Tag Archives: Oprah Winfrey

Selma – Movie Review

Posted on by

There are three things that this movie absolutely gets right. Firstly you have the subject matter. This is a film about Dr Martin Luther King; powerful, complicated, legendary. A leader almost completely untouched by modern day film-making, yet a leader who deserves respect. Why? Because he chose non-violent resistance in the face of utter brutality; if there ever was a time for a film about his legacy, it is now. The marches from Selma to Montgomery that took place in Alabama in 1965 over the right to vote must rank as one of the most iconic moments in history. Make no mistake, sometimes it is difficult to watch this film; visceral but not gratuitous, anger inducing at times but not ever condoning. In many ways as a historical story it’s beyond criticism, especially when so much reflects the world we live in today.

Selma, Selma film review, film, review, movies

Selma marks the first big-budget film from black independent director Ava DuVernay; she pulls no punches by filming in the very places where these historic events took place. She keeps things brisk, crafting each scene like an elegant dish to be served; she doesn’t waste any time on screen. Everything from a telephone ringing to an intimate conversation has purpose. For a motion picture epic such as this it comes in at little over two hours yet you never get the feeling that anything of value has been lost in transition.

Which leads us to the second thing this movie gets right; the approach. Rather than going for the customary ‘from the cradle to the grave’ biopic approach, Selma wisely concentrates on the events in Alabama, occurring just over a few weeks in February and March. 10 years after King’s first major civil-rights action. By the time the film starts he has already risen in power, delivered the ‘I have a dream’ speech and received the Nobel Peace Prize. This gives the film real focus as the series of atrocities which caused Dr King to be present in Selma can be covered in real depth. When King scores a victory, no matter how small, it is a victory for everyone. By the time the film finishes you may be on such a high that you fail to realise that just three years later Dr King will be assassinated at the age of 39. Such is the emphasis on the moment to moment reality, and the inner conviction of him and his many followers.

Thirdly you have the casting. Many of these actors could hold down a movie in their own right and they seem to be in roles that they relish. Tim Roth as racist governor George Wallace, Tom Wilkinson as President Lyndon Johnson, Oprah Winfrey (may she never ever quit acting) in her portrayal of the indomitable Annie Lee Cooper and David Oyelowo, a British actor who just seems to go from strength to strength and steps into Dr King’s shoes with ease, easily outdoing Idris’ portrayal of Mandela in just sheer power and presence alone. The supporting cast are strong, too, with Carmen Ejogo lending warmth and courage to the key role of Coretta Scott King the continual strain on their marriage is a central theme, Stan Houston is assured as the embittered, trigger-happy sheriff Jim Clark, and Dylan Baker fleetingly creepy as J Edgar Hoover, whose FBI wire taps and intercepts provide some genuinely testing scenes. The actors really lend themselves to making this film a success. A huge thanks too should go to Brad Pitts Company Plan B in backing this film. It’s no wonder that its snubbing in the Oscar nominations (up for Best Picture but not for director or acting) has caused almost complete outrage.

I noted that some reviewers have criticised the film for being too grandiose in nature. I feel these comments are completely unfair; grandiose compared to what? Titanic, Gladiator, Les Miserables,  even Man of Steel had a sense of identity, something to live up to and all of these are works of fiction. Selma has an identity because it is embedded in history. It’s understandable and only right that the actors desired to do the film justice.

Selma is one of those films that need to be seen, it’s compelling viewing because it’s a quality film that was deserved to be made for a generation that needs to see it. In a time where true values are easily forgotten Martin Luther King’s dream endures. If his truth were ever to be realised then the future can only be brighter for us all.

 

 

Does Having Children Hold Women Back?

Posted on by

gorgeousbaby

Something has been annoying me for a long time and I need to write about it. Yes, women and how they are discriminated against if they have children, and if they don’t have children, Yes, basically just the fact that women can’t win when it comes to their ovaries. No one has every asked a man how he balances his work/life balance. Or how having children affected his career. And many famous men don’t have children and it is not pointed out in every single article about them a la Jennifer Aniston. But that has gotten me thinking: does having children hold women back? A lot of women in the June 2014 edition of Bazaar magazine thought so.

