Breastmilk

Breastmilk is a documentary regarding the complex dynamics of breastfeeding. The film focuses on the  social mores and stigmas associated with breastfeeding. The movie provides examples how systemically, we fail mothers and infants with our biases and misconceptions.  The documentary is great for newly expectant parents, early childhood specialists, and breastfeeding supporters from many diverse backgrounds.

Breastmilk is about social inequities surrounding breast feeding. For example, the breast pump. While it is a supportive for moms, access for people in poverty is an issue. Hospitals push the 300.00 pump at time of birth.  A family in poverty can not afford to spend 300.00 on a pump. Another problem is the timing of the pump. Labor and delivery specialists suggest that without a pump, a mom may lose their ability to feed their baby. The science of milk production is that breastmilk is very low at birth. It takes a mom 48 hours to replenish her supply. Doctors and consultants are pushing the pump to early on the mom. When you think about it, in developing countries, milk production does not require a pump. This is a creation of a myth by our healthcare system. This is one example of many that myths sometimes guide practices regarding breast feeding.

The value of fathers is so positive in this movie. It can help a newly expectant dad understand their role as being supportive regarding breastfeeding. I was impressed how many positive examples of supportive fathers there were in the movie. I have seen many books and documentaries on breastfeeding. This movie by far normalizes the impact of fathers. It also helps them understand the boundaries between sexuality and breastfeeding.

The movie also helps mom understands that it's okay to experience arousal from their partner during this time of attachment and bonding. Intimacy is okay. Some moms experience resentment from their spouse. The movie delicately discusses that it is okay for a mom to experience pleasure. It is actually normal to feel stimulation and want to share that feeling with your partner.

Marriage equality and the roles of the same sex couple is a part of the documentary. For those less tolerant, it normalizes the roles of same sex couples. A loving relationship between an infant and partners are not a barrier based on gender or sexual identity.

The movie discusses relationships and bias regarding the sharing of breastmilk. Racial barriers exist with moms from diverse backgrounds. Similar to same sex marriages, we are not as inclusive and accepting as we would like to believe. Love and intimacy is diverse and breastfeeding should not be limited to social pressures or Protestant ethics.

The movie spends a lot of time on struggles. It normalizes that milk production is complex. The goal of "liquid gold" has given the impression that it is a perfect science. However, culturally this is inaccurate. The pressures of abundance has created confusion for moms.

The biggest criticism of this movie is that it is too slow. The biggest criticism I read was from breast feeding advocates. They looked at the film globally. I can see their point. It is slow. However, they watched the movie in one sitting. You, the viewer has the option to watch the movie in intervals. I can not understand how breast feeding advocates could not see the movie and many parts to a whole regarding the educational benefits for parents.

The only criticism I have regarding the movie is the lack of information for he benefits of attachment and bonding. Breastfeeding provides many benefits that can help infants learn about healthy relationships through attachment and bonding. Newly expectant families would have benefitted from a discussion of the bonds between moms, dads and baby that happen during breastfeeding.

I strongly recommend the movie. I liked the slow pace. It is available on Netflix. Watch the movie in intervals or all at once. For some of you reading this article, you have many months prenatally to watch the movie. Take your time and enjoy the attachment and bonding that lasts a lifetime.

Why We Fight

Why We Fight was a documentary released 10 years ago that attempts to explore the complexity of wars past, present and future. From the beginning, the film delves into the complexity of our Foreign Policy decisions. Much of the movie serves as a warning. War has no political party. Presidents that run on a policy of peace can not stop the militarism. We fight because of our nation's hunger to be a super power, the only super power.

The chilling opening of President Eisenhower warning us that the military industrial complex is becoming too large would be the backdrop for the entire movie. Generations of Americans would believe the lies and manipulation in the form of media that misleads them into every global conflict. Patriotism is a ruse used to channel aggression. When asked "why we fight", citizens believe it is for freedom and democracy.

When the film is made, the backdrop is 9-11. A father who lost his son makes reoccurring appearances about the grief and loss of his son. He wants revenge. He wants our government to right a wrong in honor of his son's memory. Another expectation is to prevent another 9-11.

After 2001, it seemed that the United States was going to do just that, seek out justice for 9-11 Then, something began to shift. Iraq was the center of our Foreign Policy. Yet Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The explanation for this policy shift is deeply disturbing. It suggests that our President and his administration wanted to follow a doctrine of strike first. And for people like those that lost loved ones in 9-11, we lost our will to seek our justice.

