By Lydia Lim
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 12 2013 (IPS)

Apart from being an actress, film producer and writer, Geena Davis is a leading advocate of equal gender portrayal in the entertainment media.

Courtesy of Geena Davis

In 2007, Davis launched the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, which has sponsored the largest research project to date on gender in children’s entertainment. Now, the Geena Davis Institute has partnered with UN Women, with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, to undertake its first-ever global study to analyse the depiction of female characters in family films.

Davis believes that the media industry remains discriminatory in its portrayal of women simply because these stereotypes have remained the status quo for a very long time. After playing a power role as the first female U.S. president in “Commander in Chief” and seeing enthusiastic public reactions to the TV series, Davis is convinced that media’s limited portrayal of women can and must change.

IPS correspondent Lydia Lim spoke to Davis about the gender disparity in media images, as well as the entertainment media’s potential to better depict women’s empowerment.

Q: Women and girls are often depicted negatively on-screen due to gender stereotypes in the media. We’re now in the 21^st century: why is the media industry so behind on portraying gender equality?

A: My non-profit has looked at television and family films made in the United States, covering a 20-year span, and unfortunately, the percentage of female characters only went up 0.7 percent during those 20 years. That would mean we’d achieve [gender] parity in around 700 years.

So clearly, we need to become very proactive about improving the quantity and quality of female characters, especially in what children see. I had assumed that in the 21^st century, surely we were showing kids boys and girls sharing the sandbox equally.

My theory is that since the ratio of male to female characters has been exactly the same since 1946, pretty much everyone was raised seeing fictitious worlds with far fewer female characters than male characters, so much that it started to look normal. I think that’s probably why universally, people seem not to notice that there are far fewer female characters unless you point it out.

Q: What kind of effect does this negative depiction of women on-screen have on young girls?

A: We’re training children to see girls and women as not taking up half the space in the world, if this is the image that is reflected to them. And also, with the limited and negative portrayals of the female characters that are there, we’re teaching them that women and girls are not as important as men and boys.

They don’t do the important things; they don’t hold the important jobs; and very often, they’re not integral to the plot. We also found that the function of a female character in a film or a children’s television show is to serve as eye-candy, rather than having an occupation or aspiration.

Q: Does this gender disparity have to do with few women holding positions of power behind the scenes, such as in the roles of directors and screenwriters?

A: Definitely. Currently, female directors are at about seven percent, writers at about 13 percent and producers, 20 percent – which are all very low numbers. And we know from our research that if there’s a woman director, producer or writer, the percentage of female characters on screen goes up. So another way we can attack the problem is to increase the number of women behind the camera as well.

Q: In “Commander in Chief” (a U.S. television series in 2005), you portrayed the first female president of the United States. Were you satisfied that your character depicted women’s empowerment?

A: I was thrilled to do it. My first thought when I was offered the job was, what could be more iconic than that? And I had already been fortunate to play some parts that really resonated with women, so I relished the opportunity.

Unfortunately, my administration was very short – we only had one season of the show – but a group called Kaplan Thaler did a study after the show was on the air and found that people were 68 percent more likely to say they’d vote for a female candidate for president if they were familiar with the show.

Just by seeing my character behind the desk 19 times, it was enough to profoundly change a lot of people’s minds about the possibility of a female president.

Q: Are you confident that this global study under the partnership with UN Women will change the way people around the world perceive women?

A: I’m very excited about this first-ever global study of the depictions of female characters around the world. [By examining] the 10 top box-office grossing countries, we’ll look at character representations, what role they’re playing, and their physical depictions.

And we’re able to do this broad-reaching study because of the participation of UN Women and the Rockefeller Foundation. We think it will be very impactful, and I think this will be very valuable information for everyone and also critical to any NGOs conducting global programmes because of the profound influence media images and messages have on civic, cultural beliefs and behaviours.

Excerpt:

Mumia Abu-Jamal is without doubt the United States’ most well-known prisoner. After living on death row for 30 years, Abu-Jamal’s sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in early 2012 after decades of advocacy by anti-death penalty and anti-racist activists.

It comes as something of a shock, then, that despite Abu-Jamal’s status as a cause célèbre, there is no comprehensive biography of the man’s life and achievements. “Long Distance Revolutionary: A Journey with Mumia Abu-Jamal”, a new film by Stephen Vittoria, fills that gap.

The film’s interviewees include such luminaries as Alice Walker and Cornel West alongside noted independent journalists Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, and Dave Zirin and a host of other cultural and political icons. Through a combination of meticulous research and heavy use of archival footage, Vittoria constructs a powerful narrative of Abu-Jamal’s life and career as a journalist and social critic.

