Transitions

So it’s that time of year. The festive season! The time of year where everybody starts to wind down, make plans with family and friends and perhaps the most fun part of the season, Christmas parties. These are the time to catch up with friends and family that you might not have seen in a while and eat good food, and drink good wine/beer/egg nog, whatever your preference. As much as I love my family and friends, I think it’s the work Christmas party that I look forward to most. It is definitely the most interesting. You know the scenario. There’s the “organiser”, the one who for better or for worse, is determined to get everybody in the spirit. She/he is the one who decorates the office, organises the office secret Santa and spends the days leading up to the party, sending out reminder emails and geeing everybody up for the event of the year. There’s the “conscientious objectors”, the ones who despite the best attempts by the organiser, refuse to attend the party on the grounds of some reason that is fundamentally important to them. There’s the “wall flowers”, the ones who sit on the side because they are either new to the office or afraid that once that crack the bubbles, their drunken “alter-ego” will attend in their place, dancing the night away and telling everybody how much they love them. Then there’s the “instigators”, the ones who magically appear with “just one more” round of shots or a bottle of wine. They are the first to buy alcohol, the ones who as soon as the food is consumed suggest that everybody do a tequila slammer, and after observing the mess they have made, are the first to go home. Then lastly and perhaps most importantly to the party’s survival, the “party animals”. The ones who consume 50 per cent of the bar tab alone. The one’s who dance the funky chicken or decide to krump on the dinner table (depending on the age of the party animal). The one’s who insist that the party needs to move onto the night club precinct because of both a desire to party on, but also because they have been asked by the function manager to leave the venue due to intoxication and need a new location. The interesting thing is attendees not only transition from their professional self, to their party self, no matter which archetype they fit into, but can also transition from one archetype to another throughout the duration of the party. For example, the organiser may transition to party animal, either because they decide to get loose after a stressful period of organising, or in an attempt to liven up the party after the crickets start croaking. The instigator can also become the party animal. In their efforts to influence everybody else to get drunk, they may participate in one too many tequila slammers, and they themselves become the victim of their own instigating. The party animal can also become the wall flower, although that’s normally at work the next week, after they experience flash backs from the night of stripping down to their undies and throwing up on the dance floor.  

So what was the relevance of the analysis of the work Christmas party? Well (a) because I had mine on Friday night, but more so (b) because it is a fun example of transitions and this was the dominant theme coming out of this week’s films.

MOVIE OF THE WEEK

Gandhi

Director: Sir Richard Attenborough

Starring: Ben Kingsley, Candice Bergen, Sir John Gielgud, Martin Sheen, Edward Fox and Ian Charleson

This week of movie watching was the best yet. I had an autobiographical film and a child hood favourite. I have to be honest here, I am slightly intimidated to review this film, as it was so fantastic, I don’t know if I will be able to do it justice. But I’ll give it go.

Gandhi is about the life of Mohandas K Gandhi (he later became known as Mahatma meaning “Great Soul”), a man who not only bought about the separation and independence of India from the British Empire, but who was also responsible for legislative changes in South Africa. In studying history, we so often see injustices bought to an end by a violent revolt or revolution of some kind, but what made Gandhi so special, was his commitment to non-violent resistance. He taught his admirers (and it was not just a few, in fact it was almost all of India who followed his teachings), to bring attention to injustice by non-cooperation. He was fundamentally against complying with laws that were in any way unjust or inequitable, however he was absolutely committed to non-violent means of defying these laws, even if this meant being beaten, incarcerated or worse being killed. And the movie depicts this so well.   

The film starts in 1893 with Mohandas travelling through South Africa on the train to take up his new posting as a solicitor. He is well dressed and is travelling in a first class carriage. He is approached by two of the train’s staff and despite having a valid first ticket, is thrown off the train. The movie depicts this as the moment where Gandhi first becomes aware of social injustice and commits himself to fighting this peacefully at every turn. These are the years of apartheid in South Africa, and not only did this apply to its indigenous inhabitants, but anybody “of colour”. During this period, both South Africa and India were part of the British Empire, so there was a large Indian community in South Africa. Like many colonial nations of the time, laws were blatantly racist and functioned to perpetuate the power of the white man over the man of colour. In the film, Mohandas draws attention to this, by burning his pass, which by law was supposed to be carried by all Indians at all times, simply because they were Indian. The pass was a physical representation of registration, which again was required of all Indians living in South Africa. There is a scene which sees Mohandas severely beaten and arrested for burning his pass and that of other Indians who had presented to protest registration. Through non-violent protest, Mohandas drew international attention to the social injustice in South Africa for its Indian citizens, and the South African General was forced to come to a comprise with Gandhi on registration. The film does not go into detail about the terms of this agreement.