There are many dynamics to this film that are explored. From our origins to militarism to today, the United States gets involved in wars for many reasons. However, we are led to believe that every conflict is due to freedom and democracy. The rallying cry seems to work for every conflict until the casualties begin to mount.

The other aspect of the film is that I feel is great is the exploration of decisions in our past. What we are led to believe is not always true. Historians for example claim that the nuclear bombs in WWII were necessary to avoid extreme casualties for our soldiers. Yet the movie uncovers that Truman wanted to show the Russians that we were coming out of WWII as a superpower. The Japanese deaths came at an expense of a show of force. Eisenhower argued against the use of the bombs stating the Japanese were ready for surrender.

Deep, complex and thought provoking. Why We Fight is timeless as long as we are engaged in conflicts around the world. Events that lead us to fight should be questioned with greater filters than we currently use. Until then, Foreign Policy decisions are in the hands a few, while the casualties of war impact the masses.

Waco - The Rules Of Engagement

My first cinematic independent film experience was one I will never forget. Back in the early 90s, I would walk down to an independent movie theater and watched, "Waco - The Rules of Engagement." This movie would be a game changer. For the first time in my life, I began to question everything I believed  to be true regarding history as possibly being more influenced by the government and media.

Waco may not seem significant today. It was at the time a very polarizing story. There were many fringe groups that were anti-government intrusion. There was a danger that Waco could ignite domestic terrorism if the truth was shared by the mainstream media.

Basically, Waco was a religious group that lived on their own. Their leader David Koresh, was demonized for claiming he was a prophet. It was told to us he stockpiled guns and was dangerous. The media's use of vocabulary quickly helped us form an opinion he was extremely dangerous. Terms like "cult leader" and "false prophet" quickly shaped our opinions. Even the word Branch Davidians was used creatively by the media. For Branch Davidians were simply reformists of the 7th Day Adventists. No mention of this by the media at all during the siege.

The film exposes how the government had an agency that was inept. The ATF was quick to react to firearms in a manner that challenged individual rights. Prior to Waco, the ATF was embarrassed at Ruby Ridge. At the time, popular opinion was that the agency was poorly managed. The author of the film suggests that the siege at Waco possibly was a publicity campaign to bring the ATF back into a positive light.

During the siege, the cameras were not allowed within 2 miles of the compound. The media could only report what it was told by the ATF. The version we witnessed at the end of the siege was disturbing. The compound burned to the ground. We were told that David Koresh was a cult leader who burned the compound down. He was a false prophet. A disturbed individual with blood on his hands.

Well, a funny thing happened during the final days at Waco. It seems a private firm nearby was experimenting with FLIR technology and flew overhead the compound on numerous occasions. The recordings were disturbing and questioned whether the government story was true. The debate that never happened was a direct violation of our Bill of Rights. Essentially, there was enough evidence to suggest at the Congressional Hearings that our own government started the fire, not David Koresh.

The documentary leaves you questioning our access to the truth. After watching this documentary, I would realize that television and print can distort events without any realization by the general public. This film was highly censored and restricted at the time. 60 minutes was not allowed to show any parts of the documentary. The parent company of CBS was owned by Westinghouse. Westinghouse had many government contracts at the time, and those contracts could have possibly been at risk if their subsidiary CBS showed the film.

I went home and ordered the film on VHS for my class to view. Weeks after I ordered it, the FBI came to my door, questioning my purchase. It was an early example of how our government monitored a very young information age and who was using the internet for domestic terrorist threats.

Waco was an incident that is slowly disappearing from the history books. Today's generation may not even know about this event. Allowing this movie to disappear is a tragedy. It is a great example of abuse of power at all levels. Even if you come away believe that David Koresh is guilty. Can you argue that the confrontation was unnecessary? Could he have been picked up at a local Wal Mart as the documentary suggests, or was this to prove a point?

Authors Note: When I left the cinema that night, I was lucky that I walked to the movie. I noticed many people in front of the theater in suits writing down license plates. They were from the FBI. They were profiling and collecting data who went to the movie.

Jobs - What's Missing?

The movie Jobs is a very disappointing movie. It is the modern day interpretation of an American Icon that lacks any historical context of his legacy.

Some watching the movie will debate the focus was on Steve Job as an innovator, which I agree he had an impact on our country's technological innovations. His flaws as a person were transparent in the movie. He was at times arrogant and disconnected with some of his personal relationships. The performance by Ashton Kutcher was a great impression of how Steve Jobs may have been at the early days of Apple.

