maintain that this is precisely where
the problem lies. That the sex-role
conditioning experienced from
childhood produces women who feel
powerless, who must be beautiful. submissive and caring if they are to succeed as women. That boys are
conversely to be brave, assertive,
dominant, and control their domestic sphere if nothing else.
We consider these stereotyped behaviours to be convenient for a
capitalist society (so do the Tories!) in that they produce a docile workforce and domestic servicing that workforce. We also see the media as contributing to this traditional set-up. and we use the Page 3 pin-ups as examples of the everyday degradation of women into commodities to be used to sell papers and other goods. "'Cuddly" they may be to some MPs, but offensive to us and dangerous in their impact on the consciousness of girls, boys, men and women.
Clare Short made all these points when she introduced her ten minute bill which would ban nude pictures trom newspapers if they degraded
The effect of Churchill's Obscene Publications (Protection of Children, Amendment) Act would be quite difterent. He originally intended it to be a simple measure to remove pornographic magazines from easily ac-
premises. Most of us would probably
ike to see that achieved, although not necessarily by law, But what then happened was that Churchill changed the Bill to include "Broadcasting and a "laundry list" of items which would definitely be banned.
It seems that this list has since bee withdrawn, but it is in fact a give. away of the real intentions of Chur-
The images of vicious cruelty which he seeks to ban screening of "The A-team"
which probably do a lot to create in boys the idea that "real men" treat women rough: the programmes which would suffer are such as the Horizon programme to go out on Channel 4 which tried specifically to explain what were safe sexua practices if you want to avoid AIDS
As with other such censorship, there is a serious probability that the sexual acts which would be banned from the screen are not gang rapes by heterosexuals, but serious plays and documentaries which present gay sexuality as a valid expression ol human feelings. In the Parliamentary debate, two plays in particular were singled out by Tories as examples of "depravity": both were of gay love.
The Churchill laundry list contained no mention of women or rape, but concentrated on genitalia, and masturbation. So the Bill's Intention is to attack Gay men and Lesbians (as if they weren't already invisible in the media) and return us to
the safe haven of monogamous heterosexual sex. Tell that to the
women in the women's aid refuges! They fear not gay men, but those macho rambos who think they have some right to control their lives.
In the end the answer has been to rely on the self-activity of women, in setting up our refuges and rape crisis groups, in harassing the porno merchants on the street and in their shops, and in asking that our fellow trade union members will support us in banning pin-ups at work and in union publications. How is the Yorkshire Miner these days on pin-ups? Women have to refuse to feel powerless and to act to change the way we are portrayed in the media too. Review Directed by Hugh Hudson THIS is a film that starts off with a good idea and from there goes completely wrong.
It was one of the three big budget films made by Goldcrest (the main centre of the British film industry) and on which it risked everything.
The idea was to look at the lives of one man and his son and show the effects on them of the American War of Independence.
Through the microcosm of these two characters was to be displayed the meaning of that revolution.
Al Pacino plays Tom, who starts off wanting to keep out of things, and
Tinto conflict with his as Tom; his acting of his relationship with his son would bring tears to
But Nastassia Kinski comes over as a completely unbelievable playing a completely unbelieveable part. Having glimpsed Tom once, she acts from thereon in as though she is a long lost friend. The basis of their relationship, which is central to the film, is never built up.
In a way, part of this is not her fault. Part of it is what I can only assume is the attempted realism. The sets are good, as are the battle
Abut there seems to be an attempt to reproduce the method of
This is always difficult with period films. Do you do it à la "Flintstones" or if otherwise do you use subtitles? This film does not soive the problem.
Much of it is incomprehensible using an accent which seems to be a cross between a Gorilla and Edward Socialist Viewpoint No. 12 May 1986p26
Clare Short has done a good job in
raising the consciousness of parlia
ment about the real sexism in the
media, but 1 doubt if censorship is the
answer. We have to be active in our
refusal to be portrayed as passive
objects.
The campaign for Press and Broad-
casting Freedom meets on the third Wednesday of each month, c/o NALGO, I Mabledon Place, London
WCl. The Society for Education in
Film and Television can be contacted
at 29 Old Compton Street, London W1.
The statistics came mostly from the
Open University Second Level
Course The Changing Experience of
Women'. By TONY RICHARDS REVOLUTION' G. Robinson. Other parts are quite
shows very well the brutality of the British army - one example being the use of Patriots as substitute "foxes" in the hunt. This part has been condemned by the capitalist media, but should go down well on the Falls Road.
The role of businessmen selling food to the British, and profiting from the war, is also well shown. Tom ends up fighting the war but not even getting the land he was promised because speculators have bought it
The cry of the blacks at the end, that they want their freedom too. shows the director was trying to make
Ware treated weakly. mainiy because of the latness of the Kinski character. The one woman who seems interesting (played by Annie Lennox) is on screen for only a few minutes.
Young people are shown to be well
fore Roy soldiers" criticised by today's US imperialism for their role in revolutions all over the world were a major factor in the struggle for American independence.
Spanned by critics, many of them attacking It for imperialism. The film doesn't show the political or military leaders. It is not a detailed history.
What is good about the film is finally completely ending. The speech at the end is sc ludicrously presented that it sounds Everybody in the cinema I was in just
What a pity!