Irish Troubles in Film

As all of Chicago’s proud Irish wake up this morning with massive Jameson- and Guinness-induced headaches after yesterday’s St. Patrick’s Day parade, a new storm is rising in the motherland’s northern reaches. As a kid, I grew up in one of America’s most densely populated Irish-American areas, that is, the far South Side of Chicago in Beverly. To me, Ireland was all leprauchans and shamrocks and connoted the hearty ability to drink everyone else under the table. Lord knows why Chicago’s Irish love to embrace the worthless-drunk stereotype imposed on the Irish by their colonial overlords. Maybe it’s a kind of clever subversion?

As the Troubles reared their ugly head last week, perhaps now is a good time to remember the Ireland beyond its liquor distilleries and green pastures. I’ve been to Ireland twice (though never to Ulster) and have made it my duty to learn about the Ireland outside its South Side reputation.

Here is a list of some of my favorite movies about the Troubles and beyond:

1. In the Name of the Father

Daniel Day-Lewis stars in this long, brutal epic about a mistake of Kafkaesque proportions. Gerry (Day-Lewis) is a punk who’s been in the wrong place at the wrong time; he and his friends are mistaken for members of the I.R.A. and hauled off to prison. This film accurately portrays 70’s Belfast and all its anarchy and terrible fragility. It’s also directed by Jim Sheridan, who made two other stupendous movies about Ireland or Irish people, those being My Left Foot and the heartbreaking In America.

2. The Wind That Shakes the Barley

This movie won the Cannes Palme d’Or in 2006, though it didn’t really deserve it. (Almodovar’s Volver did, by golly!) This movie stars heart-throb Cillian Murphy in Ireland’s War for Independence against the British in 1920. Brit Mike Loach directs. This is definitely another movie featuring loads of heartbreak, betrayal, and lovely shots of the charmingly dilapidated peasant houses of rural Ireland.

3. Michael Collins

Okay, so this movie isn’t that great, but it’s the most historically-accurate movie about the hero of Irish independence, Michael Collins. Liam Neeson stars in his early days (along with Julia Roberts! Woah! Flashback to the 90’s!) This movie is a decent history lesson for people wanting to learn about how Ireland went about establishing their own country in 1916. Easter Sunday shoot-out at Dublin’s National Library included.

4. Hunger

Alright, so I haven’t seen this one, but I know it’s supposed to be very good (and, as is tradition, brutal!). Steve McQueen directs this 2008 movie; it didn’t get very wide release but I bet you can Netflix it by now. I know I’m scrambling to rent a movie about Bobby Sands’ six week long hunger strike at the Long Kesh prison! Spoiler alert: he dies of starvation.

5. Breakfast on Pluto

This whimsical film follows Patrick, aka Kitten, after he leaves podunk Ireland to be a glam-rocker in London. I guess he’s not so much part of glam rock as he is part of the sexually androgynous, tight-panted, coke-snorting, Roxy-Music-listening subculture of England’s mid-70’s. But the politics Kitten has so diligently ignored during his childhood follow him all the way to London. We learn about the intersections of politics and self, and the inevitability of nation defining identity… Starring Cillian Murphy. Directed by Neil Jordan (who also directed Michael Collins.)

After researching these five films, four of which I have enjoyed very much, I realized that the pool of actors and directors making serious movies about Ireland are few. But after watching any or all of these listed here, you may feel you have a better handle on the IRA, the Troubles, or Ireland as a whole.

by Anna

A rightful claim to Gandhi?

A major controversy erupted in India recently when it was revealed that some of Mahatma Gandhi’s possessions would be auctioned off by a New York Agency. Up for sale were his iconic metal-rimmed glasses, his sandals, a pocket watch, bowl and plate (Incidentally, the pocket watch was given to the leader by Indira Gandhi, who my parents proudly named me after).

