As an introduction to the concept of globalization within cinema, La Promesse (1996) seems to do an interesting job in conveying these ideas toward the audience. Unlike other films which perhaps portray this idea in a larger, more upfront light, La Promesse seems to push this idea in a more subtle, but no less powerful way. And at least through the filter of which I witnessed the film, its ideas are rather bleak to say the least. Although, as a first step into this world I think it would be ideal to take a small chunk of the ideas within the film and start small, expanding upon the simple idea of globalization as and “exchange” of something.
At first glance, the concept of this exchange is quite evident in multiple ways, for example, the repeating idea of an exchange of currency. As I’m sure we are all aware there are multiple currencies used within La Promesse, perhaps the most notable being the American Dollar and the Belgian Franc. These two currencies are exchanged freely within the film with little question. Currency is constantly being exchanged for an item or service. (Three particular examples of which money is traded for could be, work, travel, or a service). It is this idea of currency exchange that serves as the driving force behind the films story as well as ideas. Money is frequently both a part of the problem as well as a part of the solution, at least that’s how it might seem upon the surface.
But yet if broken down even further, La Promesse touches on perhaps an even larger idea within this concept of “exchange.” This is of course being the exchange of people. Now with those examples in mind it doesn’t take much to see one of the ideas that La Promesse pushes toward the audience. Within the film there is a constant exchange of money for people and people for money. Robert and Igor make money off people who are being exchanged and moved, while undoubtedly, someone is making money off them. This cycle, seems almost unstoppable as we noticed in the end of the film knowing that Igor and Assita are returning to where they once began, an area governed by this constant exchange of people and money. It’s almost as if this film is stating that one cannot escape this exchange no matter where they go or how hard they try and avoid it.
Of course, this is an extremely summarized way of stating this concept. There are surely other ideas that fit onto this puzzle of “exchange” within this film. But yet, it might be better to ask others what they think of this idea, or more specifically, how did you view this idea(s) of “exchange” within La Promesse?
I totally saw the same concept in the film, Daniel. The concept of “exchange” hits the nail on the head with the definition of Globalization that I found. The definition boils Globalization down to an “interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations...” (http://www.globalization101.org/what-is-globalization/). Our assigned book, Globalization A Very Short Introduction by Manfred B Steger, further explains that it also is a “set of social processes” (9). I think of this as a web of social culture. This can be easily noticed from the immigrants as with Assita and her beliefs, through the legal citizens with Robert and his acts/beliefs of “coyoting” or people smuggling. We see interactions or “exchanges” throughout the entire film.
Another “exchange” that I noticed are the settings. Now this idea is a little out there but after reading Daniel’s post, it lingered in my head. I noticed that the film jumped from the garage where Igor worked at, to the immigrants’ apartment, to the bar, back to the apartment, and little various places in between. I noticed a “cycle” of them moving and escaping but never truly getting anywhere. This can be a failed concept of “exchange” of them seeking a new environment but successful in terms of them still being in the concept of exchange through money and people.
I believe that La Promesse did an excellent job of showing this aspect of Globalization. But I’m sure that there are many more ideas of “exchange” within La Promesse than the ones stated here. Thoughts?
I think that the main topic relating to globalization in this film would be the subject of immigration that the film touches on. There were a lot of things I had heard about related to immigration before, like how people will take your money and say they will get you somewhere but they might not and you can’t really trust anyone. There were also other things that I didn’t know about, like how individuals could just pay for someone to be brought to their country and then use their labor, basically slave labor, to “pay off” their debts for this service. The globalization aspect that I saw the focus on was how as an immigrant you can go almost anywhere you want but you will have to pay, with money or other types of “currency” as Daniel discussed.
What really struck me was how people will just take advantage of you any way they can, if they have something to gain from it. I was discussing this film with someone outside of class and they brought up the situation that is happening in Qatar right now with the building of the World Cup Stadium. The country receiving immigrant workers (they have to pay large sums of money to get there) and then they work on the stadium to pay off their massive debt. You can read the article on CNN. I think that the film sort of transcends the time barrier of when it was created because these issues are still going on today in many countries.
I’m not sure if this film is trying to get us to agree with a certain viewpoint or opinion, I think it is just sort of an educational, eye-opening experience. It just wants you to know that these things are happening. At the end of the film we don’t really get a lot of resolution and I think that’s what stuck with me the most. Not knowing what might happen to these two (Igor and Assita) and what the cruel world might do to them.
Feel free to link the CNN article on the situation in Qatar.