The movie did however hint that Steve Jobs cared about the innovators more than the process of capitalizing on innovations. He cared less about profits, more about a vision. The movie does a great job of creating an image of a driven personality that will go to great lengths to think outside of the box. He loathes the profitable nature that places restraints on his creativity.

I loved this part of the movie. It would explain his actions later on in life that I struggle with. For Steve Jobs was a complicated person. A funny thing happened regarding the latter part of Steve Job's story. Typical in Hollywood movies, the savior would come to Apple and save the day. He would bring the company back to their roots of innovation. They ended the story with "Welcome back Steve." This is how they ended the movie. Kind of like the closing episode of the Sopranos, the screen goes black at a time when I was just getting interested. I wanted to know why this guy made some pretty controversial decisions when he came back to Apple. Unfortunately, the story stops when his life could have been critically viewed as complicated on a much larger level.

Here is what the movie gives a pass on regarding the history of Apple. Steve Jobs would take Apple down a path that is Anti-Apple after the screen went black. The film ends with hints of the Ipod shuffle and  and cell phones being the next stage of development. This is why Apple made a comeback.  Instead the film never delves into the most creative part of Steve Job's career. Why is that?

This part of the Steve Job timeline is complicated. He would seek out Globalization and take his innovations overseas. A fascinating part of Steve Job's career was left out. The innovations that would follow happened due to his obsession of getting an innovative product out quickly, which the film does touch upon. The problem is that this could only happen with slave labor. Apple went deep in the bowels of China, and opened some of the most brutal work camps. Unimaginable to our standards of living.

We as consumers that give the legacy of Jobs a pass, especially when a movie like this glosses over the negative part of Apples ability to be innovative. They use and exploitation of labor in remote regions of the world to meet the appetite of our consumer driven economy were conveniently left out. While Microsoft and Google has similar business practices, they also are not the focus of this film.

The problem with a film like Jobs is that it is void of historical analysis. The purpose of this film was to create a modern day Henry Ford. The film is void of criticism that would hurt his legacy. The film's primary purpose was to create an illusion in our minds of the legacy of Steve Jobs be positive when we left the movie theater. I truly believe the complete history of Apple would have not hurt Steve Job's legacy. It would have just struck a balance in our minds that how we achieve success is as important as innovation. For this reason, the movie was a huge disappointment.

Reel Injun

As a kid, I loved watching movies about Injuns. John Wayne films were a huge part of my life. When I wasn't watching westerns, I would crack up over cartoon portrayals of Indians such as Bugs Bunny. Essentially, what I saw was what I believed to be accurate accounts of Native American history. I use to sing one little two little three little Indians, never realizing it was a head count for killing them in battle. Essentially, I was manipulated to find humor and enjoyment of genocide without realizing it.

The Hollywood Interpretations of Native American culture were made for a reason. To validate we are the Americans, not them. This documentary is a great example how easily our thoughts and ideas of culture are not authentic. This documentary gives insight into our history. Basically, the spoils of winning a war is reshaping history. I saw the Searchers many times. Never did I watch this movie with the filter that John Wayne just shot the eyes out of a Native American. Nor was I surprised this was allowed to be filmed during a highly censored time in Hollywood. The allowance was give by the censors so I could think, "they were savages, this is normal."

As I watched this documentary, I could not help but ponder, "what would be the film interpretations of failed attempts at genocide if they succeeded. Would Germany have used films to portrays Jews as savages post WWII? Would there be funny cartoons with stereotypes of Jewish culture? (even worse than what is out there today) What would be the interpretations on film of other global conflicts? It is very disturbing how film and media can shape our beliefs of other cultures. Our lack of exposure to diversity allows Hollywood to shape the identities of cultural groups we do not know or understand.

Another sad aspect of the film was learning the  accuracy of one of my favorite icons of Native American caricatures: Iron Eyes Cody. Who was Iron Eyes Cody? He was the Native American that was portrayed in the anti-pollution commercials during the 1970's. This part of the documentary demonstrates the complexity of "what is real" and "what is not."

During the film, a change of events that helped us reevaluate Hollywood's portrayal of Native Americans was Marlon Brando's refusal to accept an Oscar back in the 1970s. The explanation behind this event is very telling of Marlon Brando's persona that I never understood until watching this film. There are many historical references throughout this film that will challenge most non-natives in our country to rethink what we were taught in school, and at home about Native American history. Without a doubt, a great documentary.

* Note: Reel Injun is on Netflix and you can find clips on Youtube to use in a classroom.
** If you think the singer Neil Diamond directed the film, Houston we have a problem.