Seeta aur Geeta: A Bolywood Film of the 1970s

   
     Seeta aur Geeta is the story of a pair of identical twins, separated at birth and later reunited. How do they discover each other again? By rare coincidence, they end up taking each other's place. Seeta is found by Geeta's family and thought to be her and Geeta is mistaken as Seeta by the police who have been told to keep an eye out for Seeta. Yes, it is all very confusing, but that is what happens. Each is able to deal with the problems in that life better than the other one was, and so all is well for a while. In fact, they each form a relationship in their new life as well. Seeta and Raka, a street performer, decide to get married, and so do Geeta and Ravi, a doctor. However, when Ranjit, a cruel relative of Seeta, discovers what is really going on, he attempts to bring both girls to their ruin. In the end, it is Raka, Ravi, and the two girls themselves (mostly Geeta), who save Seeta and Geeta. The film ends merrily with photos of the two couples getting married and a scene in which Raka and Ravi struggle to tell their brides apart.
     The film portrays two vastly different people, and along with them, different backgrounds and ideals. Seeta is extremely demure and submissive. She has a strong sense of modesty and hates to wear anything revealing at all. Rather, she wears long, elegant saris. She lives under the guardianship of her aunt and, only technically, her uncle. Her uncle really has no/makes no say in her parenting. Her aunt treats her like cinderella and forces her to do way to many things at once. If Seeta fails to complete even one of these tasks, she is either slapped and beat by her aunt. If Ranjit is around, he whips her with his belt. Septa is not a fighter, but she silently endures her suffering and goes to her grandmother for comfort.

     Geeta, on the other hand, is spunky, capable, and full of personality. She is not  especially worried about modesty, but she is not one to flaunt her body either. Before taking Seeta's place, she was a street performer with Raka, her partner. In this profession, she displayed a free spirit and incredible skills physically. These traits come in handy when she decides to take revenge for Seeta on her tyrannical aunt and cousin. Not long after she enters Seeta's old household, she turns things upside down. Where previously Seeta had lived in fear of her aunt and obeyed her every command, now Seeta (Geeta) is the one with the upper hand and her aunt lives in fear of her. Geeta is not afraid of using violence for justice.

      While both girls are extremely different, the film seems to uphold the character and the values of each. From this, one might conclude that there is an underlaying message of diverse people holding equal worth.
       At one point in the film, Geeta asks her grandmother if a lie is still evil when it is made for a good cause. Her grandmother answers, "If you have to lie for a good cause.... then that lie is equivalent of 100 truths." Here, we see an ideology that indirectly supports the clause, "the means justify the ends." Throughout the film, these values are supported through actions. Geeta uses force, and at times, cruelty, to fulfill vengeance against her cruel aunt and Rajit. sometimes, she seems to take unnecessary liberty, such as when she beat Rajit to a pulp after he attacked her. Yes, at first she was just defending herself, but then she went to an extreme and whipped him repeatedly (almost maliciously) and caused him to tumble down the stairs (and they were steep stairs, too). Throughout the film, both directly and indirectly, violence, and what would normally be considered sin, is upheld if done with "good" intentions.
     For one of the first times in Bollywood cinema, we see an antihero and deviance from the law. Geeta is this antihero, and what makes her even more rare for the times, is her gender. Up until the 1970s, a female lead who was also an antihero was almost unheard of. She is not an antihero in the usual sense, however. Instead, she holds the role of a character with a just cause who uses unjust means to get there. By violence and by trickery, Geeta forces Seeta's aunt and family to do what is right. She can be compared to a female version of Robin Hood, except she is fighting against injustice in a far more concentrated area, a household.
     Geeta also provides many of the main examples of social deviance within the film. One example is near the beginning of the film, when Geeta tries to deceive Raka out of his full gain in profit. She hides some of his money, but he is fully aware of what she is doing and she doesn't get away with it. Another example is when Geeta is at the police station. Although there are a pack of officers chasing her, she manages to turn the whole station into a train wreck and ends up on the ceiling fan. A third example is when Geeta arrives for her wedding "drunk" and dressed very immodestly. It is not clear whether she really is drunk or not, but she pretends to be. Lastly, at the end of the film, Geeta sneeks out of jail with the help of Raka. In previous Bollywood films, it would have been more traditional for Raka to have gone to court or tried to explain the truth to police in order to rescue Geeta. All these examples of deviance mirror a change in the attitude of society during the 1970s. People were beginning to ease up on their ideals and justify actions in support of their causes.
     By the end of Seeta air Geeta, the people in control at the beginning of the film are no longer in control. This seems to be a prevailing theme in movies of the 1970's. Seeta's aunt and her aunt's brother, Ranjit, can no longer control Seeta, beat her like an animal, or take her money. They are also no longer in control of her happiness. At the beginning of the film, due to her aunt's cruelty, Seeta tried to commit suicide. Now these people, previously tyrannical oppressors on her life, have been defeated by Seeta's sister and both their beaus. This trend of a reverse in power has become more and more popular in society since the 1970's and shows how thinking has progressed. Part of this change is the corruption of government that was clearly seen in the Cold War. There is less faith in the present authorities and increased belief in rebellion.
     The society of India in the 1970's represented in the film Seeta air Geeta is one of reform. Individualism (i.e. Greta vs. Seeta) is becoming more popular, and while oppression by government is being recognized, violence for just causes is also being encouraged. What is this called? Rebellion. The line between right and wrong is starting to blur and society is beginning to think independently and without reigns. Although in India this movement wasn't as strong as other major areas of the world, it was still happening, just in subtler degrees.
   

