The Garden Of The Finzi Continis - Nested Illusions Between and Betwixt The Self And The Other

Director Vittorio de Sica presents his on-screen adaptation of Giorgio Bassani’s autobiographical novel of the same title. The film has had its share of very worthy praises, materialized by numerous film awards bannered by the Oscar Best Foreign Film in 1971. It excels rather remarkably on various technical aspects as well, such as cinematography, lighting and music, as unanimously concurred by the various film reviews I have read. Most especially the latter, which according to them (and I agree) is rather very enchanting. It deviates from the normal use of “climactic” background music employed by mainstream films to stimulate the emotions of its audience (in short, I wasn’t really into the movie the first time I saw it) but instead used rather soothing harmonies all throughout the course of the plot.

Also, what seems to be a primarily a romantic film with a twist, with character subtleties making the film not really easy-viewing, had in fact socio-political allegories in its sleeve. Aside from it very political historical backdrop of anti-Semitist fascist Italy, according to film reviews, the garden of the Finzi-Continis itself, presented in many scenes, represents the lethargic, wait-and-see attitude of Italians, Jews and non-Jews alike, as response to the very grave political unrest happening around them. The tranquility inside the garden very much in contrast to the political unrest occurring outside presents the expectation of the Italian people, Jews and non-Jews alike, that the situation would not affect them severely and harmony would not be significantly disturbed by these racialist policies (Ebert, 1971). Yet, as de Sica (purposely) did not orient us of the visual boundaries of the garden, so were there uncertainties in this optimism of the Italian people. And as we all know the unfortunate fate of the Italian Jews in real life during the WWII, so was the garden breached, and the family seeking refuge inside the garden, the Finzi-Continis, was in the end rounded up as well. It implies that nothing one has, even wealth, education and prestige, or one does, can hide him from the harshness of “mindless, irrational bigotry” of the powerful people around him (Berardinelli, 2005).


One social concept this film tackles (and the supposed theme under which this film was ideally shown for) is the idea of race relations. Here the film reinforces one basic assumption on race relations: that the parameters on how people interact with others of the same race and of another are very highly political- that is, power dynamics are always involved.

Yet it is very interesting to start first with the concept of race itself. ‘Race’ is a concept used by people to distinguish their group from another on the grounds of supposed physical and genetic differences (Heywood, 2002). From a radical (but maybe in fact more appropriate) point of view, race implies the existence of biological determined physical and mental differences logically rendering some population inferior to others (Montagu, 1997). Yet, as science today refutes, this biological determination of social divisions (and hence society) is not really true (remember Solly in Europa Europa?). Therefore, the supposedly objective basis of the formation of race is now in fact rendered useless, which in turn implies that what is left as basis for the formation of race are the subjective reasons of the persons who formulated those. Note that the formation and justification of race are due to the efforts of a few people like Gobineau, H.S. Chamberlain and Hitler, and the traditional biologists and anthropologists that surround them, whose size is very much small compared to the millions of people they are trying to categorize.

Hence it is reasonable to conclude that there exists a very elitist nature in race formation that places power in the hands of the very few to dictate and justify the fate of the very much larger population.


The film’s plot then presents us a variety of race dynamics. First, there may occur a state of harmony (general peace and order) between people of different races. This is exemplified by the presumed status quo of the early 20th century Italian society, wherein the two races Jews and Aryans lived together without conflict and discrimination. Then, notice the introduction of anti-Semitist policies disturbed the normal activities of the people in Ferrara, thereby creating conflict. Here we see the second dynamic, where conflict between different races results from a certain stimulus that disrupted the initial status quo of harmony, which in general is characterized by social and political unrest. Here we can see the significance of the one who controls such stimulus, specifically the government at large. Hitler and Mussolini’s decisions greatly resulted to conflict between the Aryans and the Jews, leading onwards to the holocaust of the latter. Lastly, it is also possibly to happen that conflict may arise from members of the same race. Here the reason for conflict is clearly not racial prejudices, since they have common races. Therefore there must be some other form of social division that may trigger such conflict- and in the case of the film it was class, as exemplified by the antagonistic relation of Giorgio Lattes to the Finzi-Continis. But though this is basically class conflict, it must be noted that the conflicting parties are of the same race, and that the pretext of this conflict arose due to the same stimulus that caused the second dynamic, which is basically race motivated.

Here we see the effects of prevailing political conditions over occurring race relations. Hence it is but logical that those who dictate or influence these political conditions have considerable power over race relations itself.

Politics in its general sense, applied to the society at large and not just the government, is basically the dynamics of power- how power is used to influence the lives of others. And here, we saw that the power to create social divisions and the power to utilize them for specific means greatly affects the life of the people living in the present generation and most probably the fate of the people in the next generation.

References:
Berardinelli, James. 1996. found in http://www.rottentomatoes.com
Ebert, Roger. 1971. found in http://www.rogerebert.com
Heywood, Andrew. 2002. Politics. Palgrave Macmillan: New York Hampshire.
Montagu, Ashley. 1997. Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. Altamira Press: Sage Publications.

D. Barnachea



The Garden of the Finzi-Continis was known as Vittorio de Sica’s comeback movie, and one of his most celebrated ones. It was released in 1971, three years before the death of de Sica in 1974, and won an Academy Award in 1972 for Best Foreign Film and a Golden Bear Award at the Berlin International Film Festival in 1971. It was based on an autobiographical novel of the same title, which was set in Ferrara, Italy, the same place where the movie was filmed.

The movie’s overall plot was very subdued. The first time I watched it, I thought it was mainly a love story, Giorgio and Micol’s love story to be specific. Basically it was yet another period film about the Holocaust. What makes it different from other Holocaust films is that it did not give emphasis to the horrors of the concentration camps and the Jewish ghettos. It showed, however subtly, the events that led to it, the visible tension in the air emanating from both the Jews and the non-Jews, the increasing persecution that the Jews are receiving. The Finzi-Continis’ garden became their sanctuary, both for the Jews and non-Jews alike. It became a safe haven for them, protecting the Jews from the constant persecution that they got outside its walls, and the non-Jews from a society that forces them to discriminate. It saved the affluent Finzi-Continis from the racial laws that the rest of the Jewish Italians were suffering from, however temporary. In the end though, the walls of the garden proved to be no match for the narrow-mindedness of the fascists, the Jewish intolerance that was infecting the entire country.

The Garden of the Finzi-Continis seems to define race or racial division in several ways. The first one is through its biological aspect. How can one say who is truly Aryan or not? Those who were born Aryans were the only ones seen as Italians. The Jews, who have spent their entire lives in Italy, no matter how much they try to convince themselves and the others that they were Italians, were still seen as someone of an entirely different race simply because they were born Jewish.