Also, regarding "point of view" and/or whether or not the film wants us to agree with it, this might be something we should discuss in class. Think about how one can ascertain what the point of view of the film is and, also, how we might be able to ascertain whether or not the film wants us to agree with it--or, perhaps, even "forces" us to agree with it. What FILMIC/CINEMATIC aspects could we point to that would allow us to say, THIS is the film's point of view and WE as viewers are made to (or not) agree with it?
Throughout La Promesse the most interesting aspect to me, was the relationship between Igor and Assita. Toward the very beginning of the film Igor is shown peeking in on Assita through some type of hole in the wall - he's shown doing this a few times. At first I assumed he was trying to catch her undressing or perhaps he had a crush on her and was just fascinated with watching her. The conversation about sex with his father and him admitting he's had desires to be with a female before, further eluded to this "crush" on Assita. However, after watching the two go on somewhat of a "journey" together I began to think differently. Igor embracing Assita in tears, after she accused him of making her baby sick, served as a turning point for me. At first I was worried, that he was going to try to kiss her or something and the movie would take a dark turn. But what I saw was the type of compassion you see between a mother and child. I think what Igor was really drawn to all along, with Assita, was his longing for a mother figure or just parental figure in general.
The only parental figure he has - his father, encourages stealing, cheating, not going to school, smoking, drinking, etc. Roger doesn't seem to care about Igor's well being besides the means of basic survival. He treats him as his accomplice or "buddy." Yet, a buddy he can still push around and give an occasional beating when he crosses him. Even in one of the opening scenes when Igor says to Roger, "Thanks, Dad," Roger replies with, "My name is Roger." Roger doesn't want to be Igor's father and that's obvious. He uses him to his advantage - as a built in "assistant" if you will, to help him with his dirty work. Igor is well aware of his father's abuse as well this was particularly shown in the scene when Roger is chained up, begging Igor to release him. He says something along the lines of, "Everything I do, I do it for you, you're my son." Before Roger said this particular line, it seemed, Igor was toying with the idea of actually releasing him but after Roger's line Igor tells him to shut up and leaves. Igor is well aware that his father does not really care about him. As far as mother, if he has one, she is never shown or brought up.
Although Assita is never particularly “warm” with Igor, other than the one hug, I think the feeling of being able to help someone who he believes to be innocent and a good person makes him feel whole – like a human being, or at least better than how he felt lying and cheating with his father.
I think this empathy displayed between the two is it’s own form of globalization because they are both from very different backgrounds/cultures/nationalities yet they’re shown combining these aspects to achieve a common goal (saving Assita and her son). Going to both the local hospital and to a doctor that practices Assita’s religion is an example of this.
Very well put, Gabrielle. I was also struck by Igor and Assita's relationship and also wondering if the movie at first alluded to a crush. I was disgusted by Roger's abuse towards his son and his narcissistic need to get a fueling "supply" for his ego from his son. I thought it was incredibly empowering to see Igor stand up to his father in the end and to break the silence by revealing the family secrets. I think that his relationship with Assita is healing and helps to bring him to that point. It's a beautiful picture of human empathy that crosses cultural boundaries.
Gabrielle, I too was struck by the relationship between Igor and Assita. I agree that the relationship between the two shows how empathy can “cross cultural boundaries” as Elaina put it but I wonder what your opinion is on what the film is saying about globalization. On one hand I think the film shows that a positive side through Igor and Assita’s relationship but on the other I think it shows a very negative side through Roger and his businesses. What stood out the most to me was these peoples desperate need to immigrate, they were so desperate they were willing to become indentured servants for Roger. So while yes I agree that this movie portrays a positive side to globalization; I think that it is overwhelmingly showing the negative.
One might to zoom in further on the issue of "empathy" and its cross-cultural nature, or perhaps better: occurrence. What do we mean when we say "empathy"? How, specifically, does it manifest itself, if it does, in the film? How far doe sit go? Who empathizes with whom? Is there a relationship of POWER written into the emotion of/showing of empathy? I.e., who is the one who needs empathy? Who's the one who can give it? And why? And how does the FILM depict it? And what's the FILM's stance toward the transaction of empathy (if one can call it that, perhaps with the discussion of "exchange" in mind that Daniel started)? Is the occurrence of empathy--if that's what is indeed going on--an example of the film's point of view that might be described with the cliche of "we are all humans"/"as humans we are all the same so let's just get along" etc? Or does the film invite us to be more critical of this notion of "empathy"--as a "solution" to the actual problems the film depicts? I.e., according to the film, is "empathy" (politically) enough to make things better? And if so, how are we supposed to feel or think about such a claim (if that's a claim we can attribute to the film)?