Amrapali

      Amrapali, the story of a young woman torn between love and her beliefs,  reveals not only the society of Magadha and Vaishali, but also perhaps the society and ideology of India in the 1960s. At the time the movie was made, historical epics were very popular. This was largely due to Hollywood's newfound obsession with them. Smaller film industries followed in Hollywood's footsteps and began producing their own movies of the past. The movie Amrapali is one such film, made in 1966 and directed by Lekh Tandon. Although it is set in the past, it very much pertained to and represented present beliefs in India at the time it was made.     

      

      One pretty obvious statement in this film was that of peace. Our main character, Amrapali, becomes a Hindu at the end of the movie in order to have and to live in a state of peace. The second to main character, Ajatashatru, Emperor of Magadha, chooses this path as well after he has utterly destroyed Vaishali and Amrapali's heart. Besides these prominent pointers, there are other indications towards not only peace, but Hinduism as well. Ajatashatru is very violent for most of the film and this is seen as a bad thing, the thing which ultimately separates Ajatashatru from Amrapali. On the other hand, Amrapali is seen praying several times in the movie. Even when destruction ensues for her sake, she is grieved by it. From all these different aspects, it can be concluded that peace and a god of some kind was important to the producers of the film and certain people of the time.

      Despite the broad message of peace carried out in the film, Vaishali's strong war efforts were encouraged. Why is this? Seemingly, the film supports both fighting and peace. When Ajatashatru wants to war against Vaishali, his mother advises against such action, saying, " But don't forget that it's impossible to defeat the army of Vaishali, because they don't fight to maintain a king's rule. They fight for independence and to protect their self respect." Here, their war efforts can be seen as valiant and morally good. Later on in the film, Amrapali, our princess of peace, sets a figure of the king of Magadha on fire, a direct act of violence. Besides this example, she asks for Ajatashatru's head from a friend. Her defiance against Magadha and it's king is almost seen as heroic, so why is it that the war efforts and violence from Magadha is seen so poorly? The reason is, Vaishali was a republic nation and was fighting for it's liberty as a defense, while Magadhi was a nation of tyranny seeking after power by conquest.

      Even though Vaishali's violence is somewhat justified by it's motives, is it fully justified, and does it match up with the message of peace? That depends on the definition of peace and the definition of violence. Are peace and violence simply words that label certain actions or are they words that label the nature of certain actions? Vaishali's defense of self isn't necessarily violent when the latter is considered. If protecting themselves in order to protect ideals preserved in their nation is the true motive behind Vaishali's fighting, it is possible they are not being "violent" at all. In order for the movie to have a message undivided, it must support some sense of intention being what's important and also a little bit of "ends justify the means" ideology. 

      Another dimension of the movie was Amrapali's struggle between loyalty to country and ideals and her love for a man. This struggle could possibly be simplified down to the struggle between emotion and sense. This is a struggle we all face daily. In the end, Amrapali chose sense and loyalty. As a result of this decision, however, she gains genuine love. Had she gone by impulse and been convinced by Ajatashatru to become queen of Magadha  she would have received counterfeit love instead and a continual grief and guilt for the ideals she threw away. In Amrapali's struggles, the movie supports a sense of choosing what's right before what feels nice, and often nice feelings will follow. 

   Although the movie Amrapali supports peace, it also supports physical violence if it is justified by cause. The reason for this is that although the action may be violent, the heart supposedly isn't. Another ideal supported is that of choosing what is right over emotions. Oftentimes when we do, emotions follow anyway. These ideals and standards were very much upheld in India in the 1960's, so the movie was not just a reflection of ancient times, but also of the modern world. 

