“Bold Native” Trailer Debuts
March 19, 2010
What do you think? Is this a film you’d want to see? And can you believe that John Gage (played by Randolph Mantooth) from Emergency! (“Squad 51″) is in it?
I am really dating myself.
Here‘s the site for the film, for more information, and here‘s the site for Open Road Films, the folks who made it.
17 Comments
leave one →
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
At the risk of sounding like a broken record*…does anyone else find it, um, “interesting” how, in promotional graphics for the film, the female animal liberator is sexed up, while the male is not?: http://boldnative.com/promote/
Her silhouette has perky breasts and a fairly obvious (and equally perky) ass, but his is rather nondescript. (And wtf is up with the fox mask?! She looks like a mud flap babe, ferchrissakes!) If they’d be drawn with some measure of equality, the liberator dude would be sporting, *cough*, a huge package, à la these mock supermen: http://odditycollector.livejournal.com/97166.html
Is this a huge deal, in the grand scheme of things? Problematic, yes, but not earth-shattering. Will it prevent me from watching the film? Not so much. But I’m incredibly sick of seeing women reduced to their sexual parts, at every turn. Taken as a whole, what images such as these tell me is that I’m good for one, maybe two things,** neither of which involve effecting real change in the world.
* Actually, no. I don’t need to apologize for pointing this out. Damn gender socialization.
** That would be fucking and birthing, just to be clear.
Mary, thanks so much for posting this link! And Kelly, just wanted to give you my thoughts on this issue you bring up because it’s an important one – and the message of the film is anti-oppression across the board. I’m one of the two producers of the film (both women), and I have been intimately working on this project for the last ten years. Phew! The image you’re referring to is one of several mock-ups that was done as we’ve been working on art for the film. This isn’t going to be the cover art for the film – our director was concerned that this image would provoke this reaction actually and end up redirecting the conversation on the film – which is something none of us want to happen.
The image of the woman in the wolf mask is taken from the film – you’ll have to see the film to understand how her character fits in and I don’t want to give too much away – but she represents a different path to the one our heroes are on. There are female liberators and activists represented in the film, and definitely they are not sexed up and are strong female characters. In fact, several roles that were written as male were changed into women during the casting process. However, the idea with this particular art pass was an attempt at a representation of one of the core issues at the heart of the film for our main liberator – and that is which path is he going to take? And in a lot of ways, this character represents another side of him.
I understand your concerns. I don’t think this image represents the broad scope of the film which is why we’re not going to go with it as our primary art, but once you see it, it sums up a really important conflict in the film between these two characters. Her nudity, also for anyone who’s interested, is not about being sexy – it’s about breaking cages. She’s comfortable in her skin, like an animal. Which gives her a certain power in the scene where the mask appears. And as far as the nudity, in the film it is equal opportunity as you suggest… there is full frontal nudity, both male and female. And again, the goal is not gratuitous, it’s to contrast a certain state of nature and comfort the characters are in at that moment with events which are about to unfold.
Thanks again for posting and commenting! Can’t wait to continue this discussion and hopefully many more like it when the film is released!
Yeah, Kelly, and I also noticed how all the liberators in the trailer are white men except the sexualized female. The characters of color are a cop and an extra from what I can tell.
I had higher hopes for this movie to be honest.
This might end up being something like Battle in Seattle which makes things look a certain way but ends up not telling the real story of activists.
I’ll still see it. Maybe it will prove me wrong.
I’m with Kelly. I’ll still watch the film, of course, but I’m reeeeally pissed off about those graphics.
I appreciate your reply, Casey. I didn’t see it before commenting. It’s frustrating that women are so often put into the role of exploited nonhuman animals but men just get to be men. My concern is with the graphic, not the film. She very much resembles a mudflap girl and he’s a fully clothed, big, strong man. This kind of imagery doesn’t belong in a movement for equality.
