I reluctantly switched my postal DVD rental service from a local mom-n-pop company (after it went out of business) to one of the bigger national ones. Their predictive algorithms have been amusing me no end. Here’s a sample:



If only there was a local storefront where I could rent Indian films! Does that wish mean I’m a dinosaur?

I’ve been spending some time looking at local filmmaker Peter Bratt’s film La Mission from different viewpoints - follow the links below for the result.

Heart Like a Car: Peter Bratt’s Labor of Love Tells a Community Story (interview with Peter Bratt)

“La Mission” opens this weekend with insights into masculinity and family ties (film review)

Tags: 2010, Peter Bratt, OaklandLocal

My cover page article featuring San Francisco Bay Area film industry people who participated inthe shoot commenting on some of the racial politics in My Name is Khan for Oakland Local. The film is still playing in the metro US - you can check it out if you haven't had the chance.

http://oaklandlocal.com/blogs/2010/03/my-name-is-khan-film

Tags: Karan Johar, Shah Rukh Khan, 2010, My Name is Khan, OaklandLocal

I had a spontaneous response to a recent film article that asked "Is the token homosexual character the new token black character?" and then didn't seem to me to follow up on the question:
http://thebigpicturemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=176:dearly-departed-a-theory-on-queer-stereotypes-in-film&catid=31:features&Itemid=59

Hi Christine,

I believe your analogy about queer characters being the new black is a bit underdeveloped here. I find this analogy often specious in general (there were what I thought many cogent critiques of the Advocate's "queer is the new black" cover trying to say civil rights struggles have shifted). What you seem to be saying is 1) popular heroic queer characters die in films; 2) token black characters die in horror films; 3) women who breach social convention die in films. I agree in general with all these points (if not with all the filmic examples you use).

However, I think it's critical to compare HOW and WHY these characters die, and here's where I would like more detail supporting the analogy before I can assess it. In examples 1) and 3) from above you seem to be saying that there is a disciplining aspect to the films - positive gay and (straight?) female characters die in their films so that a repressive dominant ideology can be upheld in the narrative. The upturn they represent is temporary.

In the case of black characters in horror films, I think their function in the narrative is different. These characters, as you also note, are tokens, and not protagonists (in contrast to the films you mention in your "queer" and "female" categories). I also struggle to find the same disciplining intensity in horror films where the black characters die, though perhaps the (comparatively more understated) message is that black characters are being disciplined for simply existing. I think often we don't even know these characters well enough for them to be disciplined for their ideas and beliefs - those parts of their character don't generally exist!

I also think that film genre is a critical part of your analysis to consider in more depth - victim tropes in horror films is a complex world unto itself.

It may be that these topics I mention wanting more detail about here are just bubbling under your essay, and you chose not to include them, and for me the essay would have more weight if you mentioned the importance of some of these details, especially since the majority of the films you analyze here have white protagonists rather than tokens who die. Your leading question "Is the token homosexual character the new token black character?" seems to be dropped, though the race bomb sting stays in the air for me. I'm left with the impression that the racial narrative is tokenized in your article as well, and perhaps it would have been better left unmentioned given the role it is relegated to in your analysis.

With a little asking, I agreed to write a more extended editorial about some of the insights that are suggested by Shah Rukh Khan's detention by Customs and Border Patrol in New Jersey.

http://planetbollywood.com/displayArticle.php?id=s082009113752

Tags: Shah Rukh Khan, PlanetBollywood

Loveleen Tandan, right

Slumdog Millionaire has been generating a lot of attention in these parts and I'm happy to have participated in a lot of conversations about it, although I haven't seen the film and have no plans to give it any of my money or theatre-time space. When I choose to see a film in a theatre as opposed to at home, I'm basically turning over my mind and time (2 valuable commodities this way) to someone else. I resolve not to multitask in the theatre, except for the occasional popcorn or hand-holding.

