The WHF Film Club

[Frank Harvey]

If I recall correctly, she started wearing make up after their first 'encounter'. But like you BB, I'm struggling to remember little things that are being mentioned, as I've watched 20 films since then!

 

[chebby]

If I recall correctly, she started wearing make up after their first 'encounter'. But like you BB, I'm struggling to remember little things that are being mentioned, as I've watched 20 films since then!

I haven't seen the film but applying make-up is not always done just to atttract or please men. It could just be a compensatary little act of self-esteem or even rebellion. "I am going to do something normal in this hell-hole." (Rather like a man in the rat-infested trenches might polish his shoes and shave before going into a battle where certain death looms.)

A normal everyday act, from a normal everyday life, being done despite extraordinarily debasing circumstances.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I haven't seen the film but applying make-up is not always done just to atttract or please men. It could just be a compensatary little act of self-esteem or even rebellion. "I am going to do something normal in this hell-hole." (Rather like a man in the rat-infested trenches might polish his shoes and shave before going into a battle where certain death looms.)

A normal everyday act, from a normal everyday life, being done despite extraordinarily debasing circumstances.

That's exactly the reason Samira gives for applying the make-up.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

If I recall correctly, she started wearing make up after their first 'encounter'. But like you BB, I'm struggling to remember little things that are being mentioned, as I've watched 20 films since then!

I've just checked, and she starts wearing make-up immediately after the little girl is killed, and before she first meets the Captain.

Her first experience was truly awful, but the one after that is with a young soldier, who just wants to cuddle and sleep next to her. I think this experience also influenced her thinking in the decision to start wearing make-up.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

In contrast the book starts with Samira already escaped to Sweden, and presumably uses flashbacks of the past events, to support her gradual change of mind from abortion (foetus too old), via adoption, to eventually wanting to keep the baby, and bring hope. I wonder if that is a more interesting structure to tell this story, rather than the film structure.

For a while, I had not realised that Samira had escaped to Sweden, which makes me question whether a couple of minutes of film could have been added, making clear the act of fleeing.

The film begins with Samira lying in a hospital bed , with the baby lying in a cot looking at her, which is also a scene shown towards the end. She is then seen having a shower, and having a brief flashback of the urinating scene, and then after losing blood in the shower, we are transported back to her life before the war began.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

There were a couple of other aspects that troubled me as well. I was almost angry at the brief portrayal of the childbirth. There was a few second snapshot of the labour. You could choose any moment, and not every birth has screaming agony. But it seemed to be there was a clear compilation of shots leading up to and including the childbirth to show how horrific having a baby conceived in rape was, and that we had a screaming agony shot, which had the effect of showing 'a rape baby is really painful'. I thought this was really ill thought through and arguably quite offensive.

To me, there's a small detail during the childbirth scene, which is very important. Samira refuses the gas whilst she is in the process of giving birth, she wants the birth to be as painful as possible, because she wants to hate the baby because of how it was conceived.

 

[expat_mike]

To me, there's a small detail during the childbirth scene, which is very important. Samira refuses the gas whilst she is in the process of giving birth, she wants the birth to be as painful as possible, because she wants to hate the baby because of how it was conceived.

This sounds plausible to me. It aligns with a section from the book description on http://www.amazon.co.uk/As-If-Am-Not-There/dp/0349112622

"After some months S. finds out she is pregnant. She's devastated and resolves to have the baby aborted. However, when she's finally released it's too late and she when she's evacuated to Sweden she gives birth to the child. S. changes her mind about giving it up for adoption: she realises that it's not the child's fault that it was conceived in violence and that out of the act some good - this new life - can still come."

I also think that at the time of the birth, as you say, she wanted "to hate the baby because of how it was conceived.".

However the film wasn't clear in showing her realising that it is not the baby's fault, and as a consequence it would be wrong to punish (or take revenge on?) the baby. I suspect the book explains it better.

 

[Frank Harvey]

To me, there's a small detail during the childbirth scene, which is very important. Samira refuses the gas whilst she is in the process of giving birth, she wants the birth to be as painful as possible, because she wants to hate the baby because of how it was conceived.

Or could it be that she wants it to hurt more than what happened to her, so that the memory of her worst pain is chilbirth rather than rape?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Bought a couple more DVDs in a charity shop this afternoon.

The White Ribbon

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149362/?ref_=nv_sr_1

A Seperation

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1832382/?ref_=nv_sr_1

 

[BenLaw]

I've had White Ribbon for years but still haven't got round to watching it. Sounds like it should be very good.

 

[BenLaw]

I haven't seen the film but applying make-up is not always done just to atttract or please men. It could just be a compensatary little act of self-esteem or even rebellion. "I am going to do something normal in this hell-hole." (Rather like a man in the rat-infested trenches might polish his shoes and shave before going into a battle where certain death looms.)

A normal everyday act, from a normal everyday life, being done despite extraordinarily debasing circumstances.

That's exactly the reason Samira gives for applying the make-up.

I may also be misremembering but my recollection is it is presented, at least to some degree, as a feminist act, along the lines of 'despite the horror and depravity I can still be a woman!' This seemed at best a little shallow and at worst crass and offensive. Coupled with the painful childbirth (which even if BBB's explanation is correct portrays a simplistic and incorrect premise that childbirth without drugs must be incredibly painful) it seemed to be a shallow and naive portrayal of womanhood (if that's the right word, it seems contextually better than femininity). I was surprised when I checked that the novel's author and the director were both women.