Personal Opinion: 

      So far, this has been my favorite Indian movie. The only parts I didn't like were the amounts of skin showing and the ending. Besides these two aspects, the cinematography was graceful, the acting was superb, and the plot was intriguing. On top of these key elements, the dancing and song numbers were beyond amazing. Vyjayanthimala dances as if she is an attachment to the music, or vice versa. Her character is also charming and amusing, yet able to deftly switch into a mode of agony and despair. She, like Veronica from The Cranes are Flying, is an actress I won't be forgetting soon. If at all interested, I would definitely give this movie a chance!

Social Control/ Fahrenheit 451 & the 1960's

     Social control can be split into four categories: internal social control, external social control, informal social control, semi-formal social control, and formal social control. Internal social control is the way society shapes a person simply through culture. The biggest form of internal social control in most cultures is family. Without family to set a norm, there would be very few regulations or boundaries known to a child. This form of control also includes school, peers, and the media. Most of the time, we take internal social control for granted.
      The second kind of social control, external social control, includes outside forces made up of negative and positive reinforcements. This form may include laws, police, punishments in school, bribery, and even bullying. External social control is less psychological than Internal social control and is usually more prominent in it's use.
      Informal social control has to do with the way a certain action or belief will be reacted to by the culture. It usually doesn't involve direct punishment through the law, but has more to do with bandwagon and prejudice. For example, if a student dropped out of high school, many people involved in his or her life would most likely be very disappointed and may even inflict some form of social punishment. The law, however, would have no obvious effects on the individual.
      Semi-formal social control is not so extreme as to be able to carry out arrests or incarcerations, but still carries out it's duty with direct punishment from a sort of law. A person who inflicts this kind of control is called a Professional Controller.
      The last form of social control is formal social control. This includes the law and punishment for breaking the law. Arrests, trials, and even parking tickets are all forms of formal social control.

      In the movie "Fahrenheit 451" and in the 1960s, social control was present, but in different degrees and in different areas more than others. Violent social control was more prominent in F451(Fahrenheit 451), but it had it's place in society during the 1960's as well. In F451 a person could be killed for refusing to leave their books, books being completely banned. Even if they did allow their literary treasures to be burned, they were often arrested, and after that little was known as to what happened to them. In the 1960's, a death penalty for such menial crime did not exist, but other forms of violent social control did. For example, African Americans were sometimes chased by police who sprayed them, children in particular, with water hoses. On top of this, women during the 1960's were sometimes physically abused. Although this will always be the case, they were more so then than in the present day. Lastly, three major assassinations occurred. Martin Luther, John F Kennedy, and Jr. Kennedy were all killed for social and political reasons.
      So what is worth protesting and why? In Fahrenheit 451, those in charge banned books for a reason. In the movie, a character says the reason is so that people will not be hurt by the books because books bring about unnecessary and painful emotions. This, however, is not the true motive of those in charge. Banning books limits the knowledge and consciousness of people which makes them ignorant and easily swayed. A government's worst enemy is rebellion. In order to avoid this, knowledge is simply kept from the general public.

     In the 1960's, the Civil Rights were pushed by African Americans and Caucasians alike for a couple of different reasons. In the case of African Americans, their motives and reasoning is significantly more obvious. They were the ones struggling under the tide of segregation and prejudice. They were not able to go to the same schools, ride the same buses, or even drink from the same water fountains as whites. With far less rights than Caucasians and social persecution at every corner, it is easy to see why they wished so badly to gain equality. 
     The reasons for Caucasian's support for African Americans' rights are slightly less obvious. The majority were simply morally aware and felt sympathy for their cause, but this was not the only reason. Another reason for their support was because they were afraid of America looking like a hypocrite, which it was. They didn't want the rest of the world to see the "land of freedom" harboring segregation for such menial reasons as skin color.

