enough fairy tales with men as the heroes. (Yes, really.) If he’d seen this film, maybe he’d finally understand just how rare heroines like Sophie are. What I love, most of all, is this film’s approach to the issue of self-esteem of women. Miyazaki understands very well just how hard it is for us to be confident in a world that is constantly telling us that we’re inferior. And that we have to find the confidence within ourselves - being told we’re beautiful isn’t enough, we have to believe it.

Myrna Waldron is a feminist writer/blogger with a particular emphasis on all things nerdy. She lives in Toronto and has studied English and Film at York University. Myrna has a particular interest in the animation medium, having written extensively on American, Canadian and Japanese animation. She also has a passion for Sci-Fi & Fantasy literature, pop culture literature such as cartoons/comics, and the gaming subculture. She maintains a personal collection of blog posts, rants, essays and musings at The Soapboxing Geek, and tweets with reckless pottymouthed abandon at @SoapboxingGeek.

On One Life To Live: Two Young Women Spiral Into Predictible Complications On Hulu's Soap Reboot

A brand new start for the young set of One Life To Live. (pictured: Andrew Trischitta  as Jack, Laura Harrier as new Destiny, Kelley Missal as Dani, and Robert Gorrie as new Matthew)

Written by Janyce Denise Glasper

When One Life to Live got canceled at the time as All My Children, I felt crushed.

A part of me literally died.

It was easily one of the best written soaps on the air and the ratings were pretty par, rising rapidly since ABC’s brutal announcement.

Now, Prospect Park has taken over the reins and produces One Life to Live on Hulu.

Yet the cost of reinvention and brand new start (as vocalized in the autotuned new Snoop Dogg or Snoop Lion produced theme song) made the stories of two young women- Destiny Evans and Danielle “Dani” Manning fall into further character assassination. 

I understand that people change, but why have them both shift into individual shocking circumstances?

High school sweethearts- Matthew Buchanan (Eddie Alderson) & Destiny Evans (Shenell Evans).

Before we get into discussing reboot, Destiny Evans and Matthew Buchanon’s story was the second teen pregnancy storyline in a matter of two years- first Starr Manning. Destiny even sought Starr’s counsel. Matthew had always been reluctant about fatherhood, but Destiny carried burden of adolescent relationships- of the seeming age old philosophy that sex equated to the ultimate commitment and consequences be damned. Rarely is it ever advised to youth that love is sometimes stronger in other avenues.

Destiny, raised by grandparents feigning to be parents, fell in love with Matthew during their high school years. He didn’t return her affection at first and soon recanted, bearing his heart. Alas, they made love and conceived little Drew.

Shenell Evans school schedule prevented return to her NAACP nominated role.

Now in present Llanview, on April 29th, a woman saunters her way into Shelter’s night club opening, cutting pass the long lined crowd.

“What is your name?” asks the bury security guard.

“Destiny,” she answers, giving a saucy smile. Upon entry, she shifts into the crowd and begins dancing seductively.

It was an immediate double take! This is Destiny? She is certainly different interior and exterior wise. No longer shy, quiet girl, she is a jezebel, all wild, free, and enticing to the male gaze- no signs of single motherhood in sight.

Laura Harrier is the new Destiny.

Shenell Edmonds couldn’t return and they cast Laura Harrier in her place- an older, skinnier, lighter skinned Destiny who wears midriff baring tops and dances to support Drew.

Recasts are a familiar ways of soap opera life, but it’s the stereotyping that is tough to swallow- one negative pill after another. Teen pregnancy was enough to deal with and now Destiny is going so far down the bad turnpike. One can only expect a surge into a complicated spiral of twisted knots. Her father was a doctor for crying out loud! Can’t something wonderful rub off on her? Why is it always the “Strippers with a Heart of Gold” path? With Matthew’s parents helping her with babysitting duties, shouldn’t Destiny be more liberated in finding passions that didn’t involve stroking the male ego?

Product of Tea Delgado and Todd Manning, things aren’t going dandy for former boarding school Dani Manning either.

Dani Manning (Kelley Missal) and her boarding school friend, Matthew (Eddie Alderson).

Out of control from Todd leaving town and Tea’s lack of attention- her newborn son died earlier this year on another soap- General Hospital, Dani has turned to drugs and alcohol as solace. In the first episode, Dani is barely dressed in an overtly sexy lacy mini and tumbling all over Shelter high on oxycontin and drinks.

I understand that she feels isolated and hurt by Tea and Todd’s parenting skills, but at the same time, it is disheartening that drugs or sex have become the comfort that young women sought. Seeing her rub against men in wanton fashion, looking for escape is a tired dance routine that the most genius writers continue to utilize. It is as though women have no aspirations, no desires other than to seek intimacy in inebriation and wandering male affection.

Dani is a talented woman who could accomplish greatness and so can Destiny.

I hope that the writers stop going for the deadening shock value factor and bring about new, refreshing perspective.

Sure, it is part of the soapy goodness phenomenon to break these two girls into complex adult situations, especially seeing as with the new online format cuss words fly like catfight slaps. They are certainly growing up too fast and viewers are brought into the center of this puzzle. I can’t say it is unbelievable because in this medium anything goes.

Sometime as an avid enjoyer, I do long for a little normality and less over the top spontaneity.

So where did Destiny and Dani’s maturities go?