Vittoria came to make “Long Distance Revolutionary” somewhat serendipitously. While working on a different documentary project called “Murder Incorporated: Empire, Genocide and Manifest Destiny”, he interviewed left-wing intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, and Abu-Jamal.

“We were going to attempt to tell the 500-year story of the march of empire,” Vittoria told IPS, “from the time Columbus set foot on Hispaniola to the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Sensing that the scope of that narrative was too ambitious for a feature film, Vittoria sidelined the project and decided instead to tell the story of Abu-Jamal’s life.

Other films about Abu-Jamal have focused primarily or in some cases exclusively on the controversial murder conviction for the shooting of a police officer that landed him on death row. “Long Distance Revolutionary” takes the polar opposite approach. It treats the case the same way that Abu-Jamal seems to: as a fact of his life. As the film emphasises repeatedly, Abu-Jamal has never used his platform to protest his own conviction.

“Whether the case existed or not, this guy is a brilliant journalist who over the course of the last three decades has evolved into a brilliant social critic,” Vittoria says.

Although Mumia is a household name to many progressives and leftists, little attention is paid to his life beyond his case. Vittoria calls his film “an untold history of Mumia”.

True to its subtitle, “Long Distance Revolutionary” takes the audience on a journey through Abu-Jamal’s life. The narrative flows through his career, beginning with his start as a journalist for the Black Panther newspaper at the age of 15 to his career as a reporter for the Philadelphia National Public Radio affiliate.

We follow his meteoric rise as a successful broadcaster, becoming a featured reporter on NPR’s show All Things Considered. Then, Abu-Jamal was elected president of the Philadelphia chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists and turns down a lucrative offer to become a television reporter because the station would have required he cut off his dreadlocks.

Along the way, the film’s impressive cast paints a picture of a Philadelphia filled with overt racism and police brutality, obscured, in Temple University professor Linn Washington’s words, by “a veneer of liberalism and a Quaker mystique.” At the centre of this tension is Abu-Jamal, whom Philadelphia police make a point of watching closely.

Filming Abu-Jamal has not been permitted since 1996. To shoot a documentary with your primary subject unable to be filmed presents a unique set of challenges. Vittoria jests that “it’s like filming Jaws without being able to show the shark.” But it is in working through these limitations that Vittoria’s art as a director shines.

One way Vittoria brings Abu-Jamal to life while he is physically absent is having the film’s pundits read aloud selections from the books Abu-Jamal penned from behind bars. “I wanted to see how Mumia’s words came from the people we had in the film,” Vittoria says. In addition to the regular interviewees, a crew of spoken word artists also take turns reading and interpreting Abu-Jamal’s words.

Even with this, Vittoria still had to grapple with the inability to film Abu-Jamal in his prison cell, which is a defining part of his existence for the past three decades. To not show the cell would be to not accurately portray Mumia. Vittoria made the risky artistic decision to stage a recreation of the cell using a lookalike actor, Troy Alcendor.

“I’m not a huge fan of recreations in films,” Vittoria tells IPS. “But recreations work if they are done in a very stylised manner so you’re just giving the audience a hint of what you’re representing. You’re not trying to make it a docudrama; you’re almost trying to make it like a painting. I wanted those scenes to be poetry. And the poetry is beautiful as he’s writing or it’s ugly as he’s just existing in this cinderblock cage.”

The risk pays off as those scenes provide a uniquely human element to the film, which is sorely lacking in other portrayals. Although the producers of the film are all sympathetic to Abu-Jamal’s politics, it refrains from being an exercise in hero worship. The film is about who Abu-Jamal is as a human being as much as anything else.

In one scene, we are told that visitations to Abu-Jamal at prison are “non-contact”. Actor Giancarlo Esposito remarks, “I imagine he must be extremely sensitive on his skin and on his touch,” offering viewers an opportunity to ponder a side of Abu-Jamal not often seen. The film is full of such moments and succeeds in humanising a man who has been so violently dehumanised.

Despite their close relationship that has blossomed through the film-making process, Abu-Jamal has not seen the film and according to Vittoria had no editorial say over its production. They are currently co-writing “Murder Incorporated”, which has been turned into a book, trading off chapters and mailing them to each other in and out of prison.

Stephen Vittoria is also the director of “One Bright Shining Moment”, a 2005 film about George McGovern’s 1972 grassroots-based presidential bid. Following a successful festival run, “Long Distance Revolutionary” opens in New York City on Feb. 1 and Los Angeles on Mar. 1.

By Patricia Grogg
HAVANA, Dec 18 2012 (IPS)

“Child abuse merits a different, in-depth approach. The objective of this film is to make the problem visible and promote debate and reflection,” says Eric Corvalán, director of a documentary that required “breaking through walls.”