It also views race as a social construct. There was a very fluid idea of what race is in this film. The Finzi-Continis were seen as “non-Jews” by Giorgio’s father because of their wealth and, according to him, because they do not act like Jews. The idea of their “non-Jewish-ness” was apparent in the film. The only incidents of their Jewishness were when they were shown celebrating the Passover, and when they were taken away at the end of the movie. The fact that they seemed to be untouched by the Racial Laws may be a contributing factor to why they were separated from the rest of the Jews. When Jews were banned from public schools, Giorgio’s brother had to go to France to continue his studies, while Micol managed to get her degree in Berlin, her only problem was that her professor gave her a low grade for being a Jew. When Jews were prohibited from having Aryan servants, the Bassani’s had to cope without a maid while the Finzi-Continis kept all their servants. Giorgio was being kicked out of a public library while the Finzi-Continis had the convenience of having their own library. And when Giorgio was banned from playing tennis, Micol and Alberto held their own tennis tournaments in their garden. In a way, the garden became their division, the thing that sets apart the Bassanis from the Finzi-Continis. What used to be a sanctuary for both of them became the one thing that separates them.


Another subtle theme in the film is the indifference of the Italians to what is happening in other places. One scene in the movie shows Giorgio finding out about the concentration camps when he visited his brother in France. His brother comes to his defense, saying that these kinds of things were not discussed in Italy. It may be that the Italians didn’t really know, or they simply chose not to know about the horrors of racial prejudice.

It wasn’t just Italy that was separated from the rest of Europe, the Jews in Italy were indifferent to what was happening to the rest of the Jewish community. As long as they weren’t the ones affected, they just let the injustice happening around them to continue. To quote Giorgio’s line: “There have always been few enough rights for everyone..” Their tolerance for the increasing maltreatment that they were experiencing was seen by Giorgio’s father’s decision to keep supporting the government even when they were already suffering from the Racial Laws.

“… we all kept quiet as long as we weren’t hit.” Point driven.

- V.R. Alberto

The Tin Drum - Paradox In Ideological Adherence

Should I or shouldn’t I?
I should, I must.
I will grow.

The last words of Oskar Matzareth which marked his transition from childhood to adulthood independence.

Growth (transition from youth to adulthood) involves time, change and transformation; thus, it requires ‘sacrificing’ or letting go of one’s past and present state/situation to fulfill one’s perceived expectation of his/her role in society in the future (being an adult). Generally, we have gone through the ‘youth’ stage as Oskar Matzerath wanted to remain and permanently be. In the movie Die Blechtrommel (the Tin Drum), Oskar’s fixated behavior on his tin drum portrayed our youth – highlighted by his roles, beliefs, ideology and actions. But the over-display and exaggeration of Oskar’s capability and behavior shown in the film simply intended to show how culture, society and environment defined an individual’s perception of the ‘world’ – his ideology. Captured by Oskar’s fanatical and aggressive manners, I will examine the external environment, culture and society affect the transformation of an individual identity (concentrating on the youth identity of Oskar). After looking at the micro-level impact of the socializing agents, I will also look how culture sets political priorities and how culture forms/cause political mobilization.

Under the Skirt Environment
The movie Die Blechtrommel (the Tin Drum) occurred in Danzig, during the early 1900s before the World War II. This period can be referred to the rise of Nazism (or National Socialism) in the region. In the film, after the birth of Oskar, his parents waved a tiny Nazi flag in front of him. This demonstrated the prominence of the Nazi status in Danzig during the start of the 1900s. More so, during this period of intrusion and domination by the Nazis, it showed superiority, violence and force in the region (that is why the novel of Grass raised serious issues on contemporary Germans, which involved the Germans responsible for the Nazi war crimes). Consequently, the Nazi superiority penetrated itself in the society and culture of the free city, Danzig, marked by intruding/interfering with individual ‘rights’ (privacy of Anna Koljaiczek), family struggles, military obligations (shown by Alfred, Oskar’s father), destruction of peace in community (damage done to infrastructures and businesses) and clash with the Polish (combat in the Polish post office).

On top of these effects, the movie points on the individual level – specifically Oskar’s youth identity – as the most striking implication of the repressive order. Oskar, at a young age (or even before he entered the world from his mother’s womb), have already witnessed and have been exposed to this dark society which causes him to hide in his grandmother’s skirt to escape this repressive, dominated Nazi condition. As a result, Oskar has created and made his own world known as ‘under skirt’ world – wherein his rebellious and defiant beliefs, attitude and behavior have been shaped. The point I want to make is that when external forces enter a certain culture and society, it may change (low or high level of effect) the society’s structure (attitude, ideology) and society’s direction (goals, motivations). Moreover, it did not only alter the structure of the society but is also defined and transformed the individual formation.


The Binding Triangle
We are immersed in what may be called the triangular socializing and limiting agents in life – the environment, the society and the culture. To further elaborate my point in the first part, environment refers to the external agents and forces that offer and provide a transformative and new line of values, ideas and behavior (which may directly or indirectly attack the population). Culture, on the other hand, may view these external agents/forces as a threat to the overall structure and organization of the community. Culture offers a worldview that explains why and how individuals and groups behave as they do, and includes both cognitive and affective beliefs about social reality and assumptions about when, where and how people in one’s culture and those in other cultures are likely to act in particular ways (Ross 1997). Culture then provides a shield/guard to resist the external threats through the norms, rituals, traditions and value system. However, knowing these norms, rituals and traditions are not enough to safe guard us from threats and dismantling our loyalty and unity; and therefore, we need society - society refers to a collection of people bound by shared institutions that define how human relations should be conducted (Ross 1997). This means that institutions build ties and bonds among us; it socializes and makes as aware of these norms, laws, standards and the roles we play in the community. The society and culture here may be considered as binding agents against the external forces (threats).

However, external forces still do enter and break the walls of culture and the society. Indeed, it is difficult to separate and distinguish the effect of each agents from the other especially in the modern multi-cultural and globalized world.

Inside the Bermuda Triangle (the dark society) – the Youth Identity
The triangular socializing factors (environment, culture and society) define our roles and boundaries. Furthermore, socio-cultural groups and institutions entail clear expectations about how people are to act depending on our roles. In the film the Tin Drum, Oskar revealed the general value and behavior of the youth. Youth, which was exhibited in the movie, is not a universal category of biology but a changing social construct which appeared at a particular moment of time under definitive conditions (Barker 2000). This means that youth can be understood as a spatial matter, that is, youth may be produced differently in divergent spaces and places. Furthermore, in abstract, youth is a social position between childhood dependence and adult responsibility can be seen in the institutions of the family and education (Barker 2000). Therefore, childhood dependence and reliance leads to subordination and under the control of adults in society (parents in the family institution, teachers in the academic world). The young are then given limited avenues of freedom and expression and even are restricted in their actions, values and behavior.

