Category: Paper

I think one of the most interesting things I learned in this movie had to do with the fact that I was unaware of the history of Indians living in Uganda. This was the first time this piece of history was ever presented to me and I was honestly surprised (but also not surprised) that I had never heard of it. I think it’s just part of one of the great things about this class is that I get to examine the history of Asian/Asian American People in a way that I haven’t before.

Overall, the movie was okay. Plot wise I understood it, I felt like the end didn’t wrap itself up the way I would have liked it to but maybe that was a specific choice of the director. I mean the topics/commentary presented in the movie don’t really wrap themselves up nicely in real life.

I think I was really interested in this idea of “mix masala”. I’ve understood being mixed physically because I am Black and Filipino but the idea of being mixed culturally and having to come to terms with that. I especially think this was the most interesting struggle especially for the father. He had lived in Uganda his whole life and the only thing he knew was Uganda and having that identity essentially ripped away caused a lot of internal questions and struggles he had to overcome in the movie.

The reason I really loved this movie was that I finally got to see Filipino and specifically Filipino-Americans. It’s definitely not an experience you get to see (or ever see) especially in movie format. I felt like I really related to this film in different ways and that was invaluable experience for me and I’m glad I got to watch it and discuss it with other APIA folks.

 

A returning theme that I noticed in our texts was the relationship between father and son. The relationships are always about approval and the absence of a father (whether physical or emotional). I think the closest in similarity would to the Debut would be Donald Duk. Both Ruben and Donald don’t want to be there respective ethnicities and both have huge miscommunication/misunderstandings with their fathers because of this. But I always think it’s important to note that these misunderstandings are almost always resolved in the end in some way. In the Debut, Ruben’s father gives his approval to Ruben going to art school in the best way that he can. It’s stiff and awkward and almost didn’t seem like approval but it was leagues of progress when it came to changing their dynamic. There is a lot of trauma that gets passed along through generations and once we begin to identify the trauma we can then make steps to unlearn it. I thnk that was the most powerful message I got from the movie.

 

-the “devil’s lane” race and sex in US History *a place scholars are still uncomfortable exploring*

-Civil Rights Movement; not just generalized tension between blacks and whites but also the sexual relationships btwn blacks and whites

-“rebellious laughter” People’s Humor in American Culture

“Black Humor”

• humor does not translate well among groups
• the complex intergroup relationships related to humor
• humor as survival mechanism/weapon
• guarding culture, guarding humor
• evolution of the black stand up comic (comics I know: Kat Williams, Dave Chappelle, Kevin Hart, etc)
• the nature of “profane” language

The greatest satire; begin with destruction and then build on top of it.

 

 

While the film was very short but it was definitely good and had a lot of information packed into it. I mean information as in there was so much to talk about in terms of what was happening on screen. But I think it’s good to start this review with a little background.

 

The film was directed by Rea Tajiri who is a Japanese American film maker who wanted to recall the history of her family when they were sent to internment camps during World War II. I think knowing about how much of a personal stake artists’ put in their works is important in being able to understand the work.

 

So I guess the film itself could be described as a documentary. But it’s not like any documentary I’ve seen. I think the film was very experimental and the way it portrayed its’ concepts where what I’d say non-traditional. I’m not exactly a film buff as I said in the Ghost in the Shell review but from my viewpoint most of it seemed experimental. Despite its nontraditionalness, I really enjoyed it. I liked that she added in footage from things filmed during the war as well as things that she filmed herself during the 90s. I think there were instances of reenactments such as the mother with the canteen and the sister taking a picture of her crush. Most of the film seemed really grainy and not very polished, but I enjoy that aesthethic (lo-fi hip hop lol).

 

While I think there are a lot of themes and concepts to discuss I think I really want to focus on this idea of memory. Because in the film, the idea of history and memory become kind of blurred. I mean most people think of history and memory as these solid, static objects that are hard to change. You have a memory of eating a banana for breakfast in the morning and there’s a history of you always eating a banana for breakfast in the morning. So it’s this undisputable fact both memory and history. But in the film memory and history are both shaped constantly. History is omitted and memory is suppressed. Who gets to tell the history of what happened? Why is there this sense of “intentional forgetfulness” when it comes to an entire group’s traumatic experience? I always hear so much about the Holocaust for instance and no one will ever forget those atrocities. So why is this one forgotten about? Jewish people proudly tell their history to their children and children’s children. But why is it that Rea asks her mother what is like in the internment camps she can’t remember much?  But why is it when I ask my grandmother about the Spanish and American colonization in the Philippines, she won’t answer me?

 

These are questions I definitely thought about during the movie and I definitely think it’s worth exploring them as we move on in the class. Also I wouldn’t mind a rewatch!