Tuesday, 29 November 2011

My review: À l'origine d'un cri

(my attempt to write in French)

À l'origine d'un cri est un film québécois qui a été mis en scène par le réalisateur Robin Aubert. Ce film, très lourd, mais très bouleversant en même temps, représente un drame émotionnel qui explore profondément le thème de la famille dispersée, de la solitude et de l’enfance brisée. L’atmosphère de deuil et le ton pathétique, qui prévalent durant tout le film, donnent à cette histoire un goût très émouvant et tragique. L’approche de réalisateur est fondamentalement pessimiste, d'autant plus que l’histoire présentée dans le film est inspirée en grande partie de sa propre vie. Rempli d'images choquantes et de pensés négatives, le film se base sur les éléments autobiographiques de Robin Aubert. Ces éléments aident au réalisateur à s’exprimer entièrement et donner à ce film une approche très personnel et intime.

En résumé, l’histoire découvre l’univers des trois hommes des générations différentes. Ce film commence par l'histoire d'un vieil homme dont la femme est décédée qui ne peut pas accepter le départ de son épouse et qui déterre le corps pour s’enfuir avec celui-ci après. Ses soeurs chargent son fils Hugo de retrouver le fugitif. Ainsi, au centre du film, le spectateur observe le jeune homme, extrêmement désillusionné de la vie, violent, alcoolique et chargé d’une grande détresse psychologique, qui est astreint de retrouver son père avec le cadavre. Étant un employé dans une usine de papier de toilette, Hugo rêve d’avoir une meilleure vie. Désespéré, le jeune homme cache une immense rage et colère en lui, qu’il évacue à travers la violence, l’alcool et les relations multiples avec des femmes. En observant ce personnage, le spectateur réalise que la scène perturbante de l’agression sexuelle, relatée au début du film, démontrait l’événement douloureux de l’enfance de Hugo.
Parallèlement, le spectateur découvre un autre personnage du film : le grand-père de Hugo. C’est un vieil homme grognon qui demeure dans une résidence pour des personnes âgées et paraît prêt d’aider Hugo à retrouver le fou fuyard. Par contre, Hugo semble contraint de prendre la route avec son grand-père grincheux afin de retrouver son père. Leur voyage mène à la confrontation intense entre le grand-père et le petit-fils. Ils voyagent de tavernes aux motels, où ils retrouvent finalement le père de Hugo qui se noie dans l’alcool et traîne le corps de sa femme décédée d'un motel à un autre, ne voulant pas accepter son départ. À travers beaucoup de tourments psychologiques et de mots durs que les trois hommes se disent, ils réussissent finalement à retrouver l’amour familial et arrivent à un certain apaisement.
Personnellement, je peux dire que cette œuvre ne m’a pas plu. Le film était rempli d’images sombres et négatives et de scènes dérangeantes et difficiles à regarder. Ce film m’a mis dans un état de dépression et de tristesse incroyable, car les thèmes soulevés par le réalisateur étaient très bouleversants et déchirants. Les thèmes de la violence et de la pédophilie perçaient dans tout le film et m’enroulait dans un état d’anéantissement et de désespoir. Je n’ai pas aimé la façon dont ces thèmes étaient  abordés dans le film. Il y avait beaucoup de scènes de violence tout autant verbales que physiques. À mon avis, ces scènes n’étaient pas vraiment nécessaires pour me faire comprendre cette œuvre.
Par exemple, le film s'ouvre sur une scène très dur à regarder : l'agression sexuelle d'un jeune garçon. Le spectateur observe une image choquante et bouleversante. Pendant cette scène poignante, je me sentais très inconfortable sur mon siège, d’autant plus que la longueur de la scène était très difficile à endurer.
De plus, je n’ai pas aimé l’histoire et le scénario du film. Au début, on voit un homme complètement fou qui déterre sa femme décédée pour cacher son corps inerte dans sa maison et s’enfuir après avec celui-ci. On observe comment il la lave, comment il la cache partout et la traite comme si elle était encore en vie. Je ne trouve pas que c’est un bon départ pour une histoire intéressante. En outre, il me semble que je n’ai pas vu une seule femme habillée dans ce film. Je crois que la plupart des scènes érotiques n'étaient pas utiles du tout. De plus, j’ai eu la difficulté à situer les personnages au début et je nageais dans l’obscurité un bon moment, essayant de comprendre qui est qui dans l'histoire. Le film était rempli de bouts très longs et inutiles qui n’avaient pas de but et surgissaient de nulle part. Ainsi, les minutes semblaient longues et presque insoutenables. En bref, c’est un film qui ne projetait que des images choquantes et de pensées négatives. Je ne peux pas conclure que j’ai appris quelque chose d’utile ou d’essentiel de cette œuvre.
Ceux qui sont intéressés, voici le trailer pour ce film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxav2yHz344

“Pathfinder” as example of false representation of Vikings

I’ve recently discovered a film called “Pathfinder” (2007) which has been subjected to severe criticism, where the representation of Vikings was censured by critics and considered completely false and inaccurate. This movie represents a perfect example of common labels and stereotypes and generalization of Natives. Filmmakers used the common and well-known stereotypes about Vikings and depicted them as violent, savage barbarians and marauders, with the horns on their helmets etc. However, critics affirm that real Vikings did not have horns on their helmets and have never had a conflict with Native Americans for the purpose of colonization on the Eastern Seaboard of Pre-Columbian North America which is portrayed in the film. Moreover, the movie overemphasizes the violence of Vikings and reinforces those common stereotypes about them.
If you are interested, here is the link of the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfUMe3JD6Eg

Arranged marriages?