      Oftentimes, when one party puts forth a deviant display of their beliefs, the other side condemns them further than their previous state. Christians are a great example. The more that we stand up for our beliefs in day to day life, the more we are looked down upon by others. If instead, we stayed completely silent, we would experience much less condemnation and criticism, but we would also have little to no effect on the spiritual state of our fellow peers. it is natural that when one is presented with views in opposition to their own, they will either conform to them or fight them with all their defenses up. The same concept goes for opposing parties in any conflict. In this manner, both sides become more and more stressed in their views and more and more prejudiced against the other side.
They begin to caricature the other side in all their flaws and caricature themselves in all their strengths. In other words, they exaggerate the opposite party's weaknesses till nothing else is distinguishable and exaggerate their own strengths till they are blind to any vice on their part. This phenomenon has happened and is currently in place between Democrats and Republicans, Communists and Capitalists, the wealthy and the poor, and many other parties. It's name is prejudice.
      In Fahrenheit 451 the informal resistance was somewhat similar to that of the 1960's, but also different. The people in F451 who still believed in reading hid books in their houses and when they were caught either chose death over denial of their convictions or to run away in order to carry out their beliefs in secret. People in the 1960's weren't that different. If they were in support of women's rights, they would defiantly learn and work. African Americans defiantly went to the places that would not serve them and simply sat waiting to be served. Men drafted for the Vietnam War often ran away to Canada (similar to how people in F451, including Montag, ran away).  They were different, however, because in the society of F451, the punishment for breaking the law and keeping books or running away was far more severe than for young women, African Americans, and drafted young men in the 1960's. On top of this, people of the 1960's were more outspoken in their protesting. They were able to have marches and organize committees committed to their cause unlike the people in F451 who had to be especially secretive in order to avoid punishment.
       Informal social control was also present in both Fahrenheit 451 and the 1960's. In Fahrenheit 451, it was not all too uncommon for an observant of someone's crime to report them in secret. This is actually a form of semi-formal social control, but still applies. In addition, books were socially considered evil and anyone who read them, an outcast. Instead of reading, people occupied their time with watching TV and listening to music. This reinforced laziness and made the work of reading seem even less appealing. In the 1960's informal social control included a lot of people looking down their noses at other people. This was similar to how people in F451 saw people who kept books, except in that scenario, those who kept books were considered even more inferior and perhaps even a threat. The three main groups of people looked down on were African Americans, Independent young women, and soldiers in Vietnam.        

   

1960's Women's Rights

 

 Pretending to be someone else:

       I am a middle-class mother living in the 1960's. I have a satisfactory marriage, but I hardly ever see my husband. All day, I clean, cook and care for my two children. My friends tell me this should be enough - that doing these things should fulfill me. They don't. For some women, they do, but not all women are the same. Does one say concerning a child, "You will be smart because you have brown hair." No! Indeed, rather they will make judgements about the child's IQ based on their behavior. Why is it, then, that judgements about women's capability are made based on her gender? Women are equal to men and they need to be treated likewise. 

      I have a library science degree and I worked hard for it. I remember painful hours of toil past midnight and how often I sacrificed time with friends in order to excel in my learning. Now that I am a housewife, the social image pushed at nearly all women, I don't have the time to put my degree to use, let alone read. It's true that it was my decision to marry and have children, but even if I hadn't, the road to success would have been much more difficult for myself, as a woman, than for a man. Schools like Harvard and Yale won't even consider women! The fact that this can be said, alone, show's just how much women are degraded in our schooling systems. I thought we were past the times when only boys went to school while girls stayed home completing tasks such as cooking and childcare. Now the same problem is present, but instead it has shown up after high school; men go to college and women often stay at home as caretakers and housekeepers.

      Of the women who do receive careers, few are payed an appropriate wage. My friend Dorothy Green, who works night wages, gets payed half the amount of her fellow male employees of the same job. This scenario is not uncommon. The part that is the most unfair, however, is that if a woman were to risk asking for a higher wage, she would also be putting her source of income on the line. Women are far too easily fired and are consider dispensable in today's world of work.

      I know a woman (she will remain unnamed for the sake of privacy) who is physically abused. Even though all of her friends know, including myself, the topic is awkwardly avoided. If it were instead her child that was being abused, we would all be so alarmed as to find help immediately. It disturbs me that our culture has grown numb to the evil of one human being hurting another who just so happens to be their wife. We all, her friends, recognize that it is wrong, but none of us are brave enough or wakened enough to the raw situation to do anything about it. It's time that the issue of domestic abuse get out of the house and out into the open. 

      Even if you are a man, the struggle for equality applies to you. If at this given time, women are undermined solely due to gender, is it not possible that you as well might one day be oppressed for this same reason? Even in the present, the issue of gender equality applies to you. When society constantly degrades someone, it is very hard to have any respect for them, and it is very hard to love someone you have no respect for. It very well may be that the present pecking order is having a negative impact on your marriage. Also possible, is the reality that it is giving you false pride in yourself for a reason as simple as the difference between an X and a Y chromosome. No one really wants to be or to be thought of as prideful. Besides, you will be seen as more of a man than ever if you decide to give women the chance they deserve.

      How can you help? There are so many ways to be involved! One especially important way is to start treating other woman with respect - and yourself too, if you are a woman. This may include giving an able women a job, if you are an employer, or even, as a woman, giving up the meek attitude we women are taught to have. Exchange it for one of persistence and spirit. You can't expect anyone to agree with you if you don't even agree with yourself. Another way to help is to participate in marches or petitions. These are what really change the law. Lastly, expressing your views through art or the media is important. When we can integrate a certain opinion into our culture, it will in turn be accepted with more ease. The goal is not to turn just one facet of society in our direction, but to change the law, the hearts, and the minds of our nation. 