A disoriented Dani (Kelley Missal) awakens from her near drug overdose ordeal.

Dani does appear to be on the brink of sobering from the drug habit- slowly. Yet she just moved in with two guy friends- Matthew and Jeffrey. Every dedicated soap fan knows what happens when a woman puts herself in that particular situation.

Still, it would have been nice if Dani and Destiny moved in together- had a young woman’s pad of survival and hope, rubbing off each other in a way that strengthened a compelling feminine bond and kicked recovery’s ass. They’re around the same age and have similar experiences with hardship. Yes Dani went to boarding school and Destiny went to public, I could see them forming an authentic pact. Dani could gain experience from watching Destiny raise Drew and become a beneficial aide when Bo and Nora are unable to babysit their grandchild.

But of course, close female friendships always seem so frowned upon in soap operas. Catfights truly are the way to go. After all, look at Dorian and Vicki- they’re still at each other’s throats. Plus, Destiny didn’t like Dani in the beginning due to her camaraderie to Matthew. By the way story is looking right now, Dani and Matthew are getting closer again and that will likely burn Destiny’s biscuits. Yes. Definitely foresee a catfight (probably decades long if Hulu keeps One Life to Live going) more than bosom buddies in the future of these two women.

Is it any wonder why soaps are fading fast? Dying? Maybe one reason is because of the unoriginal concept of females despising and envying each other. There's no strength in that.

Sigh.

I have no idea which direction these two women will take, but honestly keep praying that the writers give them happiness stemmed from valuing the importance of self worth. That one life to live doesn't always have to be so treacherous and evil.

That gets old quickly.

Here's a Fun and Depressing Graphic About Television, Ratings, and Dudes Who Create Shows

Canceled: Single Season TV Shows – An infographic by the team at CableTV.com

  Do you have any graphics you'd like to share with Bitch Flicks readers? Share them in the comments or email them to btchflcks(at)gmail(dot)com!      

Picture This: A Woman Goes to Film School and Becomes a Filmmaker

Filmmaker Violeta Barca-Fontana

This is a guest post written by Violeta Barca-Fontana.

INT. FILM SCHOOL, CLASSROOM – DAY 

First day of class at a film school in Madrid. Twenty impatient students are waiting for the teacher, PACO, a very well known film director. Also in the classroom is VIOLETA (20). 

The professor enters the classroom with a serious look and a decided walk. Taking a moment to look over the beardless students, some with incurable acne, who return his gaze with eyes wide open waiting for his wise words. 

MASTER 

You are twenty five students. 

Only three of you will ever direct a film.

The students look at each other hoping they misunderstood him. 

The professor continues with his welcome speech. 

MASTER 

I see there are some women here. 

(beat) 

In film women usually end up in make-up, wardrobe, or as script supervisors. 

The six girls, including Violeta, look at each other for moral support not knowing how to react. 

MASTER 

I say that, just so you take it under consideration. 

That was my very first contact with the film world. The first of many scenes I would live through during my career. 

But my professor was wrong. My first boss was a woman; one of the best line producers in Spain and, without a doubt, one of the toughest and most unscrupulous bosses I have ever had. I learned the most about film making from her. I learned how films were really made, and how a well organized production leads to certain success. 

Carmen, my boss, treated the women of her team much more harshly than the men. At first I thought she was very unfair to do so, but after all these years, reflecting on how much I learned being around her, I realized that maybe she did it because she felt she could bring out the best in them that way. 

I worked with her in two different productions. Without a doubt she treated me worse than any of my co-workers. I think she wanted to take the wind out of my arrogance and break through the wall every film school builds around you: “I know everything and I´m the best.” I think she wanted to show me the subterranean underground of real life, where real movies get made, grown-up movies; where if you want to be called Director, first you have to earn your place with lots of effort and years of experience. 

Violeta, in color.

Schools, and above all film schools, just serve to create confusion among the students leading them to believe that their initial easy success inside can be achieved in the professional world. No, ladies and gentleman; making movies is very complicated. 

In my second film with Carmen, she promoted me from PA to Second AD. The director was the very well known master CARLOS, already considered an icon in Spain. 

Pretty soon Carlos took a liking to me and wanted me to sit in front of the monitors with him all the time, explaining every shot to me. I was fascinated to observe how he would sketch the next shot on a scrap of paper with his Mont-blanc fountain pen to show his Director of Photography. As a film student I look back on those hours with him as a divine gift. 

I have great memories of Carlos as one of my greatest teachers, a true genius. Despite this I sensed that inside he believed the idea that women do not direct movies. Carlos constantly asked one of my male colleagues, strangely enough the script supervisor, when he would direct his next short film, and what was he writing lately. I always hoped that longed question would be asked of me, but it never came, as if he assumed that I was not writing, and I had no intention of direct either. I always wanted to expound about my many projects to my Master. 

INT. PLATÓ DE RODAJE – DAY 

A huge set with over fifty people coming and going, working, loading, unloading, cameras, rails, spotlights. Carlos in the background talking to three men in suits, producers. They talk, they laugh. 

Violeta walks in their direction. Within a few feet she feels observed by the group, who have a big laugh. Violeta is about to pass by when Carlos stops her. 

CARLOS 

Violeta, wait. Come here for a moment. 

Violeta draw close. The men in suits stop laughing but kept their smiles behind their ties. 