In the film “No es el camino” (This is not the way), prominent Cuban experts discuss child abuse. Social issues are nothing new to Corvalán. In 2008 he premiered “Raza” (Race), about the no-less thorny issue of racial discrimination.

That documentary won a number of awards, including the David Prize awarded by the University of Oriente, for its contribution to education. However, it has yet to be shown on Cuban television.

Eric Corvalán: “The 1975 family code was once cutting-edge, but it is now out-of-date.” Credit: Patricia Grogg/IPS

“When I asked why (it hasn’t been shown), they told me that it was a controversial issue, and that our society wasn’t ready to see it on television. If that was the case with ‘Raza,’ then I imagine that the same thing will happen with ‘No es el camino’,” the independent filmmaker, who is a member of the Cuban Audiovisual Association (ACAV), told IPS in this interview.

His documentary premiered in Havana on Sept. 25 as a demonstration of the commitment by the Oscar Arnulfo Romero Reflection and Solidarity Group to the U.N. secretary-general’s UNiTE to End Violence against Women campaign, which celebrates Orange Day on the 25th of each month.

Q: Why child abuse and not another issue for your second documentary?

A: Because it is an issue that has hardly been addressed. If we acknowledge that domestic violence exists, then we need to know what is going on with the children, who suffer the most. They cannot defend themselves, and they are subject to that violence in different ways: physical, psychological and sexual. Walking through the city, I have seen mothers and fathers who abuse their children in public.

Q: Where does this problem occur?

A: Mostly within the family. The abuser may be an uncle, a cousin, the mother or the father. They scold the child, use disparaging language, or shake or pull the child – as if these were educational methods. That’s why I made the documentary, for children and also for parents, other relatives and the world in general.

The documentary makes it clear that many institutions are working on this issue, but there is no follow-up on cases and no specific law exists. The Penal Code includes a very general reference to the normal development of children and women.

Q: But there is a Family Code.

A: That legislation dates back to 1975. Since then, three generations have gone by…and it hasn’t been changed. In its time, it was very advanced, but now it’s not. Child abuse merits an in-depth approach. For example, in situations of economic crisis, social inequalities increase and children are the most vulnerable.

Q: The documentary brings together a good group of specialists on the matter, but does not include the testimony of any children. Why?

A: They are not in the documentary directly, because in Cuba, if you don’t have official authorisation you can’t interview a child and place him or her onscreen. The objective of this material was to make the phenomenon visible and to protect children. Before interviewing the specialists, I visited several communities in the city and talked to many boys and girls. I realised that the problem is cause for concern.

Children are very sincere, and you can find out about anything talking to them. Both boys and girls are very sensitive and they feel and suffer from problems without having anybody to turn to.

There is no infrastructure in Cuba where children can go and make a complaint. What is needed is a daily education campaign, teaching parents how to listen to their children and to know about their obligations to them.

Q: Do you feel that child abuse should not exist in a society like Cuba’s?

A: When we talk about violence in Cuba, we immediately begin comparing it to other countries, as a defence mechanism. There is less violence here than in other places, but it does exist. “A single boy or girl who is mistreated in this country is a serious problem for us,” said one of the people interviewed, Dr. Cristóbal Martínez, of the national children’s psychiatry group.

Our society is machista. We are violent and loud, but at the same time we are very humane and have a high educational level. These are tremendous contradictions, and in the face of a phenomenon like this, you wonder why it exists and what is being done to solve it.

Q: The documentary premiered in September. Why hasn’t it been screened since?

A: In May 2013, it will compete in the Santiago Álvarez (documentary film festival) in Santiago de Cuba. It will also be shown in international festivals in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, France, Canada, and the United States. Moreover, I hope that it will be used as a tool for studies by international and Cuban organisations.

Q: What was your greatest challenge in taking on such a sensitive social issue?

A: The main challenge was simply to do it – that is, to break through the walls of censorship and fear. I’m using these big words because making a film about violence of any kind is very difficult. Another main challenge now is for people to see it, and discuss and debate it. The idea of issues being discussed is now being promoted in our country, including at the level of the state.

Excerpt:

By Becky Bergdahl
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 13 2012 (IPS)

Start a global debate about the underlying reasons why poverty exists – and do it through cinema.

Courtesy of Bosse Lindquist

The ambitious new initiative “Why Poverty” brings together eight award-winning filmmakers and 30 emerging cinema talents to create documentaries touching on different aspects of poverty, such as gender and inequality, residential segregation, aid and trade.

From Nov. 25 to 30, the films will be aired across the globe via 62 national broadcasters, reaching 500 million people. An online conversation about the topic will follow.