      For women, life is difficult. We cannot go to esteemed colleges and to go to college at all is looked down upon. In what jobs we can acquire, we are underpaid and often put in an unstable position as our job could be pulled out from under us at any given time. It is also to be observed that women are socially undermined, to the extent that many are abused with little consequence to the abuser. Because this prejudice is based off of something as menial as gender, it could just as easily happen to men. In order to bring the scales to an equal measure, women need to be treated with respect and supported by campaigns and media. We are all, men and women made in God's image. Let us respect God's image and put an end to segregation.

      

Being Myself Again:

      Writing the above essay was somewhat hard because I am not especially concerned with women's rights. I do think women are equal to men and I am glad that I am privileged with many freedoms today in that area, but I do believe in general gender roles. I believe God made men and women differently and that is okay. Yes some women will defy these generalities, and the same goes for men, but what is saddening is when women are thought of as "simple-minded" or "sellouts" for wanting what is natural, to have a family and to let their husband be the main financial supporter. In the reverse, it was not too difficult to write because I used to be an extreme feminist. I had big dreams and a hard head against anyone with the slightest prejudice about women in general. Now, it just doesn't matter to me. God does; and I know how he sees me, so why should it matter how anyone else does?

The 1960's: Flower Children and Happy Families

The 1960's was a decade consisting of both a rise in colorful decoration and prejudice against those with colored skin. It was a time of comfort and quality family time for many, and at the same time, a time of poverty and separation from family for others. Rebellion in youth rose like a tidal wave and brought with it an increase in drug use, an increase in alcoholism, and the sexual revolution. These teens and young adults called themselves flower children and reflected their name in the bright and colorful clothes they wore. On the flip side, members of older generations were very critical of the flower children and they clashed prominently. Besides these, there were working class families with little to no cares and African Americans dealing with prejudice. The majority of people fit into the working class, average family category. Working class at the time really meant a quite nice lifestyle with hardly any money shortages and lots of time to spend with family. Most people, for this reason, remember the 1960's as a sort of golden age.
     My grandma, Bette Wolterstorff, was 19 in 1960. Although she herself was not one, she recalls that flower children would often group together and share a house. Not only did this cut expenses to a minimum and give them an escape from their parents, it also meant more freedom to party and to be immoral in various ways. They were not happy to just rebel a little, flower children went all the way. They wore clothes considered scandalous and pushed for women's rights as well as wearing attention grabber make-up such as drawn on eyelashes. Often, walls between parents and their children either caused teens to rebel or went up because of the excitement of rebellion. For conservative parents, this movement was especially hard, because it often meant their son or daughter shunning them. In the documentary, Family Life in the 1960's(BBC), the Meadow family experiences a taste of this when their girls "move out". Of course, on the other hand, some parents were the ones shunning their kids because of how they dressed or what they did in secret.
     Often, because they were so young with low wage jobs, flower children lived in poor living conditions. In the documentary two girls try out what it would be like to be flower children and live for a few days by themselves. Their apartment consists of one room and a cramped bathroom so dirty, they refuse to use it at first. A lot of the time, this was how flower children had to live. As far as money went, my grandma recalls them having very little and being considered lower class. For some teens and young adults, this was too high a price to pay and so they stayed with their parents under their restrictions.
     For my grandmother, a married mother of two and a nurse, the 1960's were a calm period with no financial strain and much less drama than society today. She does admit, however, that her sweet recollections are partially due to the way memories tend to put the past under a halo. She never really thought about money very much, she admits, because although there wasn't necessarily a plethora of it, it was never lacking either. In fact, vacations were very common for her and she went lots of places, including Canada, Texas, and Arizona. On top of that, her house was pretty nice, though small, and it was about a tenth of how much it would be today. This was partially due to the value of money, but it was also due to a healthy economy. Although events such as John F. Kennedy's assassination shocked and saddened her, (as well as the rest of society) she was never very personally effected by them and so life was pretty smooth. At the time it was socially acceptable to watch your toddler playing outside through a window and people were much less paranoid about kidnapping, so she had more freedom within her time then she would now.
     In the documentary the Taylor family has a similar experience. Both parents were working(like my grandma), but they still had casual free time and flexibility within their budget to go on plenty of vacations. The kids were also not especially supervised and could run around and have fun. They had a pretty nice house for being lower class, too, and didn't really have to worry about money.
     Some other similarities between my grandma's experiences and the experiences of the individuals in the film are the style of clothing people wore, housekeeping trends, and segregation. In both, the girls wore a-line outfits with high waist skirts and shorts and a sort of blunt flair. They also were both involved in bettering their house. in fact, in both accounts, they put wallpaper up to make their house look nicer. lastly, both were aware of and encountered segregation against African Americans.