CARLOS 

Tell me, what are you working on? So you write? 

Have you ever directed anything? 

Violeta pauses. Uncomfortably, she looks at the group which is waiting for her to give them a failed reply. 

VIOLETA 

(timidly) 

Well, I just finished producing a feature film with two colleagues from school. It’s called La Fiesta and the Walt Disney Company has picked it up for distribution. 

Silence. Their smiles go away. Violeta smiles amiably and moves on to continue her work. 

I don't know if it's easier or harder to work with men or women. I feel very comfortable working with both. But what I do know is that most of the time working with women means not having to constantly prove your worth. We all know what we're capable of and just do our job. 

The Color Thief crew.

This theory held up in my last project, Color Thief. A project, and I promise unintentionally, led almost entirely by females, which from the beginning has been characterized by its fluidity. Is this because it is guided by women? I do not know... 

Conspicuous Consumption and 'The Great Gatsby': Missing the Point in Style

The Great Gatsby (2013)

Written by Leigh Kolb

Critic Kathryn Schulz, in "Why I Despise The Great Gatsby," bemoans the acclaim that the novel receives in literary circles. She says, "It is the only book I have read so often despite failing—in the face of real effort and sincere ­intentions—to derive almost any pleasure at all from the experience... I find Gatsby aesthetically overrated, psychologically vacant, and morally complacent..."

Well, yes.

Isn't that the point? 

Had Schulz replaced The Great Gatsby with "The American Dream" (rags-to-riches wealth and power and the reward of lavish lifestyles and romantic fulfillment), then she would have been spot on, and would have captured the exact message that The Great Gatsby has conveyed to generation after generation, ceaselessly beating us against the current... sorry.

I was looking forward to Baz Luhrmann's much-anticipated adaptation of The Great Gatsby, because I love his Romeo + Juliet so much it hurts. He got it so right, so I figured he could get this right too, especially with Leonardo DiCaprio on board.

Cheers, indeed.

He kind of got it. The first half of the film is lavish and screams "Baz Luhrmann." It was exactly what I wanted. Jay-Z's "100$ Bill" captured the 1920s "Jazz Age" aesthetic of white people co-opting black music. The driving hip hop in the first few scenes exemplified the "hip-hop fascination with money, power, violence and sex," that soundtrack executive producer Jay-Z saw in Jay Gatsby. 

But something changes. It seems as if Luhrmann wanted too badly to include most of F. Scott Fitzgerald's text, and his own style was lost in that translation. I wanted the film to be jarring and fast, or painfully slow, with experimental music and filmography throughout. During the second half of the film, the soundtrack became more traditional and subdued. Luhrmann seemed to flirt with style—the typed letters at the end of the film (that I'd like to forget), the slow-motion shot of Tom hitting Myrtle—but there was something lacking in consistency. 

That said, Luhrmann does let us focus—even temporarily—on some poignant themes of the novel. Tom's destructive masculinity (his trophy room and his racism expose his character) go unpunished in his patriarchal society. Daisy's vapidity highlights the expectations of a beautiful, wealthy woman, when her hopes for her daughter are that "she'll be a fool—that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool." Daisy herself attempts to live that role, and she escapes punishment because of who she is. Tom and Daisy's privilege shields and protects them. Their "old money," in contrast to Gatsby's "new money," shows the impenetrable American truth that you might be detestable, but you call the shots when you have money and connections. Gatsby's desperate drive for that green light—to be loved—can be bought only momentarily.

The fact that "The Great Gatsby Still Gets Flappers Wrong" didn't bother me, really (although Hix's article is incredibly informative). Having an independent, empowered woman in The Great Gatsby would seem as false as the magical typewriter. No one in The Great Gatsby is supposed to be a character we want to identify with or aspire to be. The men are problematic, and so are the women.

Nick, Gatsby, Daisy and Tom at one of Gatsby's parties.

Luhrmann's characters are often more sympathetic than the novel's, but the core of who they are and what they represent is stable.

Jordan Baker's role was minimized, but she was still a foil to Daisy's carelessness.

I would like to deny the storytelling technique that Luhrmann employs with Nick Carraway, but I cannot. I don't think I would have minded if he'd framed the story as Nick writing a memoir; maybe I even would have forgiven the floating type if it had been consistent (but probably not). However, the fact that Nick begins telling the story to his therapist, who then encourages him to write it down, seems ridiculous. Nick seems just self-aware and self-involved enough to know he has a good story—he wouldn't have needed someone to persuade him to write it down.

Tobey Maguire's Nick has a doughy personality. He's not too likable, but we don't actively dislike him. Maybe we roll our eyes at him sometimes. He's true to the novel, that's for sure.

DiCaprio's Gatsby is mysterious, beautiful, reserved and is able to elicit sympathy from the audience.

Why yes, you can buy this headpiece from Tiffany's.

Carey Mulligan's Daisy is not quite as off-putting as she is in the novel, which seemed to be Luhrmann's goal. He didn't completely deny the existence of the emptiness and disappointment the novel conveys, but he clearly wanted us to be swept up in the fashions and romanced by the gorgeous settings and people (and shirts!). 