Why Poverty was launched at the United Nations on Sep. 27, and is being run by the organisation Steps, based in Denmark and South Africa. The agenda is not to raise money or push for a single solution to global poverty – it is to ignite discussions about as many aspects of poverty as possible.

The Swedish filmmaker Bosse Lindquist takes on the angle of charity in his contribution, a documentary titled ”Give Us The Money”. He spoke to IPS correspondent Becky Bergdahl about the film, and its focus on the multimillionaire artists Bob Geldof and Bono, who have spent years advocating on behalf of the world’s poorest.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: How did you come up with the idea for the film?

A: I was invited by BBC, SVT and the other commissioning editors to have a look at charity and development. After having scouted the world of glitterati, I realised that Bob Geldof, who in many ways started celebrity involvement with the fight against poverty, was one of the few consistent long-term players.

He has been an activist ever since ’84, at first raising money for victims of starvation, then later working for system change. It soon also became clear that Bono joined him in this fight already in the 90s, and that these guys, cooperating with numerous other individuals and organisations, have achieved quite remarkable gains. And still are.

Q: Have the concerts and campaigns initiated by artists like Bono and Geldof managed to help poor people?

A: Yes. Having said this, it is also important to mention that there are no scientific studies showing exactly what impact they have had. The same goes, unfortunately, for the general impact of development aid on economic development in Africa. These are very complicated issues, depending on a multitude of factors.

Still, it is clear to me that Bono and Geldof played an important part in getting Africa’s outstanding debt to the rich world cancelled in 2005. Also, Bono and Geldof have helped President (George W.) Bush along to set up PEPFAR (the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), and getting the rich world to fund GAVI (the Global AIDS Vaccine Initiative), two projects that together have funded a big part of the life-saving drugs that today reaches eight million HIV-infected Africans.

Q: Can a wealthy, white superstar really become a spokesperson for Africa’s poor?

A: Bono and Geldof have become adept advocates and lobbyists working for increased resources for the extremely poor in Africa, as well as for system change globally, to achieve important legislation regarding aid transparency. But spokespersons – no! This job must be done by Africans.

Q: How much of the artist-activists’ work is done for personal branding, and how much is done to help?

A: Quite a few celebrities engage in charity to enhance their own brands. I have found no proof of Bono or Bob Geldof doing this. But of course, their genuine advocacy surely is of no harm to their brands and record sales.

Q: The richest 20 percent of the world’s states consume 80 percent of the natural resources. Some people live in absolute luxury, others go hungry. Is it possible to achieve global equality – with or without the help of superstars?

A: We simply must work for a more equal and just world. Anything else would not be fair. Also, this is the only way if we want to make the world more peaceful and safe. I believe this is also is a prerequisite for making everyone team up and fight environmental hazards and global warming.

Q: And how can we achieve this?

A: The fight has to be carried out on numerous platforms. One very important fight is about enacting legislation that will counteract corruption and theft in transactions between countries with mineral or agricultural resources and buyers in the rich world.

Another huge fight is about giving every child on earth access to education. A third fight obviously is about ensuring that women have the same opportunities as men globally.

Q: What is your opinion on the concept of the “aid trap”, the theory that says that poor countries become dependent on foreign aid?

A: It is not so much the poorest countries getting dependent, it is more their government officials getting dependent. There is a corruptive element to all big cash transfers, and there is a constant danger that people will get seduced by this.

But the fact that such an “aid trap” certainly exists is no reason to stop all aid. Though it is a very strong reason to demand transparency regarding how aid is given and distributed, with inbuilt means for the recipients themselves to monitor how the money given to a country is disbursed.

Excerpt:

Coralie Tripier interviews filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering about their latest film "Invisible War".

By Coralie Tripier
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 20 2012 (IPS)

The US military is facing one of its biggest scandals, depicted in “Invisible War”, Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering’s latest documentary. The movie collects the stories of women – and men – who, along with many others, became victims of sexual abuse while serving their country and now face post-traumatic stress disorder. The statistics are staggering: more than 20 percent of female veterans have been sexually assaulted during their service. In fact, a female soldier is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed in enemy fire. The lack of response is often as traumatising for the victims as the abuse itself. Most victims do not report the rape in fear of retaliation, and when they do, their attacker is unlikely to be punished. “Invisible War” won several awards, including the Audience Award at Sundance, and is part of the Human Rights Watch Film Festival currently taking place in New York. In a interview with U.N. correspondent Coralie Tripier, filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering explain why they decided to make the movie and what must urgently be done to reform the military justice system. IPS correspondent Shari Nijman filmed the interview. “Invisible War” opens in U.S. theaters on Jun. 22. The video of the interview follows.