This is a blog for the community of Geography 170: "Geographies of Violence in the Age of Empire" in the Department of Geography at the University of California, Berkeley. This course explores a range of answers to the question: How might geographical thinking be used to critically explore new forms of violence and empire?
Oct 9, 2010
any thoughts on this? i was looking through our class syllabus, and i was reminded of this film.
how else can we analyze this film using the themes that we discuss in class? i want to know what you all think about this.
Wow this movie looks so interesting, although I haven't seen it, seeing the trailer did evoke many of the conversations we have had in class especially about how we associate meanings to people and spaces.
I thought of the indoctrination process during war and how it is that a person is taught to differentiate between "us" and "them" in nationalistic terms at a very young age. For instance before the war, the boys could have been friends since there is no inherent reason they should not be able to be friends and play as children in their social situation are expected to do.
The relationship becomes complicated because of socially constructed differences that materialize such as war and ideas of who is a citizen/human, and who is not. The main issue is what side a person is on, making it black or white. During the time, the ideas of how Jews were seen as the enemy and not human or fit for society reminded me of the debates of whether natives were savages or humans, and how associating a group with being non-human allows for the logic of genocide, slavery, violence, etc . Which are ways to assert superiority and dominance of one race, nation, culture, etc over another.
It is the story of many wars and struggles in our world and society, whether it is a division along the lines of race, social class , culture, language, religion, or nation, the question that I wonder is if it is possible to live in a world without categories. How is it that these ideas come to be?; Is it simply part of the human discourse and the way that humans have evolved. Is it human "nature" to want to be in control no matter what the cost is to other humans, how can these stories be avoided after they have been repeated so much in our history, and continue to occur on a daily basis at different levels, whether through racism in schools, gender discrimination, sexual orientation harassment, or the war on terror, defending our borders, this story continues to be repeated everyday in different ways.
What struck me most about the trailer was the physical presence of a barrier between the two children. It is a tangible symbol of the us/them dichotomy that Karen discusses above. There is no option in the frame for a grey-zone; you are are oppressed on the oppressor. It contrasts other parts of the film that, from what I can gather in the trailer, seem to go into the lives of those who are in power and how they are also victims of violent systems, but it very different ways of course. The young well dressed boy gets to live a life of luxury compared to the title character, but he must still wrestle with the idea that he is part of a family that is either perpetuating violence or stuck in positions where it seems to be their only option (it is his father's job and livelihood after all). Here, the parallels to Orwell's piece on "Shooting an Elephant' are clear- violence is not a pure dichotomy (nothing is) of inflictors and victims.
This part of the film preview stood out to me because it represents tension that he MIGHT be a good man, but more what we want to say without thinking is that of course he isn't! His son no dobut sees his father as an indivually bold and noble man with an important job. On the other hand, his day job is to follow order and carry out tasks on behalf of country. Perhaps the mind of a child can much easily decipher what a "good man" is, apart from the systems that they are entrenched in. His son might also begin to see that his world consists of many lies come true, or seemingly true. In my mind, this evokes even the stronger possiblity that friendship transcends cultures, space, and institutionalization. The two kids' friedship sheds more light on characteristics of human nature than the power struggles amongst nations and nationalistic movemetns like the Nazi party can ever reveal. I'd like to see this movie!
Karen, Stephanie, and Dwenthur. You all point out interesting themes:
1. meaning and construction of time and space--how it becomes "socially constructed"--on how this is carried our not only in our daily lives but in a national and transnational level as well
2. the us/them dichotomy and "othering"--which becomes a way of understanding and viewing the world and our "place"
3. struggles are also felt in the most personal way in this film, apart from the "group" struggle
I also want to ask: how can we break out of these "mindset" when it is so much ingrained in our lives? I mean in their situation,they(even the Father) believes that what they're doing is right, how can we point at that time that what they are doing is unjust when they can justify it as right (though insidious)?
Dwenthur, yes, you should watch it. I am sure it is available on DVDs now. Because there are some hints (or maybe I overanalyzing it) in the film as to how they some characters are conflicted and questioning what is being done, and how some show that what they are doing is utterly right and just.
Thanks y'all for an awesome and mind-blowing interaction! :)
Just wanted to add a little more.. This film is a good example of what we talked about in class Friday.. about how children are taught what is permissible in society depending on their sex, race etc.. How children, by nature, love one another unless taught otherwise. In the movie, when the German boy meets the Jewish boy, on the other side of the fence, he has no idea that there are any differences between the two. The heartbreaking ending almost makes the viewer feel like his son's death was justified in repaying the hatred his father displayed towards the Jews. Is it right that in society, children are paying the price for the sins of their fathers?