That (along with the inconsistent style) was my biggest problem with the film—it wasn't depressing enough. Perhaps it was the lack of Gatsby's father showing Nick little Jimmy's meticulous plans, or the lack of a funeral scene, or maybe it was the floaty letters typing out Nick's thoughts—I didn't feel the empty weight of the futility of the American Dream, and the bitter disappointment of a life spent wanting more.

Luhrmann gets caught up in the "romance."

I know Luhrmann can do it—he did it with Romeo + Juliet, with its era-bending dialogue and music, stylized filmography and heart-wrenching ending—but I think he got too caught up with the romance of Gatsby's lifestyle (just like Nick did). 

And that's the great reverse dramatic irony of stories like Gatsby—yes, maybe audiences get on some level that Jay Gatsby's story isn't meant to be aspirational. But they relish it in anyway. Donald Trump's hotel is offering the Trump Hotel "Great Gatsby" Package (for $14,999 you can live like an ill-fated socialite?); Brooks Brothers has "The Great Gatsby" collection. Gatsby is like Don Draper; their true legacy—disappointment, emptiness and the tragic nature of a re-imagined life that isn't a dream come true—is packaged in fashion and good looks. That life looks exciting, we think. I want hosiery like Daisy's, and parties like Gatsby's. Conspicuous consumption is idolized. 

But that's not the point.

The American Dream is disappointing. Wealth is disappointing. Idealized romance is disappointing.

And then you die. And no one cares.

All of this is meaningless.

Luhrmann's film and the marketing ploys surrounding it don't seem to quite get at that. While I was let down, I suppose I'm not surprised. We live in a society obsessed with wealth, status and pulling oneself up from one's bootstraps. To topple all of that over into an ash heap would be problematic for both the core of American mythology and for Hollywood.

Because if we focus on the tragedy of Jay Gatsby's aspirations and the injustice of Tom and Daisy's escape, then we would have to face the fact that the party is really over. But we can't, and we don't, so we go on, endlessly dazzled and distracted by shiny things (which women are especially interested in, evidently).

And perhaps that's what Nick's final words mean—we keep trying to go back, over and over, to this belief that the green light is obtainable, and it will make us happy. However, that light was not real in 1922, and it's not real now. It's just in 3D.

---

Leigh Kolb is a composition, literature and journalism instructor at a community college in rural Missouri. 

The Remarkable Story of 'Anne Braden: Southern Patriot'

Anne Braden: Southern Patriot (2012)

"I believe that no white woman reared in the South–or perhaps anywhere in this racist country–can find freedom as a woman until she deals in her own consciousness with the question of race. We grow up little girls–absorbing a hundred stereotypes about ourselves and our role in life, our secondary position, our destiny to be a helpmate to a man or men. But we also grow up white–absorbing the stereotypes of race, the picture of ourselves as somehow privileged because of the color of our skin. The two mythologies become intertwined, and there is no way to free ourselves from one without dealing with the other." - from "A letter to white Southern women from Anne Braden," 1972

Written by Leigh Kolb

Anne Braden didn't think that guilt was productive. 

She thought that what got people involved in the civil rights movement was a vision of a different world.

Born in 1924, Braden grew up in Anniston, Alabama–where the Freedom Riders' bus was fire-bombed in 1961. She talks about being a young white child in the south, and seeing her mother's house cleaner's daughter wearing her hand-me-down clothes. They were different sizes, so the clothes didn't fit right, and Braden says, "Something happened to me when I looked at her. I knew something was wrong."

Braden dedicated her life to exposing and fighting against racial and economic injustice. She was subversive. She was arrested. She was praised by Martin Luther King Jr.

She wanted a different world.

Anne Braden

Braden is the subject of the documentary Anne Braden: Southern Patriot, which is available on DVD and at select screenings nationwide.

Anne Braden: Southern Patriot trailer

Award-winning filmmakers Anne Lewis and Mimi Pickering created this first-person documentary, and its brilliance rests greatly on the fact that Braden herself and her contemporaries, biographer and mentees tell the story. The seemingly hands-off approach by the filmmakers (no audible interview questions or voiceovers) works incredibly well, and lets Braden's remarkable legacy unfold on its own merits. The soundtrack is appropriately present, but not noticeably so, as it should be in a documentary.

This documentary, in short, is amazing. Aside from the technical success of the film is the fact that Braden herself was an extraordinary human being.

Read the full transcript of the film here

Braden says that when she had the realization that something was wrong, it was like photography: "You put the film in the developing fluid and it begins to come clear, but it's been there all along."

The images kept becoming clearer and clearer to Braden as she worked as a journalist in the south and covered the courthouse, seeing black men be imprisoned for looking at white women the wrong way, and seeing how murdered black people were not newsworthy.

She didn't feel guilt. She felt motivated to change her world.

Early on in her career, Braden recognized that issues of class and race were inextricably linked. She says,

"I was in a prison and life builds prisons around people and I had the prison that I was born white in a racist society. I was born privileged in a classist society. The hardest thing was class. I don’t know that I could have ever broken out of what I call the race prison if I hadn’t dealt with class."  

She married Carl Braden, who was a "radical" activist active in the labor movement. "We got married to work together," she says. By 1951, Braden was combining marriage, motherhood and activism.