There is an interesting dynamic between the different cultures represented by Igor and Assita. Assita's culture and religion include rituals that seem strange to Igor. We do not see any depictions of Igor's religious ideals in this movie (at least, not any that I can remember...please correct me if I am wrong), but Assita is not afraid to demonstrate her deeply held traditions. We first see this when Assita and Amidou rub the baby with a substance to rid the apartment of hidden demons. Igor looks on in curiosity, stating that there are no evil spirits, to which Assita firmly disagrees. We see another reaction from Igor when Assita slaughters the entrails of the chicken in order to gain insights to Amidou's whereabouts. Igor tries to downplay her beliefs, for the entrails are revealing a little too much about what actually happened to Amidou, and Igor still, at this point, feels a responsibility to keep his father's dirty secrets. Later, when the baby has a fever, Assita takes him to a "witch doctor" of sorts and follows the doctor's remedy. When Igor asks her why she believes the witch doctor, she replies "Why not?"
The film is constantly showing Igor's doubt in Assita's firmly held convictions and the surprise and fascination he has with Assita's different culturally-driven religion. Globalization includes an integration of worldviews, and one's religion or lack thereof is often foundational to one's worldview. This film shows the huge difference in Assita's and Igor's worldviews. If not for the phenomenon of globalization, neither would likely have been exposed to each other's worldviews. While Assita's views as seen as bizarre, yet intriguing, sincere, yet naive, Assita never really shows us her opinions on Igor's apparent lack of belief, nor does she seem bothered by his doubts in her beliefs. In the end, we see the two walking off together, side-by-side. While the film never really resolves, as Elsa observed, this image of the two walking together, even after Igor reveals his father's secrect, is a powerful picture that could be seen as a uniting of different cultures in spite of huge differences. Assita and Igor help each other, even if they have large cultural gaps in understanding one another. It shows us that, in the end, all people are endowed with the same business of being human, and that this can bring unity and bridge us cross-culturally.
So the film's "message," as it were is: "why can't we all just get along?" Or, rather, "if we just recognized we're all human we can get all along?" Is there evidence in the film that would prompt us to RESIST such a reading/idea? What, if nothing else, does the film show stands in the way of realizing this (cliche) idea of us being all humans and thus, in the end, alike, or alike enough so that we would get along if we just rallied this essential aspect of humanness we all share with each other? Conceptually speaking, what I'm asking is whether such a "Humanist" point of view (we're all human; can't we just get along; we can get along if we just see that we're all human, etc) is contested by the film (and, secondarily, even if the film doesn't contest it whether we, as viewers, are prompted, or should be prompted by the film, to contest it, to be suspicious of such a "humanist" belief, assertion, reading, conclusion etc.)? What cinematic evidence can we point to to address this question?
I was also interested in the relationship between Igor and Assita just like Gabrielle was. It's an interesting point to bring up because the relationship started out almost as a type of crush and then Assita became more of a motherly figure to Igor towards the end of La Promesse.
Globalization is hard to define and in the book Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, Steger makes this clear. He states in his introduction that everyone defines globalization differently, however "one defining characteristic of globalization is movement towards...connectivity and integration" (11). This integration is seen in La Promese when Igor and Assita are brought together. Igor at first just admires her from afar, and then is brought together with her when he steals her away from his father, Roger, to save her and her baby. The two are also brought together through the promise that he made to her husband while he was dying. He made the promise to keep her safe and followed up on that promise, by taking her away from Roger and his evil ways. They were brought together through the death of her husband and the promise.
I also find Igor's whole character to be interesting. In the beginning of the film he is first protrayed as an evil and selfish boy, by stealing the old woman's wallet when he fixes her car real quickly. Then later on in the film, he changes to a self-less boy, by putting Assita and her baby in front of his own desires and needs,
In the end, two lives were integrated, brought together, through a promise that Igor swore he would keep. The title to this movie fits perfectly because the promise "forces" these two people from two completely different parts of the world to be together and maintain a relationship. This promise pushed globalization upon these two people and promoted the process of globalization of people and culture.