The owner of these items, James Otis, promised to donate all the money raised from the auction to charity causes and even offered to return some of Gandhi’s belongings to the Indian government provided it increased spending on healthcare for the poor. Predictably, the government was having none of it and tried to stop the auction but to no avail. The items went on sale this weekend and the crisis was averted after Indian Vijay Mallya, United Breweries Chairman, bought the 5 items for a whopping $1.8 million and offered to donate said items to the Indian government. I wonder what Bapu would say if he knew that his “legacy” rested in the hands of a beer baron, given his strong prohibitionist stance!

That being said, it has been difficult to understand what exactly the opposition to the auction could be. It is true that Bapu abhorred material belongings and he would probably be horrified by the thought of his possessions garnering such material value. But, is it so terrible when we consider that the money raised was benefiting the underprivileged in India? Plus, it’s not like his things would be in a private collection. Thanks to Mallya’s generosity, people will now be able to view and enjoy Bapu’s belongings in a public setting.

This brings me to the point on Gandhi’s reach. His influence, while once contained within India, has affected civil rights movements around the world, including the U.S. So, is it right for Indians to claim that his belongings are a matter of national pride and consequently, belong in Indian hands? Of course not. Bapu’s ideology is for everyone, not just Indians. The other issue here is the danger in romanticizing Bapu. Like many freedom fighters at the time, the man had his flaws and he made mistakes. The most serious in my mind was his support for the partition of India into Muslim and Hindu entities, a wound that continues to affect normalcy in the region.

By placing so much value on Bapu’s material things, we are essentially devaluing everything he stood for. And don’t even get me started on the hypocrisy here. The Indian government (and even a large chunk of the population) has just stood by while millions of Indians sink into deeper poverty and I find it laughable that we suddenly care about Bapu’s moral teachings. Instead of feigning concern about acquiring his things, the larger question Indians should be asking is, do they deserve them?

-Indira

The trouble with Davos

My latest IDS column about the World Economic Forum at Davos is up. An excerpt-

For the uninitiated, Davos, a tiny ski resort in Switzerland, plays host to the annual Forum, a gathering of business leaders, politicians, non-governmental agencies and the occasional celebrity. Historically, the five-day conference provides an opportunity for the rich, elite and overwhelmingly white audience to bask in its own greatness, all while lauding the benefits of globalization and the power of free markets.

This year was to be no different – until the gloom and turmoil besetting the global economy cast a pall over the celebrations. It became apparent that praising unfettered capitalism as the key to solving global poverty, or whatever it is that you’re taught in economics classes these days, would surely have been in poor taste.

You can read the whole piece here.

-Indira

India’s reality

The concerted effort to depict India as a sleek metropolis has come a long way from the images we’ve usually associated with the country- slums, illiteracy, the caste system and a host of other problems. Every now and again, though, we’re reminded that India still has a long way to go. Weirdly, it’s a Hollywood movie that is calling attention to this.

Yesterday, Slumdog Millionaire, a rags-to-riches story about a young man who participates in the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, was released in Indian theatres amidst concerns that the movie wouldn’t be well received by moviegoers there. The movie, while receiving a great deal of positive attention from the West, has been criticized for its depiction of Indian slums and poverty. Indian movie legend Amitabh Bachchan (think Clint Eastwood but even bigger) had this to say on his blog, comments that he later clarified.

If SM projects India as Third World dirty under belly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky under belly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations. Its just that the SM idea authored by an Indian and conceived and cinematically put together by a Westerner, gets creative Globe recognition. The other would perhaps not.

There is something to be said about Hollywood’s fascination with the dark side of India- Salaam Bombay and Born into Brothels come to mind. Lighter fare like Lagaan and Monsoon Wedding (one of my all-time favs), on the other hand, received less adulation from Western media. But, in watching Slumdog, I never once felt like the director Danny Boyle was looking down on India’s poor. In fact, I was struck by the humane depiction, the attempts to capture these people as an integral part of society. At the same time, there was no sanitizing and sugercoating of things in the movie.