Early on, her activism focused mainly on writing for and talking to black audiences about white people's roles in racism and classism. The head of the Civil Rights Congress, William Patterson, told her that black people already know what she's telling them–she needed to talk to white people, because they are the problem. She remembers that he said to her, "You know you do have a choice. You don’t have to be a part of the world of the lynchers. You can join the other America–the people who struggled  against slavery, the people who railed against slavery, the white people who supported them, the people who all through Reconstruction struggled." She says, "I was very young, and that's what I needed to hear." Her work began in earnest.

The Bradens bought a house for a young black family, the Wades, in an all-white neighborhood (it was a way around segregation–Andrew Wade gave them the down payment, the Bradens purchased it, and then transfered the deed). The Wades' home was shot at, crosses were burned in the yard and a bomb was set off underneath their daughter's window (remarkably no one was physically hurt).

The Wades, showing where rocks had been thrown and broken the windows of their home.

The bomber was never caught or tried, but the Bradens were, along with five other whites who helped defend the Wades' house. They were charged with sedition–it was, prosecutors said, all a plot by communists to overthrow Kentucky and the nation.

Braden says that "If you use every attack as a platform, they can't win and you can't lose. It works like a charm." They used their arrest and jail time as a platform. "You can't kill an idea anyway," she says. "To a segregationist, integration means communism."

The film highlights footage from Ku Klux Klan rallies, newspaper stories, meetings, marches, beatings and shootings during the red scare and the civil rights movement. The footage–often presented without narration–is powerful and provides the visual, historical context to Braden's stories.

The film moves forward through each decade, highlighting social justice struggles (especially regarding race and economic injustice) and Braden's continuous role. The complexity of anti-communist sentiment, the freedom of speech and association and violence of the ongoing civil rights struggles are examined in depth.

It was difficult watching the momentous struggles and changes of the 60s make way into the 70s, when she says, "That sense of being part of something larger gets lost." Political activists were repressed and imprisoned, and much of the momentum was lost.

Anne Braden

As the footage from the 70s surfaces, it's in color; all of a sudden history doesn't seem so far away. When white women are screaming and chanting about "Niggers" when busing was implemented in 1975, and throwing rocks at the buses, it's jarring how close it all is. David Duke screams about white power. Communist workers at an anti-Klan rally are shot and killed in the late 70s.

In a statement that seems all-too true today, Braden says of the lasting legacy of this era:

"And this idea of reverse discrimination took hold of the country, and I think it’s the most dangerous idea that’s ever been inflicted on this country. It tells white people that the source of their problem is people of color and it’s such a damn lie because it’s based on the theory that what black people got took something away from white people, and that is the opposite of what happened, every piece of legislation everything that happened that the black movement won, helped most white people and certainly poor and working class white people."

At a 1980 rally in response to the communist workers' deaths, she said,

"The real danger today comes from the people in high places, from the halls of congress to the board rooms of our big corporations, who are telling the white people that if their taxes are eating up their paychecks, it’s not because of our bloated military budget, but because of government programs that benefit black people; those people in high places who are telling white people that if young whites are unemployed it’s because blacks are getting all the jobs. Our problem is the people in power who are creating a scape goat mentality. That, that is what is creating the climate in which the Klan can grow in this country and that is what is creating the danger of a fascist movement in the 1980s in America." 

As the film progresses, we see Braden marching for economic justice and to end police brutality. She stands out, with her cropped gray hair, small body and denim jumpers. Her voice shakes into a megaphone when she speaks at rallies, but her age doesn't stop her. She keeps marching. When she can't march, she's pushed in a wheelchair.

Braden passed away in 2006 at age 81. Right before she died, she said, "I just don't have time." She still felt she had too much to do.

Anne Braden and Cornel West

I don't know that I've ever been so inspired by a documentary. By the end, I was crying, near-sobbing–in celebration of Braden's life, in mourning her death and in feeling a burning fire in my white belly that I needed to do something in this world. Anne Braden had effectively told me that I needed to get to work.

At a march, Braden says, "We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it's won." It hasn't been, and we must continue her legacy.

Anne Braden: Southern Patriot puts Braden's lifelong activism into the developing fluid and makes it clear to all of us. We should all look carefully at these images and be moved to not just frame them for display, but to make them shape our world now.

The Flobots' "Anne Braden"

---

Leigh Kolb is a composition, literature and journalism instructor at a community college in rural Missouri. 

'Oblivion:' A Response to Ignatiy Vishnevetsky's Review on RogerEbert.com

Oblivion (2013)
Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) stands on the landing pad to his home.

This is a guest post written by Gabrielle Gopie-Tree. 

I’m not a Tom Cruise fan and I usually don’t watch his films, but I quite like Oblivion. To be fair, I am partial to post-apocalyptic productions but often the action is overdone and the plot underdeveloped; this is certainly not the case with Oblivion, which is a film about monoculture. Monoculture lacks the essential elements for life: diversity, complexity, and struggle. 

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky sees it differently. While he offers a humorous critique of patriarchy and a welcome, albeit limited, view of misogyny from his perspective as a White male of eastern origins, his superficial review of Oblivion ignores the soulful theme of the film: self-recovery. This idea is central to every aspect of the movie and is quite an unusual perspective in a Hollywood film, particularly in a genre that is typically focused on stereotypical masculinity. While discussion of sex-inequality in film is an encouraging development, there are serious flaws in this element of Vishnevetsky’s criticism. Here is my point of view from my perspective as a Black female of western origins. 

