sundries

[rm]

Last night we went to see Leila an Iranian film from 1996 at BAM as part of the "Muslim Voices" festival. The director, Dariush Mehrjui, was in attendance for a Q&A, and oh, what a Q&A it was.

Now I'm used to people here having really limited knowledge of the Middle East and Muslim law and custom. Certainly, I think my knowledge is inadequate, but I'm also constantly reminded of how significant it is in comparison to most Americans. Patty, of course, having spent so much time there is additionally ahead of me.

Anyway, ignorance was on full display last night. People argued with the director telling him that he could not be telling us the truth about what Iranians think of men taking second wives, when he spoke of how it is looked down upon in the middle and upper classes and was an issue in the recent elections. In fact, every question about gender made me deeply uncomfortable, because it was also so fixated on the fact that these women wear hijab, the film must only be a comment on women's actualization.

But the film is not a comment on that. If anything on the gender front, it has a great deal to say about the overt power of women -- yes, overt, even with hijab! -- and the infantilization of the men in the story. But no one was interested in how the male gender was portrayed, because the men seemed freer to the audience preoccupied with hijab, even as women were more powerful, wealthier and successful throughout the film.

People analyzed characters using the word "martyr" which it was so clear they would not have done for the same story in a Western context (Big Love anyone?) and people even told the director his intent, insisting he wanted to have the characters touch at points, but was clearly not allowed. This was met with a sharp rebuke by the director, for trying to Westernize his film. "You, you westerners, you want to show show show everything. We are orientals. We value privacy."

Another woman went on and on about the men's clothing, insisting that it was supposed to be cool and modern, while the woman's clothing was not (hijab is not "not modern" and there is a point in the film of a covering that someone is gifted with from Paris!) and did this mean men in Iran were progressive and women were not. It went on and on, with the questioner also insisting the film was shot in the 1970s (the film stock did admittedly make it look older than Western films of the same time) and trying to talk about how the men were sexualized and dudes because of their aviator sunglasses. Again, I was appalled. Read your program and know something about clothing please.

People mispronounced the title of the film, repeatedly (it's a name you hear in the West a lot and you just watched the bloody movie) and were just generally appalling. I was deeply embarrassed for this really reknown director who had traveled 24 hours to be there.

My next door neighbors and the only friend I had outside of school growing up, were Iranian diplomats. I learned to play chess from the family's father and was always invited over for these endless meals and I was fascinated by the degree to which the setting of the film felt familiar for just those small reasons.

Overall, I really loved seeing this and the Richard III on two successive nights. It made this idea that we (Americans) are the center of the world, particularly ludicrous.

The JASMart near my office has closed. SAD!

There's some sort of BBQ festival going on near work with a giant trailer out proclaiming the awesomeness of pork.

Last night Patty and I went to the restaurant where we had our first proper date because the only craving I could come up with in terms of dining experiences was "dark and sexy." I was suitably rewarded.

I have two tickets to see Fritz Lang's Metropolis at BAM on June 27 at 9pm with live accompaniment by 3epkano. Like an idiot, we've already a calendar conflict that night. If you want them, $30 for the pair.

I want to pass on a link someone on my friendslist found. The organization provides high quality food at deeply discounted prices. There's no income requirement or paperwork to order, and it's been suggested that people who don't need the service use it anyway and donate the money they save to the charities of their choice. What's really notable through is the vegetarian and allergan-free options. I know my celiac diagnosis tripled my grocery bill -- for someone struggling financially, it's the type of thing that can cause serious chaos. Anyway, hopefully this is useful to some of you: http://www.angelfoodministries.com/

Comments

[newsbean.livejournal.com]

Colloquially, yes. In terms of something that would appear in a more formal context, no, which is really what I am more interested in. Sorry that I didn't make that more clear. And in the case of both the United States of Mexico and the United States of Argentina, the citizens do generally go by "Mexican" and "Argentinian" the form that "American" takes.

Obviously, the Americas is much larger than just the US! No one else in the world is expected to refer to themselves as "Citizen of France" or "Citizen of Canada." And "Yank" does still carry quite a bit of derogatory connotations. (Particularly in some parts of the US.) So I'm not sure how it can be expected that we would adopt it. If there's not some genuine alternative, it's a little frustrating to be told that using "American" is being like the Clampetts.

[stardragonca.livejournal.com]

I'm assuming that United Statesians is a non-starter from the get go. Likewise U.S.ians. U.S. Citizens, The People of the the U.S., U.S. people. and the Union all sound felicitous, depending on context.
Blithely referring to your country as America, which is not anybodies country, just grates.

[newsbean.livejournal.com]

"Blithely referring to your country as America, which is not anybodies country, just grates."

That is a point on which I completely agree. I, personally, always refer to it as the United States. It's the question of what to call the citizens that is interesting to me. I would gladly switch over to something besides "American" if there was an obvious, or even mildly workable, choice. I think all of the options you offered work just fine in print, but lord! I would not want to try and pronounce them or use them in every day speech. Likewise, referring to myself as a Yank and all the attendant baggage.

I guess there's not really an awesome alternative?

[stardragonca.livejournal.com]

Last I heard, the people of the Czech Republic didn't know how to refer to themselves either.

Before she became a Canadian citizen, my mother could only describe herself as 'A British subject.' Nothing else would have been accurate.

Citizens of the Irish Republic have similar lumbar with the name thing.

And of course 'I'm a Soviet citizen' was what even ethnic Russians from the Russian Federal Republic of the U.S.S.R. said, back when that was the case.

My country almost named itself 'The United British Colonies of North America.' At the last drunken minute, they went with the name of the largest colony(which was about to be divided into Ontario and Quebec.) Ubcnanian. Think about it.

At least you have an awesome country. Even if the name is awkward.

lumbar

[stardragonca.livejournal.com]

*lumber

[stardragonca.livejournal.com]

And anyway, we love the Clampetts!