In the West, people cannot imagine of being “forced” to do something, because the freedom is at the head of everything. The freedom is not than just a civic licence, but represents a Western mentality; Western way of thinking, feeling and living. To lose this freedom would mean to lose a part of identity and completely change some fundamental ideas about “rights”, “liberty” and “autonomy” which firmly took roots in the Western culture.  However, I’ve also heard lots of stories from my Indian friends about the “beauty” of arranged marriages and their traditions. People, raised in that culture, perceive arranged marriages as the only right and good thing to do and sometimes, perceives the West as some lecherous and even dissolute place.
I cannot say that I would like to have an arranged marriage myself because, I am not part of this culture, however what I personally like is the strong-tied family relationships and a remarkable respect between family members in this culture, which were shown in the film. I believe that it represents something that Western people don’t always have, becoming too concerned about their autonomy and individualism.
I’ve recently discovered an interesting interview with the famous Indian actress Aishwarya Rai when she came on David Letterman’s show. Honestly, I felt a bit embarrassed while watching this interview. I found that the way David Letterman was trying to make fun of Indian traditions was way too unprofessional and insulting even for me as a viewer. His derisive tone and mocking questions about living together with parents in India and always keeping saying: “oh, but here in United Sates…” were I believe a little harsh for a famous and professional American television host.
Maybe I am just caviling at every word, but you can agree or disagree with by watching this interview on youtube. If you don’t feel like watching the whole 7 minutes interview, you can switch over right away on minute 3:00, when Letterman starts to ask Aishwarya about her parents.

History: European Imperialism in Africa

European Imperialism in Africa    
I recently read an article about European colonial expansion during1885-1914 and European imperialism in Africa. A fact that shocked me the most was that by 1914, Great Britain had almost 40% of Africa’s population under its control and used Africa as a new market for manufactured goods that were used to be sold for high prices in Europe. For European countries such as Britain, France and Portugal, this colonial expansion in Africa represented a good opportunity to control strategic African waterways like Suez Canal and to use a cheap labor force. In addition, European powers tended to civilize Africa with their “white man’s” ideology and culture through language, religion and traditions. The impending domination of Europeans was eventually leading to the destruction of African culture, values and social customs.
Moreover, the concept of Eurocentrism was also raised in the article since it explained that African people were depicted as inferior to the European people and were divided up with no respect for any cultural or ethnic boundaries. As a result, these divisions have led to continued conflicts in many African republics.

Hence, instead of posting the link of this article, since it is not in English, I am posting the link of a video talking about European imperialism in Africa. I think it would be much more interesting for you guys to watch a four minutes video instead of reading the whole article, since it raises the same facts and the same ideas that in the stated above article.
Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJe1W_HIWmA

Monday, 24 October 2011

"The Juvenile Awareness Project Help" article.

           I’ve recently read the article talking about The Juvenile Awareness Project Help (JAPH). I found this article interesting because several months ago, I’ve actually seen a TV show where the JAPH project was demonstrated and showed in a real life, in real circumstances and with real people. For the first minutes of watching it, I couldn’t realize what is going on and what the high school students are doing in the prison and why they get insulted and even humiliated in some cases by inhabitant of this prison. After reading the article about this TV program, everything became clearer for me.
To be more precise, the JAPH is an experiment that takes the juvenile offenders into a prison in New Jersey to scare them straight into stopping living a life of crime. According to the article, the goal of the program is to change the attitudes and behaviors of these kids to prevent any further regression in them in hope that seeing the prisoners yell at them and threaten them will make them desire to change their behaviors and attitudes toward crime. Nonetheless, like any program, this one has its weaknesses, which this particular report is set to examine. Its research question is therefore what is the value is drawbacks of JAPH.
The main objective of the JAPH project is that the kids will be turned away from delinquent behaviour when they see what that behaviour will cost them, yet the key hypothesis of the Rutgers researchers is that JAPH actually has no effect, either psychologically or behaviourally, on the juveniles attending. They basically believed that the so-called delinquent behaviour actually arises from many different factors, thus it’s wrong to suggest that a short visit to a prison can offset the long-term effects of all these other variables. In other words they hypothesised that JAPH has no effect on the attitudes of the juveniles attending it. In the second report, hypothesis went on to say that JAPH has no effect on the juveniles participating in terms of deterring their future delinquent behaviour.
The findings have shown that over 70% of the 81 juveniles that were designated for the program had a low probability of delinquency and only 8% had a high probability. Also, not one of the 81 juveniles has ever been in a training school. However, other findings have shown that there were more juveniles getting in trouble in terms of subsequent offences of those who attended the project than those who didn’t.  Researchers conclude that the success rates presented in the documentary are misleading since many of the referrals to the program had never been in trouble with the law in the first place. This raises some issues about the accuracy of the program, since if the juveniles don’t become delinquent, JAPH can’t quiet be responsible for it.