6 comments:
Wow this movie looks so interesting, although I haven't seen it, seeing the trailer did evoke many of the conversations we have had in class especially about how we associate meanings to people and spaces.
I thought of the indoctrination process during war and how it is that a person is taught to differentiate between "us" and "them" in nationalistic terms at a very young age. For instance before the war, the boys could have been friends since there is no inherent reason they should not be able to be friends and play as children in their social situation are expected to do.
The relationship becomes complicated because of socially constructed differences that materialize such as war and ideas of who is a citizen/human, and who is not. The main issue is what side a person is on, making it black or white. During the time, the ideas of how Jews were seen as the enemy and not human or fit for society reminded me of the debates of whether natives were savages or humans, and how associating a group with being non-human allows for the logic of genocide, slavery, violence, etc . Which are ways to assert superiority and dominance of one race, nation, culture, etc over another.
It is the story of many wars and struggles in our world and society, whether it is a division along the lines of race, social class , culture, language, religion, or nation, the question that I wonder is if it is possible to live in a world without categories. How is it that these ideas come to be?; Is it simply part of the human discourse and the way that humans have evolved. Is it human "nature" to want to be in control no matter what the cost is to other humans, how can these stories be avoided after they have been repeated so much in our history, and continue to occur on a daily basis at different levels, whether through racism in schools, gender discrimination, sexual orientation harassment, or the war on terror, defending our borders, this story continues to be repeated everyday in different ways.
What struck me most about the trailer was the physical presence of a barrier between the two children. It is a tangible symbol of the us/them dichotomy that Karen discusses above.
There is no option in the frame for a grey-zone; you are are oppressed on the oppressor.
It contrasts other parts of the film that, from what I can gather in the trailer, seem to go into the lives of those who are in power and how they are also victims of violent systems, but it very different ways of course.
The young well dressed boy gets to live a life of luxury compared to the title character, but he must still wrestle with the idea that he is part of a family that is either perpetuating violence or stuck in positions where it seems to be their only option (it is his father's job and livelihood after all). Here, the parallels to Orwell's piece on "Shooting an Elephant' are clear- violence is not a pure dichotomy (nothing is) of inflictors and victims.
"Is dad a good man?" "Of course he is!"
This part of the film preview stood out to me because it represents tension that he MIGHT be a good man, but more what we want to say without thinking is that of course he isn't! His son no dobut sees his father as an indivually bold and noble man with an important job. On the other hand, his day job is to follow order and carry out tasks on behalf of country. Perhaps the mind of a child can much easily decipher what a "good man" is, apart from the systems that they are entrenched in. His son might also begin to see that his world consists of many lies come true, or seemingly true. In my mind, this evokes even the stronger possiblity that friendship transcends cultures, space, and institutionalization. The two kids' friedship sheds more light on characteristics of human nature than the power struggles amongst nations and nationalistic movemetns like the Nazi party can ever reveal. I'd like to see this movie!
Karen, Stephanie, and Dwenthur. You all point out interesting themes:
1. meaning and construction of time and space--how it becomes "socially constructed"--on how this is carried our not only in our daily lives but in a national and transnational level as well
2. the us/them dichotomy and "othering"--which becomes a way of understanding and viewing the world and our "place"
3. struggles are also felt in the most personal way in this film, apart from the "group" struggle
I also want to ask: how can we break out of these "mindset" when it is so much ingrained in our lives? I mean in their situation,they(even the Father) believes that what they're doing is right, how can we point at that time that what they are doing is unjust when they can justify it as right (though insidious)?
Dwenthur, yes, you should watch it. I am sure it is available on DVDs now. Because there are some hints (or maybe I overanalyzing it) in the film as to how they some characters are conflicted and questioning what is being done, and how some show that what they are doing is utterly right and just.
Thanks y'all for an awesome and mind-blowing interaction! :)
Just wanted to add a little more.. This film is a good example of what we talked about in class Friday.. about how children are taught what is permissible in society depending on their sex, race etc.. How children, by nature, love one another unless taught otherwise. In the movie, when the German boy meets the Jewish boy, on the other side of the fence, he has no idea that there are any differences between the two. The heartbreaking ending almost makes the viewer feel like his son's death was justified in repaying the hatred his father displayed towards the Jews. Is it right that in society, children are paying the price for the sins of their fathers?
Post a Comment