     

Indrani

 

      

     Indrani, a Bengali film made in 1958, begins with a poor man who has just discovered his new child is a girl. He names his baby girl Indrani and supplies her with quality education so that she might be self-dependent. Once she is grown, he sends her off to college where through a roommate she meets Sudarshan, a young man who is educated, yet unemployed. The two are attracted to each other almost immediately. After only a few encounters with Sudarshan, the two arrange to get married. Because of their opposing castes(social classes), their families are greatly offended at their doing so. It is hard for them to live with Sudarshan's family(after marriage, the women would come live with the husband's family), so they decide to rent/buy(?) a small house to live in together. Being the independent woman she is, Indrani wants to support the couple financially. She becomes highly esteemed in her work while Sudarshan loses respect for himself because he has little to do and is seen as another person riding on Indrani's work. The couple  pulls apart and it is not long before Sudarshan simply leaves. Indrani continues in her work, supposing he is just jesting and will come back soon, while Sudarshan joins an old man in an effort to educate and help small rural communities. When Sudarshan's work appears in the newspaper, Indrani is impressed and leaves behind her job and everything she has to go and reunite with him. At first, Sudarshan is confused and doesn't want anything to do with her, but after a fire in the village he realizes that he needs her and the two are reunited.

     The movie uses some propaganda but is not as obvious in it's use as other movies. It is a hybrid of propaganda and story. No political statements are pushed with prominence, but some ideology can be interpreted beneath the story's veil. Out of capitalism, socialism, and communism, the film matches up the most to socialism.
     In their marriage, both Indrani and Sudarshan experiment with living by their own independence and both find that they need one another. Indrani in particular tries to be "alpha" and ends up failing. The movie puts a negative light on this but it also negatively portrays the other extreme. At the beginning of the movie, Indrani's father is showing a friend an article he wrote about how women need to return to their traditional role. The father is repulsive in his person and portrayal of the article, casting a bad, and even ridiculous light on the idea. Furthermore, at the end of the film, Indrani and Sudarshan come together as equals to rebuild as one. Throughout the movie their relationship and other subtle uses of humor and dialogue point to socialism.
     Even within the music in the film, some socialism is expressed. In the song "break, break, break" one line goes,"break the barriers with hands strong as lightning." The entire song is focused around breaking rocks, their work. Even so, it is a metaphor for how they want to break social barriers. In helping the people in those small communities and even in marrying Indrani, a woman of a different caste, Sudarshan himself is breaking those barriers on a personal level.
     Another example of how socialism is expressed is when Indrani hears what Sudarshan is doing to help the people in Shalboni. People in her workplace scoff at what he is doing because they don't think him capable of it. They believe the news to be bogus and untrue. She becomes angry with them and tells them Sudarshan is doing the impossible, something they could never do. Then she leaves abruptly, forfeiting her job to go to Shalboni and help Sudarshan. In leaving those people of a high caste and going to the low caste of the people of the villages of Shalboni, she shows an indifference to the caste system and pushes towards equality.
     Overall, the film seems to push for a world in which people work, but not for their own glory, for the well being of the community. It also pushes equality between all people and seems to go against gender roles or social classes. These features are part of socialism, the main ideology behind this film. 

Faiz Ahmed Faiz

Faiz Ahmed Faiz 

     Faiz Ahmed Faiz is well known in the middle east for his Urdu poetry. His dad was a distinguished lawyer and part of an exclusive literary group. Two years after Faiz was born, his father died. Because his father had been a wealthy landowner, and because Faiz was naturally gifted, He received quality education and even accomplished two master's degrees by the end of his schooling. Even though his poetry took a backseat during these years, it began to emerge more clearly once Faiz was out of college. At first, he wrote mainly about beauty and love, two common but interesting topics. Later, when Faiz was in jail, and even beforehand, his poetry began to take on both new depth and a bleak shadow. The reason for this was both because of Faiz's growth in his thoughts and ideology, but also because of his experience in prison. 

      In much of Faiz's poetry, there seems to be a conflict between Faiz's need for love and his need to make a difference in the world. One poem which illustrates this well is the poem: "My love, do not ask from me the love we shared before". Here is one stanza in the poem that illustrates this concept well:

               beauty still allures, but
              what can I do?
              There are sorrows in this world
              beyond the pleasures of love.

      Here, Faiz expresses his longing for a certain woman, but he also recognizes a need in the world that needs to be fulfilled. The strange thing about Faiz's poetry is how he writes of love and women of an unambiguous nature often, and yet he is married. It is possible that he was either involved with women outside his marriage, in love with the idea of love, or indirectly writing about Alys, his wife. For whatever reason, it is clear that Faiz cherished the idea of women and romance. In fact, in an interview, Faiz interpreted the most important concept of Urdu poetry to be love. 