Oskar also experienced the same limitation and restriction in his beliefs, interests and in his character. His social experiences within institutions such as family, school organizations and military exposure all provided cultural messages which reflected his values and expectations. However, cultural messages allow different interpretations and internalizations. In the case of Oskar, he viewed and understood his environment and society to be a repressive and unjust state which established his outlook and values towards his life and the world. In this state of transition, Oskar has invested in it as a privileged site in which to foreground his own sense of difference marked with the refusal to identify with the perceived routinized everyday life and perceived subordination. Youth has now become an ideological signifier charged with ‘anti-society, pro-self’ perception of the world. His behavior and attitude is feared by others as a potential threat to existing norms and system. According to Barker, youth is an especially formative stage of development, where attitudes and values become anchored to ideologies and remain fixes in this mould for life (Barker, 2000). Also, the transition from childhood dependence to adult autonomy normally involves a rebellious phase, which is itself part of a cultural tradition transmitted from one generation to the next (Barker 2000). Therefore, when young people go ‘out of bounds’, they get noticed and become visible. This allows them to ‘play with the only power at their disposal – the power to discomfort, to pose a threat’.


Idiosyncratic Ideology
Ideology is set of values and ideas regarding fundamental goals of social interaction (Oneil 2004). Our ideologies are based on our interpretations of particular social and political significance. Individual ideology has the ability to mobilize action and values. In fact, Oskar has demonstrated his ‘self-centered’ and ‘anti–socal’ identity through (1) his tin drum and (2) his high, glass-breaking scream. These two forces was a sign of his protest towards the hypocritical German-polish family and disgusted by the German society. He used both protest tools in order to control people (parents – Alfred, Jan and Agnes) and situations happening around him (confusing Nazi marches and bands, disrupt fascist rallies).

This individual protest/demonstration was built on his anger and perceived threat to his (selfish) values and personal favor. Likewise, cultural mobilization builds on fears and perceived threats that are consistent with internalized worldviews (against their high-group quality interaction and emotional solidarity).

Culture order political priorities (Ross 1997), meaning, it defines the symbolic and material objects people consider valuable and worth fighting over. Culture then defines interests and how they are to be pursued. Groups and sectors do have certain valued and observed norms, ideals and convictions. Once these ideals and convictions are threatened, they may organized collection action to foreground their own sense of difference and may demonstrate their disagreement and opposition especially to a repressive environment.

In relation to Oskar, his attachment to his tin drum symbolized him. The tin drum became part of him. You cannot separate him and his tin drum as you cannot separate his youth to his life. This showed who he was and what mattered fighting over – his life, his youth.

Should I or shouldn’t I?
I fought. I did.
I have grown.

References:

Barker (2000). “Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice”, Chapter 11: Youth, Style and Resistance.
Oneil, P (2004). Essentials of Comparative Politics. NY:W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.

Ross, M. (1997), “Culture and Identity in Comparative Analysis,” Chapter 3 of Mark Lichbach’s and Alan Zuckerman’s Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure.

J. P. Uy



The movie The Tin Drum (Die Blechtrommel) is about a young boy named Oskar who lived during the World War II in Germany and refused to grow up at three years old. He deliberately threw himself from the stairs in order to stop his growth; being aware of the unfaithful relationships and the unforgiving realities of grown-ups, Oskar did not want to take part of this ‘adulthood’.

On his third birthday, Oskar received a new drum. Whenever his parents or other people around him treat him harshly, he beats on his drum as loud as he can; and when his tin drum is taken away from him, he gives an ear-piercing shriek that literally breaks glass.

The tin drum here is used as a metaphor about refusing the Nazi regime. Oskar’s refusal to grow and give up his drum is a metaphor on resisting the Nazis. the manifestations of this are when he was forced to do something he did not want or there were situations he did not favor, he forcefully hammered on his drum, like in the classroom scene or when he followed his mother and her lover to the hotel. If analyzed closely, we will see that Oskar’s resistance and refusal to the unfavorable situation is like an individual’s resistance and refusal to the regime which he/she thinks is wrong. Another scene which is more obvious was when Oskar decided to give up his drum and to continue his growth after his father’s death. Alfred Matzerath’s death symbolizes the fall of Nazism. The screenplay is based on the celebrated novel of German author Gunter Grass.

In this movie, it is shown how ideology, a system of illusory beliefs—false ideas or false consciousness—which can be contrasted with true or scientific knowledge, affects the course of action taken by the individual. Ideology here is linked with the behavior of escapism.


This is exactly how Marxists view religion—that it is the opium of the masses. Religion gives false hopes to suffering people who expect that they will be saved from hell’s fire and will experience eternal happiness after their present lives. Another example would be how people believe that joining the lottery or game shows would instantly eliminate their poverty. Charms and crystals bring good luck and therefore should always be worn.

Man cannot face all its problems and solve everything that is why they create means to give an easy answer or a short-term solution, which is basically the nature of ideology.

Oskar’s belief that his tin drum could save him in times of trouble led him to somehow control his parents and the people around him. It serves as his protection from being accountable to his actions and being condemned. He used it to gain attention. During his teenage years, he ran away from home to leave his miserable life and relationships behind and joined the circus, performing with his drum and his glass-breaking talent.


The movie is political in the sense that Oskar used his tin drum to defend himself. The tin drum and the scream serve as his power—the power to control or change, and at the same time his sanctuary—to escape from the miseries and truth.

Sometimes, we run from the judging eyes of society by settling on a certain group of ideas which we can relate to and will be able to justify our actions. And we live our lives based on that ideology. It is a reaction or a response to the norms imposed by society.

O. Woods

Farewell My Concubine - The Contextualization of Choice

Historical it is. Or is it? Is it merely it? Chen Kaige’s Farewell My Concubine is indeed a magnificent piece of art which exemplifies nothing less than art itself, the Peking opera, which is actually the ultimate form of Chinese art I must say.

The portrayal of the Peking opera, as well as the people around it however is so strong and is intensely submerged within history that at the peak of historical and cultural unfolding in China, I came into thinking that it is not simply a historical film. This is not just about the evolution of the Peking opera. It’s revolution.

Having known of the Kaige’s first-hand experience of the Cultural Revolution in China, it then became clear that the film is nothing less than a critique to the movement which attempted to vanquish all previous elements – may it be in religion or art – in China. The Cultural Revolution did not only take away China’s old culture. It has taken away China’s higher culture.

The movie however did not show that solely on the history of opera, and instead also somewhat portrayed it in other forms such as thought the lives of Farewell My Concubine the play’s Concubine Yu, and the Peking Opera actor Cheng Dieyi. The opera’s attempt to resist and struggle against Cultural Revolution is also thus mirrored in the lives of the two characters in the film.

There were therefore three faces of revolution that were showcased in the film. It was the battles and hardships of Concubine Yu, representing a classic Peking Opera piece; Cheng Dieyi, an image of a celebrated Peking Opera actor; and the Peking Opera itself – all struggling to preserve their own but shared glorious moments in China’s cultural stage.

For comparison, I was able to see some points of parallelisms, as shown in the film, among the lives of these three characters. Grounds for comparisons are thus set to further understand how the director have progressed the revolting dispositions of each of the said characters, representing the revolting Peking Opera on a macro level of Chinese Cultural revolution.