Hi all -
Casey said a lot of what I’d want to say on this issue… the most important being that this is one of the designs a graphic artist did for the film after watching it, and we decided not to use it as our cover art for this very reason. But many people loved it, mostly women, so we decided to include it as a button for those who liked it.
In response to Corvus’ comment, we were very concerned throughout the process with diversity. It’s obviously a big issue. One thing we were aware of is trying to ride the line between depicting the movement realistically and depicting it as we’d like it to be. Unfortunately, the movement (in the US) is still very white.
The main liberator is male. I definitely considered making this character female during the scripting process… I am sick of seeing films with only male protagonists as well. We discussed it several times, but the dynamic around which that aspect of the story had developed worked better with a father/son storyline. There are several threads running through the narrative of the film. Another primary thread follows a character who is working within the system for change… you’ll see her in the trailer speaking to fast food executives and at a dinner party.
Since we decided to keep the main liberator male, we populated the film with as diverse a cast as possible. The computer hacker character (who does not appear in the trailer) was written as a man, but was cast as a female with cerebral palsy after Tracy Turner came in and did a great audition. I Rock, the character played by Tonya Kay (who you see in the trailer offering the father a ride), was written as a male; Tonya came in to audition for another part and seemed like such a natural fit for I Rock that we changed it. We also changed the role of a senator to a woman.
In terms of the scripted liberators, Charlie is male. Wyatt (played by Joshua Leonard) is male. The 2nd lead liberator is Sonja (played by Sheila Vand, who is first generation Iranian-American), who you see in the trailer at the end saying “They build the cages, we crack them open,” then looking back through the cut chain link. The “sexualized” liberator you refer to is Riley (played by Kristine Louise). She is the one who first invites Charlie to participate in an action. As Casey says, she goes off in a different direction from Charlie and Sonja, one which provides a central ideological conflict in the film. The other white male you see in the trailer is Karl, who is not a liberator, but a character who gets swept up in the action Charlie and Sonja are planning. His character is gay, and there are parallels drawn in the film about our unfair and discriminatory treatment of gays and the way we treat non-human animals.
There is a section of the film where Charlie and Sonja meet with a number of liberators across the country as they organize a major action. We were very careful to keep this group as diverse as possible in order to present the diversity of the movement. The African-American character you refer to as an extra is MC Supernatural, who plays Malik. Like all these liberators in the recruitment section, he appears in two scenes in the film. I would definitely not call him an extra, though he is a supporting character. We were careful to include people of various ages and ethnicities in this section, including two people of Hispanic descent, an older woman, etc.
I know this is a long response to your concern, but I want you to know this is something we were very aware of when making the film. And we’ve tried to maintain a spirit of diversity throughout.
We’re happy to discuss any of these questions and concerns. The last thing we want is for the message of the film to be obscured. Thanks for your care and concern.
Best
Denis
Hey movie makers, thanks for stopping by to offer discussion.
I tend to throw stones before seeing things so I do need to see this movie. As you probably know, many of us have become disillusioned with “revolutionary” films over the years since they’re all fluff and no reality. I’ll hope differently from this one and try not to judge until I see it.
I’m definitely usually disappointed with most revolutionary films, so I feel you here. We tried to make something that was a bit more 1970′s than what we’ve seen recently. Though there were a few from the last decade you should check out if you haven’t seen them that were films we watched in the pre-production. The Edukators, which is a German film, is awesome. Mouth to Mouth is a really interesting look inside the cultish (and sexist) nature of some so-called revolutionary groups. Baader-Meinhoff Complex was by no means a perfect film, but there’s some really interesting sections.
Thanks Mary for posting the trailer.
I understand your comments Kelly, however you really can’t judge a book by it’s cover.
Or…. a film by one of it’s promo posters.
Honestly. I read this blog (A R & A O) everyday and find it to be the most well written, trustworthy, prevailing and up to date blog around.