Monday, 17 October 2011

"Two Brothers" movie - The Wild World...

source: http://www.civicvideo.com.au/article.asp?ContentID=incredibleswallpaper

Two Brothers is a 2004 live-action animal drama, made by a French director Jean-Jacques Annaud. The film talks about the adventures of twin tiger cubs. Set in French Indochina in 1920, two brothers are separated as cubs after the ancient temple where they live is disturbed by the rich man who wants to steal and sell the ancient statues. One brother is sold off to a circus where he lives in a cage and performs for rich people. Meanwhile, the other brother becomes the beloved companion of the governor's lonely young son. The young tiger lives there until an accident forces the family to give him away to a man who decides to break his gentle nature and turn him into a fighter for sport. When both brothers grow up, they finally find themselves reunited at the spectacular battle where they are supposed to fight against each other and presented as the forced enemies. However, after the long years of separation, the brothers recognize each other and instead of fighting they begin to play together while the shocked audience is watching them. The trainer tries to antagonize the tigers into fighting, but as he opens the cage to shoot one, the tigers escape, managing to frighten the the audience and trainers into the cage themselves. The happy ending shows the two brothers who come back to their temple home in the jungle where they are met by a third tiger, who is their mother.
In the film, the tigers are endowed with human feelings and sentiments such as attachment to the family, friendship, the feeling of kindred spirits and a sense of home and of recognition. The movie presents a very heart-warming story about the power of friendship and the bond between two tiger brothers. The movie is full of touching scenes with tigers. One of those scenes is the opening sequence of Two Brothers, where two tiger cubs frolic through the jungle kicking a coconut back and forth like a soccer ball. However, like all animal dramas, the movie contains some important messages protesting the violent treatment of animals. The filmmakers express openly their feelings about animal abuse. They knew exactly how to make a strong political statement by the use of some harsh scenes where the tigers were cruelly abused. The filmmakers speak out against humans’ role in the extinction of the Bengal tiger. In addition, film’s target audience can include adults as well as the children. Through the story, the movie may elicit tears from both children and parents, demonstrating scenes where the tigers are chained inside cages, yearning to be set free or received the violent treatment.
As far as the film was emerged in 2004, the extinction of the Bengal tiger was a big subject at the time. Even today, they are on the brink of extinction. These species are usually found of south-eastern Asia and in central and southern India. Recent reports indicate that Bengal tiger population, also called Royal tigers or Indian tigers, is dwindling at a dangerously fast pace. The number of these beautiful and majestic animals has dwindled because of heavy human predation. The tigers are often hunted for their skins and certain bones which are even thought to possess healing powers in Asian medicine. By 2000, we estimate the number of Bengal tigers
at about only 450 species which is catastrophic. According to a planning report of the United Nations Development Program and the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, on an average some 40 Royal Bengal tigers are getting killed in the Sundarbans every year.

Friday, 14 October 2011

"Never Cry Wolf" (film/book) - My Review and Comparison

The movie was based on the true story of Farley Mowat, who was sent to the expedition in tundra. His main goal was to find the truthful evidence about the fact that wolves represent the main cause of the extinction of caribou. The main character finds himself in a difficult situation, in a cold tundra trying to survive. Concurrently, he conducts his study about the wolves trying to understand and learn more about their behavior, habits and life. Finally, he arrives to the conclusion that all the beliefs about wolves’ habits and their presumptive harm made to the caribous are wrong. On the contrary, Mowat discovers that humans represent the worse danger to the nature and to the wolves also. The film contains some incredible mystery and loneliness shown through the Mowat’s character. His isolation and sudden closeness to the wolves’ family gives to the film its particular zest. All those elements are present in the book as well as in film.

However, the film cannot be just an exact replica of the book. In general, I think that book is quite similar to what was shown in the movie. However, there are some differences between the book and the film, especially the ending. In the movie, the wolves are killed in the end while, in the book, the wolves survive. I think that this change in the ending of the story was made purposely by filmmakers. The murder of wolves’ family at the end of the film (which didn’t exist in the original) gives to whole story its dramatic tone and makes people think further about the violent treatment of people towards wolves. Usually, the films with some tragic or dramatic ending gives people more “food” to debate after watching it and makes them think about the moral described in the film.

I really liked this film, because it contains some mystery and shows the nature in its most beautiful side. The amazing images of Canadian tundra and animals, the actors’ play, the music, the atmosphere given trough the screen and the story were just amazing. Moreover, the absence of long dialogs between characters and human voices in the film makes the film even more interesting and mysterious. This silence which was replaced by the sounds of the nature and wolves howling gives an amazing impression and plunge you completely into the atmosphere of the movie.