 

Zaha Hadid was interviewed and said: ‘With architecture, if you stop, it’s hard to go back. It’s long hours, lots of travel. If you have kids, it’s not obvious how to make it work.” and went on to say “When I could have kids, it just didn’t occur to me.”

 

Artist Phyllida Barlow said: “I don’t think having children and being an artist are compatible at all. I don’t mean that as a negative thing, just that both require full-time attention. Both are emotional and hazardous. Things go wrong” Phyllida has five children and a successful career so I am not sure what her point is.

 

This is an extract from the piece on artist Marina Abramovic: “She also knew she’d never have children. Every person, she argues, has only one source of energy, which can be transformed into work, family, children, creativity; anything. If you have children, you divide it.’ It isn’t a fashionable view, the article goes on, but there’s no doubt in her mind that it is not possible to be a great artist and have children: Maybe if you’re very rich and have nannies but then the children suffer’, she qualifies. The evidence is all around us she insists. ‘Why are there so many more male artists than female. Because a man doesn’t have to sacrifice as much as a woman.’ How sexist. She then goes on to cite Louise Bourgeois who had an amazing career post-60: husband dead and children who had left home, ‘So many artists start wonderful, talented, and then the children come.” Then how come so many men manage both? Oh, right, the woman gives up her life and career. Am I the only one who reads this and wants to scream the point that children have two parents? Surely the father could look after his own children at some point? And don’t get me started on men who refer to looking after their own children as ‘babysitting’. You contributed half of the DNA you idiot.

 

Weirdly enough, the sanest comment came from an Olsen in the June 2014 edition of UK Marie Claire: Elizabeth Olsen has been thinking about the working-women-having-kids-thing. ‘It’s more important for women to do well in their families lives because they end up doing better in their job if they pay attention to their family. There was a time when you’d have a career, get to the top and then have children, which I always thought was weird- as opposed to having kids witnessing the ebbs and flows, starting somewhere and growing together as a family’ Can someone please give this women a medal?

 

Oprah Winfrey has stated many times that she couldn’t achieve what she has if she had children, but how does she know? How can she honestly say that? Oprah is also quoted saying: “If I had kids, my kids would hate me, They would have ended up on the equivalent of the “Oprah” show talking about me; because something [in my life] would have had to suffer and it would’ve probably been them.” Do children say this about their fathers? In a typical family set up men are away a lot. Kids don’t hate them, they just miss them. People don’t give children enough credit. They know adults have to work.

 

Former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard was interviewed in the Telegraph and she was asked, once again, about her child-free status. She said: ‘I’m comfortable with my choices. It gave me my chance to work as an PM’.  I mean, why ask a former Prime Minister about her career when you can question her ovaries instead?

 

But this hasn’t answered my original question. Does having children hold women back? Probably. I don’t have children myself, although I may one day, but I think the main question should be: if having children doesn’t hold men back, why should it hold women back? The answer is obvious. Women are supposed to sacrifice everything for their children and burn their ambitions and wishes on the alter of motherhood. And some of the worst critics for women is other mothers. I know married friends in their thirties, some of whom don’t even want children, who can’t get a job or a promotion because employers don’t want to risk hiring a women in their thirties, too worried that they will just get pregnant and then cost them maternity leave. Women are discriminated on the fact that they have wombs, whether they use them or not.

 

A book I will be reading is I Don’t Know Why She Bothers by Daisy Waugh. It rages against the social pressure of women sacrificing their entire life at the alter of motherhood and is an antidote to maternal guilt and pressure. Because you know what can stop children holding women back? Men picking up the slack and doing their fair share.

 

What do you think? Does having children hold women back?

 

 

Women of The Revolution – Book Review.

Posted on by

The idea behind this book is incredibly clever, it is the history of forty years of feminism told through articles from The Guardian. The book was edited by Kira Cochrane who Frost have interviewed. The wealth of talented women in the book is staggering. Maya Angelou, Germaine Greer, Oprah Winfrey, Suzanne Moore, Beth Ditto…the list is endless. It is a fascinating read for women and men alike.