Vishnevetsky starts with a spirited description of the colour (white) and shape of Jack’s ship, the docking station, and the interior of the central command’s arrival chamber as all being symbolic of female genitalia which he views as encapsulating a violent sexism. I disagree. Instead I see the distilled and contrived soul-lessness of these elements as juxtaposition against the reality of Jack’s former life; a life that keeps calling to Jack in the shape of his attachment to a very green getaway spot on Earth and romantic memories of a woman in pre-apocalyptic New York City. Jack projects an air of perpetual disorientation as his longing for a satisfying existence contrasts with his daily life. 

Jack works with Vica (Andrea Riseborough) character to ensure the logistical resource extraction process on a devastated Earth in the year 2077. Vica and Jack are colleagues as well as lovers. They both represent a futuristic version of the patriarchal family: Jack goes out to work each day returning to prepared meals and perfunctory intimacy. Vica is the classic Stepford Wife in both appearance and behaviour: her sheer plasticity and vacuity are her essence. Jack is depicted as having a ‘ruggedly capable masculinity:’ he fixes, fights, and fucks. Despite the mental manipulation of his masters, Jack has a heart. We see this via his expressions of service to others: his successful fight to save a lone dog as well as the woman who turns out to be his wife, Julia (Olga Kurylenko), from death by drone, and his communication of loyalty to the human resistance who awaken him from his alien-induced programming. These are traits typically associated with the feminine, making this a rather feminist/womanist element of Jack’s character and the film itself. 

Jack struggles with Drone 166 to get the machine to stand up.

While Vishnevetsky compliments the storytelling method used in Oblivion, he simultaneously lambastes the film as being “derivative” of “several science-fiction movies at once.” I see this critique as plausible in light of the theme of the film itself – self-recovery. However, it seems that while Vishnevetsky is comfortable advancing some semblance of a gender critique, he is much less comfortable discussing the racial element of Oblivion, although he does mention the colour of the pseudo-feminine monoculture that amuses him so greatly as “white.” For example, who could miss the racial dynamics in the fact that there is (as far as I can tell) only one non-white man, Beech (Morgan Freeman), and one non-white woman, Julia--or, that Beech has a similar wake-up talk with Jack as did Morpheus (Laurence Fishbourne) with Neo (Keanu Reeves) in The Matrix. Vishnevetsky’s failure to talk race brings the sincerity of his limited discussion of gender into question. 

Morgan Freeman as Beech, the resistance leader who helps Jack recover his identity.

Furthermore, Vishnevetsky’s claim that: Oblivion is about a “lowly technician sending unmanned drones to hunt and kill a demonized, alien Other — until it forgets that it ever was” is overly simplistic. He ignores the element of struggle in the film which is necessary for life and Oblivion is most certainly about the life/death struggle; from the start of the film with Jack and Vica’s life-parody to the story’s culmination in Jack and Julia’s life-reality on a lush green patch of earth, complete with offspring. 

Julia (Olga Kurylenko) and Jack recall a pre-apocalypse moment.

While Vishnevetsky sees Oblivion as “a wannabe mindbender that raises questions about its lead character's identity — except that the lead character is too sketchy to make these questions compelling,” I see it as an exploration of a man’s struggle to recover himself from monoculture programming which in itself requires interactions with others for one’s self-development to occur. Curiously, Vishnevetsky condemns Jack using the archetype of the self-sufficient masculinised rugged individual but mislabels it as “creation myth.” Thereafter, he bemoans what he sees as none of the many women in the film being “able to do anything without Harper's help.” This is a very strange critique and smacks of a highly neoliberal notion of sameness as the benchmark for sex-equality. Also, it does not hold up in light of the fact that Vica administers both the home and the office each day while Jack fulfills his duties outside on the ground and she engages in almost all communications with Sally (Melissa Leo) at central control, including the authority to terminate her working relationship with Jack by simply saying they are no longer an “effective team.” Additionally, toward the end of the film Jack and Julia collaborate to challenge the authority of the alien masters including Julia’s decision to undergo cryosleep as the best option for facilitating Jack’s assault on the alien’s central command. 

Do not be fooled by Vishnevetsky’s use of terms such as “uterus,” “vulva,” “mother figure,” “creation myth,” and “misogyny” which suggest a feminist critique of Oblivion that just is not there.

---

Gabrielle Gopie-Tree has a background in law, politics, psychology and spirituality. She is a nomadic social theorist trying to be the change she wants to see in the world; a believer in the lessons of the guide Qadhafi; and valiantly trying to allow the universe to unfold as it should.

Wonder Women and Why We Need Superheroines

Wonder Women movie poster

Written by Amanda Rodriguez

Wonder Women: The Untold Story of American Superheroines is a documentary by Kristy Guevara-Flanagan available for free streaming on PBS (I heart free stuff). The film shows us Wonder Woman from her inception as a feminist character designed by her creator William Moulton Marston to usher in a matriarchal era to her loss of powers after World War II when women were pushed to leave the work force and go back to their homes, and finally, to the legacy of superheroines who would not have existed without her. In just shy of an hour, we get a comprehensive history and learn what makes Wonder Woman and other superheroines so important for women and girls. 

