The bet of alternative cinema in Bangladesh

The Bangladeshi film industry found a niche, in covering ethnic minorities and cultural diversity.

Another war, another front

When a war is over - from the juridical point of view, another war is starting: the one with the own past, personal histories. Everything is against the trust, because the experience with the human beings you had during any kind of conflict is a proof that you don't have to trust anybody.

One year after the conclusion of Dayton Agreement, the Austrian documentary filmmaker Nikolaus Geyrhalter documented, through direct interviews with people the conclusion of the four years war. In a bit more than 200 minutes - a bit too long, not always well organized and with lots of longs minutes without too much visual information - you have a various landscape of human testimonies. People who lost their family members, displaced persons (the Internally Displaced Persons wandering from a part to another of the former Yugoslavia, hosted in improper conditions), simple people with lost citizenships.

Through the different experiences and perspectives, you have the same obsessive conclusion: never will be the same. The friendship with the Serbian girls is a matter of past, because the Serbians killed the Bosnians' girl father. People at an age when it is supposed to stay with the nephews are forced to permanently move in empty houses. A couple of times, the inverviewed are asked about love. One of them are warming around a fire in the street. They are poor, without homes, without families. After four years of words, it is a new vocabulary, simplified, cleaned of any descriptions of deep feelings. Not even hate could find a place in this new language. Hate was the overwhelming feeling in the middle of the conflict. Now, after it's over, you try to get accomodating with a new life, and when you are in a hurry, fighting to survive, you cannot enjoy the confort of the nuances.

Nowadays, you don't hear too much about Bosnia. You can see the material traces of the war, as in Croatia or Serbia. And the children who grew up during the conflict are still marked by it. These wounds and memories cannot be repaired or repainted. You live with them, are part of your identity, and are reconsidered in various forms in the present. Maybe they are more immune to nationalist fanatism. During what was once the Yugoslav Federation, the outside image was of a wonderful multiculturalist world, where all the nationalities were living together in a pathetic harmony. It was a fake and the violence of the conflict prooved the contrary. When the myths and the history are invading the daily life, the normal, cold political calculations are becaming a drug, because they are no more cold and no more mathematical-like evaluations of the social perspectives.

The rule of the emotions is destroying the social rules, the political codes. The normal, functional societies are based on reason, measure and evalution. It's one of the main conditions of the progress. Otherwise, let's warm our feeling, go out on the street, kill the others, destroy the sources of revenue, in general, destroy everything. One of the best literary descriptions of the war atmosphere I found in the War of the End of the World, by Mario Vargas Llosa. The inter-ethnic wars as those from the former Yugoslavia are not difficult to explain, as the ways in which the atmosphere was set up by the former communist tugs (all the stupid theories of the international complot against Yougoslavia is completely an outrage for the normal intelligence, but not a reason enough to do not still find in far-right publications from the area ), - as Milosevic and his gang with an impressive infractional record - fearful, among others of loosing the influence and the control they used to enjoy since Tito. The outcome of the post-conflict rehabilitation are unknown. Maybe, once in the EU, these countries will bring up the divisive attitude, maybe will help in containing any kind of conflict. From the point of view of the region, all these people need to think in perspective and to hope they would be taught to grow up. And, from time to time, we have to remember they still exist, even they stopped killing each other.

Why should we learn "subjonctif imparfait"?

A movie with only one professional actor, taking place exclusively "entre les murs" of Collège Francoise Dolto from the 20e arrondissement of Paris, based on the novel with the same name of François Bégaudeau, a teacher himself.

If we don't have too much knowledge of the social map of Paris, and we don't know too much about the ZEPs - Zones d'Education Prioritaire, the name of school, of the French psychanalist, purposive or not, might be took as a suggestion of interpretation. Among others, she supported the idea of the childhood as an important part in the evolution of the individual, stressing the way in which the feelings represent a basis for the development of intelligence and and ways to express them as sign of inner troubles encoutered at the beginning of the life. Also, the language of the body needs to be considered on equal foot with the spoken language, mainly when it is about small children. And this finding could be took into consideration when we try to go deeper into the movie's core ideas.

In this college you have mostly children - 13-14 by age - with "problems" - second or first generation immigrants - from Morocco, China, Mali, Carribean area etc - , with a poor knowledge of French, encountering high social problems, with parents who cannot communicate with the teachers directly, because themselves they don't know French, or illegal immigrants. This unclear status is translated into anomic behaviors and even we don't know almost nothing about their lives beyond the school's wall, we have many hints to guess. As for the teachers, they have good will, at least at the beginning of the school year, but for some of them, the problems faced are overwhelming and even the most tolerant and openminded are failing to resist a mounting pressure from the part of the children.

The short conclusion could be easy: Well, they don't want to learn, it's their responsability, they will fail to get a brighter future than their current present so, why to use your time and energy ? The most disobedients, in order to show an example for the rest, will be expelled from school - and it is what happening with one of them - the rest have to learn this lesson. In fact, is neither black or white. On both parts they are efforts to do better their jobs. The big problem is the failure to make themselves understood because, even they are speaking in French - good or bad, doesn't matter, they could find the common words - the worlds they are communicating through the language are extremely different.

The teachers aren't showed in the movie as visiting the children's homes, their daily environment. The discussions between them and the parents are taking part in the classrooms, the parents sitting with or without their kids at desks, with the teacher sit on the opposite part, in the school teacher's desk. All they could get in a couple of minutes meeting is the professional evaluation versus the inner dreams they all have for their children. And here still they are many inadvertences and reality missing links.

The composition of the classroom is offering a good case of analysis of the diversity at work. Do this diversity works by encouraging the children to share their experiences. Rather not. When it is about a football championship, those who are talking prefer to stress their bad-wishes for the other part, even if they belonging to the same geographical entity, Africa. A Chinese child, with a poor French, but with a big desire to learn is rejected, even his situation could offer many reasons of solidarity with the others.

And this situation is available for the teachers themselves. They fail in explaining the "ways" of a subject they are discussing in the classroom and even the language used is not understood in the same way by the children. Of course, they don't have to speak in slang to rise their popularity or wrap up their subjects matter in a more attractive clothes. On their part, the children simply consider them "bourgeois" and treat them as old-fashioned remnants of a bigoted world they don't think ever will let them go in. And the world they are all in is having well known limits, whose transgression will took generations.

The key of this is, I think, the question asked by one of the kids, at one of the French lessons, about the reason to learn "subjonctif imparfait", not used in the everyday speech, but to be found in formal writing. It sounds as by their own will, at the age of 13-14 they decided to comply with a situation they don't know how to change it. And the teachers don't offer them that the description of the changes, without empowering with them with the tools to do it.