You'll never make it out of here alive.
Feb. 26th, 2004 01:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
raybearI got this e-mail at work that's been bugging me yesterday and today. Differently Paced Coworker sent out an e-mail that was a call to arms to have people contact the Academy (as in, the Oscars) and tell them not to recognize the movie Capturing the Friedmans which is nominated for best documentary for "perpetuating myths about child abuse". DPC forwarded the e-mail saying "I rarely forward things but this hit me deeply" and the message below that was from someone who wrote "this is disturbing -- I had no idea this is what the film was about." Then below this was a press release from a group called Stop Family Violence.
I saw the movie. I thought the movie was amazing and disturbing and well-made and provoking and fascinating. The Friedmans get a lot of screen time, much more so than the victims. But the movie is about THE FRIEDMANS, it's not a movie about the incidents themselves. And frankly, I found that they pretty much hung themselves in the midst of denying and rationalizing events.
I was frustrated by this e-mail and this group organizing around this "issue". For one, people forwarding it hadn't even seen the movie. I hate such mindless blind issue following. Part of the e-mail talked about being upset that the movie was being shown by a group that raises money to help get sex offenders released from jail and their charges reversed. Okay, that's a little disturbing -- assuming they're guilty, which I confess I tend to always lean that way. But two, why call the Academy? That seems like a waste of time and energy on the issue that borders on censorship, rather than mobilizing people to call up the organziation trying to free sex offenders (or get their charges reduced or whatever they're doing). If they're up in arms about what's happening, why not focus energy on something that can change it?
I also feel weird because I worry that I missed something when I watched the movie. That maybe it was biased against the victims and minimized the crimes and I didn't see it. But frankly, when the credits rolled, I did not turn off the television thinking that those Friedman guys were somehow "misunderstood nice guys". They were fcked up majorly, something majorly criminal and wrong went down in that house, even if the truth will never fully come out about how big or small or to who. I thought the documentary was interesting precisely because it showed the extreme version of both sides, and touched on the idea of mass hysteria in the 80's around child abuse and the controversial techinique of hypnosis for memory recall. I don't think questioning how out society deals with the issue is the same as saying it doesn't exist. Then I get this e-mail and think, damn maybe I'm some insensitive asshole with no understanding of the issue of sexual violence. Though I took some solace in knowing that Liza (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
vfc) really liked the movie and she has pretty fcking amazing politics when it comes to women and children and the cultural shaping of sexual violence, and I've learned a thing or two in the past from her perspective.
So this makes me think about the theory behind social problem issue awareness. It seems completely beneficial and necessary to have public discourse on abuse and assault of all kinds -- everything from therapeutic techniques to self-help books to support groups to Lifetime movies-of-the-week -- as a tool for recovery. But as prevention? It's done virtually nothing. I was shocked when I first started reading about this idea. There's no evidence that family violence or abuse is happening at a lower rate at this time in history than any other time. The blow up of cultural markers around the issue in the past centruty would lend one to think the social problem is constructed and could thereby be deconstructed, but the lack of actual change makes me scared that it's in the bedrock of humanity. But no wait, I'm not an essentialist. Instead I think it's just a systemic social problem, one that is somehow sewn into the foundation of this current system and can't be removed unless everything is restructured.
Anyway, the point is, I wish people would watch movies before boycotting them and I wish they would put their activist efforts into actions that might effect change. Why not have the movie get nominated so the attention means the issue will be talked about and discussed and confronted? Nothing is really being done about this issue because people just assume it's always there and always will be there. If nothing else, I'm now aware that an organization is out there helping sex offenders get reduced sentences, and that was previously off my radar [The National Center for Reason and Justice (NCRJ), in case you're wondering]. That's more beneficial than censoring the movie or calling the academy, who frankly, isn't going to be doing much in the campaign to stop child abuse.
In less intense movie thoughts, I'm tired of reading articles about how when "women actors get ugly" they win awards. But I get enraged when they hold up as an example Halle Berry in Monster's Ball. Um, what? Granted, Halle's hair wasn't looking her best, but it suited her character because of location and age and whatnot. Her clothes weren't the most fashionable and her couch was a little gross, but again, suited the character. But she, herself was HOT. What the hell are people's problem?
I saw the movie. I thought the movie was amazing and disturbing and well-made and provoking and fascinating. The Friedmans get a lot of screen time, much more so than the victims. But the movie is about THE FRIEDMANS, it's not a movie about the incidents themselves. And frankly, I found that they pretty much hung themselves in the midst of denying and rationalizing events.
I was frustrated by this e-mail and this group organizing around this "issue". For one, people forwarding it hadn't even seen the movie. I hate such mindless blind issue following. Part of the e-mail talked about being upset that the movie was being shown by a group that raises money to help get sex offenders released from jail and their charges reversed. Okay, that's a little disturbing -- assuming they're guilty, which I confess I tend to always lean that way. But two, why call the Academy? That seems like a waste of time and energy on the issue that borders on censorship, rather than mobilizing people to call up the organziation trying to free sex offenders (or get their charges reduced or whatever they're doing). If they're up in arms about what's happening, why not focus energy on something that can change it?
I also feel weird because I worry that I missed something when I watched the movie. That maybe it was biased against the victims and minimized the crimes and I didn't see it. But frankly, when the credits rolled, I did not turn off the television thinking that those Friedman guys were somehow "misunderstood nice guys". They were fcked up majorly, something majorly criminal and wrong went down in that house, even if the truth will never fully come out about how big or small or to who. I thought the documentary was interesting precisely because it showed the extreme version of both sides, and touched on the idea of mass hysteria in the 80's around child abuse and the controversial techinique of hypnosis for memory recall. I don't think questioning how out society deals with the issue is the same as saying it doesn't exist. Then I get this e-mail and think, damn maybe I'm some insensitive asshole with no understanding of the issue of sexual violence. Though I took some solace in knowing that Liza (
vfc) really liked the movie and she has pretty fcking amazing politics when it comes to women and children and the cultural shaping of sexual violence, and I've learned a thing or two in the past from her perspective.So this makes me think about the theory behind social problem issue awareness. It seems completely beneficial and necessary to have public discourse on abuse and assault of all kinds -- everything from therapeutic techniques to self-help books to support groups to Lifetime movies-of-the-week -- as a tool for recovery. But as prevention? It's done virtually nothing. I was shocked when I first started reading about this idea. There's no evidence that family violence or abuse is happening at a lower rate at this time in history than any other time. The blow up of cultural markers around the issue in the past centruty would lend one to think the social problem is constructed and could thereby be deconstructed, but the lack of actual change makes me scared that it's in the bedrock of humanity. But no wait, I'm not an essentialist. Instead I think it's just a systemic social problem, one that is somehow sewn into the foundation of this current system and can't be removed unless everything is restructured.
Anyway, the point is, I wish people would watch movies before boycotting them and I wish they would put their activist efforts into actions that might effect change. Why not have the movie get nominated so the attention means the issue will be talked about and discussed and confronted? Nothing is really being done about this issue because people just assume it's always there and always will be there. If nothing else, I'm now aware that an organization is out there helping sex offenders get reduced sentences, and that was previously off my radar [The National Center for Reason and Justice (NCRJ), in case you're wondering]. That's more beneficial than censoring the movie or calling the academy, who frankly, isn't going to be doing much in the campaign to stop child abuse.
In less intense movie thoughts, I'm tired of reading articles about how when "women actors get ugly" they win awards. But I get enraged when they hold up as an example Halle Berry in Monster's Ball. Um, what? Granted, Halle's hair wasn't looking her best, but it suited her character because of location and age and whatnot. Her clothes weren't the most fashionable and her couch was a little gross, but again, suited the character. But she, herself was HOT. What the hell are people's problem?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-26 02:00 pm (UTC)but i don't want to come across of being in favour of calling the Academy and freaking out - if something is a compelling well made documentary, it is a compelling well made documentary.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-26 02:10 pm (UTC)no, i understand your point -- hence me even giving warning in my livejournal cut because i know it's not always a "feel good" to re-live trauma unexpectedly.
i ended up going to their website and reading some of their articles, and i don't disagree with some of their assessments of how the film is problematic (though i don't agree with all of them either). but i think it would be powerful for SFV to use the film for discussion, the same way other groups are using it, to say "hey, this film is problematic, let's talk about why and what's our perception of the problem", rather than just trying to silence and quash it.