The characters, except maybe for Concubine Yu, have undergone a painstaking path to greatness. At a young age, Dieyi was faced with tremendous challenges, before and upon entering opera. From the beginning he was looked down by society, being a prostitute’s son, as well as having eleven fingers, on which the eleventh was cut by his own mother, he then encountered more challenges inside the opera as he was harshly forced to think of himself as a girl. Perfect should be the word and there is certainly no room for mistakes. That one also goes with Peking Opera. It was first shown as something being done merely on streets colorless, helpless. It was a struggling path for the opera, same as Dieyi’s. It was the begging for finding, the never-ending training for the actors, the hard beatings of the students, and the like – all for the dreamt glorious days of the Peking Opera.

As portrayed, the Peking Opera have had absolutely high standards. It was considered close to sacred as imperfections were certainly not allowed. Everyone behind it has put up tremendous efforts just to uphold the highly precious Peking Opera. The opera was nonetheless a product of sweat, tears, and blood and Kaige was needless to say successful in making reels out of it.

The glorious days of the opera came as the stage was painted with different colors. With colorful costumes, makeup, props, acrobatics, dances songs, the film was actually Peking Opera brought back to life. It seemed quite effortless for the film to show hoe Peking Opera was then adored, respected, and appreciated, by the Chinese who were genuinely fans of opera. The character of Dieyi also experienced the golden moments of her life the same time as the Peking Opera have. Opera indeed was the center of Dieyi’s life. It might have even become his life. It was certainly an amazing display of Chinese culture before the Cultural Revolution. Everyone definitely has put the highest premium to the Peking Opera, and has worshipped its actors. Everyone loved Peking Opera.


Another interesting points in the movie is the depiction of Peking Opera’s resilience and resistance to destruction,, even though it witnessed power’s several change of hands. The actors were constantly performing, and the stage was constantly filled with color, even though the backdrop of the audience symbolized by varying flags was constantly changing, until the Cultural Revolution was imposed by the new holder of power.

Decades of greatness or the Peking Opera was suddenly, immediately shattered by that imposition. As everything in the past was tagged as evil, the Peking Opera, at least that which the people knew during that time, as also considered as such and thus, must be at all means, destroyed. Repercussions on the life of the people, not just those within the Peking Opera, were for sure also ruined, as the character of Dieyi has exhibited. It was then time to bid the great Peking Opera goodbye, as that for Cheng Dieyi, and Concubine Yu. It was then farewell.

Farewell My Concubine has captured the greatness of the Peking Opera until it was finally shattered by Cultural Revolution. It was such an intensely, as well as a passionately, created film which was in a sense meant to let today’s people of China realize what they had back then, back when their higher culture was eliminated, back when they still have their highest form of heritage. Kaige undeniably created a very strong medium for political socialization, through political realizations of there’s such a thing. It was indeed so hard to bid farewell to a nation’s foundational treasures, even if someone argues that it is for the building of better ones. Nevertheless, Chen Kaige’s farewell My Concubine is certainly one great national treasure all for the Chinese to keep.

- Gandia



For a film that lasts for almost three hours, I may say that the film, “Farewell, My Concubine” was really worth my time.

Originally entitled “Bàwáng Bié Jī ”, this 1993 Chinese period film which was directed by Fifth Generation film maker Chen Kaige, shows the story of two opera performers of the Peking Opera Troupe, Xiaolou and Deiyi, as they undergone the different periods of political upheavals in China and how, these period of time had affected their lives as well as their art. Recipient of the prestigious Palme d’Or award by Cannes Film Festival in 1993 (along with “The Piano”), Farewell, My Concubine can be classified into different genres, just as the same with the other film studies. As mentioned above, the film is mainly a period film but it could also fall under drama, romantic epic or classified to be a gay or lesbian film. And its themes include political unrest, totalitarian states, life in the arts, gender- bending (homosexuality), star- crossed lovers and, as what I found to be a very important theme, betrayal.

Now, aside from the abovementioned thematic focus of the film, there is one concept that I would like to be my central argument in this discussion and that is the concept of public and private divide. In this short entry, I would like to show how the Farewell, My Concubine encapsulates the “public vs. private” concept and show how the film, could be seen, in the end, to be an effective medium for political socialization.


So what is said to be public? And how does it differ from the private? The public, as Heywood defines it, are “the institutions of the state (the apparatus of government, the courts, the police, the army, the social security system and so forth) and can be regarded as ‘public’ in the sense that they are responsible for the collective organization of community life (Heywood, 2002).” This public realm is shown in the film in two ways. One which could be considered to be the public would be the different political periods (and political changes) that China had undergone, from the time before the People’s Republic of China came into existence. to the Japanese invasion of China, then to the rule of the National Government, then to the Chinese Civil War, up until the Cultural Revolution. The other, which could be said to be depicted in the film as the public, would be the Chinese society.

The private realm, on the other hand, are “areas of life that individuals can do and manage for themselves (the economic, social, domestic, personal, and artistic spheres, and so on) (Heywood, 2002).” In the film, this is also portrayed in two aspects- the first is the Peking Opera and the second, the lives of Deiyi and Xiaolou.

Now, the film shows that there exists an interplay between these two realms- the public and the private. The film explains that the two concepts are dialectical in nature and somehow, one could not be divided from the other. So how is this shown? For one, the film depicts the effects of various Chinese political turmoil during the 20th century on a Peking Opera Troupe and shows how half a century politics could greatly have an effect on the lives of two performers and friends. Clearly, we see how the public greatly affects the private and that the public has always something to do with how the private lives their lives. In particular, we see how the Cultural Revolution had affected the Peking Opera and how it had, in a way, contributed to the death of the art. Also, we saw how this revolution led to betrayal among the characters of the film. If we are to analyze this, we could say that the friendship which the two main characters have developed is a private thing and it should be kept as that. But due to the Cultural Revolution, we saw how a public matter had infiltrated this private thing which eventually led to its destruction.


Another example where this interplay of public and private is seen is during the scene when Juxian (wife of Xiaolou) killed herself. Suicide is indeed a private matter. However the reason behind it may be seen to be what is public. Though it had not been explained, we could say that she killed herself because of the betrayal that her husband did to her- again a private matter. But is it not that the reason why Xiaolou betrayed her was because it was what the public, in this context the cultural revolutionaries, dictated? Again, we see how the public affects the how the private reacts.

So how does this film becomes a medium for socialization? The film, as I see it, is used as a medium of political critique. The film is utilized as a critique to communism and shows that communism is not all good. This is turn leads us to accumulating the “other face” that communism could take and shows us how this communism caused the downfall of the art of the Chinese, which is the opera. A person who is so entranced with the goodness of Communism would probably, after watching the film, (the same with how I felt) not feel the same way. On the other hand, one who is so into the art of the opera would now, after the film, understand, in one way or the other, why communism had this bad feeling towards it. The art of opera has its bourgeois and royal traditions, something that the new regime opposes. In a more general view, since the film shows to us that the private is indeed intertwined with the public, this would lead us to acting in ways that in deciding on our private matters, now, we would take into consideration the public realm.

