The reign of Hyenas and myths I grew up with

Hyenas was overall confusing. The scenes appeared to be telling an everyday story but with emotional detachment of characters that made everything unreal. I understood some of the metaphors that were conveyed in the characters of Ramatou and Dramaan Drameh. Despite this understanding, in the end I did not feel like I understood the encompassing theme that the film wanted to convey.

Watching the film, the train station scene reminded some of the myth and stories I was told growing up. In the scene, the images switches between the crowd around Dramaan, hyenas and an owl in a tree. The animals in the scene are normally associated with witchcraft. One of the popular myth is that if an owl hoots close to a house, then calamity will befall that house. It is in many cases considered as an indication that someone in the household is about to die. Hyenas on the other hand are considered the transport of choice for witches. Also, hyenas will eat anything not moving even though they have been known to attack a live target when they have enough numbers. Lastly, I was told that when hyenas are eating and blood spills on one of their own, it most likely be eaten also. I therefore interpreted this scene as a metaphor of gluttony, disregard of the value of human life (in reference to witchcraft) and an indication of an uncertain future for Dramaan and the town of Colobane.

purpose and the visual in Bamako

Bamako is slightly confusing for me, in that I can’t get a grip on its purpose.

In one sense, obviously, it is a “straightforward” documentary, angry and edifying. But on the other, there is the apparatus around the trial- and the fact that “real life,” carrying on around it, basically dismisses it. There seem to be some central contradictions in its presentation.

For instance, at 10:03 the gate-keeper is bribed to let the African through with his camera, saying that “no one films here.” But once at the trial, cameras are completely in the open. Is this a commentary on corruption being totally naked in Africa, for inhabitants and foreigners alike? (And what does it mean that the vehicle of our viewing is made possible through bribery/corruption, when the movie is itself about exposing corruption? Does showing that scene make it wholly honest, or simply a hypocrite) Or is the gate-keeper’s job specifically to bar Africans from filming the trial, while Westerners are allowed to film (which = interpret) the proceedings with impunity?

I was also thinking about our discussion of allegory/metaphor being a way of making something “truer” to its meaning, even as it technically distorts it. The trial is in some sense a realization of the ‘imaginary’ (concepts- money and the world bank- on trial), which is meant to become our focus in the film, but I’m not sure that it really does. In a film with so much talking (and particularly because it is subtitled talking), I think it’s possible to *not* let the eye wander, and take more meaning from the images and real life going on around the trial, than the theoretical arguments themselves. To buttress this, there’s that cameraman’s comment at 13:54 that “the faces of people who talk don’t interest me. There’s no truth in them. I prefer the dead. They’re truer.” In other words, the passive object is truer than the active subject. So in this case, ‘passive object’ grafts onto the everyday citizens/pictures, while the people who have gathered with purpose to debate the trial/words, are self-consciously active.

Now Okay to Show War Dead

I just thought I’d share this story in light of our discussion today about America at war. The ban on showing fallen soldiers in the media ended yesterday after 18 years (as long as the family members give permission). Will this new policy increase American consideration of and sensitization to the human cost involved in war?