Reading through the first chapter of the Globalization Introduction book, the definition of the term "globalization" is stated as "the myriad forms of connectivity and flows liking the local (and national) to the global." Using this definition, we can see that La Promesse contains aspects relating to this term quite well. The local/national aspect refers to Roger and Igor, a father and son who know the ins and outs of their community, its laws, and the best ways to outmaneuver those laws. Through the beginning, the two characters seem to be "thick as thieves", as they say. They share cigarettes, help each other out in the business, generally preform the same tasks, such as collect rent. But this "local" duo of characters do not exist in a vacuum and in fact, their lifestyle and livelihood depends on their interaction to the "global" section of characters. The global characters include all the illegal internationals that Roger and Igor harbor in their buildings. Although at the beginning, the global and local sphere interact with little to no empathetic regard for one another. Both sides place themselves into their situations because it is mutually beneficial for both parties. The locals get money and the globals get a place to live. Neither side is very pleased with the other and both sides interact without ever exchanging any form of real human contact. The local side especially seems to look at the globals as something less than human. The first scene where we see the locals and globals seeming to be getting along, when Roger buys them drinks, (and one buys a Coca Cola ((America!)) it turns out to be a sting. The globals are punished and the locals go on smoking their cigarettes, without a care in the world. So, in the first act, there is a high degree of connectivity between the groups, although there is virtually no degree of influence either group has on the other. The only inkling that we have that the locals care about the globals at all, is when Igor is peeping in at Assita’ s room, fascinated with her. But then, with the fateful fall of Amidou, the wall of apathy that existed between Igor and the globals cracks. It takes a man dying to wake Igor up to see that yes, they are human, they die, they care about who they leave behind. Although the film is bleak in color, with grays all around and industrial buildings stapled to every horizon, the journey of Igor's empathetic awakening is not. As the rest of the film plays out, Igor is able to take a step back from his life and see it from decentered point of view. He sees that Roger is in search of the bourgeois Western dream of having a "white house," more money, women, etc and he is willing to attain this through nearly any means, including burying a man alive and lying to Assita constantly. And on the other hand, Igor sees the value that Assita places on family, faith, and ethical decisions. Igor has made promises to both parties. He promised to Amidou to take care of Assita and their child and he promises to his father to not let Assita know about her husband. Either way, Igor must betray one of the groups and in the end, he chooses to tell Assita the truth, thus siding with the global over the local (although he is unalterably local), which I believe to be a more noble, and less bleak, decision than letting her go to Italy without telling her about her husband. The local and the global form a bond and community through Igor and Assita.
The story of Roger and Igor and the trek of undocumented workers to reach their destination parallels many globalization issues. Roger and Igor, are the machine that enables this cross-country migration for the illegal persons under the guise of aid and assistance. However their motives, and ensuing actions would seem to relay otherwise, something anti-globalization advocates claim is also true of the Roger-counterparts of the world: dominant countries. Joseph E. Stiglitz, author of Globalization and its Discontents (2002) states that “the benefits of globalization have been less than its advocates claim, the price paid has been greater, as political processes have been corrupted, and the rapid pace of change has not allowed countries time for cultural adaptation” ( p. 8). Additional cost/benefit results of globalization can also be seen through monetary exchanges throughout the film. Daniel’s statement that “money is frequently both a part of the problem as well as a part of the solution,” hits the nail on the head so to speak in that globalization inevitably involves currency, and any situation in which monetary integration is involved, usually becomes more complicated. Monica’s idea (“I noticed a ‘cycle’ of them moving and escaping but never truly getting anywhere”) and Elsa’s thought (“can go almost anywhere you want but you will have to pay”) contribute to the notion that globalization is eroding national boundaries. One can travel, such as Assita and her newborn, but really never progress. Where national borders once stood, others are now created and division “is not circumscribed within national identities,” states Joseph Mai (2010, p. 44). Assita’s poor treatment in Belgium is just one example of the pseudo border created by globalization and the overreaching division that is immune to arbitrary lines. David Newman states of globalization’s resultant territories that “it is the bordering process, rather than the border per se, which affects our lives on a daily basis, from the global to the national” (2006, p. 144).
Mai, J. (2010). Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne. Urbana [Ill.: University of Illinois Press. Newman, D. (2006). The lines that continue to separate us: borders in our `borderless' world. Progress in Human Geography, 30(2), 143-161. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton. *Articles available through UNL search engine, book is available online after searching the title, author etc.
Thanks for providing these references. Stiglitz, in particular, might be worthwhile for everyone to check out (he's a Nobel Prize winning economist who's critical of globalization).
