Wrong Facts

Women — Slaves of the Cinema

Dear Sirs,

I am curious about the confused sincerity and depth of understanding which would cause a film reviewer to rubbish so utterly a film like 'Stand Up and Be Counted'. Ok—so its a 'fucking bad film'. Forgive my suspicion that Any film dealing with such subject matter would be found fucking bad by Any critic whose human values had enabled him to identify with the male-supremacist ideologies of countless films which many of us have had rather to suffer. No amount of cinematic brilliance can make such ideologies tolerable to the numbers of females who are painfully rediscovering themselves and their self-respect after years of seeing their distorted images in the humiliating mirror of the cinema.

Perhaps an analogy will help. Blacks are now people in films, more or less — women are not. There is a genuine attempt at understanding and solving the racial problem ('Watermelon Man') But women are still seen in roles as clinging, passive, beautiful, servile, supportive nonentities to be used or abused or even loved and happily enslaved ever after — or — alternatively they are seen as a threat or a challenge to be met and put down to their proper level. Did you get the message of 'Chastity'? There was Cher playing the free independent woman, at last, or so we thought until she fell foul of the Lesbian Monster and ended up a suicide under a truck. It had become obvious that not only her nasty end but also what we'd thought was her nice freedom, was actually the 'sick' result of her chaotic socialization. It was the permissive upbringing and the lack of a fond father's love which had caused her to stray from the straight and narrow and go wandering off along the highway in the first place. This is what happens to 'uppity women' in films — they come to a sorry end if they fail to submit. Remember the mockery of Hot Lips in that great film 'M.A.S.H.'? A parallel parodying of the male in 'Carnal Knowledge' was not so acceptable to the critics.

It is more than merely interesting that films and books are so regularly found to be turgid 'messes' when 'conceived' by women. It seems that critics (male) are incapable of swallowing the smallest dose of their own medicine — although admittedly 'Stand Up and Be Counted' was a large dose.

Modern films and literature show that the basic power relationship in our society is the relationship between the sexes and that this relationship is still, invarying degrees, one between powerful and powerless, exploiter and exploited. The reversals of 'Stand Up and Be Counted' are not meant as ideal situations to be emulated by 'new women' — they do not wish to imitate the sickening power struggles of this male-dominated world — that is exactly what they desire to change.

I found it sad that our reviewer was unable to find one redeeming feature in this film but it seems a hopeful portent that the audience reactions, observed by this writer, were seen to range from chauvinistic contempt to delirious delight — and that, from bom sexes. And no-one slept or walked out.

In conclusion, we've seen fucking far worse. Don't miss it — do see it.

Jo Hannah

Salient Reviews kick the shit out of Pipe Dreams

I am making a plea for fair-mindedness and an end to bloody-mindedness in the art of criticism, since it has become increasingly evident to me that the tone of censure explicit in a great deal of contemporary literature has, alas, become rampant (rather than just plain obvious), in the articles in this paper. Because it is now common practice for critics to emphasise the negative aspects of whatever they are criticising, many articles tend to be in the nature of a complaint or condemnation rather than an objective critique. Consequently the approach of these 'angry, young, cynical' critics is destructive rather than constructive. While I have long been in favour of criticism being used to make a point rather than just to present a view, frequently I find that critics make a point, stretch it until it near breaks, and then stretch it some more until the point itself becomes the thing. Witness, for instance, the review of "The Taniwha" in Salient, March 21st, or "The Rolling Stones' concert, Salient Feb. 28th. Here it is obvious that the reviewers have their own respective axe to grind, irrespective of on whose head it falls.

So I make this plea after four weeks of having the shit kicked out of my pipe dreams — how about some positive and enlightened criticism to take us through to the year 2000.

Sexist Fags

Sirs,

Just to set the record straight regarding Jill Brassel's suggestion that the Executive implied support of sexism by allowing cigarettes sold with the catchphrase "separates the men from the girls" to be distributed on campus.

None of the Exec. members were approached before the cigarettes were distributed. I myself happened to walk into the caf. as the gentlemen concerned were ending their give-away session. I was assured that the cigarettes were not Rothman's but I did not see and was not aware of the slogan by which the cigarettes were advertised.

However, the matter of the sexist slogan was brought to the attention of the next Exec. meeting and the Executive was unanimous in condemning it Incidentally, the Exec. were not happy with the idea of "free samples" moving around the university at will, since we do not wish to see the place turned into a commercial playground.

We shall therefore be doubly vigilant in the future in guarding against the infiltration of sexism, racism, or commercialism.

Peter Wilson

"Ecominded" Reply to David

In reply to David Tripe's article printed in the previous issue of "Salient", (March 21st) I would like to point out a few facts in support of Ecology Action.