I didn’t like, or agree, with every single article or argument, Lesbianism as a choice and not sleeping with men, because they are the enemy spring to mind, as does ‘are all men capable of rape’. Er, no, they are not.

Beth Ditto gives amazing and funny advice on what to do with catcalls, Andrea Dworkin’s piece on Bill and Hillary Clinton is perfection, and right on. The interview with Maya Angelou is also amazing, she is one of my favourite writers. Germaine Greer comes across as Germaine Greer, people can say whatever they want about her, but she doesn’t seem to care about being liked, and that makes her a true feminist to me.

One of my favourite things about the book is just how many strong women are in it. Suzanne Moore interviewing Camille Paglia, there is an interview with Toni Morrison, Zoe Williams ask if feminism is embarrassing, Julie Burchill writes about her lack of regret for her five abortions. This book shows how far we have come, but also shows our faults, the fault of feminism is that people have a narrow view of what feminism is, and what a feminist does. Women can be their own worst enemy and the in-fighting and backstabbing is disappointing. For reference, read the interview with Naomi Wolf. Why can’t Naomi Wolf be beautiful and groomed and say what she wants? Can you not be glamourous and a feminist? Surely as long as you want equal rights for all anyone can be a feminist, even a man?

The ones I really related to are Jill Tweedie stating that ‘One of the most crippling aspects of being a women- and an Englishwomen to boot- is the continual and largely unconscious compulsion to be nice’. Too true, even for a Scot, and as relevant today as it was in the 1970s. This book is food for the brain; is housework slavery?, should women be paid for it?, the attack on Margaret Thatcher for not helping her fellow women – a very good point- she filled her cabinet with men and seemed to dislike other women. This book is essential reading, I recommend it to everyone.

Some of the book is uncomfortable reading, like when the issue of rape being used as a weapon of war is raised. But that is to the credit of the book. History should never be a comfortable experience, and neither should a revolution.

Women of the Revolution | Kira Cochrane Interview

Posted on by

I love Kira Cochrane’s writing, so I was very excited to interview her about the new book she has edited: Women of the Revolution: Forty Years of Feminism. Thankfully, her answers made me like her even more.


What was the idea behind the book, Women of the Revolution: Forty Years of feminism?
I was in the office between Christmas and New Year 2010, a time when
it’s always incredibly quiet at work, doing some reading for a piece I
was writing about the first ever women’s liberation conference in the
UK, which was held in 1970. It occurred to me that it would be great
to do something big to celebrate this landmark – forty years of second
wave feminism in the UK – and that we had all the resources necessary
at the Guardian to do that. So I started, that day, to put together a
book made up from our archives, featuring interviews with people like
Germaine Greer, Naomi Wolf, Oprah Winfrey, Nawal El Saadawi, Camille
Paglia and Susie Orbach, and articles on all the most important
feminist issues. Altogether I wanted it to provide an introduction to
the movement for those coming to it fresh, and brilliant, wide-ranging
material for those who have lived and campaigned through it.

How did it come together?
It proceeded with me just trawling through our archive, reading
thousands and thousands of articles until my eyes were sore. Given the
wealth of feminist material the
Guardian has published, it was a massive task, but I really enjoyed
it. (I have come to realise that I’m a total feminist geek!)

What is your favourite article/interview in the book?
Well, like any good parent, I don’t have favourites, and there’s so
much great material: Beth Ditto on how to beat street harassment,
on online sexism, Ariel Levy writing about raunch
culture, Polly Toynbee on Spare Rib magazine, Hadley Freeman on eating
disorders, Marina Hyde on pornography, to name just a few. One
I think is as relevant today as it was when it was published 41 years
ago now, is Jill Tweedie’s piece “Why nice girls finish
last”. In it she writes that women have a “continual and largely
unconscious compulsion to be nice. Nice and kind, nice and fair, nice
and tidy. Nice. Always ready to understand the other point of view.
Always careful not to give a wrong impression”. And she warns against
the feminist movement sinking into a great heaving swamp of niceness.
I think that message is still really important, at a time when women,
as much as ever, are brought up to be
accommodating and unpushy. (Have you ever heard the word pushy used
about a man? How about bossy?).