As an introduction to the concept of globalization within cinema, La Promesse (1996) seems to do an interesting job in conveying these ideas toward the audience. Unlike other films which perhaps portray this idea in a larger, more upfront light, La Promesse seems to push this idea in a more subtle, but no less powerful way. And at least through the filter of which I witnessed the film, its ideas are rather bleak to say the least. Although, as a first step into this world I think it would be ideal to take a small chunk of the ideas within the film and start small, expanding upon the simple idea of globalization as and “exchange” of something.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, the concept of this exchange is quite evident in multiple ways, for example, the repeating idea of an exchange of currency. As I’m sure we are all aware there are multiple currencies used within La Promesse, perhaps the most notable being the American Dollar and the Belgian Franc. These two currencies are exchanged freely within the film with little question. Currency is constantly being exchanged for an item or service. (Three particular examples of which money is traded for could be, work, travel, or a service). It is this idea of currency exchange that serves as the driving force behind the films story as well as ideas. Money is frequently both a part of the problem as well as a part of the solution, at least that’s how it might seem upon the surface.
But yet if broken down even further, La Promesse touches on perhaps an even larger idea within this concept of “exchange.” This is of course being the exchange of people. Now with those examples in mind it doesn’t take much to see one of the ideas that La Promesse pushes toward the audience. Within the film there is a constant exchange of money for people and people for money. Robert and Igor make money off people who are being exchanged and moved, while undoubtedly, someone is making money off them. This cycle, seems almost unstoppable as we noticed in the end of the film knowing that Igor and Assita are returning to where they once began, an area governed by this constant exchange of people and money. It’s almost as if this film is stating that one cannot escape this exchange no matter where they go or how hard they try and avoid it.
Of course, this is an extremely summarized way of stating this concept. There are surely other ideas that fit onto this puzzle of “exchange” within this film. But yet, it might be better to ask others what they think of this idea, or more specifically, how did you view this idea(s) of “exchange” within La Promesse?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI totally saw the same concept in the film, Daniel. The concept of “exchange” hits the nail on the head with the definition of Globalization that I found. The definition boils Globalization down to an “interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations...” (http://www.globalization101.org/what-is-globalization/). Our assigned book, Globalization A Very Short Introduction by Manfred B Steger, further explains that it also is a “set of social processes” (9). I think of this as a web of social culture. This can be easily noticed from the immigrants as with Assita and her beliefs, through the legal citizens with Robert and his acts/beliefs of “coyoting” or people smuggling. We see interactions or “exchanges” throughout the entire film.
ReplyDeleteAnother “exchange” that I noticed are the settings. Now this idea is a little out there but after reading Daniel’s post, it lingered in my head. I noticed that the film jumped from the garage where Igor worked at, to the immigrants’ apartment, to the bar, back to the apartment, and little various places in between. I noticed a “cycle” of them moving and escaping but never truly getting anywhere. This can be a failed concept of “exchange” of them seeking a new environment but successful in terms of them still being in the concept of exchange through money and people.
I believe that La Promesse did an excellent job of showing this aspect of Globalization. But I’m sure that there are many more ideas of “exchange” within La Promesse than the ones stated here. Thoughts?
This is a reply to Daniel's post, not a new thread. Of course, tech failures never forget about me.
ReplyDeleteI think that the main topic relating to globalization in this film would be the subject of immigration that the film touches on. There were a lot of things I had heard about related to immigration before, like how people will take your money and say they will get you somewhere but they might not and you can’t really trust anyone. There were also other things that I didn’t know about, like how individuals could just pay for someone to be brought to their country and then use their labor, basically slave labor, to “pay off” their debts for this service. The globalization aspect that I saw the focus on was how as an immigrant you can go almost anywhere you want but you will have to pay, with money or other types of “currency” as Daniel discussed.
ReplyDeleteWhat really struck me was how people will just take advantage of you any way they can, if they have something to gain from it. I was discussing this film with someone outside of class and they brought up the situation that is happening in Qatar right now with the building of the World Cup Stadium. The country receiving immigrant workers (they have to pay large sums of money to get there) and then they work on the stadium to pay off their massive debt. You can read the article on CNN. I think that the film sort of transcends the time barrier of when it was created because these issues are still going on today in many countries.
I’m not sure if this film is trying to get us to agree with a certain viewpoint or opinion, I think it is just sort of an educational, eye-opening experience. It just wants you to know that these things are happening. At the end of the film we don’t really get a lot of resolution and I think that’s what stuck with me the most. Not knowing what might happen to these two (Igor and Assita) and what the cruel world might do to them.
Feel free to link the CNN article on the situation in Qatar.
DeleteAlso, regarding "point of view" and/or whether or not the film wants us to agree with it, this might be something we should discuss in class. Think about how one can ascertain what the point of view of the film is and, also, how we might be able to ascertain whether or not the film wants us to agree with it--or, perhaps, even "forces" us to agree with it. What FILMIC/CINEMATIC aspects could we point to that would allow us to say, THIS is the film's point of view and WE as viewers are made to (or not) agree with it?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/15/world/meast/qatar-labor-laws/index.html?iref=allsearch
DeleteThroughout La Promesse the most interesting aspect to me, was the relationship between Igor and Assita. Toward the very beginning of the film Igor is shown peeking in on Assita through some type of hole in the wall - he's shown doing this a few times. At first I assumed he was trying to catch her undressing or perhaps he had a crush on her and was just fascinated with watching her. The conversation about sex with his father and him admitting he's had desires to be with a female before, further eluded to this "crush" on Assita. However, after watching the two go on somewhat of a "journey" together I began to think differently. Igor embracing Assita in tears, after she accused him of making her baby sick, served as a turning point for me. At first I was worried, that he was going to try to kiss her or something and the movie would take a dark turn. But what I saw was the type of compassion you see between a mother and child. I think what Igor was really drawn to all along, with Assita, was his longing for a mother figure or just parental figure in general.
ReplyDeleteThe only parental figure he has - his father, encourages stealing, cheating, not going to school, smoking, drinking, etc. Roger doesn't seem to care about Igor's well being besides the means of basic survival. He treats him as his accomplice or "buddy." Yet, a buddy he can still push around and give an occasional beating when he crosses him. Even in one of the opening scenes when Igor says to Roger, "Thanks, Dad," Roger replies with, "My name is Roger." Roger doesn't want to be Igor's father and that's obvious. He uses him to his advantage - as a built in "assistant" if you will, to help him with his dirty work. Igor is well aware of his father's abuse as well this was particularly shown in the scene when Roger is chained up, begging Igor to release him. He says something along the lines of, "Everything I do, I do it for you, you're my son." Before Roger said this particular line, it seemed, Igor was toying with the idea of actually releasing him but after Roger's line Igor tells him to shut up and leaves. Igor is well aware that his father does not really care about him. As far as mother, if he has one, she is never shown or brought up.
Although Assita is never particularly “warm” with Igor, other than the one hug, I think the feeling of being able to help someone who he believes to be innocent and a good person makes him feel whole – like a human being, or at least better than how he felt lying and cheating with his father.
I think this empathy displayed between the two is it’s own form of globalization because they are both from very different backgrounds/cultures/nationalities yet they’re shown combining these aspects to achieve a common goal (saving Assita and her son). Going to both the local hospital and to a doctor that practices Assita’s religion is an example of this.
Very well put, Gabrielle. I was also struck by Igor and Assita's relationship and also wondering if the movie at first alluded to a crush. I was disgusted by Roger's abuse towards his son and his narcissistic need to get a fueling "supply" for his ego from his son. I thought it was incredibly empowering to see Igor stand up to his father in the end and to break the silence by revealing the family secrets. I think that his relationship with Assita is healing and helps to bring him to that point. It's a beautiful picture of human empathy that crosses cultural boundaries.
DeleteAlso, finally got my name changed on this thing..."musicalchik" is actually Elaina Matthews!
DeleteGabrielle, I too was struck by the relationship between Igor and Assita. I agree that the relationship between the two shows how empathy can “cross cultural boundaries” as Elaina put it but I wonder what your opinion is on what the film is saying about globalization. On one hand I think the film shows that a positive side through Igor and Assita’s relationship but on the other I think it shows a very negative side through Roger and his businesses. What stood out the most to me was these peoples desperate need to immigrate, they were so desperate they were willing to become indentured servants for Roger. So while yes I agree that this movie portrays a positive side to globalization; I think that it is overwhelmingly showing the negative.
DeleteOne might to zoom in further on the issue of "empathy" and its cross-cultural nature, or perhaps better: occurrence. What do we mean when we say "empathy"? How, specifically, does it manifest itself, if it does, in the film? How far doe sit go? Who empathizes with whom? Is there a relationship of POWER written into the emotion of/showing of empathy? I.e., who is the one who needs empathy? Who's the one who can give it? And why? And how does the FILM depict it? And what's the FILM's stance toward the transaction of empathy (if one can call it that, perhaps with the discussion of "exchange" in mind that Daniel started)? Is the occurrence of empathy--if that's what is indeed going on--an example of the film's point of view that might be described with the cliche of "we are all humans"/"as humans we are all the same so let's just get along" etc? Or does the film invite us to be more critical of this notion of "empathy"--as a "solution" to the actual problems the film depicts? I.e., according to the film, is "empathy" (politically) enough to make things better? And if so, how are we supposed to feel or think about such a claim (if that's a claim we can attribute to the film)?