 

[BenLaw]

I can't say I enjoyed the film, as any film with this subject matter is going to upset and anger the viewer, but it was watchable, though not a film I'd like to return to other than to clarify details.

Interesting point. I'm not sure I was exactly 'upset and angered', more wearied and depressed, but if I'd thought the film was better those probably are the emotions I should have felt.

I can think of a few excellent films with portrayals of rape (Sleepers and Dogville spring to mind) but I don't think I've seen a film which was quite so purely *about* rape before. Anyone else?

 

[richardw42]

I didn't find the film particularly and quite enjoyed it, although I think it failed to deliver on it's promises.

firstly, this was a horrendous period in European history, and the viewer really needed to get some concept of that. I thought it was relatively lightweight given the subject.

it could have done with an extra 20 minutes or so. There was no back story for the lead character. Who was she really ? I felt there should have been a bit more on the every day life in the village before all the men were shot. They were all just extras and that event should have had a much bigger impact.

The bit when the little girl had the cross carved into her back was about the only reference to ethnic cleansing.

I just thought it was a missed opportunity to tell a horrendous story, that should have a lasting impact on the watcher.

Btw. I'm finding trying to type posts on the new forum more traumatic than the film.

 

[BenLaw]

I agree with a lot of those points (very much including the last one!).

I really enjoyed the first section and agree we could have had more of that. I also agree some background to the main character would have drawn in the viewer and made us feel more empathetic. As it was, there were only two characters we had any insight into (the protagonist and the captain) and both remained at best two dimensional.

I also agree this was an opportunity to provide a broad insight from a narrow example of these two individuals. We certainly risk criticising a film for it being about what the filmmakers wanted it to be about rather than what we wanted it to be about, but in giving zero background, spending insufficient time on the issues in the last part of the film and failing to give any broad insight into the period in history, this ultimately was just a film about one form of war rape. That in itself isn't a problem but I don't feel it gave any insight into that issue, save for the blatant and consequently banal point that 'it's pretty unpleasant'.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I didn't find the film particularly and quite enjoyed it, although I think it failed to deliver on it's promises.

firstly, this was a horrendous period in European history, and the viewer really needed to get some concept of that. I thought it was relatively lightweight given the subject.

it could have done with an extra 20 minutes or so. There was no back story for the lead character. Who was she really ? I felt there should have been a bit more on the every day life in the village before all the men were shot. They were all just extras and that event should have had a much bigger impact.

The bit when the little girl had the cross carved into her back was about the only reference to ethnic cleansing.

I just thought it was a missed opportunity to tell a horrendous story, that should have a lasting impact on the watcher.

Btw. I'm finding trying to type posts on the new forum more traumatic than the film.

Though I described the film as "good", I cannot disagree with any of your points, and the more I think about it, the more I think the film makers really missed a chance to do something genuinely moving.

 

[richardw42]

I'm a little surprised there's not been more discussion on this film. We've picked a few holes in it, but it's not a BAD film.

Perhaps everybody's having as much hassle posting as I am.

 

[expat_mike]

The reason that it has gone quiet at my end, is that some of the discussion about the film, has included descriptions of some scenes, which are different to how I remembered them. Consequently I want to watch the film again, to check if my memory is going, or alternatively if some of us have different versions of the film (with missing/added scenes). Unfortunately I have not yet made the time to watch the film.

I can throw in a new element to discuss. I have been trying to understand in my mind, why the film includes the section where the young girl has the cross cut into her back. I keep thinking that that section adds nothing to the film, and could be excluded. The film already includes enough material to get the message across, that life in the "entertainment section" was not pleasant for the women. Also if the film is essentially describing Samiras "journey" from innocent teacher, to mother of a new child, then surely there is no need to show the mutilation of the young girl (because she is not a key element of Samiras life). The only rationale that I can think of, for including the mutilation, is to reinforce the message that this ethnic conflict was also aligned along a clear religious division (Christian v Muslim). Does anyone else have any thoughts on this topic?

 

[BenLaw]

Interestingly, that was the other element I'd made a note about when I watched the film. Far from 'reinforcing the message' that this was an ethnic conflict, I was concerned that this was the only reference to that aspect of the conflict and that in isolation it rather assumed knowledge of the conflict, rather than informing the viewer as I felt the filmmakers were trying to do.

As for why it was there, I feel the answer lies in the reference at the end (I think) that the film was based on several true stories. It felt to me like it was thrown in simply because someone behind the film had read accounts and found that particularly horrific (as it was) and wanted to put it in - even though in reality it bore no relation to the rest of the story and added little.

 

[BenLaw]

Can anyone remind me what the next film is? I guess we only have two weeks left to watch it in. Also, that must mean it's time for a new selection to vote on? Is it David's turn now?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

It's City Of Lost Children, Ben. And yes, I think it is time for David to pick his 3 films.

 

[BenLaw]

3 films, I thought it was more now? Or is that only when we get back to you voting?

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'll wait until this has been ironed out! A tad busy over the next few days as well, so bear with me...

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

3 films, I thought it was more now? Or is that only when we get back to you voting?

When a new round starts, so after David has chosen his films.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Does anyone here want to join the WHF Fantasy Football League?

 

[expat_mike]

Does anyone here want to join the WHF Fantasy Football League?

Now that I am in France, I do not watch much UK football, so for me, picking the team would include an element of sticking pins in a list of names. I think that I would struggle to beat your wifes team.

I will have a look at the details, and think about it.