First, the A.G.M. of Ecology Action was designed mainly to elect officers and discuss where Ecology Action was going in 1973. Contrary to Mr Tripe's opinion I am of the view that the majority of people interested in Ecology Action came to the meeting well aware of the "fundamental nature of the problems of conservation and pollution", and were merely trying to decide how to go about tackling them. Aiming for the sky is a common complaint amongst armchair radicals. Ecology Action realises that our main enemies are the consumer and the capitalist. However one can encourage understanding about pollution, conservation, waste and resource use amongst people who have not thought about the issues behind the problem, and who may not wish to in their own interests. Admittedly, one cannot talk people out of their profit motives, but to ask the western world as a whole, or even in part to give away capitalism may be even more quixotic.

Ecology Action's constitution emphasizes the need for education and persuasion. We have little hope of achieving more than this, except in small areas of local interest where our activities are likely to have affect. Ecology Action is opposing the Beech Forest utilisation proposals not only for ecological and aesthetic reasons but also on the grounds that they are principally a scheme for short-term profits for private New Zealand companies and overseas interests. Social benefits to the West Coast will be minimal.

I am in agreement that the consumer should not "have to buy all this junk that needs to be recycled anyway", and 1 should hope that consciencious Ecology Action members do shop "ecomindedly". It is the unaware consumer who we must get to, through publicity campaigns that mean something to him, not through highbrow political objectives that he mistrusts. Ecology Action's policy on population, pollution and conservation existed long before the Values Party appeared — we must remain politically unbiased so as to be independent of all parties, even though governmental legislation may be the best approach to major environmental problems.

Museum Piece

Last Friday at a Faculty of Arts meeting a motion was introduced concerning the present conditions under which the Maori language is taught at this university. What happened to this motion is most probably irrelevant, but I think that the comments made by Professor Munz bear repeating, for his views exhibited a degree of cultural imperialism that I had considered dead in the University.

I shall not comment on these remarks.

As I left the meeting the Professor engaged me in conversation and informed that what was happening to the Polynesian people today, was a repeat of that which had happened to the English agricultural labourer 150 years ago, "they are becoming proletarians".

This analysis is undoubtedly true in many respects (i.e. creation of a labour force by forcing labourers off the land) it alarmed me to see that the Professor passed no adverse value judgement on this process and that he failed to distinguish a change in the class structure of English Society, and a change which also involves the interaction of two distinct cultures.

Dave Cunningham.

Chunderous Froth

Dopehounds

Well, well, Wellington Police have imported Auckland's number one grass sniffer in an effort to discover the hidden stashes of our fair city. Their well-trained and fed hound represents the ideal of the modern police force — no identification, no brain, a total dedication to duty and immunity to criminal prosecution.

As their hearing range is beyond human, dogs will either follow or become confused if the old-fashioned silent dog-whistle is blown near them. Commands of "fuckoff" and "my landlord doesn't allow pets in his properties" have not been known to work. Always demand identification and a leash if a policeman and hit dog visit you. Dogs are supposed to be N.Z. bom but with their superior training and practice both South African and U.S. dogs are being smuggled into the country and presented as bona-fide local sniffers (although they seem to rely on colour as opposed to smell).

Talking about sniffing a box of snuff can come in handy if placed under the searching nose. However, this is looked at as 'inflammatory' and could lead to arrest on grounds of 'obstruction'.

Does Our Reporter Need a Scrubbing Brush?

It is unusual to find a unversity student who still believes in magic. Obviously though, the writer of "Big Brother and the Holding Company" in your March 7 issue, Gyles Beckford, does just that. How else can he explain how alcoholics, who to reach their state of alcohol dependence have lost their sense of responsibility, suddenly become houseproud, and transform a derelict dwelling with carpets, paint and flowers?

No, Mr Beckford, you should get your facts straight. It was not the alcoholics 'achieving by themselves' that produced this miracle. It was the hard work and caring concern of a small group of people, including some resident bikies, who did the job.

By the same token it is not enough just to hand over empty houses and leave alcoholics to fend for themselves. Voluntary social work is needed too. If Mr Beckford would care to wield a scrubbing brush instead of a misdirected pen, I am sure the City Council's Community Services Officer would be glad to find a job for him.

Wrong End of Pick

Students may be wondering what the pick axe it doing in the window of the Salient office. Hat Peter Pranks got a labouring job? Is Roger Steele building a house? Or are the editors collecting tools like this in order to tear up the roads and build barricades?

No. It hat more sinister implications. The pick axe (described as an 'icepick in the March 21 issue of Salient) is a threat to the Young Socialists Club, the one Trotskyist group on this campus. You tec, Leon Trotsky was assassinated in 1940 with an icepick which was wielded by one of Stalin's agents. Trotsky was head of the Petrograd Soviet in 1917, organiser of the Red Army during the Civil War, and, with the death of Lenin, led a fight against the rite of Stalin in the Soviet Union. Stalin's supporters made a number of attempts at murdering Trotsky in the years which followed his exile from Russia in 1927.

