Film Responses : Bringing Down a Dictator , Corporation and The Thirst - Movie Review Example

Film Response Bringing Down a Dictator" This paper encompasses a discussion of my reaction to the movie "Bringing Down a Dictator" by Sheen, York and Zimmerman. This film illustrates the resistance to power using peaceful measures. The film is both a moving and inspiring film an it displays the tenets of some great anthropological thinkers while telling its story. Resistance of power is not an easy thing for people to do. Historically in many instances those that resist power or question authority are literally brought down by the authority. There are many ways that individuals can resist and many times, it is done in a nonviolent manner. In this film this type of nonviolent resistance can be seen. The film depicts the cry of the Serbian people and their stand to authority. They do not use violence or weapons to take their stand and make their cry for help. The weapons they implement are ridicule, rock and roll music and civil disobedience. My reaction to this was a mix between amusement and awe. The tactics they used to resist power were amusing to me yet I was in awe at the bravery it took to use the tactics and was further awed by the fact that it worked. An inequality in power has always existed in society. The film "Bringing Down a Dictator" shows what can happen when individuals question this power and by using self-reliance and independent thinking can resist the power. This film tells the story of Slobodan Milosevic and a group of students and at the same time Milosevic struggled to hold power in Yugoslavia and the OTPOR. The OTPOR is a student movement and in Mosevic's attempt to hold power the regime was attacked. The standard norms for an attack-bombs, guns and weapons- were not used. Rather the attack on the regime was done through the use of ridicule, rock music and an eagerness and compliance to being arrested. The courage and boldness of the protesters inspired other students and citizens. They were motivated by the actions of the students and others joined in to work together to conquer their fear and join the fight. This ultimately led to Milosevic's fall from power, arrest and extradition to The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity. It is not common for "the peasants to revolt" so when they do their resistance to power is a matter of interest. James c. Scott was particularly interested in power and everyday forms of resistance. Michael Foucault's views on social power gave me a perspective on the film and gave me plenty to think about along with the film. Both these great thinkers can add enlightenment to "Brining Down a Dictator" and why the "peasants" did what they did. My response to the film was that I was overwhelmed. I was overwhelmed at the acts of resitance and that they were able to overthrow Milosevic. The creative way in which they brought him down was quite astonishing also. I cannot believe that anyone would view this film and not feel completely inspired, as I know I was. Most of us accept power and never resist it so it took a lot of courage for it to be done in this film. The non-violent manner in which the dictator, Mikolvec, was overthrown was absolutely genius. It proved to me that you do not have to fight fire with fire literally. In reading the thoughts of James C. Scott when he states, "that peasant rebellions can only be understood in the light of a peasant system of values which is irrevocably linked to their subsistence requirements." (Scott 1985) By this he meant that if someone does not understand the severity of a plight of the people it is difficult to empathize with them. I will be honest I could not relate to the way the people in "Bringing Down the Dictator" were living. This is not because their plight and circumstances were not believable to me. It is because I have never been in a situation where I was as totally helpless as these people were and had no option but to resist. Scott has some other notable premises that apply to resisting power and apply to this film. Scott looks at the ordinary and finds extraordinary things in them. After viewing this film I do not feel the people in it were so ordinary. To resist power in the manner that they did and to succeed is anything but an ordinary gesture. I think Scott saw this and points out through his observations of the ordinary and their resistance to power that they are not ordinary at all. Rather courageous if not brilliant. Foucault also has some interesting and enlightening perspectives that are relevant to this film. Foucault's perspectives on resitance power agree to some degree with the tenets of Scott. They agree, and apply to "Bringing Down the Dictator" in the respect that those who resist are normally the peasant and the ordinary. Resistance of power is about the inequality of power and those in charge do not really have a lot to resist. The old adage "it's good to be king" has some credence when applying it to the resistance of power. If you are the king and in charge and making the rules it is the peasants that a problem not you. this was certainly the scenario in the film and it is certainly a scenario that both Scott and Foucault visit often in their premises. Foucault has written about Kant and universal freedom. When he writes about freedom he correlates with why people resist power and the end notion is that freedom is the basis for the resistance. Foucault explains, "the concept of freedom is located in Enlightenment thought. In this paradigm, the exercise of freedom is seen as an inherently rational property". I found this idea by Foucault to be significant to the film. People resist because freedom is an inherent property. I found this interesting that he refer to freedom as property because property is the basis to why people desire power and sometimes resistance results. The ordinary people that resist power in the film want basic things and they are rights that any human being should be entitled to. They used their self-reliant thinking to resist in a manner that was not violent. In fact, I found their technique genius and successful. The reason for most resistances to power is basic. People want freedom, the opportunity to be free thinkers and to be