All I can say on this issue about the movie…is that this image does not speak for the film in it’s whole. This is absolutely a brilliant, accurate and inspiring film!
Casey and Denis are two of the most mindful and thoughtful activists I know.
I’ve seen the film already a few times…..and it is a moving, truthful account and one of the most poignant works on today’s fight for animal rights that has ever been produced. Not that many people have been able to bring this issue into the world of fiction and do the issue and beings involved justice. This film does.
One thing the movie points out over and over…is we have a lot of battles to fight in our bringing the non humans of this world better days.
In the same way we animal advocates become frustrated (replace with your own word there) with humans who look at a non human and make judgements about the mind, sentience or the inner workings of that being based on a single external or superficial characteristic of that other.
We really must try to be a bit calmer with our own human and vegan like minded souls attempting to change the world. Not that we shouldn’t critique but we need to slow down a bit sometimes and see the whole “picture” first.
I know the other animals of the world are much more complex and much more like humans than our species has ever given them credit… because of the way they might act-look on the outside.
You can not know what’s it’s like to be a someone until you’ve been there. Right?
I think your criticism of the graphic is convincing and accurate. But….just of this one graphic not of the film or the filmmakers.
I do love this blog though for the exact reason we are having this dialogue.
Veganly yours….
Looks like we were writing our comments at the same time, Philip! Agreed, my comment had nothing to do with the film (of which I know little), but rather the graphics. It still looks like something I might watch, though not necessarily for leisure viewing. (We all need a break from activism some time, right?)
Casey & Denis – I want to thank you both for taking the time to respond to my comments. I hadn’t heard of the film until this morning (when I seemed to see references to it *everywhere*), and I haven’t yet watched the trailer, so admittedly I know little-to-nothing about the plot, casting, etc. My observations were about the graphics and the graphics alone. After reading your replies, though, I would like to reply to two specific points.
Casey, you wrote:
Her nudity, also for anyone who’s interested, is not about being sexy – it’s about breaking cages. She’s comfortable in her skin, like an animal. Which gives her a certain power in the scene where the mask appears. And as far as the nudity, in the film it is equal opportunity as you suggest… there is full frontal nudity, both male and female. And again, the goal is not gratuitous, it’s to contrast a certain state of nature and comfort the characters are in at that moment with events which are about to unfold.
I think this just reinforces my point about the disparate ways in which the two genders are silhouetted in the graphics; if both appear nude in the film, why is it that only the sexual organs of the woman are exaggerated in the artwork? (Actually, this is a rhetorical question; after leaving the initial comment, I spent some time poking around the artist’s – or rather, who I presume is the artist’s – website, and this seems to be a common theme in his art, as does the positioning of male vs. female bodies, i.e., women turned with their backs to the camera, men faced fully forward and in control, etc.)
Also, Denis, you noted that women in particular seemed to like this artwork. While I understand the need to effectively promote the film, this comment concerns me. If (the collective) you are aware that the imagery is sexist (or could reasonably be perceived as such), the popularity of the graphics is, ideally, a moot point. Many women (and members of other marginalized groups) are socialized to embrace, engage in, and even defend their own oppression; if anything, this just underscores the need to actively work against such prejudices, rather than play to them, however unintentionally. (And again, it’s arguable whether the graphics are sexist/objectifying within the context of the film; I’m just saying that the images’ popularity is irrelevant.)
Again, I greatly appreciate your clarifications, as well as your obvious willingness to consider these issues. Too many people would have just called me a man-hating prude and moved on!
Hey Kelly -
Thanks for the reply. This is a fun discussion I think. Part of our goal with making the film was to create an environment in which different tactics and ideologies within the movement could be discussed… so it’s good to know that’s happening already!
I hear your point re: whether the popularity of the image with some women matters. As I was typing it, my brain was saying something similar. It’s obviously such a cliche defense of sexism… but the chicks dig it!
However, while I agree with the general idea that oppressive power structures often function due to the forced complicity of the oppressed, I don’t think the fact that some women like the image is “irrelevant.” I think that things like this are fluid, and we do the movement towards equality a disservice by acting as if there are hard and fast rules. Ideally, we’d be moving towards a world where people no longer think in catagories. Where they judge people as individuals… where we look at this poster and see two characters, not A Woman and A Man. I think what were sexist images to one generation may be empowering to another. I’m aware there’s controversy and conflict over ideas of third-wave feminism and sex-positivity, and I don’t want to in any way suggest I know enough to discuss it. But I do think it can be patronizing to people to suggest that their personal judgment of an image is due to their socialization and oppression. It is possible they understand these things and like it anyway, and perhaps they find a power in it. I think it’s always fair to bring up your ideas and education to them, but to dismiss their preference out-of-hand as irrelevant is a little unfair.
Again, the film is about equality, and we don’t want to disrupt that message. Which is why we didn’t choose this as the artwork. We found an artists who we thought was good with conveying complex ideas in images and asked him to do whatever he wanted. The image he did, which is also on the website, of the pig fetus in a molotov cocktail, is very powerful and intriguing… it symbolizes that the fuel to the energy of this movement is at heart the cruelty towards the most vulnerable. And the image of Charlie in front of the monitors is intriguing… we use a lot of doc footage in the film and that gets the idea across. But we’re still not sure what the final image for the dvd will be. We’re still working on it with him. And we’ll keep your ideas and concerns in mind.
Again, thank you for your input and discussing this. We’re all learning and hopefully helping each other to understand the best ways to fight what I hope are our common enemies and work towards what I hope are our common goals. Like Philip, I think this blog is awesome and have always learned from the things you all post.
Denis: “It is possible they understand these things and like it anyway, and perhaps they find a power in it.”
Really? You really think so? I don’t want to come across as argumentative but this does not sit well with me. Clearly, it was known from the beginning that this image was problematic and I think it was a poor decision to put it out there.
I’m looking forward to the film and to an examination of the AETA, which doesn’t touch only people involved in militant direct action. I don’t know how much the film gets into what the AETA really means for *all* animal rights activists, but I think the post-film discussions will go in that direction, and if the film is a catalyst for that, I’m a fan already.
Being a movie and concerned with dramatic action, the film does focus more on animal liberation and direct action… it remains more cinematic than running a website!
But you’re exactly right Mary, an understanding of AETA is important for all animal rights activists (and I think all social justice activists in general, as well as all Americans who care about the First Amendment). And we definitely plan to use post-film discussions and the website forum to educate about these issues. Any assistance other activists can provide is welcome and needed, whether it be joining us at screenings to discuss or commenting on blogs or facebook entries.
We also plan to have extended interviews with Odette Wilkins and noted First Amendment lawyer Louis Sirkin (also a SHAC7 attorney) on the dvd… they appear in the film, counseling our father character on AETA and how it relates to his animal liberator son, but the extended interviews will touch on non-direct action consequences of the law.
In the test-screenings we did during the post-production for the film, mostly for non-vegan, non-AR people, AETA was always a topic of conversation. The level of awareness of this legislation is rock-bottom, and we can all do our part to help educate our fellow citizens. It’s going to be a tough battle to take this one down, considering the press any legislator will get for being “pro-terrorist” if they oppose it… but it’s absolutely essential to our country that we not allow thought-crime legislation like this to remain on the books. We’ve talked a bit with some people who are planning to launch an anti-AETA lobbying campaign this summer. We’ll update the site as we learn more.
“Which is why we didn’t choose this as the artwork…”
I’m still confused as to why this is OK for promos (i.e., getting people to see it in the first place) but not on the actual DVD (i.e., when people can recommend it to folks/folks can read reviews of it).
Loved the Edukators but haven’t seen the other two. Thanks for the recommendations, Denis!