Over lunch an Ethnic Studies scholar who I respect on many levels was asking me about my upcoming trip to Singapore to present at a symposium on Indian cinema's travels around the world. Then he asked me what I thought of Slumdog Millionaire. I told him I had read some of the press about it ahead of time, knew the storyline in some detail, and had decided not to watch it. I didn't think I'd learn much I didn't already know, and it would probably piss me off more than would be worth it to me (I have other reasons, but he hadn't asked WHY I was gonna see it).

He asked me: "How can you consider yourself a film critic if you don't see the film?" I guessed that implicit in his shock was that here I am professing to study Indian cinema, and I wasn't going to see SM. I asked him if that was it. "Yeah!" he said.

I said I don't consider the film an Indian film, given that it was made by Danny Boyle, blah blah blah.

It's an interesting time lately - Indian films have just enough prominence that people don't just automatically assume that a film with a lot of Indians in it was made by a white guy (helped along in their assumption by a savvy marketing campaign). At the same time Indian films don't have enough clout in the US/UK film industry to launch and market a film that IS Indian-made (I think the Indian distributors could do it, but are blowing it - that's for another time). SM comes at a great time to continue the guise of a shifting cultural power order (and capture the pocket money of those who'd like to see the shift), while still tacitly keeping most of the existing power structures in place.

And as many have pointed out, for all the trumpeting of the ascendancy of this "Indian" film as a proof that the film world is culturally diverse, the many pop-culture films made in India about similar topics have thus far received few nods and accolades from the major European/US awarding foundations (Think perhaps Madhur Bhandarkar's work). I was stunned to hear that Shah Rukh Khan (the only film star on Newsweek's recent 50 Most Powerful People in the World list), who presented SM at the Golden Globes this month, was the first Indian actor to ever present in its 66 year history. As he was filming in LA at the time, it wasn't like they stretched out too much to try and get him there, and he was a relatively late addition.

I don't want to spend a lot of time here talking about my own reasoning behind not seeing it- if you've talked to me about it you know you can get an earful. I always encourage people to think critically about their media choices as I saw what a positive difference it made in my life to give up all my crime shows (including my beloved Closer) this past year.

There are a couple of issues that have been hot-button topics in my circles that I'd like to highlight, because I think the prominence of this film is raising them more widely than I've seen before. I've seen plenty of films that have a similar set of challenges in terms of the way the film was made and/or the storyline, but none that I can remember have caused such a stir among media-oriented people in my circles. For this chance to discuss them, I'm grateful to the film.

One thing people are wondering about is what some feel is poor (no pun intended?) pay for the youngest actors in the film. Apparently, the middle class child actors that casting found in India didn't look thin or impoverished enough for the film's realism demands, and actual poor and impoverished children were hired. The filmmakers say they fairly compensated the kids, paying them more than adults would make per day on the shoot. But that's adults in India, not the UK. I leave it to you to check out the back and forth online - I'm like the last blog to jump on this bandwagon. I think, though, that in the context of outsourcing and maquiladoras, this issue is interesting to consider. If you pay someone $4 an hour in a country where the standard pay is $1 for the work, are you being generous and ethical if in the US/UK the same job would garner $14/hr?

One issue that I've written about some in terms of music is the issue of crediting for the work done, with the pay and career rewards that go along. I myself keep referring to the film as a Danny Boyle joint, when Loveleen Tandan, late of Brick Lane (2008), Vanity Fair (2004) and Monsoon Wedding (2001), is credited as co-director, though she wasn't invited to the Golden Globes at all. And her name is missing in the Academy Award roster, where SM is nominated in 10 categories, including Best Director, a category that generally only recognizes one person, though you can petition to allow more to be nominated for a film.

This notion of intellectual property where there is only one author credited for what often cannot be produced alone is a long-standing tradition, and I believe one that has been developed to keep power in the hands of those best positioned to keep power - those in power. The "owner" of a work is someone who can copyright it first, not the person who thought of it first or even made it first. In my reading of the 1992 documentary on Paul Simon Born at The Right Time, it's clear that the musicians of Ladysmith Black Mambazo formulated a lot of the music on their "joint" recordings, though they hold few of the rights that would give them the same income stream that Simon gets from the release.

The Hot Pink Pen blog has a few items about the co-directing controversy, including an action link should you wish to write AMPAS about their decision not to nominate her for an Oscar(r) along with Danny Boyle. The Fund for Women Artists hosts a related review/interview discussing Loveleen Tandan's role in co-directing the film: http://www.womenarts.org/reviews/SlumdogMillionaire.htm.

As with the Simon documentary, the "injured" party is being gracious and staying out of the fray. I speculate it may be a case of not biting the hand that feeds you, which to me underscores the rife power imbalances. And having done the same thing myself because I needed to work, etc, I can sympathize.

An interesting article about Tandan, esp. if you like to read between the lines: http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090111/914/ten-slumdog-millionaire-has-an-indian-co.html.

----------
"Slumdog Millionaire" Update from the FUND FOR WOMEN ARTISTS Newsletter

The Fund for Women Artists
3739 Balboa Street #181
San Francisco, CA 94121
Phone: (415) 751-2202
Website: www.womenarts.org
Email: info@womenarts.org

"Slumdog Millionaire" Co-Director/Woman Director Update:

Danny Boyle was given the Best Director award at the Golden Globes for his work on the film "Slumdog Millionaire." But Chicago film critic Jan Lisa Huttner noticed that IMDb.com (a highly respected film resource) and the film's official press kits listed a woman named Loveleen Tandan as "Co-director (India)". In an interview published on our website, Huttner asked Danny Boyle whether he considered Tandan the co-director, and he replied, "Yes, she deserves it! She's a proper director." (See http://www.womenarts.org/reviews/SlumdogMillionaire.htm)

When the Golden Globes nominated Boyle for "Best Director" but failed to mention Tandan, Huttner started a letter writing campaign asking the Golden Globes leaders to explain why they had not included Tandan with Boyle. Many of our readers joined the letter writing campaign, often adding touching stories of their own about not being recognized for their creative work.

The people at the Golden Globes never responded, but journalists in the U.S. and Great Britain picked up on the story including John Jurgensen of the Wall Street Journal, Prairie Miller of WBAI, Ramin Setoodeh of Newsweek, Melissa Silverstein of the Huffington Post, Amar Singh of London's Evening Standard, Anita Singh of the UK Telegraph, & Sasha Stone of Awards Daily, and World Entertainment News Network published on IMDb News.

The Oscar nominations came out this week, and once again Danny Boyle was nominated for Best Director of "Slumdog Millionaire," and Loveleen Tandan was not mentioned.

The Oscars have a rule that only one director can be nominated per film, but waivers are occasionally granted, like in the recent case of brothers Joel and Ethan Coen, who both collected a directing Oscar for "No Country for Old Men." Huttner argues that the one-director rule does not reflect the realities of modern filmmaking, especially on a large cross-cultural project like "Slumdog Millionaire."

Tandan is trying to distance herself from the controversy. We will never know if it is because she truly does not think she deserves the credit or because she is worried about being labelled as a "difficult" woman. The "co-director" title is ambiguous, and the situation is complicated by race as well as gender issues. The reporter for Newsweek pointed out that the faces in the movie are brown, but the ones on stage accepting Golden Globe Awards were all white.

Huttner points out that in 81 years, only three women have ever been nominated for a Best Director Oscar - Lina Wertmueller, Jane Campion and Sofia Coppola, and none have ever won. Only two men of color have been nominated - John Singleton and Ang Lee, who won for Brokeback Mountain.

If Tandan had been nominated, she would have been the first woman of color ever to receive a Best Director nomination. Instead, the Academy nominated five men for Best Director for the 78th time in 81 years. Whether or not Loveleen Tandan should have been nominated this time, Huttner is right that there is something wrong with this picture.