afforded the chance for enlightenment. After viewing the film and considering the thoughts of both Scott and Foucault I believe that people resist power because of extremes. Extremes in the social classes, incomes and privileges of freedom. Scott touches a little on the premises of extremes and I agree. Scott writes, "conformity is calculated, not unthinking, and beneath the surface of symbolic and ritual compliance there is an undercurrent of ideological resistance, just as beneath the surface peace there is continuous material resistance." (Scott) After viewing this film I realized that many times people have nothing to fight back with. They are poor and only have their minds and ingenuity and courage to fight with. An army is expensive and in order to resist something you need a plan of attack I do feel now that although I did not understand prior to this why some people just complied. I now realize that it requires resources and bodies to resist. I also take resources to recruit bodies to resist so sometimes a resistance to power is wanted but not attainable. This film was truly inspiring because the resources that the people used were their ingenuity, courage and desire. Although power comes down to resources, property and money I do not feel there is a monetary worth that could be put on the resources of these resistors. References Foucault, Michael. (2002) "Discourse, Power, Resistance". As viewed on the worldwide web at URL http://www.foucault.info/weblog/000019.html Newman, Saul. (2003) "Stirner and Foucault: Toward a Post-Kantian Freedom" University of Western Australia. Sheen, Martin York, Steve, and Zimmerman, Miriam. (2002) "Bringing down a dictator" Films for the Humanities. Princeton New Jersey. York Zimmerman Inc Film Response: "Corporation" The movie "The Corporation" directed by Jennifer Abbott Mark Achbar (2003), is certainly a movie that left me with a lot to think about. However, in all honest there was nothing in that really shocked or surprised me. Although I am aware of the corporate greed that exists in the world , especially America, the greed in this movie did bother me. A reviewer wrote of the film "50 years ago, the corporation was a relatively insignificant institution. Today, it is a pervasive presence in all our lives. However, history has humbled dominant institutions, eventually crushing, belittling or absorbing them into a new order. I am not the only one concerned with this new age of globalization that we live in. Two great anthropological thinkers, Joo Pedro Stedile and Naomi Klein, have theories and perspectives to offer on this new phenomena in our culture. Stedile believes that the strategic thinking behind the assortment of movements currently challenging neoliberal globalization is necessary in the world we live in today. He contends that globalization is a movement and so is anti globalization and he feels that people must band together against the US-dominated world system. The movie certainly supports the tenets of Stedile and his movement. The movie reveals behind-the-scenes tensions and influences in several corporate and anti-corporate dramas, through jaw-dropping case studies and true confessions, providing a much-needed analysis of global commerce." (Jack Taylor, The Baltimore Sun) This is relevant to our discussion because it includes vicious resistance by individuals that organize group and community protests against these mega-corporations. The people resist the power of these corporate giants and have had success and have been defeated. What is important is that he communities are aware of what is happening and the power that these corporations are gaining. The fact that people are banding together to stop this uncontrollable gain of power is somewhat refreshing even if it is not successful. Naomi Klein takes an interesting look at the world of corporate globalization that we live in her book "No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs" (2003) This book givers her views in the age of mega globalization that we live in and what she says in her work has a direct relation to the movie "The Corporation" and the thoughts and feelings the film stirred in me. We live in an age where image is nearly everything and image means status. Klein feels that we live in an age where the proliferation of brand-name culture has created as Klein writes, "walking, talking, life-sized Tommy [Hilfiger] dolls, mummified in fully branded Tommy worlds." Brand identities are even flourishing online, she notes--and for some retailers, perhaps best of all online: "Liberated from the real-world burdens of stores and product manufacturing, these brands are free to soar, less as the disseminators of goods or services than as collective hallucinations." (Klein) Just as Stedile believes there should be an anti-globalization movement so did the people featured in the film "The Corporation". The objective of the movement proposed by Stedile is to be a non-violent stand against the corporate giants. This was the goal of the people featured in the film as well. Although people want to resist power it should not be taken for granted that they want to revolt violently. In truth the fact is quite contradictory and most individuals would prefer to resist power in a peaceful way. Stedile and his cohorts are trying to begin a movement by informing people and recruiting them through their writings and "spreading the word" so to speak. What both of these anthropologists are brining to our attention is that if there is greed there is power. So for an anti-globalization movement to take effect as Stedile has suggested is not an absurd premise. When individuals resist power they are also in a sense resisting greed. Both Stedile' s and Klein's thoughts about the mega-corporate powers, lend some credence to the notion of greed and corporate power in the respect that power is a structure and a political process. That notion brings new light to the globalization of the age we live in. In reality corporations are becoming so large they are as big as governments and as hard to fight. What Stedile and Klein are working so hard to point out is that we must fight them just as we would fight a government. We must band together as communities, just as they did in the film, an show