What do women still need to achieve?
Well, you can break it down into specific issues. Equal pay, economic
equality, a fair sharing of tasks in the home, affordable childcare, political
representation, an end to street harassment, to domestic violence and
rape – and, in the meantime, a higher rape conviction rate and strong
support services for women who experience violence. But I think
we also have to recognise that the problem is structural. We live in
a society where there are hierarchies based on class, race, sexuality,
disability and many other factors. Sex is a key one of those, and if
we could create a much more equal balance of power in general I think
we’d have a society that would function much more happily for everyone.

Do you think feminism is used as a weapon against women, like when a
man doesn’t give up his seat and wants to go dutch, even on the first
date? I have a friend who hates feminism because she says it has been
used to take away men being chivalrous, and we still end up doing the
housework.
I’m pretty happy to see the back of chivalry, because it
was based on the idea of women being the weaker sex. That
doesn’t mean I want doors slammed in my face by the man who’s walking
in front of me – just that whoever reaches the door first will hold it
open, whether it’s me or him. In an equal society, I think men and
women should treat each other equally well. (Also, I’m happy to go
Dutch. I think when one partner pays for everything from the start of
a relationship, unless there’s a really good reason, that sets up a
pretty dodgy power dynamic.)

What can be done to convince women that feminism is still relevant?
Well, I think a large proportion of women are already convinced, and
you can see that in all sorts of ways. There are
the feminist protests and conferences that have taken place over the
past few years, the enormous success of Caitlin Moran’s feminist book
How to be a Woman, the extent to which feminist issues are debated in
the media and online, with women really making their voices heard about
issues that make them angry. For any woman not yet convinced, I
suppose I would just put a few questions to her. Do you
want to live in a country where only one in five MPs – the people who
make the major decisions
regarding our lives – are women? Do you want to be paid
less than your male colleagues for the same work? Do you want to live
in a country where there’s a high chance of you being raped or
sexually assaulted – and a very low chance of your attacker being
convicted on those charges? If not, feminism is for you.

Do you think it is possible for a woman to ‘have it all’?
I think what’s true is that women have made huge strides in the
workplace, but still take care of the lion’s share of tasks at home. I
do think it’s possible for everyone, men and women, to ‘have it
all’, but in order to make that happen there needs to be a real shift
in attitudes towards working hours, so that workers aren’t toiling
incredibly long hours and can have a proper shared family life. That’s
easy to say, and much harder to do. At a time of economic crisis,
especially, it’s very hard for people to feel confident in taking
their foot off the accelerator at work. So I do hope these changes
will happen, but clearly it won’t be overnight.

Women are still sexually objectified to a large degree, what do you
think of Rihanna and Lady Gaga who constantly make music videos
wearing pants and a bra? Is this a bad example? Or an example of a
women being free to do what she wants?
I really don’t like the way that women in the public eye, in their
twenties, are criticised for being ‘bad role models’ for other women
in their twenties. It just seems another stick to beat women with. I
personally think that women should wear exactly what they like – so
long as it IS what they like, that they’re following their own desires
and enjoying themselves. I think if they’re doing that, they set a
great example.

What do you hope the book will achieve?
I hope the book will get people thinking about feminism – thinking
about all the women who have fought for our rights in the past, and all that
we still have to do.

How much more do women have to achieve to be equal to men?
There’s so much, but I think the important point is that we’re getting
there in the UK. There are obstacles, and really worrying issues (like
the fact that women’s unemployment is at a 25 year high), but over the
course of time we are moving forward. It’s like a friend of mine said,
a few years ago, when there had been some notable setbacks for women:
people can try to keep us down, but it’s not like we’re actually just
going to go back into the kitchen and make them a sandwich.


What is next for you?
More articles, more books, and much more feminist research! I’m really looking
forward to it.

Thank you Kira.

[The review of the book is here.]