Wonder Woman spent many post-World War II years sans powers as a non-feminist character and her many years after continued to render her as a dubious feminist role model. Kathleen Hanna of the feminist punk band Bikini Kill is interviewed in the film, and she says, "There's, like, so few images of powerful women that women get desperate...we'll just take any kind of garbage or crumb off the table that we can find and claim that as powerful, even when it's kinda not." I agree in many cases with Hanna, especially concerning the pornulated female figures of film and TV whose abilities are confined to that which is sexy and that which pleases men, and though Wonder Woman is often given those qualities to keep her shallow and without a greater political or social relevance, the idea of Wonder Woman has taken root in the collective female psyche as a symbol of strength, independence, and equality. I find it the most fascinating and the most compelling that different iterations of Wonder Woman have ceased to affect her image. Women can be empowered by taking Wonder Woman and personally interpreting her into whatever kind of role model they choose because she is so iconic, regardless of any specific representations throughout her long history.

The feminism of Wonder Woman cosplay is up for debate, but the dedication to superheroines is all radness.

It is perhaps because of Wonder Woman and her endless interpretability that we have more contemporary superheroines/powerful female figures like Xena Warrior Princess, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and even Thelma and Louise or the women of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad of Kill Bill. Like Hanna says, sometimes these heroines are not imbued with the most feminist qualities, but their success is a testament to that hunger for strong female representations.  

Why are women and girls so hungry for kickass superheroines in the media? Lindsay Wagner, star of the hit 70's series, The Bionic Woman recounts feedback from a fan who'd grown up with the show, "'My dad wanted me to go to beauty school, but...I'm an engineer at NASA...because your character showed me that I could be something far beyond what we were ordinarily on track to be.'" These independent, smart, capable, and confident characters do show the women watching them that they, too, can be all those things. I won't get into it too much here, but the documentary Miss Representation is extremely informative (and a bit depressing) as it details the shocking dearth of female stories portrayed in our popular culture...nevermind stories about strong women. How can women aspire and achieve if there are no examples of other women overcoming similar or even bigger challenges? 

Carmela Lane draws inspiration from Wonder Woman to meet daily challenges & to give her daughter more opportunities than she had.

Gloria Steinem views superheroines in our culture as critical:

"Girls actually need superheroes much more than boys when you come right down to it because 90% of violence in the world is against females. Certainly women need protectors even more, and what's revolutionary, of course, is to have a female protector not a male protector." 

Think about it: if women can get where they are today, replete with all of our struggles, resistance, strength, and resilience, spurred on by such a paltry offering of role models, imagine what we could achieve if we had a truly diverse base of powerful, intelligent, resourceful superheroines to inspire us to unfathomable heights.

Katie Pineda: Wonder Woman enthusiast with the mantra: "Keep going; keep going; you're going to be more."

"I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy."

Angelina Jolie

This guest post by Melissa McEwan appears at her blog Shakesville and is cross-posted with permission.

Angelina Jolie has written an extraordinary op-ed for the New York Times, titled "My Medical Choice," about her recent decision to have a preventative double mastectomy after learning she carries the BRCA1 "breast cancer" gene and had an estimated 87% risk of developing breast cancer.
 

This piece is remarkable for a lot of reasons. Jolie notes that she "finished the three months of medical procedures that the mastectomies involved" on April 27, and: "During that time I have been able to keep this private and to carry on with my work." And having managed to keep it a secret, itself a rather impressive feat, she decided to then publicly disclose it, in order that "other women can benefit from my experience."

It's remarkable because she writes very plainly that her ability to get the $3,000 BRCA1 test is a privilege, and advocates wider access:

Breast cancer alone kills some 458,000 people each year, according to the World Health Organization, mainly in low- and middle-income countries. It has got to be a priority to ensure that more women can access gene testing and lifesaving preventive treatment, whatever their means and background, wherever they live. The cost of testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, at more than $3,000 in the United States, remains an obstacle for many women.

And because she does not assert or imply that her decision is the only right decision, but one of many options:

For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options. I want to encourage every woman, especially if you have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, to seek out the information and medical experts who can help you through this aspect of your life, and to make your own informed choices.

I acknowledge that there are many wonderful holistic doctors working on alternatives to surgery. My own regimen will be posted in due course on the Web site of the Pink Lotus Breast Center. I hope that this will be helpful to other women.

And it's remarkable because Angelina Jolie is generally regarded as one of the most beautiful women in a world that profoundly values beauty and defines women's worth by their sex appeal, and she is telling women to value their health.

There is something deeply moving to me for a woman whose body, by nature of her profession, has been treated like public property even more than most of us, writing such an intimate piece about her body, making it public property in yet another way by her own choice, for the benefit of other women.

---

Melissa McEwan is the founder and manager of the award-winning political and cultural group blog Shakesville, which she launched as Shakespeare's Sister in October 2004 because George Bush was pissing her off. In addition to running Shakesville, she also contributes to The Guardian's Comment is Free America and AlterNet. Liss graduated from Loyola University Chicago with degrees in Sociology and Cultural Anthropology, with an emphasis on the political marginalization of gender-based groups. An active feminist and LGBTQI advocate, she has worked as a concept development and brand consultant and now writes full-time.

She lives just outside Chicago with three cats, two dogs, and a Scotsman, with whom she shares a love of all things geekdom, from Lord of the Rings to Alcatraz. When she's not blogging, she can usually be found watching garbage television or trying to coax her lazyass greyhound off the couch for a walk. 