As a conclusion, I bring to you my favorite line in the film, one that I feel has a great part on both the lives of the characters. “by nature, I am a boy, not a girl.” Indeed, Deiyi, by nature is a boy, not a girl but he will always be Concubine Yu to me.

- Suyat

Europa Europa - The Parameters of Identity

Any film about Jews during the Second World War is ultimately bound to be a film about that darkest period of humanity’s inhumanity in the modern world--- the Holocaust. One may argue that ‘Europa, Europa’ is not really a film about the Holocaust because the main character, Solomon Perel(or Josef Peters) did not really experience the horrors of the Holocaust, but it most certainly is. Just as cinema is a series of pictures interspersed with a series of darkness, so is the film’s narrative not just about what is being shown but is also about what is not being shown.

As we watch Solly’s life unfold, we become acutely aware that it is unfolding in front of a curtain of unspeakable horror. The uneasiness grows in us, and it’s more unsettling than dealing with the graphic horrors of the Holocaust. The feeling is like watching Vivien Leigh in the shower in ‘Psycho’ and we start to say, “Hey, we like this!”, but we say it in a tentative, tremulous voice, knowing that Norman Bates is just behind the curtain ready to hack away at a moment’s notice.

Of course, the attack did not come. But the anticipation made us watch the entire film. Horror without the blood and gore is no less horrifying. A Holocaust film without a holocaust scene is no less terrifying.

But before I delve further in the film’s narrative, I wish to deal with the film ‘Europa, Europa’ as a commodity. In other words, how the film was made to be sold.

It was a film made after an autobiography by Solomon Perel started getting attention. Of course, the “hook” was: how could a Jew fool Germans by pretending to be an Aryan. The public lapped it up and the film, like so many before it, was made to make hay out of that public curiosity. As in the case of many biopics, some details of Perel’s life was glossed over or highlighted to create narrative tension and structure. Also, there are characters in this film such as the strong-willed, independent woman (like Leni who does not tolerate being physically hurt) or a homosexual soldier which I believe wouldn’t have been included or portrayed as such if this film was made in an earlier, more conservative era. I am pointing this out to underscore the fact that a film is a not just an artistic product but also a cultural product. Our appreciation of the film must never forget the cultural context that spawned it. Furthermore, the inclusion of such characters may have a financial motive. As women and homosexuals have asserted themselves as viable and ardent consumers of commodities (including films) in the early 1990’s, therefore there must have been a conscious effort by the film-makers not to gloss over those types of characters in order for the film to appeal to those specific target demographics. Then there is also the change in the title from “Hitlerjunge Salomon” or “Hitler’s Youth Solomon” to “Europa, Europa” which I believe was also made due to a marketing strategy. The distributors wanted to avoid the name “Hitler” which could alienate potential buyers through negative association with that name, and also perhaps to ride on the rising popularity of up-and-coming enfant terrible director Lars von Trier who made a film called Europa also on the same year.


Nevertheless, Europa is an effective film for political socialization, like other more celebrated Holocaust films like ‘Schindler’s List’, ‘The Pianist’ or ‘Fateless’, perhaps more. Holland, Europa’s director, dealt with the main character not as sympathetically as one might expect from a political film. She did not highlight Perel’s virtues or subdued his faults--- she depicted him as mere human--- able to dream, to doubt, to lie and to fall flat on his face. There was a hint of irony running through the film that makes us somehow alternately disdainful and sympathetic to the travails of the main character. The character then morphs into a puppet in the Japanese (or Indonesian) theatre: we may laugh or cry at what it does but the puppetmaster does not try to hide his face in the shadows---because he is the show and not the puppet.

The most moving scene in the movie for me was when Solly saw the true plight of his fellow Jews as he traversed through the ghettoes riding in a white washed tram. Vicariously, we saw the deplorable state of Jews through a small opening in the window. The film has insulated us, has insulated Solly Perel by making us ride in the tram but the reality, we learn, is outside the window and our collective heart bleeds because we cannot do anything about it.

The scene may have no sound or music for all I care but the images have seared my soul. It may not tell us outright like any conventional political film to stop Holocaust from happening again but it has telegraphed that much more powerfully.

The unspoken speaks volumes.

- A. Abeleda



Life as a fraction of it … Set during the onset of World War II in Europe, Europa Europa (originally titled Hitlerjugen Salomon in its European release) is a period film revolving around the story of Solomon Perel, a handsome man of Jewish origins who, by the consequences of the ongoing war, came to be part of the German Army whose main purpose is to follow Hitler’s ultimate goal of liberating Europe from Jewish settlement. The film stars Marco Hofschneider who plays Solly, and Solomon Perel who played a very short but memorable part in the film as himself. It was directed by award-winning European director Agnieszka Holland (who a also directed Secret Garden in 1993) and debuted in 1990.

Solly’s story, like most of ours, are full of trials and triumphs, most of which we sometimes deal with great sensitivity. Throughout his journey, we find that his story reflects one of the most interesting facets of the self in relation to his surroundings: his notion of who he is, who are his friends, who are his enemies. As for every one of us, he has traveled through life in search of his identity. But how did he come to know who he is? I believe it is by how he was brought up, how he lived up to it, and what he has gone through that he had the power to acknowledge who he really is.
Narrating his life in diary-entry fashion, Solly relates what he has been through more closely to the audience, capturing a more intimate relation that seems to penetrate the distance between the film and the real world, which I believe effectively socializes the people watching the film. The point of view employed in the film (first person) may seem to be biased towards the protagonist; nonetheless, it is worth noting that the film is a response to Perel’s autobiography, thus justifying the subsequent scenes shown in the film. There were many notable narrations in the film that carries with it very profound significance, like when he starts the film by introducing himself as someone whose birthday falls on the same day as Hitler’s, and how he said that he unbelievably remembers the day of his circumcision.

By the thematic focus of the film, it is very evident of the political content within it. However, it is through the employment of the situation of war that the discussion on identity is successfully brought up to the consciousness of its viewers. Almost the world over have recognized the inhumane sufferings the Jews have to endure during Hitler’s reign in Nazi Germany, and his ultimate dream of Aryan world domination. Bringing a Jew’s story in the midst of this dilemma most certainly made the story an account of finding yourself from the grotesque situations of ultimate human wickedness. It is very evident in the film of the times when Solomon just wants to be who he really is, for instance, after his friend Robert and other soldiers were killed, he wanted to desert his troop, but his action backfired and was embedded more deeply into the German ideals. But the situation forced him to be drowned, to the point that he pulls his foreskin back just to fit in and avoid being mutilated, charred or triggered to death. Thus, we can say that the setting of the film greatly supports the discourse on how socialization affects an individual’s perception on who he was. Remember the scene where there were two children who were hung outside their house and Solomon was made to believe that their race was the one who killed the Germans, and now its payback time, so he fired to them and burned their home? He was confused then, how could he be so loved, but other people whom he share the same lineage, was atrociously murdered? In effect, he is asking, what will I choose? Live as who I was when I was born and circumcised, or pretend to be someone else to save my life, my future?

