Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Born in flames (1983)
I came to the screening of Born in flames with no idea of what the film would be. This lo-fi, anarcho-feminist film is both thrilling and endearing, unlike any other film I have seen (the only comparison I can think of is some of Derek Jarman's more apocalyptic, punk-ish work). Set in a gritty NYC where a quasi-socialist regime has taken over, the film presents an unflinching, militant view of the need for changing the world and listening to different voices. The film presents protests and rebellion in a society that is just only in name ... Oh, I think we live in that society. A women's army speaks and acts out against injustices in different parts of city life, in the workplace, in the economy, discrimination against lesbians, sexual violence, genderized racism. The style of the film is quite fantastic. It doesn't try to create a narrative. Rather, the film is a tract, a brash manifesto if you want, that doesn't settle with any answer other than that we need a beutiful world for everyone, and that it isn't for sure this one. Born in flames is an underground gem, and I'm happy to have seen it. The soundtrack is very nice, too - who can capture the spirit of revolt better than The Slits? Nobody, that's who! The contemporary NYT reviewers said that there is nothing cinematic about the editing style. I would say the opposite: this is an attempt to create a revolutionary, associative film, and the montage style of the movie has everything to do with politics. -- Born in Flames is one of the very few American films I've seen to explore the concept and realization of collective action. It is also one of the most hopeful portrayals I've seen about the nature of acting together, coming together in the need to act. This is the Arendtian take on radical, lesbian and black feminism!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment