Raise the Red Lantern

I chose film “Raise the Red Lantern” as alternate film to review. I though the film did an excellent job of capturing the role of women as concubines in China’s Confucian society. It displayed the role that women were placed in and considered the norm during that time. Having more than one wife was a signal or great power and respect. I found it interesting how the director implemented the four seasons into film. I took it as each season representing the personality each wife. Think about it. Winter represented the first mistress-old, firm, grim, and showed very little emotions. Fall represented the second mistress-sneaky, deceptive, and forever changing. Summer represented the third mistress-unpredictable, hot tempered, and outspoken. Spring represented Songlian, the forth mistress-refreshing, new life, and energetic. That’s how I interpreted it. However, each woman was definitely different and interjected individual personalities.

Unlike several of the other films that we have reviewed, which divided countries due to religious and political differences, Raise the Red Lantern symbolized the division of women. A division that was so strong that forced at least five women (to include Yan’er) to hate and betray one another for the affection and attention of a man. It was like a competition, which ultimately stole to soles of each woman and inflicted death on two. The notion of having several wives were not only acceptable in China, but many other countries that consider women as less than equal practice this method as well. This is a practice, in my opinion, that cripples women and entrap them mentally for a lifetime.

Overall, I thought it was a good film. I kept my attention throughout. If I could change one thing about the film, it would be the beginning because it started out slow and lacked dialogue. However, it picked up and finished strong.

No Man's Land

I chose the alternate film called “No Man’s Land.” A very fitting title for the setting of the film which portrayed the war between the Serbians and the Bosnians during the 1990’s Balkan conflict. Although the setting of the film took place in one place (middle trench), I thought the film displayed the frustration of both sides regarding the war. Judging from the film’s title, I expected a lot of blood and guts and many battle wounds from both sides. However, it was quite contrary. The movie depicted forced companionship of two enemies trapped in the middle trench between enemy lines. The two found themselves at odds on several issues, such as who started the war. In the meanwhile, a second Bosnian solider that was booby trapped with and improvised explosive device (IED) was miraculously discovered alive. Initially, I thought the two enemies were going to work together to attract the help of the UN to defuse the explosive. However, the frustration of both gentlemen ultimately got the best of them that led to death. I though the film was excellently directed to keep the audience’s attention. It was a great example of how hate can block progress. Overall, I thought the film deserved a good review. It provided comic while implementing historical events of the Balkan conflict.

I chose the review by James Berardinelli from an internet search. I totally agree with his review of the film. He best described it as a film that had no heroes, just victims. The film did a great job of depicting the media and the UN role in helping the conflict. The media’s threat to reveal to the public the military’s lack of intervention caused military assistance. However, the media was out smarted to believe that aid was rendered. I thought the movie delivered well, putting the conflict on a world stage.

Earth

After reading the reviews on the film "Earth," I thought both critics made some great points. However, if I would have to choose one, I would agree mostly with Ansari because overall all I thought the writer/director did a pretty good job of delivering the partition to the audience. Yes, it was simple, but she captured tons of human emotions, such as romance, hate, anger, as well as history into the film. The one thing that I wish Mehta could have implemented was a little more history. Because If I had not read the lesson and the brief summary of the film, I would have easy mistaken the movie for a romantic comedy, which did play some part in the film. But like Ansari, I felt Mehta overall used a collection of good actors and actress to deliver the message. I thought the love triangle helped balance the war between religion and politic. Using a friendship between the three major religions was a great strategy as well. So, although I agreed with Wallia about the simplistic of the film, I am overall sold that the film was a success and captured its target audience.