This brings us to the importance of socializing factors in the establishment of our identity. The Germans have built theirs, an extreme form of ethnocentrism employing ethnic cleansing by the belief of their superiority. The Jews also have built their own, based on their traditions and customs. These foundations were put together through the ways and processes that surround them, and in return internalize them so that they may appear to be just and normal. In this case, both groups were oriented in different manners, thus resulting to a cleavage that will bring about conflict. Socialization, thus, is a significant factor of building identity.


In my interpretation of the film, there are also other issues that contribute on the discourse on identity, but these do not deviate outside the context of socialization. They also strengthen the point that identity succeeds socialization. During the film viewing, I overheard someone exclaiming something about racism. It is most certainly true, and I think this is self explanatory. Someone mentioned of gender discrimination, like when the class reacted quite negatively on the scene where Robert tries to do something sexual to Solly while he was bathing. It is also true, indeed. Racism and gender discrimination are two main issues that still flood the global community up to now, but more implicitly that before. For example, homosexuals nowadays live in a world of mocking and degradation of dignity, thus experiencing socialization that impinges on their acceptance of the self, making them unproductive and oftentimes looked-down members of the society. Same goes to the issues of racial discrimination. Many people have wished they were Americans so that they do not live off a dollar a day, or wished they were tan and had blue eyes to make it to Hollywood, putting to backdrop their own cultures and ways from which they were raised.

Has the film succeeded in being an effective medium of trying to encapsulate these issues and prescribing them to the viewers? Most certainly, I should say. While watching the film, and more so after, I tried to ask the very same question that lingers throughout the film, a simple inquiry that bears a very complex response: Sino ba talaga ako? Do I really know myself? How have the things I experienced molded me into who I am now, how others think of me and how I think of my very self? Surely, some would relatively find the question easy, if not so ridiculous for anyone to ask. But really, do I know myself? How confident am I that the I that I know is really me? The actualization of the self, which can be characterized by our ability to answer these questions, is an important component of building our own identity.

Leo Tolstoy once said, “A person is like a fraction, whose numerator is what he is and the denominator is what he thinks of himself , the larger the denominator, the smaller the fraction.” In the film, Solly was engulfed by the ways of the Germans, to the point were he seemed to forgot his culture, his God, and thought of himself as a true blooded Aryan. In the process, he learned to hate, but in the end he slowly felt that hiding in the shadows does not make him more of a person, but less of it. It is hard to play someone else, but it is harder to play oneself, so says Robert. True enough, identifying your identity depends upon the acceptance of the norms by an individual, how he internalizes it, and how he processes it to be morally upright according to his beliefs. Identity, then, is not just a matter of fitting in; it is also a matter of living out. As Solomon Perel and his journey, the true measure of knowing oneself is finding what is always in your heart to be true and acceptable.

To close, let me share with you one of my most favorite scenes in the film, where, after Solly found his brother Isaak in the concentration camp, they peed together in an open foyer, with the lights on them, without any hesitation.

- M. Delas Alas

Citizen Kane - Framing The Possibilities

Ever since I got a copy of the film, I’ve watched it for over five times and even memorize several lines. A number of them have something to do with media. From the start of the film until the end, Kane’s life has been presented as if he’s the front cover of a news magazine, researched and written by Mr. Thompson. Each time I watch Citizen Kane, I always arrive at the same conclusion. That is, ever since the media penetrated the lives of the people, it has been, it is and I believe will always be a great influence.

The film itself is a portrayal of how influential the media is, specifically the newspaper. The alleged Mr. Charles Foster Kane, William Randolph Hearst, campaigned using his newspapers against Citizen Kane, demanded for it to be banned, prohibited any form of advertisement and after some time, refused to mention the film at all. As a result, the public was made to believe that it was not a good film. Moreover, Orson Welles, writer, director and actor of the film, was blacklisted from Hollywood because no studio would want to work with him.


Onto the film, even at the start, the media is utilized in different ways to show its influence. In the newsreel, Kane is portrayed as a rich, powerful and a prominent figure for several reasons. He’s a newspaper magnate, owner of radio networks, mines, statues and a lot more. He influenced or made big decisions for his country such as joining and opposing a war, won elections for a president, spoke for millions of the underprivileged, loved and hated by the people, and even married the president’s niece He, himself, is a big piece of news. Certainly, “Newspaper owners became powerful figures.” (Hague and Harrop, 2004 p. 106)

Second, newspaper is described as “engines of propaganda for the constantly changing policies, desires, personal wishes and personal desires of [their owners]…What the proprietorships of these papers is aiming at is power and power without responsibility...” (Curran and Seaton, 2003 p. 64, as cited in Hague and Harrop) Owners of media, be it a newspaper, television or radio, have a mandate on what will they show to the public. For an instance, when Kane fight against Public Transit Company, he chose to promote the interests of the underprivileged as the owner of the newspaper not as one of the major stockholders of the company. Another was when he disregarded his principles and told his wife, that people will think what he tells them to think. Also, when he said, “I’m an authority on what people will think. The newspapers for example, I run several newspapers between here and San Francisco.” His intense desire to make his second wife, Susan Alexander, famous, recognized and loved by the people, urged him to manipulate the reviews written about her wife’s opera performances.

Third, “people make political choices […] based on the issues and policy positions on offer […] widens the media’s political influence […] through which information about issues and policies, and therefore political choices, is presented to the public.” (Heywood, 2004 p. 203) The public depends greatly on mass media for information. It is through this information that the public makes their decisions or choices, individually and collectively. In the film, political campaigns and advertisements provide political choices for the public. Kane used his newspapers to publish cartoons with Gettys wearing a convict suit, in a way, projecting to the public a bad image of his rival. The scandal about Kane’s affair with Susan was a compelling one. It ended his first marriage with Emily and his short-lived political career. To save face from the public, his newspaper decided to print, “Fraud at Polls”.


Alongside with being filthy rich and influential, he acquired power. By means of this power, he could almost do everything and have anything in a snap of a finger. But then again, “power tends to corrupt and, absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton, as cited in Heywood). He wants to do things only based on his terms. Just like what Susan said, “Everything was his idea.” Even the love his longing for, he wants the people around him to love him on his terms. In the end, he had EVERYTHING and NOTHING at the same time. He even said, “… If I hadn’t been very rich, I might have been a really great man.” His life is characterized by lost of innocence, filled with regret, broken marriages and friendships, and failed political ambitions. He found himself alone and miserable. Until the end, all he yearned for was love. Undeniably, wealth and power are not the ones that could make a person feel complete, loved and cared for. There’s more to life than being a man of great influence.