Apparently the Salient editors find it amusing that someone should be murdered for his political beliefs. Perhaps the fact that they display a pick axe in their window indicates they would like to see the same thing happen to all the Trotskyism on campus.

If so, they have successfully revealed the sickening nature of their 'radical' politics. Stalin had Trotsky murdered because he saw all opposition to him (even from someone in exile) threatened his despotic rule of the Soviet Union. Perhaps the Salient editors view any opposition to their politics in the same way.

Salient Editors

This is for your kind thoughts.

oh, how is it?
that out of this
one single cell
there came to be
such a world of hypocrisy.
and in this world, you and i,
we have to fight to keep alive.

so close,
but so distant.
the whole worlds
oppression
gathers in me.
i'm being torn
i'm being ravished. . .
and then i find beside me
people
they speak of such
emptiness
such loneliness
such agony.
countless days of
suffering
because they have no way
to reach
that bright horizon which
wakens them.
they cannot break the chains
that keep them
in this world of delusion.

They cannot hold they cannot grasp
that mystery that wonder
that bursting thunder
that tells them
they're alive!
they've folded.
their stories told
a thousand times.

and, the more i took
the more i see
of ignorance and
disharmony.
of despair and loneliness.
and when i try to understand
this wretched state of man,
the more
i want to live and tell
the more i curse this living hell
the more i scream
the more i weep
the more i have
to speak. . .of Revolution!!!

Lousy Comedy at Town Hall

The arrogant R.W. Steele is one lousy comedy writer. His inept piece, "Festival Warm-Up Too Hot", had only two laughs in what must amount to about 15 or 20 column inches. The first laugh came when he described police tactics at the melee outside the Town Hall on the opening night of the festival, and the second and bigger when he drew his conclusion. My God, I'm still chortling over that one.

Mr Steele's comedy writing, however, is largely lacking in quality. His observations of events at this particular incident are sufficiently one-eyed and exaggerated enough to provide the basic ingredients for humour. But, Mr Steele's writing style and his choice of subject tends to downgrade the few qualities of homour writing he has.

Mr Steele could have got a few more laughs out of his readers if he had bothered to describe Mongrel tactics during the fracas. The breaking of hollies against the side of the Town Hall and then the magnificent lobbing of these high into the night sky was a sight well worth a giggle. And then, with his readers already in uncontrollable fits Mr Steele could have pulled a gag which every humourist dreams of pulling and described the incredibly funny sight as the bottles landed in the crowd.

Another incident which could have gained an extra chuckle or two and which would have made a good 30 minute T.V. situation comedy was the occasion that same night when some of the ever popular mongrels decided they would attempt to change the colour of the water in the small fountain nearby. They succeeded in doing this by urinating fiercely into the pool. Now I ask you was that funny or was it not?

And I witnessed something that was nothing short of hilarious — one Mongrel attempted to screw a smashed bottle into another Mongrel's face.

Instead Mr Steele chose to concentrate only on the police and fell into the trap symptomatic of novice humourists — that of being exceptionally naieve in approach. His style thus appeared to be characteristic of that well known and much beloved programme "Dad's Army" — idiotic at best.

I did however, very much appreciate his little joke which compared our police to the Gestapo, "anywhere, anytime". This really appeals to my sense of humour. I would dearly like to see a television series portraying the Gestapo recovering lost pets for old ladies, bikes for debiked bikies and even settling the odd domestic dispute or two, and all in the characteristic Gestapo style. If Mr Steele would care to write such a script I would be only too happy to endorse it in the unlikely event of of being up to scratch.

And I would also like to see our dearly loved Mongrels starring in "The Sound of Music" in their own indomitable way. Wouldn't it be incredible?

Mr Steele tells what could have been a very good joke but then detracts from it by not giving us the full details. He tells us that everytime the police arrested someone and took them round to the portable cell block, the whole of Wakefield St. miraculously emptied of spectators, so that Constable B5?? could joyously swing his boot. Now that would have been a very funny joke had Mr Steele not been so concerned with Constable B5??'s future welfare and position in the force that he felt bound to not identifying the constable.

When a humourist confronts a problem of the type Mr Steele confronted he usually presents some kind of constructive comedy, but our Mr Steele had nothing at all to say in the way of a constructive comment. Good Heavens man! Evencrappy comedy writers usually have some sort of message of hope to give their readers. Have you a dribbling problem?

If I were editor of this rag that I am forced to pay for, I am bloody sure any arrogant, egotripping articles such as "Festival Warm-Up Too Hot" would be placed in an area reserved for adverts, and paid for.

On behalf of the 6 demonstrators lodged in Lyttleton Lockup over the weekend I'd like to thank all our comrades who came and sang the "Red Flag" outside the Cop Shop before the Sunday night Ferry left. It was heartening to hear such moral support.