DeleteThere is an interesting dynamic between the different cultures represented by Igor and Assita. Assita's culture and religion include rituals that seem strange to Igor. We do not see any depictions of Igor's religious ideals in this movie (at least, not any that I can remember...please correct me if I am wrong), but Assita is not afraid to demonstrate her deeply held traditions. We first see this when Assita and Amidou rub the baby with a substance to rid the apartment of hidden demons. Igor looks on in curiosity, stating that there are no evil spirits, to which Assita firmly disagrees. We see another reaction from Igor when Assita slaughters the entrails of the chicken in order to gain insights to Amidou's whereabouts. Igor tries to downplay her beliefs, for the entrails are revealing a little too much about what actually happened to Amidou, and Igor still, at this point, feels a responsibility to keep his father's dirty secrets. Later, when the baby has a fever, Assita takes him to a "witch doctor" of sorts and follows the doctor's remedy. When Igor asks her why she believes the witch doctor, she replies "Why not?"
ReplyDeleteThe film is constantly showing Igor's doubt in Assita's firmly held convictions and the surprise and fascination he has with Assita's different culturally-driven religion. Globalization includes an integration of worldviews, and one's religion or lack thereof is often foundational to one's worldview. This film shows the huge difference in Assita's and Igor's worldviews. If not for the phenomenon of globalization, neither would likely have been exposed to each other's worldviews. While Assita's views as seen as bizarre, yet intriguing, sincere, yet naive, Assita never really shows us her opinions on Igor's apparent lack of belief, nor does she seem bothered by his doubts in her beliefs. In the end, we see the two walking off together, side-by-side. While the film never really resolves, as Elsa observed, this image of the two walking together, even after Igor reveals his father's secrect, is a powerful picture that could be seen as a uniting of different cultures in spite of huge differences. Assita and Igor help each other, even if they have large cultural gaps in understanding one another. It shows us that, in the end, all people are endowed with the same business of being human, and that this can bring unity and bridge us cross-culturally.
Oh, an this is Elaina Matthews. I'll try to get my name changed on this thing.
DeleteSo the film's "message," as it were is: "why can't we all just get along?" Or, rather, "if we just recognized we're all human we can get all along?" Is there evidence in the film that would prompt us to RESIST such a reading/idea? What, if nothing else, does the film show stands in the way of realizing this (cliche) idea of us being all humans and thus, in the end, alike, or alike enough so that we would get along if we just rallied this essential aspect of humanness we all share with each other? Conceptually speaking, what I'm asking is whether such a "Humanist" point of view (we're all human; can't we just get along; we can get along if we just see that we're all human, etc) is contested by the film (and, secondarily, even if the film doesn't contest it whether we, as viewers, are prompted, or should be prompted by the film, to contest it, to be suspicious of such a "humanist" belief, assertion, reading, conclusion etc.)? What cinematic evidence can we point to to address this question?
DeleteI was also interested in the relationship between Igor and Assita just like Gabrielle was. It's an interesting point to bring up because the relationship started out almost as a type of crush and then Assita became more of a motherly figure to Igor towards the end of La Promesse.
ReplyDeleteGlobalization is hard to define and in the book Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, Steger makes this clear. He states in his introduction that everyone defines globalization differently, however "one defining characteristic of globalization is movement towards...connectivity and integration" (11). This integration is seen in La Promese when Igor and Assita are brought together. Igor at first just admires her from afar, and then is brought together with her when he steals her away from his father, Roger, to save her and her baby.
The two are also brought together through the promise that he made to her husband while he was dying. He made the promise to keep her safe and followed up on that promise, by taking her away from Roger and his evil ways. They were brought together through the death of her husband and the promise.
I also find Igor's whole character to be interesting. In the beginning of the film he is first protrayed as an evil and selfish boy, by stealing the old woman's wallet when he fixes her car real quickly. Then later on in the film, he changes to a self-less boy, by putting Assita and her baby in front of his own desires and needs,
In the end, two lives were integrated, brought together, through a promise that Igor swore he would keep. The title to this movie fits perfectly because the promise "forces" these two people from two completely different parts of the world to be together and maintain a relationship. This promise pushed globalization upon these two people and promoted the process of globalization of people and culture.
Reading through the first chapter of the Globalization Introduction book, the definition of the term "globalization" is stated as "the myriad forms of connectivity and flows liking the local (and national) to the global." Using this definition, we can see that La Promesse contains aspects relating to this term quite well. The local/national aspect refers to Roger and Igor, a father and son who know the ins and outs of their community, its laws, and the best ways to outmaneuver those laws. Through the beginning, the two characters seem to be "thick as thieves", as they say. They share cigarettes, help each other out in the business, generally preform the same tasks, such as collect rent. But this "local" duo of characters do not exist in a vacuum and in fact, their lifestyle and livelihood depends on their interaction to the "global" section of characters.
ReplyDeleteThe global characters include all the illegal internationals that Roger and Igor harbor in their buildings. Although at the beginning, the global and local sphere interact with little to no empathetic regard for one another. Both sides place themselves into their situations because it is mutually beneficial for both parties. The locals get money and the globals get a place to live. Neither side is very pleased with the other and both sides interact without ever exchanging any form of real human contact. The local side especially seems to look at the globals as something less than human. The first scene where we see the locals and globals seeming to be getting along, when Roger buys them drinks, (and one buys a Coca Cola ((America!)) it turns out to be a sting. The globals are punished and the locals go on smoking their cigarettes, without a care in the world.
So, in the first act, there is a high degree of connectivity between the groups, although there is virtually no degree of influence either group has on the other. The only inkling that we have that the locals care about the globals at all, is when Igor is peeping in at Assita’ s room, fascinated with her. But then, with the fateful fall of Amidou, the wall of apathy that existed between Igor and the globals cracks. It takes a man dying to wake Igor up to see that yes, they are human, they die, they care about who they leave behind.
Although the film is bleak in color, with grays all around and industrial buildings stapled to every horizon, the journey of Igor's empathetic awakening is not. As the rest of the film plays out, Igor is able to take a step back from his life and see it from decentered point of view. He sees that Roger is in search of the bourgeois Western dream of having a "white house," more money, women, etc and he is willing to attain this through nearly any means, including burying a man alive and lying to Assita constantly. And on the other hand, Igor sees the value that Assita places on family, faith, and ethical decisions. Igor has made promises to both parties. He promised to Amidou to take care of Assita and their child and he promises to his father to not let Assita know about her husband. Either way, Igor must betray one of the groups and in the end, he chooses to tell Assita the truth, thus siding with the global over the local (although he is unalterably local), which I believe to be a more noble, and less bleak, decision than letting her go to Italy without telling her about her husband. The local and the global form a bond and community through Igor and Assita.
The story of Roger and Igor and the trek of undocumented workers to reach their destination parallels many globalization issues. Roger and Igor, are the machine that enables this cross-country migration for the illegal persons under the guise of aid and assistance. However their motives, and ensuing actions would seem to relay otherwise, something anti-globalization advocates claim is also true of the Roger-counterparts of the world: dominant countries. Joseph E. Stiglitz, author of Globalization and its Discontents (2002) states that “the benefits of globalization have been less than its advocates claim, the price paid has been greater, as political processes have been corrupted, and the rapid pace of change has not allowed countries time for cultural adaptation” ( p. 8).
ReplyDeleteAdditional cost/benefit results of globalization can also be seen through monetary exchanges throughout the film. Daniel’s statement that “money is frequently both a part of the problem as well as a part of the solution,” hits the nail on the head so to speak in that globalization inevitably involves currency, and any situation in which monetary integration is involved, usually becomes more complicated.
Monica’s idea (“I noticed a ‘cycle’ of them moving and escaping but never truly getting anywhere”) and Elsa’s thought (“can go almost anywhere you want but you will have to pay”) contribute to the notion that globalization is eroding national boundaries. One can travel, such as Assita and her newborn, but really never progress. Where national borders once stood, others are now created and division “is not circumscribed within national identities,” states Joseph Mai (2010, p. 44). Assita’s poor treatment in Belgium is just one example of the pseudo border created by globalization and the overreaching division that is immune to arbitrary lines. David Newman states of globalization’s resultant territories that “it is the bordering process, rather than the border per se, which affects our lives on a daily basis, from the global to the national” (2006, p. 144).
Mai, J. (2010). Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne. Urbana [Ill.: University of Illinois
Press.
Newman, D. (2006). The lines that continue to separate us: borders in our
`borderless' world. Progress in Human Geography, 30(2), 143-161.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton.
*Articles available through UNL search engine, book is available online after searching the title, author etc.
Thanks for providing these references. Stiglitz, in particular, might be worthwhile for everyone to check out (he's a Nobel Prize winning economist who's critical of globalization).
Delete