As a conclusion, I believe that the film, Citizen Kane, is effective enough to convey not only political messages but also life’s lessons. It portrayed the media, particularly the newspaper, as an agent of political socialization, the perks and risks involved
with having power, the limitations of being influential and the significance of family and friends. The film was able to provide the means for my mind, as a viewer, to think, to work, to draw conclusions and meanings, to theorize, to anticipate events and to relate it to my own life. Though I do not consider Citizen Kane as the best film I have seen, I wont deny that it is indeed a great one. I’m not an avid viewer of films, be it fiction or non-fiction. I only watch if it’s required, somebody ask me out and lucky enough to get free movie passes, not as a hobby or past time. We all have our distinct sets of criteria, and different levels of exposure and knowledge about films, to judge. Anyone, be it a stranger or a friend, can say that a film is great or even the greatest.

- J. Bartolome



Citizen Kane is about the life of a wealthy newspaper man who hungers for love. Famous for its intriguing line “Rosebud”, CK has dominated the world of cinema. Orson Welles who happens to be the director and Mr. Charles Foster Kane, himself, was considered a genius for making this revolutionary film. At the age of 25, he has made a significant change both in the technical and story-telling aspects of the film industry. He was actually a radio man when he was offered by the RKO Radio Pictures to do a movie that he wanted. Thus, he employed most of his colleagues in the radio industry to make this particular movie.

CK was considered a revolutionary one because of its use of a unique cinematography. The film used deep focus photography, or simply put – this pertains to shots where everything was in focus, from the front to the back; so that the composition and movement determined where the eye looked first. Moreover, CK also used a circular structure which adds more depth in the story. It is not the usual linear structure which is very prominent in those days (1941). The use of the circular structure created an emotional chronology set free from time making the film more elusive or mysterious by flashing through the eyes of many witnesses.

Though the main conflict of the film is the search for the mystery of the Kane’s last word – “Rosebud”, Mr. Thompson, the reporter assigned to the puzzle of Kane’s dying word, said that “Anyway, it wouldn’t have explained anything.” True, it has not really explained anything but it just denoted that not all things can really be explained. Perhaps, Rosebud just helps the film to go on. It basically acts like a weaver of the story about a great man in American history. Without it, CK may not be as intriguing and mysterious as it was. To add to its mystery, it is believed that CK was patterned to a real newspaper mogul in America named Hearst. Thus due to bad publicities brought by Hearst’s media and political influences, the first release of the film was a financial flop. However, there is more to CK than just by its famous line Rosebud and its relation to Hearst.


The film has actually embedded many allegories and political implications. First, it depicts the history of America in the years 1895 – 1941. It covers the Spanish-American War, the Great Depression and the gutter politics. In all these situations, media’s contribution was clearly shown through the success and the downfall of Kane’s newspaper empire. To be specific, Kane’s newspaper has actually contributed much to provoke the government and inflame the people to battle with Spain. If you can remember, Kane said “You provide the prose poems, I’ll provide the war”. In this era, media has really gotten its power and authority to influence political decisions. This Spanish-American War became the Journal’s war same with the Vietnam war which became the television’s war.

On the other hand, media under the Great Depression has also suffered a major downfall. Thus, Kane’s newspaper empire was actually closed to bankruptcy. But, though it has suffered a major economic downfall, Kane’s empire has still gained another chance and thus continues to influence people. Media, in reality, really has been an influential political machine. It creates both great and worst man in history. Kane gained prominence because of his newspaper’s advocacy for the underdogs in society. But media, itself also destroyed him. This was when Boss Jim Gettys, his rival for the governor of New York, blackmailed him to withdraw from his candidacy. His affair with an aspiring opera singer Susan Alexander depicts the end of his political career. Thus, Kane thought that the people whom he has devoted his power, wealth and time, have betrayed him. Actually, this kind of situation is not new to all of us. We have witnessed this situation wherein a certain prominent politician has thrown out in his position because of a love affair scandal. This gutter politics is not just seen in American political history but in the Philippines as well. Notice that Bill Clinton and Joseph Estrada were well-knowns because of their controversies regarding their mistresses. Well, Estrada was actually involved with other scandals but in the Philippine culture, having an affair was an offset to the public which then leads to a politician’s unpopularity. This only means that morality is really an important aspect in determining a political leader. Until now this gutter politics is still embedded in our nature. People still choose political leaders not through their certain skills but through their morale. Many aspiring political leaders could have been great such as Kane if not because of misleading judgments.


Indeed, CK’s prominence in the world of cinema is not just associated with its unique cinematography. The content itself is a powerful instrument to make people realize how powerful media is in influencing our decisions. We may not be aware of it but most of the time we pattern our own decisions based on how media portray a certain situation. Media is an effective tool to change the feelings and views of the people on a certain person or phenomenon. The film shows that ambition and the will to serve the people are not enough to win the election. Morale, as being project by the media, is still an important aspect even in the contemporary period. Thus, I believe that this film really is a powerful instrument to make people realize how media manipulates most of our everyday life’s decisions. Perhaps, this is one reason why Hearst greatly opposed the film so much that he actually attempted to blackmail Welles through sexual harassment or rape accusations. He is perhaps afraid to degrade the image of his newspaper empire and his personality as well. However, the film still gains prominence even after 66 years of its release proving that its worth is more than just by degrading Hearst Newspaper Empire.

- V. Buagñin

What the Bleep Do We Know? – On Lives Both Lived and Imagined

The film What the Bleep Do We Know? presents diverse and often contentious processes of meaning generation. The ‘fixing’ and ‘crystallization’ of meaning and its modes of conveyance are inextricably enmeshed with the reception of meaning – the process of consumption. Meanings, no matter how esoteric and isolated, are ultimately shared, and its consumption must be examined within the context of sharing. Theodore Schwartz offers a conceptual tool that places Appadurai’s global flows and landscapes within the real of the individual, through his concept of the “idioverse.” From his main objective of locating where “culture rests,” he defines the idioverse as follows: “… this view of process and performance, of which units are total human beings in full psychological concreteness, not abstract, general sociocultural entities, but each … an ‘idioverse’ with his/her individual cognitive, evaluative, and effective mappings of structure of events and classes of events in his/her sociocultural field.” (Schwartz, 1978: 410) Furthermore, he presents that “… the notion of idioverse is a valuable one, for it postulates that ‘a culture has its distributive existence as the set of personalities of the members of a population, thus allowing for negotiation and dispute over what should be authoritative or legitimate in that culture, in other words, for social dramatic action.” (Schwartz, 1978: 423-424) The concept of culture as distributive and ultimately negotiated, and its capacity to effect manifest action, echoes what Carolan presents above as the endowment of greater agency on individuals in formulating the components of their lived and imagined lives, and in ascribing positions of authority to determine quality and authenticity. (Carolan, 2003) But in looking at meaning as a social phenomenon, as ultimately shared, it is necessary to examine the organization of the “idioverse,” which elements constitute conventions that are inherently normative. Idioverses make use of ideological frames of reference that are determined by a given individual’s maneuvering strategies through global flows and landscapes. But these individual maneuverings, given that they are motivated by the establishment of frames, are automatically influenced by the prospect of sharing at the end of the journey. This idea can best be illustrated through the examination of film as an artistic cultural product.