      Although poetry is what Faiz was best known for and was certainly his area of concentration, Faiz was also an editor for many newspapers, a teacher at two different colleges, a soldier in the British Indian Army, a writer of newspapers, a principal at a college, and many other things. He was a varied man with a busy life. Despite the many things Faiz was involved in throughout his life, he was not an organized man. He would begin to be involved in one thing then become distracted and never return to that one thing. It makes sense that he was like this because he was an artist and artists are often(not always) disorganized. Thee were certain jobs Faiz turned down, however, due to political reasons. For the same reasons, he also exiled himself from his homeland at certain points. 

      I enjoyed Faiz' poetry, or at least that which was accessible to me. It is hard to really get a feel for it, however, because a small percentage of his poetry has been translated to English and a poem translated is not the same poem as the original. The poems which I did read had a nice rolling rhythm and were clearly full of hidden messages. One such poem is this one:

               But the heart and the eye are impervious     
               to who comes, and when, or who leaves. 
               They are far away, galloping home, 
               hands holding tight to the oceanís mane, 
               shoulders crushed under their burden - 
               fears, questions, forebodings. 
      This poem has a beautiful rollicking quality about it, and yet it is very hard to interpret. Faiz is skilled at doing this within his poems and leaving the reader feeling they've read something with weight, but something that will take some work to unpack.

India 1

The Partition of India.

     It all started with two countries: one in control of the other. Britain had power over India until after World War II, when they became a financial train wreck like most everyone after the war. Previously, India had struggled under Britain's rule, like a caged bird. This was soon to change. With so little money, Britain could not retain control over India and restore their own Economy at the same time. They had to let India go. 

     Muslims were the minority of the population and so they feared they would be unfairly treated and taken advantage of once India became independent. Already, their was much segregation. For example, Muslims could not drink from the same water tap as Hindus. The segregation was as distinct as the gulf between african americans and caucasians in the United States after the Civil War. 

     Lahore was like a safe haven to the Muslims before the Partition of India. It was a beautiful city with a population consisting mostly of Muslims. A center for education and fashion, the city was very innovative and tolerant. To the muslims, who faced prejudice almost everywhere they went, it was like a different realm.  

     What was the Partition of India? because of their status among Hindus, Muslims started to press for their own individual state. They wanted Britain to give them a portion of India to independently rule. At first Britain was hesitant, but after it became clear the Muslims and Hindus would not live in harmony, they gave in. The new state was named Pakistan because 'pak' means pure and 'stan' means place: pure place. The first leader of Pakistan became Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

Awaara Hoon.

     Awaara Hoon is a song from the movie Awara, made in 1951. In the song and video a young indian man must live on the streets and steal to survive, but he is, never-the-less, jolly. The main ideal I took from this song is that even when things are rough, one should be joyful. Russians took comfort in this ideal, because they were experiencing a lot of turmoil after World War II. They could also see that India had more problems than they(recovering from the war and the Partition of India) and yet they had that attitude. It was probably very encouraging for the Russians. 

If I were from America, and I was visiting India in the 1950's this might be my response:

     What can I say? I wish i could say I was in love with the land and the people, but India is not the India of my dreams. The economy and government is crippled so that there is little law and order. There are prostitutes lurking. Muslims are treated unequally. But what good does it do for me to complain? Instead, I will focus on the parts of my trip I enjoyed most. 

     The women wear beautiful saris over simple blouses. Saris are often lined with gold or silver and they are always very colorful. How they flow and drape is almost fantastical. Almost all the women wear black eye liner which gives them a sense of mystery. Jewelry covers them head to toe: anklets, belly piercings, bracelets, rings, necklaces, hair clips. Even babies have some kind of jewelry somewhere on their body almost all of the time. As pretty as it is, it can also be somewhat gaudy.

     The food is not what I expected. I was sure it would be overly rich and lacking in vegetables. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised. most of the food was not as unhealthy as I had thought it would be and there was a plethora of unique vegetables and greens in every dish. Admittedly, there were some dishes that were either too hot for my palette or a little too exotic to sit right with me, but overall, the dishes I had were very satisfactory. 