 

Problematic Patriarchy in Jackson Katz's 'Violence and Silence' TED Talk

Written by Rachel Redfern

Jackson Katz’s incredibly popular TEDxFiDiWomen talk has a lot of people excited and I understand why. He’s engaging and passionate about his incredible support for feminism and minorities and that’s an amazingly positive thing. However, upon review of his solutions to the great problems of patriarchy in the United States, there are actually some very problematic ideals that he’s promoting.

The first ten minutes of Katz’s talk is filled with effusive praise for feminism and what it’s accomplished. Past that though, during the last 10 minutes of his talk he says that he wants to change people from the level of leadership. He suggests that we work within the existing framework to change patriarchy by teaching patriarchs (CEOs, coaches and other leaders) to stick up for women.

Say hello to corporate feminism.

This corporate feminism is basically the patriarchy co-opting feminism and using it, not only as a way to make money for their leadership seminars, but also as a way to continue to promote the status quo of women being taken care of by their male leaders in jobs that are notoriously difficult for women to get. Within Katz’s idea, women are still held apart from the leadership positions that could help to make the changes that directly affect them.

What 'leadership' should look like. I suppose.

Worse than that, those leadership seminars continue to promote ideas of hierarchy and authority. What do these expensive leadership courses say to their students? “Someone has to be in charge.” “Life is like a boat; there has to be a captain, otherwise it would be chaos.” “People need to listen to you because you’re in charge.” "Take control of a situation.” Hierarchy, hierarchy, hierarchy. Move within the system: Maintain, maintain, maintain.

Katz believes that these leaders of men should be held accountable for the disparaging and inappropriate things that they say. I agree; of course men in powerful positions should be held accountable for their actions and for the things that they say. I hope that media, bloggers, and viewers will continue to go further in demanding such levels of accountability from those around us. And then comes the sales pitch: “We need more leadership training.” Guess what Jackson Katz does for a living? Leadership training. He wants to teach men in power to stand up for women. Are we, as a culture, saying we live in a world where in order to attain a level of common human decency men have to participate in weeklong, over-priced corporate leadership training programs?

Are we so naïve that we believe adult men don’t already know that they should be nice to women? These men (the ones in those amazing and out-of-reach-for-thousands-of-qualified-women leadership positions), are most likely men of education and world experience, and they know that disrespecting women is inappropriate. It’s like telling a group of college kids to not answer their phone during a lecture. Everyone knows you shouldn’t answer your phone during a lecture and we shouldn’t even give the idea credence by positioning it as an option of ignorance. They know better and cries of, “my leadership training program didn’t teach me not to say sexist, disrespectful things about the other half of the population” just isn’t a good excuse and we shouldn’t allow it to become one.

If people say sexist, racist, homophobic, and other offensive remarks, more conveniently placed “corporate feminism” isn’t going to save the day. The day is going to be saved when good people speak out (yes, even those who don’t get to become NBA coaches) using a strong sense of justice and morality without relying on leadership training to do so.

Katz states (timestamp 16:37) that it is “institutional authority” which will save us all. In a larger sense, perhaps it will, as in the case of policemen who arrest perpetrators of domestic abuse, and violence and the justice system which tries and judges them. However, propagating “institutional authority” and its intense vestiges of patriarchy and hierarchy are the problem. We can no longer be happy with the meager scraps of freedom that these ideologies continue to throw at us; we need to be more assertive, more demanding of our rights and the need for respect for others and ourselves. Don’t worry; I’m not calling for torches and pitchforks to storm the castle, but I am saying that we shouldn’t rely on the overblown theories of benevolent authority and patriarchy.

Demotivator® genius. Demotivator® truth?

This leadership training is a minor subversion that ultimately still reinforces the establishment of control that is already in place.

I’ll be honest. I resent the notion that I have to rely on the good will of university presidents, coaches and CEOs to lead the way in my own beliefs of right and wrong. I don’t need their leadership though; rather, I need them stop doing bad things and getting away with it. I’m freely capable of knowing good from evil, offensive and inoffensive, without Joe Paterno’s expertise, thank you very much. This idea puts down everyday, good people and robs them of the ability to make powerful changes, by placing that ability on the shoulders of other, more distant folks.

Now, on a few things I do agree with Katz: these issues affect everyone and they should not be designated solely as women’s issues or men’s; rather they are overwhelmingly society’s issues, humanity’s issues, human rights issues. And I believe that there are wonderful men and women out there desperately trying to fix these problems; even Katz’s sincerity and excited approach is necessary. But continuing to perpetuate the systems that are doing the damage by reinforcing so many structures of control and hierarchy is not the way to fundamentally change all the problems inherent within those systems.

Katz closes with this statement: “We need more men with the guts, with the courage, with the strength, with the moral integrity to break our implicit silence and challenge each other and stand with women, not against them.” I would posit that we should change that “men” into “people” and say that just as much as we need people with the courage to speak out, we also need people with the courage to tear down and rebuild the systems of privilege and hierarchy, not reinforce them.

What do you think? Is the Katz talk a brilliant harbinger of change and feminism? Or relying too much on patriarchal authority?

---

Rachel Redfern has an MA in English literature, where she conducted research on modern American literature and film and its intersection, however she spends most of her time watching HBO shows, traveling, and blogging and reading about feminism.