The next part of the film depicts Gandhi’s political efforts in India. Between 1915 and 1945, Gandhi commits himself to liberating India from the British Empire, seeing British rule as another form of social injustice. Due to his efforts in South Africa, Gandhi is already well known when he returns to India and immediately joins forces with the Indian Congress. He organises wide spread civil disobedience, in the form of strikes, public protest and defiance of any law, which sees an Indian being treated differently to an Anglo citizen. One protest sees the British Army massacre over one thousand unarmed Indian protestors. This leads to violent protest all over India. In an effort to stop the violence, Gandhi fasts almost to the point of death. During his time in India, seeing poverty as another form of social injustice, Gandhi and his wife, established an “ashram” (a form of religious hermitage) and live like those who were in poverty. This is the point in the film where Gandhi stops wearing suits as a solicitor would, but rather traditional Indian attire. Not only does he wear it, but he makes all his own clothes, as any impoverished Indian of that time would. He claims that in order to understand poverty, you have to experience it.

Eventually, after many years of civil disobedience and non-violent protest, plus many failed negotiations, due to Gandhi’s absolute commitment to Indian independence, the British withdraw from India. The sad thing is that there is then a religious war between the Hindu Indians and the Muslim Indians over power. The solution: create a new country for Muslim Indians, Pakistan. This leads to more violent anarchy and Gandhi, now being in his early 70s begins to fast again, declaring he would not eat until the violence stopped. Despite pleading from his supporters and friends (his wife had passed away by this point) he refuses to eat until the violence stops. Again, he was knocking on death’s door, but due to his national status and the love he had from all of India, the violence does stop and he is saved. In an attempt to bring about peace and ease the country’s unrest, against the advice of his closest confidantes, Gandhi travels to Pakistan. Sadly, he is shot by an extremist and the nation goes into mourning.

From the little study I have done about Gandhi, I thought the film captured his life and achievements really well. As I stated earlier, the movie depicts a major transition. Gandhi goes from a modest Indian solicitor, to an ideological leader. Ben Kingsley was absolutely fantastic in the role. He embodied Gandhi’s gentle nature, but equally his determination and resolve. He even looked like him. A very believable performance! The sets were amazing. As I was watching it, I actually felt almost as if I was watching a documentary. It looked what I imagine early 20^th century India would have looked like. And I was absolutely emotionally invested in the film, which to me as I always say, is a sign of a great film. It was three hours long and split over two parts, but it didn’t feel that long. In fact, it left me wanting more. I was actually sad when it finished.

All in all a fantastic movie and well deserving of the Best Film award!

9/10

Tootsie

Director: Sydney Pollack

Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Jessica Lange, Teri Garr, Bill Murray and Sydney Pollack

So, this was the first film that I have watched as part of this challenge, which I have already seen. Not only once, but many many times. It was a childhood favourite in fact. Also a really great film!

Tootsie is about an aspiring actor Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman), who takes on the persona of a woman he names Dorothy Michaels, in order to get an acting job to raise money for his friends play. He lands a supporting role on a popular day time soap, after many failed auditions, and after his agent, George (Sydney Pollack) fails to inform him that a part that he was supposed to be put forward for on Broadway has been taken by another actor. The catch is the part is a FEMALE hospital administrator.  Despite the fact that he is a very unattractive looking woman, he manages to fool those of his co-stars and the crew on set and the viewing audience (perhaps it’s because Dustin Hoffman has such a small frame and actually does make a dress look good). The irony is that the man, who is a self-confessed womaniser as a man, actually becomes a voice for female empowerment on the show as a woman. This mostly transpires because he is trying to avoid having to kiss his male co-star, and will do anything to avoid this ranging from adlibbing feminist inspired lines, to slapping him in the face. But no matter what the means or motivation for doing what he did on the show, he still speaks to many women as Dorothy Michaels. He in fact becomes so popular, that he is signed to the show for another year, playing the part of Emily Kimberley. The fact that he does not want to play the part of a woman for the rest of his career, coupled with his need to tell the woman has fallen for Julie (Jessica Lange) that he is both a man and in love with her, leads him to reveal himself on the live on the show. In the end, he is able to help his friend fund the play and he gets the girl.

I think what made Tootsie so good, was despite the content of the film (a man dressing as a woman), the movie actually invokes a lot of emotion. There are some funny moments on screen, particularly in the films climax when Michael’s girlfriend, Sandy (Teri Garr) finds love heart shaped chocolates in Michael’s house from a man, so she draws the conclusion that Michael is gay (the chocolates are for Dorothy, but she does not know Michael is Dorothy). Also, when Michael falls for Julie he tries to kiss her as Dorothy and she thinks he is a lesbian. By the way, excuse the interlude, but Teri Garr plays a fantastic role, as kooky, crazy and unstable Sandy. Loved her in this part. But you actually feel for Michael. It’s different to other films that involve gender transformation, where it’s all about the comedy of taking on the alternate gender (think Mrs Doubtfire when Robin Williams’ fake boobs set on fire over the stove top). It’s actually more about how Michael transforms as a man, once he has experienced what it is like to be a woman. After this he is able to commit to one woman and recognise the importance of being honest and faithful. He also becomes a lot more aware of how his actions impact on others. At the start of the film, he is frankly kind of a jerk, unwilling to take direction and unwilling to change his viewpoints, making him very difficult to work with and leading to perpetual unemployment. By the end of the film, he expresses a lot of remorse for fooling everybody and the hurt that he caused by lying about who he was.

A really good film and worth the watch even if you just want to see Dustin in a dress.

7/10

Until next week, “that’s it! This is the last pill, the good bye pill” (Elizabeth, Drop Dead Fred)