        

The Cranes are Flying

    There is a sort of queasiness felt after watching an especially confusing movie: a movie that totters between stunning and terrible. Was it a work of genius or a terrible blend of components? Made in 1959, The Cranes are Flying is one such movie. Veronica(Tatiana Samoilova) and Boris(Aleksy Batalov), two young people from the late 1930s, are carefree lovers at the beginning of the film. When Boris reveals he has volunteered as a soldier in World War II, their utopia is shattered. Veronica waits patiently for him while he is gone, but she never receives word of him, neither by mouth nor by letter. Meanwhile, Boris' cousin, Mark(Aleksandr Shvorin) finds himself in love with Veronica and goes to a high level of desperation in order to receive her hand in marriage. Veronica is unmoved by his performances, but is eventually forced into marriage after he shames her by rape. At the end of the film, Veronica discovers through a friend of Boris' that her dear beau has died. It is at the arrival home of the surviving soldiers that Veronica is informed of these news. For the first time in the whole movie, the audience sees her cry. After her tears are spent, she selflessly gives flowers(from a bouqette she previously received) to people in the crowd around her, leaving the story on a hopeful note.
      As strange as the general storyline of the movie sounds, The Cranes are Flying still has a lot going for it. For one thing, the acting is five star. There is not one actor in the entire film who comes across as fake or one dimensional. Tatiana Samoilova, especially, goes above and beyond in playing the role of Veronica. From cheerful gallivanting with her Boris, to an almost surreal contained sorrow after he leaves, she able to accurately display the many facets of her part. She is, assuredly, a new favorite actress of mine.
     Another factor screaming yes for The Cranes are Flying, is the cinematography. Although a black and white film, it is still as clear as the crystal waters of Key West. furthermore dramatic lighting is used throughout the movie to cast varying moods on different scenes. For example, there is a scene in which Mark is playing thundering notes on the piano. In this scene, there is a substantial amount of shadowing and dark values used. Not only is the cinematography high quality in clarity and expressive in it's lighting, but it is also taken at very unique and visually intriguing angles. It is clear that not only the story, but also the visual representation of the story was taken seriously as an art form in the making of this movie.
     The only real turn off in the film, was also a major turn off. It was hard to even make it through the film, because of the blatant lack of joy throughout. I wouldn't say that this alone is enough reason not to watch it, especially since it can be good, every now and then, to recognize the bad in life, but I also wouldn't buy it or rate it top ten. Although melancholic, it was done in the best way possible for being so down.
     The Cranes are Flying is definitely worth seeing at least once. A magnified view of society during World War II and a love story at the same time, it does a good job of giving an insider's view of life then.  furthermore, the acting and cinematography enhances the story in just the right ways while keeping the viewer entertained. The only downer to this film, is that it literally is a downer. There is no comic relief and little joy to ease the strain created by the variables set up within the storyline. If one would like to be entertained, informed and confused at the same time, The Cranes are Flying is exactly the remedy.


Answers to the Questions:

Whose point(s) of view are we shown?
     We view the movie from Veronica's point of view and Boris' point of view. Most of the movie is through Veronica's eyes, but periodically, we transition to Boris. One example is when Boris dies. We, as the viewer, see his death and are aware of it long before Veronica becomes informed.

What have these people lost?(Materially or emotionally?)
     The people during and after World War II lose much both physically and emotionally. Veronica, for example, loses her family, her fiancé, and her home. Though these are physical losses, they are also accompanied by emotional losses. Veronica's heart aches for her parents and Boris and she feels out of place. Along with those emotional losses, Veronica loses her dignity and reputation when she marries Mark. At the beginning, she is a happy little sprite with all she could possibly want. By the end, she is forlorn and lost, but she has grown far more than she could have ever foreseen. She transitions from a girl to a woman.

What will they need to do/believe in order to rebuild?
     The people will need to believe in hope and believe in a bright future, but first and foremost, they will need to have God, the ultimate source of hope and stability. They will need to push their emotions to the side in order to work hard and rebuild. At the end of the film, this is demonstrated when Veronica recognizes the joy of others around her in the midst of her suffering.

Is this film more of a descriptive or prescriptive work? If the second, what "prescription" does the film give for their troubles, if any?
     The Cranes are Flying was more prescriptive then descriptive to me. It painted a picture of someone who had lost everything because of the war, yet continued to fight and continued to find hope. At this time, this was a message meant to inspire and strengthen those in recovery from the war's terrible theft.

Are the character's experiences a symbol or an allegory, or are they to represent the everyday "universal" experience for Russians?
     I think they were to represent how war affected everyday people. The movie depicts the effects of war rawly, something future generations and differing cultures can benefit from. When World War II is usually discussed, it is seen as a whole, like looking at a city from an aerial perspective. The Cranes are Flying zooms in and gives the vantage point of living in one of those houses in the city. Both perspectives are useful in order to truly understand World War II.

Knowing that this was set during WWII, but released a decade after it ended, what do you think the people behind the film wanted to say about the war? is this a war film? Why or why not?
     This film is a war film, but it is not your regular war film. It is a "behind the scenes" movie which takes you beyond the fighting and action and into the effects of the war on one individual. War is about individuals as much as it is about the masses. I think the people behind the film wanted future generations and those unaffected by the war to be able to observe and understand a primary part of World War II that textbooks could never teach them. They also wanted to send a message of selflessness to the world.