For ongoing updates about this issue, visit Huttner's website at: http://www.thehotpinkpen.com

Tags: film review, Slumdog Millionaire, 2008, Loveleen Tandan

I recently saw the first episode of "Khatron Ke Khiladi " - "Fear Factor" Indian style (lit: Dangers' Players). The show is a little different from the American version, which I vaguely remember from a brief time that - God knows why - I got into it in the early 2000's. The American version was hosted by a "comedian" who seemed to delight in the failure of the contestants to be brave or to compete. The show hyped up the bitchiness between contestants, often cutting away to one or the other of them trash talking while someone was at the challenge. Why I watched this show more than once is a mystery to me now. Maybe it was on just before bedtime?

In KKK, host Akshay Kumar works with two groups, the female contestants and the Indian Army officers (male and female) who are their trainers and cheerleaders. As with the American version, all contestants watch each other try the stunts, which in the episode I saw included jumping to a water target from a helicopter flying by, and bobbing for plums in an aquarium filled with snakes. This version, though, has a very different feel from its US cousin. Akshay talks about the contestants as they go out to their tasks, saying things like "She's very tough and I know she can do it." After each stunt is completed, the contestants clap for the person as she comes back - whether she made the target or not. Kumar salutes them, says "great job!" & he's proud of them. Their Army buddies say great things about them. It's with a palpable sense of reluctance that he counts up who has the most points and who has the least and will have to go.

"Unfortunately you have to return home," he tells the loser, and gives her a little gift. Akshay thanks them for playing, and they thank him too.

I can't help but think about another summer game show, "Kya Aap Paanchvi Pass Se Tez Hain," the Indian version of "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" Despite being hosted by Shah Rukh Khan, also one of the biggest film stars, the show had bad ratings almost from the start. Some said this was because it was up against the newly-launched Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket games, but my sense was that no one felt this was anything but an excuse. Something went wrong that couldn't be predicted. As he often does when things go wrong, SRK took all the responsibility, and had many celebrity guests towards the end of the run that I can only guess helped the ratings.

But what sticks with me in thinking about this show is commentary I read that part of what hurt Paanchvi Pass is that it was seen as mean. Required to stick to the US format as part of the franchise, KAPPSTH did not offer multiple choice questions (at least at first - I think it added them in later) like "Kaun Banega Krorepati" (Who Wants to be A Millionaire, also hosted by Khan) had. You had to know the right answer off the top of your head or use up one of your three cheats off the smart fifth grader.

And worse, contestants who got a question wrong and had to leave the show were forced to face the camera, recite their name, their accomplishments, and then say "I am not smart enough to pass 5th grade." This was a tough one for many. Some would forget to do it, and have to be prompted by Khan walking them through each of the three steps of the admission:
I, (insert your name), PhD in Economics, director of a school, winner of such and such award ..... am not smart enough to pass 5th grade.

After a show full of SRK's graceful hosting, joking, and kids helping, along with gift giving and the occasional song, dance, hug or kiss as the show went on, many guests were choking on their emotions, and Shah Rukh seemed to try to make their speech more of a laugh, sometimes to weak effect. If they resisted saying all the speech parts, he would draw them back to repeating each one.

The format of reciting all your accomplishments, followed by the admission that you can't pass 5th grade, seems like a weird class resentment holdover that comes from the US but may not be too logical in the Indian context, where being educated seems to hold more regard (from my own anecdotal research).

I note here too that in America "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" was hosted by Jeff Foxworthy, who's built his career on using the working class as protagonists, even if to a sometimes pejorative effect. What Cheech Marin does about Chicanos, Foxworthy does for rednecks. With America's general animosity for "intellectuals," the show's talk of shame makes a little more "sense" to me, though I think it's lame in any context.

I'll probably keep watching KKK for morale reasons - I'd rather hear Kumar tell contestants "I'm here to give you encouragement and to tell you to never fear anything in your life" than watch most of what's around on US terrestrial. Colbert Report and The Daily Show excepted. Oops- those are cable.

Tags: Akshay Kumar, Shah Rukh Khan, television, Khatron Ke Khiladi, Kya Aap Paanchvi Pass Se Tez Hain