It is understandable that Mumbaikars are rather defensive about the brutal images that are part of Slumdog but the reality is this- India is still struggling with poverty, destitution and religious zealotry. We can refuse to acknowledge this but these problems won’t go away. When people start to call for bans and other such nonsense, we forget ultimately that Slumdog is just a movie. And as such things go, we need both films like Slumdog and Monsoon Wedding in order to show that India at heart remains a bundle of contradictions and improbabilities.

-Indira

Three cheers for sweatshops!

Nick Kristof, at the NYT, has been doing a phenomenal job outlining the problem of violence against women, particularly in Asia. The stories are gut wrenching and his work even received a mention at Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearings. But, his most recent column about sweatshop labor is a serious departure from this excellence. Kristof maintains, and this is a view shared by many economists, that sweatshop labor is the only real alternative available to people in developing countries, short of being unemployed.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats who favor labor standards in trade agreements mean well, for they intend to fight back at oppressive sweatshops abroad. But while it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough.

Really? Working for mere cents, unhealthy/unsanitary working conditions,  verbal abuse, forced overtime and sexual harassment aren’t exploitative enough? I’m not even sure where to begin. First off, it may be true that increasing labor standards could increase production costs, which would in turn lead to the shutting down of factories in developing factories. But, the solution here isn’t to promote some sort of race to the bottom. If we can demand various regulations for workers here in the U.S. including banning of child labor, why shouldn’t we expect the same from these corporations abroad? Kristof, like many economists, is unfortunately endorsing the view that trade is a zero-sum proposition wherein you can’t have both sensible regulations and economic development and that is dead wrong.

There is also the moral argument here. It’s pretty disgusting that we’ve reached a point in humanity where we can force people from developing countries i.e. non-whites to work for next to nothing, all in the name of economic development and free trade. This mad desire for profits without any consideration of people’s dignity is precisely what’s causing our breakdown in our value system. What makes this even sadder is that otherwise conscientious people like Kristof actually believe in this sort of madness.

-Indira

The Politics of genocide

I’ve deliberately kept quiet about the Israeli -Palestine conflict since everything that could be said about the situation has been said. This is not to belittle the deaths or anything but I don’t have much value to add. Countries have a right to defend themselves and while we can argue about the appropriate response, proportionality etc., it seems that people are forgetting that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Obviously, I’m not justifying the deaths of the 700+ Palestinians but Hamas routinely uses human shields and group members are firing mortars and rockets from civilian locations. This could help explain the disproportionate death toll. In any event, it’s time for a ceasefire and I hope President-Elect Obama can work towards this.

One thing interesting about the coverage is the flippant use of the word “genocide,” the overuse of which should be duly noted. A genocide is a concerted attempt to wipe out members of a certain ethnic or religious group and last time I checked, Israel isn’t perpetrating a campaign against Muslims, only against Hamas members. Indeed, when we look at the charter of terrorist entities like Hamas, we see that eliminating Israel is a stated goal and yet, we don’t consider this a threat of genocide. When I read stories comparing Israeli actions to Nazis, it makes me sick to my stomach. It’s one thing to dislike war but to equate the two is evil. A friend actually told me that it was ironic that a country founded after a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing is “masterminding” it’s own. Umm, that’s really fucked up. So, here’s my humble plea- can we please not use the word Genocide, Nazis, fascists or a permutation of these just because we disagree with something or dislike someone? I know that it’s the perfect straw man but doing so cheapens the memory of the 6 million Jews who died during the Holocaust and also belittles the suffering of those facing real genocide in Darfur. We’re also  left with this then- why can people take to the streets over Palestine while the campaign of ethnic cleansing by the Janjaweed is virtually ignored? If only we could muster a quarter of the indignation generated by Israel’s actions and direct it towards Darfur, things may be a little different in the region. But then again, Israel is everyone’s favorite punching bag.

-Indira