our anger and let our voices be heard. Stedile has pointed out how corporations are becoming so large they are controlling us and we must take a stand before it is too late. He is correct when he says that we live in an age of globalization and we have to do something about it. These corporations are becoming their own democracy as Stedile has said and we have to fight the superpower however we can. Klein patiently demonstrates, step by step, how brands have become ubiquitous, not just in media and on the street but increasingly in the schools as well. (The controversy over advertiser-sponsored Channel One may be old hat, but many readers will be surprised to learn about ads in school lavatories and exclusive concessions in school cafeterias.) (Klein) The resistance to power was present in this film. There was numerous community driven protests against the globalization of these corporations. I think that resistance to power occurs when people feel they are losing control of their lives and their rights as individuals to be individuals. What I found scary about "corporation" was that the protestors that resisted this power of the corporations could have clearly been up against a bigger entity than a government. Works Cited Abbott, Jennifer and Achbar, Mark. "The Corporation" (2003) Mark Achbar Klein, Naomi. "No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs" (2003) Stedile, Pedro. "The Movement of Movements: A Reader Verso", 2004 Film Response The Thirst To resist power requires a paramount effort. In order to establish the motivation necessary to successfully resist power, normally a grave injustice must take place. In the film "The Thirst" a great injustice is happening. "Thirst" addressed a situation where a corporation was making a move to control and profit from water by privatizing it. The heinous thing about it was that the water they wanted to control was not only bottled but from the tap as well. I found "Thirst" to be disturbing. Disturbing in the respect that to control, our water is the ultimate in control in my opinion. The famous quote states that "all is fair in love and war" I believe to attempt to control water is a gesture that falls under fair game in a war. In "Thirst" obviously there was resistance to the power however the common and ordinary person was literally defenseless against the privatization. The control of power in "Thirst is being gained by taking away rights that we believe are 'God given". Water is a basic human need and it is required for survival. Yet the attempt to control the water was still present. Freedom, the right t of free thought and self-reliance are to some degree taken away when a basic human need like water is controlled. If water is controlled than the individuals in the community feel helpless over the control of their lives and in a sense their freedom and self-reliant thought. By controlling the human needs of individuals they are showing ultimate power and ultimate control. Anthropologists Donna Haraway and Susan Bordo have views on power and the body and essential this is what "Thirst" is all about. By attempting to control the water, a human basic need, the corporation took freedom from the people according to Haraway. Haraway is a feminist that writes about what she writes and the tenets that Haraway has are relevant to "Thirst". She explains that body is identity and to feel good about ourselves as individuals or as women we must feel we have control over out bodies and feel that we are not getting others tell us what to do in respect to them. I believe it all goes back to greed and control, whether the issue is the female body or as in thirst the human body. Susan Bordo , also a feminist, has written and has theories that are similar to those of Haraway. However, both of these women's tenets are important when applying them to "Thirst" because ultimately it all comes back to control and control of the body is almost as bad of control of the mind. In a sense the two go together and it Is a total invasion of freedom to attempt to control either of these things. To control a basic human need is to control that human's freedom. To do this brings up the discussion of what is moral and moral law. Haraway said, "human freedom is moral law that is based on freedom-the rational individual freely chooses out of a sense of duty to adhere to universal moral maxims. Thus, for moral laws to be rationally grounded they cannot be based on any form of coercion or constraint." (Haraway) there was a resistance to power in this film. The resistance was a very passionate one because it dealt with control but even deeper than that individuals thought it was control of their bodies. As Bordo has pointed out " The society. Whether it is a government or a global corporation, one person cannot resist power and be successful. Rather it is the sum of all of the individuals and the society. Society dictates moral law and what is accepted. If the society deems something not moral or not acceptable it is" According to the tenets of both of the anthropologists, and those of myself after viewing this film, the responsibility of the society to fight the power through means of resistance is necessary when an invasion like this occurs. "Thirst" left me thinking. I pondered the notion that maybe we, as individuals, of a society are too caught up with our ordinary lives that we barely give resistance to power until it becomes the worse case scenario and our freedoms are at risk. To control water is an act that defies moral law according to the thoughts of both these anthropologists and defies the moral laws governing our bodies. When one steals a person's basic needs or sense of moral law they rob that person of their freedom. As Foucault said about moral laws "they must be freely adhered to as a rational act of the individual. We essentially dictate our bodies in our society. A society can be as small as a community so after considering the tenets of both Scott and Foucault, I wonder if we do not have some responsibility to dictate this law ourselves. In essence we helped mold the moral laws and if we want to change them or protect them we must resist power when necessary. Works Cited Snitow Alan, and Kaufman, Deborah. (2004) "Thirst" Fred Firth Films. Read More