Any cultural product such as a film, artistic or otherwise, must be conceptualized in relation to a perceiver. The mind is never at rest, always seeking order and significance, always combing the world for anomalous instances. For better or for worse, cultural products “rely on this dynamic, unifying quality of the human mind. They provide organized occations in which we exercise and develop our ability to pay attention, to anticipate upcoming events, to draw conclusions, and to construct a whole out of parts.” (Bordwell, et. al., 1997: 23) But cultural products are human artifacts, and because a given producer lives within a particular history and society, s/he cannot avoid to relate her/his product to other products and to aspects of the world in general. Conventions consist of tradition, prevalent syles, popular forms, etc. that can situate a given product within an overall scheme. Even cutting-edge or revolutionary works are situated within the context of convention. In this light, a film’s explicit or implicit meanings are contextualized within a particular set of socio-cultural, political, and economic values. This sort of meaning that Bordwell terms as symptomatic, contains values that get revealed, and ultimately determines the ideology of the film. (Bordwell, et. al., 1997: 33)

Shea looks at film as an agent of political socialization, and proposes that cumulative indoctrination through this medium is profound because the message is often veiled. In any given film, political messages are often incidental, but their value cannot be downplayed. Audiences view films to be entertained. “It is when people think they are just being entertained that political messages have their greatest impact – beliefs are less likely to be preached than assumed.” (Shea 2002) But the ideology of film is not a static construct that is inert within the duration of conveyance and consumption. It is a seed that presents itself to scrutiny and transformation. It makes demands from its consumers, but its transformation is not subject to any notion of accountability. Audiences are not “passive cultural dopes,” but neither are they responsible ones. The consumption of film, and its ideology rests heavily on individual agency in the generation of meanings.

The role of individual agency in film consumption offers the possibility of skillful actors with a “toolkit” containing a wide array of images that they can use to do different things in different situations – “the pieces necessary for constructing different strategies for action.” Given that all cultures consist of diverse, often conflicting elements that can serve as agents of political socialization and effective mobilization, individual consumers are modeled as active and skilled users of culture. (Swidler, 1998) Furthermore, global flows and landscapes are effectively made a part of this “toolkit,” allowing an individual a degree of agency to change the composition of their lives as shared, as lived, and as imagined. The exercise of agency in an individual’s political socialization through film consumption brings forth the importance of the processes of negotiation and integration. An overwhelming amount of images assaults any individual at a given time and situation. The generation of meaning is not confined within specific “packets” of messages; it is fluid, conflict-ridden, but integrative in the end. The liminal stage, as a state on a threshold (limen) “betwixt and between” more established elements of the social process, (Turner, 1988: 75) provides an effective space wherein individuals can negotiate and integrate the components of their identity amidst nascent and constantly reformulated rules – a formative space of liminality.

References:

Appadurai, Arjun, 1991. “Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and Queries for a Transnational Anthropology” in Richard Fox, ed., Recapturing Anthropology. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, pp. 196-224.

Appadurai, Arjun, 1992. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy” in Mike Featherstone, ed., Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity. London: Sage Publications, pp. 295-310.

Bordwell, David & Thompson, Kristin, 1997. Film Art: An Introduction/Fifth Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.

Carolan, Brian, 2003. “Technology, Schools and the Decentralization of Culture”. First Monday, Volume 8, Number 6, October 2003, at , accessed 15 September 2003.

Schwartz, Theodore, 1978. “Where is the Culture?” in George Spindler, ed., The Making of Psychological Anthropology. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 419-441.

Shea, Daniel, 2002. “Why PopPolitics? A political science professor examines the influence popular culture has on politics, politics has on popular culture, and why it all matters”. PopPolitics.com, at , accessed 9 September 2003.

Swidler, A., 1998. “Culture and social action,” in P. Smith, ed., The New American Cultural Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 171-187.

Turner, Victor, 1988. The Anthropology of Performance. New York: PAJ Publications.

Images Within Intervals Of Darkness

Political socialization is but a sub-component of the comprehensive project of identity. The lure of comfortable categorizations must be eschewed to make way for more dynamic models that can handle the demands of vigorous states of flux, wherein immersed both lived and imagined lives. This discourse aims to find significant correlates between the process of political socialization and the media – specifically, films – which intersection may provide a liminal stage where individuals formulate the elements that can motivate manifest political action. It is hoped that a greater understanding of the dynamic relationship between the accessed world and the conceptualization of the self can contribute to the positive utilization of media - by filmmakers, distributors, exhibitors and other stockholders - towards effective political socialization and mobilization. Furthermore, an understanding of the diverse political cues, activities, and messages can give film audiences better sets of “tools” with which to chart their political world and their place within it, helping them become more informed, more responsible, and hopefully, more discerning consumers of film and other media products.

Arjun Appadurai, in his article “Global Ethnoscapes,” stated that “the link between the imagination and social life … is increasingly a global and deterritorialized one … ethonography must redefine itself as the practice of representation which illuminates the power of large-scale, imagined life possibilities over specific life trajectories … a new alertness to the fact that ordinary lives today are increasingly powered not by the givenness of things but by the possibilities that the media suggest are available.” (Appadurai: 1991) The framework within which the self is conceptualized will be focused on the negotiation process that happens on the liminal stage, a threshold (limen) “betwixt and between” more established elements of the social process. This stage of constant flux provides an effective space wherein individuals can negotiate the components of their identity amidst nascent and constantly reformulated rules – a formative space of liminality.

The media plays an important role within the realm of identity formation because it provides a consistent source of input for both lived and imagined lives. Popular access films of all genres occupy a prominent position within these dynamic realms. It is proposed that the consumption of these films provide the liminal stage whereon individuals negotiate and align their values and ends. In turn, upon the inevitable involvement of others, this hierarchy of values and ends is further negotiated and aligned to form a system of shared or consensual meaning – the product of political socialization. This system can serve as a set of criteria for judgement, preference, and choice when it is fully conceptualized and explicitly formulated; hence, the motivation for manifest political action.

The discourse anticipates a significant relationship between films and the process of political socialization through analytical correlates that can be discerned within the state of liminality. It is hoped that this conversation can help provide the motivation for media producers to take greater responsibility in the manufacture and distribution of film products and for media consumers to become more discerning users of cultural products. Film, above all, is a cultural product that can be an important and effective means of education, socialization, and action within areas of governance, environment, labor, and other pertinent societal concerns.

Ref.: Appadurai, Arjun, “Global Ethnoscapes” in Fox, Richard G., Ed., Recapturing Anthropology, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, USA: 1991, p. 200.